Recently a BYU Intramural soccer policy came to my attention stating goals scored by females earn double the points as those scored by males.
I have played soccer for 12 years and clearly understand the differences between an all-female and an all-male game. I will be the first to admit men are, in general, faster runners and stronger kickers. I also understand this rule was most likely created by an all-male intramural committee long ago in order to protect the fairer sex against aggressive men.
While I know it was implemented with the best of intentions, the underlying sexism leaves me feeling inferior to my male teammates and opponents.
I feel as if my worth as a player is viewed as half that of a man’s and handing females an extra point is an attempt to make up for an assumed inferiority.
Would you pay a woman to serve a mission because you thought without the priesthood she wouldn’t be spiritual enough to do so on her own?
Would you give females twice as many points on an organic chemistry exam because women are not expected to perform as well?
Both of these hypothetical situations are ridiculous, so why is the notion of giving women an extra point if they can prove themselves on a field with men not so outlandish?
If a woman scores a goal, that should be adequate proof of her skills. She certainly doesn’t need an extra point to reward her for accomplishing the “impossible.”
Believe it or not, playing like a woman doesn’t make me feel like less of a player. Yet, if every time I score I am subconsciously being reminded I did the unexpected and beat some sort of odds I can’t help but feel condescended.
A player should be defined by their skills and their sportsmanship, not by their gender.