by Alicia Radford | April 10th, 2012
The results of the IQA gender rule vote have been tallied. The vote was open for two weeks and 61% of official member teams (90/148) voted. The vote asked whether the IQA gender rule for Version 6.0 of the rulebook should use a 5:2 gender ratio (with or without the seeker counting toward that ratio) or a 3:4 gender ratio (with or without the seeker counting toward that ratio). Eighty-one percent of teams voted to keep the gender ratio at 5:2, and 67% of teams voted that the seeker should not count toward the gender requirement.
Therefore, the gender rule will remain unchanged in Version 6.0 of the rulebook.
The IQA remains committed to promoting gender equality on and off the pitch. In the 2012-2013 season, teams who play using a 3:4 ratio will receive special recognition. Results from Adam Cohen’s academic study on quidditch are revealing that participation in quidditch reduces stereotypes, increases players’ desires for inclusivity and equality, and increases self-confidence and pride in women. “[Being co-ed] helps and enhances the game and really teaches the players what people are capable of from both genders and different sizes and strengths,” said one study respondent. “Quidditch has really demonstrated to me just how equal coed sports can be. It is easy for a girl to be just as successful in this sport as a boy, which can’t be said for most sports,” said another.
More comprehensive results from Adam Cohen’s survey will be released in the coming weeks.
Thank you to all the teams who voted.
cchazard
April 10, 2012
6:21 pm
Define “special recognition”.
Dan Panzarella
Admin
April 10, 2012
6:28 pm
I am also intrigued by this
Lindsay BlitzDrwg Fussell
April 10, 2012
6:29 pm
… Magical trophy?
Dan Miller
Captain, Ringling College
April 10, 2012
7:44 pm
And how is it going to be defined? My team plays both 5:2 and 4:3, depends on the situation and the makeup of our team at the time.
anon
April 10, 2012
6:30 pm
The IQA keeps referring to the gender rules as promoting “gender equality,” but I don’t understand why they think having any gender rule makes things equal. In sports the people who get to play should be based solely on their skill at the sport. If anything the gender rule is sexist. It REQUIRES players of a certain gender to play, even if there are more deserving players of the opposite gender. Forced equality is not equality.
Bailey Sheehan
April 10, 2012
6:33 pm
“Girls can be just as successful as boys”
Seriously? Seriously?
Am I the only one not okay with that statement.
That’s really enhancing “women’s self confidence”
Oh my god this is ridiculous and this organization is so sexist.
Dwyguy
Captain, Miami University of Ohio
April 10, 2012
6:36 pm
So without the seeker counting, is it technically a 4-2 rule?
Evan Bell
Captain, Santa Barbara Blacktips
April 10, 2012
7:57 pm
Yeah, that’s always bugged me in this conversation. Yes, it’s a 4-2 + seeker rule.
David Gutierrez
Captain, The Silver Phoenixes
April 10, 2012
6:43 pm
Why special recognition? Not that its a big deal but it is kind of perpetuating the issue even further, I was hoping this would just go away once the results came out.
Anthony DeVito
April 10, 2012
6:55 pm
Wow 81% voting to stay away from a more equal gender rule? I guess it is not our generation that will be able to claim to truly embody gender equality. I had high hopes. Perhaps my children’s generation will do better.
Note I was exited when the IQA first came out with the 4-3 rule and I was hoping eventually it would be 3-3 with the seeker’s gender being indifferent to the field of players as it is a completely different position.
Hugh Manatees
April 10, 2012
7:47 pm
I was looking forward to the seeker rule change, since it meant that we would have more position flexibility. We have a great female seeker…and it’s insanely frustrating that she still won’t count toward our female players on field. The fact that it came to an all-team vote just shows that most teams just want as many guys on the field as possible, which is annoying to a team that can actually recruit badass women.
Evan Bell
Captain, Santa Barbara Blacktips
April 13, 2012
3:39 pm
Actually, Allen, I sincerely doubt the thought of “wanting as many guys on the field as possible” was the reasoning for almost any of the teams. The majority reasoning that I heard from most teams was that implementing a 4-3 or 3-3 rule would be detrimental to the growth of the sport, because of the difficulty that many start-up teams have recruiting one gender or the other. This even holds true for some veteran teams, such as the Utah Crimson Flyers. In fact, think about your own team at the Northern Colorado Cup, and how much difficulty you guys had keeping two GUYS on the field at the same time. I know at least a few teams that voted in favor of the 4-2 rule will still do their best to field 3-3 at all times anyway. I’m sure there are some other logical reasons why teams voted down this rule, but the reasoning was not “we don’t want more girls on the pitch”.
If you want an argument for the fact that teams still agree with the concept of creating gender equality, look to the seeker rule. Because the seeker spends very little time on the pitch and interacts very little with regular gameplay, my feelings are that allowing the seeker to count for gender would more easily facilitate gender inequality on the pitch, as a team could just field 5 guys and 1 girl. I think a lot of teams recognized that possibility and decided to keep the rule as is. In other words, we keep the on-pitch gender ratio the same to facilitate growth of the sport, and we keep the seeker rule the same to facilitate gender equality.
Kyle David Steeno
April 10, 2012
8:36 pm
Agreed. Teams playing 4-2 shouldn’t be treated any differently than those playing 3-3. The vote ended, so should this issue.
John Lee
April 10, 2012
11:58 pm
I’d definitely second that.
Aimee
April 10, 2012
8:42 pm
@ David, there will be recognition for those who desire to play 3:4 because we would like to recognize those teams who support the rule change & who voted for the change. This way it is not required, but still encouraged. Furthermore, teams who wish not to play 3:4 due to recruitment and other issues will not be penalized.
The Title 9 3/4 project developers are finalizing the details, technicalities, and so forth of how teams will be recognized. We will release the information as soon as it is available.
Taylor Kozlowski
April 10, 2012
9:00 pm
Personally I feel like the gender rule isn’t necessary at all. As a female I too like may others are proud to be treated equally while playing this sport. This equality does not come from how may girls are on the pitch but instead how the other players treat them and how they play against them. I feel as tho this gender rule is the only thing holding this wonderful game back from becoming truly equal. When I see this rule it makes me think that needing such a rule is insulting to the female players. It makes me feel like I am a “crutch” for my team and/or just a requirement. The Quidditch community has some extraordinary female athletes. I know this because of the teams that I have played and because of my fellow female SUNY Fredonia players. This rule defeats the purpose of equality. Let the captions decide who to play and let the best players play whether they are male, female or do not designate themselves to any gender. Thank you for reading this and if you too feel this way keep bringing this up!
Ron_Weasley
April 10, 2012
9:31 pm
maybe we should all relax…I am sure the recognition is for the initiative to participate in one of the main goals of the organzation. if you aren’t aware of that, do you know much about the iqa?
you’re like a bunch of little hungry birds. WHAT DO I GET?! BUT WHAT ABOUT ME?!@!!!!
and @david gutierrez…I would really hate to be of a differing gender than you on your team. yikes, my friend.
Ron_Weasley
April 10, 2012
9:32 pm
and I spelled organization wrong in protest.
in protest of your very wordly open eyes.
maybe.
Ron_Weasley
April 10, 2012
9:34 pm
worldly even.
you get the point. I can take a typing class to learn to proofread…you guys are screwed.
Doug Whiston
Captain, University of Kansas; Kansas State Director
April 10, 2012
9:37 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12VUjgYMm1U
amoody12
Ohio State Director
April 11, 2012
12:43 am
Why would it matter if teams get recognition or not? I think having/not-having recognition either way is not a huge deal. If the IQA wants to recognize teams who are going beyond what is asked for on a regular basis then sure. Congrats to those teams for finding a true team of depth. Its like getting a sticker on an A+ paper on equality.
Evan Bell
Captain, Santa Barbara Blacktips
April 11, 2012
2:19 am
I also agree that, as well meaning as the special recognition for 3-3 teams would be, it’s unnecessary and doesn’t seem to understand the reason why teams voted this issue down. The majority reason I found why people voted no was because it would essentially phase out any team that couldn’t manage to get three minority gender players required to play, since a lot of teams have enough trouble just getting two. Giving special recognition to teams that play 3-3 suggests to teams that can’t do that the idea of “Sorry you couldn’t get enough girls/boys for the IQA to like you more.” Again, I can’t imagine that’s intention, but that’s how it comes across.
Kevin Oelze
Captain, Silicon Valley Skrewts
April 11, 2012
3:14 pm
That’s certainly why some teams voted to leave the rule the same, but that’s hardly the only reason.
iamchrismoran
Captain, Spaulding High School
April 15, 2012
7:52 am
Not that I WANT there to be any opportunity for teams to work against inequality, my own personal expeirience has been that it is VERY difficult to get my female “players” to commit. In the two years I’m been working to build the team at the (high) school I teach/coach at, I’ve had about 7 girls and about 14 guys show positive interest, yet I’ve never had more than 3 girls show up for any one practice/scrimmage and recently, I’m lucky to get one. I even beg some of them. The guys are supportive but we just don’t know what keeps them away.
In all fairness, there maybe should have been an option in the ballot to suspend the gender rule or creat some amendment to deal with the fact that some schools, are going to struggle to meet that extremely well meaning rule’s requirement. Heck, some communities probably wouldn’t support such gender equality and even though I’m finding it hard to call Quidditch NEW any longer, it’s still young and not part of the greater vernacular of sporting.
Sydney Sadur
November 29, 2012
11:22 am
The effects of this rule are actually fairly ridiculous. Recently my former team, Smith College Quidditch, has been told that they cannot participate in IQA. Why? Because we are a women’s college team and therefore cannot meet the requirement to recruit men/non-female identifying players on our team.
Are you kidding me? Is that not the exact OPPOSITE of encouraging and empowering female athletes? We are told by the IQA that because we are a single-sex institution which prides itself on empowering women and breaking down stereotypes, we cannot play because there aren’t enough NON-WOMEN. That’s ridiculous.
Not to mention the fact that this rule is incredibly binary. What about genderqueer or genderfluid players, like myself? Where do we fit in the non-female identifying scheme of things? Where do we fit in the scheme of Quidditch as a sport? I am obviously for gender equality in sports, but not when a rule has the exact opposite effect of attempting to promote women in sports.