1. The phenomenon of homophobia in sports is often said to be over; that people are more progressive and accepting of gay people in sports. However, there is still a pervasive undercurrent of homophobia occurring in athletics, mostly due to the cultural and social perceptions of homosexuality as 'feminine'; as sports has historically been considered a masculine endeavor, the presence of homosexuals confuses and upsets some. Some people are under impressions that homosexuals would perceive them as a sexually desirable being and "hit on" them, or that they would not be as aggressive in the game as their straight counterparts. The greater acceptability of lesbians than gay men in sports could be attributed to the male fantasy of multiple women being sexually active with each other - the acceptance of them as people is not as much celebrated as is the masturbatory material it provides them.
I do fully believe that women should be allowed to box - if women want to do it, women should be able to. While some could argue over the physical differences between man and woman, there is also the lingering social concepts of chivalry ("a man does not hit a woman") that affect men's attitudes toward women in boxing. The public's perception of women boxers would be far different from women's tennis, for example, since the former is actually closely related with physical injury and harm - this makes it less acceptable by the public. Men fighting each other is seen as an expression of their masculine predilection for aggression, but when a woman fights one wonders why she wants to if they cannot let go of such ideas. There are those who believe that women's boxing should not be allowed in the Olympics, for the same reasons that they should not be allowed on the battlefield - sexual politics interfering with the rules of the game. However, this seems to be the problem of the men who already benefit from these sports, and not the women.
It must be said that these existing gender ideologies must change dramatically if we are to accept diversity on a wide scale for men and women in different roles. Successful role models of individuals who do not fall into easy stereotypes must exist, and they must be promoted adequately to show those with more traditional and restrictive ideas that these ideas do not apply to all homosexuals; even if they did, they need to be more accepting of other groups and their right to exist.
There is a certain attitude within the male community that believes that women do not want to do the things that men do; these men believe in "biotruths" like women having preternaturally smaller frames and less physical strength, or their brains not being wired to enjoy this kind of physical activity. The disbelief that women would want to participate in male sports makes men think there is something wrong with them, as a way to continue their present line of thought while acknowledging this exception.
I do not believe a male athlete would have to do the things that Babe was forced to do - in a male dominated world, there would not be the same sense of pressure put on Babe as there would be on a man who, for example, acted feminine but still had the accolades that Babe had. An effeminate man who has sports accomplishments is defined by that and not his behavior, unlike women who are judged for their behavior first.
I do fully believe that it is possible to change our ways and beliefs, regardless of the history associated with them. Already, we have benefited from progression from centuries of racial distrust to a relatively reasonable acceptance of African-Americans into our culture. Women also enjoy more rights than they ever have, so I do believe it is possible for us to change.
One of the most powerful ways to overcome stereotypes is to have role models in sport who do not fit into these stereotypes. The lack of openly homosexual players currently makes this difficult, but if a respected player came out after an established history of good sportsmanship and performance, it might be more difficult to reconcile negative ideas of homosexuals in sport with the person they have already chosen to respect.
I almost feel as though women's hockey needs to have the same rules as men's hockey in order to be respected equally; if women are to be considered as equals to men, they have to play equally as hard and by the same rules. One might consider more lenient rules for women's hockey a handicap, which would also lessen men's respect for women's ability to play and constantly hold them back in equality.
It is entirely possible that, given the overwhelming numbers of men who went off to fight World War II in the 1930s and 1940s, that women's hockey was allowed to be more rambunctious and aggressive. Due to the fact that the men were away, there was less pressure to be stereotypically fragile and feminine; once the men returned, however, fresh from war, they did not want to feel threatened by similarly aggressive women in sport, and so women's sport became more timid.
I think the more proportionate female audience tuning in, because they had fewer things to do and many had men overseas, were more open to watching women's boxing than they were today. In order for female athletes to benefit from the lessons of this period of women's boxing, they must show the same sense of confidence and assertiveness that they did before, not worrying about making themselves less attractive to men due to their "masculine" playing of the game.
I absolutely do not believe that masculine standards of athleticism have to be adhered to in order for men to respect women; I believe that they do in this current political climate, or at least that it helps. However, in an ideally more progressive world, this would no longer be necessary, and women could be strong athletes without adding machismo to their personality.
3. Topic 1: Administration and Leadership
The Coakley and Donnelly chapter still shows us that there are still significant shortages in female coaches and administrators. Many of the most powerful sports groups in the country still have women as fewer than 20% of their members (Coakley and Donnelly, p. 240). While progress is coming, I do not feel that it is coming slowly enough - getting women into 20% or more of the top decision making positions in the world will still take decades at this rate. I feel as though this phenomenon is evidence of an 'old guard' of tightly-knit sports officials who may not want the boat rocked too much; there is still the attitude that women cannot manage sport, nor can they play it. These officials have been working in the business for decades, and without that kind of history women have a much harder time breaking through these walls that sports administration has put up for itself.
Question 1. What do you think should happen in order to grant more women the chance to break through into the upper echelon of sports administration and coaching?
In the Acosta and Carpenter study, the presence and prevalence of woman players and coaches in intercollegiate sport is examined; it is revealed that only 1 of three schools have a female head athletic trainer, despite the skills and responsibilities of athletic trainers being independent of their gender or division. Many strength and conditioning coaches are male, but certain divisions have as few as 18% of women as coaches; nearly 10% of all schools have no women in administration (Acosta and Carpenter, 2012). I think that this is indicative of a continued inability for women to break through the glass ceiling of sports administration and leadership, perhaps for many different reasons both societal and cultural.
Question 2. What specifically do you think is lost from not having more women at the highest levels of sports administration and coaching?
In the meantime, there are special interest groups dedicated to creating programs for Women in Coaching (CAC), in order to combat these inequalities. I believe that these programs are important milestones for introducing women into the world of coaching, but I am afraid that they will, for the most part, still restrict women's coaching to women's teams, and that substantial inequality would exist for women who want to coach men's teams.
Question 3. Do you think that women's coaching programs can ever move to the level where cross-gender coaching can acceptably occur (e.g. women coaching men's teams?
While women are beginning to be more accepted in the world of sport, it does not seem as though they are receiving the same accolades in administration, leadership and coaching. Many coaching programs seem to not want to discuss or solve problems of gender hierarchies in sport, leaving it as an issue that they should not have to deal with. Furthermore, many believe that it is the fault of women for not pursuing administration positions more frequently or ardently (Pfister, 2007).
Question 4. What do you think could be done to force the conversation of gender inequality onto these coaching programs that do not want to tackle the issue?
CAAWS offers many different initiatives for involving women more directly in sports. One of their principles is that they are not based "on supply and demand," noting that just because a minority want to do something does not mean they do not get to do it (p. 8). I believe that this is a wonderful concept, as many people allot sports budgets based on demand for it, but the reality is that nothing should prevent people from being able to perform; often the lack of demand comes from not having enough to supply in the first place. There are many that assume that, just because not many people clamor for it, they do not want women's sports - however, this just sends the message that women don't want sports, either, which has been shown to be patently untrue.
Question 1: Why do you think that this obstacle of supply and demand prevents women athletes from having the chance to play, and what factors contribute to a lack of demand for women's sports?
The Female Athlete Triad (Triad) explores the confluence of conditions that combine lack of nutrition, menstrual problems and poor bone mineral density in women's athletes. This is often caused by the immense pressure by women to look good and physically attractive to men while also being physically active in sport. As a result, they often suffer eating disorders that cause them to not take in enough nutrition to be healthy as they play - all so that they can keep themselves thin and conform to social standards of beauty projected on women. Often, there is tremendous pressure to still be thin and dainty, while still being fierce and athletic on the field - to build muscle would be to make oneself less feminine, and the athletic body of a fit woman is discouraged in exchange for fragility and feminity. These seem to be the primary reasons why women starve themselves and are malnourished, while still working hard and having physically active lifestyles. Cultural ideas of beauty and strict diet also contribute to these notions, which simple make it harder for women to achieve their sports-related goals in a healthy way. I think that the same standard does not apply to men; standards of male beauty revolve around masculinity, musculature and fitness. As a result, men are considered more attractive if they are stronger, leaner, bigger, and more muscularly defined - the playing of sports is conducive to achieving these standards of attractiveness.
