As the resident woman around Puck Drunk Love, whenever some odd scandalous comment pops up that could be perceived as "anti-woman" or "misogynist" pops up, I take a look at it. Normally I mock it, like While the Men Watch or a Guide to Hockey for women. In Duncan Keith's case, I find myself, as a Blues fan, in the unfortunate position of defending a member of the Chicago Blackhawks.
Ok, defending isn't the right word. He was still rude. But the following exchange isn't quite as "he man woman hater" as some folks might believe.
Keith: “What did you see?”Reporter Karen Thomson: “Well, there it looked like there was a penalty that went undetected. You seemed a bit frustrated.”Keith: “Oh, no. I don’t think there was. I think he scored a nice goal, and that’s what the ref saw. Maybe we should get you as a ref maybe, hey?"Thomson: “Yeah, maybe. Can’t skate though.”Keith: “First female referee. Can’t probably play either, right? But you’re thinking the game, like you know it? Seeya.
First mistake: stating to a hockey player that you can't skate. Second mistake: taking Duncan Keith, noted orator, seriously. He didn't say anything completely misogynistic; he wasn't saying that she doesn't know hockey because she's a woman. He pointed out the fact that she'd be the first female ref with some derision, but he never said "you don't know what you're talking about because you're a woman." His point was more along the lines of "you don't know what you're talking about because you can't skate and have never played the game."
That argument is just as stupid, because people are allowed to analyze things that they have never participated in. If they weren't, I would never be allowed to read this book that I'm reading now about the Stanford Prison Experiment. Oh no! I wasn't there! I didn't develop it! I'm not allowed to have an opinion! Please.
This was a defensive move by Keith because he knew she had a point — he got away with a penalty. Was it a case of gender bias? Maybe a little bit, but I don't think her gender had anything to do with this exchange, which is closer to Andy Sutton's classic "expert" interview than anything else. Keith just as well probably would have told a guy reporter that he didn't know what he was talking about.