Gender Equality Month: Women of the TML

[kule41]

I don't think we're on the same page. I'll say it a third time. The premise I'm speaking of is that women don't belong, which existed for many many years. I think that premise is wrong, has been wrong, will always be wrong and I'm glad it is changing.

What do you think the Korean male thinks when he sees everyone pushing and promoting WOMEN In hockey? He wants in but he knows that WOMEN are the hot button that people are rallying around. Now, he can't get in just like women couldn't and still can't because the push revolves around WOMEN.

This is the blind spot. People don't understand that promoting a particular group is a form of what they've been railing against. How and why they don't see this is beyond me.

Again, I think it is WONDERFUL barriers are being broken down that should've never been there to begin with. EVERYONE should be allowed to participate and not be excluded based on factors THAT DO NOT MATTER. However, I'm not going to pick one pony among the field and celebrate the fact it's now getting opportunities while many others are not because one is being focused on. I want the removal of the barrier for all.

Too many people are on this for reasons that have nothing to do with why they purport to be in favor of it. It is one giant virtue signal.

I understand people are into the whole Auston is American and if you're American that strokes you and you like it. I'm saying I'm against this because that stroking that you're enjoying is the very reason others don't get stroked because you like it so much that is all you wish to see. It is why the good ol' boy club exists in the first place. I won't validate that. If you think that is right, I think you've missed the forest for the trees.

EDIT: I should've addressed the "natural outflow of a process" comment. Yes, it absolutely has to be. Otherwise, you're into quota territory and that is demeaning and wrong. I understand your point and it is a good one that the process in the past was not geared to allowing women into the club. Don't you think the reason they're now being allowed in has to do with the fact that women now play hockey where they didn't in the past? To me, if you can do a job, you can do a job. Leah Hextall is celebrate for being a woman PxP voice. I think she is AWFUL, as in really, really, really painful to listen to. If I say that, I get branded a misogynist and against women. No. I can't stand Kenny Albert. I think he's brutal to listen to. Same goes for Sam Rosen with the Rangers. To see ESPN promote and make a big deal about Leah Hextall calling NHL game is embarrassing to me. She's either qualified or she isn't. Promoting her gender is demeaning and gives the impression that is why she got the job. I don't care for that and deep down Leah knows that it's more about her being a woman than it does her talent when they promote her as a woman in hockey.

Okay, you think only one group inclusivity can be celebrated at a time? Celebrating one group doesn't mean other groups aren't being supported or are overlooked.

 

[riffle]

Okay, you think only one group inclusivity can be celebrated at a time? Celebrating one group doesn't mean other groups aren't being supported or are overlooked.

Name me all the groups you think are excluded and then tell me the ones you think are actively being promoted.

I guarantee those lists will not square.

 

[kule41]

What's missing in this thread is data. How many women, for example, graduated from the appropriate programs to apply to professional sports positions? How many had specific interest in hockey admin? How many were hired and not hired from this percentange? What were their qualificaitons? How much experience did they have? In other words, hard data.

You need data before making any sort of conclusion or you're just speculating. This is part of the problem with these debates....they're very speculative and intertwined with emotion.

The personal account of racism in hockey....I get it. I can't argue with what people experienced. Some of the stuff written above really sucks. But I do think though that we can't overgeneralize. Some leagues and cities suck, for sure. However, my beer league in Mississauga is extremely multicultural/multiracial. We all get along very well in this league too. Never heard any sort of race-based incident/issues in all the years I've been playing. Honestly, I've experienced the most interracial bonding and hangout out in this league than I ever experienced in my entire life. And it's hockey!

One more thing......the whole minorities-can't-afford-to-play-hockey is a bit of an insulting argument. East Indians and Chinese, for exampe, are right at the top for SES in North America. White, swarthy ethnics, like myself, have also climbed the ladder in this country due to the amazing opportunities.

I get where you are coming from. But in terms of data, wouldn't it be fair to ask those who are saying " only the most qualified should be chosen" in this thread the same questions? The video for the Leafs were showing that there are women in different positions within the organization and they are doing well. Nothing wrong with celebrating your employees in a positive manner. The thread then got derailed by people talking about qualifications when they aren't in the hiring process. Again, back to the original point...Just celebrate the success of the organization and those that contribute to it.

 

[Stigma]

I get where you are coming from. But in terms of data, wouldn't it be fair to ask those who are saying " only the most qualified should be chosen" in this thread the same questions? The video for the Leafs were showing that there are women in different positions within the organization and they are doing well. Nothing wrong with celebrating your employees in a positive manner. The thread then got derailed by people talking about qualifications when they aren't in the hiring process. Again, back to the original point...Just celebrate the success of the organization and those that contribute to it.

Good post.

 

[kule41]

Name me all the groups you think are excluded and then tell me the ones you think are actively being promoted.

I guarantee those lists will not square.

You don't think we should try to improve unless we can do everything at once? Things take time and I still think there is work to be done. But still steps in the right direction

 

[Kiwi]

100% but that definitely has a lot to do with representation right? They see people like them in the sport. Which is why there is such a push for representation in hockey, female and minority. Because they want people to identify and relate and choose that sport. Could you imagine a lebron James like athlete in hockey?

The NBA and NFL aren't full of Maori and Pacific Island players but those kids are really taking to those games so I'm not sure representation is what's drawing them either

 

[riffle]

You don't think we should try to improve unless we can do everything at once? Things take time and I still think there is work to be done. But still steps in the right direction

That's not an answer. The answer would prove my point that it is women who are the focus of promotion right now. How that isn't seen with the same lens, as to ALL groups not being promoted, as it used to be for women is beyond me.

Promote the idea that ALL are welcome and you won't have to promote women or any other group. Just promote that. True diversity only exists when EVERYONE is welcome, not just one group that didn't used to be. I don't think that's worthy of celebration, it's just removing one group from the formerly excluded list. And, we all know that this change comes with making issue. Those who shout unfair the loudest get the most attention. Not for a system that rewards that. Just push for ALL from the outset and we don't have to play these games regarding any particular group. Celebrate when EVERYONE is finding their way.

 

[francis246]

The NBA and NFL aren't full of Maori and Pacific Island players but those kids are really taking to those games so I'm not sure representation is what's drawing them either

Australian basketball league is pretty big! Either way that speaks to how well those leagues are marketing the games

 

[kule41]

That's not an answer. The answer would prove my point that it is women who are the focus of promotion right now. How that isn't seen with the same lens, as to ALL groups not being promoted, as it used to be for women is beyond me.

Promote the idea that ALL are welcome and you won't have to promote women or any other group. Just promote that. True diversity only exists when EVERYONE is welcome, not just one group that didn't used to be. I don't think that's worthy of celebration, it's just removing one group from the formerly excluded list. And, we all know that this change comes with making issue. Those who shout unfair the loudest get the most attention. Not for a system that rewards that. Just push for ALL from the outset and we don't have to play these games regarding any particular group. Celebrate when EVERYONE is finding their way.

Different groups have different barriers to entry. This isn't an one size all..... You also can't just promote diversity and all are welcome without removing those barriers...

 

[Byron Bitz]

I look at how Morgan Freeman feels about "Black History Month" and think it applies here, as well.

Diversity has to be the natural outflow of a process. Starting with the idea that women are automatically excluded is and has always been wrong. It's great "hockey is for everyone" is becoming more of a reality every single day.

For me, I'll never celebrate any groups promotion within hockey, however, I will celebrate that no group is excluded and there is a difference.


From Snopes:

View attachment 526089

Morgan Freeman has since changed his stance on Black History Month.

 

[riffle]

Different groups have different barriers to entry. This isn't an one size all..... You also can't just promote diversity and all are welcome without removing those barriers...

What are "those barriers"? It is a one-size-fits-all as to treating people the right way. That is always the issue.

BTW, what color are all these women in hockey that we're celebrating? How are female POCs represented? Indigenous people? Asians? Latinas?

If you want to celebrate white women being allowed into the club you certainly can. It appears to me they are the ones making the most noise about not being included. It's not unrelated that they are now getting in more and more. When there's a large throng of another group making noise about being included they'll be next. That is how it works. So, it doesn't work because it is the right thing to do, it works because it becomes a PR issue. If we're going to make it a PR issue, lets not focus on just women and then spike the football.

 

[riffle]

Morgan Freeman has since changed his stance on Black History Month.

Why do you think that is? And, if you have a link to this, I'd appreciate it.

He was 100% correct when he said this...

 

[zeke]

Aha yes all the typical dorks that just can't admit that the Old Boys Club is by far the biggest source of undeserved hiring and promotion in hockey, all sports, and most industries.

Give it a rest, dorks.

 

[paulhiggins]

All hiring should be based on ability, not gender or race. However, if two candidates have the same ability, it's okay to even things out a bit since it might attract a wider demographic of fans and make things more interesting. Other organizations are doing it. Just look at Andrea Helfrich and Taryn Hatcher from the Flyers for a recent example.

 

[Dangles McGavin]

I’m not explaining it because unless you’re a minority it will never make sense to you and I don’t feel like outlining it for you. It’s exhausting. There is zero way you can understand it. There are so many systemic barriers that prevent coloured people from playing hockey. Many of which have been outlined here in this thread. Just read. #1 is affordability, but there are other issues at hand, the sport is not inclusive to coloured people. Racism in the sport is rampant.

"You'll never understand if you're not a minority"

This doesn't feel like useful dialogue. If we can never understand because of the colour of our skin, then are we destined to be divided?

Humans use language to understand each other. What you're doing here is just claiming that you're right, and failing to defend your position.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing. But this approach you are taking does not unify people, which I would expect is your goal.

Edit: FWIW I didn't even watch the video, I'm just hoping straight to the discussion

 

[saffronleaf]

Solid employees.

 

[Prominence]

To be fair, the female employees who work for the leafs are extremely competent.

Noelle needham, who covered the midwest of amateur scouting, is believed to be responsible for the drafting of abbruzzese, koster, and miller. She even scored the highest on a double blind scouting evaluation that dubas assigned his scouts. In her brief stint with he leafs, her scouting has been more efficient than our american scouts prior to the dubas regime. She’s now the agm of the Chicago Steel.

There’s also hayley wickenheiser in a player development role. She has a lot of hockey experience and has won. There has only been positive things to take away from her role with the leafs.

Speculation: Rachel doerrie was offered to run practice for the leafs, which can be interpreted as an audition for the leafs. She understands analytics and had briefly worked for the devils. She didn’t make it into the leafs. She now works in an analytics role for the canucks. There’s a bar one must reach to work for the leafs.

I’m not putting words in anyone’s mouth, but the leafs don’t just hire women to be progressive. They have hired the best people for the job.

More rambling:
There are so many incompetent people who worked for the leafs. We signed jeff finger because the scouts or gm mistook him for another player. We signed david clarkson. We drafted tyler biggs. Remember LACK? We were willing to hire these incompetent people who made brutal mistakes that set the organization back. The leafs have made fewer mistakes than prior regimes because they have more diversity. Diversity is not just hiring people with a different skin tone, gender, but rather different perspectives. It’s why silicon valley is the technology capital of the world. The leafs had a bunch of guys who wanted grit, belligerence and testosterone. Never made it to the playoffs. We even drafted the same kind of guys under lou. We may not have made it past the first round of the playoffs, but at least the organization is better in terms of scouting, development (except goaltending), and drafting. Because people who belong to certain groups are overlooked, a lot of the times they can bring a different outlook/perspective/point of view AND still be the most competent person for the job because other teams won’t hire them.

Addition: i forgot barb underhill. I feel sorry for that randi milani person. Those are some big f***ing shoes to fill.

 

[Go4soda]

as a hockey parent, i’d have to agree that the most prohibitive thing affecting the inclusiveness in hockey, is cost. hockey canada knows this and won’t address it. it affects a lot of families, white and black. instead, they keep doubling down on racism as the cause. i think it’s typical and lazy.
growing up in a multicultural setting as a kid, a lot of my friends who were white looked up to michael jordan, but i didn’t know any black kids that had gretzky posters on their wall. it’s just cultural. you can’t legislate things to happen, they have to happen organically. I think as more black players play long careers in the nhl, we’ll see more black kids enroll, and ultimately, more coaches. white kids have had role models in hockey for much longer, to aspire toward. much like black kids have had in the nba or nfl. there doesn’t seem to be a movement to get more white kids into sports like basketball. if it happens, great.

 

[Hockey 4 Life]

Glad to see great hires, equality of opportunity is somthing everyone in every industry should strive for. Equality of outcome on the other hand should be discouraged at every turn.

 

[Dreakmur]

as a hockey parent, i’d have to agree that the most prohibitive thing affecting the inclusiveness in hockey, is cost. hockey canada knows this and won’t address it. it affects a lot of families, white and black. instead, they keep doubling down on racism as the cause. i think it’s typical and lazy.

It’s not that they won’t address it, but there isn’t really a good solution to that. Ice facilities are expensive to maintain, so unless you expect them to lose money, renting ice is going to be expensive. Equipment is expensive too, but that’s capitalism rather than hockey Canada. Just like every other organization, the bureaucratic parts of the associations have ballooned to increase costs, but that’s a response to the more litigious society. You want unbiased evaluations at tryouts? That isn’t free.

 

[Go4soda]

It’s not that they won’t address it, but there isn’t really a good solution to that. Ice facilities are expensive to maintain, so unless you expect them to lose money, renting ice is going to be expensive. Equipment is expensive too, but that’s capitalism rather than hockey Canada. Just like every other organization, the bureaucratic parts of the associations have ballooned to increase costs, but that’s a response to the more litigious society. You want unbiased evaluations at tryouts? That isn’t free.

yes, those are good points. equipment costs what it costs, and we know the facilities cost more to maintain. but the associations have been taking advantage of this narrative for years. i’m not suggesting in any way that hockey should be as cheap as soccer or basketball. it’s just not possible. but i think something constructive can be done to narrow the gap.
recently, i read that the gthl created a committee to deal with how to make hockey more inclusive, racially. after long deliberations, they arrived at a possible solution… charge hockey families more money, essentially a 100$ tax, which would go towards subsidizing target groups. this is an example of them missing the mark again. it has to stop.

 

[zeke]

 

[Dreakmur]

yes, those are good points. equipment costs what it costs, and we know the facilities cost more to maintain. but the associations have been taking advantage of this narrative for years. i’m not suggesting in any way that hockey should be as cheap as soccer or basketball. it’s just not possible. but i think something constructive can be done to narrow the gap.
recently, i read that the gthl created a committee to deal with how to make hockey more inclusive, racially. after long deliberations, they arrived at a possible solution… charge hockey families more money, essentially a 100$ tax, which would go towards subsidizing target groups. this is an example of them missing the mark again. it has to stop.

I've been involved with minor hockey since 1999, and the biggest reason hockey has become so expensive is because too many people view hockey as a way to make a profit. It is true that normal hockey registration is more expensive than other sports, but the biggest cost is the private skill development on the side. When I started, guys coached for free and now they want to be paid. Tough to legislate against people making money, even if I think most of them are charlatans.

 

[AcerComputer]

Morgan Freeman has since changed his stance on Black History Month.

I highly doubt this is true. I would love to see your proof

He was very explicit on why he doesn't like it. He even called it ridiculous. He was 68 when he gave that interview. At that age, most people are pretty set in their ways, especially on a topic he has clearly given a lot of thought to.

 

[Go4soda]

I've been involved with minor hockey since 1999, and the biggest reason hockey has become so expensive is because too many people view hockey as a way to make a profit. It is true that normal hockey registration is more expensive than other sports, but the biggest cost is the private skill development on the side. When I started, guys coached for free and now they want to be paid. Tough to legislate against people making money, even if I think most of them are charlatans.

i can’t disagree at all with this.