Should WTA give protected rankings for pregnancy/childbirth?

Should WTA give protected ranking for pregnancy/childbirth?

  • Yes

  • No

  • Depends (on what?)


Results are only viewable after voting.

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
You are also not even on topic, as I added above, so you are doubly irrelevant.

That's a lot of irrelevance!

Its not absolutely not a slipperly slope arguement. Do you understand what the slipperly slope arguement is? Can link an explanation if you want. A slipperly slope would be why dont we pay umpire 3 million. This is not a slipperly slope arguement

You dont have an answer that doesnt expose hypocriscy is why there is no arguement to answer as you say.

So why should the kids and wheelchair players not receive 3 mikkion each?
 

Backspin1780

Semi-Pro
You are also not even on topic, as I added above, so you are doubly irrelevant.

That's a lot of irrelevance!

Ok should I make a thread instead?

So you dont have an answer for why kids and wheelchair players shoukd also receive 3 million dollars which doesnt involve you saying no they shouldnt due to the same reasons people quote why women shouldnt receive mens pay too... and hence exposing the failed logic in womens equal pay claim in slams in the first place and the hypocrisy of your arguements
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
Off topic, as usual.

Ok should I make a thread instead?

So you dont have an answer for why kids and wheelchair players shoukd also receive 3 million dollars which doesnt involve you saying no they shouldnt due to the same reasons people quote why women shouldnt receive mens pay too... and hence exposing the failed logic in womens equal pay claim in slams in the first place and the hypocrisy of your arguements
 

Backspin1780

Semi-Pro
Off topic, as usual.

Its not but a thread on this will be better so more people can participate ill do that instead

You dont want to answer as you know the answer you would use as to why juniors and wheel chair players shouldnt be paid 3 million dollars is same reason why women shouldnt be paid as much as men in slams thus ecposing your original arguement
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
Irrelevant and self-congratulatory!

Its not but a thread on this will be better so more people can participate ill do that instead

You dont want to answer as you know the answer you would use as to why juniors and wheel chair players shouldnt be paid 3 million dollars is same reason why women shouldnt be paid as much as men in slams thus ecposing your original arguement
 

MLRoy

Hall of Fame
Not sure if there is any anonymous poll of the players asking this question..but Halep when question directly said Serena should have been rated no.1..
It's a lot easier to be so magnanimous when it didn't happen. If she had been supplanted at no. 1 by Serena, my guess is she'd have a problem with that. Can't you just hear her: "Serena is a great player, but what about my accomplishments? I worked very hard for all of my successes. I won enough points to be ranked number one fairly and impartially. It's not my fault Serena became pregnant, and couldn't play."
 

captainbryce

Hall of Fame
Not only do I say no to this scenario, but I take it a step further and say that neither the WTA nor the ATP should give protected rankings for anything. If a player is “good enough”, they shouldn’t need a protected ranking. And if other players are worried about the dangerous floaters in the draw, then they should learn to be a better player so they can beat them. Nobody should be getting preferential treatment, and everyone should have to come up through the rankings and the drawings fairly. A ranking is earned by points. Either you earned enough of them for that season or the previous season, or you haven’t. Whether you were pregnant or not isn’t anyone else’s concern.
 

Aussie Darcy

Bionic Poster
Not only do I say no to this scenario, but I take it a step further and say that neither the WTA nor the ATP should give protected rankings for anything. If a player is “good enough”, they shouldn’t need a protected ranking. And if other players are worried about the dangerous floaters in the draw, then they should learn to be a better player so they can beat them. Nobody should be getting preferential treatment, and everyone should have to come up through the rankings and the drawings fairly. A ranking is earned by points. Either you earned enough of them for that season or the previous season, or you haven’t. Whether you were pregnant or not isn’t anyone else’s concern.
So Serena or Azarenka or Del Potro or whoever after a 12 month abscence should start back on the ITF tour? What an absolute joke. Serena and Del Potro were out of the game for over a year so they would have no ranking points to enter them in the big tournaments. So you think they should play ITF and take several months to work their way up and miss out on slams?

Also this post rules out wildcards as it’s preferential treatment for players who’s rankings aren’t high enough for direct entry.

Your post is terribly flawed.
 

Aussie Darcy

Bionic Poster
Its absolutely not a slipperly slope arguement. Do you understand what the slipperly slope arguement is? Can link an explanation if you want. A slipperly slope would be why dont we pay umpire 3 million. This is not a slipperly slope arguement

You dont have an answer that doesnt expose hypocriscy is why there is no arguement to answer as you say.

So why should the kids and wheelchair players not receive 3 million each using EXACT same reason for equal female pay?
If the kids and wheelchair players can successfully lobby the ITF and whoever that they should be paid $3 million then go for it. The women didn’t get this handed to them on a silver platter, BJK, the Williams sisters and many more fought hard for years to receive higher pay and equal pay.
 

Backspin1780

Semi-Pro
If the kids and wheelchair players can successfully lobby the ITF and whoever that they should be paid $3 million then go for it

And fans should pay for it? Making tennis even more inaccesible and elitist then it is?

But yes i agree. Same with the women if they can lobby for for it (and they have) yes go for it. The next bit is personal opinion - Id pay women the same too if i was a tourney director purely due to PR reasons not becaue its justified.

So yes I agree if they can push for it go for it. This is one reason why men in society get paid more - they demand it when negotiating. And obviously women who do so also benifit from this

What I do disagree with is people like bartelby pushing down this rubbish that its all for equality etc. Its not and this scenario displays their hypocrisy in their arguement. Why lie about it? Just admit its a self interest thing. Instead they push this gender equality crap down our throats. And the media etc... to think those who oppose equal pay in slams are sexist. And trial by twitter for anyone or player who opposes it. These people arent sexist. Some might be and this is an issue they can use to show their sexism.... but for others it is also a valid arguement. I am not sexist and my opinion that grandslam pay equality is bull is a valid opinion

If bartleby was a tourney director you better believe he or she would not be handing out 3 million a pop to the wheel chair and juniors champs as they dont have any convictions in all the theories and armchair stuff they spew. Bartleby is classic person who woukd self identify as open minded liberal, fair when is actually facist in their own views and is only "ooen minded and tolerant" if everyone agrees exactly with what they say. He or she is as sexist and biased as most of the people he or she critiques but is even more dangerous as he or she thinks they are fair

And no tennis stars earning millions does not relate to everyday jobs where gender pay disparity is more relevant and it is more justifiable to mess around with the free market and force change for the greater good for society.
 
Last edited:

Backspin1780

Semi-Pro
The women didn’t get this handed to them on a silver platter, BJK, the Williams sisters and many more fought hard for years to receive higher pay and equal pay.

Yes they fought hard but whats your point? Doesnt make their flawed reasons for equal pay correct. Serena is not a heroine for wanting equal pay she is looking after her self interests (which is normal) and wouldnt support lower prize money for women and men in order to fund equal prize money for disabled and juniors. She may say she would if presented this scenario for PR reasons and knowing it wont actually happen

BJKs work to increase the value society places on female sports is to be applauded. Serena is obviously a great role model too. Their demand for equal pay when it is not justified is a seprate issue and nothing but self interests and flawed and hypocritical. And this has nothing to do with women playing 3 sets or that fact men are better tennis players. I have absolutely no issue with women being paid more if womens tennis by merit earns it
 
Last edited:

Stretchy Man

Professional
If the kids and wheelchair players can successfully lobby the ITF and whoever that they should be paid $3 million then go for it. The women didn’t get this handed to them on a silver platter, BJK, the Williams sisters and many more fought hard for years to receive higher pay and equal pay.

Maybe there should be a separate tournament for mothers if they are so disadvantaged.
 
If the kids and wheelchair players can successfully lobby the ITF and whoever that they should be paid $3 million then go for it. The women didn’t get this handed to them on a silver platter, BJK, the Williams sisters and many more fought hard for years to receive higher pay and equal pay.

Lol

:cool:
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
Almost all the arguments would rule out wildcards, Special Ranking entry rights, as well as any SR seeding rights as they are variations on the idea that 'no one should be pushed out who has earned a spot'.

With regard to SR seeding rights, the player should be accorded their ranking minus a certain percentage of points to allow for the fact that they will not quite be at the level they left upon return.

So Serena or Azarenka or Del Potro or whoever after a 12 month abscence should start back on the ITF tour? What an absolute joke. Serena and Del Potro were out of the game for over a year so they would have no ranking points to enter them in the big tournaments. So you think they should play ITF and take several months to work their way up and miss out on slams?

Also this post rules out wildcards as it’s preferential treatment for players who’s rankings aren’t high enough for direct entry.

Your post is terribly flawed.
 

Backspin1780

Semi-Pro
So Serena or Azarenka or Del Potro or whoever after a 12 month abscence should start back on the ITF tour? What an absolute joke. Serena and Del Potro were out of the game for over a year so they would have no ranking points to enter ....

Your post is terribly flawed.

Sounds like poster agrees with del potro etc should do challengers back to regain his ranking. And that they disagree with wildcard system. That is a valid view point. You may disagree with it but stop being butthurt that he or she has an alternative view. What they said is entirely logicaly sound.

I think its a good meritocratic idea but ultimately Id disagree with it as it deprives fans of watching stars , lowers standard of main tour, unfairly raises the standard of challengers so bigger picture current system is fine. Thats just my opinion and i woukdnt be butthurt if someone disagrees with a logically sound counter arguement. Same with pregnancy. Its inherently unfair on women who dont have kids but for the bigger picture id support helping pregnant women with seedings etc for the greater good of society making it easier for women to return to work after pregnancy and avoiding women for example having a dilema with an accidental pregnancy during their playing days. Saying that... I realise that is just my opinion and it is at the end of the day actually unfair to some so wouldnt be butthurt that people oppose this idea like people on this forum do. If men and women played in the same leauge (i.e. no atp wta) even though this is not actually possible as there basically wouldnt be any female pros in top 500 but if it did exist then id disagree with protected rankings for maternity in thay scenario
 
Last edited:

Backspin1780

Semi-Pro
Almost all the arguments would rule out wildcards, Special Ranking entry rights, as well as any SR seeding rights as they are variations on the idea that 'no one should be pushed out who has earned a spot'.

With regard to SR seeding rights, the player should be accorded their ranking minus a certain percentage of points to allow for the fact that they will not quite be at the level they left upon return.

Yes and many of the people who disagree with maternity seedings etc also disagree with injury seedings and wild cards.

Others think seedings, wild card should be used in some situations but not maternity

These are all a diversity of opinions. They are not sexist or racist or any other ist. Maybe some of the people saying these things ultimately are sexist or racist but you dont know that and those opinions of themselves are completely fine and represent diverse opinions. You just dont have any tolerance to an opinion which is not yours.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
I haven't found this to be the majority case throughout this argument. People usually try to argue maternity is not an injury and this implies injury deserves special ranking for entry.

It's hard not to view this opinion as one based on prejudice. If you want a blanket ban on all wild cards and special consideration then this is not attackable on these grounds.

Authorities have always viewed special consideration at some level as a part of the game. The question is how far it extends in tennis. It is also a normal principle of every legal system.

Yes and many of the people who disagree with maternity seedings etc also disagree with injury seedings and wild cards.

Others think seedings, wild card should be used in some situations but not maternity

These are all a diversity of opinions. They are not sexist or racist or any other ist. Maybe some of the people saying these things ultimately are sexist or racist but you dont know that and those opinions of themselves are completely fine and represent diverse opinions. You just dont have any tolerance to an opinion which is not yours.
 
Last edited:

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
People being butt hurt does not mean it is unfair to grant SC for maternity, it just means that it is perceived by them to be slightly harmful to their interests.

After all, it would be a right extended to all equally, whether they choose to use it or not.

Sounds like poster agrees with del potro etc should do challengers back to regain his ranking. And that they disagree with wildcard system. That is a valid view point. You may disagree with it but stop being butthurt that he or she has an alternative view. What they said is entirely logicaly sound.

I think its a good meritocratic idea but ultimately Id disagree with it as it deprives fans of watching stars , lowers standard of main tour, unfairly raises the standard of challengers so bigger picture current system is fine. Thats just my opinion and i woukdnt be butthurt if someone disagrees with a logically sound counter arguement. Same with pregnancy. Its inherently unfair on women who dont have kids but for the bigger picture id support helping pregnant women with seedings etc for the greater good of society making it easier for women to return to work after pregnancy and avoiding women for example having a dilema with an accidental pregnancy during their playing days. Saying that... I realise that is just my opinion and it is at the end of the day actually unfair to some so wouldnt be butthurt that people oppose this idea like people on this forum do. If men and women played in the same leauge (i.e. no atp wta) even though this is not actually possible as there basically wouldnt be any female pros in top 500 but if it did exist then id disagree with protected rankings for maternity in thay scenario
 
Last edited:

Backspin1780

Semi-Pro
I haven't found this to be the majority case throughout this argument. People usually try to argue maternity is not an injury and this implies injury deserves special ranking for entry.

It's hard not to view this opinion as one based on prejudice. If you want a blanket ban on all wild cards and special consideration then this is not attackable on these grounds.

Authorities have always viewed special consideration at some level as a part of the game. The question is how far it extends in tennis. It is also a normal principle of every legal system.

1) Maternity is not an injury nor disease and many (most?) women would be offended by calling pregnancy birth etc that. Its like people who call periods an illness - an offensive statement and youd normally expect that from a sexist person. If any male tennis player or public figure said that about periods or pregnancy there would be a standard twitter trial by media outrage demands for resignations

2) Lol you just said slippery slope to me earlier. Hahahaha. The irony. No - granting people wild cards for injury does not need to slip and slide into maternity which is an entirely different matter. Like i said i agree with protected rankings etc but the arguement against it is entirely justified to.

3) "normal for a legal system" as you said - Injury and matenrity are treated completely differently by law and by private companies. A companies policy on sick pay is entirely different if you are injured vs materntiy. In fact materntiy pay is not sick and equating the two would offend most people. sounds like you are doing a slippery slope again saying injuries wildcards etc should all lead to or be seen in a similar light. So why did you oppose people saying should going to college get you a protected ranking (by the way athletes do do this!) Or looking after a relative?

4) so why does peotected injury ranking need to lead to maternity rankings too? Why are you using a slippery slope arguement

Id normally stick to debating a poster points rather than personal opinions about them but i will say your opinions and viewpoints show a lot of hypocriscy, self righteousness and just basically poor logic and understanding.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
1. I didn't argue maternity was an injury.

2. I was suggesting that the game itself was on a slippery slope, aka on a path to extending SR, already with the wild card system.

3. Special consideration (ranking/seeding in tennis) is completely normal in law and society.

4. I am not using a slippery slope argument. I am merely suggesting the principle exists. And there are separate arguments to extend it to maternity.


So you really are barking up the wrong tree. Why don't you put your cards on the table as to why maternity should not be grounds for special ranking and seedings.

All you've done so far is to argue that dwarves will be the next cab off the rank demanding equality with really tall tennis players aka your usual slippery slope argument.

1) Maternity is not an injury nor disease and many (most?) women would be offended by calling pregnancy birth etc that. Its like people who call periods an illness - an offensive statement and youd normally expect that from a sexist person. If any male tennis player or public figure said that about periods or pregnancy there would be a standard twitter trial by media outrage demands for resignations

2) Lol you just said slippery slope to me earlier. Hahahaha. The irony. No - granting people wild cards for injury does not need to slip and slide into maternity which is an entirely different matter. Like i said i agree with protected rankings etc but the arguement against it is entirely justified to.

3) "normal for a legal system" as you said - Injury and matenrity are treated completely differently by law and by private companies. A companies policy on sick pay is entirely different if you are injured vs materntiy. In fact materntiy pay is not sick and equating the two would offend most people. sounds like you are doing a slippery slope again saying injuries wildcards etc should all lead to or be seen in a similar light. So why did you oppose people saying should going to college get you a protected ranking (by the way athletes do do this!) Or looking after a relative?

4) so why does peotected injury ranking need to lead to maternity rankings too? Why are you using a slippery slope arguement

Id normally stick to debating a poster points rather than personal opinions about them but i will say your opinions and viewpoints show a lot of hypocriscy, self righteousness and just basically poor logic and understanding.
 

Backspin1780

Semi-Pro
After all, it would be a right extended to all equally, whether they choose to use it or not.

Infertile women?

And yes hit nail on head. Free to choose to use it or not. Hence not an injury which is forced. No need for slipperly slope injury to maternity

I will say its easier to apply this rule because it is in a female only league (if men and women played together this would be trickier) and generally women being disadvantaged by it would be more understanding of it
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
What is 'forced' about injury necessarily? Plenty of people over-extend themselves. Injuries often have a component of personal causation. Where do you draw the line here?

Infertile women?

And yes hit nail on head. Free to choose to use it or not. Hence not an injury which is forced. No need for slipperly slope injury to maternity

I will say its easier to apply this rule because it is in a female only league (if men and women played together this would be trickier) and generally women being disadvantaged by it would be more understanding of it
 

Backspin1780

Semi-Pro
1. I didn't argue maternity was an injury.

2. I was suggesting that the game itself was on a slippery slope, aka on a path to extending SR, already with the wild card system.

3. Special consideration (ranking/seeding in tennis) is completely normal in law and society.

4. I am not using a slippery slope argument. I am merely suggesting the principle exists. And there are separate arguments to extend it to maternity.


So you really are barking up the wrong tree. Why don't you put your cards on the table as to why maternity should not be grounds for special ranking and seedings.

All you've done so far is to argue that dwarves will be the next cab off the rank demanding equality with really tall tennis players aka your usual slippery slope argument.

If you are saying maternity and injury are not the same thing there is no reason to use injury as an example.

You equate the two but have a problem with people saying why not extend ranking protection for milatry service, going to college, looking after a sick person (probably most comparable to mat leave)

You said the law? Lol i already said the law and companies treats injury/sickness (sick pay) completely differently to maternity pay. You can legally be fired for being off for sickness especially for small companies for example but cant be for maternity leave. Maternity leave is only for women. Dozens more differences legally

No i support protecting maternity rights reason being it is for the greater good of society (in my opinion). I accept there is a valid arguement not to do so and it is discriminatory in nature but many things in life are.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
Maternity is also a subjective right and not just some sort of social good. If you looked at it this way you wouldn't see it as discriminatory. There's your problem.

So, to be clear, you support Protected Entry and Seeding on maternity grounds?

No i support protecting maternity rights reason being it is for the greater good of society (in my opinion). I accept there is a valid arguement not to do so and it is discriminatory in nature but many things in life are.
 

Backspin1780

Semi-Pro
What is 'forced' about injury necessarily? Plenty of people over-extend themselves. Injuries often have a component of personal causation. Where do you draw the line here?

Player didnt chose to get injured as a goal. Pregnancy bar unplanned pregnancy is an intended goal (but according to your arguement actually unplanned pregnancy is actually just a choice too because women have a component of personal causation in unplanned pregnancies too - their fault for having sex)

Although yes fair arguement that injuries shoukd nkt receive any special consideration - start from the bottom up
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
They are playing a game where the risk of injury is high, and the activity is chosen just like sex is, so I'd presume this would be the good argument for not giving players protected entry for injury.

Players less prone to injury are of course therefore going to use special entry less. I don't hear too many complaining about this 'unfairness', if this is what it is.

Player didnt chose to get injured as a goal. Pregnancy bar unplanned pregnancy is an intended goal (but according to your arguement actually unplanned pregnancy is actually just a choice too because women have a component of personal causation in unplanned pregnancies too - their fault for having sex)

Although yes fair arguement that injuries shoukd nkt receive any special consideration - start from the bottom up
 

captainbryce

Hall of Fame
So Serena or Azarenka or Del Potro or whoever after a 12 month abscence should start back on the ITF tour? What an absolute joke.
You’re right, it IS a joke because that was a straw man argument that I did not make. I never said they should start back on the ITF tour. I said they shouldn’t have a protected ranking. Pay attention next time!

Serena and Del Potro were out of the game for over a year so they would have no ranking points to enter them in the big tournaments. So you think they should play ITF and take several months to work their way up and miss out on slams?

Also this post rules out wildcards as it’s preferential treatment for players who’s rankings aren’t high enough for direct entry.

Your post is terribly flawed.
No, your brain is flawed because you implied a bunch of stupid assumptions. My post does NOT rule out wildcards because the thread didn’t ask about wildcards. It asked about RANKINGS. Again, pay attention; those are two separate things! I don’t have a problem with wildcards. Wildcards exist because they recognize certain players ability (through previous performance), and it’s up to the tournament and ITF to dispense them as they please. They have that right, and they should if they want to generate the best revenue. A grand slam champion who is fit is going to get a wildcard into the main draw of a big event because their name sells tickets. And tournaments also give wildcards to up and comers who have no ranking, but are recognized as a hot new talent.

I’m totally cool with all of that. But you don’t bypass higher ranked players who would have otherwise qualified via direct entry, and you don’t give them an inflated ranking to rig where they end up in a draw. There is no basis for that other than rigging the system to give an unfair advantage to certain names. The draw should be RANDOM, and if you don’t have a ranking you should be placed RANDOMLY into the draw. Doesn’t mean you don’t deserve a chance to compete, or that the tournament doesn’t have the right to invite you. It just means they should stick to the rules and not rig the draw with a FAKE ranking that doesn’t exist.
 
Last edited:

captainbryce

Hall of Fame
Almost all the arguments would rule out wildcards, Special Ranking entry rights, as well as any SR seeding rights as they are variations on the idea that 'no one should be pushed out who has earned a spot'.

With regard to SR seeding rights, the player should be accorded their ranking minus a certain percentage of points to allow for the fact that they will not quite be at the level they left upon return.
Wildcards are different in that NOBODY “earns” a wildcard. People earn direct entry either based on their ranking or because they qualify in. The whole point of a wild card is that they are guaranteed to a specific number of players, chosen by the tournament, to benefit the tournament and generate revenue. They are not designed to circumvent the ranking system and bypass a player that would have qualified based on their ranking alone.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
The point about wildcards is that they do displace people who had earned a place otherwise.

I know how they function, but the argument against injury and maternity consideration is that it boots out those otherwise qualified and some call that unfair.

This unfairness, if you can call it that, is also a part of the wild card system.

At the slams, there are reciprocal deals that mean wildcards go to very lowly-ranked players that federations want to promote, not to high-ranking players who add something to a tournament.

Wildcards are different in that NOBODY “earns” a wildcard. People earn direct entry either based on their ranking or because they qualify in. The whole point of a wild card is that they are guaranteed to a specific number of players, chosen by the tournament, to benefit the tournament and generate revenue. They are not designed to circumvent the ranking system and bypass a player that would have qualified based on their ranking alone.
 

Backspin1780

Semi-Pro
The point about wildcards is that they do displace people who had earned a place otherwise.

I know how they function, but the argument against injury and maternity consideration is that it boots out those otherwise qualified and some call that unfair.

This unfairness, if you can call it that, is also a part of the wild card system.

At the slams, there are reciprocal deals that mean wildcards go to very lowly-ranked players that federations want to promote, not to high-ranking players who add something to a tournament.

Irrelevant

Wildcards are not related to protected rankings and seedings for maternity. Nor is injury related to maternity. Stick to topic. You were adament earlier that asking what else is protected rankings acceptble for is off topic or junior and wheel chair players deserve 3 million or lower female pay... yet your bri ging up random unrelated points. Your arguements are all straw men, slippery slopes etc. Wild cards and injuries are other issues entirely. The merits of maternity protection is being discussed here. If injury and other seperate issues being discussed then why do you have an issue with discussing if going back to college, mikatry service etc should give protected rankings, seeding etc too. Its because it exposes your biases and selective morality
 

Backspin1780

Semi-Pro
It's like any work environment. Women should not be sacked or demoted for having a child. It's as simple as that.

Trying to make it a class thing is a bit pathetic.

They arent being sacked or demoted. They simply arent progressing as they are not working. Any work environment? Ahh thats why your so dismissive of any counter opinion as your adamant this has to go through in any situation wta and all. I dont want to go off topic but yes for the greater good of equlaity women should not be demoted or sacked where possible for maternity but they dont need to progress as that is unfair and stupid in most cases. So a female surgeon with 3 years experience (so not fully qualified yet) takes 2 years off work for raising kids. Her childless peers now are fully qualified/consultant surgeons with 5 years experience. When she comes back do we treat her like her 5 year fully qualified peers even though she simply isnt qualified or has the experience and procedure numbers or skill of 5 year surgeons. Or do we just treat her like a 3 three year surgeon who took 2 years off and is returning.

Do we give wta players points and seedings they dont have abd probably arent even at the level off (hugely in case of serena as she is obviously not at the female no1 level so valid point why does she get no1 level player entries and seedings?).
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
If they stop at a #1 seeding and come back 400 plus how is that not a 'demotion' as opposed to your thesis of 'not progressing'. They have clearly regressed!

If you find that satisfactory, you need to say so and stop hiding behind the implausible thesis of 'not progressing' when they have suffered real disadvantage.

If you are at level 5 in your job and you fall pregnant you don't expect to get to level 10 while on a break, but you don't expect to get demoted to level 1.

As you rightly imply they should come back at the level they left, or slightly under to account for 'rusty skills'.

So the conclusion you draw from your own example is stupid because you run an implausible line of 'not progressing' when the issue of them progressing while on a break is not supported by anyone and nor is it what is being proposed.

It's just another one of your mistaken beliefs.

They arent being sacked or demoted. They simply arent progressing as they are not working. Any work environment? Ahh thats why your so dismissive of any counter opinion as your adamant this has to go through in any situation wta and all. I dont want to go off topic but yes for the greater good of equlaity women should not be demoted or sacked where possible for maternity but they dont need to progress as that is unfair and stupid in most cases. So a female surgeon with 3 years experience (so not fully qualified yet) takes 2 years off work for raising kids. Her childless peers now are fully qualified/consultant surgeons with 5 years experience. When she comes back do we treat her like her 5 year fully qualified peers even though she simply isnt qualified or has the experience and procedure numbers or skill of 5 year surgeons. Or do we just treat her like a 3 three year surgeon who took 2 years off and is returning.

Do we give wta players points and seedings they dont have abd probably arent even at the level off (hugely in case of serena as she is obviously not at the female no1 level so valid point why does she get no1 level player entries and seedings?).
 
Last edited:

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
My response to other people is a response to what they raise, so you are just raving pointlessly as usual.

It's good to see you flattering me by trying to copy what I said, but thankfully you make a mess of that too!

Irrelevant

Wildcards are not related to protected rankings and seedings for maternity. Nor is injury related to maternity. Stick to topic. You were adament earlier that asking what else is protected rankings acceptble for is off topic or junior and wheel chair players deserve 3 million or lower female pay... yet your bri ging up random unrelated points. Your arguements are all straw men, slippery slopes etc. Wild cards and injuries are other issues entirely. The merits of maternity protection is being discussed here. If injury and other seperate issues being discussed then why do you have an issue with discussing if going back to college, mikatry service etc should give protected rankings, seeding etc too. Its because it exposes your biases and selective morality
 

Backspin1780

Semi-Pro
If they stop at a #1 seeding and come back 400 plus how is that not a 'demotion' as opposed to your thesis of 'not progressing'. They have clearly regressed!

If you find that satisfactory, you need to say so and stop hiding behind the implausible thesis of 'not progressing' when they have suffered real disadvantage.

If you are at level 5 in your job and you fall pregnant you don't expect to get to level 10 while on a break, but you don't expect to get demoted to level 1.

As you rightly imply they should come back at the level they left, or slightly under to account for 'rusty skills'.

So the conclusion you draw from your own example is stupid because you run an implausible line of 'not progressing' when the issue of them progressing while on a break is not supported by anyone and nor is it what is being proposed.

It's just another one of your mistaken beliefs.

Its not a demotion. Rankings expire after 1 year. A demotion would be to lose all points simply cos you left your job even if you only left for 6 months. Infact giving players a protected rank is actually a promotion as they are continually progressing (as if they are getting to keep 100 oefcent of points as if they were defending their points tournament by tournament even though they arent playing i.e. nadal lost his miami and iw points but if he was protected he would keep them) Players dont keep at the same level a year later usually. A few handful of players have held no 1 for more than 50 weeks. Fed just got no 1 (and lost it) is he going to be no 1 for next 12 months (anwer no as he already lost it).

Is serena playing at world no 1 seed level?

Ultimately we will see what the womens tour decides to do. Seems like they are going with how it is
 
D

Deleted member 688153

Guest
She should be able to enter main draws (so no ITF tournaments lol) due to being a crowd draw, but dropping her back in as #1 is stupid. She isn't #1. Somebody else is - somebody who didn't leave to have a baby and instead worked hard all year for her position. Protected rankings for injury are dubious too - but still probably better than getting it for something you elected to do (such as have a baby). She chose to do that and she shouldn't get to keep the ranking anyway.

Fed is electing to go on sabbatical for several months now. He feels like it. Gotta recharge those batteries. If that was to cost him points/ranking, should he come back with the same ranking? Of course not.

@Bartelby - This isn't the same as a salaried job ffs. This is an ongoing competition, a struggle for the top and for titles. Ordinary jobs can probably feel like that as well sometimes :D , but they're not supposed to.
 

Backspin1780

Semi-Pro
My response to other people is a response to what they raise, so you are just raving pointlessly as usual.

No it isnt. And you repeatedly say what others are saying is off topic or irrelevant when you are stumped or hypocriscy is exposed e.g. no answer to junior players being paid the same as female grandslam winners at the same tournament. It was irrelvant? I tbiught you respond to what is posed?
 

Backspin1780

Semi-Pro
She should be able to enter main draws (so no ITF tournaments lol) due to being a crowd draw, but dropping her back in as #1 is stupid. She isn't #1. Somebody else is - somebody who didn't leave to have a baby and instead worked hard all year for her position. Protected rankings for injury are dubious too - but still probably better than getting it for something you elected to do (such as have a baby). She chose to do that and she shouldn't get to keep the ranking anyway.

Fed is electing to go on sabbatical for several months now. He feels like it. Gotta recharge those batteries. If that was to cost him points/ranking, should he come back with the same ranking? Of course not.

@Bartelby - This isn't the same as a salaried job ffs. This is an ongoing competition, a struggle for the top and for titles. Ordinary jobs can probably feel like that as well sometimes :D , but they're not supposed to.

Lol that last point is probably most important. This is a flat out competition. And dont mention feds sabattical getting protected ranking to @Bartelby as it is a "slippery slope" "off topic" stick to equally unrelated things such as wild cards and injuries
 
D

Deleted member 688153

Guest
Serena is finished anyway now, so the point is kind of irrelevant for her specifically.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
I replied to arguments made by others, so your point fails.

No it isnt. And you repeatedly say what others are saying is off topic or irrelevant when you are stumped or hypocriscy is exposed e.g. no answer to junior players being paid the same as female grandslam winners at the same tournament. It was irrelvant? I tbiught you respond to what is posed?
 

Backspin1780

Semi-Pro
or slightly under to account for 'rusty skills'.

Surprised you would say that. How pragmatic and realistic of you. In a real world job you would still protect pay and use schemes like extra training, extra support, shaddowing etc to bridge the gap so the gap in skills loss can be minimised
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
You haven't bothered to reply to my refutation of your last argument, so your point failed.

Lol that last point is probably most important. This is a flat out competition. And dont mention feds sabattical getting protected ranking to @Bartelby as it is a "slippery slope" "off topic" stick to equally unrelated things such as wild cards and injuries
 
Top