Infantilizing Women

So E. comes home from hockey practice the other day and tells me about a plan to make the women's team that plays in Cedar Rapids a little more visible. The idea is to let the women's team scrimmage between periods at the Rough Riders game. Teams do scrimmage between periods--but the teams are comprised of little kids. It serves as entertainment, brings the parents of the kids to the game, and gives the kids the chance to spend a little time in the limelight in front of a big crowd. But it's a different story when you put grown women in this same situation. Because it is a space/time that has already been established as a "lesser" (which is fine when you are talking about developing junior players) moment by devoting it to children, putting women there creates a very different situation. It becomes more like a sideshow atmosphere. And it equates the women with the children.
It seems like a no-win situation. Even if the women play well, they are still playing into the idea that women's hockey is a novelty. And if they do not perform well then their game is compared to the men's game and perhaps even--because it is showcased when the kids' scrimmages usually are--to junior hockey.
I think it's a bad tactic. I think even if they decide to go through with it E will abstain. There are other means to bring attention to women's hockey that do not involve playing second fiddle to the men's game.

Comments

EBuz said…
In defense of the idea's proponents, there is a subset of public who don't even believe that women even endeavor to play hockey. By engaging in a public performance(regardless of the context and regardless of the quality of our performance), they suggest, we are enlightening them by exposing them to a reality (women like/play hockey) that is contrary to their stereotype (that women do not like/play hockey).

That said, as your post points out, I am abstaining from the event. I believe that showcasing women's skills in a forum that is usually reserved for kids runs too high a risk of fostering the impression that women's sports, like childrens' sports, are not real sports.
September 13, 2005 3:45 PM
Amateur said…
I have also been to men's games where the intermission was used to showcase sledge hockey. I imagine that this event was also designed to expose hockey fans to a new reality, as you put it, ebuz. I also imagine that some of the competitors had qualms similar to yours.
September 14, 2005 1:14 PM
ken said…
You are absolutely right, duder. All sports do start somewhere. Men's sports usually start in a much more visible realm or at least rise faster to gain a mainstream audience. That is why the space and time in which women's sports are showcased are of critical importance.
I disagree with your assertion that the t-shirt canon shooters, and zamboni driver have the same goals as those playing junior or sledge hockey in between periods. I think the people who schedule the intermission activities also do not believe all these groups have or serve the same purpose. Is it all a version of entertainment--sure--the game itself falls into the category as well. But it is not just entertainment.
Additionally, I think implicit in your argument is that unless a women's team agrees to play under such conditions they are not truly committed i.e. "playing to the bone." I think female hockey players, and myself as a fan, would take great exception to this.
September 18, 2005 3:32 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why trans athletes?

In a continuation of my last post in which I crib from GLAD lawyer Jennifer Levi's thoughtful social media posts, I offer here an explanation of why and how trans athletes became the target of the right. First, I keep seeing left of center posts/headlines/discourse that highlight how few trans girls/women are competing in sports. I don't love this framing. The underlying premise of inclusion and access does not have a tipping point.  Perhaps what it is meant to show is how the right is weaponizing this issue. This is both reasonable and true but not really very profound in its assessment. Look at some of the groups and people doing the work of banning trans athletes and you will also see agendas which are racist, and anti-Semitic, and Islamophobic, and anti-LGB as well.  If I have not already recommended Judith Butler's Who's Afraid of Gender? (though I am pretty sure I have), go read it. Some of what Butler says is what Levi echoed in a recent posting contemplating the...
Read more

The trans athlete ban: Part 3a: NCAA hypocrisy

 [this is cross-posted with Title IX Blog where I will also post something about the announcement that NIL is not subject to Title IX] The NCAA's new policy banning transwomen from competing in women's sports arrived (seemingly) minutes after the administration issued its executive order banning transwomen and girls from participating in school-sponsored sports teams.  The NCAA did include verbiage though which is worth looking at.  This is the synopsis at the top of the press release:  Men's category open to all eligible student-athletes, women's category restricted to student-athletes assigned female at birth, schools directed to foster welcoming environments on all campuses. But it is not accurate.  The women's category--for competition purposes--is open to people students assigned female at birth who are not taking testosterone. What we see here is a different standard. Testosterone levels matter only for some people. Taking it knocks you out of the women's...
Read more

The trans athlete ban, Part II: Capitulation

 The same day as the president signed the executive order banning transwomen in school-sponsored sports (which WILL have more widespread effects--i.e., recreational sports for youth and adults), the NCAA issued its own change on transwomen in collegiate sports which, for the purpose of "consistency" will also prohibit transwomen from competing in women's NCAA sports.  [I wrote about the effects the EO will have on Title IX compliance which is something that NCAA purports to care about, at Title IX Blog .] I would have been surprised (in a good way), if they had not. They give in to outside pressure regularly (with positive and negatives effects). But this policy is another example of their failure to protect athletes. [Lack of penalties for schools that shield predatory coaches and doctors as well as athletes who commit sexual assault; their exploitation of Black men who help them make their billions every March; their laughable adherence to an ahistorical definition of ...
Read more