Beyond the Binary: Looking Past Gender Stereotypes in Sports

When I was a child, my parents always wanted me and my brothers to be active. We were encouraged to play outside and participate in sports. So from a young age, I played and watched lots of different sports, and enjoyed it. When I discovered ultimate frisbee at age 18, this enjoyment grew into an obsession. Staying in shape, watching, and playing sports has become part of my everyday life. But my journey as an athlete has not always been enjoyable. There have been people in my life who have discouraged me from playing ultimate and who generally don’t take female athletes seriously. Even though I love sports, I have found that sports culture is highly gendered, even in 2017. With my final paper of the quarter, I explore gender stereotypes in sports and argue that they originate in the masculine/feminine binary that still pervades western society.

Throughout my research, I have found that gendered language and actions perpetuate gender inequality in sports. Gendered rhetoric comes from two major parties — those directly involved in sports, such as coaches and athletes, and those responsible for presenting athletics to the public, such as announcers and broadcasters. Both of these parties perpetuate gendered language in sports and place sports on a binary system where masculinity and femininity are in contention with one another. In all of the studies that I have looked at as well as research I conducted myself, masculinity in sports is praised, while femininity is looked down upon. When female sports are accepted or broadcasted, the focus is on hyper-feminine sports in order to compensate for the inherent masculinity that women who play sports exhibit. By associating masculinity with good athletic play and femininity with bad play, neither male or female athletes are free to fully express themselves. This limits them both as people and as athletes.

The language of both coaches and players in many sports favors masculine traits and associates them with good play. On the other hand, expressing femininity is looked down upon, and phrases related to femininity are meant as insults. In their 2010 study of a British soccer team, Adams, Anderson, and McCormack found that both coaches and athletes reinforced masculinity through the use of their language during competition. They found that, “Coaches on this football team perpetuate this orthodox ethos of sport through the use of…masculinity establishing discourse” (Adams, Anderson, McCormack 285–286). Coaches achieve this through masculine rhetoric, oftentimes employing phrases such as, “‘This is a man’s game!’ and ‘If you haven’t got the balls for it, there’s a women’s team you can play on’” (286). Language such as this establishes an aggressive, masculine environment for that sport. In addition, by directly challenging men who were not playing well enough to go play on the women’s team, they set up a binary between masculinity and femininity. Athletes who exhibit masculine traits are clearly favored, while the female athletes are seen as being lesser.

I have experienced the same kind of language in my own life. You can frequently hear phrases such as, “man up”, “stop playing like a pussy”, and “don’t be a little bitch”, spoken from one player to another on the ultimate field. These phrases are generally spoken by men to other men. This language undermines women while making men and masculine behavior the golden standard of what athletes should aspire to. My own research has also pointed to perceived differences between the men’s and women’s divisions in ultimate frisbee. I interviewed about 12 male and female ultimate players who have played elite and mid-level ultimate. I asked them to describe the differences between the three divisions (open, which is all male, mixed, which is coed, and women’s) and recorded their responses. Men and women alike described the men’s game as “more fast paced” (Molly) and “more cutthroat” (Sterling) than the women’s division.

Many men also commented on the perceived level of athleticism and physicality in the open division as opposed to the women’s game or the mixed division. Alex, one male player that I interviewed, claimed that, “The level of acceptable physicality is also very different. In open, bumping your opponent, while not strictly legal, is a part of the game. Players adjust their aggression to equal their matchup”. Joe, another male player, explained that, “open is a lot more aggressive and physical. Less touch on throws, faster paced, a lot more contact”. Both made these claims comparing the open league to the mixed division. These men indicate that aggression and fast pace are elements that are valued in the open division, but not in the mixed or women’s division.

It is implied that the gender differences impact both the pace and the physicality of the game. Matthew, another male player, even claimed that, “I’ve heard [the women’s division] described as ‘just like open except it’s like they’re playing in 2ft of water’ to explain their perceived lack of athleticism”. It is clear that both male and female players recognize differences in the divisions and attribute them to gender. They also use positive adjectives related to sports (“fast paced”, “physical” “aggressive” etc.) to describe the open division. In this way, the male and female divisions are placed in contention with one another, with the men’s division seeming more athletic and entertaining than the women’s division. Many men who play ultimate describe themselves as fairly progressive, and while few explicitly say that the open division is better than the women’s division, this is what is implied in their language.

In addition to gendered language perpetuated by players and those directly involved in sports, such as coaches and team managers, the way that sports are broadcasted to the public also becomes gendered. Coverage of male and female sports favors male sports in coverage, types of filming, and more. In their study, Sportscasting and Sports Reporting: The Power of Gender Bias, Billings and Eastman found that men’s sports get more airtime on networks such as ESPN and CNN than women’s sports. ESPN’s SportsCenter covered 870 minutes of men’s sports per week (95% of their coverage), while covering just 27 minutes of women’s sports per week (3% of their coverage) (Billings, Eastman 201). Similar findings were determined in CNN’s Sports Tonight, with 499 minutes per week going to coverage of men’s sports and 55 minutes per week covering women’s sports (90% of coverage versus 10%, respectively) (201). In addition, men’s sports get more newspaper coverage than women’s sports. This data indicates that more time is given to men’s sports than women’s sports, which is one of the reason why the fan bases for male sports is larger than that of women’s sports. This could also be a reason why masculine language and action is normalized in sports.

Michael Messner echos the idea that coverage of female sports is less prominent than that of male sports in Separating the Men From the Girls. In this essay, Messner claims that, “There has been a boom in female athletic participation, but the sports media have been very slow to reflect it. Bryant’s (1980) two-year content analysis of two newspapers revealed that only 4.4 percent of total column inches were devoted to coverage of women” (Messner 122). Despite the fact that participation among female athletes has increased, the media’s lack of coverage makes it difficult for female athletes to succeed in their chosen profession. Media coverage perpetuates the idea that women’s sports are less athletic and entertaining than men’s sports by not giving them airtime. This reinforces the masculine/feminine binary and favors male athletics.

More resources going to male sports teams than female teams is even apparent in the way that sports are filmed. In a 1991–1995 analysis of college basketball games, Armstrong and Hallmark analyzed the differences between coverage of college basketball championships. They found that men’s college basketball games contain a wider variety of filming techniques than women’s college basketball games (Armstrong, Hallmark 226). From a rhetorical standpoint, quick, varied shots are more entertaining to watch than long shots that all seem the same (226). This distinction, although subtle, suggests that men’s college basketball games are broadcasted in a way that engages an audience, while women’s college basketball games are designed to be less interesting. These differences have an impact on the way that audiences view male and female athletes. Issues such as inequitable filming widens the gap between male sports and female sports.

In addition to the gendered rhetoric of the filming of sports, announcers, broadcasters, and analysts oftentimes employ gendered language when talking about male and female athletes. Messner also studied men’s and women’s basketball and found that, “In women’s basketball, gender was constantly marked, both verbally and through the use of graphics. But, during the men’s basketball games, we observed no instances of gender marking, either verbal or graphic” (Messner 124). Announcers and broadcasters therefore constantly called attention to female athletes and marked them as different by paying attention to their gender. Messner also found that announcers oftentimes referred to female athletes as “ladies” or “girls” (128–129). These terms evoke a lack of physical strength, and encourage the audience not to take these athletes seriously.

Other studies have similar results. Sai-Hua Kuo also found that sports announcers’ language is gendered. She claims that, “the language used by commentators tends to mark women’s sports as ‘other’, derivative or inferior to men’s. There are also stark contrasts between how male athletes and female athletes are referred to by commentators: women athletes tend to be ‘linguistically infantilized’ in that they are far more likely to be referred to as ‘girls’ or by their first name only” (Kuo 480). Messner and Kuo’s results were similar, which indicates that it is common for announcers and broadcasters to use this language. Trivializing or sexualizing female athletes and their accomplishments is common, which makes it difficult for audiences to see them as legitimate athletes.

Female athletes are trivialized and sexualized in other ways as well. Cyphers and Roenick claim that, “At the Olympics, women are the major players. Not only are women’s performances among the most memorable, but female viewers make up more than half of the Olympic audience” (Cyphers, Roenick 5). While this is encouraging, it is important to consider what type of women’s sports get airtime. As Angelini and Billings point out, “Media has the power to employ sometimes overt, but mostly covert, linguistic choices (see Walther, 2004) that collectively (re)create gender dichotomies based on biological distinctions” (Angelini, Billings 364). Therefore, even though the Olympics covers female sports, the choice of which sports to cover and which not to cover play into the existing gender dynamics within sports. Angelini and Billings introduce the term “sport typing” and claim that the Olympics limit female athletes by making the majority of their broadcast sports that are gender appropriate for women (366). These sports highlights feminine features such as dance, aesthetic beauty, and grace. Therefore, this does not allow for a representation of women expressing traditional masculine traits, which continues to limit female athletes.

Angelini and Billings point out that even though women do get coverage in the Olympics, “it appears that the five Olympic sports are largely regarded as either feminine-appropriate or androgynous according to Kane and Snyder’s continuum” (366). These five major Olympic sports for women are track and field, gymnastics, swimming, beach volleyball, and diving. These sports focus on grace, beauty, and delicate movements, all of which are traditional feminine traits. The popularity of these sports suggests that women can play sports, but that they can only play or succeed in sports that reinforce their femininity. The message to the public would be very different if women’s wrestling or women’s rugby were marketed and broadcasted frequently. But instead, sports that show women being aggressive are not the ones that get a lot of airtime. So, even though coverage of female sports takes place at the Olympics, the media has a lot of control over which sports have visibility. The expectations of female sports are therefore framed as being sports where women are expressing their femininity. As a result, female athletes are oftentimes sexualized by the media and, subsequently, the audience. The focus is taken away from their skill and instead goes to their role as sexual objects.

Sexualization of women is prominent in many popular sports, in particular, beach volleyball. Michael Cantelon analyzes the uniform regulations imposed by the Federation Internationale de Volleyball (FIVB) for volleyball. Cantelon argues that the female volleyball players’ uniforms detract from the athleticism of those competing. Cantelon claims that these uniforms cater to male spectators’ desire to see women as sexual and submissive objects. The uniforms focus on aestheticism and actually impede female athletes’ ability to play the sport to their full potential. The fact that women have to wear these uniforms undermines them as athletes. It reinforces the argument that men are in control of the sports world and decisions made in sports are meant to please men, even at the expense of women.

Angelini and Billings make a similar point when claiming that, “the spoken word within televised sport is frequently observed to manifest in a way that diminishes the accomplishments of women athletes (see Bissell & Duke, 2007; Duncan & Hasbrook, 1988; Stone & Horne, 2008)” (Angelini, Billings 366). These gendered practices do not only affect female athletes, but female announcers as well. Angelini and Billings go on to claim that, “the amount of talk generated from women sportscasters was meager (less than 15% of the database) and underscores other problems endemic in the sportscasting employment structure” (379). Women are oftentimes kept out of several aspects of the sports world, from actually competing themselves, to being taken seriously as sports reporters, announcers, and analysts. By undermining female sportscasters, men continue to dominate the sports world. This contributes to the affinity between masculinity and sports.

Kuo also outlines the issue of lack of female sports broadcasters. She argues that, “Sports reporting has still been ‘monopolized’ by male reporters. Most female sports announcers or commentators are limited to those who used to be athletes themselves, and they tend to play a supporting role, rather than taking the center stage, during sports reporting” (Kuo 480). Just as female athletes are not given the resources that male athletes are, female broadcasters also struggle to succeed in their careers. This reinforces the gendered language and rhetoric that occurs in sports.

The language that male and female broadcasters use is also different. Kuo’s study found a higher frequency of pronouns, especially the pronoun “ni” which is a casual form of “you” used in Taiwan (483). She explains that, “these pronouns signal the sports reporters’ strong self-involvement, their interpersonal involvement with the athlete and the audience, and their involvement with the reported sports event” (490). Her study found that the use of “ni” can be found 68.3% of the time in male announcers’ speech, while it is only found 4.3% of the time in female announcers’ speech (489). In this way, male sports announcers oftentimes seem more engaging and connected to the sport in ways that female announcers do not. This is just another way that female announcers become marginalized in sports.

Kuo ultimately concludes that, “in the SAT we have analyzed, male sports reporters’ frequent use of personal pronouns not only marks their informal and involving speech style but also functions to display their power and status in a field traditionally associated with men” (491). Again, in this area of sports men dominate and women are marginalized. This supports gender inequality in all aspects of sports, not just among athletes themselves.

This paper explores the inequality between male and female sports. Clearly, female athletes and femininity are looked down upon when it comes to athletics. But, I think that this strict binary between masculinity and femininity is the real problem in sports. Our society values masculinity in sports, and traditional gender roles set women up to fail. If female athletes express masculine traits, they are criticized for not being feminine enough. However, if they are feminine, they are not taken seriously as athletes, since we view masculinity as an indication of athleticism. This is the real issue that needs to be addressed, and one that I came across directly in my research.

In Clasen’s essay, she finds that many female athletes become hyper-feminine in order to conform to western culture’s masculine/feminine binary. She claims, “It seemed ironic to me that women’s athletic performances became secondary to their outside interests, particularly when those interests seemed to reinforce traditional feminine roles” (Clasen 36). Clasen argues that women do this so as not to seem too masculine and to fit into the standards that our society has for women. Clasen claims that, “Basically, the apologetic suggests that the woman athlete: can appear feminine, which is why so many descriptions of women’s sports include reference to the attractiveness and physical attributes of the athletes; is feminine…and wants to be feminine, which means that social roles are valued more than sport roles” (Clasen 204). In our current view of sports, expressing femininity is a way to compensate for female athletes who take on an inherently masculine job (being athletes). This is something that some female athletes themselves choose to do, and in many cases the media does it for them. This could explain why announcers use such gendered language and why broadcasting of female sports is skewed towards sports that express femininity.

My interviews with ultimate frisbee players indicate that strides are being taken to allow female athletes to express masculinity and femininity simultaneously. One female player, Jeanne, touched on why she likes playing in the mixed division. She told me, “Mixed was beneficial when Jason [her son]was a baby because I could have both worlds — be a mother and play with my husband. As a first-time mother, I think it’s overwhelming to play with a baby on the sidelines and have no one else to help you while you diaper change, breastfeed, take care of a screaming baby, etc.”. Although professional female athletes are not asked to embody multiple roles at once, Jeanne expresses her ability to be a mother and an athlete at the same time. In ultimate, this is a common occurrence, even at the elite level. Clasen argues that a woman’s role as an athlete is paradoxical because, “femininity and athleticism are not logically consistent in traditional Western dualisms” (36). However, in ultimate frisbee it is common for men and women to perform multiple roles that express both masculinity and femininity (athlete, parent) without being looked down upon. In this way, I think that ultimate is more progressive than many other sports, and this is a good model for how mainstream sports can treat gender roles.

Despite the fact that more and more women are participating in sports, and strides have been made to improve broadcasting of female sports, a gender divide still exists. This is evident in the rhetoric of sports images, such as how sports are filmed, uniform requirements, which female sports get coverage, and the language used within and about sports. In order to make sports more equitable, the gendered language and rhetoric related to sports needs to change. Broadcasters, announcers, and athletes alike need to change the masculine overtones in sports, make space for women, and allow them to embrace their own masculinity and femininity. In order to do this, we need to get away from the dualism that currently exists in our society, especially when it comes to masculinity and femininity. To make sports equitable for all, we need to stop viewing sports as inherently masculine and do away with gender stereotypes.

Work Cited

Adams, Adi, Eric Anderson, and Mark McCormack. “Establishing and Challenging Masculinity: The Influence of Gendered Discourses in Organized Sport.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 29.3 (2010): 278–300. Sage Journals. Web. 19 Nov. 2015.

Angelini, James R., and Andrew C. Billings. “An Agenda that Sets the Frames: Gender, Language, and NBC’s Americanized Olympic Telecast.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 29.3 (2010): 363–85. ProQuest. Web. 7 June 2017.

Armstrong, M. Richard, and James R. Hallmark. “Gender Equality in Televised Sports: A Comparative Analysis of Men’s and Women’s NCAA Division 1 Basketball Championship Broadcasts, 1991–1995.” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media (1999): 222–235. Web. 2 Nov. 2015.

Billings, Andrew C., and Susan Tyler Eastman. “Sportscasting and Sports Reporting: The Power of Gender Bias.” Journal of Sports and Social Issues 24.2 (2000): 192–213. Sage Journals. Web. 2 Nov. 2015.

Cantelon, Michael. “Sex-a-Side: Volleyball Uniforms and the Reproduction of Female Objectivity”, Sexual Sports Rhetoric: Global and Universal Contexts. By Linda K. Fuller. New York: Peter Lang, 2010. 14–23. Print.

Clasen, Patricia R. W. “The Female Athlete: Dualisms and Paradox in Practice.” Women and Language 24.2 (2001): 36–41. ProQuest. Web. 7 June 2017.

Cyphers, L., & Roenigk, A. (2008, August 11). The Olympics are for girls. ESPN: The Magazine, p. 5.

Kuo, Sai-Hua. “Involvement Vs Detachment: Gender Differences in the use of Personal Pronouns in Televised Sports in Taiwan.” Discourse Studies 5.4 (2003): 479–94. ProQuest. Web. 7 June 2017.

Messner, Michael A., Margaret Carlisle Duncan, and Kerry Jensen. “Separating the Men from the Girls: The Gendered Language of Televised Sports.” Gender & Society 7.1 (1993): 121–37. ProQuest. Web. 7 June 2017.

Interviews

Alex. “Gender and Ultimate.” Personal interview. 14 May 2017.

Jeanne. “Gender and Ultimate.” Personal interview. 14 May 2017.

Joe. “Gender and Ultimate.” Personal interview. 14 May 2017.

Matthew. “Gender and Ultimate.” Personal interview. 14 May 2017.

Molly. “Gender and Ultimate.” Personal interview. 14 May 2017.

Sterling. “Gender and Ultimate.” Personal interview. 14 May 2017.