|
Post by robeiae on Jun 3, 2021 19:46:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Jun 3, 2021 19:47:09 GMT -5
This piece might be worth a read... www.cjr.org/the_media_today/naomi_osaka_french_open_media.phpThis in particular I thought might be important... Obviously the ADA doesn't apply in France, but it could potentially provide some guidance in thinking about the right way to handle this type of issue. A lot of people might assume that someone with a psychiatric issue shouldn't be working, but I think the ADA kind of operates under the assumption that people often can still work--and have a right to work--despite their disability, and that a better solution might be to work out accommodations when possible. (e.g. If someone works for a company that requires business travel, but they have a crippling fear of getting on a plane, a better solution might be to just let them travel by other methods, if possible, rather than telling them to stay home until their issue is fixed.)
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Jun 4, 2021 0:59:29 GMT -5
I'm starting to lighten up in terms of my views on this. I don't really have much of a problem with her decision anymore and it's understandable (especially when considering that several professional musicians that I like have also discussed their near-crippling anxiety in front of crowds, as well as reflecting on my own past battles with social anxiety disorder and panic attacks as well).
What really bothers me about this situation, the more serious thought I give to it, is the narcissistic grifters, vultures, and enablers who swoop in to try to co-opt her actions as somehow supportive of their own agendas (as well as the sickening ways in which corporations will find ways to monetize this to boost their own revenues, as in the example Rob cited above).
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Jun 4, 2021 1:12:31 GMT -5
I'm starting to lighten up in terms of my views on this. I don't really have much of a problem with her decision anymore and it's understandable (especially when considering that several professional musicians that I like have also discussed their near-crippling anxiety in front of crowds, as well as reflecting on my own past battles with social anxiety disorder and panic attacks as well). Yeah, I think my own experiences are kind of influencing my feelings on this, as well. I think when I was Osaka's age, I would not have been able to stand in front of other people and take questions. I'm asking myself now: could I have done it even for a large amount of money? And I still think the answer would've been no. Nowadays, fortunately, I think I'd be able to handle it. I agree. I'm sympathetic toward Osaka but not at all toward Nike and the others.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jun 4, 2021 6:54:01 GMT -5
I'm starting to lighten up in terms of my views on this. I don't really have much of a problem with her decision anymore and it's understandable (especially when considering that several professional musicians that I like have also discussed their near-crippling anxiety in front of crowds, as well as reflecting on my own past battles with social anxiety disorder and panic attacks as well). What really bothers me about this situation, the more serious thought I give to it, is the narcissistic grifters, vultures, and enablers who swoop in to try to co-opt her actions as somehow supportive of their own agendas (as well as the sickening ways in which corporations will find ways to monetize this to boost their own revenues, as in the example Rob cited above). I agree. I mean, I think Osaka made some foolish decisions--well, they should be foolish decisions, but now it may all work out great for her--but they are hardly career-ending decisions. It's not like she cold-cocked her spouse in a hotel elevator or ran a state-wide dog-fighting ring. Those decisions cost her some jingle and should rightly cost her a few sponsors. But from Nike to Calm, the way her story is getting used now, supposedly by the "good guys" is sickening, imo.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Jun 4, 2021 19:27:15 GMT -5
As to her mental health claims, again the solution would always have been to take time off, as opposed to continuing to play knowing that one would purposefully break rules/contracts. The latter is a stupid approach and screams--imo--bullshit excuse. I think I can agree that taking time off would've been one possible solution, but I don't think it was "the" solution. I wanted to revisit this, so I can link to an article that I found useful on this point about solutions... www.inc.com/suzanne-lucas/naomi-osaka-should-be-a-strong-ada-reminder-for-employers.htmlThe author discusses a few alternative solutions, which I'll mention below: Personally, I think 1-3 all sound pretty reasonable. And they strike me as better not just for Osaka but probably for everyone involved who has some particular interest at stake. (Because, if we accept the proposition that skipping a media session deprives certain parties of benefits X, Y, and Z, then Osaka sitting at home would probably do the same thing, IMO.)
|
|