Sapurji: A Hall of Their Own?

I debated posting about this Vancouver Sun editorial after it was emailed to me by a colleague. It was a tough decision.

On one hand, I think it’s important to realize that the feeble-minded are lurking among us. On the other hand, I wondered whether it’s wise to give their insular views additional attention.

I decided to post it, because newspaper columns should be used to get people thinking and open up points for discussion.

Note: If you want to read a brilliant columnist check out Leonard Pitts.

Sadly, I’m talking about an editorial column in yesterday’s Vancouver Sun by Dave Harrison. Since the byline is “special to the Sun” I’m assuming this was a freelance job and thankfully not written by a staffer.

In the end I decided to post it, because I’m my experience, I’ve learned (the hard way) that there are probably many more out there that share this man’s view of women in hockey.

Harrison believes that the sport would be better served by creating a separate Hockey Hall of Fame solely for women, because – as he puts it: “Men's hockey is lightning fast, hard-hitting and often edge-of-the-seat exciting; powder-puff hockey is anything but.

“Women's hockey is just a shade faster than Tai Chi but only half as interesting.”

It’s obvious this man missed the 2006-07 Phoenix Coyotes contribution to the sport.
Nothing says skill, speed and excitement quite like watching Matt Jones trying to clear his own zone... but I digress.

I’m not going to debate whether men’s hockey is faster or harder hitting than the women’s game – that’s a given. But to segregate or exclude women from the Hall based on those criteria is ludicrous.

The really strange thing about this column is that Harrison says he watches (with interest) women’s golf, tennis and downhill skiing (among others) because “they are no different from men's (game).”

Huh? Unless Maria Sharapova can serve at 155 m.p.h. like Andy Roddick or Lori Kane can smack a drive 370 yards like John Daly can, I find this logic a little messed up.

But maybe it’s because I’m a woman and my brain isn’t fast enough?

As Harrison points out, it’s not only delusional and/or feminist women who enjoy women’s hockey but also effeminate men.

Because “no self-respecting, red-blooded, beer-drinking, Canadian male hockey fan ever takes women's hockey seriously.”

As a crowd pleaser (women’s hockey) seems to appeal only to other women who have convinced themselves that it's entertaining, feminist promoters of lost causes, anxious sponsors who are about to lose their shirts, milquetoast males who allow their women to choose their clothes (Real Men Don't Eat Quiche), and husbands who nod in agreement if they know what's good for them.

Just to recap: If you listen to emo, eat quiche, are well dressed, or listen to your wife... You are not a real man.
Turn in your man-card now and go back to watching Queer Eye for the Straight Guy or women’s hockey... it’s apparently the same thing.

It’s strange, but I seem to remember how proud and excited most Canadians were when the women’s team brought home Olympic gold in 2002 especially after all the controversy surround the game with the officiating. Maybe we’re just a nation full of wusses?

The last time I walked past Front and Yonge, it was still the Hockey Hall of Fame. Not the North American Hockey Hall of Fame, or the NHL Hall of Fame, or the Men’s Hockey Hall of Fame.

Just hockey. Period.

In fact, there’s already a woman in the Hockey Hall of Fame. In 2005, LA Times columnist Helene Elliott was inducted into the Hall as the Elmer Ferguson Award recipient.

But don’t tell Dave Harrison, it just might cause his small-minded head to explode.

As always - questions, comments, compliments, complaints, threats etc: sunaya19@hotmail.com