Is Women's Sport more accepting of homosexuality?

[First published in Women's Web]

“Our warmest congratulations to Katherine Brunt & Nat Sciver who got married over the weekend” tweeted England Cricket, the official home of all of the England Cricket teams on Twitter. The two all-rounders who were a part of the team that lifted the World Cup in 2017 and reached the Finals this year, have been a couple for over 5 years, and announced their engagement before the pandemic struck and derailed their plans for a 2020 wedding.

While there were a large number of people who were genuinely happy for the couple, a large part of subcontinent Twitter, quite predictably, had a meltdown. Comments ranged from the innocuous sounding, “both got married on the same day? Where are the husbands?” to the “How they'll have babies?” which presumes that the only purpose of marriage is procreation. There were comments which could have been just smart word play- “Please tell me there was a slip cordon for the bouquet” or “Well, someone certainly bowled a maiden over” (though technically both did)- or may have hinted at worse.

But a large majority of comments (thankfully hidden) were extremely homophobic. The couple were deemed “ugly” and their sex called “unnatural”. They were told that they were sinners and that they would go to hell. There were the comments on how they wanted to convert innocent children to homosexuality, and of how parents should be extremely careful before letting their young daughters play a sport. There were also the comments which spoke of how both of them needed a few nights with “proper” man to sort them out.

This, unfortunately, is the kind of hate all homosexual couples attract. Though homosexuality has been legalised in India, it is still frowned upon and common notion is that it is something that can be “put right”. Lesbian couples, particularly, attract a very different kind of hate from cis-het men who deliberately misconstrue it as “rejecting men”, and also secretly worry about how their position might be eroded if women band together and shut them out.

The subcontinent is known for its homophobia, so it is not a surprise that there are no openly lesbian cricketers from these countries. However, England, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa have a large number of openly lesbian or bisexual cricketers. It is hard to believe that it was barely a decade back, in 2013, that the Australian cricketing great Alex Blackwell became the first person to come out as openly lesbian. At that time, she had been dating England’s Lynsey Askew for several years, and they got married to each other in 2015.

Following Blackwell coming out as lesbian, many other cricketers did too, so much that senior women cricketers were accused of predatory behaviour, and the presumption became that if you played international cricket there was a high probability that you were either lesbian or bisexual. This, however, is just another manifestation of homophobia. You can no longer “convert” a person to homosexuality than you can “cure” a person of homosexuality.

While there are many lesbian couples in international cricket- Marizanne Kapp and Dane van Niekerk (South Africa), Amy Satterthwaite and Lea Tahuhu (New Zealand), Lizelle Lee and Tanja Cronje (South Africa), Maddy Green and Liz Perry (New Zealand), Rachael Haynes and Leah Poulton (Australia) to name just a few- there are no gay couples playing international cricket.

Football throws up similar statistics. In the 2018 World Cup, none of the players identified as gay. However in the 2019 World Cup, 38 of the 552 women identified as either lesbian or bisexual. Is this because professional sport is an attractive career for lesbians, or because professional sportswomen who are homosexual feel more comfortable coming out? People who have tried to study this say that it is more likely the latter. Homosexuality is frowned upon in male locker rooms, but not in female locker rooms. Heterosexual women cricketers have said, “I don’t feel uncomfortable walking into a change room knowing that most of my teammates are lesbians.” With men, however, there is the pressure to conform to the heterosexual norm, which could be the reason for the marked difference in numbers of homosexual and bisexual sportspersons in team sports. The fact that there is only one (retired) international level cricketer who openly identifies as gay might also be a factor in ensuring people who are bisexual or gay remain in the closet.

 

How will they have babies, is a question easily answered. Adoption is an obvious route that lesbian couples can take, but IVF makes it possible for them to have a biological child also. After New Zealand cricketers Amy Satterthwaite and Lea Tahuhu got married in 2017, Satterthwaite who always wanted to have a child chose to become pregnant. The couple welcomed their first child in January 2020, and in the process, she also became the first cricketer to benefit from New Zealand’s maternity leave provision which allowed her to earn her retainer without needing to train or play with the team. The baby travelled with the couple to the World Cup, where, in their words, the baby had “15 aunties” who were happy to pitch in with babysitting duties. All of this points to greater inclusion and acceptance of lesbian couples in the New Zealand team, which will hopefully percolate to other teams too.

Are we likely to see a lesbian cricketer come out about her sexuality in India? It is only recently that homosexuality has been legalised in India, and even today homosexual marriages are not allowed. More importantly, society does not accept homosexuality, and even people who have come out to their families do not talk about it openly. In such a climate, a cricketer could also legitimately fear that if she comes out as homosexual, it may affect her chances of being selected for the team. However, with athlete Dhuti Chand coming out about her sexuality, the conversation has started, and one hopes that in time, it will spread to team sports too. However, a lot of headway needs to be made in accepting homosexuality before that day will come.

One can hope that one day, an Indian will write a post similar to this one-

“Disgraceful, shocking & plain wrong! What self respecting cricketers get married during the season? Seriously though two England greats. Congratulations”

A couple falling in love and getting married is a wonderful thing. We should cherish that.

Women deserve their own headlines

[First published in Women's Web as World Squash Champ Dipika Pallikal Is More Than A Cricketer’s Wife, So Let’s Not Say ‘Wife Of’ In News Headlines!]

"Dinesh Karthik's wife Dipika Pallikal powers India to HISTORIC World Doubles Squash C'ships titles", screamed the headline on Zee News, after the 30 year old squash champion teamed up with Saurav Ghosal and Joshna Chinappa to win both the mixed doubles and women's doubles titles at the World Doubles Championships in Glasgow.

30 year old Dipika Pallikal gained national prominence after she powered her way to three WISPA titles in 2011, and broke into the top 10 the following year.

Her career is peppered with many firsts- first Indian squash player of either gender to reach the finals of a ‘Silver’ event and the first to reach the semi finals of a ‘Gold’ event.

She, along with Joshna Chinappa, won the Squash Women’s Doubles Gold Medal at the Commonwealth Games in 2014, and has been a part of the gold medal winning team at the South Asian Games in 2016, the silver medal winning team at the Asian Team Championships in 2016 and the silver medal winning team at the Asian Games in 2014.

Dipika Pallikal was the first female squash player to win the Arjuna Award in 2012, and had the Padma Shree conferred on her in 2014.

Anybody who follows sports in the country knows Dipika Pallikal, and how she has literally redefined squash in the country. Dinesh Karthik, on the other hand, though a decent cricketer, has lived in the shadow of his more illustrious teammates, and never achieved the kind of heights she did.

Yet, Zee News thought that the most appropriate way to headline an article about her success was by mentioning her cricketer husband.

While one can certainly argue that cricket is almost a religion in India, and even cricketers who are merely a part of IPL squads have greater brand recall than international level sportsmen in other sports, that is not sufficient reason to describe a person as someone’s wife, and certainly not in the headlines, which should celebrate her achievement, not his name.

When this was called out on social media, the responses ranged from the blatantly misogynistic. From “People don’t want to know what Dipika does. She is just Karthik’s wife”, to the absolutely inaccurate, “Physical differences between men and women makes it that way. Nobody likes a less physically dominated event”.

There was even a person who made a blatantly arrogant statement like “Women should stick to beauty contests”, despite the fact that women’s sport is as physically demanding as men’s sport, and that female sportspersons need to work as hard as their male counterparts to compete at the international level.

While most of the people defending the headline are seemingly unaware of the existence of any sport other cricket, it is also a case of blatant male arrogance which decides that women need to be defined in terms of a relationship. Zee News used Dinesh Karthik’s name in the headline because in India, a woman’s identity is defined in terms of being a daughter, a wife or a mother.

Happens EVERY time!

There was the time when an Indian publication referred to the economist Esther Duflo as Abhijeet Banerjee’s wife, conveniently ignoring the fact that Banerjee and Duflo shared the Nobel Prize for Economics in 2019. While Banerjee is certainly more senior than Duflo, her identity is and should be independent of that of her husband.

Tennis player Sania Mirza brought laurels for India long before her marriage to a Pakistani cricketer, but his name is always mentioned in any article about her- the reverse is almost never the case.

This also manifests itself in small acts of internalised misogyny, in daily life.

When I speak to a school teacher, I introduce myself as the mother of their student. My husband, on the other hand, first introduces himself by name, and then mentions the name of the child. I used to think it was quite ridiculous, because the teacher doesn’t care who we are, but is concerned only about the student whose parent we are, but now I wonder if by not introducing myself by name, I am subconsciously negating my identity.

In a society which seeks to reduce women to relationships, maybe each of us should insist on maintaining our own individuality in every setting.

On the issue of Dipika Pallikal being headlined as Dinesh Karthik’s husband, however, there is hope. Noted cricket commentator Harsha Bhogle called it out on social media and said that the headline was demeaning to a campion like Dipika Pallikal.

Though a number of people accused him of being a ‘pseudo feminist’, the post was immediately retweeted by Dinesh Karthik.

More importantly, though it took them a few hours to do so, Zee News did edit the headline to ensure that the spotlight remained on Dipika Pallikal and her amazing success in winning two gold medals at the Doubles Championships.

We can only hope that in future media houses are more careful in how they refer to women who, despite being married to successful men, are also successful in their own right.

Author’s note: Screenshots here are of the original headlines, since they were subsequently changed.

Is Bismah Maroof Bringing Her Baby To The World Cup Really A Statement Of Gender Empowerment?

 [While praising Bismah Maroof for bringing her baby on tour, gender stereotypes are actually being reinforced. It's assumed that as the mother she is the primary parent, something we never assume for male sportspersons. First published in Women's Web]

Photographs of the Pakistani cricket captain Bismah Maroof arriving in New Zealand for the ICC Women’s World Cup with her six month old baby in her arms went viral on social media. People went crazy hailing it as a “powerful picture”, the “best picture of the day” and “powerful statement”. Some even expressed the desire that it be “normalised in sports”.

While one, without reservation, admires Bismah Maroof’s achievement of getting back to competitive sport so soon after pregnancy and childbirth, is the fact that the cricketer had to take her baby on tour with her really the statement of gender empowerment that it is made out to be?

While praising Bismah Maroof for bringing her baby on tour, gender stereotypes are actually being reinforced. It is being implicitly assumed that mother is the primary parent for a child, and that once she gives birth, anything else that a woman might want to do can only be taken up after fulfilling her role as a mother. This has always been the case at least in the subcontinent, and what she has done is merely in keeping with the old patriarchal traditions.

Playing international cricket, especially as captain is a full-time job. You have to practice for long hours, lead strategy sessions, play matches, give post-match press conferences and provide moral support to the rest of the team. To do all that, and also be a caregiver for a child is to demand too much from anyone. And that is exactly what Bismah Maroof will be forced to do.

In an ideal relationship, parenting will be gender agnostic. It would be a responsibility shared equally by both parents, and at any point, the one who is better placed to be the primary caregiver will take on that responsibility. In such a relationship, either the child would have been left home with the father, or if she is still breastfeeding, the father would accompany the baby, and be accountable for its well being. Here, however, the father is conspicuous by his absence, and it is Bismah Maroof and her mother who are taking on the entire responsibility of caring for the baby in an unknown location.

This is patently unfair on her. It is not the duty of the mother to take sole responsibility for parenting. While biology dictates that pregnancy and childbearing is the sole prerogative of women, child rearing is merely a role thrust on women by society. By expecting the women to be the primary caregiver, the father is effectively being let off the hook, which he should not be. It is his child also.

While praising Bismah Maroof, people are hailing her as someone who “has it all”- a woman who is leading her national cricket team, without compromising on her responsibilities as a mother. But does she really “have it all”? By praising her for being a hands on mother, she has effectively been guilt tripped into taking on much more than her fair share of the burden.

Let us try to gender reversal. Imagine MS Dhoni taking his daughter to a world cup tournament, without the mother of the child accompanying them. Imagine him gently rocking the child to sleep while explaining batting strategies to the team. Imagine him fielding, with half his mind on the child and whether she can wait a little longer to have her meal. Imagine him spending the lunch and tea break coaxing the child to eat something. Imagine him not partying or socialising with his teammates because he needs to give his child a bath, read a bedtime story and put her to bed. Imagine him waking up a couple of times at night because the child was restless, and yet waking up early in the morning to go to the nets for practice.

We struggle to imagine any of this. We know that even if his family accompanies him on tour, it is the mother who looks after the child while the father plays cricket, and all he does is occasionally play with the child and maybe carry her with him while going out for the toss.

Why then do we presume that there is nothing wrong in the mother being the primary caregiver for her child? When no male sportsperson at the international level has ever taken a child with him to a tournament without the presence of the mother, why do we take it for granted that a mother who wants to continue to play cricket will take the child along on tours?

Much has been made of the fact that she has often and publicly thanked her husband and his family for “supporting her ambition” to play cricket for the nation. But what is the nature of “support” that she has really got when neither her husband nor anyone from his family thought it fit to accompany her on tour to look after the child?

This can only be understood as a phenomenon unique to the subcontinent where a woman is conditioned into thinking that the sole responsibility of caregiving vests with her, and she is not supposed to work outside the home. If her husband and his family “allow” her to work outside the home without doing anything to reduce her workload at home, she should remain eternally grateful for the concession. Women in that position do everything it takes to ensure that there is no room for any complaints on the caregiving and housekeeping front, since that is the price that is to be paid for being allowed to work.

Yes, Bismah Maroof is lucky that she was granted maternity leave, and the Board allowed her to bring her mother and daughter along to the tournament.

But that throws up a different question- what if her employer was not supportive? Would her husband and his family have taken on the full burden of caregiving so she could leave the child at home and go on tour?

Most unlikely. In all probability, she would have either delayed having the child, or given up her job. Is this even something a man would consider? Becoming a parent doesn’t disrupt their lives as it does the lives of the women.

While we can, and must, hail Bismah Maroof for bringing her six month old baby on tour, we must also recognise the fact that this incident shines light on the fact that we in the subcontinent have a very long way to go before we achieve gender parity within the family. Child rearing is gender agnostic. Fathers should take on an equal share of parenting.

The Objectivisation of Women in Sport

 [This article has been published in Women’s Web under the title “2021 Olympics, When Women Athletes Refused To Play By Objectifying Rules Made By Men”]

Think gymnastics, and the first image that comes to mind is of a young woman clad in rhinestone studded leotards performing gravity defying moves. Her make-up is prefect, her hair neatly coiffured, and her leotards cut suggestively to make her look sexually attractive. Think specifically of the male gymnast, and he is either in a full body suit or shorts. When routines are rated entirely on the complexity of the move, and the skill in performing them, why is the female gymnast expected to look pretty and smile, while her male counterpart can get away with just executing the routine.

The rules of the International Gymnastics Federation clearly specify that female gymnasts can wear full body leotards which cover the legs, yet sexy leotards are so normalized that regardless of what they wear while training, every gymnast picks one for competitions. You could argue that she is “choosing to wear” leotards with a racy cut, but the reality is that most people find it hard to go against what has been deemed acceptable traditionally. Recently, the German gymnastics team made headlines when they chose to wear full body suits in competition to unitedly take a stand against the overt sexualisation of the sport. Had only one gymnast attempted to do so, she would have certainly faced a lot of pushback.

Beach handball and beach volleyball, unlike gymnastics, do not even attempt to hide the fact that the female athlete is sexualized. The rules clearly specify that while the can compete in shorts, women are only permitted to do so in bikinis. When the Norwegian beach handball team chose to swap their bikini bottoms for thigh length shorts, they were fined and threatened with expulsion. This despite the fact that many women who play the sport have said that wearing shorts instead of bikinis will permit them to concentrate on the game without worrying about the uniform slipping.

The official stance by the authorities is that the uniform specifications have been framed in order to ensure that the athletes have the full range of motion. But when men can play in loose fitting knee length shorts and tank tops, why can’t the women? Clearly the guidelines on competition wear have been framed presuming that spectators are more interested in watching beautiful women in bikinis than in watching competition level sportswomen in action.

In case we think that beach volleyball and beach handball are the only sports that blatantly sexualize and commodify the bodies of women athletes to boost viewership, think again. In 2011, when professional badminton saw a decline in interest and viewership, the regulators came up with the perfect solution to bring back spectators- show more skin. The Badminton World Federation passed a decree that ‘to create a more ‘attractive presentation,’ women must wear skirts or dresses to play at the elite level.’ This was revoked after major push back from female athletes, especially Muslim athletes who compete in professional badminton in large numbers.

Tennis has similar rules. Many tournaments specify that women should wear skirts or dresses, even though most women tennis players train in shorts. A top ranked player, Eugenie Bouchard, was asked to twirl and describe her outfit after she demolished her opponent in less than an hour; is a male tennis player similarly asked to flex his muscles?

This sexualisation is not only at the elite level. It permeates all the way down. A couple of years back, when I went to the showroom of a popular sports brand to buy running shorts, I was asked to choose between itsy-bitsy ‘barely there’ shorts, and skin tight cycling shorts. The male section had the loose fitting shorts I wanted, and I have stopped even stepping into the ladies section now. Yes, there are women runners who genuinely like the racy shorts and tank tops and believe that they aid their performance, but shouldn’t the women who are not comfortable wearing those clothes be offered a choice without having to sneak clothes out of the men’s section?

The overt sexualization of sportswear is symptomatic of a larger issue. Instead of respecting the talent, hard-work and dedication of the sportsperson, the worth of a woman is reduced to the viewership she can draw on the basis of her physical appearance and her on and off court personality. There has to be a change in how the media portrays womens’ sports- the focus has to shift from overt sexualisation to sporting prowess.

Also, all sports should offer a broader variety of uniforms to choose from, so all sports persons can choose the one they are most comfortable with. This would empower women to choose how they present themselves to the audience.

The Most Powerful Chessman- Day 18 of #100happy days

“Sir asked us which of these chess pieces is the most powerful”, my son began, arranging the rook, the bishop and the knight in a straight line.

“What did you say?”, I asked knowing that with my younger one, anything was possible.

“I told him, Rook”, he replied, flipping the chessman over. “Because the rook can do a handstand.”

“And why did you say that”, I asked after I finished laughing.

“Because Sir is too serious, and I wanted to make him laugh!”

Can’t fault his logic. Can’t but admire his intentions. The world definitely needs more people like him!

---------

Can you be happy for 100 days in a row. Sign up for #100happydays
Follow me on Instagram- nuts246

A certain ruthlessness

Oscar Pistorius is not the first sporting superstar to have fallen from grace in recent times. Nor is he likely to be the last. Child molestation, domestic violence, rape, murder, they’ve done it all. When caught, they feign remorse, but none appears genuinely contrite.

What drives them to it? Is it because you need a certain ruthlessness to be the very best in the world; and it is that ruthlessness leads you to care a damn about everyone else? If this is the stuff that our sporting heros are made of, I’m sure we are better off not hero-worshipping them?
______
A Drabble is a story told in exactly 100 words.

Can anything justify....

RIP
Reeva Steenkamp

It was hard to process the news that Oscar Pistorius had shot his girlfriend dead on Valentine’s Day. Why would a man at the pinnacle of his success feel the need to do any such thing, I wondered. But his statement that it was a case of mistaken identity was even more disturbing.

Yes, breaking in and entering is a crime. Yes, a burglar must be punished. And if the system has broken down, it is cause for concern. But can anything justify taking a man’s life, merely because he is stealing your material possessions? Have we sunk so low?
______
A Drabble is a story told in exactly 100 words.

You don't have to be good....

They had strung a net across the road, and using streetlights as floodlights were engaged in a game of volleyball. None of them was particularly skilled; they had to keep interrupting the game to let pedestrians pass. But they were all having fun.

“Why have you blocked up the street”, and elderly gentleman reprimanded. “Don’t you have anything better to do?”

They smiled and asked him to join in too. He didn’t, but stayed to watch.

You don’t have to be very good at something in order to enjoy it. That you enjoy something is reason enough to do it.

______
Just off one of the busiest streets in Bombay, is this narrow lane where traffic is so sparse that people can actually block the road off to play a game of volleyball. Taken on a cool October evening, this forms a part of my Pictorial Flashback of 2012.

The wonder is that they started

When it comes to trying something new, most of us can think of a dozen reasons not to. When things get difficult, we often choose to give up, instead of seeing it through to the finish. It doesn’t make us lesser people- there is only so much energy we have, and often there isn’t enough left over for non-essentials.

Which is why it is so inspirational to read about the people participating in the Paralympic Games. The wonder is not that many of them perform better than able bodied people like you and me; the wonder is that they started.

______

London 2012 Paralympics

August 29 to September 9, 2012

It needs to change

“What would you like to change about woman’s boxing?”, an Indian boxer was asked.

“Nothing”, she replied. “It is society that I would like to change.” Her comment was as spot on as her punches.

An organization puts up posters threatening to throw acid on the face of women who dare wear jeans, and the police doesn’t take any action against them. A woman is raped in board daylight on a busy street- a cameraman shoots it live and broadcasts it on TV, but does nothing to prevent the crime.

Any society that treats women so, does need to change.

And be Inspired

Citius, Altius, Fortius.

Men and women who go beyond the realm of imagination. Who push themselves to the limit. Who prove that impossible is only just a word.

Talent yes. But years of hard-work. Of persistence. Of single minded dedication. Of dreaming a dream, and making it come true- or not.

Whether they win medals or our hearts, or both, the Olympians are a special breed. They are heros, and teach us that we can be too.

I no longer let my kids watch television, but the Olympics is another thing. They can watch all they want. And be inspired.

The tool-box of a champion

Every-time we Indians sit down to analyse yet our dismal showing in the Olympics, we conclude by saying that Indians lack the “killer instinct”. Why else do our athletes “choke” in tight situations? Why else are they never able to put in that final race-winning effort?

But could an athlete who has fought an apathetic sports system, limited access to professional coaching, lack of equipment and nutrition, to make it to the world stage, have done it if they were mentally fragile?

It is their spirit that’s got them this far. What they lack is the tool-box of a champion.