What is it with all the critics of women's cricket? Actually, they may have a point, but it's not what you think it is

What is it with all the critics of women's cricket? Actually, they may have a point, but it's not what you think it is

I recently heard the Twitter meme "sexism isn't overly prominent in women's cricket" and felt I had to weigh in on this.

The following is a personal journey through the minefield of issues surrounding this subject. I reach a new low at one point, but then come out the other side with a fresh positive outlook and renewed determination to stand up for what's important to me.

Izzy Westbury, a former England player has written an article on the subject of sexism in cricket.

I tend to agree with her in general, but don't share her optimism for the further advancement of the game. This is an unfortunate, but I feel more intellectually honest, position for me to take.

After going to 2 England women games this summer, I really enjoyed it and would recommend it to anyone not obsessed with seeing constant sixes smashed everywhere.

What was perhaps most remarkable about the experience was the friendly atmosphere. I saw old ladies with a tear in their eye, reminiscing about how they played 30 or 40 years ago and remarking on how much the game has moved on. But all the women are really grateful just to be given the chance to play. I saw whole schools of young boys and girls absolutely enthralled, playing kwik cricket and loving it during the breaks. How dare anyone try and minimise these experiences and aspirations?

The women's game benefits from a few things which might not feature in the men's, including more local matches at smaller grounds; cheaper ticket prices; an (even more)family friendly, lovely and relaxed atmosphere; less boozing; emphasis on touch play and timing, and spin bowling; and no sledging. This gives it an appealing, old-fashioned feel of its own which may suit those who, like me, like to watch women play sport (sorry if it sounds sexist but I would be lying if I said I didn't) and lament the rise of power hitters over touch players. I like to focus on these features rather than trying to compare it directly to the men's game.

Going back to the article from earlier, when taken in context of women's cricket in England, the assertions that "sexism...isn't overly prominent" may be debatable. People like Izzy Westbury have a vested interest in arguing that sexism is everywhere, and whilst I highly respect her, I would take a different route to the same goal. The whole "sexism is the cause of all ills" is the prominent feminist narrative, and whilst I feel it does often have some merit, by using it as the go-to reason to explain all problems, many feminists are, I feel, missing out on what could be an even more compelling case for their own cause in this regard.

When taken in the context of women's cricket in Asia or the Middle East, the statement "sexism...isn't overly prominent" is blatantly false on every level. It is the very sexism built into these patriarchies themselves that cause many of the world's worst problems, the least of which would seem to be the low status of their women cricketers. However, I hope to show that there is more of a link there than one might think.

In this country though, I'm afraid I must insist that sexism is still a big part of sport in general, and cricket included. This is coming not so much from the media (Westbury's examples don't convince me: Sky have gone well out of their way to cover England Women; the ODIs had excellent live streaming; and the Test was on BBC radio) or the establishment (the ECB, however much you may or may not doubt their management of national cricket in general, have done a sterling job of promoting and advancing the England women's game); but instead the sexism comes from the keyboard warrior, the man who insists on commenting on every ECB or Sky Sports YouTube video or Facebook post with outrageous sexist slurs against professional sportswomen playing for their country. I challenge you to find many, if any, such videos or posts without highly detrimental comments posted by someone claiming to be a man.

Where I depart from Westbury's narrative is perhaps in my lack of optimism for the women's game beyond ODIs and IT20s. I was expecting much, maybe too much from women's cricket. With low attendences at men's county cricket and even a very disappointing turnout at the recent Lord's final, there is next to no scope for any serious investment in national women's cricket, beyond chance-to-shine and the England development squads. I admit it - My dream of a vibrant professional national women's game is a pipe dream. Internationals are the only area for future financial development in sight. We have that, at least. The players who think otherwise will, I feel, ultimately have to accept this sad reality. I'd like to state now that it is utterly heartbreaking for me to have to write this.

And seemingly desperate attempts to improve the excitement of the game with smaller balls and shorter boundaries have so far failed to deliver any significant advancement in scores or excitement the last 2-3 years. On this landscape, and through the strict lens of market forces, critics are right to suggest that the women's game cannot compete, and is confined to some form of irrelevance, for far too many. I feel it unfortunate that more advocates can't admit this, but then we shouldn't necessarily expect them to as they have a "vested interest." Maybe I'm wrong, and I'd like so very much for them to prove me just that.

But why not let go of this whole burden, and view it all from a different perspective? I've managed to find my own rational space where I can accept these unfortunate features and still support and advocate for the women's game. I'd like you to read below (Because...reasons) where I set out how I've done this. This is why I think the critics are missing something: when viewed through the lens of women's rights, the whole picture looks different.

Anyone who constantly harps on about the low attendances at England women's cricket should take a look overseas. Even other good women's sides like Australia, New Zealand and West Indies get the traditional "one man and his dog" weekday cold early-May County Championship Division Two crowds.

The whole point about attendances is an inane and irrelevant one. I could make a case against men's Test cricket being played by any other side apart from England or Australia in their home countries, by dint of the same logic, and yet most people who know anything about cricket would maintain that Test Match cricket is the heart and soul of the game, and such an intention would be Heresy.

At the end of the day it's what the national cricket boards and TV companies decide to invest in and show, which determines the shape of our exposure to the international game, and that's looking really good for women's cricket. All the major international sides now have their own regularly updated women's cricket sections and most provide free live streaming coverage of the matches. Such services, note, only exist for associate nation's men's teams, such as Ireland.

Of course, the comments sections of these international women's cricket live streaming videos and Facebook posts are filled with the types of naysayers you might expect. Comments range from "This is appallingly embarrassing" to basically supporting the opposition with unbelievable and appalling slut-shaming, ugly-shaming or fat-shaming slurs against their own national side so "this sort of thing won't be shown again".

I can almost feel the "righteous indignance" of these pathetic keyboard warriors, these hysterical, unthinking faux-masculine idiotic windsocks as they stamp their feet and shake their fists at this "outrage" of natural female expression. This is, of course, all before agreeing that the only thing the women are good for are making tea or taking to the bedroom; then one genius points out she's not pretty enough for that, then they all jump on that bigoted bandwagon of "they're all lesbian pie-chuckers who should go back to making the teas". This is the crux of the intellectual and moral pit they have dug themselves into - the definition of a stinking cesspool of misogyny and homophobia.

I say again: Almost never in my life have I seen such utterly outrageous behaviour directed against professional sportswomen playing for their country.

Such comments are dripping with an unhealthy and extremely myopic form of gender elitism, and likely (as an analogy to the notion of "belief in belief") firmly rooted in the fear that the status of women might be raised to a level above what they're comfortable with.

If I were to comment on live disabled sports, such as the excellent recent Invictus Games, or with blind cricket, that it was "embarrassing" because "proper, able-bodied sportsmen could do it better", I'd be swatted down as an ableist bigot in two seconds flat. But somehow, when women are the victims, this type of thing is allowed to slide.

It's all just opinion of course, and usually an uninformed one. These people are basically just saying "oh look, the standard is SO MUCH worse than international men's cricket".

Yeah, no shit, Sherlock.

I was kinda expecting that though seeing as they are generally less physically fast and strong and that they've not been playing the game as long.

As Matt Dillahunty says, "So what?"

I'll tell you what else is so much worse than that too - low end Village Cricket, "the tubby 60-year old bowls to the spotty 16-year old from along the road" type, but no-one would dare suggest that we ought to get rid of that. It is the grass roots of the game. And it's not like these women's sides are all out for 45, week in week out, with Fat Old Dave the Butcher taking 5 for, now is it?

And the faux-supporting the opposition thing is just extremely unpatriotic. Hell, I'm one for holding your own country to account for its failings, but this is bordering on what some people might call "treasonous". Also, making the blanket statement that the nation's women represent that nation to a lesser extent than its men do, is a clear hallmark of sexism.

From a strictly rational perspective, I think I can justify the assertion that you don't need to have a particularly positive opinion about the standard or even momentum of improvement of women's cricket to support it.

In fact, you could even hold the opinion (which I don't by the way) that women's cricket is of a very low standard and won't improve, whilst finding plenty of reasons to support it, and still hold no measure of cognitive dissonance.

Taking this statement as true for me, the need to try and hold up the women's game to any objective standard simply dissolves away. It is what it is.

---

Because...reasons

---

Here is a 6-point list of reasons which, to me, justify investment and interest in women's cricket, regardless of what you think of its "objective standards".

Ultimately, it's more about what goes on abroad than it is about England, but we can set the example of how to have a well run and financed national side.

1. Experiences, fairness and the "right" to play

There is no rational justification for denying women the ability to play the same broad scheme of international fixtures as men do. The only limiting factors to expansion would be interest and attendance, but as we've seen these events can generally take place with very little overhead cost and, if it doesn't interest you, you're free to not watch it. But please, leave it at that.

Some more moderate men come out with comments like "I have little to no interest in women's cricket but I'll defend their right to play it". I wonder if this is the best way to conceptualise the issue.

I'll try to explain what I mean by analogy. I don't have a divine right to eat fruit and vegetables, and get daily exercise, and yet if I didn't do those things, I probably wouldn't be very healthy. I see the world which embraces women's cricket as a healthier world, and the one which denies or ignores it as an intrinsically unhealthier one. After all, the world which denies women playing cricket is one in which their "right to play" being denied would be the least of their worries (take Saudi Arabia with their "virtue police" as an example).

2. Inclusiveness: Denying or minimising others' experiences, achievements or aspirations as invalid, or somehow lesser, is one of the hallmarks of bigotry.

This faux-objective comparison between men's and women's cricket must end. I've said it many times before - everything's relative. It's so frustrating because it is also being perpetrated by female players and pundits. The players only need to be good enough to get the edge over their next opponent - the same is true for any player, no matter their standard. As women only play against other women, the whole issue of attempting to objectively compare between this format and the men's game, is fraught with show-stopping issues, in principle. You are never comparing like for like, to attempt to do so is pure folly.

Are the England women's team as good as a solid men's town club side? A good village side? Or the local kids team? Many would put the current bar about at one of the former two, but at the end of the day, who cares? If it's the best they can do, why does it matter?

Whenever I see a man put a comment like "I'd hit that for six" when commenting on a woman's bowling, I'd like him to present the "long list" of fixtures when he'll get the chance to do just that.

As long as the women's matches remain close and compelling (and lower totals generally mean closer games) there is no reason to think that women's cricket is a less valid experience. The players train just as hard and put in as much effort to their game. And no-one is arguing that they are paid as much as the men with the game in its current state; just a bit more than their expenses, enough to make a living out of it for the best players. This is all that is being asked.

3. Tackling subjugation of women overseas in oppressive patriarchies

Major organisations such as the UN and Population Matters are now heavily promoting advocating of women's rights in Africa, the Middle East and Asia. Ambassadors such as Emma Watson (who recently gave a superb speech on the role of men in gender equality, please listen NOW if you haven't already done so, it is an absolute gem) and Angelina Jolie are standing up for this, and role models such as Malala Yousafzai are emerging as effective advocates for a new generation of girls who want the right to an education and their own independence and careers, things long denied to them by dogmatic, patriarchal states who regard such interests as "non-serious activities".

Of course, the level of rational thought of the Mullahs ruling the religious flocks of these lands, is well demonstrated by their consideration that untold hours a day spent praying to a non-existent sky-daddy is indeed a "serious activity".

And what goes hand in hand with higher education, increased wealth and personal freedom and already has a foothold in many African, Middle Eastern and Asian countries? Cricket, of course. Achieving a significant breakthrough in women's cricket in these countries is something which has already been catalysed, and we could be on the cusp of activating in the coming years and decades. Even if you were to present the argument that any progress would be limited to the more financially privileged areas of these countries, we've seen that once given some exposure to a national audience, the players will take it into their own hands to work on the local problems they see day-in day-out with their own initiatives and sponsorships. So I'd still submit that they whole enterprise could be very beneficial.

4. Dealing with the "fundamentalist religious state" problem, all the while completely circumventing the normal cultural and political barriers involved with doing so

Women who have a solid education or a career are statistically likely to be less devoutly religious and more secular than uneducated women, or at least more aware of their own rights and own potential. And uptake of cricket is correlated with higher learning and further education. Secular, educated women are more likely to fight any patriarchal culture from within, demanding a voice among the religious and political leaders where they can take an active role in changing the laws and traditions that have long cemented the problems they faced. This would have the clear corollary of diluting the fundamentalist religious nature of the state and shifting it towards a more moderate, liberal position. And best of all, we don't need armies on the ground, or air strikes, to help them do this.

5. Tackling the overpopulation problem and all the benefits that brings

Supporting women's cricket is synergistic to this goal. Major organisations such as the UN and Population Matters are now heavily pushing combating overpopulation as a key success indicator in the fight against climate change, and the fight against displacement of refugees due to famines, floods or other natural disasters. These are the urgent issues of our time, most impacting on human rights.

Women who have an education or a stable career are statistically likely to have fewer children than uneducated women, and the children they do have are born later in life when they possess more wealth to look after them, resulting in less poverty. Fewer people means fewer mouths to feed, less emitted pollution and a more sustainable use of land that gives a more robust response to climatic challenges such as floods and droughts.

6. Half the Sky: Expanding cricket to a wider audience.

How can the game of cricket be brought to a wider audience? Trying to "break America" is harder and more expensive than focusing on increasing participation in countries where a cricket culture already exists. Immigration by cultural Asian populations into European countries (such as Germany as featured in a recent ESPN Cricinfo article), may allow some development work there, however outside this, the markets for emergence of new sport in most non-cricketing nations are already cornered, and severely limited.

But we can challenge the level of participation in cricket in locales where it already has a good foothold. Getting more girls to play though Chance To Shine-style initiatives may have the happy side-effect of increasing young male participation as well. It's worked in this country and there's no reason to think it won't also work overseas. Raising awareness and garnering local support are the main barriers to this.

--

There may of course be other reasons; this is not intended to be an exhaustive list. But I hope I have presented a rational case to justify my support of women's cricket, my attendance at women's cricket matches and to explain why I think you should do so too. And none of it depends on the game meeting an unattainable objective standard.

Although I'm willing to go to the trouble of documenting these justifications, I do regard it as an unfair burden on me to do so, un-rightfully placed on me by certain others, claiming to be men's rights advocates; and them being insistent that firstly I'm wasting my time and secondly, the whole thing is a joke. If anyone else agrees with me here in arguing against that, I'd be interested in hearing from you. The problem with the standard narrative is that it's just your opinion against theirs. This new perspective I've found opens up previously undiscovered reasons to come onside.