In response to my earlier post on sport and violence, I found the following comment:
…the idea that because a man is an environmentalist or admits that he is suffering from depression he must be less violent than another man is quite an amusing one.
The response refers to my comment that Anton Oliver's environmental activism and John Kirwan's raising awareness of depression represent a move away from the thuggery of the 'Foreskin's Lament' days of the rugby club. I stand by my point; but I admit it needs some clarification!
Twenty plus years ago, my partner was an earnest young left-wing man who liked to read NME, discuss the work of the French feminists and decry nuclear testing. He also liked to play rugby, and (by his own nostalgic account, at least!) was quite good at it. He gave it up though: there was just no place for him in the rugby culture of the day, in which violence, homophobia, misogyny and racism were rife. The very worst and most destructive aspects of male behaviour were celebrated in rugby clubs.
A couple of decades later, things have and haven't changed. The recent rape of a young
I chose Anton Oliver and John Kirwan to illustrate my point because neither is known for violence on or off the field, in stark contrast to some of their contemporaries. Anton Oliver has been critical of the All Blacks' culture of drinking to excess; behaviour clearly correlated with violence.
However, those weren't the points I originally made. I drew attention to these players' environmental activism and depression campaigning respectively, because each of these represents in its way a stand against the larger, brutish rugby culture which saw the young
It's quite true that having an environmental interest, or fronting a campaign which affirms it's OK for men to have emotions, doesn't mean a man is incapable of violence. However, both indicate an ability to think beyond and challenge the conventional rugby ideal of masculinity which is at times so destructive. Both show a willingness to try to do some positive thing for society. And although I'm not personally interested in rugby – I don't see the point of running about in mud, and find cauliflower ears alarmingly unattractive – I'm one of those woolly caring-and-sharing type liberal lefties who want to build solidarities with anyone who might share some common ground with me.
The feminist purist in me sees problems with my own stance. The pragmatist in me is willing to have a friendly political conversation with anyone – female or male, feminist or otherwise – who might be prepared to listen.
14 comments:
I have been thinking A LOT about this issue. My partner plays rugby but can also talk eloquently and senstivly on many topics including the arts. He loves playing the game but does not like the culture and seldom partakes in the aftergame stuff. This gives me a small window into the quite scary 'rugby culture' that still exists - and a qute horrfic "pack mentatlity" that often emerges. I have noticed that a rural club he played for a few years back was VERY family orientated - partners and kids welcomed at the games and facilities for them in the clubrooms. The club he plays for now, I have been to once and would never go back.
I wish he would stop playing though - the hours it takes up and my constant fear of head injuries...
Neither Oliver nor Kirwan is known for violence on or off the field? Well, no more violence than is required to actually play rugby (tackles, rucks, scrums etc are all pretty violent). And the mere fact that neither of them has been seen to commit violence doesn't necessarily mean anything other than they, and their rugby playing mates, are good at covering up said violence.
Your partner made the right decision - to stop playing. Kirwan and Oliver didn't. Your partner is worthy, if not of admiration, at least of a 'pass' mark when it comes to non-violence, but Kirwan and Olier? I don't think so. By remaining within their rugby clubs they validated and endorsed a sick subculture. Even in the 'friendly' rugby clubs can you imagine a warm reception for a male civil union partner, or a m2f transexual, or somebody advocating that players gave up their cars and meat-eating for a more sustainable lifestyle? Did the clubs encourage and facilitate men to take an equal role in childcare? I doubt it.
Indeed the stance taken by Kirwan and Oliver on environmental and mental health issues plays off the celebrity they 'earned' through participation in a violent and misogynistic subculture, so I find their advocacy hard to admire. To use a parallel, Norman Schwarzkopf campaigned for better care for cancer patients - but he did so using the fame he derived from carpet-bombing thousands of innocent Iraqis, so in my opinion he simply tainted the issue. Kirwan and Oliver do the same thing - even if their advocacy were wildly successful it would simply flood the environmental and mental health movements with rugby-playing misogynists, not a positive outcome IMO.
It's also worth noting as an aside that frequently when a man suffers from depression it makes him more violent as he lashes out at the women in his life. So really, men who admit to suffering depression are to be treated with more, not less, suspicion - although I suppose they deserve credit for admitting they are dangerous to women, even if they do nothing about it.
Anon, and you know who else played rugby? Hitler! ;)
Saying that 'no one's seen them be violent and misogynistic, but I *know* they are and they're covering it up!' is a bridge too far for me, frankly. And tarring every single person who plays rugby with the same brush is also really unfair. The culture may indeed have problems, but for a lot of people it also has value. What we need to do is change the culture, not demonise its members.
(Also, I like watching rugby. Shock! Horror!)
Danielle, rugby is innately violent - to be good at rugby one has to be good at knocking somebody over physically and tearing something from their hands while they resist. That's violent behaviour in my book.
Even if Oliver and Kirwan have never done anything more than that (although that is enough to label somebody 'violent' in my book), they've participated in and endorsed an institution that is an important part of old-style masculine society and thus a part of rape culture. So they may not be guilty of rape themselves - although again, I would not be at all surprised if allegations came out - but they are guilty of promoting rape by participating in activities that show violence as a way to get what one wants as legitimate.
It really saddens me that a woman would enjoy watching rugby. All I see when I watch it is a group of men attacking one another in a ritualised fashion. I suppose that's better than their attacking women in an uncontrolled fashion, but not by a great deal, and I don't see how a ritualised exercise of masculinity violence is ever going to create an ancilliary culture that is anything other than misogynistic and violent.
The point is that we exist in a world of complexity, a world in which two or more ideas or feelings can exist simultaneously.
Here are some things I find great about sport, in general: athleticism, strategy, teamwork, storytelling, mythmaking, historical context, group bonding. I like rugby and baseball and basketball and cricket and (the horror!) boxing. I like good sportswriters; I like good sports documentaries. Do I like gratuitous violence? Not particularly. Do I like 'rape culture'? Of course not. I do, however, like seeing that amazing fluid passing backwards across the field, or the moment when a winger zips miraculously through a gap and scores a try.
My grandmother, who is no longer alive, was in one of the first regional women's rugby teams in New Zealand. She followed the Ranfurly Shield obsessively; she spent many hours watching sports with her friends and family. Does that make her a participant in rape culture, an agent of her own oppression, or would she think that your argument is ultimately precious, alienating and patronising? I have no answer for you. Maybe both sides are partially right.
All I'm saying is you don't win anyone over to 'your side' by telling them how awful they are.
Anon - rugby is not "inherently violent". Inherently physical, yes. Likely to cause some pain (although this is usually not felt during the game so much as after), and risk of injuries, yes. But I engage in a sport that also causes me pain and carries a small risk of serious injuries. I seriously doubt you would label it "violent". The object of Rugby is not to cause your opponent more pain, but to place the ball behind the tryline. Yes, they resist having the ball taken off them, but they clearly consent to the activity they take part in. I haven't watched a local game in years, but at the professional level referees will not tolerate play which is intended to cause harm to the opponent.
Rugby is a beautiful game to watch and play. I'm sorry that when you see a tackle or scrum you see men trying to cause each other harm, rather than physically contesting.
Are you going to say that the New Zealand women's rugby team (who are the best in the world, and seriously under-covered in New Zealand's sexist media) are engaged in off-field violence? That they come off the field primed to cause harm. Because it seems that's what you're seriously suggesting.
Destructive masculinities are not tied to any one activity (although they can be culturally associated with particular activities). In Europe football is associated with violence, and rugby is the 'gentleman's game'. But again, destructive behaviours aren't linked to physical activity.
Anna, I liked your post. I think rape or any other act of power/violence requires the perpetrator to shut the other off as a full human being. Engaging in environmentalism for example normally requires one to see oneself as existing in relation to others and to consider their good - although not always, unfortunately. Similarly with the self and other-awareness that comes with recognising and speaking out about depression.
Nice comment Danielle. I call this "alternative truths" although that brings good and bad.
I read Anton Olivers book altough I'm not a big rugby fan because it revealed a lot to me about rugby culture and also about someone who came to stand a little outside that
I guess I should name myself to avoid confusion with any other anons who wish to comment. This is the same anon who made comments #2 and #4, and the original comment that this post was a response to, for that matter.
Danielle, I can see why you feel conflicted. I appreciate many of the same things you do, but I find there are some sports that allow the teamwork and athleticism without the violence, and for the most part they are sports generally seen as 'women's sports' - netball is a good example. Of course a sport can be non-violent and still be a mainstay of patriarchy, like golf, but that's a discussion for another day.
Re: your grandmother, I don't mean to insult somebody who is obviously important to you and I have no doubt that she was a strong woman, but yes, I'm afraid in my opinion she was participating in rape culture. I'd say the same thing about a woman who joined the armed forces and went to Iraq to kill Muslims. It might be difficult for her to do it because of her gender but that doesn't make it worthwhile. Feminism is about more than giving women an equal opportunity to enforce patriarchy with men.
George, if the pain and injuries in your sport is inflicted by other people, then yes I would call it violent. If it's something like rockclimbing or gymnastics, that's another matter, but the difference is crucial - it doesn't involve large packs of men grappling with and physically subduing other people in order to achieve dubious goals.
As for the New Zealand Women's Rugby Team (and as I mentioned elsewhere, isn't it sad that we have the New Zealand Rugby Team, eg the All Blacks, and the New Zealand Women's Rugby Team? Why do the girls need a qualifier, but not the men?), I don't think they come off the field primed to cause harm, but I think that they and their fans come off the field more accepting of violence as a way to solve problems. It's sad to see women participating in the institutions of patriarchy, and even being proud of it, but that's the product of third-stage feminism - patriarchy, like capitalism, becomes increasingly adaptive and aware of critiques against it, and works to utilise them to its own ends. It's like women joining the army, or Jenny Shipley becoming Prime Minister.
Oh and for the record I consider soccer to be nearly as bad as rugby - and find it interesting that in supposedly-more-enlightened Europe rugby is a 'gentleman's game'. The main point is it's a man's game - and I think any 19th century feminist could tell you what a frightening spectacle a 'gentleman' is.
I should also add that gay rugby clubs are an increasing phenomenon (represented internationally by IGRAB - what an acronym!) Sport does not define a participants sexuality or off-field behaviour.
In fact, I think to blame rugby for the behaviour of rapists is to give them a free pass. This is to say that the institution rather than them is responsible, rather than saying that their behaviour and culture are very much choices and something that needs to change.
Um, anon, have you watched a game of netball recently? Because the ANZ championship games have been extremely physical. And I can tell you from experience that being knocked onto a wooden floor by a goal defence is just as painful as being tackled. Though I've never been tackled by Neemia Tialata.
As for a "ritualised exercise of masculinity violence", I'm not sure how our five-time world cup winning Black Ferns would feel about that. (See, not the 'women's rugby team at all - they have a name all of their own).
I think you are tarring a lot of people with the one brush. There are a lot of people (including women, shock horror) who can enjoy watching and playing rugby without participating in "rape culture". That's like saying because you go to Paris and catch the Tour de France you are participating in drug culture.
There are serious issues around violence against women in our culture, but you need to see that it is an issue of a wider culture than that of just a rugby club.
Or: What Danielle said.
Re: your grandmother... I'm afraid in my opinion she was participating in rape culture. I'd say the same thing about a woman who joined the armed forces and went to Iraq to kill Muslims.
I am obviously a victim of false consciousness and a tool of the patriarchy and a terrible feminist, but I'm afraid I think that comparison is just... utterly ridiculous. Sorry.
And also: what Megan said. :)
George, I didn't say rugby is responsible for rape, simply that it's a factor that contributes, like drinking culture, movies and music that celebrate non-consensual sex, and a thousand other things, but I think you get the picture. Getting rid of rugby is not going to end rape culture, but I don't see a society without rape culture having a place for rugby.
Megan, same thing. Why do people get the idea that I think rugby's uniquely horrible? There are many institutions that contribute to rape culture and rugby is only one of them, although I might go so far as to say it's one of the worst ones. As for what the Black Ferns would say, well, I would relish the chance to have a discussion with them on this issue, even if they were not ultimately persuaded. But I have spoken to women rugby players on this subject before, and while I appreciated their forthrightness, I didn't find their arguments persuasive - and the fact that the Black Ferns are better at rugby than anybody else wouldn't make their arguments more persuasive either.
Danielle, well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm not saying the female soldier and the female rugby player are actively equivalent - one kills, while one only injures - but it's a close parallel.
It saddens me to see the term false consciousness used so flippantly though - the idea that women can assist patriarchy and act against their own interests seems quite self-evident to me.
"I'm not saying the female soldier and the female rugby player are actively equivalent - one kills, while one only injures - but it's a close parallel."
Wow. um, aside from any of the other problems with that argument, it's worth noting that everyone on a rugby field is there voluntarily.
So I'm going to have to join danielle and assume I'm a bad feminist. Because not only do I watch, write about, and one one occasion actually played rugby, I assumed I was allowed to do that.
Because as far as I can tell the issues you raise are all much, much larger than rugby.
I'm not saying the female soldier and the female rugby player are actively equivalent - one kills, while one only injures - but it's a close parallel.
No, actually, it is *not* a 'close parallel'. I think that it's hardly a basis for comparison at all and, in fact, that it cheapens what is truly horrible about war to have female rugby players likened to female soldiers. FFS.
Post a Comment