Yeah. Fancy the sillyness of recognising the mums, sisters, grandmothers and wives that support players at all levels of the game.
I'm completely in favour of the concept, the game is nothing without support from the most important people in everyones life, roughly half of whom are women.
We do recognise them, we recognise them everyday in our lives, further more when we celebrate the game we are celebrating and recognising them as well as they are part of the game... Aside from that in the Raiders case they literally have a whole new brand specifically to recognise women at the Raiders and future women's teams that the Raiders run!
Since it's necessary to specifically "recognise" (glorify is a better term in my humble opinion, but we'll use your terminology for now) women in the game in a singular way and as a separate but connected entity to the rest of the people in the game does that mean that we have to treat every colloquially defined group as separate but connected entities within the game as opposed to just a part of the game and there by must recognise their participation and their "support of the players at all levels of the game"?
If no then why is women's input into the game more valuable and/or more deserving to be recognised then for example men's input, LGBT input, or any other "groups" input, and by specifically recognising women's input into the sport but not other groups aren't we by it's very nature excluding those other groups from the sport, or at the very least ranking their participation as either less important or less valuable then women's input if we don't have a specific round to recognise them?
Further more at what point does the compartmentalisation of groups within the sport stop? Do subgroups of the groups need to be specifically recognised less we exclude them, in other words and for example do we need an Aboriginal women in league round or a Caucasian women in league round as well as the women in league round, or to compartmentalise even more an Irish heritage women in league round or a Eroa heritage women in league round, less we exclude/fail to sufficiently recognise their roles in the sport?
I could go on but honestly I can't be bothered, so I'll finish by saying that I think you've failed to sufficiently think your position through and in the name of inclusiveness have manged only to divide groups, as now once accepted members of the sport have to be treated as separate but connected entities and need to to be treated differently to be appropriately "recognised" where as in the past it was just a given that when we celebrated the sport we were celebrating the women in the sport as well, as they were just an accepted cog in the sports machine so to speak.
I also find it increasingly disheartening and frankly quite upsetting that in my life time we as a culture in the west have gone from Martin Luther King Jr. dreaming about nations where his kids would be judged by the content of their character instead of the colour of their skin (or what does or does not hang between their legs) to people using and twisting his and others names' and movements, etc, to further divide people and as a tool to continue to judge people by the colour of their skin, what does or does not hang between their legs, etc, as opposed to by the content of their character...
