There are many questions that arise out of the tradition of reserving places for women in various sports teams in Quintissence. The central problem can be phrased as follows. While one can discern considerable willingness among women on campus to participate in various games, this willingness does not get asserted as effective demand for greater participation in terms of numbers. For instance the rule of having ‘at least one woman player in every team’ gets read as having ‘only one woman player in every team’. This happens for two main reasons. One, there is a ‘general’ apprehension of the overall competence of the team getting lowered especially in traditionally male dominated sports like cricket or football. Secondly and most importantly there is a lack of politically forceful assertion on the part of the women for greater participation. One could imagine a scenario wherein the presence of a large number of women claiming a place in a team can compel the enforcement of fifty percent participation by women or even a separate women’s team. However we do not see this happening soon in the absence of any conscious mobilization on these grounds.
It is important to address the invisibility of such claims for sexual parity. In the beginning one might go only so far as flagging the issues of this problem and opening the discussion. Some main components of the problem can be enumerated as follows.
One, the conscious or unconscious differential treatment of the women by the male players and the audience can be deterrent to the full participation by women. Two, some of the women players might feel conscious of body contacts with men during the game, especially when it is allowed under the rules. How the dynamics of ‘socially controlled sexuality’ plays out in such events is an issue that needs to be addressed separately for itself. Three, the difference in the competence levels between men and women often based on physical strength, results in a psychological and cultural exclusion of women from sports. This has to be seen in the light of the fact that most sports have traditionally evolved in the absence of any conscious concern for upholding values of sexual parity. Four, the lack of regular training for women in such sports also makes them underprepared. Moreover sports are not so much considered by many as an arena of struggle for sexual justice, particularly in the traditional Indian milieu.
This brings us to a larger question. Can such reservation in sports bring about increase in participation of women in the lack of larger political mobilization for sexual parity? That is to say that while such provisions for compulsory participation are undoubtedly progressive, the demand for greater participation has to emanate from the women themselves. The barriers have to be overcome in constructively creating a space for women that is not contingent upon male benchmarks. There must come forward more women demanding a place in all teams; not giving in to social constructs of ‘difference’ (read physical inferiority). Only then one can envisage a potential sexual ‘equality’ in this campus at least.
Understandably there is also no dearth of what can be said about the gendered construct of many other events in Quintissence. While a historically constrained social context might help explain such problems, the need of the hour is to bring them to light as problems nevertheless.
It should be clarified here that this criticism is not of the members of the students’ community or the organizers of the events. It is commendable on the part of the organizers to have made such progressive provisions for women’s participation. It has facilitated an opportunity to open this discussion on the need for more active sexual politics. With this one would expect the more informed voices on campus to raise this issue more forcefully and articulately.
A conscientiously well written post . It is known to us there have always been faulty assumptions and sexism as far as the female athletes are concerned . The socially constructed ideas of female’s physical and mental tenacity and consistency , have been reflected in delayed inclusion of female sports in many national and international sporting events . Even the All England Club took a long time in offering equal prize money for both men and women players in tennis , which was amended from Wimbledon 2007.
ReplyDelete‘At least one woman player in each team…’ is a progressive step by the institute to identify the male stereotypes in certain non academic events and deconstruct the idea of ‘masculinity and sports’ focusing more on gender neutral performance . But the sporting involvement can influence the gender norms only if, the primary focus is not on the product i.e. compulsory participation alone , rather the process i.e. sports enculturation amongst females over the two years’( or more) of study at the TISS .
As mentioned in the post , there should be separate sports teams for women , just to encourage the participation and also a proportion of the Non Plan funds can be galvanized for working towards sports infrastructure and training . Measures like sports quota can only be effective if the issue of ‘space for women in sports’ is taken up fundamentally , which I personally feel can be encouraged through sports counselling .
The idea shall be engendered and worked out by women themselves , not as a challenge to men in sports , but against essentialising the nature – culture debate , where women are discriminated for being ‘naturally’ not fit for certain sports .
But the notion of ‘I will certainly try , play and explore…’ would indicate the rise in the consciousness and willingness to participate by women themselves and no institutional intervention alone can ameliorate the situation . This sport is of course not to spread sisterhood, but an effort towards coordination of the mind and the body . But again ‘willingness’ is the key .
Pallavi