Lit review
In “An Exploration of Gender-Role Expectations and Conflict Among Women Rugby Players,” Melissa Fallon and LeRae Jome use pre-existing ideas of gender-role conflict theory in an effort to examine the struggles of athletes within this field. While their dominant use of this gender theory focuses predominantly on the female/male binary, they do not completely encapsulate the topic’s spectrum of gender and sexual identifications. Their research in the expectations of the conflicting feminine and masculine roles, however, was of particular interest in this limited-scope project. Examined in this research was the resulting affects of this theory, assuming the participants prescribed to this binary, and its effects socially and psychologically on female rugby athletes, though the age range was limited (25-40).
Research revealed the dominant (and most relevant regardless of age) similarities in conflict came in the form of discrepant messages from outsiders (family, friends, etc.) centered on certain core constructs such as appearance, fragility vs, durability, sexual orientation, body type, physicality, and passivity vs. aggression, aspects most often questioned within this realm. This research not only focused on the outside influence on athletes, but how these messages were then internalized and integrated into the foundations of self-identity and self-perception in these women. Most interesting was also the methods of managing these conflicts, which included either acceptance of their inability to conform to social typecasts, direct disagreement, and most pertinent (and highlighted) in this project, an adaptive gender-role schema. Difficulties with these resolutions, however, include the fact that none outrightly challenge the “definition” of femininity, and instead adapt to either perform certain roles in certain settings or resolve that they will never meet expectations. Femininity is still seen as an unchangeable factor. Challenges in this study include the fact that all of these women were actively working against these social pressures, and this research doesn’t cover the passive victims of these social norms. Most importantly within the study was the support that one should avoid the assumptions that a psychopathology will always develop in face of the resolution of this gender-role conflict.
Jessica Miller and Gary Levy in “Gender Role Conflict, Gender-Typed Characteristics, Self-Concepts, and Sport Socialization in Female Athletes and Nonathletes” was previously thought to be a quintessential piece to this exploration of feminine expectation, as it draws distinct comparisons between a “control” of femininity in a non-sports related realm, and how this is affected when the “experimental” group of women defy femininity boundaries, by these researcher’s standards, through their decision to participate in athletics. Their results were inconclusive in my opinion, as their correlations and causations associated with females athletes and perceptions of masculinity and self-image relied heavily on the parents’ participation in sports activity (providing at some level an athletic role model). While this study obviously focuses on the foundational social effects of the family on development of either positive or negative associations with sports participation, it outrightly ignores other possible influences. It admits the flaws of its research, in particular the grouping of all female athletes into one indistinct group. Potential issues with this also arise in the social norm of preconceived, ‘sexinappropriate’ sports, like the difference between gymnastics/cheerleading and women’s rugby, as highlighted in this project. The distinction is quintessential to understanding the social circumstances of women in this sport.
An expansion of this issue, but on a more narrow scope, can be seen with Evelyn Hall, Beverly Durborow, and Janice Progen’s work with “Self-Esteem of Female Athletes and Nonathletes Relative to Sex Role Type and Sport Type.” Their investigation, vs that of Miller and Levy, examined closer the distinction between female athletes in sports traditionally identified as ‘feminine’ or ‘masculine.’ Primary takes from this research included the exploration of self-esteem in female athletes in ‘higher femininity’ status sports would be greater than their counterparts. They accounted for a lower differentiability between expectations of femininity regardless of their gendering.
Laura Frances Chase in “(Un)Disciplined Bodies: A Foucaldian Analysis of Women’s Rugby” examines the physicality of women’s rugby, detailing how the tackling, hitting, and ‘intense physical exertion’ involved in rugby allow women to use their bodies in a non-traditional way, against the mainstream ideals of the female body in a way that is taboo in other social circumstances. She explores the pride women in this sport display in their injured, bleeding bodies, a stark contrast to typical images of female bodies. There exists a more positive relationship between women and their bodies, because weight gain in this sport is associated with more ease in tackling or breaking through defense lines, and there is no pressure to look a certain way. The athletes reconstruct typical notions of what is a beautiful, feminine body. Arising also in this study is the discrepant messages from Fallon’s work, in which one participant states, “The issue [of this athlete’s father’s lack of support of her participation] has a lot more to do with the fact that I am playing rugby and associating with lesbians on a physical basic, and the physical contact and that it is a male sport and that I’m getting away with it” (14).
Research revealed the dominant (and most relevant regardless of age) similarities in conflict came in the form of discrepant messages from outsiders (family, friends, etc.) centered on certain core constructs such as appearance, fragility vs, durability, sexual orientation, body type, physicality, and passivity vs. aggression, aspects most often questioned within this realm. This research not only focused on the outside influence on athletes, but how these messages were then internalized and integrated into the foundations of self-identity and self-perception in these women. Most interesting was also the methods of managing these conflicts, which included either acceptance of their inability to conform to social typecasts, direct disagreement, and most pertinent (and highlighted) in this project, an adaptive gender-role schema. Difficulties with these resolutions, however, include the fact that none outrightly challenge the “definition” of femininity, and instead adapt to either perform certain roles in certain settings or resolve that they will never meet expectations. Femininity is still seen as an unchangeable factor. Challenges in this study include the fact that all of these women were actively working against these social pressures, and this research doesn’t cover the passive victims of these social norms. Most importantly within the study was the support that one should avoid the assumptions that a psychopathology will always develop in face of the resolution of this gender-role conflict.
Jessica Miller and Gary Levy in “Gender Role Conflict, Gender-Typed Characteristics, Self-Concepts, and Sport Socialization in Female Athletes and Nonathletes” was previously thought to be a quintessential piece to this exploration of feminine expectation, as it draws distinct comparisons between a “control” of femininity in a non-sports related realm, and how this is affected when the “experimental” group of women defy femininity boundaries, by these researcher’s standards, through their decision to participate in athletics. Their results were inconclusive in my opinion, as their correlations and causations associated with females athletes and perceptions of masculinity and self-image relied heavily on the parents’ participation in sports activity (providing at some level an athletic role model). While this study obviously focuses on the foundational social effects of the family on development of either positive or negative associations with sports participation, it outrightly ignores other possible influences. It admits the flaws of its research, in particular the grouping of all female athletes into one indistinct group. Potential issues with this also arise in the social norm of preconceived, ‘sexinappropriate’ sports, like the difference between gymnastics/cheerleading and women’s rugby, as highlighted in this project. The distinction is quintessential to understanding the social circumstances of women in this sport.
An expansion of this issue, but on a more narrow scope, can be seen with Evelyn Hall, Beverly Durborow, and Janice Progen’s work with “Self-Esteem of Female Athletes and Nonathletes Relative to Sex Role Type and Sport Type.” Their investigation, vs that of Miller and Levy, examined closer the distinction between female athletes in sports traditionally identified as ‘feminine’ or ‘masculine.’ Primary takes from this research included the exploration of self-esteem in female athletes in ‘higher femininity’ status sports would be greater than their counterparts. They accounted for a lower differentiability between expectations of femininity regardless of their gendering.
Laura Frances Chase in “(Un)Disciplined Bodies: A Foucaldian Analysis of Women’s Rugby” examines the physicality of women’s rugby, detailing how the tackling, hitting, and ‘intense physical exertion’ involved in rugby allow women to use their bodies in a non-traditional way, against the mainstream ideals of the female body in a way that is taboo in other social circumstances. She explores the pride women in this sport display in their injured, bleeding bodies, a stark contrast to typical images of female bodies. There exists a more positive relationship between women and their bodies, because weight gain in this sport is associated with more ease in tackling or breaking through defense lines, and there is no pressure to look a certain way. The athletes reconstruct typical notions of what is a beautiful, feminine body. Arising also in this study is the discrepant messages from Fallon’s work, in which one participant states, “The issue [of this athlete’s father’s lack of support of her participation] has a lot more to do with the fact that I am playing rugby and associating with lesbians on a physical basic, and the physical contact and that it is a male sport and that I’m getting away with it” (14).