Tweet: @oakley: Join Oakley’s @GretchenBleiler #reusablechallenge and be entered to win tons of Oakley gear! oak.ly/wc9fix

A 21 Day Challenge not to use plastic bags, plastic water bottles or styrofoam.

Who’s in?

This year is the 40th anniversary of the passing of Title IX, landmark federal legislation which dramatically increased sport participation opportunities for females in educational contexts. We have many reasons to celebrate this day, and part of that celebration is learning from the pioneering women who have been instrumental in fighting for implementation and preservation of this important law. I want to share with you some of their wisdom.

• Dr. Mary Jo Kane, Director of the Tucker Center for Research on Girls & Women in Sport at the University of Minnesota often states, “In one generation we’ve gone from girls hoping there WAS a team, to girls hoping they’d MAKE the team.”
• Merrily Dean Baker, former Athletic Director at the University of Minnesota & Michigan State who also sat on the original committee that helped write guidelines for Title IX in 1972, told us this morning at a NGWSD celebration breakfast about her first foray into marketing women’s sport in the late ’70′s (there was no marketing and promotion of women’s sport at that time). She went to a marketing firm and got them to a campaign pro-Bono, and the theme of their campaign was “Not All Jocks Wear Them.” For obvious reasons, Baker told them that wasn’t quite the right tone.

Kane & Baker’s words highlight the progress that has been made, but gender equality in sports is still not a reality. Drs. Vivian Acosta and Jean Carpenter just released their 35 year update of the Women in Intercollegiate Sport report, in which they detailed that although 100 more female coaches of womenʼs teams are employed than in 2010, the total % of women coaching female athletes barely increased as is currently at 42.9% (in 2010 is was 42.6%).

Female boxers are fighting The International Amateur Boxing Association officials who are discussing whether women fighters should be urged to wear skirts in the ring at the 2012 Games. Many high level organizations around the globe rallied to write a position statement denouncing this rule. It reads:

This position is in line with our organizations’ overall mission of empowering women and advancing sport with the aim of catalyzing a sustainable sporting culture that enables and values the full involvement of women in every aspect of sport. We maintain that uniform guidelines for women athletes should not detract from respect for their dignity and professionalism, nor should they hinder athletic performance. Limiting women’s competition attire to skirts for the sake of accentuating gender or sexuality would detract focus from the athletic abilities and skills of these individuals and mark a step backwards for the sport of boxing and the sport movement as a whole. Women should be actively involved in decisions concerning changes in uniform rules, and these changes should take into consideration issues of gender equality and inclusiveness.

In the Sudan, the Islamic Fiqh Council in Sudan issued a fatwa (religious order) saying that it is forbidden for the country to create a women’s soccer team, deeming it an immoral act.

Today we should join together to celebrate advancements, but remain committed to fighting for social justice and gender equality for girls and women in sport around the globe. The winds of change prevail, but the direction it blows is largely up to us.

Gloria Steinem in a recent lecture for the Clayman Institute of Gender Research at Stanford invited everyone in the audience to do something outrageous for the cause of social justice. My invitation and challenge to you is to do ONE THING in the next calendar year that creates change for girls and women in sport contexts. Steinem closed her lecture by stating: “We must not hold our fingers to the wind. We must be the wind”

To read all the blogs in the 2012 National Women’s Law Center #NGWSD blog carnival, click HERE.

You can read the commentary on the MPR website, “Tale of two hockey players offers a sharp look at gender equity in sports”

Banning checking would primarily affect male hockey, as checking is illegal in female hockey. In many sports rules differ for the male and female version. For example: Lacrosse-males wear more protective padding. Basketball-women play with a smaller ball. Tennis-women play 2 of 3 sets (in most circumstances) and men play 3 of 5 sets. In short, different rules set up the male version of the sport to be “the real” version while females are left to play a version; in which they don’t have to play as long, play with rules that “protect” them, and make the game easier.  We are now 40 years post Title IX, I think females can handle it. Make one version of the game and make everyone play by those rules. This might help (some) people see women’s sport a real sport and advance gender equity. It might help people stop viewing the female version as “less than”, believe that females need protection, or that females are fragile and can’t sustain competitive effort as long as males. Making the rules equal might help people value women’s sport and female athletes in similar ways to their males peers.

Even if you don’t value girls’ and women’s sport, do you value the life, health and well being of females less than males? Is one person’s injury more important and newsworthy? In Minnesota right now, it appears this is the case.

You see, in short succession two young athletes were severely injured in hockey games following checks from behind. Jack Jablonski and Jenna Privette both currently have no feeling below the waist and remain in the hospital. Jablonski was injured first and just when we were about to resume “hockey as usual” Privette was injured.

The difference is the media treatment and public support for these two athletes has been drastically different. Google it.

Jablonski received calls from hockey coaches and players from all levels of play, celebrities tweeted support, MN Wild players visited him the hospital, a fund was set up, a logo was created and widely used as a badge (see pic on left) on Facebook and Twitter to show support, a “Support Jack Jablonski” Facebook page was created, fundraisers were organized all over the state, proceeds from games were donated, and Hockey Day Minnesota (Jan. 21, 2012), the annual hockey showcase that features high school games held outdoors on Lake Minnetonka, will be dedicated to Jack Jablonski’s family this year. In addition, The Wild, FOX Sports North and Wells Fargo will combine to host an all-day telethon beginning at 9 a.m., raising money for the Jack Jablonski Fund.

In the story announcing the Hockey Day Minnesota events, Privette was not even mentioned! Not one word.

Same injury(**) (***) Same sport. Different sex of athlete.

The local print and broadcast media were all over the Jablonski story. I heard about Privette on Twitter from Mark Rosen (@WCCORosen).  I’m not the only one who has noticed this disparity. In a small effort, people are being encouraged to support Privette’s recovery by wearing blue on Jan. 11. [which ironically I found out about on Twitter from Greg Litman (@GRLitman) who also works on WCCO]

If you Google “Jenna Privette badge”..the first  image is the Jablonski badge. The second image is connected to Jabs’ badge (see image on right). A sad symbol of how the value of male sport and therefore male athletes is somehow greater than female sport and female athletes.  If you Google Jenna Privette (as of 1/11/2012 at 9:07am) no stories about benefits or fundraisers, or calls, visits or tweets from famous people appear, with the exception of a “Support Jenna Privette” Facebook page. I’m sure the Privette’s need support too.

Come on Minnesota (and everyone else!) we can do better, and should do better. This is a challenge to the people organizing Hockey Day Minnesota. How about Hockey Day Minnesota be dedicated to BOTH Jablonski and Privette. Events that day feature both boy’s and girl’s games. How about having the girls’ game featuring Hopkins vs Minnetonka at 4:30 PM on Lake Minnetonka benefit and honor Jenna Privette? How about the proceeds from the telethon you are organizing be split between the Jablonski’s and the Privette’s? It is the right thing to do.

NOTE: Irony. One hour after I posted this blog, as a member of Minnesota Hockey I received the newsletter from MN Hockey President Dave Margenau. While he mentioned both families in the body of the newsletter, only the badge of Jablonski is included in the open letter (see graphic). Another example of the main premise of my blog.

**I have been corrected (see comment), the injuries are different Jablonski’s spinal cord is severed, Privette’s is not. My point is that as of right now at the time of writing this blog, both cannot move from the waist down. It is not know if or when Privette will recover.

***It has been suggested to me by someone MUCH more knowledgeable about the injuries that a more accurate statement would be: “Different injury*. Same sport. Different mechanism of injury. Different prognosis. Different sex of athlete.”

It is time to ban checking in boy’s and men’s hockey, not just raise the checking age, but get rid of it altogether.

I know this won’t be a popular idea. Raising the checking age in boys’ hockey hasn’t been popular either, but it is the right thing to do. Adversaries argue checking is fundamental to the game (read: the game, meaning men’s hockey which is the real hockey anyway). Big hits are exciting. Hockey isn’t hockey without checking. Taking checking out of hockey or raising the checking age makes it”wimpy”–code for: it will resemble women’s hockey, and feminizes males. (Read the USA Hockey column titled “Changing The Checking Age Does Not Soften Our Sport.” ). Males won’t want to play. It will put the USA at a competitive disadvantage. Nobody will pay for or watch hockey without checking… the counterarguments are many.

I play hockey. I am a hockey player in the largest women’s hockey league in the world (WHAM). I live in the State of Hockey (that is Minnesota for those who don’t know what I’m talking about). I am a hockey fan. I give hockey coach and sport parent workshops. I have researched psychosocial variables in hockey. I spent a good part of 2011 being part of discussions about concussions, and making a documentary on sport-related concussions. I get and understand the game of hockey.

If you know hockey, you know that checking is not allowed in women’s hockey. I favor that rule, even though I know many women want to have the opportunity to check, and at elite levels checking, er…I mean heavy body contact, does occur so why not make it legal. I have long thought checking should not be a part of any level or hockey, regardless of gender. If you make the argument that females shouldn’t check because it is dangerous, then why do we allow it in male hockey? Rather than argue that not letting females check is an outdated paternalistic rule, I’d rather argue another point. ( I will add however, that getting rid of checking for males, eliminates the idea that women’s hockey is “less than” or “not real hockey” because there is no checking, which could be a different blog).

KEY POINT: Are we less concerned with the health and well being of males? Do we feel it is OK to have males increase the likelihood of injury for our entertainment? Is putting males at increased risk for injury part of what it means to “be a man”?

I decided to write this blog because within a one week span here in Minnesota, two high school athletes have been severely injured as a result of checking. St. Croix Lutheran senior Jenna Privette suffered a serious spinal cord injury when she was checked from behind after taking shot and crashed into the boards. Jack Jablonski of Benilde-St. Margaret’s was paralyzed after he was legally checked into the boards. Would either of these injuries be prevented with a no checking rule or a much stronger stance on illegal checking from behind? I don’t know. What I do know is that FAR FEWER injuries would occur if checking were eliminated from male hockey, and through widespread educational efforts checking would be strongly discouraged and penalized in female hockey, and hockey in general.

Having the discussion is a worthy endeavor, regardless of if you agree with my premise or not.

1. Do not ascribe evil intent to your opponent.

2. “Faith is the courage to Be”-Wilk citing religious philosopher Paul Tillich

3. No one loses on purpose if they are a competitor.

There are MANY lessons and avenues for reflection embedded in these three nuggets. I’ll leave you to ponder them.

You can see the video of the panel on the espnW Summit website, along with many other great videos from the Summit on a variety of topics related to women’s sport.

I also conduct research on the topic of sport parents. One of our lines of research is examining the causes of what makes sports parents angry, and how the toxic climate and background anger created on youth sport sidelines affects children.

Almost a year ago in early 2010, I wrote and was interviewed about and  a local Minnesota sport parent who  assaulted a youth basketball commissioner following an in-house game played by sixth graders.

Unfortunately less than a year later, two more episodes of egregious sport parent behavior have again occurred in Minnesota. In the first, a father of a middle school boy punched his son after poor play in a basketball game. In the second, another father made terroristic threats and put a youth hockey coach in a choke hold after a disagreement with the coach following his 12 year old son’s hockey practice. (allegedly his son got into a fight with an opposing player, and used his hockey stick as a baseball bat, so the coach broke the fight up and scolded both players, of which the father took offense). Interestingly and related to this story is based on research, when children witness or hear their parents being violent or abusive, the children are more likely to act in similar ways.

In a series of studies I did with colleagues while at Notre Dame working in the Center for Sport and Character, we found that kids who perceived a high rate of background anger (parents yelling and screaming frequently at refs, coaches, other parents, and players), were more likely to report acting in unsportsmanlike ways on the field. Tree…Apple.  We can do better.

If we want youth sports to be a place where all kids can have the opportunity to have fun, learn skills, develop, make friends and learn life lessons while striving to win, the adults have to get it right. Sport parent education is a great step in creating a tipping point, and making positive change happen. It may not prevent the three egregious type events reported above, but it might. Educational efforts will certainly help a critical mass of sport parents, most of who want to do the right thing but have no clue what that looks like and why it matters for their children, get closer to getting it right. Once parents see youth sport from the perspective of their kids coupled with evidence, rather than their own lens…change is possible, and evidence-based educational programs accomplish this goal.

Youth athletic associations, clubs, school systems have to commit the time and resources to educational efforts or else real change will not occur. The tipping point will not occur without it. No Code of Conduct, banner, sign, Public Service Announcement, parent meeting, rule or policy will affect real change until the culture of youth sport and norms of sport parent behavior changes…and that does not happen without education.

What is more important, investing in: a) educational programming that helps create a positive climate for kids while striving to win, and gets parents on the same page in that goal, or b) doing damage control, prosecuting or defending lawsuits as a result of bad parent behavior? If your answer is “B” you will also have to invest and deal with the traumatic aftermath of children who are targets of, or are witness to, egregious sport parent behavior.

Investment of time and money reflects personal and organizational values. What does your organization value? Can you do better? Do you feel responsible for making it better for all kids?

What would youth sport look like if millions of families weren’t pursuing a college athletic scholarship? Would more athletes play only for the love of the game? Would they have more fun? Would they enjoy their experience more? Would they worry less about what team and at what level they play? Would the parents yell and scream less on the sidelines? Would fewer kids get burned out or chronically injured? Would fewer kids drop out of sport?

Meagan asked me one question that has stuck in my mind: If you could pick one thing to change about youth sports that would make a difference, what would it be? I had to pause a moment because there are so MANY things to change. I wanted to pick the the least common denominator, the one policy that I think would effect the greatest change.

My answer: Mandate equal playing time for all kids up until the age of 14.

In a previous blog post on playing time in youth sport I specified a model of “Playing Time Considerations” which included the many factors that go into making decisions about playing time. In that blog I included a quote by a colleague, “playing time is not a reward for displaying virtue, it is a means for developing virtue.”   Playing time is also a means for developing skill and mental toughness. You cannot improve if you sit on the bench. You also don’t develop if you quit because you never play, or you are cut because the coach doesn’t think you are good enough to play…and you haven’t hit puberty yet. Equal playing time is crucial up until puberty so that early and late developers get an equal chance to DEVELOP, play and have fun.

By creating an equal playing time policy in all sports, at all levels of play (i.e., developmental leagues, rec, in house, elite travel teams), it would change the culture of youth sport. The culture would be more about developing skill for ALL kids. Even on elite travel teams where all the kids are highly skilled and talented, some kids still play more than others (although they pay the same very high fees to play on the team). This does not seem right or fair or good for psychological, social, physical or moral development. All teams would strive to win, but at least all the kids would have an equal role in the outcome.

What do you think?

I have written quite a bit about the Lingerie Football League and my disdain for the league and their claims it promotes women’s sport (to read all my posts on the LFL, click here). Evidently I am not alone in feeling the LFL marginalizes female athletes, and women who  play real professional football. Two players from the KC Tribe team, Katie and Liz Sowers, put together an entertaining and informative video expressing how many women in the Women’s Football Alliance feel about the LFL.  This video is worth watching and sharing! One of their main points is that female athletes seem to only get recognized when they take off, or have very little clothing on (i.e., when they are portrayed is sexy ways…another topic I have written extensively about). If you want to see the most recent example of this, click here to see a calendar made by a Vancouver women’s hockey team.

Relatedly, on the other end of the spectrum….this week the MLB came out with a dress code for media personnel. If you read the new code, it won’t take you long to surmise this code is targeted towards females. For example it reads: Visible undergarments, sheer clothing, one-shouldered and strapless shirts or clothing exposing bare midriffs will be banned. Skirts, dresses or shorts cut more than three or four inches above the knee will be deemed to be in violation. I’m not in many MLB press boxes but I’m guessing there aren’t many, if any men, who are in this attire, so the rule must be aimed at females.

Phyllis Merhige, an MLB senior vice president stated, “There’s no one who expects reporters to wear a suit and tie (My commentary: i.e. suit and tie are typically associated with a white-collar, White male dress code). But with the advent of different media, there are now individuals who are not part of a bigger organization that may have a dress code.“  If you read this statement critically, the “norm” in press boxes refers to traditionally trained, older male sport journalists, and “different” means anyone is who falls outside that norm (i.e., women, and Millennial bloggers both male and female).

Data supports that females are the minority in press boxes and this fact is problematic as I wrote in a previous blog: “According to a 2008 report commissioned by the AP Sport Editors, females comprise less than 10% all sport reporters. Given that female sport journalists are statistical tokens (< 15% of a population) they are under constant scrutiny, have to perform above and beyond their male peers to be deemed competent, and are subjected to overt and covert forms of discrimination.”

The dress code policy for MLB reminds me of the Jets-Sainz incident of 2010 where Ines Sainz was harassed in the Jets locker room, and criticized for not dressing professionally. Despite what one is wearing, attire does not give permission for males to harass or act boorishly. Speaking of boorish, if you doubted that harassment, discrimination and sexism are not part of the reality for female sport journalists, look no further than sports columnist Rick Bacon’s recent DeadSpin post.

In his blog, he wrote: “that the rules are really there to take on the princess female reporters, like ESPN’s Erin Andrews and Suzy Kolber, ladies so caked in makeup that Papa Bacon would have slapped me twice had I brought them home. Notably, the rules mention ripped jeans and midriff-revealing shirts, things you won’t find in my closet or my nieces. And good for Major League Baseball. These gals might be lookers, but they distract the whole team’s attention. It’s awkward enough having them in the clubhouse to begin with. Some of us came here to ask questions, not to flirt. We came here to do the reporter’s job. When reporters talk about “inches,” we’re not talking about the hem of a skirt or the height of a heel. We’re talking professional copy…It’s good that the locker-room peekaboo act will have to cover up. Fans deserve better coverage too..”

Bacon certainly lives up to the origin represented by the animal associated with his last name. Bacon’s generalized, gendered, dichotomous assertions do not make for a collegial work environment. The MLB is trying to head off or prevent workplace harassment, but educating everyone on professional behavior might be a bigger step forward in changing the culture.

In summary, ironically what is considered an appropriate and desired work place “professional” uniform in the LFL, is now ruled an inappropriate uniform for professional sport media spaces.