When I was reading Deborah L. Brake’s "Separate is Equal?" chapter from Getting in the Game: Title IX and the Women’s Sports Revolution, I
immediately thought of a conversation I was involved in while at my younger
sister’s JO volleyball tournament. I was sitting next to one the mothers and
after some small talk, she started to talk to me about my experience when I
played JO volleyball. She asked me if
there were any boys who played on me team, and I said no, but I knew that there
were boys who played in the younger age groups. All of a sudden, she flew off
the handle, saying that boys playing on a girl sports team was an abomination
to women’s sports and that when they played, they would outshine the girls
because they are automatically more athletic. She continued (with many
expletives), and finally came to the conclusion that boys shouldn’t play
volleyball because it is strictly a girls’ sport.
There
are stories everywhere on local and national news about a girl playing on a boys’
team or a boy playing on a girls’ team, and both have commentary from a
separation-favoring side and a non-separating favoring side. Brake takes a look
at both sides of the issue by providing different sources of discourse and
opinions.
The
NCAA (pre-title IX) had different rationales as to why women’s and men’s sports
should be completely separated. Some of these rationales were: physical
differences among men and women athletes, women are more likely to be hurt in
competition with men, there could be a potential talent drain from women’s
sports, and the “they” wanted to develop women’s sports without scandal and
commercialism, unlike the men’s (24). These reasonings seem very shallow to me.
I know that a girl or a guy can become seriously hurt in sports, no matter whom
they are competing against. The difference in physical build may be different
when puberty is reached, but I believe that it does not define physical talent
and power. I think that the “physical build” component is etched into how we
think socially because we are always comparing men’s and women’s bodies in
relation to talent, power, ability, and strength.
The idea of non-separation draining talent
from women’s teams is something that I struggle with. On the one hand, I agree,
but the on the other hand I see where to argument is flawed. It is flawed
because women’s sports are seen as “lower” than men’s. Women’s sports get
significantly less funding, advertisement, scouting opportunities, and
attention than men’s sports do. So why wouldn’t a girl with a lot of talent
want to play on a boys’ team? She would have more of a chance of getting
noticed by scouts to further her sporting career, probably have better
equipment to play with/use, and have more spectators.
While
there are some negative statements about why sports should be separated, I do
feel like that there are some upsides to this. When I was reading, I circled,
highlighted, and starred one particular section:
"...This is particularly valuable for young adolescents who are struggling to sort through conflicting and multilayered messages about femininity and female bodies. Instead of worrying about how boys perceive them, girls can focus on their bodies as a source of strength and functionality." (28)
I could not agree with this anymore. Playing
women’s varsity volleyball in high school really helped me realize a lot about
what femininity and my body means to me. Volleyball was a place where I was
able to focus on myself and my team without the distraction of guys and the
pressure to look good in front of them. Not having boys on the team kept a lot
of drama off the court and away from the team, which allowed us to focus on
bonding and building stronger cooperation skills. I was also able to realize
the power and potential the female body has when it comes to athletics. My
senior year, my new coach brought guys into practice a lot and the entire
dynamic changed. As a whole, there was more fussing over looks while playing,
more time taken away from practice, and I personally became more self-conscious
in a place where I felt the most comfortable. I felt smaller and more confined
in my movements, and I didn’t feel I was “allowed” to be as powerful of a
player as I could be.
Brake’s
argument for non-separation is that separation fuels the channeling into gender
appropriate sports, such as girls for figure skating and guys for football.
Seeing a male figure skater or a female hockey goalie breaks the expectations
that people have about who should play which sport, and I think that might
scare some people because the gender norm is being shaken. Non-separation
supporters think that separation keeps the gender hierarchy stable, making men
the more dominant gender. In the article, the examples of Little League and
Jackie Mitchell highlight the fears about girls being better than boys at
sports, making male sports “soft” by letting girls on the team, and introducing
sexuality into sports. I think that these fears may go deeper than sports. The
fears can be applicable to other areas in life, such as the career field, and
asks the question: If a woman is better than a man in sports, what else could
she be better at than him? Bringing sexuality into sports and making them
“soft” is the fearing of feminizing them. Since sexuality and “softness” are
directly related to femininity, keeping women out of “men’s” sports will
only heighten and keep their masculine nature.
My
argument for the non-separation side is that there are sports that might not be
available for children to play in certain areas. I found two news articles that
highlight this very problem: both kids want to play those sports, but because
there isn’t a team in the area for their respective gender, they choose to play
on the opposite gender’s team. It's interesting to note that the boy field hockey player was kicked off because he was "too good", and the girl hockey player had to "prove" herself to play with the guys. (I definitely think this is evidence of how the gender hierarchy in sports is kept in place)
Referring
back to the example of the mother at the volleyball tournament, there are very
minimal volleyball programs for boys in the grade school/middle school in my
area, so in order to let them gain skill before high school, they have to play
on a girls team. I don’t see a reason for keeping someone from doing something
they love just because of their gender. Playing in co-ed sports can teach
cooperation and healthy competition between both genders. Non-separation can
also help realize from a young age that there isn’t a difference between boys
and girls when they play sports, and that each gender has equal ability as the
other.
Is
there are right or wrong side to this argument? I’m not really sure. I am kind
of on the fence about the whole subject because I’ve experienced and argued for
both sides on different occasions. I also don’t think that this dilemma will be
solved tomorrow. I do think that this
dilemma, while very ridden with tension, is important because people are
actually TALKING about it; it’s not just moved to the back burner. “…maximizing
the real opportunities for girls and women in sports, while at the same time
critically examining the gender ideology that limits sports opportunities by a
student’s sex”: Brake’s final statement is what I truly believe should happen
about this problem, that both sides of the argument should work together in
order to make sports a place for opportunity for everyone, no matter their sex
or gender identification (39).
Bibliography:
Brake, Deborah L. "Separate is Equal?."Getting in the Game: Title IX and the Women's Sports Revolution. New York: New York University Press, 2010. 25-39. Print.
DeMarche, Edmund. "Boy Field Hockey Star Kicked Off Girls' Team for Being 'Too Good'." Fox News. Fox News Network, 26 Apr. 2012. Web. 6 Apr. 2014.
Goricki, David. "High School Girl Hockey Player Proves She Can Hang with Boys." Detroit News. Detroit News, 10 Feb. 2014. Web. 6 Apr. 2014.
No comments:
Post a Comment