How do you define "equitable experiences" as used in the first paragraph of your post?

Wednesday, December 28, 2011 at 10:56am EST

Thanks for asking! Equitable experiences meaning that I would like to see the dividing lines fall between skill levels rather than between genders. I don't, necessarily, think that everyone should have the same experience when playing sports because different roles and positions will always ensure a difference. But I would like to see co-ed sports move away from the assumption that women always need a little help to be successful when competing against and with men. Therefore, equitable as viewing each player as valuable not based on their gender but by what they bring to the team. Currently, most of the co-ed programs use an "affirmative action" type approach, which is not equitable it merely reinforces difference.

Wednesday, December 28, 2011 at 12:35pm EST

It sounds very subjective. I suppose the question then becomes who should evaluate, rate and rank the "skill levels" and fairly judge a participant%u2019s "value" to the team? While women may have other reasons to compete, most men play to win. They aren't interested in a subjective, let's make everyone feel good approach to sports, particularly hockey. They also don't care if you bond with your girlfriend during the contest. I would add that their desire to win doesn't make them somehow dysfunctional although many from academia would like to make that association.

If you don't feel the quota approach is fair to women and you believe co-ed sports are a valid model then it makes sense to go with the "open" competition model that you indicate you feel is the best currently out there. Contextually it appears you feel you are a pretty competent hockey player. If so your performance should speak for itself and men will respect that. If you are good enough you get to play in the open model. If not you sit. Just like a guy that isn't strong enough to be in when it matters. That%u2019s what we call sex-neutral objective equality. The reason the co-ed quota system exists is that most women can't earn the right to play in your "open" model due to their inadequate skill levels. They subsequently don't feel good about themselves if they don't get in the contest and get treated like they know what they're doing, even if it costs their club the contest.

As a hockey freak you understand that when the gloves drop many "skills" go out the window and your value to your club is measured by your ability to step up to whatever challenge comes your way on the ice. To the extent you can't step up when the time comes you become a liability and someone that needs to be protected versus someone that can bring meaningful force to bear. If you believe that co-ed sports will somehow change that aspect of hockey or other sports in which conflict sometimes comes to a head I think you are being a bit naive. You of anyone should clearly understand that not only do most of your fellow male hockey dudes not care about your politically correct position concerning their sport but they will never change their basic approach. Until you can drop gloves you're a spectator on skates even if they let you dress out. Call yourself whatever you like if it makes the sisterhood happy.

Seems to me that you believe that women bring some sort of value to co-ed sports that men should appreciate and play to a significantly lower skill set level "just because%u201D. As you note men already understand they need to "tone down their game" in the co-ed environment. I'd add that most guys that are even semi-serious about a given sport don't go looking for a co-ed participation opportunity unless it involves a wife, girlfriend, potential girlfriend or co-worker that thinks it matters or could impact the guy's future in some way. Short of that they are going to play with other guys that can actually play hard and don't have to worry about hurting one of the girls that wanted in to validate her girl power.

I see you're working on an advanced degree. Even so quoting feminist sexual social constructionist theory as fact in this context is a flawed and ill-advised approach. I'd appreciate you citing independently confirmable and peer-reviewed sources validating you and your girlfriend's innate strategy, endurance and accuracy talents, which you feel are superior to those of the other sex. In that context I'd be happy to forward historical performance stats that clearly delineate times, distances and other clearly objective measurements of performance based upon the gender of the participant.

Finally and on an entirely different issue, I see you are Canadian, which comes as little surprise given your interest in hockey. In that context I'd appreciate some input from you concerning Canadian citizens on the rosters of collegiate women's hockey clubs in the United States. I see that almost fifty percent of the women on the rosters of the ECAC Women%u2019s Hockey Conference are Canadian citizens. It's particularly interesting that Ivy League institutions including Brown, Dartmouth, Harvard, Princeton and Yale have Canadian team membership of 45% including Dartmouth at 48%, Brown at 55% and Yale at 58%. I'm assuming that you have some knowledge of Title IX here in the States and I'd appreciate your opinion as to the appropriateness of Title IX supporting the granting of Ivy League educations to Canadian Citizens at the expense of young men and women U.S. Citizens.

Looking forward to your input.

Thursday, December 29, 2011 at 12:44pm EST

Wow! Okay, let's see if I can answer all that you have brought up:

1.) You are absolutely correct in saying that determining what an equitable system would look like is largely subjective, I agree. However, I don't think we can generalize to say that most women play sports for reasons outside of winning or competition. I certainly play to win/compete but I also think people who are drawn to team sports participate because of the camaraderie. I have no problem with guys wanting to win but lets put things in perspective here - most co-ed sports leagues are beer leagues, despite wins or losses no one is making a career out of their favourite sport.

2.) I agree that not all women would be comfortable enough or "good" enough to play in open competition; but, at the same time, I don't think most women want "pity" rules either. For example, my mother hates hitting of the "ladies tees", she takes every opportunity to hit off, what she calls "the boys tees". Like I said, the "gesture" of co-ed rules was nice but I think we have moved past the point of courtesy (or I HOPE that we have moved past the point of courtesy).

3.) I'm not entirely clear about your point about "dropping the gloves" - do you actually mean fighting in hockey? Or are we talking about a metaphorical "ability to protect myself on the ice"? If we're talking about actual fighting, it's not allowed in any recreational leagues that I know of, co-ed or otherwise, so I'm not sure why you think women would be a liability in this instance.

4.) I do not believe that men should have to play down in order to participate in co-ed sports. I would like to explore the possibility of men and women competing at their best on the same field. Is this possible? Maybe not but it doesn't seem like too many have put a lot of effort into figuring it out.

5.) I have completed my Masters now and am working in recreational programming. I have run into complaints in my day-to-day work about my program's current co-ed structure; hence, my blog post. I am not saying that women would/do excel at games of accuracy, strategy etc. but that it would be a step towards levelling the playing field because these skills do not play towards physiological advantages that men have (although endurance may).

6.) This certainly is a topic on a different tangent but funny that you include Brown in your statistics as my hockey playing friend I was alluding to played varsity for Brown. Anyways, I think the "appropriateness" comes down to what is the purpose of Ivy league athletics or NCAA athletics, which is to win, I would assume. Thus, you seek out the best players from wherever they hail. I was a competitive tennis player and I know that most of the US schools I was looking at boasted rosters full of international students (and not canadians since we aren't know for our tennis). Our Canadian Hockey League, which is a stepping stone to the NHL, has a rule of 2 international imports only - a way of keeping the CHL "pure". Not sure that I agree with it because it creates a sense of nationalism and us vs. them that I don't think is great for the game; but at the same time I can certainly understand wanting to keep spots open for those who are citizens. I guess in short, do you want the best competition or do you want collegiate sports to be a product of said nation?

I have a feeling we come from different sides of the bench on certain topics, given your comments about feminist social theory and the "sisterhood", but I appreciate the time and thought you have put into your comments. Thanks for reading and I look forward to more discussion.

Thursday, December 29, 2011 at 7:55pm EST