Back in the mid 1970’s women’s involvement in sport was wholly at the amateur level and attitudes towards women playing or being involved in sports administration were Neolithic. During my trawl through the minutes of Glamorgan County Cricket Club for 1975 I came across the details of a discussion about involving women in the club (there had been no female committee members in the history of the club and women were seen as the makers of tea, their appearance in the minutes being restricted to occasional ‘many thanks to Mrs So and So who has made such a sterling effort this year’ before the smallest of bonuses was agreed). Glamorgan were not exceptional in cricketing circles. It was 1998 before Lords allowed women to become members. It is rumoured that England’s most prominent female player, Rachel Heyhoe-Flint lost her job as England captain in 1978 because of an unguarded remark about taking the MCC to the Equal Opportunities Commission for not allowing women to play at the home of cricket.
Rachel Heyhoe-Flint : A victim of reactionary views?
The values implied in that discussion at Glamorgan were tokenistic and patronising in a way that would make most of us today wince. After an initial question from a committee member about bringing women onto the committee, it is suggested that what the club needs is ‘a lady’s room’ at Cardiff, as the one at Swansea was ‘much appreciated’. Then, in a minute from November 1975, the following:
'There was a further discussion on whether Lady Members should be made eligible for the committee. It was pointed out that the new Women’s Liberation Act coming into force would probably make it illegal to prevent Ladies being elected to the committee. After discussion it was proposed that an Amendment to the rules should permit Lady members to be elected and this was passed by a large majority.'
The piece of legislation referred to here was in fact the Sex Discrimination Act of 1975, that set up the Equal Opportunities Commission. The ignorance and misconception displayed here was typical of attitudes towards women’s equality at this time. Even unanimous approval was not possible for this simple vote to avoid legal prosecution. Any suggestion of equality was met, in those days, with derisive and often mythical comments about women burning bras or wanting to take over the World. ‘Women’s libbers’ was a derogatory term used to describe any woman who sought a better deal for themselves or any change towards bringing equality. The Two Ronnie’s lampooned the idea of women running society and used ‘soft sexism’ to make a point not lost on some, that women were ‘taking over’.
The date for the Two Ronnie’s female future was 2012. So, we come to today, and I come across the following article on the WRU twitter feed:
It is an interview with Welsh scrum half Jade Knight. Now let me get this straight. The article is interesting and delivers the personal story of a player who clearly has to contend with a lot in addition to her playing duties. But . . . Why does the it have to be headlined ‘Motherhood, Midwifery and Rugby?’ Here is a semi -professional rugby player who has made a phenomenal effort to represent her country after injuries that would end many players careers. She also incurred those injuries playing football for her country rather than rugby. And travelling 250 miles each way to play her rugby!! There, surely, is the story that needs telling. There is the ‘resilience and determination’ to which the article refers. These are not just the qualities of woman striving for parity in a World that still treats her differently. They are the familiar efforts of sportspeople who show us, by their example, that achievement comes, in part at least, through the dedication of time and the adherence to principle. What about ‘Richmond, resilience and rugby’ as a title? It more accurately reflects the piece with none of the 'role assignment' that the original implies. I do not want to blame the writer but just ask the question. How often would a piece about a male rugby player be headed up ‘Fatherhood and the fly-half conundrum’ or ‘Pace and paternity – do they mix?’ I am being a bit facetious, but you get the point. We have come a long way from the seventies. There is no patronising or belittling here. But there is a sense in which women’s involvement is seen through the lens of women’s roles, not through the professional sporting lens.
Feminist Sheila Rowbotham, writing in the early seventies, wrote that women wanted to ‘Drive buses, play football, use beer mugs, not glasses’ and not be ‘wrapped up in cellophane or sent off to make tea or shuffled into the social committee.’ These, she accepted ‘were little things, but revolutions are made of little things.’ Women now do all of these little things and more. In sport they coach, play, commentate, act as physios, trainers, administrators and journalists. They train and compete at international level, engage in debate about the game and explore its history. That they do it in only a small part of the World is significant. That they do it at all is a recognition of how far society has come. But we need to accept women for the roles that they perform. Treat them as equals and engage with them as such. Let’s not define them inside old roles that, perhaps unintentionally, reinforce even older stereotypes . . . little things