Women in Sports: Challenging the Myths

Not to have confidence in one's body is to. lose confidence in one's self....It is precisely the female athletes, who being positively interested in their own game, feel themselves least handicapped in comparison with the male. Let her swim, climb mountain peaks, pilot an airplane, battle against the elements, take risks, go out for adventure, and she will not feel before the world that timidity. -Simone de Beauvoir, 1949 By Cindi Lee

Women's bodies over the ages have been pampered, powdered, displayed, overworked, corseted, used, revered, etc., depending upon how we have been defined at the time. Attitudes and sexual stereotypes have greatly inhibited women's growth potential as complete people and continue to do so even in the face of proof that contradicts these "beliefs". While a few women have overcome these biases to fully enjoy themselves as physical beings, most women are frightened by the prospect of selfexpression through their bodies. Western culture has taught that women are biologically and physically limited. This simply isn't true; we have been limited by access to opportunity, not by our own bodies.

Aristotle proposed that men and women by nature are different. Man was created to have strength of body and mind, and woman was given a "weak and delicate constitution,”’“ a natural softness which suited her for a sedentary life. Aristotle used "nature" and biology as his sole basis for explaining man's inherent superiority and women's subsequent inferiority. The dichotomy of this view extended from the body into the mind and soul. Women were weaker not only physically, but emotionally, mentally, and morally. Women, according to Aristotle, because of their other weaknesses, had less than perfect moral judgment. They were, therefore, inherently evil and deceptive. Unfortunately, the thinking of this early Greek philosopher stands as the foundation of Western concepts on the nature of women, and has had a devastating impact on the growth of women, particularly in the area of physicality.

Today, the Greek ideal of femininity continues to be pervasive in society's view of women. It has made its way into science, giving way to cultural biases serving as a preface for "scientific study". Out of this has come a peculiar mixture of biology and bias-those myths surrounding the female body and its supposed limitations. Even though these "beliefs" have been challenged and disputed time and again, many of the myths still persist and must be destroyed if women are ever to move toward their potential. Here are a few of the most common myths, followed by an attempt to dispel them:

1) Strenuous participation in sports may lead to problems in childbearing. This myth is based on the idea that hardened muscles through intensive exercise will decrease flexibility in the pelvic region. The exact opposite is true: women who have strong abdominal muscles have more comfortable pregnancies and, as a result, easier deliveries.

2) Activity, particularly contact 'sports, may damage the reproductive organs or the breasts of a woman. In fact, the uterus is one of the most shockresistant internal organs and is considerably more protected than the male genitalia. Even if women's physiques were as vulnerable as men's, the question arises: if protective equipment can be supplied for men, why not, with our advanced technology, for women?

3) Women have a more fragile bone structure and are therefore more prone to injury. On the average, women's skeletal structure is smaller, but certainly

no weaker than men's. In fact, a committee for the American Medical Association reported that "the lesser muscle mass of girls and women makes it unlikely that they would experience as many fractures as do boys".

4) Intense involvement in sport causes menstrual problems and menstruation interferes with performance. A healthy, physically active woman should have no problems integrating sports with the menstrual cycle. No restrictions should be placed on girls/women at any phase of the cycle. Research shows that, if anything, exercise decreases some of the negative aspects of menses. Women have won gold medals at all phases of their cycles. As a matter of fact, athletic activity has little effect on a fetus, providing that the pregnant woman is doing the same things with her body that she has trained it to do while not pregnant. Ten out of the 26 Soviet women champions at the Melbourne Olympics were pregnant at the time of their victories.

5) Involvement in sport leads to development of unattractive, bulging muscles. A finely conditioned body, whether male or female, is aesthetically attractive. Such conditioning gives an individual a more positive body image and self concept. As for bulging, protruberant muscles-these occur in direct proportion to the amount of androgen (male hormone) present in the body. Since men generally have much more of this hormone in their bodies, the tendency to "bulk-up" is more probable for. men than for women. The major change in body.composition_is_a decrease in subcutaneous fat.

In dispelling these myths, one point should be clear: the anatomy of a woman is no more or less compatible with sport activity than that of a male.

From the onset of puberty, girls are discouraged from strenuous activity, while boys are increasingly encouraged to explore their athletic ability. Our

CAL

educational system supports this tradition of separate education; early in junior high school, young girls are shown films instructing them on bodily functions-how to guard and protect their bodies. The message is, "It's time to come inside and start being a woman". While boys are flexing their muscles and brandishing newly found whiskers, the girls are given no comparable sense of celebration into womanhood. They are left with a feeling of shame and embarassment in their newly found bodies.

What is at stake is how women view themselves in general. These attitudes toward our physical selves pervade our total sense of being. As young women, we are taught that how we look is more important than how we feel or how we can perform. The image of woman has been reflective in nature--how well do we represent the male in our lives? The Romans measured their wealth in how much gold and glitter their women wore; the Victorians measured each other's success by the plumpness of their wives. It is no wonder that women have traditionally felt di-

vorced from their bodies; they merely "lived in" their bodies, more for ornamental purposes than useful ones.

As the young male is growing up, he is taught to integrate a strong body with a strong mind. Excellence in physical activity is inherent in the definition of masculinity. We find no such counterpart in the female experience. Women's role has been that of the supportive non-competitor, cheering her man on from the sidelines, whether it be in sports, business or education. Because sport has been traditionally a masculine ritual, it is in this arena that women most risk their femininity and all that it defines. The most successful way to keep women out of sports has been to define femininity as anti-athletic and then dare a woman to cross that line. Certainly some women have done just that, but not without paying a heavy price.

Americans have a difficult time with female athletes who offer no more than excellence in their chosen sport. When Linda Fratianne's coach wanted to improve her ratings, he sent her to work with a drama coach so that she could "give more to an audience". She was taught how to smile and blow kisses-something American audiences have come to expect from female performers. Not all athletes are able to close their eyes to these blatantly sexist demands. One frustrated disillusioned athleté stated, "I'd been skating since I was five and I dreamed of being a great star, a great athlete. But after dragging around with the ice show for a while, I quit. They put us in costumes that made me feel more like a call girl than a skater. I was sad for a while after I left and wondered why there isn't some way that a girl can be respected for the way she uses her body without sexing it up. Why do we have to be spectacles for people to gawk at?"

We humiliate our Olympic athletes by putting them through "sex tests" to establish bona fide womanhood by plucking out hair and examining the cells at the roots. These women are tested because their strength doesn't conform to the "feminine" stereotype. God help you if you are flat chested and muscular! According to this logic, men capable of making it to the Olympics couldn't possibly be suspect, so they are never tested at all. It is touching to know that we reward our athletes and their stupendous endeavors with such sensitive treatment and unrelenting support.

Many men are threatened by women in sports, especially in direct competition. David Auxter, a former collegiate football player and coach, sums up much of that fear: "Our male dominated society prefers females to be physically and psychologically dependent. Denying them athletic opportunities has been a good way of molding girls into the kind of humans they want them to be". It's obvious they are afraid that we will find out the freedoms that physical expression can supply: All the existing myths about women and how athletics is bad for their health are incorrect and self-serving. It has been in the best interest of the male athletic establishment to maintain the existing situation. Women have trampled on sacred ground by entering the sports arena, a traditionally masculine stronghold. In order to come to terms with the exceptional female athlete, men have attacked women's sexuality, and attempted to re-assert themselves as superior human beings. Woody Hayes, one of the most influential and exalted sports figures today, had this to say when he found out Oberlin College was adding a women's program to its existing one: "I hear they're even letting W-O-M-E-N in their sports program now. That's your Women's Liberation, boy-bunch of goddamn lesbians.... You can bet your ass that if you (continued on page 11)

... May, 1981/What She Wants/Page 7