Sexism in ice hockey

I haven’t done any posts about the Olympics (nor about anything else for a while), even though they are being held in British Columbia, where I live. Basically, I was not thrilled with bidding for it and building some of the venues, as the funds could have been better spent elsewhere. Nevertheless, as we got them, we had might as well make the Olympics as successful as possible.

With that in mind, I’d like to congratulate Team Canada for beating the United States 2–0 in the final yesterday, and winning our third consecutive gold medal. I’d also like to take the liberty and complain about sexist rules or situations in women’s ice hockey:

• The recent blowout wins by Canada and the US have resulted in accusations of “poor sportsmanship” and running up the score, and calls for a mercy rule. Similar blowouts in men’s competition didn’t get the same response (cite).
• Full face masks are also mandatory in women’s ice hockey (cite). I have no objection to requiring both men and women to wear face masks; I object to requiring only women to wear them. There is absolutely no need for such a rule; why do we need to promote the stereotype that women are all dainty and delicate?
• Bodychecking is not allowed in women’s hockey (cite). Supposedly, in the 1990 World Championship, bodychecking was allowed because European teams were behind Canada and the United States, and so this was though to help equalize competition. The story goes further that since North American women learnt to play against men, they were a lot bigger than Europeans, who learnt to play against other women. For that reason, bodychecking made the competition less equal, and hence bodychecking was eliminated in time for the 1992 World Championship at the behest of European national teams. I am skeptical of this story as, to me, it reads just like an urban legend. But anyway, women’s hockey is better than the men’s game precisely because the lack of bodychecking shows the beauty of passing and skating better. But why is it that we have to promote the stereotype that women cannot handle a contact sport and are so “delicate” that they need so much “protection” from themselves, whereas for men this isn’t necessary?
• The International Ice Hockey Federation, which governs the sport and organizes championships and the Olympic tournament, does not hold a women’s championship in Olympic years, even though it is perfectly capable of holding the men’s tournament every year (cite).
• Update: I think this picture from Brad Cran shows another double standard regarding how some of our Olympic champion women celebrated after winning gold versus how one of our champion men celebrated after winning gold (via Frank Frink commenting at the Unrepentant Old Hippie. At least there will be no IOC investigation (cite).

Brilliant study supporting abstinence–only? Not quite

Social conservatives, wingnuts, and sexophobes are using a new study to wave the flag about discredited, abstinence ignorance–only sex education. In reality, they are misrepresenting the nature of the study. I also have serious doubts about whether the study actually means anything.

The form of abstinence–only sex education in the study differed significantly from the most common form of abstinence–only sex education. From a  Washington Post article on the study (emphasis added):

Several critics of an abstinence–only approach said that the curriculum tested did not represent most abstinence programs. It did not take a moralistic tone, as many abstinence programs do. Most notably, the sessions encouraged children to delay sex until they are ready, not necessarily until married; did not portray sex outside marriage as never appropriate; and did not disparage condoms.

“There is no data in this study to support the ‘abstain until marriage’ programs, which research proved ineffective during the Bush administration,” said James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth.

This is different from Bush–style ignorance–only. Telling people to abstain from sex until they are ready to have sex is a completely different thing from moralizing and telling them that premarital sex is evil and lying about contraception. Being married and being ready to have sex are different things. There is nothing wrong with telling people to wait to have sex until they are ready. There is also nothing wrong with two consenting people having sex, whether they are married or not. Indeed, social conservatives and wingnuts are so against premarital sex that the joke is really on them regarding this study as they are beating the drum of a study that did not discourage premarital sex!

Indeed, the form of abstinence–only used in the study was different enough from Bush–style that it would not have qualified for funding because it was not based in Bronze Age morality that discouraged premarital sex and did not discourage contraception (cite).

In addition, there are issued with what this study has actually determined. Echidne raised issues with how truthful the participants might have been, and I agree that this might be a concern. In addition, the abstract (see the first link in this post) does not provide information about secondary outcomes, such as pregnancies or STD infections. This is mainly because the average age of participants was 12.2 months, with the follow–up lasting two years. It is entirely possible that the participants might delay having sex for a bit longer, but once they do start, they will still have sex in an unsafe manner. In this sense, the study won’t really mean anything; causing people to have unsafe sex when they are 17 years instead of when they are 16 isn’t really making a difference.

This post uses information provided by Hullabaloo and Echidne of the Snakes.