Dr Katie Liston: Now is the time to work for a future where desire for equality overcomes will to power
To any sports buff, the players’ letter speaks to authenticity. The IRFU’s response to it? Attempting to deal with ‘facts’, insipidly corporate and vaguely paternalistic. Picture: INPHO/Dan Sheridan
The recent letter from 62 current and former Irish women’s rugby internationals to government, copied to the IRFU and sponsors, Aon, was gut-wrenching and honourable in equal measure. It bore the hallmarks of parrhesia — speaking frankly — and it roused more questions than answers.
Why did the group feel that course of action was one of only a limited number of options? Players have already exited the international squad, some relatively early in their careers, raising concerns about the ways in which the power of selection and deselection might have been, and will be, wielded. And the signatories have now expressed a clear collective voice. How many in the IRFU have been genuinely prepared to listen, not just during the most recent campaigns but since the disappointment of the 2017 home World Cup? How open has the IRFU been to feedback on its organizational practices affecting the women’s game and of their impact on and off the rugby fields? How many players really have a voice? What are the channels and opportunities for communication with them? And what, if anything, changes as a result of speaking up? The critical question now is whose truth will out, in what form, and how?
When , by Rosabeth Kanter, was first published in 1977, this award-winning book fuelled a stream of research on the negative consequences of gender inequality and of blocked opportunities for minorities. It impacted too on affirmative action. In it, Kanter demonstrated how a minority group, such as women, were scrutinised not as individuals but as members of their category, which left them subject to group disgrace and even shame. The legacy of this disgrace is exposed when the veil of silence is lifted about women’s lives and their truths today. Speaking truth to power can be jolting in its impact, not just because of the act itself but also the responses to it.
To any sports buff, the players’ letter speaks to authenticity. The IRFU’s response to it? Attempting to deal with ‘facts’, insipidly corporate and vaguely paternalistic. But facts don’t simply speak for themselves, nor do they ever exist in a vacuum. Both the letter and the corporate response demonstrated that Kanter’s concerns about the treatment of women remain as current today. The tenor of the letter was described by the IRFU as ‘disappointing’ and its content constitutive of ‘allegations’ and ‘opinions’. Implicit in the organisation’s response, but hiding in plain sight, were charges of irresponsibility and attempts at external interference on the part of the signatories, because two reviews are already underway into various facets of the international game and the women’s development strategy. As with a live court case, no intrusion into the IRFU’s reviews is permitted. A fundamental difference however is that the findings of its’ reviews are typically not divulged in full to the public nor to all those who participate in it, at least up to now.
As of Friday, the IRFU confirmed in a more conciliatory PR release that the findings of both reviews will be published. And the final arbiter is the IRFU itself who, along with its independent board members, sets the terms of reference, shapes the selection of representatives of key stakeholder groups, employs external consultants, and considers how to respond to recommendations. These can be adopted in part or in full, referred to working groups and sub committees for further action, rejected, or plainly contested.
The experiences of women in a predominantly male sport such as rugby union are as relevant to concerns with social organisation as they are to the state of relations between the groups concerned. Too often, these women and their predecessors have had to speak their truth to power: not only to be acknowledged but to be truly heard. In a week when six sportswomen were included on the shortlist for Sportsperson of the Year, and a new women’s rugby players’ union was launched in the English Premier 15s game, the letter laid bare a deep and concerning chasm.
The corporate response did little to reassure even the most ignorant of observers about the capacity to breach the chasm at this point. Instead, trust is to be placed in the review process that, we are also reminded, involves women connected too — former players, experienced administrators, qualified consultants, and board members. Ironically, outgoing CEO, Philip Browne, claimed previously that it would be difficult to find suitably qualified female candidates with the accumulated rugby wisdom and skills set to fill quotas without retreating to tokenism. Surely, in highlighting the involvement of women in ongoing reviews, the IRFU did not mean to give the appearance of pitting the credibility of one group against another of the same category? Their public statement should have grasped better the need to reach out rather than rebuff.
Through the movement towards increased equality between the sexes, and the telling and retelling of stories about women, we can see how power elites operated to ensure that sporting honour was largely a male preserve. Irish women of one historical period in Ireland took on largely passive domestic roles while, today, women of another place and time play physically demanding contact sports. This writes off any beguiling theories about women’s ‘nature’ or of ‘knowing their place’. Left, are differences in social structure, social organisation and culture which explain why sport remains a vector of masculine norms. In my own research, I have seen small exercises of power in male-dominated sports, akin to the private interventions described by the signatories in their letter, as well as more solidaristic emotional relations between some male and female directors and board members, rugby included. But whether and how gender equality has been adopted as a strategic organizational value in the IRFU is now a moot question.
In teaching current and future generations about this, we should help them appreciate that today’s opportunities are directly connected to yesterday’s struggles. Speaking truth to power is by no means shameful in the move away from skewed group proportionality.
Public honour is especially relevant to sport: the respect that comes from holding cultural capital. It is accumulated not solely from what you do, but what you then have, and what you are: incorporating occupational position, education, class background and wealth; from being recognised as different and, for these players, from the exceptional international successes of the 2010s.
To know ourselves we must face ourselves. By doing this, we can better understand how we came to be the way we are, and therefore to see many possible futures. When dishonour was brought on one woman, historically, it was to all women involved reciprocally in her honour.
The many and varied reactions to the players’ letter show that this is far more than a sports story. It is a struggle for public honour for all females that is now well and truly ignited.
Now is the time to work towards a future where the desire for equality overcomes the will to power.
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
