Giving Women Batters Their Due, Belatedly
Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator. Author of Cyber Scams in India, Digital Arrest, The Money Trap and The Human Hack
View all posts by this Author
By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2021-09-25 07:52:15
About the Author
Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator. Author of Cyber Scams in India, Digital Arrest, The Money Trap and The Human Hack
View all posts by this Author
Although the first reported women's cricket match was played way back in 1745, the first known women's cricket club was formed in Yorkshire in England in 1887 and the first women's Test match was played between England and Australia in 1934, cricket commentators and writers kept on using gender-specific terms like 'batsman' and 'batswoman' for the player who was at the crease. Not anymore. MCC has now decided to use the term 'batter'. This is a welcome decision. Since 'cricketer', 'player', 'fielder', 'catcher', 'wicket-keeper' and even 'umpire' are all gender-neutral terms, why have batsman for the person who is batting in a game that is now inclusive? The MCC had made cricketing laws and bye-laws gender-neutral four years ago but had let 'batsman' remain for incomprehensible reasons. That anomaly has now been corrected.
Why is it necessary to change words used for centuries to gender-neutral terms? It is necessary as it is important to do away with the centuries-old biases. Using gender-specific terms for players divides the game and takes away the inclusivity. It also gives the impression that the game is for men. That is not true now. Women's cricket is equally competitive and widely followed. Hence, terms to describe the game must also change with time. Then, with society adopting gender-neutral terms in most other fields (spokesperson for spokesman, for example), cricket cannot remain isolated. In any case, using 'batter' for the one who is batting is much better than using batsman. On a lighter note, however, one wonders how commentators and writers will now refer to the fielding position 'third man'. Will it be 'third person' (sounds so crass) or will they coin a new term for it?
