Gender refers to the socially constructed differences between women and men, while the term

‘‘sex’’ is a reference to the biological and physical differences between males and females.
Gender draws attention to the socially unequal distinction between femininity and masculinity.
Femininity is used to describe characteristic behaviors and emotions of females and masculinity
refers to the distinctive actions and feelings of the male sex. In studies of gender and sports, the
concept of gender is analytically distinguished from that of sex even though the two are often
used synonymously in everyday language and thought. Not all the differences between females
and males are biological. But historically, ideas about the implications of biological differences
between women and men have served to justify the exclusion or limited inclusion of women in
sports. Such views reflect an ideology of biological determinism, where it is claimed that men,
and not women, are inherently strong, aggressive, and competitive and, therefore, better suited
to sports.

Since the 1970s, gender has become an important category of analysis in the sociology of
sport. Research has clearly demonstrated that sports are gendered activities as well as social
contexts in which boys and men are more actively and enthusiastically encouraged to
participate, compared with girls and women. Evidence also shows that more males than
females participate in organized competitive sports, and that male dominance characterizes the
administration and coaching of sports. Sports, it is theorized, operate as a site for the
inculcation, perpetuation, and celebration of a type of (heterosexual) masculine identity based
on physical dominance, aggression, and competitiveness. Associated with such masculine
imagery, sports serve to legitimize a perceived natural superiority of men and reinforce the
inferiority of females who are defined with reference to relative weakness, passivity, and grace –
the characteristics of femininity. Therefore, sports are often described as a ‘‘male preserve.’’

Social changes reflecting the condition of women in society have influenced the status of
knowledge about the relationships between and within groups of women and men in sports.
Starting in the 1970s, a consequence of the feminist movement was to raise public awareness
about the need for increased opportunities for girls and women in sports. Since then there has
been growing political and public recognition of the importance of health and fitness.
Furthermore, emerging knowledge about the health benefits of physical activity provided a
foundation for the promotion of physical activity for girls and women. Opportunities for girls and
women in sports have improved and participation rates among females have increased.
Scholars studying gender and sports indicate that these developments have resulted in ongoing
challenges to gender stereotyping, resistance and negotiation of established gender ideology,
and the initiation of important legal and political change regarding sex discrimination in sports
and society. For example, Title IX of the Education Amendments of the Civil Rights Act (1972) in
the US, and the Sex Discrimination Act (1975) in Great Britain were intended to counter public
discrimination against women. Such legislation has been used to prevent and remove many
barriers to female participation in sports.

There is now over 35 years of scholarship that theorizes gender and sport. One of the most
sustained attempts at conceptualizing and theorizing about gender in the sociology of sport is
found in feminist scholarship. The first attempts to analyze women’s place in sport were made in
the 1960s by physical educators. The result was a corpus of largely atheoretical work on
‘‘women in sport’’ founded upon a liberal feminist consciousness about sport as a ‘‘male
preserve’’ characterized by gender inequities. Between 1970 and 1980 psychological models
were mainly used to explain female attitudes and motivations in sports. In the 1980s, emerging
theoretical diversity and sophistication in feminist approaches led to the development of a clear
sociology of women in sport. As political and theoretical feminisms have changed, so too has
the focus of feminist research.

Depending on the theoretical and methodological position of the researcher, different questions
about and accounts of gender and sport prevail. Debates surrounding the gendered character of
sporting practices have changed with increasing awareness of feminist theories and a more
sophisticated use of these theories. For example, much of the initial work on gender and sport
highlighted inequities but did not explicitly deal with how the prevailing organization of sports
privileged the physical experiences of boys and men. Subsequent critical analyses revealed that
research focused on differences between males and females generally supported traditional
claims about the biological inferiority of females and the legitimacy of efforts to control women’s
sports participation. Such research, it was argued, did not deal with the underlying structural
and cultural sources of gender inequality. More recent scholarship has attempted to resolve the
shortcomings of early research and theory by considering difference and diversity between and
within groups of women, and by theoretical and methodological approaches that consider
women as active agents in the construction and reconstruction of their sporting experiences.

There is no single feminist movement or theory that has informed current scholarly work on
gender and sport. Liberal feminist accounts of sport are based on claims that women should
have equal rights to those of men in terms of access to resources, opportunities to participate,
and decision making positions. Radical feminists are critical of the patriarchal power relations
that operate to maintain the dominance of heterosexuality and construct homophobic attitudes
and practices in sport. Socialist feminists have examined the connections between gender,
social class, and race and ethnicity under conditions of patriarchy, capitalism, and
neocolonialism. Significant theoretical influences in understanding gender and sport have also
emerged in cultural studies and in work guided by the writings of Norbert Elias, Pierre Bourdieu,
and poststructuralist theorists. Contemporary work in the field reflects the move toward critical
analyses of the complex relationships between and within groups of women and men in sport.
Current scholarship examines the ways in which gender relations are produced, reproduced,
challenged, and transformed in and through sporting practices.

Three key themes have driven debates about gender and sport since the 1970s. First, leading
scholars in the sociology of sport have highlighted that throughout history, sporting practices
inculcated behaviors and values defined as male, manly, and masculine. Second, issues
surrounding the body, physicality, and sexuality have been brought to the fore in understanding
gender relations in sport. Third, it is emphasized that both women and men reinforce and
challenge dominant gender ideology in sport in various ways. In this regard scholars have
eschewed ideas about women and men as homogeneous categories, and have recognized and
examined difference and diversity in people’s gendered sporting experiences at the level of the
subject and in terms of institutional politics and practice. Recent research includes work that
examines the production and reproduction of gender in sport in terms of the sporting
experiences of women and men from various sociocultural backgrounds

Historical Developments and the Gendering of Sport

Sociologists of sport have illustrated that the historical development of modern sports laid the
foundations for the gendered character of sporting practices. Over time, sports have been
constructed and reconstructed around the assumptions, values, and ideologies of males,
maleness, and masculinity. The roots of con temporary sports lie in the Victorian period in
Britain, when sports began to be characterized by organized structures and standardized rules.
In terms of gender, late nineteenth century British developments in sports largely centered on
the beliefs and values of white middle class males. The prestige, status, and superiority afforded
to men in society became marked at this time. In institutions such as public schools,
universities, churches, and private clubs, sports came to represent a Victorian version of
masculinity based on physical superiority, competitiveness, mental acumen, and a sense of fair
play. Established ideals of femininity such as passivity, frailty, emotionality, gentleness, and
dependence were in stark opposition to the strenuous task of playing sports. The belief that
male and female traits were innate, biological, and somehow fixed prevailed. Women’s
participation in sports was therefore a subject of debate regarding what type and how much
physical activity was appropriate for them. The marginalization of women and the dominance of
men in sports is a legacy of Victorian images of female frailty that is also reflected in the making
of modern sports in the US.

In both Britain and the US, changes in social life during the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries impacted on gender relations in sport. British and American society at this time was
characterized by social relations that were becoming less violent, there was a decreasing
reliance on physical strength in the workplace, and home and educational environments were
becoming ones in which young males spent increasing amounts of time with females. Eric
Dunning (1999) and Michael Messner (1990) refer to these social transformations as the
‘‘feminization’’ of society. One consequence of these processes was the reconstruction of
sporting opportunities and social enclaves (such as the Boy Scouts and the YMCA) for boys and
men to reclaim and reassert their masculinity. While opportunities for women in sports also
increased in the early part of the twentieth century, participation rates for females remained
considerably smaller compared to males. Some sports were acceptable for women so long as
they were not as strenuous or competitive as the male version. Women’s sports were still the
subject of intense debate reflecting and maintaining the Victorian myth of women’s physical
ineptitude

Sport, Gender, Power, and Physicality

Many scholars have advanced an understanding about gender and sport by recognizing and
examining the connections between physicality, power, and the production of gender. It is
emphasized that in sport, physicality is predominantly defined in terms of bodily strength,
muscularity, and athletic prowess. Connell (1995) explains such characteristics as a ‘‘culturally
idealized’’ form of masculinity. Much has been written about the ways that contemporary sports
reinforce a male model of (heterosexual) physical superiority and, at the same time, operate to
oppress women through the trivialization and objectification of their physicality and sexuality.
Several scholars assert that the acquisition of muscular strength and athletic skill is less
empowering for women than it is for men. There is a commonsense assumption that muscularity
is unfeminine, and that strong and powerful females are not ‘‘real’’ women. An increasing
amount of work illustrates that such beliefs are reflected in the proliferation of media images
emphasizing female heterosexuality at the expense of athletic prowess. The sexualization of
female athletes through media representation is one way in which images of idealized female
physicality are reproduced and perpetuated.

There are other mechanisms of control over female physicality in sport. Some writers explain
that aerobics and bodybuilding operate to reproduce established gender ideology by feminizing
the corporeal practices, rituals, and techniques in which women are involved, as well as
objectifying and sexualizing women’s bodies. Some consider that sexual harassment and
vilification of women by male athletes provides evidence that the use of violence, aggression,
and force is a defining feature of masculine identity that is constructed and legitimated in
sporting contexts. There is also some scholarship that focuses on the way in which sports
perpetuate the denigration of lesbians and gay men. It is argued that sports maintain a culture of
homophobia in which homosexuality is feared and deemed to be unacceptable. Lesbians and
gay men are discouraged from expressing their sexual identities through threatening
homophobic sentiments and actions. Sports reinforce a culture of heterosexuality and effectively
silence homosexual identities.

A central argument in contemporary work on gender, sport, and physicality is the idea that the
empowering experience of sport for heterosexual males is not universal, fixed, or unchallenged.
Robert Connell illustrates the inherent contradictions in hegemonic masculinity. Strength, power,
skill, and mental and physical toughness are not the only defining characteristics of masculinity.
Not all sports privilege the values of aggression and physical domination associated with
culturally established ideals of masculinity. It is also the case that the dominant image of
masculinity, most often represented in sport, is one that can be limiting and restrictive for some
men as well as most women. There are fewer opportunities for boys and men to participate,
without prejudice, in sports that are not based on strength, power, and domination. There is
work that shows that boys and men who are not good at sport, or who do not participate, have
their heterosexual masculinity called into question. The sports experience is a negative and
disappointing one for such males

Sport, Gender, and Contested Ideology

It is increasingly emphasized in studies of sport and gender that dominant ideals of masculinity
and femininity exist at the same time as emergent and residual ones. Such work is concerned
with the relational character of gender. Michael Messner explains that in terms of gender, sport
is a ‘‘contested terrain.’’ This means that at any moment in history and in specific sporting
contexts, there are competing masculinities and femininities. There are many scholars who now
recognize that in sport, as well as in other social settings, some women are more powerful and
influential than other women and men, and some women are empowered at the expense of
other women and men.

Scholars in the sociology of sport have illustrated that many people are empowered by being
involved in sport in spite of traditional gender ideology. Examples show how sport is a site
where established values about gender have been resisted, negotiated, and sometimes
transformed. The assumption that homosexuality does not exist in sport is challenged in
research about the many gay men competing in sports at recreational and elite levels. There are
events such as the Gay Games that allow athletes to compete in a relatively unprejudiced
environment where they have less to fear about derogatory and violent responses to their
publicized sexual orientation. Several scholars question the assumption that sport is a site for
the oppression of women by exploring the ways in which women gain from their sporting
achievements. Such research shows that it is possible for women to experience feelings of
independence, confidence, and increased self esteem from their involvement in a variety of
sporting practices. Female participation in physical activity can also contribute to broadening
and alternative definitions of physicality that are not simply based on traditional ideals about
feminine appearance. In the case of professional sports, some women are able to gain consider
able financial wealth and worldwide recognition from their sporting achievements.

The extent to which sports are oppressive and liberating for women and men is culturally
specific and related to the political and economic conditions in which they live their lives. There
is increasing interest in the relationships between sport, gender, race, and ethnicity, and work
on this topic emphasizes that questions of femininity and masculinity are inseparable from
questions of race and ethnicity. In the main, research on sport, race, and ethnicity has examined
issues connected with black sports men. Recent research takes a closer look at the complex
relationships between masculinity, blackness, and sport. Critical examinations of the historical
development of sport emphasize that sports were constructed in the image of particular ideals
about white masculinity. Analyses of the racial significance of sport illustrate that sporting
practices can provide black males with (symbolic) opportunities for resistance to racism through
the assertion of manly qualities such as athleticism, aggression, and toughness. These writings
also illustrate that sport reflects the historically constructed (subordinate) place of black males in
(Western) societies. Dominant images of black male athleticism tend to reinforce stereotypes of
black men as powerful, aggressive, and hypersexual.

Scholars concerned with the relationship between sport, ethnicity, and femininity emphasize that
sportswomen are not a homogeneous group. Increasingly, there is literature that presents a
challenge to dominant universalistic conceptions of women in sport that serve to construct
white, western, middle class, able-bodied women’s experiences as representative of all
sportswomen. Sociologists of sport have argued that the dominant assumption about female
sports operates to marginalize or even silence the sporting triumphs and struggles of women
who live outside the West and those who represent minority groups of females. A central feature
of scholarship in this area is the recognition of difference between and within groups of women
in relation to ethnicity, religious affiliation, social class, age, and physical (dis)ability. Jennifer
Hargreaves (2000) explains that a sense of difference is characterized by power relations
operating simultaneously at the personal and institutional level. In many ways, sport can be
empowering for black women, Muslim women, Aboriginal women, lesbians, and disabled
women. At the same time, these women are incorporated into the wider social networks of
power in which they live out their lives.

Sports for dummies: How masculinity contributes to sport

April 18, 2017 By Taylor Tougaw 1 CommentFiled Under: Sports

Collegian sports columnist Michelle Fredrickson’s “How sports contribute to toxic masculinity”
decries the standard to which men are held to in the world of sports and athleticism. The author
is not a man, yet claims to be aware of what it is that men are feeling.

Apparently, today’s American utopia is one in which men are no longer men. Instead, we are
expected to be weak, skinny-jean wearing tea-drinkers who are expected to keep their manhood
up in a jar sitting on a shelf where it can’t be reached, lest it offend someone. However, there
are some of us left that like to punch trees, eat small, fluffy animals and pick up heavy things
and put them back down.

She says, “This situation got me thinking about the idea of toxic masculinity, and how the ever-
present sports industry tells men what it means to be a man.”

However, entertain the idea, for a moment, that it is the opposite. Instead of sports telling men
that they should be strong, fast and physically superior in every way, what if many men naturally
feel like that and use sports as an outlet for that feeling?

On top of this, sports are a way for young children to look up to their role models; role models
who do, more often than not, stand as amazing paragons and examples of what can be
achieved.

Here’s a shocking plot twist: sports are hard. It takes dedication, discipline and determination to
succeed in them. Not only does it take immense amounts of physical pain for years if not
decades, but also an unbelievable amount of mental dedication to fight through that pain.

We, as humans, have a certain level of physical prowess that we should hold ourselves to.
Things like being able to do a pullup or run a mile are the bare minimum that we should be
expected to do. Not being able to do that is weakness. And one would be correct in saying
masculinity decries weakness.

Keep that point in mind for a second while you consider this: masculinity, in the author’s words,
is to be unemotional, strong, muscular and aggressive. A lot of social media users have decried
this as being a negative thing, which it can absolutely be sometimes.

But I would counter with this: masculinity, this definition coming from a male, means to speak
softly, yet carry a big stick. When a man walks into a room, he should command respect without
saying a word. This doesn’t mean always being the biggest guy in the room, and it certainly
doesn’t mean being a jerk. However, that man does absolutely need to be a rock. A rock is
tough, not easily broken mentally and serves as a place for others to rest when they get weary.
To reach this level of confidence, one must have a tough mind. A tough mind is a surefire way
to succeed in living a tough life. Those who can live a tough life will stop at nothing to be
successful and will never complain when the chips are down. This is what it means to be
masculine, and sports are an excellent way to achieve and exemplify that tough mind.

For me personally, this is extremely personal and extremely poignant. In high school, I was 6
feet tall and 130 pounds. Which, if you can’t figure out the math, is severely underweight. I was
bean-pole skinny.

I had the option to sit back and cry about it, saying things like “men are held to unrealistic
expectations. Wah wah wah.” However, the only people who say that certain expectations are
unrealistic are those who are too scared or lazy to work for them.

After gaining 30 pounds in the weight room, I now train to fight in a cage. This is what gets us to
the crux of the issue. Sports aren’t about external achievement. Rather, they are about internal
success. Masculinity drives people to be a better, stronger, more confident version of
themselves, and sports are a physical exemplification of that drive.

One last thing, at the beginning of this column, I made fun of men that drink tea and wear skinny
jeans. The reality is, only boys who drink tea and wear skinny jeans will be offended by that.
Masculine men won’t get offended by petty things because they know they can do whatever
makes them happy. That’s what inner confidence means. If they want to drink tea and wear
skinny jeans they are no less a man than the athletes in the gym.

People don’t worship athletes because they can throw a ball or punch people in the face. They
worship them because they are the paragon of drive and determination. The same sentiment is
true for overtly masculine men. Masculinity is not toxic; rather, it is the people who feel
intimidated by it who feel they need to speak out against it.