“Chris! Chris! Run away! What are you thinking?”
Why anyone would want to read the autobiography of former tennis bad boy Jimmy Connors is beyond me. When he was playing, Connors personified poor sportsmanship and a confrontational attitude toward authority and the world in general. The only cause women’s tennis icon Chris Evert ever gave me to doubt her character was the fact that she actually was romantically involved with such a creep. She’s paying the price now.
In his new tell-all memoirs “The Outsider,” published this week, Connors decided to settle scores with Evert for the reason for the disintegration of their engagement. He writes, vaguely but pointedly, that Evert became pregnant during their relationship and had an abortion without consulting him, though, he says, he was prepared to “let nature take its course.” “Well, thanks for letting me know. Since I don’t have a say in the matter, I guess I am just here to help,” is what Connors says he told Evert over the phone, shortly before they broke up.
As despicable celebrity breaches of confidence and privacy go, this may not be the worst, but it is cruel and ugly. I have some sympathy for Connors, and any father, who believes that a woman shutting him out of the decision to have an abortion is unfair and wrong, though of course the woman must have the right to make the ultimate choice.* Was Evert wrong to make the decision unilaterally? We don’t know the circumstances surrounding the event; we don’t even know that Connors’ account is true. It’s impossible to say.
I can say, however, that revealing any woman’s past pregnancy and abortion without her consent is indefensible, betrayal by an unmannerly cur at best, a vicious and cowardly act of revenge—for money, yet—at worst.
Trust me, Jimmy, we knew you would still be a world-class jerk after all these years. You didn’t have to prove it by gratuitously hurting Chris Evert.
_____________________________
* Aside: I tried, I really did, but I just can’t let this pass. Slate feminist gadfly, Amanda Marcotte, comes out where I do regarding the Connors book, but does so obnoxiously beyond measure. Quoting Evert’s brief and dignified statement condemning Connors’ callous revelation, Marcotte writes,
“Here’s how I would have phrased it: Look, Jimmy, it’s totally unfair that some of us can get pregnant and some of us can only impregnate. But in the grand scheme of things, this system brought to us by mindless evolution is much more unfair to women than men. Not only do women have to undergo the indignities of menstruation and routine gynecological care, but if we do get pregnant, we’re the ones who either endure the abortion or have our bodies painfully bent out of shape to bear the child. In exchange, we get decision-making power over those pregnancies. Full stop. The alternative—giving a man the right to force childbirth or force abortion simply because he once had sex with you—is too terrible a violation of human rights to be tolerated in a civilized society. So stop whining already. You sound like McEnroe.”
Talk about Jerk vs. Jerk. I would hope what is wrong with this screed would be immediately obvious, but just to make sure:
- It is not “totally unfair” that women are women and men are men, any more than it’s unfair that birds can fly and cats can’t, or that people are born with different abilities and traits. What system would be “fairer” while keeping the species going, Amanda?
- How someone capable of expressing that 6th grade level sentiment without embarrassment is tolerated at Slate is a mystery.
- There is considerable ground between discussing the abortion choice with a potential father when he is in a serious relationship with the mother, as in Connors’ case, and “giving a man the right to force childbirth or force abortion.”
- A writer who just complained that the biological realities of gender differences is “totally unfair” has forfeited the right to accuse anyone else of “whining,” ever.
______________________________
Graphic: Atlantic
Ethics Alarms 
Why would it be a mystery? It certainly seems on par with every other dolt who writes for them…
Slate at it again. It reads like a parody.
Sent from my iPad
I follow tennis closely and people were shocked at both the fact and the reveal.
We all know why Jimmy did it; an editor mining for some excrement to boost book sales (and his or her career) convinced him the world needed to know.
Jimmy and his editor crossed the line by throwing someone else under the bus, rather than self immolating like everyone else does (e.g. Andre Agassi’s admission that he used PCP or something during his playing days).
We don’t care if Chrissy hurt you Jimmy… Striking out against someone 30+ years after the fact, serves nothing except a puerile need for attention and $$.
Honestly I was more interested in the ethical counter arguments to the Slates assertions. The thinking behind Marcotte’s points is a feminist trope that needs to be laid to rest.
Which leads me to conclude that Amanda may be misogynist. I’ve heard other women talk this way as well as if the function of the female body or even having one constitutes some form of torture. I doubt any woman who wants a baby would count the temporary trouble she goes through as so horrible that it just isn’t worth it.
Even women who desperately want babies complain about the extreme pain and forever body changes. It’s not just weight – for e.g., the bones of the feet permanently spread as does the rib cage. For a lot of women, bladders may never work properly again and they may need post-op surgery – either immediately after or down the line. And if you require a c-section, it can be very painful and the recovery can take more than a month. I loved having mine, but the last trimester for both of them were brutal (not to mention preeclampsia and other high risk issues). And I am still dealing with the after-effects. For women who want children, we endure this as gracefully and graciously as possible – for women who don’t want children, they can’t even imagine going through this process.
“Even women who desperately want babies complain about the extreme pain and forever body changes. It’s not just weight – for e.g., the bones of the feet permanently spread as does the rib cage. For a lot of women, bladders may never work properly again and they may need post-op surgery ”
You’re right. Some women do have things very hard. Some women even die. But I have heard some women describe the prospect of having children as a curse or punishment. Of course these women should not have children but they shouldn’t make it sound like all women are defective just by being women and that we should hate our bodies and it’s functions.
That was my reaction, exactly.
Was Marcotte definitely not being sarcastic? I read it as sarcasm.
Re ‘There is considerable ground between discussing the abortion choice with a potential father when he is in a serious relationship with the mother, as in Connors’ case, and “giving a man the right to force childbirth or force abortion.”’
I think it’s less that there’s ‘ground’, and more that these are different issues. The length of discussion time doesn’t tell us anything about what the woman feels is most in her interests; whether she feels discussion would pressure her or not. Because it is the woman’s decision, she also gets to decide about the discussion time, and has absolute right to curtail or avoid any discussions about the issue which she feels would pressure her into handling things other than she wants to. Letting the man in on such deliberations *does* give him power over her regardless of whether she chooses that.
I read Amanda a lot, when my stomach is feeling strong. She wasn’t being sarcastic. She really thinks that way.
I have yet to see any proof of this assertion with regards to Ms Marcotte…
Jack, I agree with you that potential mothers should discuss abortion with the father (assuming of course that they are in a serious and safe relationship). But would you agree that this should remain solely in the domain of ethics, and not law?
Saying that it’s “unfair” that people are born with different abilities and traits is common usage among native English speakers, i.e., “it’s so unfair that Lucy was born without legs” or “it’s unfair that Linus is so handsome and tall while I’m a spotty troll,” etc etc.. The World English Dictionary defines “unfair” as “characterized by inequality or injustice” (note “or,” not “and”); that only women get pregnant is certainly an example of inequality.
It’s just not true that Amanda is wrong about what “unfair” means. She may not be using your preferred definition, but she’s using a common definition that’s used by native speakers and found in dictionaries.
2. “6th grade level sentiment” isn’t an argument, it’s just an insult – and an unintelligent one, since the rightness or wrongness of an argument does not depend on how complex it is.
But from what little info we’ve seen, Evert DID discuss the abortion choice with Connors’; she told him, he told her his opinion (which was that she should let nature take its course), she had an abortion anyway. His complaint isn’t that she didn’t let him know, because she DID let him know. What he objects to is that she didn’t make the decision he wanted her to make.
“But from what little info we’ve seen, Evert DID discuss the abortion choice with Connors’; she told him, he told her his opinion (which was that she should let nature take its course), she had an abortion anyway. His complaint isn’t that she didn’t let him know, because she DID let him know. What he objects to is that she didn’t make the decision he wanted her to make.”
Uh….
From what little we’ve seen, Connors indicated he would have been willing to let nature take its course. It doesn’t indicate he was able to give Evert that opinion, just that knowing her decision after the fact, that is what his opinion would have been. Nothing in the article’s commentary indicates Evert did tell him anything, until AFTER.
“He writes, vaguely but pointedly, that Evert became pregnant during their relationship and had an abortion without consulting him…”
That is pretty obvious.
Also, you are still fumbling with the definition of unfair. Unequal in this sense doesn’t mean “not the same”, it means not treated equally.
1. Barry, saying nature is “unfair,” whether it is common or not, is ignorant. misleading and unintelligent, though a favorite bit of rhetorical nonsense from the Left. Evolution isn’t unfair, and biology isn’t unfair and random chance isn’t unfair. Do you really feel constrained to defend ideological compatriots no matter how idiotic their statements?
2. It’s an embarrassing statement that, I repeat, would only be excusable from someone under the age of 12,a nd that just barely. “It’s unfair that I’m a girl!” is a childish sentiment. It’s depressing that you would suggest otherwise, It doesn’t need rebuttal. It is self-evidently silly.
3. That’s not how I read it. Connors says that the abortion was presented to him as a fete accompli. Evert disputes it; she shouldn’t have to. We shouldn’t know about it. If she and he had a good, solid discussion about it, she approached him before her mind was made up, they disagreed and she did what she felt she had to, then he has no basis for complaint. We shouldn’t know about that, either.
1) Saying “things are inherently unfair, but that’s the reality we have to deal with” is not a bit of rhetorical nonsense. It’s, well, reality.
2) Connors’ comment could be seen as whining that it wasn’t fair that Evert could have an abortion without his input. In that context, Marcotte’s response reads as “The world’s unfair. This one went against you, and it went against you because of things that are unfair the other way.”
Marcotte’s response might be a sixth grade level response if you, like, ignore the, like, context thingy.
Regarding “unfair”–I think that kind of subjective verdict of unfair applied to the natural world is absurd, whether it is common or not, and whining is a good description of it. It’s unfair that I’m black, short, fat, male, have a funny voice—it’s unfair that you’re male, smarter than me, athletic, well-hung—what utter, self-crippling, garbage. Is it unfair, in a game of cards, that one player gets a better hand? No! it’s unfair if someone cheated to get a better hand. What do we call someone who screams “that’s unfair!” when they lose in Crazy Eights? A child. Same here.
Can you look at my number 2? She didn’t scream “that’s unfair!” because she lost something. She pointed out that the whine of “that’s unfair!” was stupid.
After she cried “that’s unfair’ about the hand she was dealt in genetic roulette!
No. That was part of her response, not a precursor to it. It’s roughly this pattern:
“It’s unfair that you have hair!”
“Well it’s unfair that you were born to an actual hero and had legacy status at Harvard. Stop whining.”
But the response unfairness was actually tied directly to the original claim of unfairness. (I couldn’t think of any bonuses of not having hair.)
Lots of bonuses!
1. Look more like Yul Brenner and Bruce Willis than Adam Sandler.
2. Saves money on haircuts.
3. Saves money on shampoo.
4. No more worrying about losing more hair.
5. Shorter showers
6. No gray hair, ever.
But how much money do you have to spend on head wax, knit hats, and sunblock?
I definitely should have cast you as Marcotte:
TGT: I can’t believe I have to spend a minute a day shampooing my flowing locks! This isn’t right!
Jack: Well, it’s unfair that I’m bald. Stop whining.
Head wax: Affected
Knit hats: Hate ’em—itchy.
Sunblock: Never.