Of course I’m talking about the men’s NCAA basketball championships. But that goes without saying – watching the women’s tournament is hardly a ritual for most sports fans. For the majority, it barely registers that the tournament is even going on. Even I have to confess that I haven’t been following the tournament as much as I should, considering I write a column where I almost exclusively complain about sexism in sports.

But, for all intents and purposes, no one really needs to justify why they’re watching the men but not the women; the answer is way too obvious: everyone “knows” that men are just better at sports. It has always been that way, it will always be that way, and there’s nothing that women can do to change it because women will always be physically inferior. We all “know” that men are bigger, faster, and stronger, making them better athletes, and therefore more interesting to watch. Women’s basketball sucks.  It’s science, people.

Take, for example, the University of Connecticut women’s basketball team.  They were indisputably the favourites going into the tournament, and with good reason: this past December, they recorded their 88th consecutive win, breaking the record for most consecutive wins for an NCAA Division I basketball team. The record was previously held by the early 1970s UCLA men’s basketball teams coached by John Wooden. Of UConn’s 88 wins, 86 of them were by double digits.

But apparently, because UConn’s women’s team broke the record, it isn’t viewed as much of an achievement. Several media outlets suggested that, because the 1970s UCLA men’s team could obviously beat the UConn women’s team, they would not consider the record to really be broken.

As David Whitley wrote in the AOL News story “UConn Victims of Realism, Not Sexism”, “The accomplishments of UConn and UCLA should not be compared in any way… and not because I’m a miserable bastard. I’m happy for the Huskies. It’d be fine by me if they won 8,800 straight games. Given the depth of women’s college basketball, they just might. That’s a big reason why their streak should not simply be called ‘The longest in college basketball history.’ It is the longest women’s Division I streak.” In responding to the assertions that he’s anti-woman because he doesn’t like women’s basketball, he replied: “I’m not anti-woman. I’m anti-boredom. There are too many set shots, bounce passes, missed layups, and below-the-net rebounds to keep me interested for 190 minutes, or however long a game lasts. I’d feel that way if five Martian eunuchs were playing.”

It’s true. The men’s and women’s games can be incredibly different. There are essentially no slam dunks – the NCAA record for most dunks by a single person in a women’s game is two, and it is held by current WNBA star Candace Parker and Baylor’s Brittney Griner (although you probably know her better for punching someone in the face during a game last March). Women tend not to be as physical around the basket, and don’t jump as high on the rebounds. The ball is smaller, the three-point line is closer, and in college ball, the shot clock is five seconds shorter than in the men’s game. But can you say that the men’s game is inherently better?

A lot of people would say yes, as if some sort of objective criteria exists that could be used to evaluate such a thing. But sports are socially constructed; what we think of as a great and entertaining, or who we think of as the ideal athlete, are all ideas. There is nothing objective about it. Not surprisingly, men established what is considered to be a “good sport,” which is why strength, speed, and height are all requirements in most of the popular sports we see today. When it was men that wrote the rules, is it any surprise that they are the ones that can perform them best?

There are many different aspects of sport that can be appreciated, not only the more “masculine” characteristics. Take women’s hockey, for example. Cathy Chartrand, captain of the McGill Martlets hockey team, explained the differences between men’s and women’s hockey when I interviewed her last fall: “With girls it’s always nice plays, it’s a very strategic game, and a lot of technique is involved compared to boys.” The men’s and women’s games may be different, but you can’t objectively say that one way to play is better than another. Yes, we have personal preferences, but those are strongly dictated by what has been ingrained in our culture as to how sports should be played. Almost every time, it’s the women that are slighted in the athletic arena.

I’m not arguing that women can’t be fast or strong or tall. I’m sure that Maya Moore, UConn’s star player, would probably make the men’s team at a number of good Division I schools. Women can be fantastic athletes; just because an athlete is a woman does not make her automatically inferior. What I’m trying to say is that men’s and women’s sports both have their merits, even if, perhaps, the UConn women’s basketball team couldn’t beat the UConn men’s team. Would they have to, in order to prove that they are worth watching? Does it really take anything away from men’s sports to admit that women can be great athletes who are also worthy of our attention?

People say that they don’t watch women’s sports because they want to watch “the best,” and it’s understood that women obviously aren’t. But the UConn women’s basketball team is the best in the women’s game, and this year they are well on their way to winning the NCAA March Madness tournament for the third year in a row (Note: this article went to print before UConn’s Final Four game on Sunday). When the competition is evenly matched, particularly at an elite level, how could it not be competitive and entertaining?

I’m not saying that women’s sports are better than men’s sports, nor am I suggesting that there should not be separate leagues for men and women. And I am definitely not saying that if you don’t watch women’s sports, it’s because you’re “anti-woman.” All I want to suggest is that women’s sports don’t inherently suck. It’s pretty demoralizing to be a woman athlete and for it to be “common knowledge” that in spite of your accomplishments, men will always be better. I’m tired of the battle of the sexes in sports; there’s room at the top for both men and women.

The post Against the patriarchy of sports appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Ask any rugby player about their injury history and they will often have many stories to tell. When I interviewed McGill Varsity rugby players Josh Balloch (fly-half), Gideon Balloch (winger), and Valentine Sergeev (flanker), they all had this to say about their own injuries: “I’ve been pretty lucky.” They told me of broken noses, concussions, a week’s worth of memory loss, injured backs, and “dislodged” ribs. But even so, they are probably right to describe themselves as lucky.

A compounding factor is the tendency of elite athletes to refuse to call it quits after getting hurt, thus worsening the damage. “Everybody plays through injuries all of the time,” said Gideon Balloch. “It is emasculating to have to stop playing because of injuries. But there are also cases where it’s stupid, or impossible, to keep playing.” But what most people might consider “stupid” or “impossible” is probably a lot less than what it would take to sideline a McGill Redmen rugby player.

Since the expectation is that they will continue to play through pain, players who are not as willing to make the sacrifice can be judged. “I was definitely made fun of when I came off with the rib injury because I had continued to play, so it appeared that I could play,” said Josh Balloch. “That added to the illusion that I was being a sissy.” Not all players are equally under suspicion, however. “Knowing the person is really what makes the difference,” Sergeev explained. “Someone who you associate with being a little soft, I guess, you’ll automatically think that maybe he’s just being soft again. But [for] guys I’ve always seen as tougher, if they get injured I’m actually kind of worried. Because if they say it hurts, it hurts.”

This isn’t to say that injuries are not taken seriously in rugby; in such a dangerous sport, “you don’t really want to ever be on the field when you’re not 100 per cent,” according to Josh Balloch. But, at the same time, players pushing themselves too hard – sometimes at the request of their coach or other players – are far from unheard of. “I’ve seen some pretty uncomfortable things,” said Sergeev. “Sometimes player safety is definitely put after winning.”

There are myriad reasons why a player would choose to sacrifice their body for the game. “The overt motivations are winning and partaking in something as great as playing for a team,” said Gideon Balloch. Sergeev also listed school pride and playing for your teammates as contributing factors. But when bodily sacrifice is coded as  masculine behaviour – and players who fail to live up to these expectations are passed off as “sissies,”  “bitches,” or “girls” – is it really out of the question to suggest that fear of emasculation may play a role?

“I would say that there is a certain aspect of being emasculated or seen as more feminine that is involved there,” clarified Josh Balloch, “but I think at this point, it manifests itself under the surface. Sometimes people do call you a girl, but there’s sort of an understanding that is built when you’re growing up that this is masculine, this is feminine, and you don’t have to say it in so many words because everyone has a common understanding of that.” A fear of emasculation may not consciously contribute to risky on-field behaviours, but the conflation of masculinity with playing through pain in pursuit of victory is so firmly entrenched in the culture of contact sports that it does not have to be explicit – the effects are still there.

It is not a coincidence that many athletes often describe sports as a war. “This is a war. This is a battle,” said Sergeev. “People go to war, they sacrifice themselves, so you should too. They sacrifice their bodies and their minds for a greater cause, and that’s the same mentality you adopt in rugby. Is it a war? Yes, but not in the sense that you want to kill people or destroy things. It’s a war in the symbolic sense.” In war, as Sergeev explained, it is expected that soldiers will put their bodies on the line for their country. Sports culture often conflates competition with war, and these risks on the field are thought to be justified.

Perhaps the players are not consciously thinking about masculinity, but it is certainly implied in our feelings toward the game; in fact, masculinity may be the reasoning behind them. Masculinity is sacrifice. Masculinity is physical dominance. Masculinity is winning.

Masculine privilege is a double-edged sword. The players that are considered the most masculine – the hard-hitters, the top-scorers, the guys that never have to come out of a match – receive a great deal of respect from their teammates, their opponents, and their fans. In a lot of ways, masculinity itself is a competition: for some to win, others must lose. Being an elite athlete in an aggressive sport, particularly if you’re one of the best, is one way to win.

Of course, this all comes at a price. This is not particular to rugby, since playing through injury is common for most athletes – men and women alike. When considering the long-term effects, one need only reflect on the fact that the life expectancy of professional football players is twenty years lower than that of other men due to a lifetime of medical maladies and concussions. Injuries build up – they do matter.

The players that I interviewed talked a great deal about the benefits of playing varsity rugby: friends, school involvement, mental strength, physical fitness, life lessons on hard work and dedication, and even a vague mention of “rugby bunnies.” But you can’t ignore the price that almost every player must pay along the way.

The post Sacrificing bodies for reputation appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The ambivalence associated with the term likely stems from its definitional ambiguity; many people do not agree on precisely what being a “puck bunny” means. The Canadian Oxford Dictionary defines it as “a young female hockey fan, especially one motivated more by a desire to meet the players than by an interest in hockey.” I suppose that someone forgot to tell them that most female hockey fans would be infuriated to be called a puck bunny, or that it is extremely sexist to call all young female hockey fans puck bunnies, while young male hockey fans are simply “hockey fans.” Under this model, male hockey fans are authentic and neutral, while female fans are seen as less legitimate than their male counterparts.

In a strange reversal of the world order, the UrbanDictionary definition is less offensive and more correct than the previous definition. According to a contributor on the site:

“A ‘hockey fan,’ usually female, who only likes the sport because they hope to/already slept with the players on a team, and generally knows nothing about it. Or pretty much any girl that only likes the Penguins because they have Sidney Crosby.”

In other words, puck bunnies are women whose hockey interest is primarily directed towards having sex with players as opposed to what goes on during the game. Since the term “puck bunny” is often used to dismiss female fans as ignorant fan girls, it is easy to see why a passionate, dedicated, and knowledgeable female fan would balk at the suggestion that she is more interested in what is inside Sidney Crosby’s jock strap than the latest results.

The repeated dismissal of female fans as puck bunnies likely stems from the common assumption that women’s interest in sports is always related to men: women are fans because their boyfriends are, because they want men to be interested in them, or because they think that the players are hot. Evidently, the idea that a woman can be interested in something irrespective of any male influence is too revolutionary for some.

But even so, does it make a woman any less of a fan if her partner introduced her to hockey? Many women aren’t hockey fans simply because they aren’t expected to be in the same way that men are, and are therefore exposed to hockey considerably less. These women are dismissed as hockey fans simply because they took up an interest later in life, despite the fact that their boyfriend may have been the first person to expose them to the joys of the sport.

Women’s fanship is further discounted under the assumption that sexual attraction to players and genuine knowledge and passion for the game are always mutually exclusive. In a culture where hockey players are deeply loved, admired, and are considered to be the pinnacle of masculinity, many straight women (though I am certainly not suggesting that this includes all women fans) may have certain, shall we say, “romantic” feelings toward the players that they watch every week. What it means to be a fan was defined by men, and therefore the sexual detachment from players that is demanded of fans is possible for straight men (and hockey is a very homophobic sport, making it an unfriendly environment for queer men anyway) in ways that it is often not for straight women. The belief that a desire to marry Sidney Crosby (and honestly, who wouldn’t want to marry Sidney Crosby?) automatically renders women less knowledgeable of the game is just another way that women are denied legitimacy in hockey fan circles.

Regardless, women hockey fans are obviously a varied group. Many may have no interest in the players whatsoever. My point is that the definition of a fan must be expanded, and that the fan hierarchies that almost invariably place men over women must be challenged. Not calling women puck bunnies is one way that this can be done.

That said, there are women out there who would embrace the puck bunny label. Puck bunny status can be achieved by doing anything from dating a couple of hockey players in high school, to sneaking up to hotel rooms or frequenting the bars, restaurants, and clubs where NHL hockey players are known to go in an effort to bed said hockey players. The sexual choices of puck bunnies should be as respected as any other; their sex lives are no one’s business but their own, and as long as sex is consensual, respectful, and honest, I don’t see why anyone should have the right to judge.

Unfortunately, calling these women puck bunnies is very often a form of judgment. In a society where female sexual agency is more often treated with contempt than respect, and sexuality outside of long-term, heterosexual monogamous relationship is thought to be immoral, calling someone a puck bunny is just another way to slut-shame.

Ultimately, calling someone a puck bunny is almost always an insult; either it accuses them of not knowing anything about hockey, or it refers to their sexual pursuit of hockey players in a judgmental manner. Can the term be re-appropriated?  Some women, including several female hockey bloggers, are attempting to do so by proudly referring to themselves as puck bunnies while simultaneously brandishing their knowledge of the game, which often surpasses that of men. Will this give women any more legitimacy in the hockey world? Unlikely.

Personally, I wish the term a swift and painful death. It has insulted and de-legitimized women for long enough.

The post On the offensive appeared first on The McGill Daily.

When Massey ruled Liverpool midfielder Raul Meireles’s assist to striker Fernando Torres’s goal onside, Gray and Keys – incorrectly assuming that their microphones were turned off – blasted Massey for the perceived incorrect call. Keys suggested that, “Somebody better get down there and explain offside to her.” Gray responded, “Can you believe that?  A female linesman…women don’t know the offside rule… Why is there a female linesman? Somebody’s fucked up big.” Video replay showed that both Meireles and Torres had been very much onside, and that Massey – not Gray and Keys – made the correct call.

Fortunately, the response to their remarks was swift and condemnatory. Sky Sports executive director Piara Powar said of their actions: “It is unacceptable that two of British football’s biggest names are heard espousing views, whether intended for broadcast or not, that undermine and disparage the efforts of women in the game.” Both were immediately suspended from their commentating duties.

Gray’s contract has since been terminated, after a videotape of him sexually harassing fellow Sky Sports personality Charlotte Jackson surfaced last Tuesday, following the incident. Keys has also resigned. Sadly, Massey must now suffer in addition to the insults that have been directed at her. She has been asked to take a break from officiating because – according to Mike Riley, the general manager of Professional Game Match Officials – “[in] any football match the focus should not be on the officials but on the players and the game itself.” What a shame that she has to accept the consequences of others’ inappropriate and offensive behaviour.

As a female fan of the English Premier League, I am pleased that both Keys and Gray have been relieved of their duties. A message must be sent that this kind of overt sexism is not to be tolerated. But am I surprised that these two men felt it was acceptable to discuss amongst themselves (and, unbeknownst to them, millions of Sky Sports viewers) women’s alleged ineptitude when it comes to the basic rules of the game? Unfortunately, no.

To write this off as an isolated incident would do little to address the profound sexual inequalities that persist in sports. Admittedly, there are few today who would be so foolish and ignorant as to suggest that women don’t know the offside rule. Gray and Keys do not represent every soccer fan, pundit or commentator. The almost universal reprobation of their comments by newspaper and television media emphasize that, at least in public, this view is unacceptable.

However, this does not change the fact that professional sports and sports broadcasting are both very much male domains where women are rarely – if at all – present. A recent “Gender in Televised Sports” study by Michael Messner and Cheryl Cooky showed that women’s sports receive 1.6 per cent of coverage on American news and highlights shows – the lowest figure ever recorded in the twenty years that this study has been conducted (the highest was 8.7 per cent in 1999, which is still incredibly poor). Additionally, study after study has shown that in the rare examples of women’s sports coverage, women are often sexualized, less respected than their male counterparts, and discussed in terms of their roles as mothers rather than their athletic achievements. Women are seldom included in sports broadcasts in any meaningful way – unless their purpose is to be sexy for what broadcasters might believe to be an all-male audience. Commercials shown during NFL and NHL broadcasts at best don’t show any women at all, and at worst are offensive and demeaning toward women.

On a personal level, I am often told that I “know a lot for a girl.” This is almost a compliment, considering that I am often accused of being a sports fan because I “think that the players are hot,” or that women can’t be good sports fans at all. This is particularly interesting considering that women make up 47.2 per cent of major league soccer fans, 46.5 per cent of MLB fans, 43.2 per cent of NFL fans, 40.8 per cent of fans at NHL games, and 37 per cent of NBA fans.

And, despite the fact that women are playing (and excelling at) sports in unprecedented numbers, there continues to be a pervasive belief that no matter what, women will always be inferior athletes when compared to men. When it is believed that women can’t play sports well enough to take notice, or that women can’t watch sports with the same “skill” as men, how far of a stretch is it to say that women have no place as officials – or worse – that women have no place in the game at all?

Punishing Gray and Keys can only do so much to challenge the sexist attitudes that continue to validate the exclusion of women in sports. When women are fully respected as athletes, commentators, and fans, perhaps remarks such as these will truly be an aberration. Eradicating sexist attitudes in sports requires much more than firing the “bad apples” – the entire culture must be challenged.

The post Commentators caught offside appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The McGill Daily:  What made you decide to start your blog, “Hockey Dyke in Canada”?

Meg Hewings: I had played hockey, I guess, for a very long time. Ever since I was at McGill, I started to think a lot about sports and women in sports. In my time at McGill, the program was really underfunded, when I started there it was really rag-tag, really loose. We would lose 14-0. There were lots of ways in which politically, and personally, I was starting to see sports was different for men and women. Looking at the history of women and hockey in particular, I started to notice that women had been playing for a very long time, some of the first organized leagues happened in Montreal. It was kind of a feminist moment for me both as a player and as a student activist. I was starting to look at all of the ways in which sports matter in the world and are important to me. As far as the blog, I had been working on these kinds of issues, and I write about them sometimes. For me to follow women’s hockey as a journal… When I was at McGill, I was dating another Megan, so I became “Hockey Dyke Meg”… in 1998 there were lesbians on that team, and it was an exciting moment where lesbians were playing in the public sphere… Can a Canadian hockey player be a dyke?  And so this sort of has been part of my evolution for a long time, and I wanted to claim that space because no one else really does. Sports is a very orthodox place in many respects, and you have to toe the line, you have to be part of a team. I think that there are interesting ways in which it challenges society. Those are the things I wanted to tease out in the blog.

MD: Despite the fact that women account for 40 per cent of hockey fans, as you pointed out on your blog, why are they continually marginalized by the NHL?

MH: Well, they probably actually account for more than 40 per cent. NHL numbers, and the figures that they have right now across the board… are hovering around 44 to 45. You could basically say that women are equally into sport as men are. And you know – if they actually did see women represented in sports pages, or we saw a range of reporters reporting on different kinds of styles of play in sports – you might actually see that women might take more of an interest in picking up a sports section. Ad execs basically said, “Well, it’s a lucrative market, the men’s game. We’re only going to sell them, and we’re only going to sell a certain brand of masculinity – of hypermasculinity.” That’s what has really defined sport in North America, is the top men’s team sports, football, baseball, basketball, and hockey. And in a lot of ways, it negates the different ways not only to play hockey, but also that you can do sport in general. The ways you organize it, the way you play it, the style of play. The fact that women have been ignored as a potential audience and as potential players is interesting. Look at a sport like tennis, where everyone had this “a-ha!” moment: “Oh right!  When we give women prize money and the access to resources and training, they can put on a show that is pretty fucking awesome to watch.” I think that you’re going to start seeing that happen with women’s team sports. But it’s going to be a lot slower. It takes a lot more resources to actually build a team.

MD: It seems like women’s sports only make headlines when there are instances of rule-breaking and controversy. What did you think of the media’s response to the Canadian women’s national team and their post-gold medal game celebration on the ice involving beer and cigars?  Do you think that the response would have been similar had it been the men’s national team?

MH: Of course not. I mean, when have you ever seen in sport a dynasty in men’s sports that has been made to feel ashamed for celebrating a victory?  This just never happens. It never happens that you create a team as brilliant as that Canadian women’s team was, and you get it shat on, basically, to put it in plain terms. This happens in women’s hockey a lot, key moments that could be historical and defining, and where if explained in context could really show you how Team Canada has been leading in a lot of really interesting ways, you see the opposite. I saw the press footage from the press scrum at the Olympics after that game, and all of the questions had to do with that, pretty much. The women were seriously there on the defence. It was really unbearable to watch, to be honest with you. And I can’t imagine that taking place in any other sport.

MD: How do you think that the macho, homophobic culture in men’s hockey compares to women’s hockey culture?  How is homophobia different in both of these contexts?

MH: I have a co-ed league now where I get to know guys and their experiences in sport, and, I mean, the locker room is a really homophobic and sexist place – even when it’s small things. That’s not the case for every team. Depending on who the coach is and what kinds of ground rules they lay out about respecting diversity on the team, you get a lot of different reactions. I know a lot of guys that left sport, and hockey in particular, because it is an unbearable environment.  At the NHL level, it is a business and I’m pretty sure that there are gay guys there, but they are not visible and they are quiet to themselves. NHL guys, they don’t know who they are, and if they do, there is a culture of silence and secrecy around those issues. And if someone were to come out, I think that it would do a lot for the sport. We’re seeing a lot around bullying in the US, and it really takes someone to take up that space and ultimately I don’t see why they wouldn’t support them.

There was that really terrible tragedy where Brian Burke, the general manager of the Toronto Maple Leafs – his son came out and he actually died a few months later… That was a really big moment in the sport. He is a really important figure, and the fact that he stood by his son meant a lot. I think that there is a lot to be said for camaraderie in teams, and when you prove yourself on a certain number of other levels, it’s like, whatever. It has been proven in a number of other sports that if you’re a champion athlete, you can screw whom you want. As far as women’s sports go, women’s sports are a really loaded place for homosexuality. I think that they always have been. They can be really accepting environments on some levels, but there can be tension. There are lots of queer women in sport, gay women, or trans people in sport, and we don’t hear about them. Maybe that’s because they’re being quiet, and also because when you’re an athlete at a high level, you don’t want a lot of attention being drawn from your sporting practice into your sexual life, and I think that’s fair enough.

I think that women’s sports have done a better job of that. Although it’s still very quiet. Not, “Rah, rah, we have big lesbians on our teams.”

MD: Women’s hockey is a different game from men’s hockey, and in the eyes of many, an inferior one. Sports are conceptualized as war, where violence is tolerated if not encouraged, and hits and fights are what bring in the revenue. How can women’s hockey work to get respect while simultaneously avoiding the negative aspects of the masculine model of sport?  Is this re-conceptualization of sport as we know it really a possibility?

MH: The truth is there is no way to calculate the number of NHL fans that have been turned off by some of the goonish behaviour and hits to the head that are really kind of horrific to watch. There is no way to understand how those kinds of hits are damaging to some of the players that we enjoy seeing perform. So, I think that one of the first misconceptions is actually that. There is a whole range of people that would like to watch hockey without hits and fights. I’m not trying to diss or take anything away from people that like that in their hockey. Do you want your young child to be playing a sport where they can potentially have concussions and be concussed for the rest of their lives?  I have lost brain cells from being hit in a sport that doesn’t have hitting. I think that there is a real tension there, and okay, yeah, some people want to see the most hypermasculine of that in their hockey. And, the NHL has appealed to that for a very long time. But there is also a way in which the reasons that there was hitting in women’s hockey, and the reasons that it was taken out was because there is no insurance, and one of the major reasons that women don’t get involved in the sport is because they don’t want to get injured, or their parents don’t want them to get injured, and we might say that’s a sexist response, but it’s also actually quite logical, in my view. Being a player, and being an adult… I want to go to work the next day. I think the people that participate in hockey and the people who watch it, there is a wide range of people who actually want to see hockey played without those things. Now, hockey without those things is a really exciting game. You might say it’s not real hockey, but well, what is real hockey?  And who gets to define what it is?

Women’s hockey is a really exciting game to watch when it’s played well: the space gets opened up for them, there is a lot of crisp passing, exciting play-making, it allows for a range of bodies to participate. The way that Wayne Gretzky got to participate was by putting in an enforcer. What if it was possible that all kinds of different guys could play in the NHL? What if it wasn’t super beefy and six foot-eight? We have men’s pro sports on steroids, now, basically. The NHL is amazing calibre hockey, but this argument that people make that women’s hockey is only midget AAA, well, that’s not true. The national team played midget AAAs and beat them all along on the course to the Olympics this year. So, you know, there is no real apt comparison between the two. People that make this argument, I would insist again on the basic fact that girls playing now who are sixteen, seventeen, with all of the same privileges and access to facilities that boys had. When you watch under-18 national team playing right now, your mind is blown. Any one of these people that make the argument that says that women’s hockey isn’t as exciting or fun to watch haven’t really looked at how well these girls can play. Hockey is yet to have this “a-ha!” moment, and it is in part because of the context of no one actually talking about the difficulties. It’s like we forgot how difficult it was to build an entire league called the NHL, how difficult it was to build hockey globally…

There’s no reason that this can’t be the place where we have an international [women’s] pro league. To be honest, maybe I’m deluded, but I think that there’s an audience. It’s just a matter of funding. That is a huge hurdle, especially in women’s sport and leadership. There is a lot that has to come together.

Why is their idea of hockey that it also includes boxing?  Europeans also find this strange. Hockey players. Everyone that we talked to at the World Hockey Summit, European hockey players, are very baffled by this… There are lots of people in the NHL that would rather see a different kind of game…

MD: A lot of the fights are really staged, they don’t really seem to have a purpose. And what Sean Avery did [in November]…

MH: My experience with this sport is that bullies are allowed to stay in it. They are given their place, and to be honest, once you kick those kids out of the playground, it becomes more fun. No one wants to play with that guy. I agree that a big hit or a fight can shift the momentum in the game, and it is a tool that is used in that way, but another way to do that is to play together really well and get a goal. There are many different ways to shift momentum in the game, and I think that people understand the nuance, and the ways in which you can be sophisticated about that.

The post Leveling the playing field appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Some things that you probably didn’t know about our Martlets: This win brought them to an 84-game winning streak against Quebec University Hockey League opponents and they are going for their sixth-straight league title. They have won the nationals in two out of the last three years. In addition, their head coach, Peter Smith, was the assistant coach for the Canadian women’s national team at the 2010 Vancouver Olympics. Charline Labonté, starting goaltender for the Martlets, competed in both the 2006 and 2010 Olympics. The McGill women’s hockey team is arguably the best team at McGill. So why is no one there to support them?
The Martlets’ winning formula includes North America-wide recruitment, an incredible coaching staff, and an unbeatable reputation. And for female hockey players, university hockey is where they will probably get the most ice time in their entire playing careers. “[In men’s hockey] the cream of the crop play in the NHL, whereas in women’s hockey most of the women players want to go to university in either Canada or the U.S.,” said Smith. “For most of these women who are playing for the Martlets, this is the pinnacle of their career. … For many of them, it’s the top environment that they’re going to be involved in. They’re very appreciative for the opportunity they have to come to university.”

And as Smith explained to me, “Success begets success.” The fact that McGill has won championship after championship will certainly do a great deal to stimulate interest in coming to play here.

But despite all of this, the atmosphere at the game is pretty subdued. No one is shouting insults at the referee or cheering on the Zamboni as he does his rounds in between periods. No one is spilling beer as they gesticulate wildly to celebrate yet another goal. In fact, beer isn’t even on sale; there are no concessions. The closest that anyone ever came to banging on the glass was when a member of the McGill Fight Band fell from the chair he was standing on.

When asked about the task of getting more fans to come to games, Smith admitted, “It’s a battle, certainly.”

Any analysis as to why no one was at this game has to include the fact that McGill students are famously apathetic and no one really comes out to watch any game played by any team. Whenever students discuss McGill athletics, they’re more likely to speak with embarrassment than admiration. Even though the McGill men’s rugby team has won the Quebec championships for the past four years, they recently held an event promoting their game against Concordia in order to increase attendance. The event, called, “Fill the First Row” had the modest goal of doing exactly that. Based on the usual attendance of the men’s rugby games, filling the first row was probably pretty ambitious.

To get more insight into the atmosphere at McGill hockey games, I talked to the person who probably goes to more hockey games than anyone else: Daily staffer Aquil Virani, the Brigade Leader of the McGill Fight Band. “The atmospheres of McGill Hockey games, for both the Redmen and the Martlets, usually fall within two categories: the ordinary and the extraordinary,” said Virani. “Your average, dull occasion sees very few fans in a very tame setting. … However, when a game coincides with a special event, whether it is ‘Fill the Arena’ or a huge event that features hockey on its agenda, the atmosphere is what you might expect when you throw hundreds of university students in an enclosed space with plenty of alcohol. Packed rows of rowdy fans repeat their ‘McGill once, McGill twice’ chants endlessly and taunt the opposing players with enthusiasm and cheekiness.” Sadly, however, it seems the success of the Martlets hockey team still doesn’t make them worth “Filling the Arena” for. “In my experience,” acknowledged Virani, “these special occasions usually feature the Redmen.”

While you can make the apathy argument to explain the lack of interest in the McGill women’s hockey team, you certainly cannot ignore the cultural context in which this hockey team exists. When the Canadian women’s team won their third straight gold medal at the Vancouver 2010 Olympics, 5.8 million Canadians tuned in. When Sidney Crosby devastated the Americans with that golden goal, 16.6 million viewers (fifty per cent of the Canadian population) watched the entire game, while eighty per cent of Canadians watched at least part of the game. Explaining this disparity is easy: women’s hockey does not enjoy nearly the same level of respect as men’s hockey.

Cathy Chartrand, defender and captain of the Martlets hockey team, explained, “People don’t buy into it. They think, ‘Oh it’s women. It must be slower, the game is not physical, they can’t body check or anything like that.’” And when asked about the levels of funding for boys and girls hockey: “It’s not even close.” But the inequality doesn’t stop there. As Chartrand explained, male hockey players have many more opportunities to practice four or five times a week from a young age, whereas for women, university hockey is their only chance for that kind of ice time. And unfortunately for these women, university is only four or five years. “If you look at boys’ hockey, the NHL is at the top, and for us it’s the Olympics, but in between there’s not much,” lamented Charline Labonté. “So we have a lot of very talented girls, but once they’re done university, there’s nothing else. Most of them are done at 22, 23, and it’s too bad, there’s no following after that. Or even before, sometimes. It’s just a lack of leagues, and involvement from everyone.”

The prevailing opinion is that women’s hockey, without the hitting, the fights, and the strong male bodies, is inferior. But according to Andrea Weckman, a goaltender for the Martlets, because there’s less “body-bashing,” the women’s game allows for “more technique, good plays, [and] finesse.” Chartrand agrees: “Yes, the game is different; that’s what makes it interesting. It’s fast. It’s nice plays. We don’t have the boys’ mentality where they just get in the zone and shoot. … With girls it’s always nice plays, it’s a very strategic game, and a lot of technique is involved compared to boys.” When asked what they would say to anyone who claims that women aren’t as good at hockey as men, Labonté responded: “Come watch. You’ll be pretty surprised.”

Female hockey players face an uphill battle that begins the first time that they lace up their skates – from a lack of funding, to a lack of supports to a lack of leagues to participate in. Perhaps, as McGill students, we owe it to these dedicated and talented athletes to go to their games: to watch, and to be surprised. With all the success they have had, they deserve an audience.

The post Martlets sing to empty seats appeared first on The McGill Daily.