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.
3 comments:
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.
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.
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.
Post a Comment