always boils down to the thing they were objecting to in the first place: it's because Men are Trash
That's the bit that gets me. "#notallmen but never ever let any man near you because you just don't know".... WTF?
only to come second to a biologically stronger athlete
Not to mention that that is the entire point of athletics competitions.
The trouble is, as we're seeing, that the question "what is a woman" is not one that has a simple answer with a clear line between "woman" and "non-woman". Blaming organising bodies at any level for not managing to come up with a simple, unambiguous test for that is silly.
Mark, I'm not suggesting you're doing those things, just trying to point out that the underlying premises don't stack up.
Emma, I'm sorry. I was trying to avoid derailing but felt that TracyMac needed a response. I'm not going to engage with you, our experiences around this time are both very stressful, but also different to the point of being opposed. My "don't participate" is your "destroy christmas".
FWIW I've told my family that I'm going back to Aotearoa for some funerals and possibly when I retire. Anything else comes under the heading of "I think catastrophic global warming is a problem we should avoid. We all have to stop flying ASAP".
f you're not a willing participant, then I'd suggest not participating at all. It seems better to me than being an unwilling participant and going on passive-aggressive strike when asked to share the labour.
That was exactly what I suggested in the first place, and Emma objected on the basis that participation is not optional. I don't "passive aggressive" this one, hence the "how about you stop trying to make me miserable" response. The effort I make is in the direction of not telling people to fuck off. If I don't make it people notice.
I've decided that pitching in once a year isn't too bad in the greater scheme of things
Which is your decision, and I respect that. A little respect back in the direction of people who want very much not to participate wouldn't go amiss. Just try to imagine for a second that what you're reading isn't a declaration of sulking and passive-aggression, say.
My suggestion that people doing the organising try to unwind a little and focus less on making every christmas the biggest, bestest christmas ever is genuine. I have seen it help other people.
From my point of view, it's because I loathe christmas and only participate under duress. I am way too familiar with the "I am doing so much work, you could at least help" argument being made in the context of "to make you miserable" and the reasonable answer of "how about you just stop trying to make me miserable" is met with further unpleasantness.
That might not have been your intention, and it's certainly not your expressed point of view, but I do think it's worth questioning whether the people you're asking to help you actually share your goal. I assume you sat down with your immediate family and discussed it and agreed on a plan, but I'm not entirely convinced that everyone you're complaining about was included in that.
To me this is very much like "we are hosting a swingers convention and you must attend". Saying "but it's your family" isn't a positive...
I think it's more that if you work a bit on making a less dramatic event you will find it easier to get through. Maybe think of 'don't do christmas" as the aspirational slogan and take small steps in that direction when you can?
green clad Solstice Witch
:) I'm reminded of my favourite christmas song:
Don't. Do. Christmas.
With you on that. Being in Australia has helped a huge amount with the "family xmas" pressure. The in-laws here are more buddhist than christian and helps a lot - christmas is much more obviously about the under-fives and the rest of us just hang out and do drugs. Or watch others do that, whatever.
Also, if you think supermarkets and toy shops go overboard with xmas, the drug dealers make them look tame. My "no junk mail" letterbox in a muslim-majority area is already getting christmas alcohol spam. WTF?
how such a regime could work without animal testing.
Exploit the "people are not animals" delusion and allow volunteers to test stuff under medical supervision. It's a lot more ethical (people can give informed consent), although the lack of voluntary euthanasia laws could be problematic if they find something really awful.
There is an awful lot of research and testing being done on recreational drugs all the time, and possibly more so than in the past now due to ease of access to synthesis equipment. From what I can tell almost all the experimenters test on themselves rather than other animals.