horse racing history | Horse Racing Free Tips

Right To Ride, Presented By The Kentucky Derby Museum: The Racing World Reacts To Female Jockeys

This is the third in a four-part series examining the arrival of female jockeys in American horse racing – why and how they broke in to the sport when they did, and how racing has reacted. In this third installment, we'll learn about the reaction of the racing world to an influx of female jockeys — and the career path women took in pursuit of race riding.

Find part one here and part two here.

This series is sponsored by the Kentucky Derby Museum, which will open its Right To Ride exhibit on Oct. 16. The exhibit marks the 50^th anniversary of Diane Crump's historic ride in the Kentucky Derby in 1970, when she became the first female jockey in the race. You can learn more about the exhibit and access current COVID-19 safety protocols for Museum visitors here.

After Kathy Kusner's success in obtaining a jockey's license, it might have seemed the floodgates should open, and hundreds of women jockeys would appear at the nation's tracks. That isn't what happened, and there are several reasons why. The first, and easiest, is that owners and trainers of the day continued to flout the federal requirements of the Civil Rights Act. Men believed that racing was still such a patriarchy that women could basically be ignored. Perhaps women at that time were so used to being blocked that many of them felt it was fruitless to even try.

Although the Civil Rights Act is a federal law, and a judge had decided that Kusner must be granted a license, she still had to face the members of the male-dominated racing world. As such, the opinions of male jockeys are worth noting.

Nick Jemas, the national manager of the Jockeys' Guild, told The Chicago Sun in 1968, “[The racetrack] is no place for a woman.” An unidentified rider said, “It is a man's game and that's the way it should stay.”

The News Leader reported that several of the Laurel jockeys said it would be a great idea. “It would add some color to racing,” said jockey Bill Passmore. Another rider, Phil Grimm, told the Star, “I've seen a lot of girl exercise riders. They are good and I don't see why Kathy wouldn't be a good jock.”

Unfortunately, the negativity from the male jockey colony sometimes escalated past mere verbal posturing. Jockey Penny Ann Early received a provisional license in 1968, but a jockey boycott over her anticipated ride forced Churchill Downs to cancel racing for two days. It is worth mentioning that many of the fans booed the boycotting male jockeys with taunts of “chicken.” At Diane Crump's first professional race in 1969 she required two armed guards to escort her to the track.

If you have followed the career of Hall of Fame jockey Bill Hartack, you are correct in assuming he would have an opinion on the matter.

“I think women should get a chance to ride,” Hartack wrote in the Dec. 13, 1968 issue of Life magazine. “It's a matter of principle. Women have legal rights, probably too many, but they've got them, and that's all there is to it.

“As a group, I don't think their brains are as capable of making fast decisions. Women are also more likely to panic. It's their nature.”

Hartack's comment harkens back to the late 18^th century when progressive scientists embraced phrenology, which included the belief that intelligence could be predicted by head shape and size. Male voters embraced that theory and used in in their crusade to keep women from voting. (History does, in fact, repeat itself.)

If there was so much pressure to keep them out of the sport, why then did women decide to complicate and even risk their lives by going against the odds to ride racehorses? Over the last decades some of the most prominent female jockeys have told their stories. What prompted them to go into racing?

A quick study of the biographies behind the biggest names reveals that almost all female jockeys were introduced to horses (not necessarily horse racing) at an early age.

Although jockey/journalist Donna Barton-Brothers' route should, to the casual observer, seems a fait accompli, Donna resisted the pull of the racetrack. Her mother is famed female jockey Patti Barton, the first woman to win more than 1,000 races. Donna's brother and sister were both jockeys, but Donna only started grooming horses as a way to make money in college. Grooming led to galloping, and galloping to riding.

Julie Krone is America's winningest female jockey, with earnings over $90 million. When Julie was only six years old her mother permitted her to ride her pony several miles away from home. She disliked anything that took her away from horses. When her parents divorced she convinced her mother to spend spring break at Churchill Downs, and Julie convinced Clarence Picou to hire her to do just about anything. Her focus was on becoming “the greatest jockey in the world.”

Rosie Napravnik, winner of over $70 million, was surrounded by horses from birth. Her father is a farrier and her mother trained event horses. By age seven she was riding in pony races, and it was around that time she began dreaming of becoming a jockey.

Sandy Schleiffers (left) and Penny Ann Early (right) at Hollywood Park in 1969

Jockey Diane Nelson pleaded with her parents for a horse or a pony for as long as she could remember. When her mother asked Crump about her college plans, she replied she was only interested in a career that involved horses. Jill Jellison learned to ride when she was three years old and was galloping racehorses by age 14.

Diane Crump, the first woman to ride as a licensed jockey, and the first woman to ride in the Kentucky Derby, was first introduced to horses at age seven, when she rode a pony at a carnival. She began taking riding lessons at age seven, and was licensed to gallop racehorses at age 16.

The above examples reinforce that women generally don't learn about becoming a jockey at the high school career fair; they are exposed to it at a very early age.

Although Kathy Kusner's victory was profound in that it enabled women to ride professionally as jockeys, and Diane Crump's appearance in the Kentucky Derby proved that women jockeys were no fluke, they still had to overcome a public perception that at times tended to ignore their considerable riding abilities. Media depictions of early female jockeys encouraged this, focusing on the riders' emotions somewhat more than they did with men.

Columnist Bill Braucher of The Miami Herald quoted Crump as saying after her first race: “Wasn't that wonderful? Everyone was so nice to me I could almost cry.”

Braucher finished his column with the quote and a comment – “Just like a girl.”

Undated image of jockey Mary Bacon

Braucher was far from alone in his portrayal of the first women jockeys. They were frequently presented more as novelties and not as serious athletes. In 1970 Judy Barrett had become the first British woman to be licensed to ride racehorses in America (women were not permitted to professionally ride in England until 1972). In a British newspaper, the Saturday Titbits (yes, the spelling is correct. Perhaps compare it to a 1970s hypersexed version of the National Enquirer) referred to her blossoming race career in the United States with an accompanying picture of her in a miniskirt, complete with comments about her hair color and the descriptors “lissome,” and “shapely.” There was no mention of her race record, riding ability, or overall horsemanship. That “lissome” individual eventually left racing to become a Thoroughbred breeder, and is one of the most successful breeders in Pennsylvania, twice winning the Pennsylvania Horse Breeder's Association's Breeder of the Year Award.

“Women not only had to work harder to get mounts, they had to fight the conscious efforts of the media to keep gender at the center of the argument,” said Jessica Whitehead, curator of exhibits like Right to Ride at the Kentucky Derby Museum. “No matter the talent, there was an enormous amount of public perception for these women to subvert.”

Our first assumption is that men were the only ones to ignore female riders' capabilities. However, the aforementioned article in the Saturday Titbits was written by Jane Goldstein. Later, she penned an article about female jockeys in Turf and Sport Digest titled “Move Over Billie Jean.” In that article she made a coarse comparison between jockey Julie Krone and Elizabeth Taylor, noting that Crump was “hardly a Liz Taylor type,” noting Taylor's midriff bulge and increasing number of husbands. She also related how “women everywhere were beginning to challenge their prescribed role as the weaker sex.” At the same time, we can look at Goldstein's writing style in much the same way we assess the evolving national attitudes toward racing. Her article went on to quote Lou Cunningham, then publicity director at Atlantic City Race Course. He said, “One of the problems with women jocks, generally, I think, is that a lot of girls ride and are terribly interested at first, but then find out how rough a sport this is and get discouraged by the brutal workload. A lot of them disappear from the scenes.”

One could easily read Cunningham's comment as blatantly sexist. Perhaps it was. However, there is no denying the high attrition rate in the profession of professional jockeys among both men and women.

By the early 1970s the women's movement was at full speed. We began to see women advancing in many different sports. And yet, they continued to struggle with the perception that they were a novelty. Was it only male writers and sportscasters to blame? After her very public thrashing of Bobby Riggs in 1973, tennis superstar Billie Jean King started her own sports magazine titled womenSports. The magazine was intended to be a Sports Illustrated for women. And yet King's new magazine still pandered at times to the prurient interests of men. When jockey Mary Bacon was pictured in her racing jodhpurs and spurs with her polka-dot bikini underwear visible underneath, female readers were irate.

“Now this is exactly the kind of sexist shit that I've always objected to in the likes of Sports Illustrated,” wrote a reader from New Hampshire. “Why does she have to be pictured as a piece of ass on your contents page? Please try to get away from this approach.”

Billie Jean King's magazine is proof that these were transitional times, with both men and women adjusting to women's changing roles.

Not all the female athletes embraced this more radical new brand of outspoken feminism. Said softball player Joan Joyce in 1974: “I've pretty much done what I wanted my whole life, so I don't need feminism.” Or as jockey Robyn Smith said in 1972: “I'm not trying to prove anything as a female jockey. I do it because I enjoy it so much, and I think people should do whatever makes them happy.”

Smith makes a good point, but Kathy Kusner made the same point prior to her trial, and it was Kusner's bold step that enabled Smith to make that choice to do what made her “happy.”

David Beecher has a master's degree from Shippensburg University and a PhD from Penn State, where he is currently a lecturer. Dr. Beecher's research and teaching interests are American history with an emphasis on Early American and Civil War History. His dissertation explained the role of Thoroughbred racing in the Antebellum South.

The post Right To Ride, Presented By The Kentucky Derby Museum: The Racing World Reacts To Female Jockeys appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

Upset Beat Man o’ War, But Did He Really Coin A New Sportswriting Phrase?

On Oct. 12, 1920, the race of the century took place at Kenilworth Park just outside Windsor, Ontario. It was between the first ever Triple Crown winner, Sir Barton and the incomparable 'Big Red' – Man o' War. It was a match between two champions: a battle of titans.

It was also Man o' War's last race before he went off to stud. 'Big Red' won it easily by an impressive margin of seven lengths.

The race captured the imagination of a continent 100 years ago. There would be nothing like it until a grandson and son of Man o' War squared off 18 years later, in Maryland. The son was War Admiral and the grandson was Seabiscuit.

The 4-year-old Sir Barton was thought to be a worthy opponent for Man o' War. Even though Sir Barton took the first Triple Crown in 1919 and won more money than Man o' War that year, he lost seven races in 1920. Yet he had beaten Exterminator in the Saratoga Handicap, carrying 133 pounds, and set a world record for the classic distance of 1 3/16 miles in the Merchants and Citizens Stakes at the Spa on Aug. 20, 1920.

Those who seek perfection might find it unfortunate that the mystique of being undefeated evaded both horses. Man o' War had also tasted defeat. It happened on Aug. 13, 1919, at the hoofs of an unlikely opponent whose name was Upset – a horse he had beaten easily on four other occasions.

He should have won.

Here is how Fred Van Ness of the New York Times chronicled Man o' War's only lifetime defeat in the Sanford Stakes:

“He was forced to bow to Harry Payne Whitney's Upset in a neck-and-neck finish in this six-furlong dash. Though defeated, Man o' War was not discredited. On the contrary, the manner in which he ran this race stamped him, in the opinion of horsemen, as the best of his division without question. Though failing to get his nose in front, he stood out as the best horse in the race by a large margin, for he had all the worst of the racing luck.”

Did Upset's victory originate the term 'upset'?

The controversy surrounding Man o' War's unfair start against Upset is long over, but a minor controversy remains: Was Man o' War's loss to Upset the beginning of the term 'upset' in sports argot, used to denote an unlikely winner?

Lexicographer Ben Zimmer clarified the matter once and for all back in 2013:

“I surveyed New York Times articles that used the word upset, and it was clear that it was already in use in horse-racing and other sports like baseball before the famous 1919 race.”

I am fond of observing that “most famous quotes and coined terms get attributed to the most prominent person who used them.” (And if some well-known person repeats my little buzz phrase, it will doubtless be attributed to them, and not to me.)

The best example of this phenomenon is the celebrated admonition by John F. Kennedy in his 1961 inaugural address:

“Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.”

Certainly Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. and such lesser presidents as Warren Harding spoke much the same lines decades before. In fact, many of Kennedy's most renowned phrases are characterized as fragmented misremembrances. Ralph Keyes noted this in The Washington Post in 2006:

“Even though JFK routinely garbled his quotations, it took us years to figure this out. Meanwhile, the young president launched any number of misworded, misattributed or completely mystifying quotations into the public conversation that have stuck around to this day.”

But who cares? The grainy film of that cold January day in 1961 and the magnificent delivery of those 17 words is what's important. Our language has a long and well-recorded history. No line of speech will ever be completely original.

What does this all mean for that one little word 'upset'?

Many have viewed the horse named 'Upset' as being appropriately named. And many have inaccurately declared that Man o' War's defeat marks the origin of the term 'upset' to denote an unlikely winner.

But we overblow our need for originality in a term. Ben Zimmer went on to quote Washington Post sports columnist Bob Addie from 1962: “The term 'upset' in sports gained considerable stature back in 1919 when a horse actually named Upset beat the wonder horse, Man o' War.”

“That may in fact be true,” writes Zimmer. “Certainly upset gained traction in sports reporting starting in the '20s, and Upset may have had something to do with that. So let's give some credit to the scrappy colt…”

And as for Man o' War, his legend only grew with his 14 consecutive victories following his 'upset by Upset'. As we get closer to the 100th anniversary of Big Red's monumental win against that first ever Triple Crown winner, Sir Barton, let's remember that the origins of words and phrases are much less important than the memorable events and the heroes – both human and equine – that bring focus and glory to their times and make a stamp on history.

2023 will mark an anniversary for another 'Big Red' – Secretariat. It will be the 50th anniversary of his last race, which he won in Canada by an identical seven lengths to Man o' War's win in his own last race, against Sir Barton. The celebration will be enhanced – not diminished – by the fact that the first Big Red won just as easily 100 years ago.

That's also true of Upset's historic race against Man o' War. The great tale is in no way diminished by the fact that Upset's name popularized, rather than originated, a sports term.

The origins of a term are an interesting thing to explore. But it's the heroes, equine and human, that we celebrate in racing history.

John Stapleton is an income security benefit designer in Toronto. Stapleton's work has appeared in the Globe & Mail, the National Post and the Toronto Star. He has owned racehorses for 37 years and is past president and current board member of the Canadian Horse Racing Hall of fame.

The post Upset Beat Man o’ War, But Did He Really Coin A New Sportswriting Phrase? appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

Right To Ride, Presented By The Kentucky Derby Museum: Is She Fit Or Isn’t She?

This is the second in a four-part series examining the arrival of female jockeys in American horse racing – why and how they broke in to the sport when they did, and how racing has reacted. In this second installment, we'll learn about Kusner's court fight to get a jockey's license. You can find the first installment in the series here.

Nov. 22, 1967 began like any other day for the stewards at Laurel Race Course. They fully expected to go about their usual business of reviewing applications, making rulings and attending to miscellaneous administrative details. Partway through the meeting, their role as stewards changed forever. Kathy Kusner, a medal-winning member of the United States Equestrian Team, dropped a bomb in their laps; she presented them with an application to compete as a professional jockey in horse races. Men who, until that point, fulfilled their roles in relative anonymity were thrust — most unwillingly — into a very public discussion about the future role of women in horse racing.

Even Kathy Kusner, in relating her feelings about that time, felt conflicted. As she told The Baltimore Sun, “This is no great crusade. I just want a license.”

And yet, years later in a phone interview she recognized that her application represented something far greater. She stated, “This issue is bigger than me,” evidence she recognized that her application may have started out as a simple application for a license, but quickly blossomed into something far greater.

By the 1960s, women had been involved in horse racing for decades. Their roles included grooms, hot walkers, and exercise riders. There were several examples of women as successful owners, however Mary Lou Whitney and Lucille Markey (note that at the time she was almost always referred to as Mrs. Gene Markey) cannot be considered representative of a repressed group of women, as their fortunes essentially purchased their rights to participate in horse racing. Grooms, hot walkers, exercise riders — no jockeys.

As a result of the Civil Rights Act and an overall increase in women's pushback against the societal status quo of women's role in the home and workplace, the timing was suitable for women to break into the role of professional jockeys. However, someone had to be first.

Kusner had been a successful member of the equestrian community for years. As she enjoyed her public success over jumps, she began to ponder an additional career in flat racing. Although she had already established herself in the world of show jumping, a field heavily dominated by men, she did not consider herself a groundbreaker or a rebel. She patiently continued to wait for another woman to apply for a racing license.

Her application probably created pure terror in the minds of the stewards. As noted by The News Leader, J. Fred Colwill, the steward who represented the Maryland Racing Commission, “was obviously shaken by the show of Woman Power and attempted to fend it off with a number of technicalities which were promptly batted down by Kusner's Attorney Audrey Melbourne.” Melbourne was a formidable presence in her own right, and was later named the first full-fledged female judge in Prince George's County. In a bit of foreshadowing of how the American media would cover Kusner's fight, Morris Siegel, of the Washington Star referred to Melbourne as “her lady lawyer, naturally.”

The initial response to Kusner's application involved some legal tap-dancing about who should, in fact, be the recipient of the application. Colwill and the other stewards wanted nothing to do with this potential controversy. At first Colwill attempted to use various technicalities to refuse acceptance of the application, but Kusner's attorney adroitly batted them aside. At that point Colwill changed tactics, stating that the application instead had to be submitted to James Callahan, the secretary of the Maryland Racing Commission. Unfortunately for Colwill, Callahan chose that particular moment to walk into the meeting. Melbourne then attempted to hand Callahan the application. Colwill, in what may in hindsight be perceived as a Freudian slip of how they viewed the application, shouted, “Don't touch it! It is an application by a girl for a jockey's license!”

Callahan responded quickly, and informed Melbourne and Kusner that the application had to be presented to the Chairman of the racing commission. Who should walk into the meeting but D. Eldred Rhinehart, the Chairman of the Commission. The application couldn't be kicked upstairs any further, and Rhinehart told Kusner the application would be reviewed at the next meeting of the commission.

Next, the racing commission attempted to refuse her qualifications based on her ability. The stewards made Kusner gallop horses for them, an ordinary requirement that typically weeded out riders who lacked the qualifications to safely ride a powerful Thoroughbred. However, the review process is highly subjective, and after Kusner's demonstration, the stewards presented concerns about Kusner's riding that were spurious at best.

Some of those issues the commission raised included examples of a BFOQ (Bone Fide Occupational Qualification) which skirts Title VII requirements for equality in the workplace. BFOQs means there are times when sexual preference in hiring is acceptable, even expected, such as hiring men to model men's clothing. Some of the objections they raised were that she wasn't “strong enough,” or that she “bounced” too much in the saddle. However, testing from the starting gate needed the approval of only the head starter, in this case, Eddie Blind.

When tested from the starting gate, Kusner passed with flying colors. Blind said, “I've seen all of 'em in my forty years — Arcaro, Atkinson, Longden, Shoemaker, Culmone — and none of 'em, at her stage, got out of there any better.”

Other objections included a fraught discussion regarding where Kusner would change into her silks. She responded by stating she would be happy to change in a broom closet; she expected no special treatment.

What other arguments might the commission bring to the fore? Well, Kusner was still an amateur; the Olympics had not yet relaxed their standards on professional participants, which meant she could not ride horses for pay without jeopardizing her amateur status and Olympic eligibility. So, the commission argued that since she would essentially be riding for free, she would be taking the place of a hard-working male jockey who needed the income – at a time when the cultural norm was for men to be the sole breadwinners in their family.

To that argument Kusner replied that she would donate her winnings to the United States Equestrian Team. When the stewards watched her ride, Colwill decided that she was less than proficient in her riding ability, stating, “(Kusner) did not display the ability to ride with professionals in races.”

Kathy Kusner leaves the scales after the Rose Tree Ladies Plate in Pennsylvania

Kusner's attorney realized that these shenanigans with the racing commission had to end, and took the commission to civil court over what she believed was a Title VII violation. Melbourne argued that the Maryland Racing Commission had willfully ignored all arguments presented regarding her client's ability and had acted in a manner that was “arbitrary and capricious Kusner, who the Maryland Racing Commission believed lacked the ability to ride in a race, could not attend the hearing regarding her application. She was in New Jersey training with the United States Equestrian Team in preparation for the upcoming Olympics.

“When we spoke with Kathy during the development of this exhibit, one thing was very clear: Kathy had no ego getting in the way of her fight, she was just doing what she believed was right,” said Jessica Whitehead, curator of exhibits like Right to Ride at the Kentucky Derby Museum. “No conscious feminism, no explosive righteousness, just capable Kathy ready to do what it took to do what she loved.”

At the trial to determine if Kathy Kusner could be granted a license to ride as a professional jockey, Circuit Judge Ernest A. Loveless took less than five minutes to reach his decision. He found that the Maryland Racing Commission had acted in a prejudicial manner and had based their decision solely on the fact that Kusner was a woman, and said, “the Stewards had disregarded normal procedures and had set up a special set of standards as to her riding ability.”

The regulatory body doubled down on its objections, issuing the following statement in response to the judge's decision —

“Upon the order of the Circuit Court of Prince Georges County, which substituted its judgement for that of the commission and stewards who are familiar with the qualifications of jockeys, the racing commission this date will issue a jockey's license to Kathryn H. Kusner.”

There are two ways people behave. The first is de jure, meaning according to the law. The other is de facto, meaning how people act regardless of the law. A de jure interpretation means that regardless of someone's personal beliefs, women will be permitted to ride racehorses. A de facto response means that, no matter what Judge Loveless decided, commissions, licensing bodies, owners, and trainers could all make it extremely difficult for women to be granted licenses.

Unfortunately, the world would have to wait to see Kathy Kusner enter her first race as a licensed jockey. In November 1968 her mare, Fru, fell at a hurdle at during a jumper class at Madison Square Garden and Kusner broke her tibia, requiring months of convalescence. The honor of first female professional jockey to ride in a race would fall to Diane Crump, who in February 1969 made the entrance of women into racing official. Kusner would have to wait until August of 1969.

A victory, to be sure. At the time the United States (as well as the rest of the world) was in the midst of a social upheaval where we were digging deep into long standing beliefs on race, sex, and the individual's role in society. Even the media found itself reevaluating how it presented stories. Take note of the words used in various newspapers to describe America's newest licensed jockey. Articles were littered with such descriptors as “lissome,” “petite,” and “attractive.” The Ottawa Journal, in reporting her court victory, noted Kusner was wearing a “violet plaid dress and pink shoes.” Unfortunately, we shall have to leave it to the reader's imagination as to what the men in the courtroom were wearing.

The post Right To Ride, Presented By The Kentucky Derby Museum: Is She Fit Or Isn’t She? appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

Right To Ride, Presented By The Kentucky Derby Museum: 1960s Set The Stage For Women To Enter The Jocks’ Room

This is the first in a four-part series examining the arrival of female jockeys in American horse racing – why and how they broke in to the sport when they did, and how racing has reacted. In this first installment, we'll learn about the historical context for the start of Kathy Kusner's legal fight to be allowed to ride races.

In 1967 she was arguably one of the finest members, male or female, of the show jumping profession. Her impressive resume already included a gold medal at the 1963 Pan American Games in Brazil, the 1964 Olympics in Tokyo and a silver medal at the 1967 Pan American Games in Canada. Her future plans included representing the United States in Mexico City at the 1968 Olympic Games. She had been racing in unrecognized flat and timber races since she was 16 years old. Prior to joining the United States Equestrian Team, she had been named Horsewoman of the Year by the American Horse Shows Association — at age 21. Three of her most famous horses, Untouchable, Aberali, and Unusual, were Thoroughbreds.

And yet, in 1967 the Maryland Racing Commission repeatedly denied her application for a jockey's license, ultimately forcing her to take her case to court. The commission's primary objection: that Kathy Kusner was incapable of safely and effectively riding a Thoroughbred racehorse.

Today, we can comfortably look back through time and feel some level of shock at such a turn of events. How, we ask ourselves, could such a thing have happened? What was the Maryland Racing Commission thinking, and why did they believe that, in a nation where federal anti-discrimination laws had existed since 1964, they were right in their decision? How did their decision impact the opportunities of female jockeys and, more globally, the world of horse racing today?

As noted by Steven Reiss in The Cyclical History of Horse Racing, by the 1950s and 1960s horse racing had become the leading spectator sport in America. Racing was still controlled by the super-wealthy owners of the top stables, Calumet Farm being the most dominant among them. By 1969 racing was still the leading spectator sport, with auto racing second and college and pro football third. Equine stars of the era were hard-knocking and developed their own intense fan followings – Carry Back, Kelso, Dr. Fager, Damascus, and Round Table among them.

The men on their backs also garnered attention. Racing routinely commanded the front page of sports sections, and top jockeys were as recognized as top athletes in other sports. Johnny Longden appeared on the television show “I Love Lucy” in 1957; Eddie Arcaro became the spokesman for Buick after his retirement; Bill Hartack graced the cover of Time magazine in 1958 and Sports Illustrated twice (in 1956 and 1964). Jockeys were as well-recognized and adored by the public for their athleticism as any other professional sports figures.

It was into this highly visible sporting world controlled by wealthy farms that Kathy Kusner planned her entry.

Kusner's pursuit of a license began in the 1960s, a time when our beliefs in the role of women in the family had a profound impact on the opportunities for women in horse racing. Because events — great and small — rarely exist in a vacuum, there is an interplay back and forth between culture, society, and history. The laws of the United States arose out of our beliefs and goals, and society and popular culture responds to those laws in varying degrees.

During the 1950s America and Russia were at the height of the Cold War. Both nations engaged daily in a deadly game of rhetoric and brinkmanship. The too-familiar presence of a nuclear threat added fear and uncertainty to our lives. As a result, Americans responded by creating a home life intended to create a sense of security against our perceived dangers from the Russians.

The American family evolved into a microcosm of our expectations of society — stable, safe, and above all, predictable. Everyone had their role; the men assumed responsibility for the stability of women's roles in the home. In fact, in the famous Nixon-Khrushchev kitchen debate in Russia in July 1959, Richard Nixon pointed to a dishwasher and said, “In America, we like to make life easier for women.” America was supposedly safe and superior in part because we kept our women happy at home.

By the early 1960s, our nation was basking in the security created by the Eisenhower administration. Hollywood and the mainstream media contributed to that perceived ideal of the post-war modern family. We created homes that were safe little cocoons. Families moved to the suburbs. Men were the breadwinners while safe and happy homes were piloted by women overseeing their 3.5 children. They most certainly could not be found atop a Thoroughbred racing at close to 40 miles an hour.

However, there was trouble brewing in paradise. Even with modern kitchens and household conveniences, women found themselves spending more time than ever before on household labor. More to the point, their role as happy and content members of a stylized family unit began to show cracks around the edges. As noted by Stephanie Coontz in her book The Way We Never Were, in 1956 the Ladies Home Journal devoted an entire issue to “The Plight of the Young Mother.” When McCall's Magazine ran an article titled “The Mother Who Ran Away,” it sold more copies than ever before. It seemed that women may not have been as happy as we thought. Perhaps they wanted to expand the possibilities, both personally as well as professionally, that existed outside the home.

How do we get from a supposedly safe and secure family environment to women launching legal battles in order to risk their lives on racehorses? Although it is both naive as well as short-sighted to search for one or two events that prompted women to consider professional race riding as a career, we can safely mention two specific incidents that must be included in anyone's list of contributing factors.

Kathy Kusner, shown in 1966 aboard Teana after winning the Rose Tree Ladies Plate

The first was the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964. The Civil Rights Act encompassed multiple aspects of potential discrimination, such as housing and public segregation, but it also contained a section called Title VII, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of “race, color, religion, sex or national origin.” Except for certain narrow exceptions, women could not be discriminated against in the workplace.

One of those exceptions would rear its head when women applied to be jockeys. Discrimination on the basis of sex is permitted on the basis of a “bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise.” One example of a BFOQ would be the use of male models to model men's clothing. While Title VII gave Kusner a legal basis to insist she had a right to a jockey's license, the BFOQ gave Maryland Racing Commission a legal avenue to assert that only men possessed the ability to handle racing Thoroughbreds. (Spoiler alert – it didn't work.)

Another event we can look to as influencing women's increasing desire to find gainful employment (and, dare we say, happiness) outside the home, was the publishing of Betty Friedan's “The Feminine Mystique” in 1964. Friedan initially began writing her book as an article reporting her interviews with fellow Smith College alumni. As she interviewed friends from college, she learned of a surprising level of dissatisfaction, even unhappiness, by women who supposedly led lives of security and comfort.

Friedan's influence was noted by Kate Chenery Tweedy in her book, “Secretariat's Meadow.” Her mother, Penny Tweedy, had read Friedan's “The Feminine Mystique” and “identified with its revolutionary ideas.” Kate noted that, years before the birth of Secretariat, “the more (Penny) struggled to fit the wife/mother mold, the more she felt like a failure.” We can easily misconstrue the evidence of this changing attitude from women in the household. The statements of Betty Friedan and Penny Tweedy were most certainly not a universal condemnation of the role of women in the family — they were evidence of women's growing interest in having a choice for their future.

One of the issues facing women in sport is that athletics often serve as a substitute for combat or battle — historically an arena limited to men. We have also used sports to provide a national cultural identity. The rise of gender-separated sports did not threaten that concept. Women's tennis and golf have existed for decades, enjoying a popularity that has ebbed and flowed along with other sports. Horse racing is unique in that men and women compete directly against each other. In the Olympics, only two sports threaten the male-dominated status quo: sailing (the Nacra 17 boat – a high performance catamaran), and equestrian sports.

In 2012, researcher Helena Tolvhed, wrote in International Journal of the History of Sport, a paper rich in both historical and cultural observations, that “Physical activity, strength and assertiveness have generally not been regarded as either commendable or suitable for women, since the possession of such qualities has gone against traditional definitions of womanhood.”

Those arguments will mirror those used against women wanting to be professional jockeys. Tolvhed further notes that competitive sports rose in popularity in the late 1800s, and at that time the “feminine ideal dictated a slender, passive and physically weak body, and this ideal has continued to make women's sport problematic.” Later, during the Cold War, popular culture in Sweden emphasized the differences between the feminine Swedish girls and the muscular communist women.

“Social change was coming to America in the 1960s because of strong men and women of conviction fighting for what they knew was right,” said Jessica Whitehead, curator of exhibits like Right to Ride at the Kentucky Derby Museum. “Women had begun to enter public life in some professions — and even some sports — but horse racing remained a challenge. The force of will the first generation of female riders would bring to the sport eventually ensured their rights, but actually exercising that right…that was a whole other battle.”

The post Right To Ride, Presented By The Kentucky Derby Museum: 1960s Set The Stage For Women To Enter The Jocks’ Room appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post