Wednesday, November 01, 2006
taking it like a man part I (a.k.a. what makes me sick)
*This is part one of many posts about gender issues surrounding women's sports illustrated by the Pasternak sisters human rights case in Winnipeg, Manitoba.
The last couple of months, a major story here in Winnipeg is that of the Pasternak twins (17 year old women) who attempted to play on the men's hockey team at their high school. It went to court as a human rights case, and they won the right to try out. This has been putting people on edge ever since. Reading the "letters to the editor" in the local paper made me sick to my stomach, the way that people feel comfortable in tearing apart another person, reducing them to object, and suggesting that they are less than human for challenging inequality. Here is a quote from Lindor Reynalds commenters on her column titled "Talk of the Town"
To all the self deprecating women who still vicariously feel the *stings* of past injustices I will say that M. Reynolds had it right the first time-they are spoiled little brats. Just because someone believes in something & creates a brewhaha about it doesn't mean they deserve our respect. I move around a few different sports circles in & outside of Winnipeg and I have yet to here a good word about this outcome, from either sexes. One coach has seen them play and made the comment that they were & are average players and would never had made the boys team whether they had been playing or not the last few years. All this nonsense is not only based on false pretenses-the girls never wanted to make the boys team, but the monetary *‘damages* they received is nothing short of disgraceful. Where do you think that money is coming from? It is coming right of Manitoba Amateur Sport, & their mission statement is, & I quote: "“An athlete-centered Sport Manitoba leads and supports participation and achievement in sport by all Manitobans." So not only haven't these 2 snots not been involved in sport for the last years, they have taken $7000 away from other kids who just want to play. Again, I will say it: SPOILED BRATS!This is comment is not unusual, nor is it apart of some of the worst, hateful letters to the editor that have been printed to date. I do want to contrast the comment in three ways:
Comment by Jerome — September 29, 2006 @ 12:55 pm
First, the girls did receive about $3500 each get coaching and support in their hockey career. This came after a long court battle - so if you think they did it for them money, ask your self "if they did it for the money, why did they do it for such a small amount?" The point - for $3,500 you are not doing it for the money.
Secondly, are they not part of the category of "kids that just want to play?" My guess (and assumption) is that the write means "they should be happy to just play on a poor quality team."
Thirdly, I must let readers know that I too was prevented from pursuing my goals and was not allowed to play hockey (no girls team at the time) in my home town. They denied my request because they had no change room for me and I very vaguely remember being told "if you play, you are taking some boy's spot on the team." As a young kid of about 9, I did what all girls did in our town - I "chose" figure skating instead.
I ask you - is that acceptable to ask a girl to not try out for a boy's team because it might cause a boy to not be able to play? What gender (gender meaning the social construction of male and female roles in society) issues are working to prevent both men and women from reaching a conclusion to this issue? Why is this issue so important that people feel they have to call each other names?
