Cricket Witness No 4 - Women at the WIcket

102 Separate but Equal: Feminism Divides the Game to ‘discourage any attempt to introduce a spirit of sex competition’. This rhetoric of moderation was repeated in media interviews before the Second World War, and continued after it with Nancy Joy’s A Short History of Women’s Cricket (1950) which insisted, in an effort to disassociate the Association with extreme or militant feminism, that Heron-Maxwell was ‘never a suffragette’. 28 Appearing apolitical was simply a sensible policy that limited their number of adversaries and appealed to a cross-section of women united solely by their interest in playing the game. While the appearance of moderation was largely successful and accusations of feminism declined in the late 1930s, the Association nonetheless shared the language and ideals of interwar new feminism. Following enfranchisement in 1918 the feminist movement splintered, as activists prioritised other national, international or party-political concerns. By 1928, British feminism was split into two ideological camps. On the one hand, there were those seeking ‘dead level’ equality with men, led by Lady Rhondda and the Six Point Group, and on the other were ‘difference’ or ‘new’ feminists pursuing special legislation concerning women’s traditional role as mother and wife. New feminists, led by Eleanor Rathbone as head of the National Union of Societies for Equal Citizenship (previously National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies), adopted a ‘separate but equal’ policy that stressed the differences, not similarities, of both sexes while maintaining their ultimate equality. Rathbone recognised the need to campaign on issues that directly affected the lives of most women, like birth control, family allowances and housing, and not waste time on achieving the unlikely goal of equal pay in the workplace. Her philosophy was grounded in the reality that most women sought a life in the home and legislation could improve their situation. 29 ‘Separate but equal’ was also the policy adopted by the ever-present and resolute WCA spokesperson, Marjorie Pollard. When attempting to justify the game in her book Cricket for Women and Girls (1934), Pollard took aim at commentators comparing women’s and men’s cricket: ‘We do not want, wish, or hanker after games of cricket with men… it is sound and sane to realise from the start that men and women cannot play team games together or against each other… I am not suggesting that the standard of women’s games is so far below that of men’s that they cannot play together or against each other. I think that the standards are different – just that – different. A Bugatti car does not race in the same class as an MG Midget. Yet who can deny the efficacy of both in their separate class?’ 30 This type of metaphor was repeated by Pollard and others in widely read media like the Daily Mail, The Cricketer and Girl’s Own Paper , each time maintaining that no gaping chasm of talent separated the sexes, but comparisons were misleading. ‘A Farlow trout rod is as good an instrument as the best Tunny fishing rod ever made, but that trout rod wouldn’t hold a Tunny.’ Pollard subtly used the language of new feminism to argue her point often. Only rarely did her feminism become plainly apparent, like when she took aim at ‘ignorant’ views on the sport in a letter to Lady