The difference in naming between men’s and women’s cricket leagues recently caught my attention. The men’s league is called the IPL (Indian Premier League), while the women’s is called the Women’s Premier League (WPL). If the women’s league is called WPL, then why is the men’s league called IPL and not MPL (Men’s Premier League)? The fact that it is named IPL points to a deeper issue, which is the assumption that "Indian" automatically refers to men.
This distinction reveals a broader bias. The IPL does not need a gender label because it is automatically assumed to represent men. This pattern is also evident with the national teams where the men’s team is called the Indian National Cricket Team and the women’s team is called the Indian Women’s Cricket Team. This subtle difference implies that men are the true representatives of the nation, while women are seen as outsiders, even though both teams represent the same Nation.
Men’s cricket has long dominated, with revenue often cited as the reason for its prominence. But should that history define the future? Women’s cricket is growing, and they should no longer be kept in the shadows of their male counterparts. Women representing the same nation with equal passion deserve to be recognized as icons of national success.
This goes beyond cricket. It is also about how we define national pride and whose achievements are truly celebrated. While men’s cricket may generate more revenue, shouldn’t it be the talent and dedication of athletes regardless of gender defines success?, Why allow outdated views to determine who is worthy of representing the nation?
No comments:
Post a Comment