I first noticed it when we started to refer to batsmen as batters at work. With the advent of women’s cricket, fieldsmen also became fielders and then there was the tricky fielding position “third-man” ..
. what should that be? Recently I was typing (yes, journalists still type) a super for the 6pm TV news (it’s the nickname for superimposed text on the screen, used to add extra information to a story or give details of the person being interviewed). As I was punching in the letters for Luke Jackson, Dockers ruckman, I realised Luke is no longer a ruckman, but simply a ruck.
With the evolution of the women’s game, the term ruckman is no longer inclusive. I have received emails about the use of gender-neutral terms in sport, from both sides of the argument. Some correspondents say it’s political correctness going too far and plain un-Australian, while others ask, “how about being more inclusive, Mr Barich”.
But the fact is many terms and roles we associate with sport have historically male-dominated bias. I recall famous English commentator Jonathan Agnew saying he hated the term “batter”, explaining it like this: “I always call a woman batsman a ‘batter’. But why can’t a man playing a man’s game be a batsman?” Agnew, probably going a little too far when discussing his thoughts on the Ashes, also questioned why the trophy, which has been fought over by the English and Australian men’s sides since 1881, is also awarded to the women.
Conversely, .