Remove ‘women’s’ from title
Now there’s a headline.
NWHL changes its name to remove ‘women’s’ from title
Yayyyyyyyyyyy wait what?
The National Women’s Hockey League is history. Welcome, Premier Hockey Federation.
North America’s first women’s professional hockey league to pay players a salary announced on Tuesday it is adopting the new name as part of a rebranding strategy.
Well then why not name it the Hotties Hockey Federation? Or how about the Pumpkin Spice Latte Hockey Federation?
“We felt it’s time for our players to be defined by their talent and skill,” Tumminia said. “It’s not like they’re female phenomenal. You’re just phenomenal.”
And the way to underline that point is, as always, to delete the word “women.” Sure.
Metropolitan Riveters captain Madison Packer said the new name levels the playing field.
“Respectfully, I don’t know if men always understand, especially for me, because I encounter it a lot,” Packer said. “We play with the same-sized puck, in the same-sized rink, the same nets. … So to remove that label, not only remove it but in the logo erase the ‘W,’ I think is empowering.”
Oh yes, erasing the W is so empowering.
In billing the change “No Labels, No Limits,” the federation also focused on having its new title be more inclusive by respecting the various gender identities of its players and fanbase.
So they’ll be more inclusive by including men, who will swiftly exclude women altogether? That’s the path to empowerment is it?
H/t Sackbut
Obviously this is bad, but I do think it’s sexist and unfair that women’s sports teams and groups are always called things like the Lady Volunteers and the Women’s National Basketball Association while men get to be the Volunteers and the National Basketball Association. I’ve always thought men’s teams and leagues should have to call themselves the men’s whatever (volunteers, nba, etc) instead of just the whatever without a gender tag.
Yes that I agree with. Default male is a very bad thing…but still I think women have to keep making their presence apparent, until that glorious day when default male disappears (right after the planet bursts into flames).
Which it appears on track to do sooner than expected.
Superficially, I kind of agree with this – depending on their actual rationale, of course.
Let me explain: I’m a huge rugby fan: I have a season ticket at my local premiership club here in England, Sale Sharks. Last year the club formed a professional women’s team under the same name and I’m taking the time now that we’re allowed to attend to go and watch them play (the women’s game is very enjoyable, btw).
The thing is, last year, any mentions in the press or listings on the relevant websites would refer to “Sale Sharks” and “Sale Sharks Women”. (Ditto for the other teams in the league, most of which have a men’s Premiership counterpart, too.) This got me to thinking ‘why not “Sale Sharks Men”?’ Why should the men’s team be the default? Things may have changed this year – I’ve seen mentions of the women’s team(s) without the “Women” add-on, so it may be that others have come to the same conclusion.
Now, I write amateur match reports for the supporters’ club on the games I’ve attended and I made the deliberate decision this year that my reports would not default to the men’s team. Where it is necessary to be specific, I will refer to “the men’s team” or “the women’s team”, otherwise I’ll just refer to “Sale Sharks” because the context should be enough.
So, yes, I personally will drop the “Women” – I could have deliberately added “Men” to the other reports but, on the one hand, I’m more likely to forget that and, on the other hand, giving both teams the same name emhasises that they are one club.
Now, the naming of two teams from the same club is not the same thing as the name of an entire league (NB the women’s rugby league here is called just “Allianz Premiership 15s”) but I feel that, if the intent is to stop defaulting to “men” in names, then there’s some justification there, since no-one is going to add “men’s” to the name of any league, are they?
Aaaaaaand I see others have made the point whilst I was waffling…
For high school sports the sports are listed by sex, separated in the standings and designated as “boys’ basketball, girls’ basketball,” etc, when there teams for each sex. Even in college, when there are teams available for both sexes they are reported as such. It’s when we hit the pros that this is an issue.
But, it occurs to me that once the “women’s” is dropped from the Hockey league, there won’t be any TiM’s to clamor to play because it doesn’t serve to validate them.
Unless they’re playing to win…
I wonder if men who acknowledge that they are actually men are allowed to participate in the league.
Others have made the point about “men’s swimming” and the like in school sports teams. Another point to consider, though: the PGA and the LPGA, for example. Some women have attempted to compete in PGA tournaments, and not done well. I don’t think women are actually excluded from PGA events, except by convention and lower ability, but men are not allowed to compete in LPGA tournaments. (I think some men-who-claim-to-be-women have competed.) Even if I’m wrong about the exclusion in the PGA, I suspect there are other similar situations. So there’s an “everybody, but really only men are sufficiently capable” league, and a “women-only” league.
Annika Sorenstam and Babe Didrickson competed in PGA tournaments. Sorenstam played two rounds at the Colonial, but didn’t make the cut. They are eligible to qualify, but few women attempted.
Try using the same reasoning to argue that ‘trans’ should be removed from trans organisations. I’m sure TRAs will be receptive.
Sackbut and Mike, many sports treat the mens league as the open league, where women are free to enter but usually don’t because they will likely not do well. Possibly the best example of this is in chess, where the reasons for the split leagues is cultural rather than physical. The open league has loads of women in it, but the top ranks are exclusively occupied with men; and then there is a women’s league open only to women.
TRAs frequently come up against this and arrive at the incorrect conclusion, not realising (somehow) that sexual dimorphism is a one way slope.
I was thinking of Michelle Wie, but I knew there were others. Six women have played PGA events, and only Babe Didrikson Zaharias has made the cut (which she did several times), although Wie came close.
So the PGA is officially open to women to qualify, they don’t need special invitation of some sort. Thanks for clarifying.
Holms, I did not know that about chess; very interesting, thanks.
@Holms
It is the same in Snooker – the “Main Tour” (where the Pros are playing) is open to both sexes in principle.
The Snooker association has actually just decided to reserve to spots (out of 128) on the main tour for women.