Commentary
Tale of two hockey players offers a sharp look at gender equity in sports
by Nicole M. LaVoiNicole M. LaVoi is associate director of the Tucker Center for Research on Girls & Women in Sport at the University of Minnesota.
Following the severe injuries in short succession of two Minnesota high school hockey players — Jack Jablonski and Jenna Privette — I contend that checking should be banned at all levels and for all players.
A checking ban would primarily affect male hockey; checking is already illegal in female hockey. Rules differ for males and females in many sports. For example: In lacrosse, males wear more protective padding. In basketball, women play with a smaller ball. In tennis, women play two of three sets (in most circumstances) and men play three of five.
All of these different rules, in short, help construct male sport as "the real" version, while females (weaker, not as tough, vulnerable) are left to play a less valued, shorter, potentially less dangerous, arguably less interesting version.
This year marks the 40th anniversary of the revolutionary federal legislation Title IX, which unquestionably is responsible for significant increases in the number of female sport participants. Offering a single version of a sport where everyone plays by the same rules, regardless of gender, is an idea worth considering for a variety of reasons.
First, girls and women can handle it.
Second, it might help (some) people view female sport as real sport, thus advancing gender equity.
Third, in some cases it might protect male sport participants — and all athletes have the right to be equally protected.
Lastly, having "different" versions of the same sport contributes to society's placing more value on male sport and male athletes.
There are many differences between the cases of Jack Jablonski and Jenna Privette. Their injuries are different; Jablonski's spinal cord was severed, Privette's was not. Their prognoses are different, their versions of hockey are different, their genders and the mechanism of their injuries are different. (Whether both athletes were checked, legally or illegally, is a point under contention.)
Other prominent differences are the media coverage of the two cases and the public expressions of support for the two athletes.
The local print and broadcast media, and some national media, covered the Jablonski story extensively. Jablonski received calls, tweets and hospital visits from celebrities and hockey coaches and players. Fundraisers were organized, and Hockey Day Minnesota 2012 will be dedicated to Jablonski's family.
In contrast, I heard about Privette's injury on Twitter from Mark Rosen. Her story was covered with much less frequency and detail, and public support appeared to be much weaker.
Competing explanations for these differences are abundant. But in general, when one version of sport is portrayed as more important, valued and known, it is not surprising when it is seen, covered and discussed more than the less valued form. Based on the coverage, it appeared that one athlete's injury was more important and newsworthy, even though both athletes, immediately following their injuries, had no feeling or movement in the lower body.
Unfortunately, three decades of sports media research clearly indicates that female athletes receive less than 6 percent of all coverage — a number that is declining — even though females constitute approximately 43 percent of all sport participants. The Jablonski/Privette case is no exception.
All athletes, regardless of gender, injury, prognosis or version of the sport they play, deserve — and in some tragic instances need — equal coverage and support.
Comments (17)
Thank you for this. I am so frustrated about the lack of coverage for females in general, not just sports. It is very hard to get updates on Jenna.
Its my understanding that the Privette family does not want to be used as an example for this discussion. They just want Jenna to heal as fast as possible and not have to address this issue with all that is going on.
I'm not a sports fan and therefore don't follow them, but it wasn't hard to figure out that Jablonski's tragic case was getting an extraordinary amount of attention, while Privette's was getting next to none. Although her family may want privacy-- which should absolutely be respected-- there is no reason that the discussion about sports safety can't highlight both as examples for implementing better, more equal protections.
It is so disheartening that you would use these tragedies to further your position. There is no dispute that men and boy's sports garner more media attention (contra: see the worldwide coverage of the sad injury and death of skier Sarah Burke). However to assert that "one athlete's injury was more important" is indefensible. It ignores the facts that (i) as is typical with the media, the first tragedy gets the predominant press; (ii) I doubt you have made reasonable inquiry into the wishes of the Privette family and (iii) the media coverage of Jack Jablonski escalated after the severity of his injuries were determined. God willing Jenna's injuries will be resolved to a far better result than Jack's. I would imagine that both families cringed if they saw this article (and shame on you if you were the one to post it to Jack's twitter page). I cannot attest to this directly, but it sure seems to me that neither family has done anything to feed the media machine. One last comment on gender equity: having been a female athlete not long after Title 9 was inacted women have made great strides through hard work to create a better balance, though there is a long way to go. You my friend just set us back a decade.
There certainly is an equality problem here, but in my opinion the extent to which sports dominates the lives of so many young people is also a tragedy. Far too many families of both girls and boys are focused on driving their kids around from one sport to the next at the expense of all other aspects of their lives. Why is it that daily school sports practices are 2-3 times as long as any academic class? What other lessons are we teaching our youth in addition to the gender inequality you point out? Of course this unhealthy obsession with sports continues into the ludicrous world of semi-pro collegiate sports. And who can forget the fact that we don't have enough money to give school districts their allotted portion of the state budget but we can come up with enough to hand over hundreds of millions of dollars to billionaire pro sports owners?
In correcting this inequality between the genders, I suggest bringing male sports down to a reasonable level of importance in our society rather trying to raise female sports to the same level of absurdity.
Hey Patricia:
"However to assert that "one athlete's injury was more important" is indefensible. "
You pretty much just quoted the author's main point here. If she's setting us back 10 years, you jumping down her throat without actually trying to figure out her (very important) point is setting us back a century.
From another article on Privette
"This is the second time Jenna Privette has suffered a back injury that resulted in a loss of feeling."
Why was this girl still playing?!?
So let me get this straight. In one breath, you're complaining about the rules being different in womens sports than mens sports because it makes womens sports look 'weaker', then you suggest that we correct this by changing the rules of mens hockey (the original and correct rules of hockey) to mirror the no-check rules of womens hockey? Good idea. If people aren't watching womens' sports because the rule differences make the game slower and less exciting, let's just apply those same rules to mens' sports to put them on the same level! Flawless logic.
The recommendations in this "article" are childish and ignorant and the comparison between the two injuries is worse.
the difference is the fact that one child is probably never going to walk again and another child is expected to make a full recovery. whether one is male or female, obviously the more severe one is going to get more attention.
the suggestion of banning checking from men's hockey is the most inane thing i've ever read. this has nothing to do with men's sports being more important than women's sports, it has to do with this young boy suffering an irreversible injury versus a much less severe injury from a female player.
But Mandy Schwartz's struggle with leukemia was covered pretty extensively.
So I think it has to do with the potential lethality of the illness/injury sustained by the player, more than genre.
No doubt that women's sports aren't as respected, but that's another debate, mostly connected to entertainment value.
Who knew there was a Center for Research on Girls and Women in Sport? Coincidentally, the U doesn't have one for Boys and Men in Sport. Odd isn't it? Please attempt to further your agenda elsewhere Miss Lavoi.
To argue that checking should be banned at all levels of hockey is irrelevant, it is argument for the sake of arguing. Removing checking from hockey is such a far-fetched and ludicrous solution to gender issues in sport that it's not even worth writing an article about. I understand the issue may be important, but why start the article out by presenting a solution that would never be considered in the first place? Injuries are unavoidable in sport and sometimes tragic, but realistically, adding hitting to women's hockey is more likely to happen than removing it from men's hockey. May have well just written an article about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
"All athletes, regardless of gender, injury, prognosis or version of the sport they play, deserve -- and in some tragic instances need -- equal coverage and support."
This paragraph summarizes the whole entire commentary, worthless. Nicole, I am sure you are a nice lady, but could you please find some common sense? A C PeeWee with a cut on his ankle that needed 20 stitches should NOT get equal coverage as a 16 year old paralyzed varsity player.
You are trying to introduce Marxism into sports with this "equality" BS. Guess what? The sports world is NOT equal. In fact the very theory that sport is founded upon is inequality. Wins and losses, ability and in ability, health and sickness, its sport.
Women can't check because of their breasts and their vital reproductive organs, it's as simple as that.
Men can check because men don't have breasts, and their reproductive organs are covered with an athletic supporter, their own legs, and breezers. It's as simple as that.
Men should not have to give up one of the most important and valuable parts of the game because of women, I have many women friends behind that with me. You cannot comment on hockey because you have no idea what you are talking about.
You tried to integrate your progressive/Marxist politics into a sport that thrives on inequality. It doesn't work. It's as simple as that.
-17 year old junior at White Bear Lake High School
Just because some one gets injured the way jack did does not mean eliminate checking the rules are there to keep the game going and fair in guys if there was no checking there would be players with the puck for most of the period. In girls there is no need to check to get the puck. You sign the wavair for a reason it says death or severe injury may occur I read the whole thing as jack and Jenna probably did. This shows us maybe we have to take a closer look at things but the rules keep things going fair and safe for players.
I came across this very interesting article and realized how backward youth sports truly is. It is very sad that girls are still second class citizens. It is also sad that youth sports are so extreme especially for youth boys.
The saddest parts of this post are the comments made by the men. They are so blatantly sexist and demeaning. Of course there is the lone comment from the female who you have to feel sorry for. It always amazes how women can internalize oppression and oppress themselves and others. Yes, Patricia, your comments are backward.
I understand that when people are not fully informed they may come to incorrect conclusions. The Jablonski injury and Privette injuries are completely different, it is the severity of his injury that is facilitating the media coverage on his injury. "not feeling" and being paralysed are as different as having a chronic migraines and traumatic brain injuries are. From the very beginning the reports have stated that the privette family AND physicians are confident that she will have a complete recovery. Do not make this about gender.
Post a comment
Please be civil, brief and relevant.
E-mail addresses are never displayed but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. MPR reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air with attribution. Please read the Terms and Conditions before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to Minnesota Public Radio. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited e-mail and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
