Elsevier

Women's Studies International Forum

Volume 25, Issue 6, November–December 2002, Pages 651-665
Women's Studies International Forum

“Everybody's looking at you!”: Girls negotiating the “femininity deficit” they incur in physical education

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-5395(02)00351-5Get rights and content

Abstract

There is a growing awareness of the complex and largely negative attitudes many girls in the UK hold towards physical activity in general and Physical Education (PE) in particular. This research in the UK involves a qualitative study of six Year 9 girls' experiences and motivations in PE.

Reflexive interpretation and biographical analysis of in-depth interviews are utilized to explore the themes of the relationship between “sportiness” and heterosexual desirability; and the polarized images of “tomboy” and “girlie.” Work by Connell [Connell, R.W. (1987). Gender and power. Cambridge: Polity Press.] on the gender order, and theories arising from the cultural analysis tradition on teenage girls' subcultures and identity formation are drawn on in order to make sense of the girls' narratives.

The findings of this research reveal that images of teenage girls and young women being physically active are non-congruous with the traditional ideologies of acceptable femininity. This paper describes how these girls negotiate the contradictions and the tensions caused by the “femininity deficit” incurred in PE by creating “double identities” and living “split lives.”

Introduction

Traditional sporting structures in the United Kingdom (UK), including Physical Education (PE), have been criticized as inappropriate for the needs of many girls and young women Hargreaves, 1994, Scraton, 1992, Sports Council, 1993. Further, it has been argued that the ideologies inherent in the sporting and PE cultures alienate and demotivate girls in sport and physical activity in general, and PE in particular (see for example Leaman, 1986). The consequences are various, but it is widely agreed that these girls and young women are not only missing out on a vital part of their education and experience, but that they also lose out in terms of their rights to access the beneficial aspects of participation in sport such as health, self-esteem, and enjoyment Health Education Authority, 1997, Talbot, 1986. Importantly, this loss takes effect not just at school, but continues to deprive women in terms of life-long learning and physically active post-school life-styles Deem & Gilroy, 1998, Wright & Dewar, 1997.

One of us had previously explored the identities offered to, and subcultures portrayed for, females in relation to sport and physical activity by teenage girls' magazines (Cockburn, 2001a). This study revealed stereotypical and mutually exclusive polarized images of two types of female: one aberrantly involved in physical activity, and the other more appropriately involved in the all-consuming vocation of “romance.” This research was followed by a quantitative study concerning the attitudes of 75 Year 9 girls (aged 13/14) at provincial comprehensive schools in the south of England (Cockburn, 2001b). This study revealed great variation and diversity in teenage girls' involvement in, attitudes towards, and needs from, school PE. This led us to realize that more qualitative data were needed in order to “unpack” and better understand some of the emergent issues.

By conducting in-depth semi-structured interviews it has been possible to probe deeper into the subcultures prevailing among teenage girls and thereby gather more nuanced information regarding the different ways they position themselves within the various spheres they inhabit. We concur with Evans (1984: 14) that

The “problem” of girls and physical activity is not just a conceptual issue. It crucially relates to how willing and able we are to appreciate and understand their actions and to assume that their perspectives are both worth exploring and knowing.

In this way we have been able to make carefully considered and detailed analyses of the girls' unique attitudes and experiences. We agree with Denzin and Lincoln (1998: xiv) that “To study the particular is to study the general.” It follows that the research subjects in this study being “unremarkable” girls attending “unremarkable” schools are arguably representative of many girls at secondary school in the UK today1. Other methodological considerations are discussed elsewhere (Cockburn, 2002), however, it is important to state here that throughout this study we can only claim to represent the versions of the girls' “stories” that they chose to tell us on that day. Further, it is our interpretation of their stories that you read here.

The theories or “hunches” that underpinned this study were firstly that girls who disengage from PE do so for different reasons—even in their collective negativity there is a need to recognize their heterogeneity as individuals. Also, that “disengaging” with PE does not mean “drop out” or non-participation alone. Many girls bring their kit (PE clothing), and “toe-the-line” by appearing to take part. Yet, experience and closer analysis show that in reality many such girls are unenthusiastic, not fully engaged, do not enjoy it and gain little from their PE experiences. Simultaneously, but at another level, “disengagement” may take the form, for example, of a teenage girl who, while still motivated in PE lessons, chooses not to take up an invitation to representative trials in an extra-curricular sport. However, the most influential “hunch” we brought with us to this research is that no matter what their levels of enjoyment, enthusiasm or commitment, all girls will have stories to tell that can contribute to our understanding of other girls' relationships to sport and PE. And that whether girls drop out, take part keenly, or just “toe-the-line” in PE we (as teachers and researchers) actually know very little about the basis of their attitudes and resultant decision making.

The specific aims of this research were to explore the cultural and subcultural aspects of teenage girls' and young women's lives which influence their involvement in sport and PE. By doing so the intention was to investigate the constraints and complications involved in their identity formation as physically active and competent teenage girls and young women in a world of such cogent normative imagery. While the focus is on girls, they are not our sole concern and much of what is learnt regarding the gender regimes of sport and PE could also be applied to benefit the many boys and men who are also marginalized by the constraining ideologies involved. It should also be noted that while our main concern is school PE we also refer to “sport” because the issues surrounding the gendered ideologies and structures of the institutions of sport are central for teachers and researchers in the PE profession. While the empirical work and our experiences in the PE profession are largely UK based these concerns are not unique to the UK. In this paper we illustrate these concepts of subcultures and gender identity, using empirical findings from our research.

In analysing the data that emerged from the research, and building upon our “hunches,” we found recent theories of “masculinity and femininity” to be useful, especially with regard to the “gender order,” male power and the “othering” of females Connell, 1987, De Beauvoir, 1949. The phenomenon of men's global domination of women provides a framework for the study of discriminatory practice and gendered power relations in Western industrialized cultures structured by class relations. Power differentials in these societies are based on the dominant/subordinate relationships between the genders, between the social classes, between ethnicities, and so forth. Connell (1987) conceptualizes this social system of male dominance as a “gender order” expressed locally in gender regimes with various expressions of masculinity and femininity. He emphasizes the tendency of the prevailing form of masculinity to be not only hegemonic over other forms (e.g., homosexuality) but over all forms of femininity as well. The concept of “hegemony” we use here in relation to gender order and gender regimes derives from its use by Gramsci (1971) and later development by others including Laclau and Mouffe (1985). We use it to mean the mobilization of consent to a given order, or of opposition to it, through cultural processes rather than through fixed structures or through force. Hegemonic heterosexual masculinity is, as a system, so successful that it has become accepted as “natural” and thereby maintains the status quo.

Connell (1987) demonstrates how at the level of mass social relations there are clearly defined forms of femininity that “dovetail” with this hegemonic masculinity. This concept is based on compliance with the gender power differential, i.e., a femininity that accommodates the interests and desires of men, which he calls “emphasized femininity.” It is apparent, he argues, in all aspects of society. The dominant form of masculinity does not depend on physical force for its effects (although physical force is sometimes involved). But neither does it mean total cultural domination, i.e., the obliteration of alternatives. Rather, hegemony suggests a “state of play,” a balance of forces, (powerful) coercion (Connell, 1987). This cultural and ideological support invites certain behaviours and suggests certain images of masculinity and femininity to be used in the formation of individuals' identity. Social, structural and organizational factors, or “discourses,” support and reinforce this process. For the purposes of our work, we use the term “discourse” after Weedon (1987) to mean the channels and media through which ideologies are portrayed. These channels include social structures and processes that are organized through institutions and practices such as the law, the political system, the church, the family, the education system, and the media. We use the term “popular discourse” to refer to a discursive field which offers the dominant ideologies of the gender order through popularized media such as television, newspapers, magazines, advertising, and the entertainment industries.

This gender order was very clearly expressed in the girls' narratives as an important aspect of their lived reality. They explained the pressures to conform to emphasised femininity: to be traditionally pretty, to appear conventionally fashionable, and to pay constant attention to their appearance. For example, Shamsa, one of the girls interviewed, told us

You put on lipstick and everything and do your hair properly and have jewelry, rings and everything. You think about what people are going to think about you. So that's what makes you do it.

The girls stressed how they felt restricted and restrained by these “girlie” stereotypes of emphasised femininity. Marie summed this up when she described what she feels the world requires of her, “… you've got to be this perfect sort of girl.” Most felt they did not fit into any of the ready-made categories offered them. Nicola, a self-declared tomboy, said quite emphatically, “I don't like being like that … I don't really wanna wear any of that stuff … because I'm not comfortable in it.”

However, it is more than just appearance; girls need to behave in a certain way too. In order to be socially acceptable as a “teenage girl” they are required neither to take part in sport—especially “boys' sports”—nor to physically exert themselves in any other way. Jo explained how these expectations grew as she got older.

… when I was at primary school I just used to go out there and I'd do anything … I wouldn't care what other people thought, I'd just go out and enjoy it … Now it's more, “Oh my god can I do this?” And you know, like everybody's looking at you, … I hate it ….

It has been well documented that popular discourses reinforce stereotypes for teenage girls and young women by helping to “… keep in circulation established stereotypes and uncontroversial notions of what it is to be feminine and teenaged” (Hudson, 1984: 51). The stereotypes portrayed by these discourses are often presented to consumers—in this case teenage girls and young women—as highly commercialized and totally packaged cultural commodities through magazines, television, and so forth (McRobbie & Garber, 1991). A further example of the way stereotypes are portrayed and normalized is through the “hidden curriculum” in schools Bain, 1985, Bain, 1990, Nutt & Clarke, 2002. In this case powerful covert (and often indeed overt) messages are transmitted to young people portraying emphasized heterosexual femininity as the only socially sanctioned option for teenage girls and young women. It is widely recognized that popular discourses such as these offer only limited identities and invite only strictly conforming and traditionally acceptable behaviour (Scraton, 1992).

In this way, argues Foucault, public discursive practice “… disperses the apparatus of social control through dominant ideologies” (cited in Connell, 1987: 127). Further, this practice ensures that the “… centrality and privileging of heterosexuality is always assumed” (Winship, 1985: 41). The findings of Budgeon and Currie (1995), Lees (1993), and Cockburn's (2001a) prior research on teenage girls' magazines reflect these conclusions. However, it is important to account for the vested interests in sexual politics and to recognize that these popular discourses, such as those in the media, form part of the public promotion of ideologies which are largely controlled by men, and for their benefit. Writers, such as Connell (1987) criticize Foucault's work for failing to acknowledge this concept of “interest” and stress the importance of recognizing that it is almost always white, middle class, heterosexual males who stand to gain by this institutionalization and maintenance of hegemonic masculinity.

As a result of these processes teenage girls and young women attempting to construct their identities are liable to be coerced into compliance based on the dominant assumptions of the gender order Connell, 1987, Theberge, 1991. The fact that identity formation is based on such narrow definitions however, means that the ideals that teenage girls and young women strive for are rarely achievable. Clearly, these ideological (as well as the structural) constraints faced by young females with regard to public discourses severely limit their opportunities for behaviour outside the norm of emphasized femininity Hudson, 1984, Scraton, 1992, Winship, 1985 and particularly within the gendered domain of Physical Education. Clearly contradictions will arise between this emphasised femininity so sanctioned by most of society, and the institution of PE where the requirements of teenage girls and young women run counter to it. The following section considers this more localized counter hegemony of PE.

Section snippets

The localized counter hegemony of pe culture

The qualities encouraged in PE and sport: independence, assertiveness, strength, physical skill, to be physically active, and enjoy sport, all run precisely counter to the socially sanctioned identity—this acceptable way of being “teenage girl.” Lisa explained her concern over her image (even among her friends) because she plays basketball and she “… wouldn't want them thinking I'm too hard, that they don't wanna be my friend.” Clearly, it may at this point be tempting to many girls not to

Resisting the dominant forces of the gender Order Through Participation in PE

Definite signs of challenge and resistance to masculine superiority were revealed in the interviews held with the girls in this study. As Scraton (1992: 124) states PE is not “… a straightforward process of gender ideology and identity reproduction.” Indeed, our findings support the notion that there are teenage girls and young women who not infrequently refuse the choices forced upon them by enthusiastically taking part in sport—both in PE and in other physical activity.

The girls told how

Double identities

We have argued in this paper that girls' physical activity can, and should, be interpreted as active resistance to the dominant forces of society-wide (hetero)sexism. Similarly, that many girls who disengage with PE are actively resisting in that localized counter hegemony. Further, it becomes evident that resistance to both sets of ideologies takes many forms and is enacted to varying degrees depending on the individual girls in question. Indeed, many comments from the girls exposed a huge

Conclusion

The (British) society we live in teaches girls to polarize (heterosexual) masculinity and (heterosexual) femininity and their associated collective identities. Within the framework of this gender order females who do sport are consigned to the “deviant” or “maladjusted” category Connell, 1987, Hall, 1996, Messner & Sabo, 1990. The findings reported here show that by playing masculine sports (or indeed playing sport at all) teenage girls and young women are likely to create for themselves a

Acknowledgements

Our thanks go to all the girls involved in the research for giving up their time and energy to be interviewed, and to the teachers who enabled this project to go ahead.

References (65)

  • Celia Brackenridge

    Sexual harassment and sexual abuse in sport

  • Arthur Brittan

    Masculinity and power

    (1989)
  • Gill Clarke

    Learning the language: Discourse analysis in physical education

  • Gill Clarke

    Conforming and contesting with (a) difference: How lesbian students and teachers manage their identities

    International Journal of Studies in Sociology of Education

    (1996)
  • Gill Clarke

    Difference matters: Sexuality and physical education

  • Jay Coakley et al.

    Making decisions: How young people become involved and stay involved in sports

  • Claudia Cockburn

    Identities and subculture in relation to sport: An analysis of teenage girls' magazines

  • Claudia Cockburn

    Year 9 girls' opinions of physical education: A survey of pupil perception

    Bulletin of Physical Education

    (2001)
  • Claudia Cockburn

    Coming clean: Allowing the contradictions to surface in qualitative research with teenage girls in physical education

  • Sandy A Cockerill et al.

    The concept of femininity and its implications for physical education

    British Journal of Physical Education

    (1987)
  • R.W Connell

    Gender and power

    (1987)
  • William E Connelly

    Identity/difference: Democratic negotiations of political paradox

    (1991)
  • Simone De Beauvoir

    The second sex

    (1949)
  • Rosemary Deem et al.

    Physical activity, life-long learning and empowerment: Situating sport in women's leisure

    Sport, Education and Society

    (1998)
  • Norman K Denzin et al.

    Strategies of qualitative inquiry

    (1998)
  • Dewar, Alison (1991). Feminist pedagogy in physical education: promises, possibilities and pitfalls. Journal of...
  • Donnelly, Peter (nd). Resistance through sports: Sport and cultural hegemony. Unpublished...
  • John Evans

    Muscle, sweat and showers. Girls' conceptions of physical education and sport: A challenge for research and curriculum reform

    Physical Education Review

    (1984)
  • Antonio Gramsci

    Selections from the prison notebooks

    (1971)
  • Griffin, Christine (1982). Cultures of femininity: Romance revisited. Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies...
  • M.Ann Hall

    Feminism and sporting bodies: Essays on theory and practice

    (1996)
  • Cited by (0)

    This paper has been published without verification from the authors of the typeset proof.

    View full text