Hockey Canada hot seat for how they support Women and Girls
- Thread starter LadyStanley
- Start date
-
HF Sportsbook has been reset for the new season - Click here to play.
Takuto Maruki
Ideal and the real
None of this ultimately matters unless there's actual significant punishment for Hockey Canada in regards to protecting the male national team(s) due to rape and sexual violence. Sure, there was monetary repercussions, but most of that was either because there was a clear out (Nike) or because the pandemic meant that they needed to cut costs and had a good reason to moralize (Canadian Tire)
If this was a just world, then the IIHF should absolutely sanction and ban the Canadian team from competition until these problems were solved, and the Feds would withhold funding to Hockey Canada as well. But until that actually happens, all of this is simply kicking the can down the road.
If this was a just world, then the IIHF should absolutely sanction and ban the Canadian team from competition until these problems were solved, and the Feds would withhold funding to Hockey Canada as well. But until that actually happens, all of this is simply kicking the can down the road.
It's probably time to dispose of the CHL. That's the only way this will stop.
Takuto Maruki
Ideal and the real
Considering all that is shaking out within D1 hockey / the rebels in the BCHL and AJHL, that's not really happening either.
How exactly will placing all of those sanctions on Hockey Canada help them in any way shape or form?
How will removing money from a sport where costs are already driving people out help to build a better future?
Also, to my knowledge, there are currently two sets of cases that are currently ongoing. The 2016 one and the investigation in to the 2003 one. Do we know whether or not anyone associated with those events are still with the organization?
Again, I will ask, assuming that those associated with HC are dealt with and gone, what sort of punishment will make up for those atrocious actions if true and to follow up, how will that be of benefit to the future development of hockey players of all genders across Canada, specifically the women and girls that we're talking about in this article?
How will removing money from a sport where costs are already driving people out help to build a better future?
Also, to my knowledge, there are currently two sets of cases that are currently ongoing. The 2016 one and the investigation in to the 2003 one. Do we know whether or not anyone associated with those events are still with the organization?
Again, I will ask, assuming that those associated with HC are dealt with and gone, what sort of punishment will make up for those atrocious actions if true and to follow up, how will that be of benefit to the future development of hockey players of all genders across Canada, specifically the women and girls that we're talking about in this article?
LadyStanley
Registered User
I am aware of three current alleged cases of sexual assault relating to Hockey Canada and hockey in Canada:
2018 WJC (trial scheduled for 9/2025)
2003 WJC (guessing this is kinda on the back burner until the 2018 is resolved)
2014 OHL case (just hit news last week) - 22yo allegedly raped by 8 players (ages 16-19) at billet house
I specifically left the 2014 one out since the topic is about Hockey Canada and so far there is no indication that Hockey Canada had any role in the 2014 one.
LadyStanley
Registered User
@LPHabsFan there's also the case of the male coach entering locker room of women's team when players were partially dressed, etc., that HC did not discipline and continues to coach.
Yukon Joe
Registered User
People - if you actually follow through and read the report it has absolutely nothing to do with sexual assaults.
It's all about equal funding, equal ice times, equal opportunities for female players.
It's all about equal funding, equal ice times, equal opportunities for female players.
Ridiculous clickbait headline from Marek to say that the report declares hockey Canada is "failing women and girls". He's correct that the paper (15 pages) outlines the beginnings of a plan to address issues and barriers, but they've mostly identified a bunch of questions that will produce a whole bunch more papers and ultimately come down to asking for more money. But the word "fail" doesn't appear in the document even once.
The most critical piece of data in the paper is that women and girls account for 19.9% of registered players in Hockey Canada. Basically, four men and boys play for every one woman and girl. Therefore, I would ask the paper writers to be very clear in what they are looking for with regards to, "Equity in resource allocation". It's fair to say that women and girls are put off the sport by underfunded and/or derelict programming, but I think we must also deal with some reality in the fact that women are not drawn to high speed contact sports at the same rate men are. My dad and I are hockey players, my sister and mother aren't, and that's because they have zero interest, not because Hockey Canada is failing them. Are they arguing that funding be allocated in this 4:1 ratio with perhaps some funds dedicated towards growing the women's side, or are they going for something closer to 1:1?
They also mention "To date, there is no ice equity access policy in Canada, which has resulted in ice time managed at the local level being given priority to groups with agreements that often pre-date the creation of women’s and girls’ hockey programs in their respective communities". Are they calling for men and boys hockey to give up their ice times? There's not enough ice time to go around, men's league games are already notoriously 11pm on weeknights, what is their vision of equity here and how can they build up women's hockey without tearing down men and boys? (build more rinks, yay! transfer ice times away from existing leagues, boo!) My wife might play if she could have 7pm ice times or weekend afternoons, but every single rink in the city already has those ice times booked for kids. I'm sure as heck not playing then!
So much of this will happen naturally if we let it. As more women play, more leagues will spring up to support them, and more research opportunities for many of the posed questions will present themselves. If there are enough new leagues, there will be demand for new rinks and that will lead to more ice availability. The "plan" this paper outlines might serve as some guiding structure for Hockey Canada as they continue to grow the grassroots women's game, but a lot of it is just recognizing that a growing demographic doesn't have the same grassroots support as an existing demographic. Hockey Canada should obviously take the lessons learned from the men's side and apply them to the women's side, and perhaps a bit of cash and energy will help smooth things out, but women playing a sport that men already play doesn't exactly call for reinventing the wheel.
The most critical piece of data in the paper is that women and girls account for 19.9% of registered players in Hockey Canada. Basically, four men and boys play for every one woman and girl. Therefore, I would ask the paper writers to be very clear in what they are looking for with regards to, "Equity in resource allocation". It's fair to say that women and girls are put off the sport by underfunded and/or derelict programming, but I think we must also deal with some reality in the fact that women are not drawn to high speed contact sports at the same rate men are. My dad and I are hockey players, my sister and mother aren't, and that's because they have zero interest, not because Hockey Canada is failing them. Are they arguing that funding be allocated in this 4:1 ratio with perhaps some funds dedicated towards growing the women's side, or are they going for something closer to 1:1?
They also mention "To date, there is no ice equity access policy in Canada, which has resulted in ice time managed at the local level being given priority to groups with agreements that often pre-date the creation of women’s and girls’ hockey programs in their respective communities". Are they calling for men and boys hockey to give up their ice times? There's not enough ice time to go around, men's league games are already notoriously 11pm on weeknights, what is their vision of equity here and how can they build up women's hockey without tearing down men and boys? (build more rinks, yay! transfer ice times away from existing leagues, boo!) My wife might play if she could have 7pm ice times or weekend afternoons, but every single rink in the city already has those ice times booked for kids. I'm sure as heck not playing then!
So much of this will happen naturally if we let it. As more women play, more leagues will spring up to support them, and more research opportunities for many of the posed questions will present themselves. If there are enough new leagues, there will be demand for new rinks and that will lead to more ice availability. The "plan" this paper outlines might serve as some guiding structure for Hockey Canada as they continue to grow the grassroots women's game, but a lot of it is just recognizing that a growing demographic doesn't have the same grassroots support as an existing demographic. Hockey Canada should obviously take the lessons learned from the men's side and apply them to the women's side, and perhaps a bit of cash and energy will help smooth things out, but women playing a sport that men already play doesn't exactly call for reinventing the wheel.
Yukon Joe
Registered User
So I opened the link expecting some kind of "woke" nonsense. But that's not at all what I found.
The ice time bit was perhaps the most striking, because I have seen it. Some group or organization has the same ice time for the last 30 years simply because they've always had it. But 30 years ago women's hockey was hardly as much of a thing.
I was actually surprised women's hockey was as much as 1 in 5. Probably because I only have boys, we used to have girls on the boys teams when they were younger, but now that they're older all the girls have - I don't know. Either dropped out of hockey, or switched to all girls hockey. But so they're not visible to me.
So every once in awhile we go to the rink, I see a girl's hockey game going on and I go "oh yeah - girl's hockey".
Nowhere in the article did I see it suggested that girl's hockey should receive 1:1 funding with boys hockey. That would be silly given the difference in numbers. But the idea that girl's hockey should receive the same dollar value "per player"? That doesn't seem crazy at all, and I'm surprised it isn't happening.
Perhaps the OP can offer some objective comments lest one believes they are also doing the "clickbait" thing.
Creating unnecessary grievance isn't, and shouldn't, be part of trying to move in a positive direction. It does nothing but create greivance in other parties, notably the ones who seemingly are "privileged". Those who are trying to move things in a positive direction should be wary of their cause being used disingenuously by others like the media to forward their own agendas (i.e. getting eyes on their stories) and call that out.
I read an article titled ‘Discrepancies’ in metro high school boys’, girls’ hockey games tangible but nothing new
It highlighted the fact that girl's team only could get one hour of icetime vs. one and half for boys. Just another example of "inequity" right? Maybe, until you read at the end of the article that the boy's teams did way more fundraising than the girl's teams to be able to afford things like going to tournaments and more icetime. The boys were willing to out in extra effort to get more benefits; that same opportunity is available for the girl's teams.
There is also a "female only" ice arena being established in Cape Breton in a public space due to "historic discrimination" while simultaneously calls are going out for equitable ice bookings at other public arenas. It isn't clear whether this ice space would exclude boys teams completely. If it does, this seems discriminatory.
Yukon Joe
Registered User
So this is one of those things that just begs the question - so why do boys teams fundraise more than girls teams?
Because I can tell you - it's not the kids that fundraise, it's the parents.
So why do parents on boys teams fundraise more than on girls teams?
I don't know the answer. I have three boys, no girls. So I'm kind of removed from the girls hockey world. I'm just not so quick as to dismiss those who say that hockey treats girls unfairly, even if nobody means to do so.
I am just not so quick to see every discrepancy between genders, race, etc... as examples of continuing discrimination and that the sky is the limit in terms of making things "equal" to the point where double standards are applied as in the Cape Breton arena.
And I see enough in the media to dismiss their obvious plays on people's emotion using identity politics.
In general, I would suggest the boy's teams want to play more hockey than the girl's teams. And they should do their part in fundraising efforts to make this happen if the parents know what they are doing.
At one point it was boy's wanted to play hockey vs. girl's not wanting to play at all. This obviously has changed in the last 20 to 30 years and there are likely many examples of a family whose has a daughter that is more enthused about hockey than their brother and the parent's do more fundraising for her. I had a niece who played a lot of hockey and lacrosse; the latter being funded by her parents as much as their son's hockey was.
If there is ultimately as much enthusiasm for girl's to play a lot of hockey then higher levels of leagues requiring more money to participate will appear. There is nothing stopping this from happening as it already has. This, IMO, is the positive way to look at things.
That there are four or five times as many high level boy's league is simply a reflection of the demand, not a sign that "there is still more work to do".
Last edited:
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
-
OT: Blues Forum Lounge (Home of All Things OT) - Part 2024-2025- Latest: ChicagoBlues
