Movie review: The Fire Inside

 Movie reviews seem like good ways to keep the commitment to regular blogging going so... [also, I have been doing more over at Title IX Blog about what is going to happen to the regulations in 2025.]

Two caveats for this one: I am not a trained movie critic or film expert. I am not a boxing expert or fan and really only pay attention to women's boxing when there are various controversies. Though given the number of controversies and how boxing is and is not included in conversations about women's sports and women athletes, I have a solid understanding of the sociocultural aspects of the sport (but less of one about individuals who have shaped the sport). 

I do of course know who Claressa Shields is, which is who The Fire Inside is about. 

I did not know about this movie until last month when I saw a preview at my independent theater (shout out to independent movie houses!!). I listen to several podcasts about movies and no one mentioned this film. So when I saw the preview, I was skeptical. Just because a movie is about sports does not mean I am automatically in. I skipped Iron Claw because: too depressing. [I almost skipped Challengers because I had little faith in a tennis romcom-esque story; and I should have gone with that initial instinct.]

When I saw that Barry Jenkins (Moonlight, If Beale Street Could Talk, The Underground Railroad) had written and produced it, I reconsidered my initial position: that this was going to be another bad sports biopic that followed typical tropes. Were they going to try to stuff Claressa Shields's more complicated trajectory into the typical plotline of fights hard, wins medal, lives happily ever after? 

This was not a bad sports biopic. It was a perfectly fine sports biopic. It felt slow at times and then it moved through other parts more quickly so perhaps there was a pacing issue (<-- term I picked up listening to podcasts!). It's not a must-see-in-theater movie but 1) I like to support my independent theater as I have said and 2) I had no idea where it might end up after its theater run. 

Ryan Destiny did a good job as the eldest version of Claressa. I cannot comment on how good the actual boxing was because, as noted above, I do not follow the sport. The best performances were from Brian Tyree Henry as Claressa's coach, Brian Crutchfield, and De'Adre Aziza who played his wife, Mickey. 

In addition to worries about typical biopic tropes, I had concern that this movie was going to traffic in tragedy porn. It did not--probably because of Jenkins. We first meet Claressa as an 11-year old, and it is clear that she has an unstable home life and all that comes with that. These troubles are referenced throughout but never given a lot of screen time. We are told and not shown that she has overcome a lot and honestly I was fine with that. There are a lot of shots of Flint, Michigan that I think stand in/replace what could have been pretty cringe scenes of abuse and neglect. These shots provide an unspoken context and this movie becomes, in part, a portrait of the city. 

Important takeaways: First, Shields's story is not a work hard, overcome, gain success and get continued success. The fade to black after she wins the gold medal in London (2012) might make one think the movie is over. But nothing really changed for Shields after the win for a host of reasons that the movie goes into to varying depths. More consideration should have been given to the fact that part of her post-medal lack of success was because of her race. Yes, the movie covers the fact that women athletes have to be pretty and sexy and not aggressive (an especially tough sell for boxers) but not how those expectations differ for white and black women. But what happened to Shields is not unique to her. Many Olympians, including medal-earning ones, have no support or structure in their post-Olympic lives and many do not have comebacks.

Second, the limitations of sport organizations and how they are structured around and for those with economic and class privilege really stood out to me in this movie. Crutchfield was not Shields's coach at the Olympics because he was not properly certified. So his travel to the Olympics was not covered and he was not her in-the-ring coach. USA Boxing had their own coaching staff that Shields was forced to use. Additionally, when USA Boxing finally offers her some support after her London win it is in the form of lesser pay than the men (something Shields effectively fights) and in a place far away from her family whom she supports financially and emotionally. 

In sports we do hear of athletes who are separated from their families for the purpose of training and how much of a sacrifice this is, but not that this is an impossible sacrifice for some or that maybe it should not have to be a sacrifice. We cannot praise during broadcasts the value of family support and then talk about how athletes are compelled (for those who do not want it) to separate from that. In the end, Shields goes to Colorado to train for the Rio games but it is presented as a way for her to not get dragged down by everything in Flint. And while this might be true, I did not feel great about how this is presented as her only option and the only path to success. She had to conform to the system of sport. She did change it a little along the way, which may be how I choose to remember this film in the end. 

New hazing regulations; nothing on abusive coaching

 I posted on the Title IX Blog my 2025 intention to blog more; a goal that will be facilitated by shorter (pithier?) posts. I have let go of trying to make deeply profound and impactful posts all the time--since that actually prevented me from posting most of the time--and will shift to more frequent posts that are comments and observations. 

That intention applies to After Atalanta as well, so here goes.

In this moment of downtime I have been trying to get through all the tabs of things I absolutely must read before my computer decides to automatically restart itself. 

I did not absolutely need to read about the Stop Campus Hazing Act which requires changes that incidents of hazing be included Clery Act-mandated reporting. (It's possible I already thought this was happening in fact.) But when reading about it, I did get to thinking about standards of risk and reasonableness. 

A thorough definition of hazing was provided, including this second part that the offending act:

• causes or creates a risk, above the reasonable risk encountered in the course of participation in the institution of higher education or the organization (such as the physical preparation necessary for participation in an athletic team), of physical or psychological injury … .

This gave me pause; not because I disagree but because the language contributes to the discourse that sports--in this case training for sports--gets a pass because the definition of reasonableness does not apply and my thoughts immediately turned to coaches who engage in abusive behavior.

I know there are mechanisms to address abusive coaching. But they lack rigor and effectiveness. Thus, hazing--which again I think is a bad thing--can get reported and presumably punished in ways that are more transparent and hopefully serve as a deterrent. Athletes engaging in such acts beyond reasonableness against fellow athletes thus are punished. But they all could be experiencing similar unreasonable acts at the hands of coaches that go unpunished and even unacknowledged. 

Reasonable risk is impossible to pin down when it comes to the necessary preparation for athletics with so many leaders (and athletes) blurring and surpassing that line. This act may be a step toward curbing unreasonable acts and risky behavior by athletes against athletes, but it's hard to single them out in a culture that encourages extending oneself beyond reasonableness without addressing the dangers of sport culture. 

Chris Evert is all about policing gender norms

All the rhetoric about trans and intersex athletes affects the way ciswomen in general but, in this situation, cis women athletes, are being discussed--and criticized. This is not new nor is it a revelation. Activists and scholars have been trying to make people aware of this for years. But it was on display at this year's US Open, when one of the vocal proponents of banning trans women in sports, made comments about a cis woman playing like a man. 

I missed Chris Evert's on-air comments about Karolina Muchova because I have made a concerted effort to watch the women's matches on ESPN3 where Mary Carillo has been doing actual good commentary. When I have had to listen to Evert (yes, I know mute is an option), it is just painful. In general, I don't see what her appeal is. The majority of her comments are guesses at what the players are thinking. But her comments this year (and likely in the past--there is some rich discourse analysis to be done I suspect) have been especially grating in regard to women players.

Evert started the whole men have bigger, better faster everything comments on the air during Muchova's match against Naomi Osaka and then continued them on X after the match. This truly horrible article reports on the situation. I link to the truly horrible article because it does what I imagine a lot of people do when it comes to Chris Evert--cite her behavior as an anomaly and deem her not sexist because she has been a (self-proclaimed) proponent of women's sports.* 

"The truth is that we know Evert did not mean anything sexist toward Muchova." 

I don't think it is clear at all--or even remotely true--that Evert was not engaging in sexism. 

Evert said on X that Muchoka wants to "play like a guy" and then got called out by Ons Jabeur (who sadly is not able to play the US Open this year) and Nick Kyrgios, which is a low bar when you are offending the man accused of domestic abuse (an issue that deserves a post--or a dissertation--of its own). Muchoka simply disagreed with Evert's assessment and Evert apologized in a subsequent post. 

So while that moment might be put at rest, i.e. no one is talking about it anymore, the comments and others that Evert has made on air (I don't follow her on social media) makes it clear that she has a very specific opinion on how women should be behaving and that that vision is quite narrow. 

Evert may not be in the inner circle of the anti-trans advocacy like her pal Martina Navratilova, but she has made her position clear and it reflects her belief that there are very distinct differences between all men and all women. Her belief that Muchova wants to play like a man (a criticism leveled against gay player Amelie Mauresmo and Black players like Serena and Venus Williams) is a means of policing gender boundaries, which is exactly what the save women's sports brigade is doing. Because Muchova wants to hit the ball harder and move faster (which I imagine most tennis players desire regardless of gender) she is exhibiting masculinity, according to Evert. 

Earlier comments in the week about Elena Svitolina also point to her belief in women's inherent inferiority. During a Svitolina match, Evert went on and one about how lucky Svitolina is to basically have two coaches because her husband, fellow player Gael Monfils, can give her advice and hit with her. Evert cites all of his experience on the tour as such a valuable asset. To be clear, Monfils is a good player. His ranking is also currently lower than his wife's. He is a little bit older but they both have been playing since childhood. In other words, I don't think he adding soooo much to her game or that they don't learn from each other. But Evert does comment on what she sees Svitolina bringing to the dyad: a calming influence [to the fiery Black man]. It was all so stereotypical. 

The women's semifinal with Jessica Pegula and Muchova is about to start. I am curious to see what Evert has to say. But not sure if I am so curious that it is worth staying up late for on a school night. ;)

* this is the moment I always like to point out that Evert did not join forces with Billie Jean King as one of first group of a dozenish women to break away and start their own tour because she didn't want to lose the sponsorship money she was getting as America's straight, white sweetheart. 

The Katey Chronicles: The lawsuit

 cross-posted at the Title IX Blog

--------------------------------------------------

Well The Boston Globe published the news (paywalled*) behind former women's ice hockey coach Katey Stone's press conference two hours before the conference The surprise factor was gone by the time I tracked down the clips. The two pieces of the press conference (Stone's lawyer's remarks and Stone's remarks) can be found at Hockey News. Some former players spoke as well but I have not seen those clips yet. 

There is plenty to say about this lawsuit and press conference. 

First, looking back at my predictions, I should have placed more emphasis on retribution than on moving forward with "apologies." Most of today was digging in to "truths." There were no apologies. There was some very interesting running around the allegations though. More on that below. 

It was very clear that Stone is irate that she was not allowed to speak back in 2023 when everything went down. I am not positive that she believes coming to her defense would have saved her job and reputation, but I think she believes that. She ended her remarks with "my voice will at last be heard."

Second, I am sure there is some merit to this discrimination lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges sex discrimination based on differential treatment including pay. Stone said in her remarks that the AD, Erin McDermott, told her privately that this (the Globe investigation that compelled Harvard to do an external investigation) would not be happening if she were a man. Maybe. But it is not as if men have not been fired for abusive behaviors. Maybe that statement is true at Harvard--which is all that Stone has to prove since she is not suing SPORT--just Harvard. 

It also alleges that she was subject to more stringent standards than men in the department. I assume that this is in regard to the allegations that she would punish players unevenly for infractions--including an athlete who was driving under the influence. Apparently men coaches are allowed that leeway. 

This gets to a larger issue that I have tried to tackle when writing and thinking about coaching behaviors. These standards for what is acceptable in coaching are just whack. Why do we continue to accept this behavior in coaches? 

Words like "respect," "dignity," "good character," and "integrity" were used at the press conference by Stone and her lawyer, Andrew Miltenberg. If you want to prove that you are those things and are capable of teaching those things, you need receipts. Maybe the women who were sitting behind her were the receipts. But I find nothing dignified about yelling at athletes in anger or ignoring their injuries or body shaming them (an unaddressed allegation). 

Third, Harvard has a lot of blame to bear. Differential treatment to coaches means athletes are certainly receiving differential treatment. But if anyone is letting any athlete who commits a crime (DUI) continue to be part of Harvard athletics then that's just a different level.

The pay differential is going to be a tough one though. Courts have allowed differential pay between men and women coaches because schools come up with rationales about money brought in from camps and endorsements and a bunch of other factors including market value. I would love it if this case changed some of those precedents.  But I think Stone will actually have better luck saying that Harvard would not have fired a man for the same (bad) behavior. 

This brings me to the speculative part of this post: what is Harvard going to do with that unreleased external investigation report? I assume it has some damning information about Stone that they would use in a trial to justify their actions. (Also big sticking point that she actually "retired" officially. Note to others who are experiencing job discrimination--make them fire you!) But I assume it also shows that some of these behaviors went unchecked for years. That puts Harvard in danger of a lawsuit from former players. My ultimate prediction is that there will be a no-fault settlement and that no one will be allowed to speak about it and the details of that report will remain buried. And Stone's desire that her voice will be heard will go unfulfilled.

Finally, I want to talk about a few ick moments from the press conference.

One--the throwing of women of color under the bus. Miltenberg's remarks called out Dr. Claudine Gay who led the internal investigation when she was dean of Arts and Sciences. He suggested that she has brought down the reputation of Harvard recently implying that her investigation could not be considered reliable. He also mentioned the phrase Stone used that triggered the internal investigation. He said that the phrase about Indians and chiefs "may offend some people notwithstanding that it's a common phrase." That is the non-apology I was expecting. He is dancing very carefully around accusations of wokeness. It is disappointing when proponents of Title IX fail to check their white privilege and downplay racism to bolster claims of sex discrimination. 

Stone did some dancing too: around the allegations that she ignored and/or exacerbated players' mental health concerns. After saying that the mental health crisis is real she talked about the difficulty as a coach trying to find a balance between pushing too hard and "affirming mediocrity" and that "cultural norms make it more difficult to set a high bar." She characterized her program as one of an "earn it" mentality not an "entitlement mentality." If someone can get Stone to talk without a script in front of her (I'm looking at you podcasters!!), I bet with very little prodding she would go off about "kids today" and their lack of resiliency and sense of entitlement. 

I am curious about one thing. Every other case of sex discrimination in which gay women in athletics have been fired/dismissed (e.g., Iowa, Minnesota-Duluth) also alleged sexual orientation discrimination in their lawsuits. Maybe there is just no evidence of that in this case, but it does not follow the strategy I have seen about throwing everything into a lawsuit to see what sticks. 

I may be done with this story for now. But who knows--something interesting could happen next week and I will back with more lukewarm takes. 

 

* The Wall Street Journal was actually first to this story. Theirs is also paywalled. 

The Katey Chronicles: Part II Coaching norms

Oh hey--here's the post I never finished about former Harvard women's ice hockey coach Katey Stone. I had basically abandoned it as irrelevant/old news. 

But Stone has made it relevant! Thanks, Katey. 

The former coach is set to make an announcement and tell her side of the story (it seems?) tomorrow! (So I better get this done today!) She will be accompanied by her lawyer and three former players from different eras of her tenure at Harvard. 

I really have no idea what she will say so I am just going to throw out some predictions (I've been listening to a lot of podcasts about the Emmys so I am in that mode).

• she will largely deny the allegations against her (more on those below) and sue Harvard for wrongful termination (or something like that since she technically retired)
• she will use the presence of the three former players to bolster those claims
• she will "apologize" to those who misconstrued her behavior as racist or her coaching style as violent and abusive
• actually scratch that last part--I have never seen a coach acknowledge that their coaching style might actually be damaging their athletes
• she will announce the foundation of some kind of academy or organization for women in hockey that she is working on with the three women by her side

Now back to that originally scheduled post from 18 months ago!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part II of my series on the revelations that Harvard women's hockey coach created a toxic culture in her program, seemingly from the moment she arrived, is focused on the accusations and  how they fit into my findings from a study of coaching in women's DI hockey that I conducted as a masters student at Simmons College. 

Here is a list of the accusations*

• in accusing her players of a lack of respect, she said there were too many "chiefs" and not enough "Indians"
• fostering an environment of hazing which included a Naked Skate in which players were forced not only to skate naked in the empty arena but also slide across the ice
• other hazing: forced alcohol consumption, public costume wearing, role playing with sexual overtones
• body shaming 
• causing such emotional distress that players sought mental health services and then ignoring players' mental health needs
• a system of favoritism that resulted in uneven disciplinary measures being applied 
• negative motivation 
• downplaying injuries (including concussions) so as to compel players to return early
• encouraging teammates to gang up on one another

The administration was complicit in these behaviors. Some of the former players (there were 16) who talked to the Globe reporters said they filed reports about Stone's behaviors but nothing was done. The public response by the AD, Erin McDermott, is an indication why:

"Our current women's ice hockey team has not fostered a culture of hazing. However, it is clear that some traditions in recent years were experienced differently by different people and not all were comfortable with those activities or with expressing concerns relating to the program."  

Translation: "sorry" you felt compelled to skate and slide over the ice naked and that you could not trust any of us in positions of power to make that stop. Oh, and that skating and sliding on ice naked was uncomfortable FOR YOU. We're not doing that anymore. Maybe. 

This is not just a Stone issue--no coaching problems are ever isolated to the coach. Despite similarities to the behavior of former Rutger's men's basketball coach Mike Rice, this situation only resulted in Stone's departure. At Rutgers were was a more widespread cleaning of house before they brought in a women AD as evidence of that cleaner house. I guess Harvard doesn't really know what to do since is already has a women AD. 

All these accusations are horrible. None are surprising. And they are likely not specific to ice hockey (though ice hockey has been known for some truly horrible hazing "traditions"). 

The women I spoke with for my study over a decade ago reported similar things. No one talked about hazing but a frequent conversation was about coaching behaviors that included incessant yelling--and not just to be heard in a game; yelling in practices, yelling in locker rooms, yelling on buses. I heard about yelling that was accompanied by other violent behaviors including the throwing of trash cans in locker rooms. 

The other big issue I heard about was treatment during injuries. In addition to pressure to come back that happened verbally, there was some passive aggressive tactics used. Players reported that coaches would simply ignore them if they were injured, even when they were physically there for rehab or team meetings. If a player was not healthy, she was not on the team. Healthy as in playing--most of them were never truly healthy because they were pressured to return to play sooner than was medically advised.

I talk about this issue a lot in my ethics class. Many students are future athletic trainers and we discuss the implications of letting coaches override medical advice. It is a rampant issue in intercollegiate sports that is underreported and discussed. 

So while the stories about hazing and racism made the most headlines in Spring 2023, we should refrain from creating a hierarchy of badness here. All of them caused damage and were unacceptable for anyone who is supposed to be an educator. 

* Annoyingly, the specifics of the abuses are difficult to track down because The Boston Globe, which did the investigation, is behind a paywall and the subsequent articles that reported on how the allegations forced Stone to retire just focus on her accomplishments as a coach. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So there it is. I had initially planned for a part III in which I explain how abusive behavior works against the best interests of a coach and muse on the concept of success. 

I may still do that but I will definitely be back to talk about this press conference. (Hopefully sooner than next summer!)

Let's talk about periods--or not

In the lead up to Wimbledon, I read several pieces and saw even more headlines about the change in the all-white clothing rule to allow players in the women's draw to wear darker shorts/tennis underwear. (Does anyone wear those anymore? Wishing I had kept some of mine now.)

There were no bones made about the fact that this change was to ease players' anxiety about playing while on their periods. 

Point1: This change was subject to a vote because it is considered a rule change to the dress code. A vote. In 2023 that helps ease the anxiety of menstruating players. 

Point 1a: This is not a new issue. Most of the stories mention that some soccer teams are eliminating white shorts from their kits as well this summer. This discussion has also emerged in regard to long-distance athletes (cyclists, runners, triathletes) who are not as bound by dress codes/team uniforms but affected by the nature of their sports which often do not allow for a bathroom break to change a tampon or pad or empty a menstrual cup. So in those sports we have seen bloodied outfits. A few years ago (it was probably longer because everything seems to be a few years ago to me) a menstruating woman ran a marathon while on her period and was not at all ashamed by it and wanted to use the moment to bring attention to athletes who menstruate. (Google it for more details.) 

Point 1b: The fact there seems to be some concerted attention to athletes who have their periods while competing in this the year 2023 is a little demoralizing (even as the changes I have mentioned are loudly applauded). It demonstrates how little input women have in sports as athletes and administrators. 

Point 2: The print media was all over this story. I assume some radio outlets were as well. No one has said anything about the rule change on air. I have only been watching ESPN's coverage but I cannot imagine Tennis Channel is much different (and my only understanding of how the BBC operates is based on controversies over the monarchy and Great British Baking Show). The silence kind of surprised me given how commentators usually do not hold back when commenting on women's outfits. It is not as if the black and dark green shorts are not obvious. EDITED TO ADD: Martina Navratilova covered Sabalenka's 4th round match and said that the players are now allowed to wear "colored undershorts" and that it was nice to add a little color to the courts "legally." She DID NOT say WHY the change was made. The implication of her awkward phrasing is that the All-England Club wanted more color on the courts. 

But of course television/streaming media is far more conservative than print media, as I often reminded my sport management students when I taught in those departments. They basically are still not talking about periods. Chrissy Evert generally cannot hold herself back from talking about what things were like in her day and how she responded to X and Y. But Chrissy has been radio silent (or ESPN silent) about periods and dress codes. Not very surprising; she does seem to stay quiet when it comes to women's issues. (Go back and look at how she responded when asked to join Billie Jean King's women's tour in the 70s. She will now, of course, talk a lot about equity in women's tennis when the issue has been rendered nearly uncontroversial.) 

This is not about Chris Evert though. It is about when and where and how people in sports (media people, athletes, managers, coaches, etc.) can and do--do not--talk about women's bodies. We seem fine talking about women losing their periods but not about them getting them. 

The athletes at Wimbledon have been open with the media (the ones who ask) about the role their periods play when the are playing. But I really would have loved to see all of them playing in red shorts this year. 

P.S. I just read that the shorts are not allowed to "show" beneath the skirt/dress. I assume this means be longer than. But Nike's eyelet-ish dress has a scalloped (of sorts) hem that rises a couple of inches on the side seams. Aryna Sabalenka is wearing this dress and has dark shorts that are visible. No one has said anything. To be clear--this is good. I am just curious about which aspects of the dress code get enforced...and against whom...

The Katey Chronicles: Part I

 I have many thoughts on the news that the Harvard women's ice hockey team was a space of abuse, intimidation, humiliation, bullying, and general badness. I am having trouble organizing them and figuring out where to begin. There is so very much to say. My organizational strategy is to create multiple posts. This first one is about my interest in this particular case and a little bit on Katey Stone, the Harvard head coach who unapologetically created this toxic culture and women as ice hockey coaches more generally. 

There is a lot to say about every revelation of dysfunctional and destructive team cultures. They exist far more widely than most people likely believe--at all levels of sports, and they are all multi-faceted (i.e., emotional and physical abuse, racism, other forms of discrimination and violence). This one for me, though, was especially provoking because I did my master's thesis on coaches in DI women's ice hockey in the early 2000s. I interviewed players from the two east coast conferences (ECAC and Hockey East) which, at that time, were where the powerhouse teams were. The focus of my project was the question of player preferences in the gender of their coaches. (And every time I see a story like this I re-regret not pursuing publishing some piece of that project.) 

At the time of my project Stone, a still young/new coach, was building a powerhouse team at Harvard. She was feeding the American and Canadian national teams some of their key players. She was coaching Patty Kazmaier winners.

She was (and remains) a preeminent female coach in women's hockey. She was one of very few women coaches in women's ice hockey, one of the facts that inspired my inquiry. She is still the woman with the highest number of wins in women's intercollegiate ice hockey at #4 on the list. Numbers 1, 2, and 3 are all men. This was another entry point into my project: why all the men in a sport that, in its intercollegiate form, came of age alongside Title IX but was relatively small, with the best teams, and their feeder institutions (several of which Stone coached at) located almost exclusively on the east coast? 

Stone grew up in Connecticut and attended the fairly exclusive Taft School, where both her parents worked. Her father was the Athletics Director. She was immersed in sports throughout her life and went to University of New Hampshire where she played both ice hockey and lacrosse. She played for UNH's first women's hockey coach, Russ McCurdy and graduated in 1989, several years before UNH hired its first female women's head coach Karen Kay, whom Stone would end up coaching against in the early part of her career, before Kay's contract was not renewed after the 2001-02 season. This was the other entry point into my project. After Kay's contract was not renewed UNH hired Brian McCloskey, the men's assistant coach at the time, despite having two finalists for the job who were women with extensive experience coaching women's hockey including national team experience. McCloskey had a very good record during his tenure which came to a controversial end (more on that in a subsequent post). 

What does all this mean? Ice hockey--whether the men's or women's game--is very male-dominated at the highest levels. I realize this #notarevelation. This is typical of many (most?) sports. In a future post, I will talk about coaching culture and norms, which I think are (maybe?) finally starting to shift. But it is clear that Stone was raised and played in an environment where norms of masculinity as they manifested in coaching were prevalent and seemingly not questioned. When I did my research, it was clear that regardless of gender, coaches were engaging in what I thought was appalling behavior. 

McCurdy was before my time as an undergraduate at UNH, but I was there when Kay was head coach, and I knew several of the players. She was not well-loved. She was seen as playing favorites which included having more personal relationships (I am not suggesting sexual ones here) with some players. She ignored players who were injured. This is in addition to the very accepted practice of screaming at players and yelling disparaging remarks; criticism greatly outweighed praise. 

This is not excusable behavior. But it was not unusual. In my research just a few years after Kay had been released, no one claimed to like their head coach. They had differing opinions on how effective they were as coaches and their policies. But the players I spoke with saw--and accepted--that head coaches were distant and strict and that assistant coaches were the ones who were there for more personal things like talking about being homesick, romantic and friend relationships, or troubles with school. Head coaches stopped paying attention or nurturing players when they were injured, communicating only through athletic trainers. head coaches got angry and screamed and pulled jerseys and threw trash cans in locker rooms out of frustration. 

At the end of my research, none of the women I interviewed expressed a preference for a woman coach, some did not care, and others preferred men as coaches. The reasons given for the latter were: that was what they had always known; they felt men had more experience because their history in the sport was longer (this also extended to referees for one participants who said she preferred male referees because they were better and more accurate). Some believed we would see more women as head coaches in the following generation because there were just more women playing at elite programs who would have what they deemed to be the necessary history and experience. 

In addition to these reasons, I discussed two other possibilities in my paper for the preference for men as head coaches of women's hockey. One, it gave the still nascent sport (it only been added to the Olympics in 1998) credibility. Two, and relatedly, it meant avoiding the lesbian stigma. Hockey was a "masculine" sport with no opportunity (because of the uniforms) to add hair bows or visible make-up to connote heterosexuality. And indeed some of the women coaches were/are gay. Shannon Miller, who was also coaching at this time out west and for Team Canada, was fired (technically her contract was not renewed in 2015) for being gay and won a lawsuit because of it. 

The lesbian stigma certainly exists in other sports and there has been research on how it has affected hiring and firing practices. I argue that it also affects how players view coaches and who they want coaching them AND how women coaches comport themselves and try to fit in with masculine coaching norms. This is the topic of my next post.