Separation v. Integration in Sports: Is There a Right or Wrong Side?

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)

"Boy Field Hockey Star Kicked Off Girls' Team for Being 'Too Good'" - Fox News

"High School Girl Hockey Player Proves She Can Play with the Boys" - Detroit News 

 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. 

 

Fashion as Identity: Bornstein and Barneys New York Campaign

"I see fashion as a proclamation or manifestation of identity, so, as long as identities are important, fashion will continue to be important." --- Kate Bornstein

I find the fashion world to be amazing and beautiful, as well as infuriating, all at the same time which is why  I was really struck by how Bornstein compared identity to fashion. It's something that people have always talked about, but have never really went deeper into the meaning of it. We express ourselves through what we wear and we put ourselves in fashion categories, such as "prep", "boho", "mod", and "classic", but I don't think we are ever really just one. Magazines have started clumping together categories for different fashion styles and trends such as "classic mod" or "boho chic". This really reminded me of what we have been talking about in class: that gender isn't just male or female and people don't fall neatly into those two categories. Bornstein says that her identity as a "transsexual lesbian whose female lover is becoming a man" is part of her fashion statement, which is a "collage". I think that everyone has an identity collage, mixed with different pieces of identity that represent a different part of the person....just like different pieces of clothing expressing the person as a whole. She does touch on that these "collages" do not fit the culture norm of the binary categories, so when these "collages" are made public, the binary becomes jarred.

I know that I am rambling right now, but I recently found out that the fashion world is shaking this binary. I am a very lucky person that I read this piece of the Bornstein article the day I found out about the Barneys New York Spring/Summer 2014 campaign. The campaign "Brother Sisters Sons & Daughters" features 17 transgender models from around the world. Not only will they be featured in photo shoots for the store, but they will also be filmed in mini-documentaries that tell the story of their transitioning and will be shown online and around the store. Barney's has also promised to donate 10% of its sales, in stores and online, to the National Center for Transgender Equality and the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Community Center today! (Awesome coincidence). According to NY Daily News, not only is Barney's contributing to the public awareness of equality issues but they are also following a trend that has been becoming more apparent in high fashion, and that is using androgynous and transgender models. Of course, Barney's and other companies that have been using transgender models have come under a lot of scrutiny because fashion tends to eroticize human bodies. But with the Barney's campaign, I don't think that this is the case. I looked at a bunch of the photographs and watched a couple of the videos (some posted below) and I didn't get that sense at all. Instead, I think that Barney's and Bruce Weber did an excellent job at showing how normal this group of people, who are mostly seen as "other" because they upset the binary, really are. But I still wonder if this campaign is going to make the impact it is meant too. Barney's isn't necessarily somewhere that a middle class person would shop so I'm wondering how many people will actually see this campaign. I also ask the question whether or not this campaign and the use of transgender models in high fashion advertising will eventually spread to other stores, such as American Eagle or H&M? That I am not sure of. There's major backlash surrounding the campaign because people feel it markets to teens and young adults that transgender is something to "strive for" and will become part of popular culture. I'm sure we all have some words for these people, but why is it a bad thing for transgender to become part of popular culture? It will of course upset the binary, but I think the world needs a little bit of a shake up. I highly recommend checking out the videos and photos from the campaign. Not only are they beautifully shot, but they carry a lot of impact.
Here are some links to the articles talking about the campaign:
http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/barneys-features-transgender-models-article-1.1596741#commentpostform
Barneys New York: The Window Brother Sisters Sons Daughters Official Film with links to other videos of the models

"That's how I shift from one phase of my life to the next - first I try on the accessories." I really resonate with Bornstein on this statement. She doesn't define her "fashion" but just one article of clothing or one bracelet, but she collects them and tries them on as she goes through life. This I think is a very good mantra to live by. Her tanssexuality doesn't define her, but is a part of her identity as a person, her "fashion sense". The videos of the models portray this idea as well. I think that as a culture we need to start looking at people in this way and realize that the binary just isn't "in season" anymore.

Weber, Bruce. "Brothers Sisters Sons & Daughters - Introducing Katie and Arin." Barneys New York. Youtube, 31 Jan. 2014. Web. 11 Feb. 2014.

Weber, Bruce. "Brothers Sisters Sons & Daughters - Meet Valentijn." Barneys New York. Youtube, 5 Feb. 2014. Web. 11 Feb. 2014

Works Cited
Bornstein, Kate. Gender Outlaw: On Men, Women, and the Rest of Us. New York: Routledge, 1994.
Print.
n.a. "Barneys Campaign Highlights Trials of 17 Transgender Models." Daily News. New York Daily News, 30 Jan. 2014. Web. 11 Feb. 2014.

Is it really JUST the woman's fault?

When I was reading Reis’ Bodies in Doubt: An American History of Intersex, something kept coming up and biting at me to think about it more. It was one of the first things we talked about in class, and is in the first couple of pages in the book. The question that kept (and keeps) gnawing at me is: Why is it only the woman’s fault when it comes to views of a monstrous birth during the colonial era? Of course, the obvious answer is within the pages of the book, but I feel like there is more to be “dug up” with this issue. And then I started to ask myself if it could possibly be related in any sort of way to the present time?

A lot of the evidence that Reis uses regarding this topic is pulled from Aristotle’s Master-Piece. I had never heard of such a book written by Aristotle, so I decided to look it up and this is what I found: Master-Piece is a sexual manual and midwifery book that was very popular in England and the United States up until the 19^th century. And unbeknownst to a lot of people, the book wasn’t even written by Aristotle, someone just decided to use his name to give it credibility (of course, this wasn’t found out until years down the road). The book talks about everything under the sun that has to do with sex and sexuality, all based under a Christian doctrine. At the time, this was one of the top medical resources doctors and midwives used, so it was published and used widely. Tying this back to Reis, there is an entire chapter on what women should and should not do during pregnancy. 

Master-Piece says that one of the main things that cause “monstrous” births is a woman’s unruly imagination during her pregnancy. Any “frighted or conceived wonders, strange longings” (Reis, 5) could cause these types of births. Even looking at animals or thinking about interracial relations could cause this and was considered a HUGE no-no. But what about the guys in this situation? Of course, as Reis points out, a man and woman having sex while she is menstruating can also cause these “awful” things to happen. However, men cannot help their sexual urges, so it is a woman’s job to say no to her husband when he wants to do the duty. But, isn’t one of the main gender roles of this time the obedient wife? I thought women weren’t really allowed to say “no” back then, especially regarding sex with their husbands. 

All of this makes me think about why exactly these “rules” were put into place. In all honesty, how Reis describes what pregnant women weren’t allowed to do basically implies that pregnant women should just stay inside and not move. Not think. Interesting. But that’s a whole different can of worms. What wasn’t addressed at all was what if a husband did those things before he conceived with his wife? What would happen if a man had an unruly imagination? Or thought of interracial relationships? Or saw animals that he wasn’t supposed to see? Why isn’t the man responsible for the “monstrous” birth…it does take two to tango. I really think a lot of it has to do with the power struggle in the binary system we have created. I think that if a man had any fault in creating a “monstrous” birth, the whole foundation would be shaken. Why? I’m really not entirely sure about that yet. Maybe a man having an impact in the outcome of how a baby is born makes him more feminine? I’m not really sure. 

This brings me to something that I learned about last year in my behavioral pharmacology class with Dr. Clark in the Psych department. Everyone knows about the different teratogens (substances that the mother is exposed to that harm the fetus) that can cause birth problems, deformities, and issues in brain development. Drinking alcohol, taking Tylenol, drinking too much caffeine, smoking, using drugs are all teratogens that a MOTHER is exposed to, some by choice, others not by choice. Only recently has the effects of these on the sperm come into study. Bielawski, Zaher, Svinarich, and Abel (2002) found that paternal alcohol exposure in rats has been shown to affect the growth and development of the offspring, even though the mother has not be exposed. Super interesting. While the findings are still too small to actually mean something that is earth shattering, researchers are still finding something. So maybe the guys do have something to do with it? But why are we just trying to figure this out now? 

There are still a lot of questions that I have surrounding this topic, and I don’t think that they will be answered within the next couple of years. I think that there is a lot of underlying issues when it comes to this issue of putting all the blame on the mother for development issues that are started in the womb. Tackling these issues in today’s world will need a ton of evidence to back up what they find. But who knows, maybe those findings will shake the binary just a tad bit to get a conversation going.

Bielawski, D.M., Zaher, F.M., Svinarich, D.M., & Abel, E.L. (2002). Paternal alcohol exposure affects sperm cytosine methyltransferase messenger RNA levels. Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research, 26(3), 347-351.

Reis, E. (2009). Hermaphrodites, monstrous births, and same-sex intimacy. In E. Reis (Eds.),                     Bodies in doubt: an American history of intersex (pp. 1-21). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press