Gendered Limitations in College Athletics: How Does Homophobia Affect the Perception and...

GENDERED LIMITATIONS IN COLLEGE ATHLETICS 1

Gendered Limitations in College Athletics:

How Does Homophobia Affect the Perception and Opportunities for

Women in Collegiate Athletics?

Nicole K Adams

Castleton State College


Abstract

Although society continues to make progress for those who

challenge the norms of one’s gender and sexuality, the perception

and opportunities for women in sport continue to provide a

revealing lens into deep-rooted issues within our culture. For

decades, scholars and researchers have been investigating the

limitations for females in the athletic realm and have largely

attributed this lack of opportunity for women to the greater

issue of pervasive homophobia in sport. This study sought to

expand the discourse on opportunities for women in college

athletics and determine if homophobia effects the perception of

females in sport at a small liberal arts college in New England.

This action research project used qualitative methods to gather

and analyze data. Ten personal interviews with 5 male

participants and 5 female participants were conducted to gather

data. These participants were all representative of the athletic


staff at Castleton State College. The primary researcher

conducted, transcribed, and coded these interviews and searched

for emerging patterns and themes to triangulate with other

relevant data sources. About 90 codes were created and used to

determine a focus on one primary theme: language. The

researcher’s analysis of the study determined that while there is

a conscious awareness and perceived acceptance of gender and

sexuality differences in college sport, there is still evidence

of micro-aggressive tendencies and underlying homophobia that

affect the experience and opportunities for women in college

sport. The data also suggests a lack of awareness of various

differences and indicates the potential to successfully conduct

inclusiveness and sensitivity training.

Keywords: women in sport, female athletics, college athletics, careers for women, lesbianism, homophobia in sports, sport culture, heterosexism, gender differences, gendered limitations, gender and sexuality in sport, masculinity v. femininity

Table of Contents


Definitions and Key Terms

4

Background 5

Introduction 7

Literature Review 11

History 12

Title IX 19

Otherness 22

Media 23

Negative Recruiting and Micro-aggressions in Women’s Sport

25

Research Methodology 31

Data Analysis 36

Conclusions, Limitations, and Recommendations

45

References 49


Definitions and Key Terms

• Heteronormativity – a set of social norms supporting heterosexuality as the dominant sexuality as well as the alignment of biological sex, sexuality, gender identity, andgender roles (Griffin, 1998; Krane et. Al, 2007; Cahn, 1994;Lovaas & Jenkins, 2007).

• Heterosexism – a system of attitudes, bias, and discrimination in favor of opposite-sex sexuality and relationships. It can include the presumption that everyone is heterosexual or that opposite-sex attractions and relationships are the only norm and therefore superior (Griffin, 1998; Krane et. Al, 2007; Cahn, 1994).

• Homophobia – describes the fear of homosexuals and includes a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards homosexuality and people perceived as homosexual. It also refers to the social disapproval of homosexuality often expressed through prejudice and discrimination (Griffin, 1994, 1998 Krane et. Al, 2007; Cahn, 1994; Sue, 2010).

• LGBT or LGBTQ – phrase that refers to community of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer individuals (Sue, 2010).

• Micro-aggressions – brief, everyday exchanges that slight, insult, and send denigrating messages to certain individualsbecause of their group membership (Sue, 2010).

• Sexism – the belief that people of one sex or gender are inherently superior to people of the other sex or gender


(Griffin, 1994, 1998; Krane et. Al, 2007; Cahn, 1994; Sue, 2010).

• Sexual Orientation – refers to enduring emotional, romantic and sexual attraction to the opposite sex, the same sex, both, or neither (ibid).

“Homophobia is in the bone marrow of women’s athletics.

You simply cannot get around it.”

– Mary Jo Kane, Director of the Tucker Center for Research on

Girls and Women in Sport (Sociology of Sports in the United States,

2005)

Background


Lesbianism in sport was, and still is, ‘supposed’ to be kept

a secret. I have known about the ubiquitous stereotype that girls

who play sports are lesbians since I was eight years old (before

I even really understood what a lesbian is). The reason I became

aware of this stereotype at such a young age? That’s what people

used to call me because I played sports with the boys. “Girls

don’t play hockey” was a phrase I heard on the ice at least once

a week. My playground fights in elementary school began when I

was told I couldn’t play because I was a girl. I played anyway.

By the time I was ten, I cut my hair so no one could see my

ponytail anymore and learned that being called a lesbian was

anything but a compliment.

As my passion for athletics continued to develop and I

reached an age where there were actually female teams, I found

that the lesbian stigma for female athletes was everywhere;

especially in women’s ice hockey. In high school, I can remember

thinking that I could grow up to be anything just as long as I

didn’t turn out to be gay. As it turns out, that is exactly what

I am.


High school was a very difficult time as it is for any

awkward adolescent, however, I spent years of my life in denial

of my sexuality and actually hated myself because of this idea

that I should not fill society’s stereotype that all female

athletes are lesbians. I tried to prove my heterosexuality (to

myself and others) by dating boys and dressing more “feminine”.

Apparently, a few girls on my soccer team thought they knew me

better than myself and decided to call me out for having a crush

on my best friend at the time. As mentioned previously, I was in

complete denial and could not believe this about myself. I was

mortified as I had always been led to believe that being a

lesbian was the worst thing that could happen. Looking back, I

think a part of me knew they were right. My devastation and self-

hatred led me to a suicide attempt when I was fifteen years old.

After I was diagnosed with depression, my athletic career began

to suffer and I continued to remain in denial about my sexuality

for many years.

I have since had a very successful athletic career as a two-

sport athlete at the college level and came out to my family


weeks before my college graduation the spring of my senior year.

While I knew my sexuality would not have mattered to my friends

and family, the stereotypes and negative stigma associated with

being a female athlete I learned when I was growing up effected

my own perception of myself. Although I may now fulfill this

common stereotype in some ways, the majority of female athletes

do not. As I continue to develop as a coach in athletics, I

wonder if this stereotype is still as prevalent as it was when I

was growing up and how female athletes are affected by and

perceived amongst their peers. My own background and passion for

athletics and coaching have guided me towards a desire to

discover more about this issue and learn better ways to educate

and approach the harmful perceptions of women in sport.


There’s just stereotypes for female coaches. That’s what I

get like, everybody’s a lesbian. And not that I’m paranoid

about being called a lesbian, ‘cause I’m straight but, I

think the stereotype of that is astounding

- (Participant 2, personal communication, April 10, 2015).

Introduction

As a senior in my undergraduate years, I was given the

opportunity to attend the 2009 National Collegiate Athletic

Association (NCAA) Women’s Leadership Symposium in Boston,

Massachusetts. These symposiums provide female athletes, coaches

and administrators with an opportunity to share their knowledge

and experiences with others to help develop professional skills

such as leadership, communication, networking and management. As

a Division III athlete myself, I had always known about the

lesbian stereotype associated with athletics but never gave a

second thought to how much this stigma affects the women’s sports

community or that it reflected major societal issues. My own

knowledge was limited to the belief that if there was a lesbian


on an athletic team that firstly, she was fulfilling society’s

stereotype and secondly, no one was supposed to discuss it.

On the final day of the Women’s Leadership Symposium, I

attended a workshop entitled “Building and Maintaining a Diverse

Community of Women” (Ford & Westerhaus, 2009). It was during this

workshop that I learned of the detrimental effects that come with

the lesbian stereotype not only for lesbians in sport, but for

all women in sport. I began to question gender issues as a whole

and learned that the silence surrounding lesbians in sport

supports the greater population’s comfort level with the idea of

women playing and being involved in athletics. We discussed

homophobia, heterosexism, and negative recruiting and shared

personal experiences about how these issues are dealt with among

our various collegiate institutions. Before I continue to discuss

homophobia and heterosexism, one must first learn the definition

of these terms.

Pat Griffin (1998) defines homophobia as, “an irrational

fear or intolerance of lesbians or gay men” whereas heterosexism

refers to “discrimination or prejudice against lesbians, gay men,


or bisexuals by heterosexual people” (p.6). My assumption is that

if my own awareness surrounding this issue was lacking

(especially as a dual-sport, four-year NCAA athlete at a liberal

arts college), then the majority of collegiate female athletes

had not been apprised of these issues either.

After graduating with a bachelor’s degree in Sociology from

Castleton State College, I attended the University of Durham in

England so I could continue to participate in competitive

athletics while pursuing a master’s degree. It was during this

experience that my thoughts regarding this issue developed

further. As my professors analyzed the concept of “Otherness”

(Butler, 1990; de Beauvoir, 1949; Levinas, 1979, 1981; Said,

1978; Sartre, 1996) in society and taught us more about cultures

and differences, I continued to return to the concept of

homophobia and the perception of women as the “Other” in the

athletic realm.

Since returning to the states, I have coached Division III

women’s lacrosse for three years and am currently working as an

assistant director of admissions at Castleton State College. My


experience and interests surrounding athletics, gender studies,

and Otherness have led me to ask the questions: How does

homophobia affect the perception and opportunities for women in

collegiate athletics? What are the perceptions of women in

collegiate sport in relation to gender and sexuality? What are

some of the perceptions and experiences of current female coaches

and how do these perceptions shape women’s futures and career

opportunities within the athletic realm?

The reader will learn that homophobia is pervasive in

collegiate athletics provides a reflection of the issues in

society. By referencing several experts in the gender studies

field, including Judith Butler (1990), it will become clear that

the socially constructed idea of ‘gender’ is the most significant

problem underlying nearly all issues in women’s athletics with

homophobia at the forefront. Homophobia is an overall threat to

all women in sport despite whether or not participants are gay,

straight, or bisexual (Griffin, 1994, 1998). It has caused

discrimination and fear in the institution of sport to provide


resistance against women in what society deems a masculine field

(Cahn & O’Reilly, 2007).

Participating in athletics contributes to physical, mental,

social and emotional wellbeing. Unfortunately, some women

question whether to play sports for fear of being placed in a

category of what society deems “abnormal” or “Other” (Butler,

1990; de Beauvoir, 1949). While heterosexual women in sport are

pressured to prove their heterosexuality through a “sexy”

appearance or flaunting of a male counterpart, lesbians in sport

face discrimination and fear for who they are in a community that

is intended to resemble a support system and family (Playing Unfair,

2002). Whether or not a female is gay or straight, women in sport

are continuously on defense, defending their sexuality and

femininity (Griffin, 1994, 1998; Krane et. Al, 2007; Playing Unfair,

2002).

To measure the importance on an individual level, Pat

Griffin (1994) reports that lesbian and gay adolescents comprise

up to a third of all teen suicides and are two to three times

more likely to attempt suicide compared to their heterosexual


peers. Universities and colleges are communities where many young

people continue to develop their moral values, grow into

contributing members of society and most importantly, discover

their identity. By viewing sport as a reflection of society, one

can learn what morals and values a society deems important

(Sociology of Sports in the United States, 2005).

One reason why homophobia in women’s sports has become a

large issue is due to the fact that many people are not aware of

the magnitude of its effects. After reviewing extensive

literature on the issue, it is obvious that homophobia in women’s

sport is a problem because it negatively impacts individual,

institutional, and societal wellness. This is why it is important

to gain current insight into how homophobia affects the

perception and success of females in collegiate athletics. Even

though society is changing and may appear to becoming more

progressive and accepting, homophobia is still very much apparent

throughout the world of college athletics. When we talk about

gender studies in athletics, we talk about masculinity v.

femininity. What we don’t talk about and what often goes


unnoticed is the pervasive homophobia in athletics. By failing to

acknowledge the issue, we continue to create an environment in

athletics that presents a feeding ground where “lesbian”, “gay”,

and “feminine” have a negative connotation.

By conducting relevant action research through personal

interviews, I will strive to obtain, analyze, and share the

opinions and perspectives of both male and female coaches at a

liberal arts college at the NCAA Division III level. I am curious

to learn more about the lived experiences from older coaches that

have experienced employment in other athletic departments in

various regions of the country as well as both the limitations

and ambitions felt by the younger coaches. Through conducting

personal interviews, I look forward to capturing unscripted

language and responses that may contribute to the current

research on the effects of homophobia in college athletics.

Literature Review

Female athletes still reside outside the parameters of

normative femininity, particularly those who play


competitive, ‘male’ sports or who appear to resist

compulsory heterosexuality. Mainstream society continues to

be troubled by the athletic, muscular, make-up free, jewelry

free, sweaty female body (Adams et al., 2005).

Although this is a relatively new topic of interest, there

has been a growth of academic research pioneered by Susan K.

Cahn, Associate Professor at SUNY Buffalo and author of Coming on

Strong: Gender and Sexuality in Twentieth-Century Women’s Sports and University

of Massachusetts professor and director of the Women’s Sports

Foundation’s, It Takes a Team, Pat Griffin. By comparatively

analyzing previous research and perspectives from current female

athletes and coaches, one can learn more about the affect these

stereotypes have on women in athletics.

In 1998, Griffin’s book, Strong Women, Deep Closets: Lesbians and

Homophobia in Sport, blew the lid off a deep seeded, long term issue

hiding beneath the radiant image of an athlete’s glamorized life.

In their research, feminist sport scholars (e.g. Cahn, 1994;

Griffin, 1994, 1998; Krane, 2007; Veri, 1999) call attention to

the homophobia and heterosexism in collegiate and professional


sport that has been a taboo subject since women’s growth in sport

began in the 1930s (Cahn, 1993; Cahn and O’Reilly, 2007).

Prior to continuing the discussion on homophobia and

heterosexism, it is imperative that one knows what homophobia and

heterosexism actually mean. In his article, Wickberg (2000) cites

a 1978 Journal of Social Issues article defining homophobia as:

any belief system which supports negative myths and

stereotypes about homosexual people. More specifically, it

can be used to describe: (a) belief systems which hold that

discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is

justifiable; (b) the use of language or slang, e.g.,

“queer,” which is offensive to gay people; and/or (c) any

belief system which does not value homosexual life styles

equally with heterosexual lifestyles. (p.46)

Author Pat Griffin’s (1998) explanation of homophobia is similar

to the 1978 definition above but she adds to the list those “who

are perceived to be lesbian, gay bisexual or transgender”. By

doing so, she opens the definition up to people who may not be

homosexual, but are feared by people because they resemble the


“Other”. In addition, many academics (Adams et al., 2005; Cahn,

1994; Epstein et al., 2001; Ezzell, 2009; Griffin, 1998; Messner,

2002) use the all-encompassing terms heteronormativity or

heterosexism to describe any belief system, which does not value

homosexual lifestyles equally with heterosexual lifestyles

describing the favorability for people or things that represent

heterosexuality (part (c) of homophobia definition listed above).

In other words, heteronormativity or heterosexism describes

discrimination and injustice based on beliefs that

heterosexuality is normal and ideal. Homophobia and heterosexism

are both universally assumed to be one’s ideal way of life.

History

Stereotyping female athletes as outcasts has been occurring

for almost a century. Women who participated in athletics in the

early twentieth-century were labeled as ‘amazons’, ‘freaks’, and

‘muscle molls’ (Griffin, 1998). This generated public fear

occurred because these female athletes were not acting ‘lady-

like’ or how ‘women should act’. These women were told they would


not be able to attract a suitable husband and would therefore

become a ‘failed heterosexual’ (Cahn, 1993, 1994; Cahn &

O’Rielly, 2007; Griffin, 1998). If a woman could not or did not

marry a man, it was perceived as a threat to society’s stability.

This threat yielded another concern as well; not only would men

find them unattractive, these ‘amazons’ might not even be

attracted to men - they could be attracted to women (Cahn, 1994).

Due to widely accepted social stigmas, many people opposed

the concept of women playing sports. In addition to challenging

gender norms, opponents to women in sport claimed that rigorous

physical activity was damaging to reproductive organs and could

compromise chances of motherhood (Cahn, 1993, 1994; Cahn &

O’Rielly, 2007; Griffin, 1998; Cashmore, 2010). They also warned,

“aggressively physical competition unleashed physical, sexual,

and emotional passions that put girls at risk of bodily injury,

sexual impropriety, and nervous collapse” (Cahn & O’Reilly, 2007:

xv). Medical doctors have been reported as early as 1900

claiming, “the female possessed of masculine ideas of

independence . . . that disgusting anti-social being, the female


sexual pervert, are simply different degrees of the same class –

degenerates” (Chauncy, 1999:200 quoting Dr. William Lee Howard).

According to the greater public discourse, women were not

supposed to play sport. Sport has historically been defined with

men and masculinity, when female athletes become trespassers on

male turf; they become targets for people who feel threatened by

those stepping outside traditional gender and sexual boundaries

of expression (Butler, 1990; Griffin, 1994, 1998; Messner, 2002).

Before Billie Jean King and Martina Navratilova became

iconic athletes, Mildred “Babe” Didrikson is perhaps one of the

most notable figures of the century to receive the brunt of these

heterosexist and homophobic comments (Cahn, 1993, 1994; Cahn &

O’Reilly, 2007; Griffin, 1998). “Babe” debuted her athletic

prowess at the 1932 Olympics winning two gold medals and a silver

in track and field. Despite her exceptional talents on the field,

however, “Babe” was criticized for being ‘too manly’ and she soon

received recognition for being a ‘muscle moll’ instead of an

Olympic champion (ibid). Sports fans and reporters called her a

‘freak’ and raised questions about her gender and sexual


identity. The public placed her in the category of Otherness, as

she did not fit into the boundaries of a “normal female” (Cahn &

O’Reilly, 2007; Griffin, 1998).

After a few years out of the limelight, “Babe” returned to

the sports world with long hair, make-up, wearing a dress, and

showing off her new husband, Greg Zaharias (Cahn & O’Reilly,

2007; Griffin, 1998). She no longer competed in track and field

upon her return and instead turned to golf, as it was perceived

as a ‘more acceptable’ sport for a female athlete. With her

return came news articles proclaiming how she was “A Lady Now”

and “Has Learned to Wear Nylons and Cook for Her Huge Husband”

(Cahn, 1993). The focus of these articles was clearly not about

her athleticism but about her femininity and heterosexuality. In

1945, 46, and 47, the Associated Press awarded her the title of

Woman Athlete of the Year (Cahn & O’Reilly, 2007), only after

publicly demonstrating socially acceptable feminine qualities.

She returned to the stage of what Judith Butler (1990) calls

“gender performance” as she acted with the awareness that she was

going to be judged according to normative standards appropriate


for masculine and feminine behavior (Deutsch, 2007). “Babe”

Didrikson is just one of many female athletes who suffered public

humiliation and abuse as a consequence of living in a hegemonic

masculine culture with an ingrained socially created system of

difference.

Mildred “Babe” Didrikson in the 1930s as track and field

star.


Mildred “Babe” Didrikson in 1940s as a golfer.

With her athletic ability, Didrikson successfully

demonstrated the instability of gender and the male/female

binary. Simon de Beauvoir (1949) states, “He is the Subject; he

is the Absolute. She is the “Other” (p.6). This patriarchal value

resonates in almost every society. Men come first, women are

second. Men are tough, women are weak. Men are aggressive, women

are passive. With the introduction of women in sports, the social

perception of gender norms is shattered. Sports used to be the


place where boys and young men would prove their masculinity but,

now that women are there doing the same thing and developing the

same characteristics (physical and mental toughness,

assertiveness, determination etc.), the whole masculine and

feminine concepts are called into question (Griffin, 1994, 1998;

Krane et al., 2007). What is ‘natural’ must be questioned when

women participate in sports at elite levels alongside men. “Not

too long ago, it was very easy to equate athleticism, strength,

physical power with men and by contrast to think about women as

weak, as supportive for men purely as sexual objects,” says

Messner, “Now that landscape has changed with the tremendous

growth in women’s sports . . . that really challenges that gender

dichotomy that we used to take so much for granted” (Playing Unfair,

2002).

The widespread panic surrounding women in sport grew

following the end of the Second World War. It was during that

time that many women in both the United States and throughout

Europe went into the labor force while their husbands went to war

(Cahn, 1994; Cashmore, 2010; Griffin, 1998; Rayside, 1992). Women


left their domestic duties at home and found themselves more than

capable in the working environment. While the American Baseball

League had to put a hold on while the men went to war, Philip K.

Wrigley and Arthur Meyerhoff founded the All-American Girls

Baseball League (AAGBL) for athletic entertainment (Cahn, 1994;

Griffin, 1998). The female athletes recruited to play ball were

required to be athletically competent and talented as well as

pretty and wholesome. Cahn (1994) explains Meyerhoff advocated a

unique “‘femininity principle’ to deliberately contrast the

players’ amazing ‘masculine’ baseball skills with their ‘feminine

attractiveness’” (p.140). The AAGBL players were required to

adhere to strict rules regarding one’s appearance. This included

mandatory pastel skirt uniforms, long hair and wearing make-up

(Cahn, 1994; Griffin 1998). The league also mandated off-field

rules requiring players to follow strict rules governing dress

and behavior while they were in public. This section of the 1951

AAGBL Constitution (quoted in Cahn, 1994:151) reads as follows:

Always appear in feminine attire. This precludes the use of any

wearing of masculine nature. MASCULINE HAIR STYLING? SHOES?


COATS? SHIRTS? SOCKS? T-SHIRTS ARE BARRED AT ALL TIMES

Coaches and team owners were given the right to, and did, dismiss

players if they perceived a woman to be promoting too much of a

‘masculine image’. Players were required to attend charm school

to learn how to promote not only their feminine side, but also

their heterosexuality. The league placed a great emphasis on

dispelling any rumors of ‘mannishness’ or what was worse,

‘lesbians’ (Cahn, 1994; Griffin, 1998). What started as quiet

mumbles of lesbianism in the sports realm quickly turned into a

powerful stereotype of the “mannish lesbian athlete” (ibid).

By questioning a woman’s feminism and her sexuality through

the use of stereotypes and derogatory insults, women quickly

learned they had crossed normative gender boundaries. Cahn

(1994), analyzed the overall effect of the league in saying, “by

promoting women’s baseball as a spectacle of feminine ‘nice

girls’ who could ‘play like a man,’ the AAGBL did as much to

heighten the cultural dissonance between ‘masculine’ athleticism

and ‘feminine’ womanhood as it did to resolve it” (p.141).


The Rockford Peaches, members of the AAGBL.

As one can see, the rules the AAGBL players had to follow off

the field were seemingly more important than the skills performed

on the field. Because critics of females in sport viewed

‘mannishness’ as a symbol of sexual deviance, they promoted the

argument that if females participated in ‘male’ activities like

sports, then they would also develop masculine characteristics of

sexual interest (i.e. become lesbian). To combat this claim,

AAGBL officials made a statement informing the public there would

be “no freaks or amazons” (Cahn, 1993, 1994; Griffin, 1998).

Moreover, heterosexism and homophobia made their mark on


women’s sports right from the beginning. This deviant stereotype

of the ‘mannish lesbian athlete’ became the representation of

what lay beyond ‘normal’ boundary lines for women and has, to

this day, marked the unfeminine ‘Other’ (Adams et al., 2005;

Cahn, 1994; Veri, 1999).

Title IX

In 1972, the United States passed Title IX, a law that

states:

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be

excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or

be subjected to discrimination under any education program or

activity receiving federal financial assistance (Acosta &

Carpenter, 2012).

Although this revolutionary action empowered women and provided

them access to sports, female athletes quickly learned that they

were expected to balance the masculinity involved with their

workouts and maintain their feminine physique (Adams et al.,

2005; Cahn, 1994; Deutsch 2007; Griffin 1998; Krane, 2007). After


the passing of Title IX, female participation in sport exploded

and increased 800 percent (Acosta & Carpenter, 2012; Adams et

al., 2005; Washington & Karen, 2001). This change allowed an

opening in society where women could not only challenge the

masculine trademark of sports, but the patriarchal throws of

society.

Ridgeway and Correll (2004) explain how “the ubiquitous

perception of superior male competence creates biases that

continually reproduce female disadvantage. Even when women make

inroads into a particular field, that field becomes feminized and

subsequently devalued” (118). In other words, even when women

make significant headway to show their equality in a certain

field, such as sports for example, society turns around to make

that contribution invalid and demeaning. This can be seen most

clearly in reference to collegiate women’s athletics. After the

passing of Title IX, 90 percent of women’s coaches were women

(Acosta & Carpenter, 2012; Training Rules, 2009). Those jobs quickly

became associated with big money and big power. As of 2012, women

make up less than half of women’s college coaches at 42.9 %


(Acosta & Carpenter, 2012). Despite the groundbreaking

empowerment for women provided by the passing of Title IX, there

has been a tremendous “backlash about their [women’s] success and

their presence” (Playing Unfair, 2002).

Judith Butler points out that the image the public delivers

to women athletes is, “you only have permission to be this strong

if you can also look this beautiful” (Washington & Karen, 2001;

200 citing Wheaton and Tomlinson, 1998). This balance is still a

struggle today as many female athletes worry and fear being

called “mannish” or “butch” or what some may say is the ultimate

threat to masculinity, a lesbian (Cahn, 1994; Griffin, 1994,

2002). “Female athletes may worry about how sports workouts can

make them look unfeminine, but Title IX indisputably gave them

revolutionary access to sports” (Deutsch, 2007:113).

This backlash stems from the threat of the “mannish female

athlete” (Cahn, 1994; Griffin, 1994, 2002) explained in previous

sections. Some men become threatened when women begin to develop

similar characteristics through sport. Female athletes establish

high self-esteem, physical strength and fitness, assertiveness,


tough-mindedness, determination, leadership and integrity, to

name a few (Cahn, 1993, 1994; Griffin, 1994, 1998). Developing

these skills contradicts the traditional stereotypes of females

as passive, fragile or weak (Adams et al., 2005). The domain,

which had previously been dominated by men, is now a ground where

women can also excel and it becomes a threat (Griffin, 1998;

Messner, 2002).

An example of this threat to masculinity presented itself

during the course of this study during a personal interview.

Participant 4 recounted a witnessed circumstance at a women’s

collegiate soccer game:

So the women’s team was playing and I remember [the coach]

getting really upset and from the stands they were yelling

things at some of her players, her goal keeper in particular.

They were yelling, “dyke”, you know, and I looked at her more

kind of like punk rockfish, colored hair and she had a couple

of earrings, a nose ring, you know, all that kind of stuff.

And I looked at her at kind of expressing herself that way

and they immediately identified her and these kids are at a


high level academic institution against Western and they’re

yelling things like you know, “You’re a man,” “Hey man,”

“You’re mannish,” “You dyke!” And all this kind of stuff. I

remember how upset she was and trying to talk to the official

and the official was not responding, the athletic

administrator is not responding, yeah they just harassed her

(personal communication, April 5, 2015).

When women cross that heteronormativity boundary, the

implementation of discrimination comes into play. Ironically, the

same tactics used today were used to discourage female

participation in the 1930s. Female performance is still assumed

to be inferior and if a talented female athlete succeeds, her

femininity and sexuality are questioned and she receives a

lesbian label (Griffin, 1994, 1998). Women in sports still

challenge so-called gender ‘norms’. By doing so, those

uncomfortable with nonconforming gender roles have created a box

to contain women in sports. The walls of this box include

homophobia, heterosexism, fear and the lesbian stereotype.

Everyday, many coaches, athletic directors, athletes, and


parents use the fears of homosexuality (homophobia) and

unfair stereotyping of female athletes to keep young women

from participating in sports or choosing to play for certain

coaches and schools. Many people think that all women who

play on varsity teams are lesbians. Parents might discourage

their daughters from playing softball or basketball because

they are ‘lesbian sports’ (Griffin, 1998: vii).

This lesbian stigma has become the key to maintaining male

hegemony in sports (Griffin, 1994, 1998; Washington & Karen,

2001). Unfortunately, because of homophobia and heterosexism in

sport, women everywhere are unable to reach their full potential

on the field, in the classroom and in the workplace not only

because people send the message that they are not good enough but

also because society continues to communicate this message to

young girls and women so much that they begin to believe they are

not good enough.

My cousin asked my mom if I was gay because I wear a

backwards hat and I’m a [college] coach! Does that make me

gay?! So yeah, you’ll never see me without a pair of earrings


on… I think that makes me a little bit more feminine… I’ll

always have make-up on, on game days. That makes me; I think

that make me feel like secure (Participant 2, personal

Communication, April 10, 2015).

Otherness

Simone de Beauvoir’s (1949) famous statement, “One is not

born, but rather becomes woman”, assumes the position that gender

is an unstable category. If gender is an unstable category, one

could then conclude that the divide between gay and straight is

also unstable because those labels exist to aid the discussion of

gender performance. “Gender performance” (Butler, 1990) refers to

the idea that one acts or performs the part of a certain gender.

For example, if one were to theoretically act like a girl, one

might assume that he or she would wear a dress and make-up. On

the other hand, if one were to act like a boy, one could assume

he or she might have short hair and throw a football. As Pat

Griffin proclaims:

Masculinity and femininity are not natural things. Boys


don’t pop out of the womb with a football in their hands and

girls don’t come out with a doll. We have to be taught very

carefully how we are supposed to act to conform to those

artificial expectations of masculinity and femininity

(Playing Unfair, 2002).

The trouble surrounding gender, as mentioned above, largely

contributes to the problem of homophobia and hegemonic

masculinity in collegiate female athletics. Deutsch (2007)

describes leisure as “a site for challenging gender ideologies

that underwrite and justify power differences between men and

women” (p.113, citing Shaw, 2005).

A society’s values, beliefs, attributes and structure are

all reflected in the organization of athletics (Sociology of Sports in

the United States, 2005; Washington and Karen, 2001). With gender

issues aside, athletics meets education on a common ground of

teaching and learning. Athletics helps to develop a healthy life

style for the body and mind in addition to establishing moral

characteristics. Youth sports are important because it helps

children socialize and teaches them to work with each other and


problem-solve and contributes to increased self-esteem (Sociology of

Sports in the United States, 2005). The drawback to athletics is that the

higher level in sport you go, the more reduced level of moral

reasoning (ibid). While the youth sports subculture reflect the

promise of development and personal growth as important values,

professional and collegiate sport reflect quite different

priorities. Sport has become a multi-billion dollar institution

in society. Staffordshire University Professor, Ellis Cashmore

(2010), expresses, “Our enthusiasm for sport and the central

place we allow it reminds us that we represent the less admirable

aspects of culture more faithfully than we dare recognise”

(p.242).

Media Influence

“Women have used sport as a stage for challenging the role of

women”

(Sociology of Sports in the United States, 2005).

Washington and Karen (2001) argue that media is “fueling the

dynamics of change and stasis in the field of big time sports”


(p.206) and that “televised sports commentary tends to reinforce

gender and racial hierarchies by considering women athletes and

activities as ‘other’…” (p.199). Perhaps one large factor

contributing to the “otherization” of women in society is due to

the heterosexism reinforced through the media. Jim Buzinski

(2009) quotes Jayda Evans speaking on the glamorized media

treatment of female athletes as objects of lust instead of

players.

Homophobia has a choke hold on women’s sports in general.

How it’s used against each other in recruiting, tagging

programs as full of lesbians, and how schools/coaches over

feminize themselves to not appear lesbian. All under the

‘innocent’ veil of wanting to show women athletes can be

‘powerful, beautiful, strong and accomplished.’ Or, to put

it more simply, heterosexual, too.

Media coverage is an entirely other avenue for homophobia

and heterosexism for sports and women in sports in itself, for

the sake of brevity and clarity, one cannot delve into great

detail on that subject here. It is important to discuss briefly


though, as it serves as an example of how higher level sports at

the collegiate level are representing female athletes to the

public. In addition to the documentary Playing Unfair (2002),

Michael Messner is a chief resource for research on sports media

and gender issues in media. Recently, Messner teamed with

Professor Cheryl Cooky to produce a new report called Gender in

Televised Sports: News and Highlight Shows (Zirin, 2010).

Director of the Tucker Center for Research on Girls and

Women in Sport, Mary Jo Kane, reports, “women represent 40

percent of sports participation nationwide. They also represent 3

to 5 percent of all sports coverage. When women do show up in the

media, it is often represented as dismissive or disrespectful”

(Playing Unfair, 2002). The largest amount of coverage on women’s

sports is on figure skating and tennis because it conforms to

societal ideals of femininity (Cunningham, 2010; Playing Unfair,

2002; Washington and Karen, 2001). Again, this is a public

demonstration of society’s expectation for sportswomen to live

and portray an unreasonable paradox between being toned and

strong on one hand but not too muscular or too ‘butch’ on the


other (Adams et al., 2005; Deutsch, 2007; Krane et. Al, 2007).

Messner (2002) refers to the compliance of this outright erotic

feminization of female athletes as a way for media people to

dispel “the myth that all women athletes must be masculine dykes”

(p.100).

Negative Recruiting and Micro-aggressions in Women’s Sport

The lesbian label is used to instill fear into women in

athletics (Cahn, 1994; Griffin 1994, 1998; Messner, 2002).

Colleges have taken this fear and used it as a recruiting tool in

an absurd and unethical tactic called negative recruiting

(Griffin, 1998). Negative recruiting is when a coach meets with a

prospective athlete and stereotypes competing teams and coaches

as deviant lesbians in an attempt to make that player choose his

or her school with the promise that that player and her parents

wont have to worry about the ‘lesbian threat’ (Griffin, 1998;

Buzinski, 2009). This is a direct example of how big sports with

big money place their morals and ethics into the back seat.

Griffin (1998) says,


Whatever the reason . . . directly calling a woman athlete a

lesbian or implying that women who play sports or those at a

particular school are lesbians is unethical and hurtful. In

addition, homophobia contributes to continuing,

institutionalized sexism in society and blatant

discrimination and prejudice against women athletes

(p.viii).

Those who are lesbians either as players, coaches or

administrators, are forced to lie about their identity for fear

of losing a place on the team, a starting spot, their jobs, their

friends, their credibility, and part of something that

contributes to who they are (Griffin, 1994, 1998; Playing Unfair,

2002; Training Rules, 2009). Unfortunately, even with the recent

knowledge of athletic programs clearly discriminating against

their female athletes (whether or not they are the best player)

and coaches, women are still being kicked off teams and forced

out of programs (Griffin, 1998; Training Rules, 2009). One of the

most distinguishing cases elucidating this ugly side of


homophobia in women’s college sport finally became public in

2006.

Jennifer Harris

Jennifer Harris grew up with the dream of earning a

scholarship at a Division I school with the ambition to one-day

play in the Women’s National Basketball Association (WNBA). By

her senior year of high school, Jennifer had become one of the

top 20 players in the nation and a four-year member of the

National Honor Society (Training Rules, 2009). It looked like her

dreams were coming true as she received dozens of scholarship

letters from Division I schools all over the country. Her final

decision came down to two schools: Penn State and Virginia.

During the recruitment process, Coach Maureen “Rene” Portland of

Penn State met with the Harris family. Jennifer says that during

the visit “She told me if I liked Virginia, then I couldn’t like

Penn State because at Penn State the girls dated guys and at

Virginia they dated girls” (Hohler, 2006; Training Rules, 2009).

Jennifer’s parents thought it was a ‘weird’ statement but didn’t


think much of it. This is a classic example of negative

recruiting.

In 2005, Jennifer Harris joined the Penn State Lady Lions

basketball team and quickly became one of the top scorers on the

team. She quickly learned that Portland had three very strict

training rules for her team: “No drinking, no drugs, and no

lesbians” (Training Rules, 2009). Coach Portland heard that

Jennifer had been spending time with another young woman. Coach

Portland called Jennifer into her office and asked her if she was

a lesbian. Jennifer recalls that Coach Portland focused on her

appearance, “criticizing her in particular for wearing sweat

clothes and her hair in cornrows”… “she said ‘You could dress

more feminine.’ She wanted me to change my appearance to appear

that I’m not gay” (Hohler, 2006).

In her sophomore year, Jennifer’s playing time began to

decrease, she lost her starting spot and she soon became

ostracized from the team. She was afraid of losing her

scholarship, her friends, her playing time, everything. Jennifer

discovered that Coach Portland had told all the girls on her team


not to associate with Jennifer or any other lesbians and ended up

kicking her off the team after their final loss of their season

(Hohler, 2006; Training Rules, 2009). When Jennifer confronted Coach

Portland with the suggestion that she dismissed her from the team

for being gay, her response was, “You know how I feel about that.

I’m not going to change. I’m still going to be the coach at Penn

State and you’re still going to be gone” (Hohler, 2006; Training

Rules, 2009).

As an excellent premed student Jennifer had no trouble

academically transferring to James Madison University. She still

had two years left to play basketball but her medical records

were never sent from Penn State. Months after hounding the

athletic department, the records finally arrived. They were

missing parts and had been altered. Jennifer could not play

(Training Rules, 2009). Not only did Coach Portland ruin Jennifer’s

life at Penn State, she made it so that she could not play

anywhere else either.

When Jennifer made the courageous decision to press charges

against Coach Portland and Penn State University, many more


stories from other women who had once been a member of Coach

Portland’s team began to surface. It turned out that Coach

Portland had been creating an intimidating and hostile

environment for young female athletes for almost thirty years.

Even more alarming was the fact that Penn State was aware of

Coach Portland’s ‘training rules’ and her actions (Training Rules,

2009). However, “Neither the athletic department, nor Penn

State’s administration took action in response to the open

account of Portland’s discrimination” (ibid). Hohler (2006)

reports Jennifer has overcome suicidal ideations she felt for a

period of time following the abuse from Rene Portland but she

still suffers from depression and health problems related to

stress.

Homophobia in sport is an important issue because, as

Griffin (1998) explains, “Sports are too important to the

physical, psychological, and sociological well-being of our

daughters, sisters, and mothers for such tactics to be used to

deter participation. Girls who play sports have more confidence,

stronger self images, and lower levels of depression” (p.viii).


The problem is that homophobia does not only discriminate against

lesbians. By discriminating against lesbians, one discriminates

against all women. Women in sport are a threat to masculinity and

women have to fight even harder to combat the stereotypes of

masculine women or lesbianism in sport. By essentially joining

forces with the male dominated institution of sport, coaches like

Portland, are reinforcing all those stereotypes and are saying

“you’re right, the only place for women in sport is a place for

heterosexual women in sport”. Treating student-athletes in a

demeaning manner is problematic as it is, but the second and

larger problem is the fact that coaches, administrations, and

institutions allow this to continue. Ignoring the issue of

homophobia and the use of micro-aggressive behavior contributes

to the vicious cycle of learnt behavior within the culture of

sport. Women in sport are facing the same issues and struggles

they faced since women began participating in sports almost 100

years ago.

Athletics are so insulated from the general norms of the

university that coaches have been allowed to treat people however


they wanted to treat them. This anti-gay mentality in athletics

is ironic because diversity and inclusion actually helps teams

win. The NCAA’s Diversity and Inclusion page states:

A recent joint report from the American Council on Education

and the American Association of University Professors noted

that diversity education ‘extends the meaning of personal,

social and moral growth and improves the capacity of college

and universities to achieve their missions . . . high-

performance teams most often include diversity of social and

life experiences, education paths and cultural backgrounds.

Moreover, highly diverse and inclusive organizations perform

better and excel at higher levels than those that are not

diverse. In fact, research shows diversity can enhance

productivity by as much as 30 to 40 percent (2011).

Shannon Miller

Most recently, in January 2015, the University of Minnesota

Duluth (UMD) notified head women’s ice hockey coach, Shannon

Miller, that her contract would not be renewed. Coach Miller has


led UMD to five NCAA national championships and has won medals

with the teams she coached at the Olympics. Despite the fact that

the UMD men’s ice hockey coach who earns a greater salary and has

not been as successful as Coach Miller, the University proclaimed

the reason for letting her go was because her salary was too

high. Coach Miller has demonstrated great success in her athletic

career but is now also joining the roster of several women who

have felt discriminated due to gender or sexual orientation

discrimination (Griffin, 2015).

Participant Experience

In a recent personal interview, Participant 7 recalled an

example of homophobia from high school. The following experience

was the response when asked if she had ever witnessed examples of

homophobia on any teams that she had been a part of:

When I went to [high school name], there were no, um,

lesbians that were out so it was very hush-hush and the owner

and head coach- um- he was not OK with there being any gay or

lesbians on the team. So especially if you were in a


relationship with someone at the school. There were rumors, I

don’t know if it was actually true, but you would get kicked

out um, if you were having a relationship with a teammate or

someone else that was there like that so nothing was ever

really brought to the coaches. On one occasion there were two

girls that were dating and our coach did catch wind of this.

They met with the head coach and his son, who is the head

coach of the second team; they met with these girls

individually and basically said, ‘we hope this isn’t true. If

it’s true, we’re going to have to send you home and you’re

going to get kicked out of here. So basically, if it’s true,

don’t let anyone know it’s true and you can’t express any

sort of love toward this person – you’re friends, not

girlfriends’ (personal communication, April 6, 2015).

It is a common stigma that all female athletes are lesbians

(Adams et.al., 2005; Griffin, 1994, 1998; Cahn, 1993, 1994). It

is also believed by outsiders that certain sports attract more

lesbian participants than others, most commonly those sports

deemed “masculine” (ice hockey, basketball, softball, and rugby


to name a few). This research study aims to expand the discourse

on opportunities for women in college athletics and determine if

homophobia effects the perception of females in sport at a small

liberal arts college in New England.

Research Methodology

In order to obtain and identify current perspectives on

gender issues in application to opportunities for women in

collegiate sport, the best mode of data analysis was through the

use of qualitative methods in action research. The qualitative

methods that would best identify and obtain natural and

unrehearsed responses were through the use of personal interviews

triangulated with document analysis. Prior to conducting my

research, I submitted a Request for Review form to the Human

Institutional Review Board at Castleton State College. With this


request, I included a copy of the open-ended, scripted questions

I intended to ask voluntary participants in this research. I also

included a copy of the Informed Consent Form which I asked those

participating to review and sign prior to any formal discussions.

A recruitment email was sent out to a population of 40 athletic

administrators, coaches, and graduate assistant coaches that

briefly described the proposed study and asked for voluntary

participation.

My objective was to interview a handful of both male and

female athletic personnel at a small, NCAA Division III liberal

arts school in New England to unearth their experiences with

gender and sexual orientation in college athletics. I intended

to gain their perspective on any truths that may reveal

homophobia, heterosexism, and/or limitations for women in the

realm of college athletics. As the research strives to unveil

perceived gender limitations in athletics, I concluded that

choosing to interview those in active careers within college

athletics was necessary. Additionally, by choosing to interview a

population with a variety of experience, it was my goal to also


gain perspectives from those who have had exposure to different

geographical locations and who have had the time and opportunity

to differentiate their own careers as athletes and then as

coaches.

About 25% (10 out of 40) of those who received the research

recruitment email voluntarily responded with agreement to

participate in the research study. Of the 25% respondents, 50%

were male and 50% were female. In other words, I was able to

interview 5 male participants and 5 female participants. Personal

communication with each individual respondent was exchanged via

email or text message to determine a certain time and meeting

location for an interview that would be limited to 30 minutes.

Prior to conducting these interviews, participants were

provided with and voluntarily completed an informed consent form

describing his or her willingness to participate in and freedom

to leave the study if he or she felt uncomfortable at any time.

The consent form illustrated the purpose of the study and

included the contact information for the Human Institutional

Review Board Chair, Dr. Johnston- Robleto, and I in the case that


he or she required future contact or had questions or concerns

regarding the study. Participants received a copy of this consent

form for their records. I also verbally repeated the portion of

the consent form which indicated that the participant could

choose to refrain from answering any question or could end the

interview at any time.

After participants completed the informed consent form, they

were provided with a list of three definitions for clarity

purposes before our discussion. By providing these definitions, I

sought to eliminate any confusion of terminology or meaning

during the course of the interview. These definitions were listed

as follows:

• Homophobia – a range of negative attitudes and feelings

towards homosexuality or people who are perceived as being

lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT).


• Heterosexism – a system of attitudes, bias, and

discrimination in favor of opposite-sex sexuality and

relationships.

• Microaggressions – brief, everyday exchanges that send

denigrating messages to certain individuals because of their

group membership (people of color, women, or LGBTs).

Interviews were conducted individually and were recorded

with a voice recording application on a mobile device after

receiving consent from the participant. A list of fifteen semi-

scripted, open-ended questions provided the framework for each

personal interview. Interview questions are listed below:


Interview Questions:

1) What are some common slang or derogatory terms associated with being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered? In athletics?2) What are some of the reactions you have witnessed when someone uses these words?3) How does it make you feel when you hear these words used?4) What effects do you think this language might have on a person who identifies as gay? 5) Have you ever witnessed or experienced examples of homophobia on any of the athletic teams you have been a memberof? Please describe. 6) Have you ever witnessed examples of homophobia or a challenging situation involving one’s gender or sexuality on any of the athletic teams you have coached? How was the situation approached?7) Have you ever felt discriminated against in sports or your career due to your gender?8) Have you ever felt pressure to preserve a heterosexual identity? 9) Have you ever witnessed or experienced examples of homophobic micro-aggressions in your athletic department?


10) Do you think female student-athletes are perceived as moreor less significant as male student-athletes? Why?11) Do you think female coaches are perceived as more or less competent as male coaches? Why? 12) Has anyone ever caused you to question whether or not you should continue involvement in athletics? If so, explain. 13) Do you think homophobia and/or heterosexism exist in college sports? Explain.14) If yes, what do you think the best way to address it wouldbe? 15) Would you like to share any additional feelings on this subject?

Interview questions were asked in a semi-structured format with

the intention to keep the conversation comfortable and relaxed

while also allowing for participants to continue sharing

experiences if the opportunity presented itself. In some

instances, participants provided answers to other questions

throughout discussion so it was unnecessary to repeat those

questions.

I chose to collect data through personal interview format

in order to obtain necessary information in a genuine and

authentic manner while also being able to record non-verbal

behaviors that may accompany participants’ answers. These non-


verbal behaviors were described in field notes taken during the

interview.

While I did consider asking a peer or colleague to

facilitate these interviews, I chose not to as I wanted to be

able to control the conversation and react with follow-up

questions if and when a participant discussed any particular

circumstance that provided opportunity for further inquiry.

Another reason I chose to personally conduct the individual

interviews is because I had the opportunity to collect this data

from a complete insider perspective. Due to my own role as a

coach within the collegiate athletic setting, I felt I would be

able to engage in natural and genuine participation. Although

biases do exist and will be discussed later in this paper, I also

felt that I had a strong rapport with participants as we have a

demonstrated longevity of respect for individual values,

perspectives, and various backgrounds. As educational research

expert, J.W. Creswell (2011) indicates, “Rapport is also enhanced

when the researcher is able to participate in daily activities,

establish common interests, and relax and act naturally” (p.339).


By maintaining my role as a positive addition to the athletic

department, the rapport generated with these participants is

another reason I chose to take the position of a complete insider

investigator for the research.

Due to the tight-knit nature of the small liberal arts

college community, I must indicate that one of the limitations to

this study is that some of those interviewed may also be aware of

my own personal life. While I was aware of this potential bias, I

did indicate to these participants that although knowledge of one

another’s own individual backgrounds may be unavoidable, there is

no right or wrong answer to any of the following questions and it

is important to the research to provide honest feedback on their

opinions and perspectives.

Data Analysis

After completing ten personal interviews, there was a large

amount of qualitative data to sort, organize, and code. It was


necessary to transcribe the dialogue to help visualize patterns,

themes, insights, and perspectives. I made the decision to hire a

trusted and experienced transcriber to assist in transforming the

collected auditory data into written qualitative data that could

be categorized and coded into a physical document. Organizing

data in this format allowed me to read through all transcripts

and helped to identify some themes that may have been overlooked

had I only listened to the interviews. Transcriptions indicated

the time of each posed question, a summarized version of the

question asked, and verbatim participant responses. After

organizing the interview dialogue, I was then able to combine my

field notes that indicated observations of body language and

other non-verbal responses from participants during the

interview. Each interview was assigned a number and was labeled

participants one through ten. For example, interviews were

labeled, “Participant 1 or (P1)”, “Participant 2 or (P2)”, and so

on.

My data analysis began with a preliminary listen and then

read through of all interviews. With this initial playback, I was


able to record any notable volume or tonality changes and any

additional points of emphasis in language during discussion. I

was then able to look for patterns, themes, and any

contradictions in the qualitative data. In order to sort these

patterns and themes, I began by creating a list of key terms or

data codes to help summarize and organize data into categories.

Data codes were created based on the language used by

participants and included words most frequently used during

interviews. In addition to data codes, I also identified

consistent patterns found in the interviews. Code words are

illustrated in the tables below:

Code Words:

acceptance emotionlesbian or lesbo setting

afraid environment limitation sexualityaggressive exposure locker room shameassumptions female love social media

atmospherefag or faggot macho

social structure


awareness family male societycareer femininity masculinity stereotypecoexist football maturity stigmacomfort frustration military supportconfrontation gay money televisioncontext gender motivation tension

culture generationopportunities threat

defensive geography others time

denial guilty perspective“tone it down”

difference hate queer “fine line”discrimination homo respect

diversity jobresponsibility

dykeJoking/Kidding scared

education Laugh sensitivity

Patterns:

blindness languagecontradiction micro-aggressionculturedisassociation nostalgiaemphasis (in speech) othernessevent parental rolesgender difference pause (in speech)gender performance subtle homophobiaheterosexism tonalityhomophobia volume changejustification


As one can see, about 90 different codes were used to begin

summarizing and organizing qualitative data. From these lists, I

was able to combine similar ideas, delete irrelevant information

pertinent to the purpose of my study, and sort common themes into

categories and subcategories. Once I felt that the data had been

appropriately organized and summarized, I was able to interpret

the identified themes and begin to draw conclusions from the

data. Since there was a wealth of information, I decided to aim

my focus on language as a primary category.

Language


I chose to focus on the language participants used to

describe their experiences as I found this aspect to be most

revealing of personal attitudes and perceptions. Participants

first identified several derogatory slang terms that are used in

association with being lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered.

The chart below shows the most common responses and indicates the

number of participants who identified the corresponding slang

terms.

Slang Term# of Participants

(of 10)Fag or faggot 10

Dyke 10Homo 6

Gay or "That'sgay." 6

Lesbian or lesbo 5Queer 2

As one can see, 100 percent of those interviewed identified the

slang terms ‘fag’, ‘faggot’, or ‘dyke’ as a derogatory term

associated with being lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered.

The second aspect of this finding is that 9 out of 10


participants also indicated that these terms were used in a

“joking” or “kidding” manner. Common responses included:

“it’s mostly guys… where I hear these terms – to each other

like joking around. They think it’s funny… The guys are

always joking with one another” (Participant 6, personal

communication, April 1, 2015).

“They say that all the time to [student-athlete]. He’s

always like, ‘I’m not gay!’ Women say it to him too, you

know, joking around” (ibid).

“She took it as a joke but it was still not cool at all. She

just laughed it off” (Participant 7, personal communication,

April 6, 2015).

“You hear things, you know. Joking or banter” (Participant

3, personal communication, March 30, 2015).

With these examples, participants also revealed evidence of

contradiction in how homophobic language is perceived. To

reiterate what the data shows, 100 % of those interviewed

identified the terms fag, faggot, and dyke as a derogatory way to

describe one who associates with being LGBT. Out of the ten


participants interviewed, 5 of them lowered the volume of their

voice, began fidgeting, or otherwise vocally indicated they felt

badly even saying these words out loud. Despite conscious

awareness of the negativity these words exude, 90 % of

participants also later indicated these words are most commonly

used in a “friendly” or “joking” nature. The finding of this

contradiction indicates an obvious disconnect in language used.

By using modes of justification and disassociation when

discussing aspects of homophobia and the threat of masculinity,

participants tended to frame observations within a context that

provided distance through time or physical space. In doing so,

participants were more easily able to discuss circumstances they

could identify as negative while remaining in a neutral,

comfortable space themselves. While some individuals provided

testimonials that included personal separation through space or

time when referencing examples of homophobia, others justified

the use of behavior by recognizing slang terms as humor. For

instance, when one participant was asked, “Have you ever

witnessed or experienced examples of homophobia on teams you have


been a part of or coached?” The participant responded by saying,

“No, just the teasing and joking around with you know, straight

people and straight people you know” (Participant 6, personal


Although the majority of participants indicated social

context as a factor, they also implied that the emotion,

tonality, or conviction used behind the words was more important

than the actual slang term being used. One participant said,

I have said things in a joking manner but again, I think

that when someone is using it with emotion behind it, that’s

when I get very, very frustrated as well as defensive and I

don’t tolerate that. Like the term ‘fucking fag’ and full of

hate. That person may not be gay but they’re using ‘faggot’

as if it was a bad thing, a mean thing. It’s as if they’re

swearing at them… (Participant 9, personal communication,

April 9, 2015).

In addition to conviction and meaning behind the words, it

was interesting to discover that both male and female respondents

altered their voices to a lower tone when impersonating a


football player. The most frequent impersonation was in

association with using the word fag or when negating femininity

and female sports. Butler (1990) would deem this an example of

gender performance as one changed body language change to puff

out the chest and voice to demonstrate perceived toughness and

masculinity. “Dude, you’re playing like a fag” or “Stop being

such a faggot” were phrases heard from more than one participant

when describing the behavior and language used by a football

player. There was also a degree of projected emotion they found

relevant to terms that they have associated with others within a

certain social context. Football, for instance, proved to be the

most recognized environment for macho-ness, aggression,

masculinity, heterosexism and homophobia. In fact, 80% of

interviews referred to football when describing a macho

environment or used it as an example of space where masculinity

is challenged or threatened.

If it’s a football player and he gets called out, like

someone’s like, ‘Hey, stop being a fag and play harder!’…

They’re worried about like everyone else jumping on board to


start making fun of them. Whether it’s using that term or

just because that term means they’re being – you know

supposedly being weak or not trying… I think a lot of that

negative motivation is just so prevalent in athletics to try

and grind out that extra level of intensity… I think guys

are always afraid of being seen as not strong, especially

athletes, or not tough. Those terms imply that they aren’t

(Participant 8, personal communication, April 9, 2015).

The gender performance (Butler, 1990) demonstrated while

participants impersonated or described the behavior of a male

athlete is a prime example of the ingrained hyper-masculinity,

heterosexism, and heteronormativity prevalent in sports.

Participants communicated (consciously or subconsciously) the

intertwined relationship between homophobia and the threat to

one’s masculinity. It is clear that within the culture of male

sports, participants recognize the derogatory terms for LGBT

individuals (fag, faggot, etc.) to correspond with a lack of

effort, weakness, or femininity.


Here, I must refer back to the aforementioned research in

regards to the overall threat of masculinity discussed earlier.

As indicated through the work of scholars such as Cahn

(1993,1994), Cahn and O’Reilly (2007), Deutsch (2007), and

Griffin (1994, 1998, 2015), homophobia and the threat of

masculinity have been an underlying issue in sport for nearly 100

years. By delving into a language analysis of the collected

qualitative data, it is evident that the prevalent nature of

homophobia and the threat to masculinity continue to go hand in

hand in the world of collegiate athletics. The threat of being

marked as the “Other” continues to threaten the experience for

all student-athletes as well as opportunities for women striving

to succeed in a career within college sport. One coach’s

indicates the reality of her experiences and her career

limitations by saying, “I definitely won’t be coaching forever

and that has become really clear” (Participant 2, personal


Participants also recognized culture as a factor of

difference where one’s language and behavior may be influenced.


Collectively, participants listed geographical region,

generation, culture, social context, and difference in specific

sports as atmospheric variables. The following are examples of

how participants indicated difference in culture and atmosphere:

“I think it really depends on what sport or what setting

you’re in… pretty sure football coaches is different than

like golf coaches” (Participant 2, personal


“If I was in a competitive environment…” (Participant 10,

personal communication, April 2, 2015).

“I was one of four girls in my engineering program and

kind of felt labeled a ‘dumb jock girl’” (Participant 1,

personal communication, March 29, 2015).

“I think it depends on where you are” (Participant 5,

personal communication, March 31, 2015).

Participant 4 provided specific accounts when describing the

influence geographical region and culture may have in relation to

homophobia in sport:


Robby Rogers was a good example… the reason why he quit

and then came out was because he didn’t think within the

culture he was in- in England – that it would be accepted

for him to be gay, you know, a gay athlete, and now he

came back to the US and he feels like in MLS there’s more

of a chance for him to be accepted… (personal


…particularly in Hispanic culture, when you saw that it

was like a bench clearing brawl…they were using a Spanish

term but derogatory… Punta, yeah, punta, it was basically

referring to him as gay so, something like that and it

was a violent like swinging, kicking, bench clearing

brawl… I think it was a threat to masculinity. Like

someone’s masculinity was being questioned, you know, on

purpose (ibid).

The most common environmental influences included one’s

workplace, social or peer group, family, or within athletics.

Although the majority of participants mentioned football when

referencing a “macho” sport or when indicating the atmosphere


most likely to use heteronormative language and behavior, one

must also note that the interviewer made absolutely no specific

reference to any specific sport culture or asked any specific

questions about a specific sport.

This research study provides evidence that the threat of

masculinity (Griffin, 1994, 1998), the threat of “otherness”

(Butler, 1990; Cahn, 1994; de Beauvoir, 1946; Said, 1978), and

homophobia in college athletics is still a very prominent and

pervading issue that continues to affect the experience of those

participating in athletics as well as opportunities for women

striving toward a career in athletics. While this study

illuminates the reasons for limited opportunities for women in

sport, it also indicates the opportunity to incorporate an

increase in difference awareness and inclusivity in educational

settings.


Conclusions, Limitations, and Future Research

Although our college represents an accepting culture and

seems to believe in the welcoming of differences and Otherness,

there is clear and apparent evidence contrary to the belief that


homophobia and heterosexism are not evident on this campus. The

findings do indicate a preference in representing an image of

acceptance and awareness; however, the action behind the message

and words being presented falls short. Out of 27 varsity teams

here at Castleton, there are only 3 full-time female coaches.

Participant 9 voiced her frustration in the lack of equality

within the athletic department by exclaiming:

…if my male counterpart is doing the exact same thing it’s

embraced and cheered on whereas mine is questioned often

times and I feel as though I’m being questioned not for my

character and my ability but more about the fact that I have

a fucking vagina (personal communication, April 9,2015).

Other respondents also indicated limitations in mentorship and

professional development opportunities as well as feelings of

gender discrimination or pressure to prove one’s ability as they

sometimes feel threatened by veteran male coaches within our

institution or on the road at various conferences and

tournaments.


Perhaps the most revealing conclusion the research suggests

is the large gap between surface awareness and actual

understanding of homophobia and the effects it has on multiple

levels. An overwhelming 90% of participants who had previously

identified derogatory and heteronormative terminology and were

able to share personal experiences with homophobic situations

also indicated they had not witnessed homophobia. In addition,

participants also provided testimonials that demonstrate how

interconnected homophobia, heteronormativity, heterosexism, and

the threat of masculinity really are. The terms fag, faggot,

dyke, gay, and homo, were all used in situations where the

intention of the speaker was to insult another person. The

insults were most commonly used to question one’s sexuality and

imply that one is lacking effort, weak or feminine.

These identifiable conflicts highlight the existing tensions

within athletics and reiterate the struggle for women to succeed

in an environment that consistently invalidates the presence of

anything that relates to being feminine, especially women.


The first limitation I must acknowledge is the very reason I

am curious about the perceptions of women in college sport also

illustrates the potential bias I have for the subject.

Additionally, although the strengths indicated previously

supporting the reasoning behind my decision to conduct the

personal interviews, one must note that I have limited experience

as an interviewer. Interviewing in general includes weaknesses

contingent upon the interviewer’s skill, bias, experience, or

personal relationship to participants. In this case particularly,

the size of the school where data collection was conducted was

limiting. Although participants have been promised anonymity,

there is possibility that one may still have felt restricted or

uncomfortable discussing sensitive and potentially controversial

issues. Another problematic aspect to the intimate nature of a

small school is that I am limited to the participant testimonials

that I can illustrate while still protecting the anonymity of

participants. I found myself omitting certain aspects of the

research for the protection of the participants’ identities.


The study is also limited financially as I could not provide

incentives for a large population of participants and I did not

have resources to hire additional help to contribute hours to

work, analyze, transcribe, and interpret data. This study is also

focused on the perceptions of Division III athletic personnel at

a small, rural, liberal arts college in New England and will most

likely produce different results than if conducted in a different

Division or in a separate part of the country or the world.

For future research possibilities, it would be interesting

to investigate this issue through conducting a focus group with

individuals from different schools throughout New England. In the

beginning stages of planning this research study, I had initially

hoped to conduct a focus group but then concluded that it would

be problematic because of the small intimate nature of the

school. If this study could be broadened and repeated with

monetary funds available as well as additional facilitators, one

could consider expansion to different schools throughout the

region to request participation in a focus group. This would

allow the researcher to gain a better perspective in a larger


geographic region and would also serve as a baseline assessment

if a research team wanted to conduct the same study following an

awareness and inclusiveness training program.

In my own study, participants continued to say how important

diversity education is, however, I wish I had asked what

education programs are currently in place, available, or

utilized. I also would have liked to ask the reason why he or she

was willing to contribute to the research study.

Those who participated exhibited a passion for education and care

for the overall welfare of their student-athletes. If Castleton

strives to be an academic institution of inclusive excellence and

respect for diversity, I suggest required attendance for an

annual awareness training to develop awareness for staff and

students to learn the detrimental effects of one’s language. When

we talk about gender studies in athletics, we talk about

masculinity v. femininity. What we don’t talk about and what

often goes unnoticed is the pervasive homophobia in athletics. By

failing to acknowledge the issue, we continue to create an

environment in athletics that presents a feeding ground where


“lesbian”, “gay”, and “feminine” have a negative connotation. By

increasing awareness and educating those on a subject that is

often laughed about and scoffed at, the college can begin to

change the culture of heteronormativity and homophobia in

athletics and actively contribute to a culture respect and

equality.


References

Acosta, R. V. & Carpenter, L. J., 2012. “Women in Intercollegiate

Sport. A Longitudinal,

National Study, Thirty Five Year Update. 1977-2012”.

Unpublished Manuscript. Availible for downloading at

www.acostacarpenter.org.

Adams, N., Schmitke, A. and Franklin, A., 2005. Tomboys, Dykes,

and Girly Girls:

Interrogating the Subjectivities of Adolescent Female

Athletes. Women’s Study Quarterly, [e-journal] 33 (1/2): pp.17-

34. Available through: JSTOR [Accessed August 9, 2011].

Anderson, E., 2005. In The Game: Gay Athletes and the Cult of Masculinity.

Albany,

NY: State University of New York Press.

http://www.acostacarpenter.org/


Butler, J. 1990. Gender Trouble. Second Edition. New York; London:

Routledge.

Buzinski, J., 2009. Hoops glam shots raise homophobia issue.

Outsports.com. [online]

24, Nov. Available at:

<http://outsports.com/jocktalkblog/2009/11/24/hoops-glam-

shots-raise-homophobia-issue/> [Accessed August 9, 2011].

Cahn, S.K., 1993. From the “Muscle Moll” to the “Butch”

Ballplayer: Mannishness,

Lesbianism, and Homophobia in U.S. Women’s Sport. Feminist

Studies [e-journal] 19 (2) (Summer): pp.343-68. Feminist

Studies Inc. Available through: JSTOR [Accessed March 14,

2011].

________ ., 1994. Coming On Strong: Gender and Sexuality in Twentieth Century

Women’s Sport. New York; The Free Press.

Cahn, S.K. and O’Reilly, J., 2007. Women and Sports in the United States.

Lebanon, NH;

Northeastern University Press.


Cashmore, E., 2010. Sport in Contemporary Britain. In: M.

Higgins, C. Smith, and J.

Storey, ed. 2010. The Cambridge companion to Modern British Culture.

Cambridge; Cambridge University Press. Ch. 13.

Chauncy, G., 1999. The Invention of Heterosexuality. In R.A. Nye,

ed.1999. Sexuality.

Oxford; Oxford University Press; pp.198-202.

Cunningham, G.B. 2010. Diversity in Sport Organizations. Scottsdale,

Arizona. Holcomb

Hathaway, Publishers Inc.

de Beauvoir, S., 1949. The Second Sex. Translated from French by C.

Borde and S.

Malovany-Chevallier., 2009. London: Vintage Books.

Epstein, D., O’Flynn, S. and Telford, D., 2001. “Othering”

Education: Sexualities,

Silences, and Schooling. Review of Research in Education. [e-

journal] 25: pp.127-79. Available through: American

Education Research Association at JSTOR [Accessed August 9,

2011].


Ezzell, M.B., 2009. “Barbie Dolls” on the Pitch: Identity Work,

Defensive Othering, and

Inequality in Women’s Rugby. Social Problems [e-journal] 56 (1)

(February): pp.111-31. Available through: University of

California Press on behalf of the Society for the Study of

Social Problems and JSTOR [Accessed August 18, 2011].

Ford, K. and Westerhaus, C., 2009. Building and Maintaining a

Diverse Community of

Women. 22, March. Lecture presented at Women's Leadership

Symposium; Boston, USA.

Griffin, P. (1994) Homophobia in Sport: Addressing the Needs of

Lesbian and Gay High

School Athletes. The High School Journal, Vol.77,No.1/2 (Dec/Jan

1994): 80-87. University of North Carolina Press. Accessed

through JSTOR February 11, 2011.


________ . (1998) Strong Women, Deep Closets: Lesbians and Homophobia in

Sport.

Champaign, IL; Human Kinetics.

________. (2015) College Athletics’ War on Women Coaches. The

Huffington Post [online] 6 January, 2015. Available at: <

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pat-griffin/college-athletics-war-

on-_b_6412950.html> [Accessed January 9, 2015].

Hohler, B., 2006. When the fouls get very personal: Player’s suit

claims Penn State coach

was biased against lesbians. The Boston Globe [online] 26

March, 2006. Available at:

<http://www.boston.com/sports/articles/2006/03/26/when_the_f

ouls_get_very_personal/ > [Accessed August 8, 2011].

Krane, V., et al. 2007. Living the Paradox: Female Athletes

Negotiate Femininity and

Muscularity. In Women and Sports in the United States, Cahn, S.K. &

J. O’Reilly (Eds.)

Levinas, E. 1979. Totality and Infinity. Translated by Alphonso Lingis.

The Hague;


London; Boston. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

_________. 1981. Otherwise Than Being: or Beyond Essence.

Lovaas, K. & Jenkins, M. (Eds.). 2007. Sexualities and communication in

everyday life. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage Publishing.

Messner, M.A., 2002. Taking the Field: Women, Men and Sports. Minneapolis,

MN:

University of Minnesota Press.

NCAA, 2011. National Collegiate Athletic Association. [online] Available at:

<http://www.ncaa.org/> [Accessed August 8, 2011].

NCAA, 2011a. NCAA 2009-2010 Expense Report [online]. Available at:

<http://catalog.proemags.com/publication/0affe96d#/

0affe96d/1> [Accessed August 8, 2011].

NCAA, 2011b. Diversity and Inclusion [online] Available at:

<http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/Issues/

Diversity+and+Inclusion> [Accessed August 8, 2011].

Participant 1., 2015. Discussing gender and sexuality in

collegiate sport [personal interview].

Castleton, VT. (Personal communication. March 29, 2015).




Castleton, VT. (Personal communication. April 10, 2015).



















Castleton, VT. (Personal communication, April 9, 2015).







Playing Unfair: The media image of the female athlete (2002). [DVD] Directed

by S.

Jhally. USA: Media Education Foundation.

Rayside, D.M., 1992. Class and Party in England. Canadian Journal of

Political Science

Vol. 25, No.1, March 1992. Pp. 121-49. Canadian Political

Science Association. Accessed through JSTOR August 9, 2011.

Ridgeway, C. L. & Correll, S.J., 2004. Unpacking the gender

system: A theoretical


perspective on gender beliefs and social relations. Gender &

Society 18:510-31.

Said, E., 1978. Orientalism. London: Penguin.

Sartre, J.P., 1996. Existentialism and Humanism. Translated by Philip

Mairet. London:

Metheun.

Shaw, S.M. (2005). Discrimination is a societal issue too: Moving

beyond individual

behavior. Leisure Sciences. 27:37-40.

Sociology of Sports in the United States (2005). [DVD] USA: Castalia Media.

Sue, D.W., 2010. Microaggressions in Everyday Life: Race, Gender, and

Sexual Orientation. Hoboken,

NJ: Wiley.

Training Rules, 2009. [DVD] Directed by D. Mosbacher and F. Yacker.

USA:

WomanVision.


Washington, R.E. & Karen, D., 2001. Sport and Society. Annual

Review of

Sociology, Vol. 27; pp. 187-212. Annual Reviews Accessed

through JSTOR February 22, 2011.

Wickberg, D., 2000. Homophobia: On the Cultural History of an

Idea. Critical Inquiry,

Vol. 27, No.1 (Autumn 2000): 42-57. University of Chicago

Press. Accessed through JSTOR May 8, 2011.

Veri, M.J., 1999. “Homophobic Discourse Surrounding the Female

Athlete.” Quest (51):

355-68.

Zirin, D., 2010. The Dramatic Drop in Women’s Sports Coverage: An

Interview with

Mike Messner. The Nation. [online] 6 July. Available at:

<http://www.thenation.com/blog/37087/dramatic-drop-womens-

sports-coverage-interview-mike-messner>. [Accessed September

5, 2011].

Gendered Limitations in College Athletics: How Does Homophobia Affect the Perception and...

Documents

Transcript of Gendered Limitations in College Athletics: How Does Homophobia Affect the Perception and...