On The Issues Magazine has just published a special edition focusing on the 40th Anniversary of Title IX. If I’ve learned one thing from FairGameNews it’s that the matter of how female athletes use and present their bodies reliably spurs heated — though circular and predictable — debate. In the special issue I offer three reasons why we’ve gotten so stuck — and how we might think fresh about this perennial lightning rod of a subject. Read it here. Also check out the other essays, including an excellent piece by Alex Channon on why Sex Segregation is Bad for Society.

By Mariah Philips

After an hour-long 6 a.m. lift, I can feel my hands shaking, residual adrenaline pumping through my veins. Sweat trickles down the side of my temple. My muscles are limp from exhaustion.  But the most prominent thing I feel when I walk out of the weight room is pride, satisfaction in the exertion I have just put forth. It is empowering to feel strong.

Being strong – lifting in particular – has been important to my growth as a college softball player and because I’m at Wellesley College, lifting happens in an all-women’s weight room.

But elsewhere, in co-ed weight rooms, there’s an unspoken edge: As a woman, you are not free to lift without being judged. I have been the girl with the 40-pound dumbbells, standing beside the man lifting less – and feeling a wash of shame. I’m an athlete. I need to be strong. Yet, I catch the glances and the scrutiny by male and female members of the gym. What’s more, I hear the same stress expressed by other female athletes (including one who has a planned apology: “Sorry, I’m a man.”)

It may now be OK for women to be strong. But how strong? Why does it remain socially prickly for women to lift large amounts of weight? Why must women struggle to preserve socially condoned images of femininity while they try to honor an athletic identity that challenges those gender norms?

This unspoken weight room phenomenon has not gone unnoticed by sports psychologists.

“Essentially it can be felt as a threat to the male’s self-image to lift next to females,” says Dr. Amy Baltzell, Coordinator of the Sport Psychology Specialization at Boston University. “And then for some women, it can feel like a struggle between their athletic goals and how they perceive they should be compared to males.  This, too, can cause a discomfort in the weight room for the female athlete.”

Athletes need to lift, whether you are a 300-pound lineman, a 140-pound wrestler — or a 140-pound field hockey player. It ‘s time to grab the steel (or the med ball) and leave gender expectations and stereotypes out of it.

Softball player Jen Migliore lifts/photo by Alex Hatem

Sports are political. This year’s March Madness tournament has made that point even more clearly than usual as President Barack Obama’s campaign announced the “Obama Bracket Challenge:” Out pick the President and your name appears on the campaign website.

While initial reports suggested a catch – that the contest only applied to the men’s bracket — the campaign IS hosting a women’s contest as well.

The women’s NCAA playoff may not be as big as the men’s. We know that. We have known that for years and years. We are, frankly, tired of knowing that.

But even as news outlets continue to focus on the men’s DI tournament, many have discovered that – hey – it’s not so tough to also cover the women. (Ignoring them, after all, is getting awkward). And this year promises some compelling play.

Inside Higher Ed’s annual academic performance bracket – looking at the playoff teams through graduation rates – this year for the first time includes analysis of women’s teams. The TeamRankings blog has discovered that “all of the rankings and simulations can be applied to the women’s side of things as well” and includes a table of round-by-round survival odds. And the Bleacher Report provides analysis of all the first round match-ups, pointing out that the “element of the unknown” in the men’s tourney “is ratcheted up to another level in the women’s tournament” (and yes, because many teams are never seen on national TV).

These may be small steps. But they matter. More people are filling out the women’s brackets. More outlets are considering the composition of the teams and the match-ups.

Sports is political. Whether you join the Obama Bracket Challenge or not, if you are March Madness inclined, fill out a women’s bracket because the conversation about whether Baylor will run the tables or UConn will lean on its history is talk, not just about play, but about valuing the compelling game that is Women’s NCAA DI Basketball.

Note: This story reflects a correction and update from an earlier version.

Have you been to recess lately?

It just so happens that I have. Recently, I volunteered for recess duty at my son’s school. (He’s in first grade.)

There is plenty to say about recess – including that at many schools there is simply not enough of it. Some low-performing schools have eliminated recess to increase time on academics in hopes of raising tests scores, despite much research which demonstrates the value of recess. But this post is not about that.

It’s about the lost opportunity of recess. As a former teacher, as a parent, and as a (former) kid myself, it’s not difficult to see that free play time tends to be very segregated by gender. To anyone who pays attention it seems clear that girls and boys have very different play time interests.

But why is this? How much is socialization and girls being quietly (almost invisibly) discouraged from playing sports in their free time?   (My dissertation on the subject here). As someone who has studied this phenomenon, I love to see girls play soccer or basketball at recess, but research shows that boys control TEN times as much space on the playground or the courts, plus much of the equipment (Thorne, 1997, p.83; see Gender Play for a full investigation of this topic).

You will see the girls shooting baskets off to the side (and with the not quite fully-inflated ball) while boys dominate the play space in a large, organized game. Furthermore, boys are more likely to interrupt all-girl games. With this domination of space and “claimed entitlement…playgrounds are basically male turf” (Thorne, 1997, p.83).

At my son’s school, he often spends recess playing a game that involves chasing the girls or them chasing him. But many days he plays basketball or soccer with a group of boys (yes, I ask him every day who he played with and if it was a sports game, it is never girls). On the day I volunteered, he was in a heated game of basketball with seven other boys. One girl sat on the curb watching. I asked her if she wanted to play. She responded, “no,” but said that she plays with her older brother at home.

Wasn’t this a lost opportunity for her (and for the boys)?

I won’t argue that recess supervisors need to insist the girls jump into the boys’ games (though that would be great!). But I will argue that teachers and school staff need to insure that girls have equal access to equipment and space — and are encouraged to use them. We may need to help girls become confident enough to play with the boys or to command their own games.

When girls and boys play together, they both benefit and learn from one another. We don’t need to have boys versus girls (though that is often the default position when teachers/supervisors lack other ways to identify opposing players). Maybe it’s time to get some pinnies, provide some support, and let boys AND girls take control of the play space at recess.

By Laura Pappano

This is a year of Title IX anniversary celebrations – it became law in 1972 – but even as conferences are convened (I was part of a terrific panel at Wellesley College on Monday), let’s not get weepy.

It was not as if a switch flipped and everything changed.

There is plenty of work to do and the law remains subject to enforcement and interpretation. We may have made great progress, but inequity exists – and it’s so embedded in the way we do business as to hardly draw notice.

Recently, I was driving and passed a high school sign trumpeting upcoming sports news and events. The sign announced the boys upcoming games – but mentioned nothing about girls sports, even leaving panels blank rather than, say, mention that the girl’s basketball team had just captured the league championship.

When we talk about equity and Title IX, the argument has been about access. About being allowed to participate. But 40 years later, that’s not enough.

Interestingly, the court is starting to agree. A U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago (7th circuit) recently found that a case should go to trial that claims unfairness in scheduling girls vs. boy’s basketball at an Indiana high school. During the 2009-2010 season 95 percent of the games for the Franklin County High School boys’ team were in “prime time” – Friday and Saturday nights – drawing large crowds, cheerleaders (and making it easier to get homework done).

In Parker vs. Franklin County Community School, the court found that the practice of relegating the girls’ games to non prime-time slots results in “a loss of audience, conflict with homework, and foster[s] feelings of inferiority.”

“A packed gymnasium, cheer- leaders rallying the fans, the crowd on their feet sup- porting their team, and the pep band playing the school song: these are all things you might expect to see at an Indiana high school basketball game on a Friday night. The crowd becomes part of the game; they provide motivation, support, and encouragement to the players. After all, what would a spectator sport be without the specta- tors? Unfortunately, this is a question the Franklin County High School girls’ basketball teams must answer every season because half their games have been relegated to non-primetime nights (generally Monday through Thursday) to give preference to the boys’ Friday and Saturday night games.”

The frustrating reality? The Office for Civil Rights wrote a letter 14 years ago alerting Franklin to the problem. Nothing was done. Maybe…now?

On the heels of a compelling World Cup and on the eve of the 2012 Olympics, Women’s Professional Soccer announced today that they are suspending the 2012 season – with plans (maybe hopes?) to return to play in 2013.

The news, for those who recall the end of WUSA in 2003 and promises of revival (remember months of static websites?), raises concerning questions about why it’s so tough to launch and sustain a women’s pro league. And whether this move is a stab at regrouping — or a last gasp for a troubled structure.

Why the suspension? The official blame is the “lengthy and expensive legal battle with a former owner” – meaning the ongoing tussle with magicJack owner Dan Borislow, whose league membership was “terminated” in October following rule-breaking and public remarks critical of the league. He, in turn, filed suit. And – yes – both sides are now battling it out in court.

In a conference call with reporters this afternoon, WPS CEO Jennifer O’Sullivan suggested that the problem, however, was bigger than Borislow. The league, she said, “has been faced with a series of challenges and difficulties throughout the past year” adding that “Mr. Borislow has been a lightening rod for those issues.”

O’Sullivan said Borislow had hurt the league’s relations with major sponsors, suggesting he was a factor in Puma’s decision to drop its sponsorship and that his manner had “a negative impact on other national sponsors.”

But one has only to look at WPS history to see a revolving door of teams. Weeks after the Los Angeles Sol played in the league’s first championship in 2009, the franchise folded. The Atlanta Beat and Philadelphia Independence came aboard, but the St. Louis Athletica shut down – as did the FC Gold Pride – right after winning the 2010 WPS Championship. The Chicago Red Stars bowed out of 2011 – and the Western Flash signed on.  No wonder it’s hard to build a following. (Never mind about the “reorganization” six months after the league launch in 2009).

It IS difficult work in a nation dominated by men’s sports that attract huge crowds, coverage, and sponsorship. But women’s soccer is really, really good. And the World Cup (yet again) showed how edge-of-your seat compelling it could be  – if only packaged and marketed right. Right?

Borislow is clearly being painted as the bad guy. But you have to wonder: How could the league get to the point where one recalcitrant owner could sink the whole enterprise? And are we hearing the whole story? Borislow may not be diplomatic, but magicJack player/coach Abby Wambach recently defended him to ESPN’s Julie Foudy.  The issue is clearly deeper than the financial strain caused by lawyers, pricey as that may be.

Cancelling professional soccer at this moment – necessary as it looked to the league’s governing board – is risky. If Borislow puts together compelling “friendlies” with top players (as is rumored) and/or other teams like the Boston Breakers find alternative competition for 2012, will WPS really restart in 2013?

If it does, sponsors, owners, players and fans need serious reassurance that leadership has – finally – found the secret sauce to building women’s pro soccer.

SOMETIMES YOU LOSE – AND IT’S OK. The Women’s World Cup championship game between the U.S. and Japan honored the rise and intensity of women’s soccer. The back story was compelling: The U.S. Team’s dramatic run-up with Abby Wambach’s YouTube-play-it-again (and again) headers versus the determination of a team whose nation hungered for a win in the wake of the tsunami. The game was memorable for being both gritty and elegant. It reflected best things about sport: A game played hard and well – and fairly.

THERE ARE OTHER COLLEGE SPORTS BESIDES FOOTBALL AND MEN’S BASKETBALL: The sex abuse scandal at Penn State is just the latest and most troubling reminder of the power gap between big-time sports programs and other teams on campus. The power dynamic is further skewed by commercial quests of big-time teams that – as in the cast of conference realignments – change which other colleges a team will play. The Big East, for example, beginning this year will stretch from San Diego to Providence – and it’s not just football and basketball players getting on planes and missing classes. It’s field hockey players, cross-country runners facing six-hour flights to away games. Might college sports need a new structure – one that separates big-time sports-entertainment ventures from the extracurricular activities of student-athletes who fully intend to stay all four years and earn a degree?

GIRLS CAN DO WHAT BOYS CAN DO: We saw Justine Siegal become the first female to throw batting practice at MLB spring training. The Olympic Committee (finally) voted to add women’s ski jumping in the next Winter Olympics in 2014. We saw high school girls, including Monique Howard playing football – on the defensive line — and saw girls and boys in Massachusetts competing for swim titles. In New Jersey, a boy wasn’t allowed to play on a high school field hockey team, but a co-ed field hockey team in Princeton is growing and USA Field Hockey now wants boys to join the sport. Rigid gender divisions may still rule in sports, but common sense (and budget pressures) are changing the landscape and revealing that – gasp – males and females can compete with and against one another (or in the same events). We don’t, in other words, need to start with gender as a hard dividing line (most especially in school and recreational sports).

THE WOMEN’S MARATHON RECORD IS STILL 2:15:25. The IAAF’s decision to change the rules by which women runners can compete for world record times in the marathon – and the decision to revoke and then reinstate Paula Radcliffe’s 2003 London Marathon record – reveals challenges ahead. Women being paced by men can run faster. It reflects the maturation of the sport to require particular courses (only loops) and conditions (women’s race separate) for an official world record. It’s a quest for uniformity in a sport that takes place out in the natural world. But what about other factors? Rain? Temperature? Winds? Crowds? Seeking a standard may make sense for record books (though eliminating mixed-sex races narrows the acceptable pool and, in real time, sends a negative social message by exaggerating the gap in male and female performance). We are far from the days when running the distance was the simple point. But the pacing issue still lacks resolution. Men may still have rabbits, and it’s helped spur records. Women can’t have male rabbits, but they do need female ones.  We now need women who are able and willing.

I work – really hard – at avoiding gender stereotypes with kids so I decided to tick through what we had lined up for Christmas this year: there was the Wii for my son and an American Girl doll for my daughter. Err – I mean, a Wii for the family and an American Girl doll for my daughter.

So I caught myself, and to compensate for who might dominate the Wii, decided we should find a great game for my daughter. Knowing nothing about Nintendo, I suggested my husband order a girl’s sport game—you know, Girls’ Extreme Sports or WNBA or girls’ soccer.

As it turns out, they don’t exist. Check out Nintendo’s “Girls’ Games” section on this website to see their offerings: dance, cooking, fashion, cheerleading and princess, in sum. [I do realize you can make your person a girl athlete on the sports games, but the obvious message in the girl-genre of games is troubling].

I’m not sure why, but when my son was asked to bring in a wrapped book for a Pollyanna gift exchange (aka Secret Santa or Yankee Swap) with his class, we were instructed that books be marked “boy” or “girl.” My first reaction: why do they have to be one or the other? There are books both a boy and a girl would find appealing. What must we “gender-ize” everything?

Yes, I know, girls and boys are different. But as a former teacher and mother of boys and a girl, I see the balance girls and boys can gain from one another. As parents and as educators we should seek ways to bring boys and girls together and not focus on separating them at every opportunity.

So this holiday season, here’s the challenge: Avoid putting kids in a “gender-ized box” (excuse the pun). Think about gifts that you might not ordinarily buy for that girl or boy on your list. By sticking to gender-typical gifts, we reinforce gender stereotypes that are very outdated – and may even discourage the recipient from finding a new activity or toy that she or he would enjoy.

Here are a examples and suggestions for broadening your purchasing scope:

·         My daughter recently received a bracelet-making kit; it was a big hit with her AND her 7 year-old brother

·         Last year I bought my son AND daughter knight’s swords (foam, of course); accompany this gift with stories of King Arthur’s Round Table and/or the books Jane and the Dragon or Not One Damsel in Distress.

·         Buy sports equipment for girls (and don’t insist on pink!); think beyond the soccer ball—buy hockey sets (indoor and outdoor), lacrosse sticks, a skateboard, flag-football sets—even bowling or badminton equipment

·         Shop for kids’ jammies in the boys section, for both genders! Girls also love pirates, dinosaurs, trucks and sports. Don’t limit them to princesses and bunnies.

·         My two-year old son is very into dolls right now. It helps that he has an older sister, but he gravitates towards his favorite doll even when she is not around, making up names, telling me the baby is “silly” while cracking up, and comforting baby after he throws it on the ground (he also breastfeeds his baby!). All of this role-playing is wonderful for his development and will help him make a great dad someday.

·         All kids love dress-up; Any kind of dress up! Buy a super-hero costume for a girl, without limiting it to Wonder Woman (scantily-clad) or Cat Woman (beyond inappropriately-clad; who can work in those clothes?!). Girls as well as boys want to wear an apron in the kitchen and dress up as a fire fighter, doctor, pirate, or spy. (See www.sewplainjane.com for really unique capes and masks).

The international track federation’s (IAAF) decision to nullify women’s marathon records from mixed-sex events reflects a crude double standard: Men can have rabbits; women can’t.

The use of pacesetters is common in running, from short track distances to marathons. Boston and New York no longer allow pacesetters, but many marathons do, including Chicago, London, Berlin, and Rotterdam. (New York used to, paying rabbits several thousand dollars to set the pace and then drop out at the 25K mark).

By framing the matter as a gender problem — women’s marathon records can only count in women’s-only events — the IAAF conveniently sidesteps the more controversial issue: Should rabbits be allowed?

Competitive sport has long relied on athletic challengers meant to set a pace or spur improved performance. It is part of bicycle and car racing. While use of male practice squads in women’s college basketball spurred debate several years ago, the NCAA decided to allow them. (BTW colleges, including Ohio State are looking for a players).

Does the practice provide an unfair advantage? If so, are we ready to apply the same standard to men’s records achieved with the aid of pacesetters?

That would be a blow to many, including Roger Bannister who ran his historic sub-four-minute mile in 1955 — with the help of two pacers.

Until we have female rabbits (a thought) it’s easy for the IAAF – as it was for opponents of male practice squad players – to argue that women are relying on physically large and speedy males to improve their own performance.

But then, aren’t male runners using rabbits doing the same thing? And let’s remember: Paula Radcliffe really did run a 2:15:25 marathon (and in 2003 when she did it, no British runner, female or male, ran faster).

When my 6th grade son announced he was “following in the family tradition” and joined the school field hockey team, I was surprised. Turns out, he’s not alone, but is one of four boys on the team in a sport trying to grow it’s male following.

Last spring as part of USA Field Hockey’s developmental outreach, Cristopher Maloney, former player and umpire at high school, collegiate and national levels, started the Tiger Field Hockey Club in Princeton, NJ, to teach the game to girls and boys, aged 7-14. (He’s also the author of How to Umpire Field Hockey and is the editor for rules questions on the USA Field Hockey site.)

Even as Maloney puts girls and boys on the field together, the idea remains controversial — this fall a boy at Hillsborough High School was barred from playing on the school’s team.

Maloney, however, is determined to share the game, and many agree. In fact, parents with children in his once-a-week skill session, don’t understand the fuss. “I don’t see why there should be a problem as long as everyone follows the rules,” says Lori Fontana-South, whose daughters Shelby and Francesca both play. “My daughters aren’t afraid to play against boys.”

I spoke with Maloney about what male players mean to the sport in the U.S.

FGN:You have a coed program. What do you notice about girls and boys playing together?

CM: Firstly, there was no expression of, ‘That’s a girl’ or “That’s a boy.’ It wasn’t even on the radar. By the end of last season the only thing I noticed was that the guys learned a lot from the girls, because many of the girls were actually field hockey players [who played on school teams] and had played for a while. The boys got to copy the girls. The girls on the other hand, were playing against boys, and I think they left with more self-confidence because they had played against the boys.

FGN: Many people object to letting boys play on field hockey teams. Some worry boys will “overpower” the girl’s game. Do you see this?

CM: Are the boys so much better than the girls? Most of my experience with the boys and the girls is that the girls know what they are doing and the boy’s don’t have a clue. They don’t walk on and know how to play field hockey and take away positions. They are not that good. In fact, I know there are a lot of field hockey programs that go away because they don’t have enough players. All the arguments I’ve heard against it [letting boys and girls play together] don’t wash. “Oh the boys are bigger and stronger.” OK, but so is that girl over there – and that girl.

FGN: Others argue that it’s dangerous for males and female to play together…

CM: One of the brilliant things about field hockey is that players of all statures can be successful. The sport has a very unique set of rules that doesn’t allow for contact. If you make contact you are fouling. There is an awful lot that limits the contribution to the game that size and strength and speed might bring. Speed is an important variable, but you can be fast and not a very good dribbler. The overall point is that there are all these gender differences, but in the end, what are you evaluating? What does it matter if you can hit the ball 80 miles per hour but you can’t play?

FGN: You are working to create more opportunities for boys to play the sport. What obstacles do they encounter?

CM: People create all these subversive rules, like you have to wear a kilt. In fact, not everyone wears a kilt and a lot of teams have switched to shorts, but sometimes boys who want to play are made to wear a kilt. This is very prevalent and it’s disgusting. It’s an invention created to try to discriminate against one gender.

FGN: You recently discovered that a tournament you wanted to play in would not allow your players to participate.

CM: This fall, I have about 20 kids and I was hoping to play against other teams. I was starting to plan for us to participate in a tournament, but was told we were not allowed to come because we have boys. So I’m organizing a tournament here Nov. 12.

FGN: Where do you see the game headed?

CM: More and more boys are getting interested. USA Field Hockey is more aggressive about making more programs that are coed. Every sport in America that’s popular is popular with boys and girls – like soccer. I am all about field hockey. I am not about this gender field hockey, or that gender field hockey. But I know if field hockey is more popular with boys, it will be more popular with girls.

Tiger Field Hockey Club practice