“When you have the chance to take part in a World Cup, there are hundreds of footballers who would kill to be in your place. It may never happen again in your life […] and you’re going to leave all that to attend the birth of your child, which is a disgusting moment, excuse me, where the dad is useless. He has the role of an extra.”
After those comments, there is now, according to French media reports, some doubt as to Pierron’s continued employability, either as a pundit at this World Cup or in general.
Backlash
The backlash against Pierron is, of course, predictable and obvious: Nobody is ever going to lose support for criticizing – in the modern age – a person who has just described childbirth as “disgusting”. Nor is anybody going to lose respectability in the modern West for adopting fiercely and bravely the position that “fathers should play a full part in parenting”. In this controversy, defending Doku is so easy that it is the natural default position for commentators, who know that their careers – unlike Pierron’s – will not be risked because of the position they take.
Yet, she had a point.
The notion that fathers should be physically present for births is a relatively new innovation. Indeed, for most of the history of the West, it would have been considered entirely shocking for a man to be in the birthing chamber. In the era before modern mass transport, it was entirely common for some men who worked away from home not to meet their children for months after they were born. Evidence that this caused any damage either to child or marital relations is scant.
By contrast, the historic and cultural basis of serving one’s country is sacrifice: the romance of the national jersey, whether sporting or military, is that one is serving a cause greater than one’s own interests. The player, soldier or whoever is “giving it all for their country”. For many years, international footballers were not even paid for their matches, and even now in many cases the fees for playing at the World Cup are a mere fraction of earnings in domestic leagues. The notion has been, and remains, that wearing the national shirt is an act of national service.
The core of Pierron’s argument is this: that Doku will have many years of his life to spend with his child and his wife – but perhaps only one or two chances in his career to represent his country on the grandest international stage. His choice, she argues (however colorfully), is mistaken.
Personal Choice
The key question in all of this, essentially, is whether Belgian fans have any right to resent or criticize Doku for putting his family life before the country he represents. And on balance, of course, they do.
This is not to say that he is obliged to listen or that he should be sanctioned for his choice – but it is perfectly fair for journalists, commentators and supporters to note that Doku’s choice has a meaningful negative impact on his teammates, his compatriots and his sporting legacy. Though it is a choice he is free to make, it is also inescapably true that anything his country accomplishes at the World Cup will be in spite of Doku, rather than because of him. That formulation does not make a good teammate.
Furthermore, it is perfectly fair for commentators like Pierron to note that his bedside presence during childbirth is neither medically nor legally nor historically necessary: He is choosing to be somewhere that he is not needed, in place of somewhere that he is needed. Or to put it in simpler terms, Doku is choosing desire over duty.
The Pierron Question
In all of this, the much more interesting question is not that surrounding Doku, but that surrounding Pierron: He, regardless of his decision, will face no real social sanction. Yet she, for questioning it, may lose her job. Is this fair? Absolutely not.
It should first be noted that the job of the pundit is to be provocative and start conversations. A pundit who never said anything controversial would not be doing his or her job.
Further, there is a double standard: Had Pierron attacked Doku in personal terms for his level of performance – called him lazy on the ball, for example – there would be little by way of backlash. Yet her commentary on a broader societal trend has sparked the threat to her career, presumably because it has been perceived by some that she is attacking all parents who choose to be present for childbirth.
Yet this is not what Pierron was doing: She was questioning the appropriateness of that choice in one limited setting, which was to ask whether the World Cup or the birth of a child was more important for Doku’s legacy. That is a fair question over which two reasonable people might arrive at two different conclusions.
As to her description of childbirth as “disgusting”, well – Pierron has experienced it first-hand, whereas nobody of this writer’s sex ever shall. So perhaps she should be given the benefit of experience on that question.
But in this most boring era of commentary and punditry, it should be welcomed that somebody is willing to start a debate and engage in some controversy. Pierron should not be canceled for asking a perfectly fair question.
