machine do you got to make shit
Where do women belong in the future of polo?
Having just dug through Jason's "dudebro free polo" thread, I feel like it might be a good idea to start a healthier thread that still addresses some of the issues brought up by both male and female players.
Where do women fit into current polo? Where should women fit in the future? Why?
This isn't a simple series of questions. I've had many debates with fellow female players and we all see things a bit differently. Many other sports have split into "women's" and "men's" because, I'm assuming, they had very similar issues to the ones we are currently struggling to deal with. Our sport is growing, how do we want to handle it?
Good question. I think in most Australian cities the real issue is the number of women playing (or lack of). At the moment we have 2 in Sydney (and that is double was we usually have). A separate women's division just couldn't happen with the numbers we have here. I sometimes wonder whether the lack of women playing comes down to the male-domination of the sport being too intimidating for some women to want to start playing in the first place.
Personally, I really like playing with the guys here and I hope I can keep playing mixed polo for some time. We don't have any of the issues that have come up in the dude-bro free polo thread. The guys in Sydney were actually shocked when I mentioned some of the comments that had been made. I would probably feel differently if those kind of attacks happened here.
Where do women fit into current polo?
I'd say they fit into the same exact spot behind the line at the beginning of the joust that the men do.
Where should women fit in the future?
Where do they want to fit? I have a hard time believing that women polo players would like to have gender specific rules developed. Is that where you expect this conversation to lead? Are women players at some disadvantage that they can't address on or off court?
Overall I'm for any discussion. I think the implication becomes that women can't handle (X)situation and need some deference based on their gender. This mindset does little service to the nature and essence of "equality" (my personal and completely biased opinion)
I'm just worried that we're going to get to the point where I can't scream at Susan Dabbles that he's a dirty little whore because it may give someone offense (well, besides Susan. I love offending that skeezy little hooker)
I, personally, don't want to see polo split up. I like playing with the boys because it makes me better faster and stronger. I don't want us to lose the edge and have a sport that is "dumbed down" for women, the way hockey, lacrosse, and baseball have done. But, I also don't mind someone yelling "show me your tits" while I'm playing. A, it means they have stopped what they are doing to watch me play, and B, they like breasts and think I have nice ones. Most of the time I don't hear hecklers anyway, I'm too focused on the game. Do you think other professional athletes don't shit talk each other?
I also know that there are women with opinions that differ from mine. I'd like them to feel comfortable speaking their positions in this thread.
I think now might a good time to open the conversation up, so its not just a conversation at Ladies Army, or in a bar over beers. Bench Minor is this weekend, and there was a lot of uproar over women not being drafted. And I stand by my position that there were better players then I am, males, still undrafted. I don't want to be drafted just because I'm a girl. I want to be drafted because I'm good enough to be on a team. My same feelings apply to Ladies Army. I don't see it as a real tournament. I see it as a party for the ladies of polo to get to know each other. Its a ton of fun, but its not to be taken seriously. I'll be at Bench Minor too, for the same reasons.
I have had an easy-ish road as a female polo player since I started in Cascadia. I think the fact that ALL 3 of our regional reps are female, while no other region has a single female rep, speaks highly of the equality here. Seattle doesn't have "ladies nights" because we dont want them. We LIKE playing with the boys. We have rookie nights, so things are more approachable to new players, but its never about "girls" or "boys." The biggest frustration I have with being a female player, is that many guys just assume I only want to play with other girls; not true at all. I want to be the best player I can be, with the best team I can play on.
Omg, everything you said, right here. Fuck yes. x1000
My same feelings apply to Ladies Army. I don't see it as a real tournament. I see it as a party for the ladies of polo to get to know each other. Its a ton of fun, but its not to be taken seriously.
Ladies Army is a blast, and for the women who show up and play, its a celebration of them in this sport. We are few and far between. For the men, its an amazing, concentrated show of women of all bike handling and ball handling abilities in polo. My vision for The Ladies Army was for it to be a throw-in tournament, to encourage any woman to come out and play, because it is perceived as being less intimidating than playing with the guys (the operative word there being "perceived"). However, for a few reasons, the tournament never happened that way, and it makes me a little sad because it has become competitive. I don't believe for one second Kiersten that you don't take the Ladies Army seriously (!). We are a competitive bunch, we can't help wanting to bring our best game every time we ride onto the court.
It is great to have a women's tournament, and I enjoy the competitiveness of The Ladies Army (for fear of sounding hypocritical, I love competition, I just didn't think The Ladies Army was going to turn out that way). The camaraderie is different for sure, its more encouraging than cut throat like some other tournaments can be. Plus its so much fun to have all these women to meet and catch up with. We are the grave minority at most other tournaments (Cascadia I believe to be the exception here).
I don't want women to be a different polo league at all. I have no desire to do that. I love playing with, against and hanging out with the men and women who play this game. I love hearing the cheers and encouragement and heckling from both genders. There's nothing like hearing Drunkie in your ear to encourage you to set up a play, or to have Mama Frey behind my net telling me to cover my ass. And I've spent as much time creating a space to play for men as for women. I want it all!
I, personally, don't want to see polo split up. I like playing with the boys because it makes me better faster and stronger. I don't want us to lose the edge and have a sport that is "dumbed down" for women, the way hockey, lacrosse, and baseball have done. But, I also don't mind someone yelling "show me your tits" while I'm playing. A, it means they have stopped what they are doing to watch me play, and B, they like breasts and think I have nice ones. Most of the time I don't hear hecklers anyway, I'm too focused on the game. Do you think other professional athletes don't shit talk each other?
I also know that there are women with opinions that differ from mine. I'd like them to feel comfortable speaking their positions in this thread.
I think now might a good time to open the conversation up, so its not just a conversation at Ladies Army, or in a bar over beers. Bench Minor is this weekend, and there was a lot of uproar over women not being drafted. And I stand by my position that there were better players then I am, males, still undrafted. I don't want to be drafted just because I'm a girl. I want to be drafted because I'm good enough to be on a team. My same feelings apply to Ladies Army. I don't see it as a real tournament. I see it as a party for the ladies of polo to get to know each other. Its a ton of fun, but its not to be taken seriously. I'll be at Bench Minor too, for the same reasons.
I have had an easy-ish road as a female polo player since I started in Cascadia. I think the fact that ALL 3 of our regional reps are female, while no other region has a single female rep, speaks highly of the equality here. Seattle doesn't have "ladies nights" because we dont want them. We LIKE playing with the boys. We have rookie nights, so things are more approachable to new players, but its never about "girls" or "boys." The biggest frustration I have with being a female player, is that many guys just assume I only want to play with other girls; not true at all. I want to be the best player I can be, with the best team I can play on.
to be fair, i'd like to see every breast i can. it could be the grossest woman a live and if i was offered to see her breasts, i would say." yeah ok. lets have at it". then i would throw up in my mouth a little.
that said, i think more boys should be put in their own cry baby tough guy league, and let the serious players play with serious players. i've been away from the scene for 3 months and all of a sudden discussions like this are taking place? it's awful.
you stated everything perfectly.
Encourage continued co-ed, but at the same time I'll encourage more ladies army events as well. LA Bench Minor? LA Spring; LA Fall? More polo in more places right?
Encourage continued co-ed, but at the same time I'll encourage more ladies army events as well. LA Bench Minor? LA Spring; LA Fall? More polo in more places right?
x10
An intimidation factor perceived by potential new female players might be mitigated by women only events. As a pretty hardcore cycling city, I bet we would get a lot more women playing if we had a no "Y" chromosome day.
I'm going to go ahead and put forth a potentially unpopular opinion that I hold very strongly: Keep it co-ed permanently and cease having female only events because they're discriminatory. I think that denying entry to a tournament based upon gender is just as bad as denying entry to a tournament based upon sexual orientation, race, or religion. If someone wants to tell me why discriminating based upon gender is okay and why it's different from discriminating based upon other clearly unfair criteria, I'd love to hear it. Think about it though, if there was a tournament that was men only, tons of people would be outraged at the unfairness. That's a double standard, plain and simple. Like I said in the dudebro thread, people are people are people, it's not about male or female, black or white, east coast or west coast (or midwest!), or anything else. You shouldn't be treating people differently for reasons that do not merit different treatment. I do not think that someone's gender would make me want to treat them unfairly in any situation even if it's just for fun.
The reason that I've heard most often for having ladies only tournaments is that such tournaments give ladies 'an opportunity to shine', place higher in the rankings, or what-have-you. If I were a woman, I'd feel insulted by this perceived need to level the playing field. I'd want to be the best at the game, not only the best within some subgroup that doesn't fully represent polo as a whole. But hey, I'm a hypercompetitive pseudo-jock with overthough moral sensibilities, so maybe people don't share my opinions on the matter. Anytime I've done well in a small tournament, it's felt good, but it's kind of lackluster on the grand scale of polo and I recognize that fact. I think that if women want to make their mark on polo, then they'll have plenty of opportunities in tournaments that don't discriminate unfairly. Furthermore, if you want women to place higher, then you can have tournaments that are restricted in other more fair ways, such as having a tournament that is closed to people who have qualified for NA's.
I agree with you Pete. (See my above post)
Usually you're pretty smart and I forget that you are only twenty-two or something.
ooooh x2 to this as well! That's why I didn't go to Ladies Army, or similar events in the local bike scene.
I agree with the essential points, but the compromise gene is quite strong in me. About the only thing I differ on is the idea of ladies only events. The way I see it, if a group of people want to get together and have an exclusive event, I'm in no position to stop that (whether it's the incredie ladies of this sport or a bunch of the aforementioned dude bros). I've got no problem with these events so long as they are kept informal. NAH sanctioned tourneys that affect qualification for a national or international tournament should by all means be kept coed. This sport can maintain a level of equality that others don't have on an official level, but that doesn't mean events like Ladies Army have to be banned.
I wouldn't say elitist or separatist, I just got lost in all the racing jargon. Talking about masters and b level and shit. I'm not on your level. You make a good point about organizational diversity. It'd be intersting to see some other organizing bodies that dealt with different groups of polo players.
I don't think your opinion is unpopular at all Pete. I am fully supportive of keeping polo co-ed, but I do think that many women might feel too intimidated to start playing. Maybe we should talk about a goal for this discussion. Is the goal to get more women playing (I think that it is, in part) or to keep the women already playing, playing co-ed. These two goals are not mutually exclusive. I just know that when I have invited women to play with us, I get a pretty standard response about 75% of the time, and that is that we are scary. Fear of injury and pain is a strong motivator. Embarrassment is another detractor. Lack of confident bike handling skills, another. (these are not exclusive to women, by any means)
Granted, we play a physical game up here, and some of us bang on others of us more than some. However, we are not violent or mean. We welcome any and all comers, gently working them into the play, hoping they mesh into what we consider "good play". We even had two beginner days to help get some noobs up to speed. However, we don't seem to keep women players. There will always be people (men and women) who's self preservation instinct tells them they need to quit, or never start. Perhaps what I am talking about isn't a gender-based split, but an A/B/C league thing.
I, personally, think there is a place for women's teams, leagues and tournaments. Not to separate, but to create an environment more inviting to new players. I really think the women above in this discussion and the women that have been playing for years are really fucking unique in that they are willing to put themselves at risk like any guy. That might sound bad, misogynist even, but but how else do we say that traditionally women are not known to put themselves in situations where injury and pain are almost guaranteed? (um, pregnancy excluded, m'kay?) Or where confidence in one physical abilities is a starting point. I'm not at all trying to say I don't think women are, or can be tough as any guy (or more so), but it thus far has not been a traditionally encouraged trait in our society. Yes we have lots of women playing (and Ill bet many of them played sports growing up), but hardcourt polo is still mostly a sausage party.
In forensic science there is a term: sexual dimorphism - "The natural occurrence of physical differences between males and females". Besides paternalistic politics and a history of oppression, I think this is why, say, American Football is not co-ed. Sometimes the differences between men and women are too great to put on the same scale. An extreme example is illustrated by the titles of tallest man and woman. Tallest man: 8'11"; tallest woman: 7'9". Polo is not football, however, and adding a machine like a bike to the mix seems to render physical differences somewhat moot.
Anyway, my 2 cents. Feel free to tell me I'm wrong and a misogynist prick.
I'm not surprised this is quiet. I purposefully wrote it to be non-inflammatory. I just wanted honest open discussion, and a place the ladies and gents can say what they actually feel instead of needing to defend themselves. I appreciate those of you posting thoughtful ideas.
I'm not surprised this is quiet. I purposefully wrote it to be non-inflammatory. I just wanted honest open discussion, and a place the ladies and gents can say what they actually feel instead of needing to defend themselves. I appreciate those of you posting thoughtful ideas.
thank you.
Just throwing this in here because I like your comment ddub.
I missed pickup tonight to meet and drink with a friend - he's one of those people you can never communicate with unless you're face to face. And you're always glad when you get to talk with him. One of my favorite people. Anyway, he quit the dudebro city softball league where his team kicked some ass. He said he quit because it wasn't so fun anymore. Or the agro overcame the fun. Or something. So he quit. He only plays on a co-ed teams now. They lost last night. But this killed me, and I think it's why I see him as a winner, whatever he's doing. Other team they lost to has a dude who could have played minor league ball without trouble if he had the balls. Could hit .150 in the majors maybe. So in co-ed for this town, dudebroes have to hit opposite their handedness. Dudebro taught himself how to use a lefty glove so he could fix the rule and swing with his .150 pro right hand swing. Drilled a softball 100+mph into the ankle of the quickest player out there - a young lady short stop's ankle and took her out for the game (at least).
Here's what killed me though. My buddy (they drink beer when they play too) got on his bike and heckled from behind the backtop and fucked up dudebro's next at bat. ha!
Anyway, hyper competitve is great. Until it sucks.
drunk post, I love polo,
Devin
ps Sherry the shortstop was just fine. She defected from dudebro's team a couple years ago, apparently because he's a prick. Anyway, we know which team wins (had more fun) regardless of the score.
Thanks dude, writing is a recently discovered strength for me, and I think I tend to get a little long-winded in my effort to explain myself.
Not sure what to say about the dudebro or other related threads, other than they seem to be pretty defensive and they smack of paternalism.
It also seems to not be appreciated by many of the women it is proportedly trying to help.
I get what he is saying and the motivation behind it, and I think there is a place for the discussion (like this thread), but the execution sorta failed, mostly due to the defensiveness.
It also got off track a while ago, and the new point appears to be north VS south, east VS west.
I think the women of polo can handle themselves. If they can take the physical beating that polo can dish out, (like the shiner Cherri got last night blocking my slapshot - good thing she is always smiling those rosy cheeks - and her eye socket, she was quick to point out - protected her eyeball) I think they can probably handle some idiotic comments about weight, looks, skills. Women have to deal with a lot of things men dont, and vise-versa. On average women get paid less, are generally less appreciated, compared to a man in the same position, are faced with pressures from media, and its effect on men (severely unrealistic expectations), and are in general saddled with the less desireable jobs both professionally and personally (family, gender roles, caretaking dutie). But women, especially polo women, are tough as hell. They birth the world, nurse it, and sometimes watch it die.
It is really unfortunate that this has become an issue, though. Polo heckling should be creative and clever, as someone pointed out in another thread; not this misogynistic, stereotypical, internet troll-like (talking as though there is no consequence), uncreative, deeply personal tripe some of us have only read about happening at (a?) tournement/s. The men and women of polo are siblings in obscurity. We should treat each other like the motly family we are. Sure there are some cousins that like to hop trains and talk dumb shit; sure there are the grandpappy that have a sometimes questionably close relationship with a young sister, or the brother whose roughhousing is a bit too rough; but we need to stick together to keep polo alive.
x3!!
my sentiments exactly!
Pete, read what I wrote in response to Kiersten above. The point of Ladies Army is not to give women an opportunity to shine. We want to earn that right on the courts with anyone playing - whether or not they have a penis.
The way I see it, polo is currently at a crossroads. We can buy into the precedent that the mainstream has already set up for us, and begin to segregate based on gender. This will lead to more mainstream, shittier polo, because you're cutting out half the competition. We can reinforce the notion that people with vaginas are delicate little flowers who need protecting from the REAL MANLY MENZ of the world. We can avoid confronting those difficult misogynistic attitudes that are so blatantly obvious whenever coed games occur in tournaments today. And we can then watch the women's league dwindle into obscurity and near-extinction, as most professional sports* have done before us.
On the other hand, we can continue to play as hardcourt has always been played- open to all willing to hold a mallet and possibly suffer bodily injury. We can remain on the fringes, daring to offer up a legitimately level playing field, without grossly insulting the dozens (hundreds?) of women who have been playing with their club since its inception, only to be suddenly turned away because their vagina suddenly makes all their past game play irrelevant. We can open our eyes to the gross transgressions that are made every day, in every form of bigotry, and work to change those attitudes and behaviors from within, rather than punishing a minority group for the hatred directed towards them. We can acknowledge that if a majority of women are easily intimidated by us crazy stick-wielding folk, it's because they have been raised in a threatening environment where women must be timid and fearful to conform and survive, not because all women are inherently like that.
Another thing to keep in mind- segregation based on gender creates a huge problem when we encounter trans people who would like to join us on the court. Do we really want to send the message that we, like almost every other sport out there, do not recognize their bodily autonomy and ability to create their own identity?
*I'm mostly thinking of the WNBA here- I mean, who gets as excited about their Finals as they do about any NBA game? No one I know, certainly.
polo sees no gender...........................don't make it so.
x2
Did I even mention how massively fucked up it is to create a distinction based on a false social construct? This is the 21st century people, we should be past that, or at least running away from it full speed.
x2!
I can speak for Ladies Army Edmonton when I say that a lot of the women here want to play and learn basic polo skills in a friendly, non-competitive environment where the machismo and general hassling are minimal. On the other hand, some of us really like playing with the dudes, too, where things can get really competitive and rough and loud and obnoxious. The reason we started women-only was to give a chance to interested parties who were worried about getting hurt or intimidated (as mentioned above). We have had discussions about having certain ladies' days open to tentative newbies regardless of gender...
2 cents
-Inclusive vs. Exclusive-
We had a couple "ladies polo nights" here in PGH. I was NOT the organizer even though currently I am the only female playing co-ed regularly here in town. This was catalyzed by other women who wanted it to happen, I was only there for support and to explain the rules. I've encouraged all 14 who showed up on the first night to attend our Tuesday sessions which we consider our "rookie" night. So far 2 ladies have begun to attend this night. I am not making the argument that this is the perfect model but only providing an example of how to encourage an "intimidated culture", however you want to qualify that descriptor.
So...
Is a springboard approach to an exclusive night just to get the initial fear under control a bad idea? One club member jokingly asked if we could have an exclusive "fixed gear night", whatever whips your cream and attracts more players, ya heard?
I understand that some polo clubs prefer a smaller more tight knit group that can grow faster together. Here in PGH we hope to move forward by working with our local government in developing a mutli-use playing surface in one of the parks where we practice. We would have a more compelling proposal if our club were more inclusive and in greater numbers. I know in Lexington, where they have designated courts, they offer free polo lessons and engage the local youth in the sport. This is appealing to at least me being that I'd like to watch the sport flourish beyond "retirement" (years down the road).
OK.
-WHOA-MEN....in this mind- since you asked...
I LOVE playing with the guys, wouldn't want it any other way. They challenge and promote serious growth with their support. They heckle me yes, according to my gender, yes. Does it bother me? Not really. My fellow PGH players know boundaries and most importantly respect me as their friend. We have fun because we care about each other.
Everyone else, offensive heckling is what it is. Can we be friends? No? Well, sorry, you're ignored. I won't show you my tits...ever, so don't bother asking. If you want to see tits, go to a strip club, watch porn, go home to your girlfriend, do some sex-ting, recall the memories of your mom...don't care. I will shut it out and keep playing harder, faster, better, stronger...
Segregation in tournaments doesn't really concern me right now. Yeah LA3 was exclusive but at least it didn't require an application. I am interested in the ideas other folks are posting here about qualifying levels, keep it flowing. As long as there are plenty of tournaments for everyone to enter and play in, I am a happy poloista. So far there have been. Whether I ever qualify for big-shit tournaments is on ME (gender neutral) and whoever my teammates will be. Keep this shit Co-ed, please. It is most beautiful.
to conclude...
UpthePawns
Having just asked the prompted questions to the ladies here:
They say...
Playing on a seperate night is not because they want female only games but because they want a solely beginner night to play solely at a beginner pace. They want to be able to go slowly and learn without being mixed in with super serious players. It is encouraging to them when they can process the game without worrying about pissing off or disappointing seasoned players. The fact that ladies came together to play on a seperate night seems purely reflective of a socializing circle here in the city.
Beginner males have been invited and have jumped in on pickup since this has started on Wednesdays. These players want to endorse an inclusive beginners night and if seasoned players wish to participate they ask for patience and constructive feedback.
I love you Jill!
... It is encouraging to them when they can process the game without worrying about pissing off /sic/ disappointing seasoned players.
oops ... misquote.
Pittsburgh kicks ass. I miss the phallus of learning and all that good Oaklandh PA stuff.
Devin
I've seen several posts here say that one of the main benefits of having a ladies night is that it is a more calm, less physical setting for women who are new to polo to start playing. I think that this purpose could just as easily be achieved by having a newbie night, but I don't even think that's necessary. If someone comes and checks out polo for the first time, be friendly, greet them like usual, and most importantly if they're willing to try a game, let them know that everyone will play a bit differently! If possible, it wouldn't be a bad idea to set up a few newbie games on a regular pick-up night. Think about it this way: it lets the better players AND the newer players get better practice. It should be obvious that if you're playing around someone who's not as good on their bike (with one hand) and less aware of their surroundings, then you can't play full speed without scaring them or even putting them in danger. You should ALWAYS play to your competition when playing pick-up just to maximize fun for everyone. But that doesn't mean that when they're off the court that you have to continue playing slowly. I guess the point that I'm trying to illustrate here is that newbies/less experienced players shouldn't be scared away by fast paced games if they're not a part of them and they should enjoy the slower pace of the games of which they do get to be a part. You know what, I'm going to say it: you just shouldn't be scared by fast paced games at all if you want to become a polo player.
East Van started a chill night that never took off. But the reasoning behind it was to encourage new players and for more experienced players to work more on skills and teaching those more intimidated to jump into a regular night (admittedly, we can come on a little strong). Anyway, it never took off. So now we just call it out and play.
I personally really like the idea that Jason brought up for Cat style levels but wouldn't that bring more qualifying aspects into the game cause I know no one will be honest in what class they should be in. As for the polo future for women is what you guys make of it I honestly see no gender differences on the court. Shit when I first started I was getting my ass kicked by you guys! Seeing how this is one of few sports that seems it could remain co-ed we should keep it that way
This is my main problem with the Cat system (as quoted out of an email I wrote earlier) and my ideal solution, though its not doable at current:
My biggest concern with a Cat system, is that splitting into categories takes the community away from polo. Ladies Army has been great fun because all the guys come out to cheer us on and support us. Same thing goes the other way. At the big tourney's you guys love the cheering and support you get from us B players when you are getting deep in the brackets. If you have a separate tournament for As and Bs, the support is gone. Not everyone can travel every weekend, so of course you are going to pick the tournaments you play in first. If we lose the support, we lose the "community." And, B players don't get to play out of town A players, so its harder to progress in your skills.
What I would love to see is a series of concurrent events, similar to what we had while showing horses. Your points (or money earning in the horse world) determined what class you competed at. You were welcome to compete UP a division if you wanted to pay for it, but you didn't have to. And you could never compete down a level. For example: I'm a B player playing on a B team. I can't enter into the C tournament. But I can and do enter into the A in addition to my normal B. Now we run all the teams, standard double elim, mix of A/B/C players, and whoever wins, wins the A. Say my team and I place 12th overall. We are 12th in the A. Now look at stats and rankings, and we are the second best team that registered in the B tournament. So we've gotten 12th in the A but 2nd in the B. We get bragging rights, and prizes. The biggest problem with all this, is that we have to have facilities to host LARGE tournaments (not practical right now)
why would we be asking this question in the first place?
the only time we have to worry about the segregation is if and when polo goes pro.
even then, if we do go pro, it would be an X Game sport, and hell, they might just keep it co-ed.
Horse polo is a huge social class hoity toity game. The dapper young men go out and play while the ladies sit and sip their tea while they gossip and show off their new hat. It is just how things are done.
Bike polo, we hold burping contests on the sidelines, for crying out loud, and usually its the girls who win.
We are family.
It is OUR sport. If and when it goes pro, we should be the deciding factor if it is co-ed or not.
Baseball, basketball, football and any other sport was created when women couldn't even vote yet.
How many new team sports have evolved into pro status? None. X-Games are all individual and are treated as an olympic style competition.
I figure, don't worry about.
There. done.
But there are a lot of women who are concerned about the issue and how it should be handled. Clearly whatever happened in the SE riled some people up. Its totally worth talking about. Squashing an issue doesn't make the issue go away.
I'm yet to hear anyone argue that polo, when played at the highest level of competition, should be segregated by gender. It just doesn't seem like there's any debate there. I hate to bring up Ultimate, but it's another modern sport with a long tradition of coed play. It's highest level is called "Open" (any gender), but it also has a "mixed" category (minimum three of each gender) and a "womens" category. I'm not sure of the breakdown of the 5M+ ultimate players between those categories, but personally, i hope "open" remains the standard for 90% of polo events (including Open A, Open B, Open C, if our sport gets such levels in the future, which seems inevitable given the logistics of holding tourneys).
Since i don't think there's a debate about the highest level of competition, i feel that the discussion is really about other events. It sounds like some people don't want to see Ladies Army or coed/mixed tourneys. I've heard two main versions of that argument:
1) That they legitimize the segregation of polo, by gender, at the highest level of competition. But that doesn't seem like a possibility (i've never heard ANYONE argue for it).
2) "Reverse discrimination". It's not surprising that this point was brought up by a guy. It's just a silly argument and i personally don't feel like going into it, lest this thread become an argument between two white dudes about identity politics.
It's not reverse discrimination, it's not like Ladies Army is a qualifer for women only. That would be reverse discrimination. It's just plain ole' fashion discrimination. It's saying "you can't play in this tournament because of your gender". I know you said that you don't want to go into it, but I for one would love to hear why you think that is fair and why my belief that it's unfair is "silly".
Also worth noting: neither the color of someone's skin nor their gender makes any difference concerning the validity of their points. So two white dudes are perfectly able to put forth good points concerning identity politics. Or maybe just one.
"you can't play in this tournament because of your gender".
i'm sorry you're being so oppressed. ;-) I heard that the men who travelled all the way to Austin for LA3 felt really discriminated against, too.
Seriously, i agree with you (and everyone else here, it seems) that the highest level and vast majority of polo competitions should remain unsegregated. But that doesn't mean that events like Ladies Army shouldn't happen, especially not for moral reasons, which is your point.
Why not? You're yet to explain anything beyond saying that my position is silly and wrong.
Mockery doesn't really help to further the discourse. And I will say the events such as Ladies Army shouldn't happen, and yes for moral reasons.
Events which discriminate against male players in order to give the female players "their time in the sun" operate on the assumption that female players would be unable to shine in a non-discriminatory environment. This is patently false- Kayla won MVP at the Ball Whacker's Ball, and was on the second place team there; hell, I was on a team that got seventh place in Cascadia. There are plenty of other examples out there.
I very strongly believe that women who play with the mentality that they're good "for a girl" will not succeed at the highest levels. For myself, I plan to be on the podium at Worlds one day. When I see female only events, I see them as reinforcements for women playing under that mentality, and as reinforcements for all those guys who told me (in my first couple of years) that I was great- "for a girl"- and more recently- "but you don't play like a girl".
You're right, mockery doesn't help.
.
I've approached Ladies Army somewhat uneasily for the point(s) expressed above.....One of the most common heckles I heard at Midwest's this year was "Come on, is this a ladies army game?" followed by an outburst of laughter from the crowd. That stings. It doesn't take a lot to understand the implication behind that statement. I've also gotten the backhanded compliments listed above: "You're pretty good! You should go to Ladies Army!" or from a guy who lined up for a game of pick-up with Tiff and I: "Oh man....we're going to get slaughtered." He knew nothing about the other team, just that a team of two females and a guy couldn't possibly compete against three other guys. (We ended up beating that team too.) You want to talk about the relevancy of feminism? Feminism is about choices. The choice to not work a traditional job and be a homemaker, the choice to have an abortion or not and this scenario is no different to me. There will be women who find Ladies Army appealing because that's what they want out of polo. As a whole, I don't think its existence changes much. Some women don't want to be super competitive or travel to play. We have a couple here and I respect that. That's their decision. The important thing is to support the small group of women that do play, no matter what their level of commitment may be. They need a bike? Help them find one. They don't have a mallet? Show them how to build one. They're frustrated by how steep the learning curve is in polo? Don't be critical, encourage them. Lexington isn't a big place, but we have a good number of female players. And at one point, a transexual player. I don't want this thread to focus so much on the merits of Ladies Army. That's just one very small aspect of women in polo. Instead, I want to focus on how we can get MORE playing.
Also, immense gratitude to the Lexington club. Everyone here went above and beyond to make me feel not only welcome, but that I could be as good of a player as anyone else. Thank you! xo
Yes. I too have immense gratitude for the Lexington club for the perpetual encouragement.
It was your club's open Invitational Spring 2010 that I first experienced a tournament. I went on a whim last minute to play pick up with a shitty fixed gear conversion and my first mallet (Jeff made for me) and left Kentucky with a newly found passion and a raging desire to hone my skills.
It was inspiring to meet and see so many women playing in Lex that weekend (Tif, Jess, Meg T, Jess DC, Meg DC...) and the support of their club behind them.
I recall a moment when Chris Simpson was playing a game with you, Jess, and he was dribbling the ball down the court with two swarming him in the paint, you shouted, "USE ME!", he quickly passed you the ball which shook the two defense players off of him, he got open for you to give and go pass, he popped it in the net....a beautifully orchestrated goal. He thanked you for that goal and for reminding him that you are valuable out there.
This sticks in my mind so vividly because in every game regardless of whether I am playing with males or females, I remember that my teammates are valuable and that we need to use each other effectively to win. No solo polo...boring to watch, boring to play IMHO.
Back to the point...LEX's club's approach to inclusiveness is inspiring to me. I hope one day PGH can reflect their culture. Mad love.
Thank you! Well said.
egalitarianism is a fine ideal to live by, and there comes a time when each of us must stand up for our principles. the ladies' army tournament just isn't where i'd choose to draw a line in the sand.
having one ladies only tournament doesn't really diminish anyone's opportunity to play and enjoy polo. as has been said, there are plenty of events available to anyone who wants to play. if one exclusive tournament can create a ton of goodwill (which it seems to have done) then i'd say the good more than makes up for falling somewhat short of a worthy ideal.
in strict terms of jurisdiction, i don't think nah or anyone else has the authority to tell any group how to play polo, or with whom. but i am glad we can all have an civil discussion about this, and hope that all honest opinions are heard and taken to heart.
I'm just the kind of person who stands on principle. Most people aren't, I understand that. So is everyone coming to the 'brown people only' tournament I'm going to throw? You can't play though, you can only watch, heckle, and shout racist things.
I'm just the kind of person who stands on principle. Most people aren't, I understand that.
or maybe you just don't want to understand their principles. either way, i expect that arguing for less polo tournaments isn't going to win you much support.
It's typically the case that they're don't even have principles to begin with and if they do, they don't explain them or don't recognize the flaws in their position. Just look at this thread, the two most popular reasons for having a ladies only tournament can be served perfectly well by other tournaments that don't discriminate. If you want a tournament that's slower paced and more welcoming towards folks who might be afraid of the roughness of the game, then you can have a newbie or weekend warrior tournament. If you want to give ladies a place to shine, then 1) you're assuming that they don't already shine in every game they play and that you need to level the playing field which can be (and is by some) seen as insulting, and 2) you can have a tournament separated in another way that lends itself to more women's teams placing higher. For example, you could throw a tournament that is only for people who haven't qualified yet or haven't placed in the top 16 in a qualifier or something like that.
The vast majority of people who play this game and on the planet in general don't have a terribly firm basis for their moral beliefs, if they've even spent any time reflecting upon them. Now that's not some complaint about or insult towards people. Yeah it's not an ideal situation, but it's not like people ignore right and wrong intentionally, they often just plain don't know any better or were taught poorly (this big book is always right, no exceptions!). That's why I try my best to explain the principles behind my beliefs, in this case, the principle is that discrimination based upon gender is wrong. Some people here sound like they don't care terribly much about someone discriminating based upon gender if it has nothing to do with the NAH tour and all, but that's shortsighted. What's going to happen when the first transgender or hermaphroditic super-slayer wants to play in Ladies Army?
Going off on a bit of an ethical tangent, holding unyielding beliefs is admirable in its own way, but what's wrong with some moral flexibilty? If we were talking about a societal level institution of discrimination, that'd be one thing. But we're not. Where's the burning moral objection to women's only, or men's only, or super-slayer hermaphrodite only events? If a group wants to get together and have their own exclusive polo tournament, that's not exactly something I can oppose, so long as it doesn't have institutional sanction. And let's consider the community involved. It's been my experience that the people who play polo are overwhelmingly opposed to actual discrimination, and even at so called "discriminatory" events, accomodations are made for those who want to come as spectators/hecklers. Ladies Army, if I'm not mistaken, had a cooed tournament the day before the ladies played without their male counterparts. Furthermore, should this extend beyond gender lines to include all other forms of exclusivity? There was an All Florida tournament that I couldn't play in because I live in alabama. Has a my equality been compromised because the floridians wanted their own event? I understand an unyielding devotion to your sense of morality, but trying to apply it to an incredibly diverse community that is generally incredibly welcoming is foolish. And saying that others are inferior because they are willing o exercise flexibilty when it comes to issues of equality is fairly insulting, even if those people "don't know any better".
I'm not sure what you mean by 'moral flexibility'. If you mean the willingness to accept that others may do things you see as wrong, I got that. If you mean the willingness to do things yourself that you see as wrong, I don't get that. I don't play on endorsing or attending such a tournament, but I certainly won't make any effort to stop it from happening beyond putting forth my opinions on the issue. I'm all for laissez-faire morality until others are seriously wronged and I don't see being excluded from a polo tournament as a serious wrong. I see what you're saying about the all-Florida tournament and the Columbus open is the same way and I think there are similar sentiments concerning it. Not being in a state or a bordering state is a crappy reason to forbid someone from going to a polo tournament unless there is some sort of qualifying system going on. If a team wants to prove that they're the best team in their state, hold a tournament and see who the last team standing from your state is. Or have called matches between games. At the South Central qualifier, the team from Austin, TX was awarded the SCBPC belt buckles even though they got 2nd place. They are the best South Central team even if they didn't win the tournament.
Also, I'm not saying that anyone is inferior for not having a strong sense of morality. Some people don't care about right and wrong at all and they're not necessarily worse people. Doing right is doing right even if there isn't any theory behind it. Same goes for doing wrong. But educating yourself concerning the rightness/wrongness of a situation is something that I feel all people should try to do more and I think I don't see enough of on a daily basis.
It's easy to say we should look beyond gender and say that everyone is equal now. it's just words though.... this doesn't take into account that this is a male dominated sport.
Real or perceived, it seems women don't feel as welcomed as men do to this sport. The inquiring mind asks "why"? Do you have an answer? Is it OK that there's a 20:1 male/female ratio? Does it say something about our sport, or something about our character? Should we try to be more inclusive? Obviously what we have done isn't enough, granted we think that it's not OK.
Maybe this is unrelated, but women earn 77% of what men do... Could it be... that we, as part of this larger society, have a culture that discriminates upon gender?
There's the theoretical stance that says "we're all equal" (1700s humanitarianism, 250 years later it's still just words). Then there's pragmatism, that says "we'll do what it takes to actually make shit fair". Sometimes this means we lose some of our power as the dominant subjects in society (males, and white too), and rightly so.
Listen, to say "we're all equal, let's stop this reverse sexism" is to continue the status quo of actual sexism, BECAUSE IT EXISTS. If anyone thinks this is a problem, then we should do something about it. The fact that this discussion exists is an affirmation of the problem. You can't sweep this under the rug, pete. it exists. the question is what should we do about it? If the problem is lack of inclusion with females, then how do we become more inclusive to females? Will male only events help? Will ladies only events help? Will only co-ed events change this? Will waxing philosophical about moral poverty help? Will ladies nights help? Will a different league help? Will getting rid of sexed MVP help? Will letting the ladies decide whats best for the ladies help?
Fuck the theoretical morality involved, because what the goal is isn't theoretical.
"Real or perceived, it seems Asians don't feel as welcomed as white people do to this sport. The inquiring mind asks "why"? Do you have an answer? Is it OK that there's a 20:1 Asian/white ratio? Does it say something about our sport, or something about our character? Should we try to be more inclusive? Obviously what we have done isn't enough, granted we think that it's not OK."
Does that sound outlandish to you?
Tokyo has their own tournaments. not very many whiteys attending those.
HA!
god i hate this thread.
God I love Tokyo Bike polo. They are classy friendly people. At least the ones I met.
But they clearly discriminate against white people due to the low numbers of white people playing in Toyko, right? That's the only explanation for low numbers of a minority group!
I think your shovel may have broken at the bottom of the hole you're digging. Can I lend you a spoon?
I was being sarcastic, of course. It's called a reductio ad absurdum. I'm using parallel reasoning to arrive at a clearly false conclusion. Check it out:
This is the argument that people here are putting forth:
1) A majority of people in the world are female
2) Males vastly outnumber females in bike polo
Therefore
3) Females are discriminated against and not encouraged to play
This is the parallel argument that I'm putting forth with a clearly false conclusion
1) A majority of people in the world are Asian
2) White people vastly outnumber Asians in bike polo
Therefore
3) Asians are discriminated against and not encouraged to play
But it's just plain not the case that the the conclusions (3s) are necessarily caused by discrimination. The fact that less females play is because less females like contact sports and less females ride bikes. The fact that less Asians play is because the game started and is more popular in predominantly white areas of the world. You can't make the jump from "less of minority X plays bike polo" to "minority X is discriminated against" so easily. If there is anything unclear here, I'd be more than happy to explain further.
50 percent of people are female. tokyo is more than 50% Japanese... just a little. actually i googled it:
"And of the 13 million people living in in Tokyo there are less than 50,000 westerner residents, That's 0.4%."
And what about the percentage of people who ride bikes are female? Or the percentage of people who like contact sports who are female? Doesn't anybody see my point yet? The fact that less women play isn't because they're discriminated against, it's just because less women are interested due to tertiary factors. How is that not painfully obvious?
Also, notice how above I said Asian, not Japanese. Asia has over 60% of the world's population but is vastly underrepresented in terms of bike polo. It is because of discrimination? Of course not!
And what about the percentage of people who ride bikes are female? Or the percentage of people who like contact sports who are female? Doesn't anybody see my point yet? The fact that less women play isn't because they're discriminated against, it's just because less women are interested due to tertiary factors. How is that not painfully obvious?
I see you have your own spoon!
You're suggesting that at a male-female ratio of 20-1 bike polo has reached its natural proportion of female participation? Nothing to think twice about, just the way it is? Obviously? Never mind that 90% of the population has still never heard of bike polo and we have no idea what our eventual saturation levels will be in different communities? Never mind that most clubs have made very little effort to target new female players?
Anecdotally, I'd say that women ride bikes about as much as men. I'd say that female youth participation in soccer, field hockey, lacrosse, softball, etc, while not equal to male participation, is indicative of a broad interest in competitive (and yes, contact) sports. At 20-1, I’d say there is no way polo is getting the number of new female players that would be logically interested in a team sport with bikes. How is that not painfully obvious?
Discrimination isn’t really the point. What’s worth examining is where tomorrow’s female slayers are, and why we haven’t reached them yet. You’re talking about tertiary factors as logical barriers to entry without examining what they really are, or even asking the question: are they changable without changing the sport?. What if it’s the fact that bike polo came up through messenger culture and just hasn’t reached all that many women? What if we put out flyers at spin classes rather than at messenger bars? What if polo was commonly portrayed as being about camaraderie (which it is) instead of super-dangerous adrenaline-seeking (which it isn’t).
Anecdotally, I'd say that women ride bikes about as much as men.
Anecdotally you'd be right, factually you'd be wrong.
In America in 2009 it was a 73% to 27% split male to female bicycle commuters.
I'm not claiming that the 20:1 ratio is the natural proportion, I'm claiming that the 20:1 ratio isn't due to discrimination, at least at this point. I think that clubs are very welcoming towards women who want to play from everything I've seen and I doubt many women here would say that their club is against the idea of more women playing. Clubs make efforts to grow by recruiting whoever wants to be recruited, I don't see why you should make an extra effort to target women. If you put up flyers and have promo events, that should be enough effort. Claiming that women need to be specially targeted is already assuming that the typical advertising doesn't appeal to them. Why should we assume that? Perhaps in assuming that you're highlighting the reasons why more women don't already play to begin with.
The soccer/field hockey/lacrosse/softball analogy doesn't hold up because of the institutions already in place. And most of those are offered in school, already socially pervasive and acceptable, and so on. We're talking about a growing game here, not one that's already established. Speaking of sports that are already established, what about BMX? How many female BMXers are there compaired to male BMXers? Is discrimination the explanation there as well? I don't think so.
I agree that discrimination isn't the point because as of right now, there isn't any! I'm talking about tertiary factors as explanations as to why women are where they are in bike polo. I'm talking totally sociologically here, it's just the way the population is that makes the game this way. I'm not saying that anyone is or should be making a conscious effort to be inclusive OR exclusive. I completely agree that it's about changing the tertiary factors in a way that may be more welcoming to women, that's why I've said above that newbie night is a good idea to cater to those afraid of fast/physical play or a non-qualified tournament would be good for similar reasons.
I also completely agree that it's about the fact that bike polo came up through the messnger culture and just hasn't reached all that many women. THAT'S the sort of reason that explains the ratio moreso than some sort of perceived discrimination. We're on the same page here. I like that. However, I'm not saying that the tertiary factors are logical barriers, just that they are the barriers that happen to exist today. I'm trying to explain the female to male disparity in a way other than jumping to the conclusion that it's discrimination. That's really all I'm trying to do here.
x2 about Tokyo being super friendly
We have some tournament here in Japan and Taiwan.
Last year we have 3 tournamnet in Tokyo, Tokushima, and Osaka.
Thanks, Jinxy for represent to us.
edited.
I'm a little angry.But, I might have to shut my own mouth.
fail...there are a few of us minorities out there swimming in the sea of whiteness who have had discussions (in response to "colorful" racist comments, accents, jokes, etc...) about the lack of minority players...so im glad you chose this asinine and sophomoric approach to attempt to belittle the serious discriminatory problem in a so-called "coed" sport and accidentally opened eyes to other areas of polo growth not happening in our current polo utopia of egalitarianism (minus ladies army obviously)...minority females...yikes...now we're just talking crazy.
way to call BS on lip service. woman make up 51% of the population but less than 5% of the NAH qualified players...equal? its refreshing to hear someone willing to sacrifice a little of their male privilege (and white privilege?...mentioned above)...good stuff.
Women make up 51% of the population but less than 5% of the Olympic track and field world record holders. Equal?
Could you guys go argue this elsewhere? There is a reason I dropped out of philosophy in college, and this is it.
This thread is supposed to be about the following 3 questions and I think you've gotten way off track.
Where do women fit into current polo? Where should women fit in the future? Why?
As someone currently in college pursuing a philosophy degree (ie advanced unemployment application skills) I'll throw my last thoughts in on this. Women are an incredible, integral part of this sport and need to remain in that position. The fact that polonis officially cooed is unique and distinguishes us from the majority of the sporting world. On an official, organizational level, it's almost imperative to maintain that. Just because na tour events and international competitions should remain cooed doesn't preclude specific tournaments and recruitment tactics aimed exclusively at the fairer sex. These events, just like newbie nights and friendly get togethers between cities can help maintain a level of diversity (gender based and otherwise) that other sports lack. On that note, I'm done with this thread. I'll go back to thinking about life and explaining why an in depth understanding of Hegelian morality is worth more than $7.25 an hour.
I'll go back to thinking about life and explaining why an in depth understanding of Hegelian morality is worth more than $7.25 an hour.
It's not...
The answers to these questions that some people have put forth are like so: 1) women don't play a big enough role, have enough chances to shine, etc. 2) there should be more considerations for getting women to play both in and out of tournaments and 3) because of discrimination/overphysical play/environments not welcoming to women. What I'm disagreeing with is that the cause is discrimination and that we need to make an extra effort to counteract that discrimination. I also disagree with the opinion that women aren't given enough opportunities. You, amongst others, agreed with my claim that this perceived need to level the playing field is somewhat insulting, it's not terribly different from saying that girls aren't good enough so they should get their own league. I don't like that attitude because 1) segregation sucks and 2) women can be (and are!) awesome at this game. From what I can tell in this thread, most women want polo to remain co-ed so it seems like women are where they want to be right now. As far as the future goes, I like the category A/B/C thing, and I'd imagine that women will still be playing polo often, in increasing numbers, and improving over time, just like the dudes.
I hope that makes it a bit more clear why I've been writing essays on here. I do my best to be as clear as I can, but if anything I'm saying sounds completely crazy, just let me know and I'll try to explain.
No i won't come to your brown people only tournament. But you can come to my silly hats only tournament. Anybody without a silly hat has to leave.
I'm hoping some of these girls speak up, because I've been told by more then one that they DO want polo split. Thats why I brought this all up. Its not my voice though so they need to say it themselves.
The only reason why polo should ever be split by gender is if a large enough portion of the girls want it that way. This is only the decision of those who desire to do it. Either way, everyone should and probably will always be welcome to compete in all other tournaments.
Ladies Army is a chance for girls to come out and meet and play against most of the ladies of polo. There are so few of us, what is it, like 1 to every 25 or so guys? We could sit and do the math if you want...
Anyways. Because it is such a male dominated sport, I like the Ladies Army to see how these women have adapted and what they have learned and how they have grown and what their strengths are. Some play crazy hard and rough, some are more technical, etc.
I mean, every tournament and polo get together is such a sausage fest, you guys wouldn't really understand how it feels to be outnumbered by the sexes, unless you are/were a male cheerleader.
Seriously. Let us girls have our fun once a year. Learn from each other, about the game and life and just have a good time.
I don't know why everything has to be so ghaddam serious all the time.
Until there is a solid amount of girls, a more even ratio, unfortunately its gonna seem like the girls are pushed aside. I was excited to see 14 girls attended the Desert Polo Invite. 14 girls out of the 100 or so players. Not even a quarter of that tournament's player population. But that was way more than the majority of the tournaments in the past year (I believe, correct me if I am wrong)
So, boys, appreciate the fact you have a chick on your team or in your club. For some girls, they are all about the tough sports and crazy antics, and for some, this is a huge deal.
I like how polo is an open welcoming friendly family, that no matter who you are, if you have a mallet and a bike, you're my ghaddam family.
I like how polo is an open welcoming friendly family, that no matter who you are, if you have a mallet and a bike, you're my ghaddam family.
QFT.
doubleplus all that.
I'm 'replying' to Amanda because I think she nailed it with the Ladies Army content. I think it's a very important tournament for women to be a part of. there were a total of 12 women in the 114 players...meaning a ratio of 1:9.5...at ESPI this year, and only 3 moved on to Sunday's double elim brackets, ration of 1:24. i'm not saying it's because those other ladies aren't as good [maybe they are maybe they're not] but its always a challenge to find a solid team and advance in tournaments as a female. Ladies Army allows for us all to break free of that and play together, meet each other, draw strength, strategy, and diplomacy from one another, and to show the girls that are waivering maybe why it's good to stay in it. i noticed improvement from everyone i'd seen last year, and most play in mostly male clubs. It is hard to be a female in this sport, those of us that do play and love to play love playing with the boys, but that doesn't mean it's easy. Derogatory comments and personal feelings aside, we learn from you but allowing us one tournament a year is not really going to hurt you boys.
i do not think that polo should split up into genders, in fact i think it should become more coed. i think the men/boys in this sport should really start swallowing their egos and looking at the one, two, maybe three, or if you're cascadia half of you [ha], ladies that are in your clubs as serious players that are there for the same reasons as you: to be a better polo player. pick-up is where we'll get better, but we can't do it alone the way the numbers stand, and tournaments is where we show everyone else that the club and ALL it's members can become better A players. [bench minor draft an example of low women considerations against men]
*and i know that not every member of every club is the same...this is just a general feeling. i've lived/played in 3 cities so far and traveled to many...this opinion is not without consideration but it is my opinion, and only that*
I like the idea of dividing polo into skill categories rather than gender. I think Kev mentioned the A, B, C ranking. I've also heard some people talking about a similar ranking. In tournaments for example the top 2 teams from C division then become B's and the bottom 2 B's become C's. It also applies at the A level. This allows mixing of the levels and progression. Or someting like that. When new players come in they can play C tournaments and not feel intimidated playing A players??!!!
pretty much every other competitive cycling discipline follows this 'category' model. it's not perfect obviously, but in my experience it does a really good job of allowing the best players the opportunity to showcase the sport at the highest level. likewise, it allows players of less developed skill to enjoy some success in competition, which like it or not, is *very* important to grow and maintain interest. as a race organizer, those lower category participants are generally how you pay the bills. :)
you can still keep it egalitarian with open categories with qualifiers and what-have-you, but skills-based divisions seem to have proved themselves as effective throughout the history of organized sports. i see it as a natural evolution in polo as well.
I sincerely hope that the world polo community continues to thrive in a week to week culture of inclusive informal competion.(punctuated by well organised serious events) My co-workers friends and family are a big ol' mix of humanity. I want to play against PEOPLE who love this crazy game as much as (or more than) me. Let the rankings decide themselves on skills. Let clubs have "dads only tourneys" "teachers only tourneys" "ex-junkie truckers only tourneys" whatever they think will get more people into the sport. Just keep the weekly pick up and the major tourneys "open" to all. There's my two cents. (and because I'm Australian it's worth 2.14 US cents, ha!)
x infinity
I see no benefit to the polo community to segregate players through any sort of ranking system whether it be gender or skill.
C players know they're C players, no need to rub our noses in it.
A players win tournaments, duh. You're recognized and cheered for by us B & C players when you claim first, second and third place at tournaments.
You're not that special though, don't let it go to your heads. <|:-)
so if we were to proceed with the Category tournaments, how would we decide who is in what class?
Is it more of a club deciding factor? Like the club rep keeps tabs on all the players throughout the season and keeps notes on goals made, skill improvement etc?
What determines A and B?
And what is going to keep A players from sneaking into B tournaments?
The difference between A-list players and B-list players is where do they place in tournaments. A-list players are the slayers who routinely are the top tier of the tournaments. B-List is everyone else. There's not much sneaking into B tournaments. NAH knows who the top slayers are (look at this years qualifiers; all of those people are A-listers). People who win B level tournaments get promoted to A-list and those who do poorly in the A-list can get dropped back to B. Clubs don't have to deal with anything other than getting their players better.
all of those parameters would be defined by the sanctioning body, but the category placement is usually based on a given player or teams past performance during sanctioned events.
in the case of USAC for example, you start off in the lowest category and after you place higher than x in y number of starts, you're moved to a higher category.
it doesn't prevent 100% of sandbaggers from gaming the system, but it does a good enough job without being unnecessarily complicated to the sanctioning body.
it would also imply that some sort of registration and historical record be kept for individual players or teams. not a trivial task.
WHY CANT WOMEN DO WHEELIES??!?
CUS THERE AINT NO BIKE LANE BETWEEN THE BEDROOM AND THE KITCHEN
NYAYNYAHNYAHNYAH
not knowing who you are, where you stand on this subject or what your sense of humour is I'm hoping that the above comment is an attempt at irony? if not it's an example of the kind of shit that passes for humour in too many male dominated "traditional" sports that I want no part of and i've dignified an imbicile with a response.
this is why we cant have nice things...
"WHY CANT WOMEN DO WHEELIES??!?
CUS THERE AINT NO BIKE LANE BETWEEN THE BEDROOM AND THE KITCHEN
NYAYNYAHNYAHNYAH"
lets try to keep this thread relevant, and steer BS comments into other less important topics/threads, por favor? gracias.
Pardon my candor, but I think women that play polo are badass. Period. At all levels. Stepping into the ring in a male dominated sport has to be intimidating for some if not many women. I know I was pretty intimidated the first time I played, and I was already adept at bike handling, had played some team sports, and was no stranger to injury/pain.
The way I see it, there are (at least) two directions the league could take RE: "the future of women in polo":
1 - dissolve female only events, and HOPE that we ferret out all the badass women that have an interest, convince them to play polo, over whatever other badassery they might be involved in (rock climbing, roller derby, shark rassling, bike racing, computer hacking, skydiving, soccer, rugby, ultimate, etc) and grow the co-ed sport that way...
OR
2 - create a stepping-stone like environment that would help new players gain bike handling skills, teamwork skills, mechanical skills, injury recovery skills, nunchuck skills - be it through Ladies Army, ladies night, or simply noob days... with the hope that those players would graduate to playing the big co-ed tourneys, etc.
I love that the sport is co-ed, and I too want to keep it that way. I also think there is a place for a gentler introduction to slightly less badass women, or as-yet-to-bloom badass women, women still finding their badassery, or really anyone that isnt looking to get run over by some overzealous, testosterone and four-loko fueled dudebro; at least not before they are somewhat prepared.
As much as it pains some of us, the social construct exists. We all are faced with it every day. Not all women that are polo-curious are going to be ready with the appropriately caloused knees, hands, and minds. It will take some women longer than others to adopt the badass attitude that we see on the court. We are not trying to overthrow the construct overnight, per se, but use it as a springboard from which we create our own new, egalitarian social norms. The more women we have playing polo, the more will join (IMHO). The more women throwing away their preconceived notions of feminity and "proper" female behavior, the more female slayers we will have (again, IMHO). I am not in any way saying that a great polo player cannot be feminine, but according to the existing social construct, they may be considered mutually exclusive.
In closing, I dont believe the question is "Where do women belong in the future of polo?", but rather "How does the polo family continue to attract and retain high caliber women players (and encourage them to play at a high level)". Or something in that vein.
Your New NICNAME IS "TLDR;"
and with regards to women
I just want to jump in here and say that The Ladies Army is not an NAH sanctioned event. As well, LoBP has no decision making authority over bike polo tournaments. LoBP is a forum for discussing all topics related to bike polo. NAH is the body that governs competitive bike polo tournaments. It aims to do more, but that's where it stands today.
what women belong islaveing over a stove
Oh man, really? stick to trying to jump box-carts and leave the discussion to anyone living the 21st century! (or late 20th even.)
Oh man, really? stick to trying to jump box-carts and leave the discussion to anyone living the 21st century! (or late 20th even.)
i have to correct you on that its billly carts in your part of the world
what women belong islaveing over a stove
i just want to let you all know i was kidding about women slaving over a stove i just want to get a reaction
me i think women belong were men are girls play better polo then most of the guys
Hard Court Bike Polo doesn't see sexes, colors, sexual preferences, etc. Keep it united!
On another note, what do people think about some tournaments doing male and female MVP's? I've seen a few tournaments do this now and I feel it's almost just as bad as segregating the league.
*ajk;sdf;lkjasdy wqerbjkas *
by that logic, then there shouldn't be prizes for ladies in alley cat races.
i'm just gonna let you GUYS figure out what is best for us girls.
i'm done with these kinds of threads.
i am just saving me and you the long winded rant that no one will read, or if you do, then you will take everything out of context, thus making everything more frustrating and in the end, my original point will be lost in the interwebs. that or i will end up saying something that really shouldn't be said.
2009 in Calgary a few of the girls started having their own night for polo , mostly because our game play back then was very aggressive a lot of the time and we had small burst of noobs that just didn't like destroying their bikes or bleeding. I don't recall exactly how many weeks it lasted but, it wasn't long... boys kept coming up to the court to get some polo in ( we have a very tiny polo season here ) and I think there was some personal beef between a few of the players and POW .. a whole separatist league was started here. Initially it was girls ONLY .. but quickly became co-ed ( my guess was so they had more then just 6 of the same girls every week and harvest the noobs in a more gentile environment then what Calgary Bike Polo was in at the time.
This is just my 2 cents on what happened here .. I say co-ed forever!
http://roguepolo.com/ is their site ..
keep em together
play rough with people that can handle it, done.
There will be no future of polo without our ladies.
I'd like to restart the above clusterfuck that is now unreadable in terms of formatting down here.
In terms of ratios of male:female players- where was that 20:1 number coming from again? NA qualified players? That's a rather self-selecting number. How about we look at leadership in polo? NAH has 21 reps, right? And 3 of them are female-bodied. So roughly 15% of the polo leadership is female, rather than the 5% of NA-qualified players. Extending these numbers to include club reps might have more interesting results. I have always thought that the polo players in a city were an extension of the general cycling population- that is, in cities with a larger proportion of female cyclists, you'll find a larger number of female polo players. I've noticed that in LA- as more females start riding bikes, we start getting more females willing to try polo (like Jinxy!) I thought that association carried through in areas like Portland and Seattle, which have the most female polo players by far, as well as some of the most gender-balanced cycling in the US.
And an observation- how come this discussion has become men responding to men? I've noticed that the women posting long, thought-provoking comments are only receiving long, thought-provoking comments in return from other women. But the men are only replying to the few comments from other men, despite some thematic similarities to the posts written by women.
cuz their thought process is as long as their. *ahem*
*badoom ching!!*
anyways.
i gotta get back to work
Seems like a good place to reply. I'm not sure there is any universal, transcendental, right or wrong, but I do see some people showing a commitment to recruiting new players of whatever gender they identify with. Putting their money where their mouth is, so to speak. And I like it.
I would align myself with anyone here who is declaring there needs to be more women players. Same goes for anyone here declaring there needs to be more "visible minorities" playing.
And each of us have different "reasons" with which we explain our position with.
It's a tedious process this negotiating but this is a very good thread with a very good question to ask.
Ladies Army seems to me to be an excellent exercise in not so much "reverse-discrimination" or affirmative action, but a laudable commitment by some people who declared that they wanted to see more women playing and this was one possible way of having that occur.
Inequalities abound in our world and they quite often exist in less than obvious ways. Sometimes generations of social force leave a legacy of near invisible institutional structure and personal sublimation that may by default reduce specific kinds of participations. The more obvious rewards of emancipation may mask subtler exercises of prejudices.
I have noticed here in Montreal the ebb and flow of francophone vs anglophone players. I think for a while the amount of english being spoken may have put a lot of possible new francophone players off joining us. There was some effort put into not so much specifically targeting new francophone recruits but more a case of being mindful of a question of "what do they need to make the step toward us?". For whatever reasons francophones make up the current majority. Our next step is acting out the same question in regards to potential women players as we have decided that having only two is just not enough. And of course expanding upon that to whatever "others" we decide could also be a part of "us".
celebrate diversity in polo!...and accept that its our personal responsibility to diversify polo every chance we get!...every teammate choice, team name choice, etc...
i refrained from responding out of respect for kiersten's wish to to have a healthier discourse...i held my tongue until minorities were mentioned as well. fake accents and the like abound in polo and dialogue should take place concerning this as well...it just sucks it was brought up in a disparate (not completely unrelated but nevertheless distinctly its own) thread. albeit ancillary it deserved commenting on.
ratiowise...i think the qualified player percentage is very telling. its not so much due to individual talent that many of the people did or didn't qualify. a mediocre player can be picked up by two so-called "slayers" and qualify despite having less talent than another player of any gender, race, orientation, etc...so maybe the question is...what other reason is there to explain why certain players statistically don't get picked up by the "slayers" if not because of one of the aforementioned criteria? i understand team chemistry...that's the easy out.
question for you..is it the girls' responsibility to form coed teams or is it the majority's (guys) responsibility to form coed teams? if neither then who is responsible for making polo coed? what is the smallest percentage of female players that still qualifies by definition as coed?....01%?
i like that above last observation of yours...
lefties army for 2012. i am dead fucking serious. friday will be an ambidextrous tournament with at least one player of each team being right handed, and one being left handed. then saturday will be a round robin (probably a double round robin based on the fact that there will probably be about 4 teams.) and then sunday will be a triple elimination bracket. maybe quadruple. i mean lefties are completely underrepresented in this sport....
/end thread
Some really good comments here! I read A LOT of them but fortunately there are too many for me to sit and read all at once.
I don't like the idea of Ladies Night but recognize that polo may be intimidating for some ladies who want to play.
I agree that models for gender identity in our culture play a big part in how the majority of women see themselves, level of personal strength and role in a community.
Basically, I'm making the nurture over nature argument here because I know plenty of tough chicks who can hang with the bros on the polo court.
The best way to help new players is to have beginner nights (on the other side of the coin competitive nights are necessary as well).
Polo will stay coed, damn it! As it becomes more competitive and organized I agree with having different classes of events based on level of play as mentioned in the comparison to cycling events.
But, simply dividing by gender is not ok.
I'd like to live in a world where gender doesn't matter at all, but we aren't there yet.
Ladies Polo = More Polo
In London, we started a ladies night, not because we wanted a ladies only newbie night, but because we wanted more ball/court time and an easier in to competitive and technical play that didn't involve sighs or eye rolling from the dudes we got thrown in with (not regular, but happened). We've now got a huge group of ladies that play regularly on co-ed nights and go to tournaments and play out of their skins where before there were only a few core female players who came out from time to time spectate and sometimes play abroad.
It's been stated loads of times already, but yeah, polo is primarily a sausage fest (and our throw in nights attract a ridiculous number of players, so you're lucky if you get more than 4 games, but that's besides the point). I see Ladies Army (and Hell's Belles when it happens) as an opportunity to get more ladies out who normally sit in the sidelines or stay at home during most international tournaments. It means getting more games in at a tournament where you might get thrown out early because, frankly, you're just not good enough or didn't qualify. It's not your "time to shine" but time to just fucking play more polo. Sure, there are loads of ladies that don't need this and therefore don't participate in ladies only activities as a result, and more power to them! As Jess said, it's important to have the choice. I believe that ladies only events exist to help encourage more ladies to play, help strengthen their games with more ball time, and nurture their love of the sport, so that maybe someday we'll have enough representation that we won't need ladies only events.
Also, ladies night is not equal to newbie night. Just sayin'.
Well said Lalou. In London most girls are much newer to polo than the guys, and ladies polo has meant that new girls are catching up a lot quicker to the established players in terms of skill, simply because it's more time on the ball.
Our top girl players are that way because they have committed to polo, over time, have gone to tournaments, and are great sportspeople etc etc - but newer girls are closing the gap and learning loads because of ladies polo - which has encouraged them to go and play more mixed polo anyway. In the past there were a couple of kick-ass girls at polo, but now there are tons more.
More girls is cool, but more girls competing on a serious level is, in my opinion, extra special (because it's not been like that in the past - aside from Los Conos who beat BAD at Cambridge, and we'll never let them forget). The Euro wildcard really pointed to a shift from token lady perma goalie to all-female and female majority teams playing and winning games.
In terms of achieving its intended objective, it's been a great 'way in' for new girls, I can't believe how fast skills are improving and numbers growing. In my opinion, it's better than rookie polo (though that happens and is obviously great for new players too) because there is a range of abilities at ladies polo - so whilst a new player will get some space and time on the ball because there are others at their level, there is also great opportunity for learning from established players and training and coaching.
Ladies polo does mean more polo and more girls at polo (throw ins now attract a way higher percentage of girls than ever) but now there are more girls who are great at polo, and I look forward to the winter (co-ed) League to see what it means on a competitive level.
I was always a boys girl, and will always play mixed polo, but I'm glad I go to ladies polo, because a night of more games than what i'd get on a normal throw in game (40+ turning up to sth polo on a weds for instance..) has been teh awesome.
Oh and I've made tons of new friends. Huzzah!
Yeh exactly - and to be fair, sometimes some more experienced players will go to rookie - but for the most part, those that have played a few years and want to hang out at rookie polo, they do it mainly because it's a fun casual night too, and not too serious/competitive. Our best players don't often make it there, because of a clash in calendar.
That said, there was a weekend organised by the top players to attract some new people; give up time on the favourite court etc (rookie night happens in a carpark, no boards etc), which was successful.
I guess it's all about redressing an in-balance - there wasn't many girls, and when Lal asked why, she realised that more would play if there was a ladies night - those that said 'oh i'll only go to ladies', well they go to all polo now. So inbalance has been re-dressed - there are more girls at polo. Sometimes a bit of temporary positive discrimination is required to close a gap. There were always girls in polo, and good players too, but now there are more.
Similarly, when people wondered why new faces weren't showing up, people realised it's because there was a need for a rookie night - so they made that. Again, in-balanced has been redressed; new girls and boys came along.
I see what you are saying about removing the gender thing from it - but I think having one ladies' night a week does more to keep an equal balance in polo, than just having rookie polo, casual polo and high octane polo. Perhaps it is a shame that there was such an in balance, and that segregating it was the way to fix it - but it has had positive results that have resulted in a more equal complexion for London polo.
I see your point, and definitely agree.
Despite the arguments against sexism, ladies nights offer you a different atmosphere that some ladies will find more inviting, and I don't think it's fair to disclude them because, although they're intimidated to play with the men, we don't want to segregate so HTFU or get out.
Ladies polo isn't about doing our nails and talking about boys and clothing, but we may have gender specific conversations about the annoyances of pissing in a bush, or about tits and fannies without having some dude look at you weird (though these topics are becoming more frequent on regular nights when more ladies are out). I just don't see what's negative about it, except that some people (men and women alike) find it sexist or segregating. I know that's wrong, though, because of how many lady players now play co-ed nights and tourneys on a regular basis who didn't before.
So why can't you have men's only nights? Because you've usually got them by virtue of the lack of women in the scene. That will change, though, because the sport is still growing. Then we'll have enough players at all levels to have those mixed level-specific nights you've been going on about.
I'm embarrassed that this conversation even needs to happen.
way to be constructive.
way to be constructive.
what needs to be constructive? polo has been played for 10 years as a coed all inclusive sport. thats the appeal to it. Thats one of teh draws we have attracting new players. of the 5 new players we've attracted, one came because he like the competitive nature of the sport, and my girlfriend drafted him. one came to our FCI tourney, saw a bunch of people, not dudes, people playing an aggressive fun game, so he brought his girlfriend with him and they started playing, and then she brought her friend, another girl. They progressed quicker than any others in our, where other plateaued they got better and better , and i am happy to play with them on my team. They understand the beautiful subtleties of the game, avoid senseless rough play, less show boating, and great team work. This now sets our regular, every night players at 3 girls and 5 boys.
Thats why it's embarrassing to have this conversation.
emo,
Bike polo is coed but not really...it's not part of the mandate of the sport like in Ultimate Frisbee. I think new progressive sports should have opportunities for both genders to play together and understand what needs to be set in place to make it realistic for both genders.
Oh and no need for embarassment. This is a healthy conversation! Some players just aren't as evolved as you and your friends so having this conversation is good for all of us so that we can see what others are doing and improve in our regions.
i'm still on the mentality of less rules more polo. forcing inclusion to me is the same as affirmative action. i want to play with girls because i want too, not because NAH tells me i have too. I guess i just didn't realize there was a large portion of regions were inclusion was a problem. i love the Ladies Army. To me it showcases women, not segregates them. I get to see a bunch of pretty girls on bikes playing top notch polo. what is not to love about things like that?
i'm still on the mentality of less rules more polo. forcing inclusion to me is the same as affirmative action. i want to play with girls because i want too, not because NAH tells me i have too. I guess i just didn't realize there was a large portion of regions were inclusion was a problem. i love the Ladies Army. To me it showcases women, not segregates them. I get to see a bunch of pretty girls on bikes playing top notch polo. what is not to love about things like that?
Umm...
Clubs that are starting up play less aggresive polo. Clubs with less people are more inclusive to new people in general. Anecdotes about how easy it is to get ladies to come out to polo from a new, small club are great- but some cities are neither new or small, and have trouble getting new people out, especially ladies. Maybe you haven't noticed, but there's a pretty big gap between the number of guys that play polo, and the number of ladies. I don't think anyone thinks that ladies don't play A class polo, just that we realize that the gender differential is odd, and should be looked at if we want to keep saying we're 'all inclusive'. It's like saying oil US billionaires are all inclusive in that there's no rules against anyone, but then why are they all white guys?
For the record your past two comments were constructive.
I'm not sure if anyone mentioned it and because I'm at work I can't read the thousands of replies...but I still want to stick my opinion in and suggest that Ultimate Frisbee has an interesting way to deal with it. There must be a certain amount of women on each team to play. I'm not saying we should do this but adding a coed category to tourneys might increase the interest for women to go to tourneys...on a regular team and in the coed category...meaning you must have one women on your team to play in this category.
It's progressive and it motivates guys to put girls on their teams too! More teams..more players..more polo..more fun!
What makes it difficult is at the local club level when you have new girls and new, or just plain aggressive guys playing at the same time. A goof portion of girls don't want to play when these guys start smashing into them. A coed format..like is in place in Ultimate..seems to instill a level of play that does not tolerate overly aggressive behaviour..for whatever reason and so more girls play. Overall the sport can become more inclusive and pretty to watch too!
Also, it doesn't have to make putting women on your team a "necessity" only if you want to compete in the coed format at tournaments. More girls playing..less hockey style goonery so more guys playing too...therefore more fun!
Some of our polo girls are just plain tough...not afraid at all to lean in to you or get up in your biz going after the ball. Remember when there'd be girl fights in high school? I remember wincing and being awed at their sheer ruthlessness. That said, there are girls (as well as guys) who don't have the killer instinct/desire to play super hard. I dont mind slowing down a bit sometimes (during pick up) to help noobs progress in their play...but we have talked about having one night a week for new players. At the same time, its hard to get better unless you are challenged. I LOVE the fact that bike polo is coed..hope it never changes into a total sausage fest... I know kickball has competetive/fun league..but I like the current night to night grab-bag thing...never know who's going to show up & I enjoy seeing people get better because the you get more converts as they spread the word. (I shouldn't post after drinking so much coffee)
this thread sucks. it's fucking bike polo, get over it! if some ladies want to get together and have their own night or tourney then more power to em. i'm all for coed forever. this is the one thing i've done in my life where it never mattered. there was a female on the court my first game and i never thought anything of it. can't we keep it that way?
If it sucks don't comment.
that makes no sense. there's a difference in being opposed to the way a discussion is going and being apathetic. so i guess next time there's something going on you dislike you should keep your mouth shut?
that's the point...this thread reflects current polo attitudes towards female players. if dudes only choose dudes to team up "with" and the ratio is 125 males to 4 girls...how often are you gonna be on the court with a girl (unless she's your teammate)?
we can "keep" it coed...but first we gotta fight to "make" it coed...and not just in one town or one tourney one time. if we keep it the way it is its only going to become more and more like every other typical, mainstream sport...dudes against dudes thinking people are cheering on their jockhood.
i'm all for ladies only events...how many girls played at ladies army? how many played in the last tournament? shouldn't that number be roughly the same (just add guys)?
Team "Yeah" Aimee S., Anastassiya, Erin N. (Winnipeg, Calgary, Regina) and team "Vagascoraus" – Laine, Marlice, and Erin all from Calgary, AB. Two all female teams to register for North Americans ... Fuk yeah!!!
I think it should stay coed. But there should still be Ladies Army or other all girls tournaments here and there.
It's taken me a long time to gather my thoughts to speak on this subject here, though I've discussed it at length with people IRL. This has been a valuable discussion for the polo community and thank you Kiersten for initiating it, although I don't agree with your reaction to "show me your tits," but I assume it's lighthearted and in fun.
Bike polo is unique for many reasons, the coed nature of the sport being just one of them--but a hugely significant one in my opinion. It's a playing field in which brawn might help you, but it won't necessarily get you the win. Every time I watch Maija, I think, "god damn, that one is talented fucking polo player," not "...one talented woman playing polo," and so forth.
We all known that strategy and teamwork and communication and agility all play just as large a role. Additionally, playing polo has challenged me to improve in so many ways, one of which is my physical strength. Others extend into working with others, perseverance, patience in the course of getting better, and the will to not quit. Some of the moments that encouraged me not to quit--and inspired a good bout of frustration at the same time--included being on the court with men who doubted my abilities simply because I was female and not necessarily even having ever seen me play.
When I was in Spokane and Missoula playing with newer clubs recently, I was the first woman they had ever played with. They were just as welcoming as they would have been to any other player, and I treated all the wives and girlfriends as if they could get on the court too, never making any assumptions that they wouldn't be--which surprised them. In one city someone remarked that I was the first girl they'd ever seen play polo. And then I proceeded to shut out his team.
My point is, I have always tried to approach polo with the attitude that I am an equal in this arena, even though there have been times when I have felt that my womanhood has made me less strong than my male counterparts. In this way, players have taught me lessons about eradicating the bits of thinking in my head that remain about being in some way inferior and to challenge myself to be faster and stronger and tougher and play harder than I thought I could. In this way, I've been able to teach the players who cast judgement on women in such a light--in some way inferior or less able--that their misconceptions are just as incorrect. If bike polo became segregated, we would fail to enforce these lessons that society as a whole is still struggling to embrace. Even as a tough, strong woman, without polo I wouldn't be so convicted of my equality. I'd still have the same attitude, but now it's not just something I act with, it's something that empowers me to be bold in other areas of my life and equips me with a way to demonstrate the equal abilities of the female contingent of society.
Now, on Ladies Army - The first time I went to Ladies Army my main thrill was getting to meet all of these other awesome women who were as dedicated and obsessed with polo as I am. Even though I love the coed aspect, there is a certain level of camaraderie that women can share with other women that is *just slightly* different from what we share with our polo brothers. What exactly is it? Well, we all love the thrill of a sweet shot through the five-hole or slipped in between the narrow gap left exposed between the goal post and a wheel; we all get excited when a player gets a steal and takes off on a hot breakaway--but there's something just fucking sacred about being in an arena with all these badass women who, like me, are also tough and brave and competitive and who want it so bad--the rush of adrenaline and the glory of a goal and a game win--and who just don't blink twice or really give a fuck that there's less of us than those who swing a mallet and rock a cock.
I see LA as an opportunity to bring us all together and reinforce the talent of this particular swath of the polo community, since it typically is just a tiny handful of us at any event. I can't get out of my head how No Love, who'd played on teams in serious tournaments in which he was the single male on a coed team that performed better than many all-male teams, was still so blown away when he arrived at the LA courts in Austin and remarked "I had no idea there were so many women polo players!" I took a lot of joy in witnessing that moment.
So there are reasons why LA should continue. Not as a qualifier or an NAH event by any means, but for all that it embodies.
I love my polo brothers and sisters equally. I have just as much faith in the success of my team whether it's all-female or co-ed. I DO get disheartened at the feeling of being perceived as less valuable of a player by some of the men out there...but it's really their loss not to consider my skillz and value. If you've made it this far into my drawn-out essay, thanks for sticking around. Let polo be coed forever.
So I just saw something that much more clearly elucidated one of the points I made upthread:
"Tokenizing women in lieu of making room for meaningful participation is a misogynist act." -Melissa McEwan, from here. (The whole article is kind of required reading, but that's tl;dr for most.)
I wonder how much of this motivation for a female-only sphere in the bike polo community comes from the women who play generally not having their voices heard. How many women in the poloverse have resigned themselves to doing most of the work to Make It Happen while the men in their clubs get all of the credit? How many women feel like the "token female" and are excluded from the meaningful conversations in their clubs? And I know that if I can identify instances of this in as progressive a community as LABP, how much worse is it for the women in more deeply conservative areas?
And how many people won't even read this post because it's written by a female?
I live in Alabama, buckle of the fucking bible belt, and by the sound of it, we treat our female polo players better than the 'progressives' in LA. I read this and didn't like it. Not because you're female, but because it's bullshit from where I'm standing. We welcome all players, and at this point, our club is about 25% female (granted we're not as large LA or Seattle or Portland or SF, but I'm pretty sure that's better than a lot of clubs in more progressive areas). To be honest, our club would be pretty fucking lost without our female players when it comes to playing, planning, partying, and all the meaningful shit that actually happens regarding polo. They're an integral part of our club, and please don't marginalize clubs like ours because we happen to be in a conservative part of the country. If LA and Seattle and New York are so damn cool, why does a majority of the concern on this topic come from female players in those areas? But oh shit, I just tokenized our female players by mentioning them, didn't I? It's to be expected though, yeah? After all, we're a bunch of misogynistic, gun totin', freedom lovin', party liquor drinkin', tea partyin' hicks down these parts, right?
Insert pine cones, retrieve party liquor.
Don't believe the hype.
Don't believe the hype.
In general from what I have seen the south appears much more inclusive and accepting. However, as much as I would like to say the south is more chivalrous, I think this has more to club size, bad seeds, and gang mentality.
I know this is the internet and all but you should go right ahead and calm down. Sarah was asking a question, not saying that the south was anything less than hospitable towards female players.
Fair enough. But, it's still a pretty presumptuous question. This thread has been addressing the status of women for the sport as a whole. I understand that certain players may feel 'tokenized' by the male members in their clubs, but this thread isn't addressing what happens on a local level. The things that have been discussed address issues that transcend issues between individual club members. And this latest post addresses just that: what happens in individual clubs on a local level. If certain members of a club are showing tendencies towards tokenization or inequality, it's the responsibility of the players in that club to deal with it, not the rest of the league. We've been talking about where polo is headed on a national level, and this is not an issue that can be addressed unilaterally. Assuming that because these issues arise in one 'progressive' club means that they arise everywhere is mistaken. Plus, it bugs me when it's implied that progressives can only exist in certain areas. The poloverse seems like a pretty universally progressive community, regardless of geographic location. I guess it's a personal thing, but I really resent the implication that because I live in a conservative area, I am a conservative and somehow a misogynist biggot.
"And I know that if I can identify instances of this in as progressive a community as LABP, how much worse is it for the women in more deeply conservative areas?"
Sorry I missed the wording on that particular question. Assumptions shouldn't be made regarding a polo clubs attitutde based on regions (non-polo demographic). My apologies.
When we're discussing the segregation of our sport, it's perfectly reasonable to ask people to examine the motivations that press them towards separated or coed leagues.
As for the 'conservative areas' comment: All that really needs to be said is I'm sorry. My intent was not to offend, in fact it was not even what I meant to say. I intended to parallel "progressive club" with "conservative clubs", I just wasn't paying enough attention as I typed.
And I agree that polo as a generally community is exceptionally progressive. That's why I think it's reasonable to ask people here to examine the biases they may not even be aware they have.
That's actually exactly what she said, and he's in the right to resent such a dumb notion.
Ok, so i read the article and a good chunk of the comments with it. One of them that stood out the most to me was;
'How can "yes mean yes" or any concept at all coming from women be respected when it is acceptable convention simply not to listen to what women say.'
not sure if it came from a male or female
Not sure what to think after reading that thing, I am confused, and I'm not even stoned yet! If "we" listen its considered an act of feminism? But If "we" try to hard and basically roll out the red carpet for you that's misogynistic?
I think you were going with "give credit where it's due"? I totally agree, If that's what you meant.
That comment refers to two concepts:
-Yes means yes: This is about enthusiastic consent. As much as I'd love to talk about it, totally off topic here.
-Not listening: Many people are simply conditioned to give less credit to ideas voiced by women. In the mainstream (where it's much more blatant) you have authors like JK Rowling and SE Hinton disguising their names "because boys won't read books written by women", political figures like Clinton, Palin, and Bachmann whose views are ignored in favor of discussing the quality of their voices or their manner of dress, and countless women with the stories you saw in the comments of not being listened to until their male counterparts voiced the same ideas.
Because these cultural norms are so pervasive, all of us living within it should strive to counteract our internal bias. Not just "give credit where it's due", but also weigh the input of all* club members equally. When deciding whether or not to play a certain night, when deciding how to break up tournament responsibilities, all that stuff we do all the time.
*All, because while the initial article was about women, it could just as easily apply to any minority group. Hell, I see it happen with discounting less skilled players most often.
I've heard of a few co-ed tournaments. are there any on the calendar/in the works right now? in addition to promoting ladies only tournaments and coed tournaments, I also really like Miss Demeanor's anecdote above about traveling through other clubs as a strong woman player and inspiring potential female players to come out and play. that's awesome.
All tournaments have always bee co-ed, with the exception of Ladies Army.
Maybe he meant mandatory co-ed...
All tournaments have always been co-ed, with the exception of Ladies Army.
i disagree. there are a handful of ladies at most tournaments, and lots of ladies at only a few.
by co-ed polo, i meant tournaments with coed teams. didn't san francisco have a co-ed tournament in the recent past?
Hello you People wroght a lot .. I organize Polo in my Town ..Well:
It does not matter what sex or coulor you are, just play Polo !
Girls have a chance to kick the but of the guys eheh
yeah, this whole Co-Ed thing is kinda tricky. sure, our clubs are co ed, and there arent any rules against a co ed team during a tournament.
but... if we are talking tournaments, its co ed, but only a handful of teams have at least 1 girl.
so, my question is... if bike polo wants to be the proud co-ed sport we are during pick up, shouldnt ALL teams be co-ed during tournaments?
(yeah, right now the female population in polo wouldn't really allow for the big tournaments, but you know, in the future)
*******NOTICE: this is just a question for other's opinion. to spark a conversation. i am jet lagged and really dont want to fight back and forth because someone twists my shit around. remember people, i am not that smart to put hidden messages and philosophical thought in my posts*********
Ideally, all teams would be coed, but right now there aren't enough female polo players in the mix to support that- you'd need a 50/50 ratio of men to women for that. And it wouldn't be by force, but because the women are playing just as well as their male counterparts.
I don't want to be picked because two dudes need a girl to stick in goal. I want to be picked as I have been for every other team I've played on- on my merits as a player. I want to be measured against ALL other players and be seen as superior. I'm sick and tired of hearing that I'm good "for a girl", especially by people who I just rode circles around. Forced coed would mean that my work is put in to be "good enough", when I'm actually trying to be "best".
Ehy. Bike Polo is already co-ed,
i don't know where you have played until now but i have not seen a co-ed team turned down at a tournament....
the answer:
and ahh yes all teams Co-ed... ---> you can not obligate a Polo Team to be co-ed... if they have there Team you can't obligate them to change it because there is no guy or no girl...
(Get my point?)
its a if you want you can! no?
so what would make everyone happy?
we cant award women who are stepping up to the plate in a male dominated sport? we cant encourage more women to play by holding ladies nights?
those who embrace the sisterhood of polo are looked down on when they want to hold ladies only events because apparently its sexist? or it some how cheapens the game? makes us the lesser sex?
i dont understand those who dont want to encourage more women to play or give a little extra effort or recognition to those bustin their ass in a male dominated sport.
goddamit, there are only a few of us girls in polo, and until its 50/50 or i see a girl on the 1st place podium at world's im gonna support and fight for every lady and ladies event.
Absolutely nothing would make everyone happy. It's like the Jewish saying- "Two Jews, three opinions". I think it transfers very well to polo.
For me, the problem is that this discussion exists at the intersection of two things I feel very strongly about: polo and feminism. My feminism dictates that all people view each other equally, and everyone constantly strives to check the privileges that they have internalized from a hostile mainstream society. Therefore, I think that these ladies-only events allow men to get away without examining their privilege and their bias. It makes it easy to say things like "Oh, girls can't hang at the top, they need to make their own tournaments for that". Even if that's not the intended goal of the event. And when women come back from those tournaments happy about how gentle and slow those games were, I almost feel like it's an attack on my femininity, because I am not nice, I am violent, and I'm always trying to be faster.
And I can also see the benefit for other people, in the same way that Title IX was a huge step forward for women in sports. Because not everyone is willing or ready to fight as viciously as I have to be viewed as equal. I just can't support an event that feels like a step backwards to me.
And when women come back from those tournaments happy about how gentle and slow those games were.
damn. I haven't personally heard anything like that, except from a few dudes who weren't there/don't seem interested in checking their privileges.
And I can also see the benefit for other people, in the same way that Title IX was a huge step forward for women in sports. Because not everyone is willing or ready to fight as viciously as I have to be viewed as equal.
yes. this.
I just can't support an event that feels like a step backwards to me.
you can't participate, or can't support it?
it seems like LA is increasing the amount of ladies playing polo, and increasing the level of play for many lady players. the 50/50 ration of men to women you mentioned earlier doesn't yet exist in polo, but LA could be a step towards developing that ratio, right?
Can't support it with my participation, as someone mentioned earlier.
I feel like LA may actually increase the number of women playing polo, but it sets this framework around that increase- women as less than, women needing their own tournament, men as intimidating. And since it (intentionally or unintentionally) also supports the idea that polo should segregate into a male and female league, I really can't get behind it.
... I can also see the benefit for other people, in the same way that Title IX was a huge step forward for women in sports. Because not everyone is willing or ready to fight as viciously as I have to be viewed as equal. I just can't support an event that feels like a step backwards to me.
Title IX was a huge victory for women in sports (and organized sports more generally), but only because Billie Jean King and other organizers saw the potential it held for for addressing inequities in both the material resources and playing opportunities for amateur athletes. The legislation wasn't actually designed for sports, this was a brilliant hack by one of the most amazing athletes of last century.
To follow BJK's approach, "equality" in sports can be measured in 1) playing opportunities and 2) material resources.
Regarding playing opportunities, not all playing opportunities are equal, and i think playing opportunities for women at the most prominent tournaments and highly visible events (like WHBPC, NAHBPC, Bench Minor, which attract bigger sponsors with more material resources) are shrinking, not growing. Only 5% of the players who qualified for NAHBPC were women, and 5% of the players on Sunday at WHBPC were women. I think it's disingenuous to suggest that women just have to "practice more", because it implies that currently women aren't already playing as hard as men, which simply isn't the case, at least in the cities i've played in.
Regarding the material resources, at most of the tournaments i went to this year, thousands of dollars of gear and the odd cash prize were given out, usually to the top six or eight teams, with most of it going to the top 3. There were a couple women in the mix, but not very many, and always very disproportional in number to their overall participation in the tourney. Same goes for the sponsorship of elite players/teams (the ones who are given gear or the occasional travel money, outside the context of a specific tournament).
I don't necessarily support the MVF prize as a means of addressing the inequity in prizes. And i don't think we can force sponsors to observe gender equitable lines (although it might not hurt to remind them now and then).
Nor do i think that the sport should be segregated by gender, that would suck. But i don't think that the laissez-faire, "there is no patriarchy in polo" (Pete) approach, which also calls people sexist and immoral for trying to create exciting playing and sponsorship opportunities is very helpful.
You can create exciting playing and sponsorship opportunities without excluded people based upon their gender. And I thoroughly don't understand why the fact that less women qualify for NAs/Worlds is a problem that needs to be solved. Less new players qualify, less minority players quality, less homosexual players qualify yet nobody see those as problems that need to be fixed. Can you please explain why we should see the ratio of men to women at qualified tournaments as undesirable while at the same time not seeing the ratio of white players to minority players as equally undesirable?
Pete, have a look at so-called "Open" class of Ultimate, which is technically mixed gender / open to all. There are basically no women who play at the higher competitive levels.
And it's not because they also created a co-ed leagues, or women's leagues. It's also not because women don't practice as much. I would argue that it's partly physiological, partly due to how we are gendered by society from the get-go. Neither of these apply to "minority" (i assume you mean visual minority) or LGBTQ. If Ultimate didn't have womens or co-ed leagues, there simply wouldn't be high level prominent competition opportunities for women. And there would probably be fewer women playing in the beer leagues, too.
Are women technically "excluded"? No. But there AREN'T ANY. So what's the difference? Find me a male ultimate player who plays at the competitive level who feels excluded from the women's leagues. There are probably about as many as there are women who play in the Open category at the highest level.
I'm not talking in abstractions. And i hate comparing polo to ultimate, but i'm doing it just for you.
The difference is that at the highest level the exclusion is natural, it's the result of skill level and competition whereas at the lower level, the exclusion is artificial, it's the result of actively excluded people based upon their gender.
I think that the natural exclusion is totally fine while the artificial one isn't. The motivation behind the artificial exclusion surely isn't to be sexist, it's to encourage women to play, give them better chances to finish higher in the ranks, and generally get exposure. Those are all noble aims, but what I've been trying to say here the whole time is that you can achieve those goals similarly well without excluding people by gender. Do people here really think that the best way to get more women to play/finish higher in tournaments/get pumped about polo is to have female only events? And here's the question that matters: are there equally good ways of achieving these goals without excluding someone from a tournament based upon their gender? I think the answer to this question is a resounding yes and Hell's Belles is exactly on the right track. Mandatory co-ed or 2/3rd female is totally cool with me.
"Natural exclusion"? I mentioned physiological differences, but there are others. While i understand that PDX may approximate the state of nature you read so much about in university, most of us don't live or play polo in a vacuum.
I mean natural in the sense that it's a result of the competition format. Do you disagree that the fact that men are consistently at the top in polo (or ultimate) is what we should expect to happen if we're trying to find the best teams?
But what are those numbers compared to last years events? There was definitely a larger female presence in 2011 than in 2010, I'm having a hard time remembering any female players other than Anna at Worlds in Berlin. And there were only a handful of women at the entire tournament in Madison.
And while women are definitely trying as hard, the best female players I've seen can't yet compare to the best male players. We're getting there, but not yet, so I wouldn't expect to see women on the very top teams for another season or two.
The general gender inequality in polo does not need to be fixed by the women who play. The men who aren't picking them for teams are the problem. I watch this happen all the time- men who are just as good as female players are drawn into this tumult of politics from the get go, while the female players are left scrambling at the last second for a team. How many times have we seen this happen even to Kiersten, who I personally consider one of the best players today?
But what are those numbers compared to last years events? There was definitely a larger female presence in 2011 than in 2010, I'm having a hard time remembering any female players other than Anna at Worlds in Berlin.
The big difference is that WHBPC was held in Cascadia, home to the greatest concentration of female superstars. But it would have had more women than 2010 had it been held anywhere in North America.
The men who aren't picking them for teams are the problem. I watch this happen all the time- men who are just as good as female players are drawn into this tumult of politics from the get go, while the female players are left scrambling at the last second for a team. How many times have we seen this happen even to Kiersten, who I personally consider one of the best players today?
I agree that this is an issue, but i don't think it's to blame for all the inequality of playing opportunities and sponsorship.
Let me ask you a few questions.
You think that we should have an MVF because it's a minority (women) stepping up in a majority (men) dominated sport. Let's expand upon your reasoning: should we similarly award racial minorities who are stepping up to the plate in a white dominated sport? Why exactly should we have a most valuable female award but not a most valuable black person award? They're both examples of, as you say, someone from a minority group stepping up to the plate in a majority dominated sport. Why do females deserve recognition for this whereas racial minorities do not?
Why is 50/50 the ratio that you'd like to see? Because humanity is roughly 50/50 in terms of gender? Do you think that all other sports should be 50/50 as well? If not, why is polo different from all other sports?
I'm not sure I agree with the idea of an MVF award, especially considering that some women would not actually want to receive such an award (judging by comments in this thread). However, drawing comparisons between racial and gender discrimination seems disingenuous. There is clearly a whole different set of privileges and barriers associated with each.
In short, I think that male privilege is more likely to make one feel comfortable in a competitive sports environment than white privilege. And I think that generally applies to bike polo too.
(Not that I'm super qualified to speak for either women or people of colour, but I can't help but think about how common (and accepted) it is to get trash talked for being a 'pussy', 'bitch', 'little girl', etc.)
I'm using parallel reasoning to show that various arguments concerning women are misguided. If an argument in favor of MVF takes the form of "X is a minority in a majority dominated sport, therefore we should award someone with MVX", then it is subject to the same flaws that an argument in favor of MV minority has. If there is some other reason to award MVF that takes a different form, it may not be subject to the same objections that parallel reasoning lead to.
Anyone should feel free to chime in now if you have different reasons for awarding MVF.
I also don't think that there is any sort of male privilege in bike polo. Anyone, male or female, can enter any tournament. (Besides Ladies Army, the only tournament that has a gender requirement for entry....) And we cannot realistic can requirements for equality concerning anything other than opportunity. Everyone should have the opportunity to win, play, have fun, etc., but it wouldn't make any sense to make it such that everyone actually wins. Can't really have a tournament that way.
Pete I think you're a nice addition to Cascadia polo and I've enjoyed playing with you. I generally find that your posts make me chuckle. But really why do you care? You're a white male and thus you've never encountered barriers that women or minorities. I agree our community is generally open, but his is not a philosophy class this is the real world.
"Donny you're out of your element!"
Can't wait for the essay response.
Like I said to Kev, being a white male doesn't in any way affect the legitimacy of the points I'm making, that should be painfully obvious. Why do people think that it's silly to talk about the underpinnings of our desires? I think people want things to happen in polo for bad reasons. Why shouldn't I voice my displeasure? Because people don't want to hear it? Anyone who's not willing to examine their beliefs is simply being intellectually lazy. If you think that I've said something wrong, tell me rather than giving me that same old crap about 'oh white males can't even talk about discrimination'. It's just silly to claim that a white male doesn't know anything about discrimination. I've gotten my ass kicked for no other reason than being white. I've been excluded from soccer teams (and leagues) for being white. I've been kicked out of parties for being white. And guess what? Not one of those (shitty) experiences of mine are at all relevant to the arguments being made here.
I think Rory was asking more for an explanation than attacking the legitimacy of your argument.
As for why anyone in a position of privilege would speak up for a person not in a position of privilege, I've long traced it back to the concept espoused by Martin Niemoller:
"First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me."
If men hadn't ratified the 19th amendment, women wouldn't have been granted the right to vote. It's impossible for any minority group to create positive change towards inclusion without the consent and assistance of allies in the majority.
Pete I think you're a nice addition to Cascadia polo and I've enjoyed playing with you. I generally find that your posts make me chuckle. But really why do you care? You're a white male and thus you've never encountered barriers that women or minorities. I agree our community is generally open, but his is not a philosophy class this is the real world.
"Donny you're out of your element!"
Can't wait for the essay response.
(Rory scores another world-winning point)
I also don't think that there is any sort of male privilege in bike polo. Anyone, male or female, can enter any tournament. (Besides Ladies Army, the only tournament that has a gender requirement for entry....) And we cannot realistic can requirements for equality concerning anything other than opportunity.
First, the democracy of our bike polo in that 'everyone can participate' is as false as the democracy of our state. Just because people aren't forcibly excluded doesn't mean it's equal or fair. I won't get into this too much, but I will say that things exist outside of force that affect how we treat each other. There's a reason we've only had one black president, and no females.
Second, female's aren't a minority. This is kind of just semantics though.
Third. Race is even trickier than sex. I don't think anyone argues that the most consistent draw of bike polo isn't hipsters- It evolved from bike messenger culture, there's not much else to say. Until the draw becomes broader than a predominately white subculture, that won't change much. That said, what's the historical reason for a dominant male ratio? I'm honestly asking- but I'm honestly thinking 'sexism.'
Forth. Parallel logic only works in a vacuum.
Fifth. "only requirements for opportunity". That's exactly what this is about, creating opportunities for females that a male dominated sport has not given them, not by force, but by cultural and societal forces.
Re 1: so you're saying that people in bike polo don't want women to be at the top in the same way that Americans generally want white males to be at the top? I disagree. I think that the vast majority of polo folk wouldn't at all be bothered by females winning or finishing well in tournaments.
Re 2: they are in polo, that's why I've been saying it.
Re 3: So you're totally okay saying that the race disparity is caused by the fact that messengers are typically white but when I suggest that the gender disparity is caused by the fact that messengers are typically male I'm somehow wrong? Or maybe it's just that men tend to like contact sports more? Or sports in general?
Re 4: What does that even mean? I'm using this strategy in arguing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum - how does that not apply to real world situations? Can we suddenly not talk about things in the abstract?
Re 5: See, this is where the disconnect is. I'm saying that less women play precisely because of those cultural and societal forces. But guess what, those are NOT discrimination. The fact that less women play polo is no more a result of discrimination than the fact that less men knit. Should we campaign to help more men knit as well because of the cultural and societal forces that hold them back from knitting? What do you think?
Oh oh! I'm studying philosophy! I know reductio ad absurdum! I can speak the same highbrow language you do! But, I also realize that this has been taken to an almost academic level and it's not an academic issue. Try as we might to solve the world's problems with inequality through the intertubes and a burgeoning sport, we can't do that here. I'm not saying you shouldn't care, but consider the venue. Instead of intellectualizing this to a ridiculous level, can we try offering some pragmatic solutions?
It's hard to find solutions to things that I don't think are problems to begin with... what I'm trying to do is explain why it's not a problem and I can't really do that any other way that typing or talking.
Ok, fine. If you feel that discrimination in polo is not an issue, what do you think we should do? If you feel that the sport should continue on its current path, that's an acceptable position, but at least come out in say that in terms that have some sort of real world application. My impression is that we're trying to figure out what we should do as a community. Instead of typing/talking out these esoteric arguments, put out a plan of action that can be implemented. Don't get me wrong, you're posts are entertaining and thought provoking on a philosophical level, but I'd like to see a definite plan as to what you think the polo community should actually do in regards to this issue.
I think gender-exclusive tournaments shouldn't happen, but the poloverse has not sufficiently explored different formats that would be more inclusive. However, I do not think that bench-minor style tournaments would be conducive to giving more opportunities to women because you'd have to change the rules to give incentives to the teams to play the girls. We've seen this in co-ed intramural flag football on every campus, you can't pass to two guys in a row, you must have 2 girls on the field at all time, the QB must be a girl for half the game, or something like that. Look at the most recent bench minor, the two female captains weren't playing even though they were on the team. Now I'm not at all sure about why they weren't playing much, but you can't help but imagine scenarios in which there are 2 girls on a 9 person team and they play the least. But hey, maybe they play the least because they're the two worst players. I don't think it would be wrong if that was the case. However, people would certainly still be up in arms about it so it's easier just to avoid it.
So this is my suggestion: more mandatory co-ed tournaments or even (further down the road) a mandatory co-ed NAH-style tour with qualifiers and all. Mandatory co-ed doesn't exclude anyone from playing. I like the idea of more mandatory co-ed tournaments with themes. The Third Wheel tournament (male-female couple + 1) has always been something I want to see happen. How many mandatory co-ed tournaments have we seen in polo? Like 4? As far as I'm concerned, it's obvious what needs to be done, but nobody's doing it. I'm not going to organize a tournament, that's for sure.
1: that's not what I'm saying.
2: semantics.
3: Hipsters aren't generally male. I said that the biggest draw is hipsters, but to say the biggest draw is messengers, which is the premise you took, is a stretch. You need a new answer.
4: I was pointing out that race and gender are not equal in this discussion, based on 3 above. Your logical argument rests on them being equal. Using them as equal is using them without understanding their position or ours- in a vacuum, outside of reality.
5: These societal forces are discriminatory. The forces that say men do this and women do that is discriminatory. It's the same forces that pay women 70 cents for every dollar a man makes, that puts men as heads of state, et cetera. Is this based on the fact that they are inferior in the workplace, just like you assume they are inferior on the court? I think we have found hostis.
1. What are you saying then?
3. What the fuck is a hipster and how exactly the fuck did you get this demographic data on them? Show it to me or shut your damn mouth. I think you're talking out of your ass, plain and simple.
4. No, it doesn't at all rest on them being equal. You're saying that the fact that more whites play polo is a result of the fact that it came up in a white dominated subculture. I'm saying that the fact that more males play polo is a result of the fact that it came up in a male dominated subculture. Notice how I'm not saying that race and gender are the same thing or that they're equal. I'm merely saying that the reasons that members of their subgroups play less polo is because of the historical origins of polo. Tell me, point blank, why you're right but I'm wrong. Tell me why my explanation isn't a good one while yours is. Tell me why you think that it's perfectly reasonable to jump to the conclusion that discrimination is going on in the case of females, but not racial minorities. People here just keep saying that I'm wrong without actually telling me why I'm wrong.
5. No, they're not discriminatory . You need to learn a bit about gender politics. The fact that modern American society tends to label boys as strong, athletic, handsome, etc. while girls are cute, pretty, smart, etc. is not discrimination. Discrimination isn't when you treat someone NEGATIVELY based upon a characteristic they possess which does not merit different treatment. It's like a fairness slippery slope. Let's say Bob gets a 60% on his math test and Jill gets a 59.5%. Bob passes while Jill doesn't. It seems unfair to treat them so differently (passing vs. failing) where the difference (.5%) doesn't seem like enough to merit the different treatment. In the same way, discrimination is harping upon some aspect of a person and treating them unfairly because of it. Now let me ask you a question about societal forces: do you think the fact that men are encouraged to play contact sports is treating them negatively? Do you think that the fact that women are less encouraged to play contact sports is treating them negatively? Now notice how I'm not saying "discouraged" at all. Who's to say that playing contact sports is something that everyone should want to do? Who's to say that knitting is something everyone should want to do?
Why is it so incredibly wrong to suggest that hey, maybe less women want to play bike polo because they just don't like it? And now your task is to convince me that the fact that they don't like it is somehow wrong and that they've been taught to like other things is wrong. You love bike polo, I do too, but not everyone does and not everyone wants to play, even if they're into sports and bikes.
Also: why are you trying to change society by changing bike polo? That's not how it works. You change society, then bike polo will follow afterwards.
Only addressing your response to #5 here.
Except that it is discrimination. Buying into the societal message that women are inferior ("pussy", "bitch", "queen" are all insults), less aggressive, or less skilled is discrimination. The fact that from the time they're identified as having a vagina in the womb, girls and later women are told to "sit down", "play quietly", "be a good girl" is discrimination. Being inundated with media that tells us we're not real women unless we wear pink (but Heaven forbid a Manly Man do something like that!), paint our nails, talk about boys, and spend all our time shopping is discrimination.
The fact that many of us women were told as children, "nice little girls don't play with the boys", or heard the subtle message that even though we could play sports, we weren't supposed to is discrimination. And this then raises a female population that has all the same potential as their male counterparts, but none of the same skill. And then we're surprised when the women don't do as well on the court? It's really basic, when you realize that all the top players are males who came from decades of other organized sports, while the females came from playing with dolls and having tea parties. (Which is not to say that this is what every individual player did as a child, but more as a reference to the larger society we were brought up in.)
And why should polo come first? Because we're a supposedly progressive subculture, as many people have said above. We need to act like it. Change must first be enacted on a personal level.
And why should polo come first?
because that is what we are doing. that is why i am still reading this circular argument, why i am sitting on this stupid web forum before work, why i get out of the goddamn bed everyday. polo for me (it can be about whatever anyone wants it to be) is about the game, skill and drive conquering, and competition and winning. sure all the things are great like community and drinking and whatnot, but for me the part of this thing i like is playing polo, and playing at a top level. i try and keep quiet on these matters because i don't have any real solutions. i just dont think that exclusion is based on gender, it is based on talent and skill. i would play with cherri any day of the week, because she is a badass, and plays the type of polo that i like and would like to play with. the same reason i would play with dusty or kremin. so go ahead and argue the point that i only listed one girl and two guys. i am not sexist i played with birdie in 2 tournaments....
and arguing on the internet will never solve anything. it still hasnt really dealt with any of the nah issues, only made some kind of hilarious civil war era tension....
But what I've also been saying is that the change we want (having more women play and get exposure among other things) can be achieved by means that don't involve exclusion based on gender. It seems counterproductive to try to fix how society views genders by using means that are (at a basic level) discriminating the same way. The differences at who is being discriminated against (majority, male vs. minority, female) and the scope/scale of the discrimination. And these differences matter. Of course less people are going to be pissed off when it's only one instance of discrimination vs. a lifetime. The discrimination by society against women comes in many forms (inside AND outside of polo). But the discrimination against men that I'm talking about here (by not allowing them to participate in a polo tournament) comes only in one form. It's one instance of active, conscious discrimination by gender rather than many instances of subconscious/cultural/societal discrimination. And I think the conscious discrimination is worse. Which would you say is worse: actively and intentionally exclude a person solely because of gender or excluding a person because of gender due to social/cultural forces? I don't know how exactly to say this, but it's like the difference between doing something wrong because it's tradition while not necessarily recognizing that it's wrong vs. doing something that you know is wrong to achieve other (positive) goals. Most of the social/cultural attitudes towards women exist because people just don't know any better. They just don't think about the influence of gender roles. But here, in polo, we're well aware of gender roles and we recognize the problems with them. But is the best way to combat these seemingly malformed gender roles by excluding males from tournaments? It surely isn't the only way.
If polo does want to come first, it shouldn't discriminate even if it's for noble reasons. Lead by example and by attitude. Confucianism and shit.
Now let me ask you a question about societal forces: do you think the fact that men are encouraged to play contact sports is treating them negatively? Do you think that the fact that women are less encouraged to play contact sports is treating them negatively? Now notice how I'm not saying "discouraged" at all. Who's to say that playing contact sports is something that everyone should want to do? Who's to say that knitting is something everyone should want to do?
Love you Pete but it seems like you want to state your opinion simply and people aren't letting you do it or calling you out for it or challenging you on it and then you get frustrated by people trying to challenge you. It begs people to point out your logical fallacies, faulty reasoning, rhetorical fallacies, etc (Fallacy of the Half Truth above). Anyway, just wanted to post here to point that out, appear knowledgeable, massage my insecurities, blah blah blah...
You like things the way they are? Cool, wanna play polo?
The only thing that's frustrating me is that people seem to not even understand what I'm trying to say. I'm saying it as simply as I can but it's a complicated issue. And please do point out where exactly I used the 'half truth fallacy' as well as any other problems you may see with my reasoning. I don't think I've said anything fallacious.
The half truth is that when society, parents, etc. encourage one thing to one child (athleticism, competition, etc.) and another thing to the other child (easy bake ovens, lace, etc.) based on their sex, we/they are gendering those children and you neglect the feeling that child might have as to other things they can do. Your advocation of promotion of certain traits/activities begs the question "Promotion of __________ to the expense/denial of what?" We can't be ignorant of the fact that we live in a world of black and white thinking (and you are guilty of this when you think that discrimination is discrimination is discrimination without understanding the areas of gradation) and that when I am veheminantly told that I can do one thing time and time again it makes me wonder if that is the ONLY thing I SHOULD be doing. Promotion of athleticism at a young age not only implies that there is a positive value judgement placed on athleticism but also a negative value judgement on being non-athletic. This is one way we gender our world. I don't know if I'm explaining this clearly enough but it reminded me of something. You should really check out this story: http://www.gendercentre.org.au/22article4.htm
1. that not all things that seem inclusive are. This is linked to five.
3. I know your from portland now, and so I shouldn't be the one who tells you what a hipster is. I'm not going to have statistics. leagueofbikepolo isn't my senior thesis. You can disagree with me here then. Fine. But maybe that polo's disregarded as a hipster sport from bikesnob, that it's all over urbanvelo, and surely other instances of culture sort of reflect this is enough for reasonable people.
4. It didn't come from a male dominated subculture.
5. Sarah's got it.
are you seriously suggesting that messengering is not a male dominated subculture?
and what the fuck is a hipster and why does that even matter? Because you think that the hipster subculture is male dominated or something? and you have what reasons for thinking this? People toss around that word all the time without actually trying to define it in any workable fashion. As far as I can tell, it's just another vague pejorative, like calling someone a faggot when you're not talking about their sexual orientation. The difference is that people finally realized that discriminating against homosexuals is wrong. A friend of mine described it like this: hipsters do everything you hate. And that varies from person to person.
The falsehood I see being discussed here is the idea that everyone has to agree on how these sorts of things should be handled.
What people seem to be forgetting is that anyone in any city is allowed to host any kind of tournament they want at any time of the year they want. If you want to host a tournament that is mandatory co-ed, then do it. If you don't want to go to that tournament because you think the idea is dumb, then don't go.
If you love the idea of ladies army, go to it. Apparently there's a lot of guys who really enjoy going too.
If you believe ladies army is sexist, don't go to that either.
People will always vote with their attendance to tournaments that they want to be a part of. I don't think that we need to control this juggernaut of a sport for some sort of social goal, steering it in whatever direction we deem as "progressive".
The support BY everyone involved FOR everyone involved goes a long way. I don't see why it would need to go beyond that and I really think this issue is being over-thought. Maybe that's just me, though.
It's going beyond that because people are discussing whether or not people should think LA is sexist (note that I'm not the only one) and that's a much longer conversation than merely polling folks about what they want to do or believe right now. Just look at the questions at the top of the thread: "Where do women fit into current polo? Where should women fit in the future? Why?" You're only answering the first two questions, we're trying to answer the last one as well. "Why should(n't) there be all female (or male!) tournaments?" is a perfectly legitimate interpretation of the questions here and that's why it's being discussed.
I think if you added a "mother fucker" to the end of your argument(s), I would feel better about it. Please, at least for me, adjust this accordingly... MOTHER FUCKER. (see how that feels to read, more exciting, mother fucker)
Pete -- Krista made very long and articulate post up-thread at 174 that I'm not sure you addressed, particularly this part:
"
Now, on Ladies Army - The first time I went to Ladies Army my main thrill was getting to meet all of these other awesome women who were as dedicated and obsessed with polo as I am. Even though I love the coed aspect, there is a certain level of camaraderie that women can share with other women that is *just slightly* different from what we share with our polo brothers. What exactly is it? Well, we all love the thrill of a sweet shot through the five-hole or slipped in between the narrow gap left exposed between the goal post and a wheel; we all get excited when a player gets a steal and takes off on a hot breakaway--but there's something just fucking sacred about being in an arena with all these badass women who, like me, are also tough and brave and competitive and who want it so bad--the rush of adrenaline and the glory of a goal and a game win--and who just don't blink twice or really give a fuck that there's less of us than those who swing a mallet and rock a cock.
"
Some other people have expressed a similar sentiment. And I would tie this point into the argument that others have made -- it is silly for men to be arguing really vehemently about this topic. We simply don't have as good of an understanding of it as women. I know you disagree but I think that it is really important not to drown out women's opinions here (maybe too late?). As Dayna mentioned, we should care about this issue, and pay attention to it, and lend our support and our voices where it might be valuable. But I don't think it's outlandish to suggest that a conversation about the participation/role/promotion of women in bike polo should be a conversation primarily BY women.
Do you think that those feelings/sentiments cannot be reproduced at tournaments that don't exclude people based upon gender? Can women not feel the same camaraderie at polo tournaments when men are present? Can they not feel the same camaraderie when men are playing in the tournament? Why not?
Do you think that those feelings/sentiments cannot be reproduced at tournaments that don't exclude people based upon gender? Can women not feel the same camaraderie at polo tournaments when men are present?
Of course we can, *but* we get to do so in a minority environment. TBH, it doesn't keep me awake at night, I love hanging out with everyone that has a passion for polo! Before bike life and bike polo I didn't understand other girls. I wasn't so interested in boring superficial blah blah silliness. Am I insulting women now? I don't know, I just know I never had half as many female friends before bike life.
For those who wish to see bike polo reach a 50/50 gender split - It's never gonna happen. Bike polo is a physical game. We take pride in bleeding, for fuck's sake! Not everyone's into that, and naturally, because of physiology just as much as due to societal expectations, men are more predisposed to rough and gritty activities.
I guess I'm used to being in the minority. Chess club - minority. Video games - minority. I used to work in the gaming industry, and might have pursued careers in that industry further, but the industry is NINE PERCENT female and many (not all) of the male counterparts tend to lack social skills due to their fantastic gaming marathons. God bless their Level 40 orcs. So, my point is, bike polo is more equitable than that, and perhaps even more equitable than the ratio of men and women in other certain industries, such as computer science, where STEM initiatives focus on supporting educational programs tailored towards young women in an effort to balance out the field - which serves as a pretty good example of a group recognizing the value of certain cognitive traits that women possess that *do* biologically differ from men.
Can we not ignore the reality of physiology and biology? We can't blame everything on society, I'm sorry, there are issues but things are not *that* fucked up. So, bearing those elements, men are predisposed to be stronger and bigger. It was not an easy road learning to hold my own again Pistolero, but now I can. It was an even harder road to have 10-year-old boys talk shit to me because they thought I was a token player on the L.A. court: "You don't wanna get hurt." (and me thinking, 'Damn, I'd drop you so hard if it wouldn't make me look like a bully.') Laughable, sure, but the reality is that kid just hadn't developed the manners that his adult male counterparts have, many of whom (not all, but many) possess the same thoughts but know better than to vocalize them. Sometimes it's just a look. Sometimes it's a guy stealing the ball from his female teammate because he thinks he has a better chance at the shot. Fewer passes. Getting looked over when putting together tournament teams. It doesn't have to be vocal, and I'm not specifying my club or any club, just generally this stuff really does happen and I think that a lot of the men (I am speculating on this part) who are here vocalizing that they do not, would not discriminate really do not, but you're just not everyone who's out on the courts. There are lots of other folks out there doing things based on their preconceived ideas that have been reinforced by society.
So there are layers of problems to process.
1. Societal expectations. These suck and really do oppress both sexes. Polo is a world apart but the impressions left on individuals still motivate peoples' actions at time. This is something we can acknowledge and act against by continuing co-ed play both in pickup and at the tournament level.
2. Physio- and biological differences. It's silly to ignore these. This is why, IMO, the Chicago Bench Minor and the podiums at tournaments are so grossly male-dominated. Captains choose physically stronger players. Instituting certain rules that promote very physical play, as was done in Chicago, fosters and environment where players are chosen based on their brawn. So maybe those sorts of rules aren't that good for furthering integration within the sport. As for no women being chosen, I know a bunch of people put up a stink over it, but I wasn't at all surprised, based on the pure physical dominance of men. I used to deny it myself, but I realized that was silly. I *do* have to work harder to play as hard as the guys.
*BUT* that doesn't necessarily make me a less valuable player. (BTW, I did 30 pushups for the first time in my life the other day. I'm getting stronger, faster and tougher everyday! Sarah, can you do 30 pushups? Does that make you a better/worse player than I am? I think it has almost nothing to do with it.) I play smart polo. I know where to be on the court. How to pass, where to pass, how to get my opponents to rush past me and go behind them and play the mental games that make me a valuable player. Polo is Chess in many ways. Just as you should not deny the physiological differences between sexes, you just as well cannot deny that polo is more than just a game of physical force. There is strategy, communication, timing involved in this game. We're not meatheads for a reason: Bike Polo is not Football.
3. Back to Ladies Army, women missing from the podium and receiving less sponsorship opportunities, and MVF.
Let me start with MVF - This is an on-its-face tokenizing action. I do not support it.
Ladies Army, on the other hand - Is an opportunity for us to gather in the same forum and celebrate that WE are the badass women who wanna play rough, be competitive, get bloody, all that fun shit. There is a handful of us stepping into the ring with men who are often bigger and faster, and at times look down upon us. We do it anyway, and we fucking deserve to be celebrated for it.
As for the limited podium and sponsorship opportunities - this can be discouraging/disincentivizing. But I honestly have no interest in playing in a mandatory co-ed tournament, because this again is a tokenizing action, as it would be to require that all bench teams contain at least one female. So how can this be allayed? I think this is our biggest challenge in the gender disparity realm. I don't know what the best answer is, but it should not be a directly tokenizing sort of action. This is where our focus should be directed, I think.
I'm confused by this thread, it's all gone a little high brow?
The girls in London have an (additional) "ladies night" most weeks as they wanted to encourage more girls to try polo (these girls didn't feel like playing with the guys initially as they thought it looked dangerous, etc). Slightly lame behaviour/thinking from the newcomers perhaps (to be scared of "the guys") but it resulted in loads more new girls joining the London polo community (who are now fearless and have no qualms attending polo every night of the week playing with whoever). The community adapted to a situation of diminishing numbers of females playing polo and bounced back with more numbers than ever before (one quarter of regular London players are now female). Win or fail?
I see where people are coming from with the "why acknowledge the sexes, you're part of the problem..." thinking, but surely it's similar to not having enough younger players (the future of your community) and doing some pro-active polo promotion to encourage them into the sport/community?
Before the recent Hell's Belles tournament, things were looking slightly bleak in Europe (the number of females playing/trying polo), but I assume that all the promotion/celebration surrounding the event will up the number of ladies, (I see this as a positive thing as the outside world can be under no disillusions that bike polo is for both guys and girls)? As long as 99.9% of throw-ins/tournaments are co-ed then I don't see the problem with a little bit of gender-specific polo promotion now and again?
In a purely thoughtful sense, I completely see why gender-specific promotion is far from ideal.
Bike Polo - the wildest white boy party in town
women belong in polo wherever the fuck they want to be in polo.
IMHO there are less than twenty women on this continent who go to tournaments to play on a higher competitive level.
there are many more who go to tournaments to have a good time and play good polo.
there are even more than that number who only play on a local level, to have a beer and laugh the day/night away.
there's nothing wrong with any of those. and even more to the fact, in equal proportion, men filter out in these categories.
while yes its hard to get on a good team as a female. I think its also hard to get on a good team as a guy. Its difficult to find people you play really well with. I've lived in cities where guys who were really good struggled, and at times couldn't, find in-city teams for tournaments. You have to prove yourself time and time and time and time again. A better way, as either gender, is to find people that are at your level, or below, and just consistently play with them, form your own team and don't look to be 'drafted' by others. If you want to compete on higher levels, than you either need natural skill and/or be out there playing four/five days a week. How many women choose that out of the low numbers playing?
(also, when you look at women playing, the only NA co-ed team that has stayed consistently together this year was Total Chaos. A team that placed better each time playing. No other Co-ed team I can think of played more than two tournaments together. edit- sorry and FTL sam/jason/jarred who always placed high)
There are so many reasons that factor in why you might not see more women playing polo, or sports in general, but it doesn't really matter. The women who want to will find it, and as long as there are so many options open (as there is now) to differing skill levels and wants; from Ladies Army to regional friendlies to NAHBPC qualifiers and tournaments, I think there's something for everyone.
fuck the future, play polo now.
word is bomb, squirrelfriend.
I've never heard anyone say "dang i wish they'd keep girls out of polo". This is so ridiculous it will be coed for a really really long time.
TO JASON I will totally start playing on a co-ed team just find me a girl who slays like Dillman
NAH has bigger fish to fry. NExT
choosing dillman based solely on skill doesn't rub me the wrong way...I'm cool with merit-based team selection to a point...but we both know that's not always the case and gender-driven insults just reinforce the idea that a disparity exists between male and female ability even between players of equivalent talent. plus, hearing comments like..."what is this a LA game?" illustrates it perfectly. when I see a player giving it everything male or female I love that shit! I think people should get recognition for how passionately and how beautifully they play they game, period.
Keep us together as a co-ed sport forevva.
"So this is how it ends"MACHINE