In their book, Eileen McDonagh and Laura Pappano emphasize the importance of eliminating gender inequality in sport by highlighting the benefits of athletic participation for females. Their main focus, however, is on what they believe is the most negative consequence of this inequity, that is, the promotion of women's secondary status in other valued social realms, such as politics and business. According to the authors, three key factors determine one's position and prestige in American society—winning, power, and money—each of which is more closely associated with men than women. The institution of sport, they claim, is pivotal not only in reifying these masculine associations but also in promoting perceptions that male dominance in athletics and other sociopolitical realms is biologically grounded. Sex segregation in sport further naturalizes sex difference by obscuring the overlap in athletic ability of females and males across the recreational-to-elite sport spectrum.
The authors argue that female participation in sport, particularly in integrated (coed) sports, is the pathway to gender equality and that the “separate but equal” mandate, (i.e., men and women must compete with and against their own sex) restricts this possibility. McDonagh and Pappano rightfully claim that the separation of men's and women's sports is rooted not in actual physical differences between the sexes but, rather, in antiquated and erroneous beliefs that women are weaker, more physically vulnerable, and less athletically capable than men. Thus, according to the authors, if women were allowed to compete in athletics alongside men according to their abilities, profound changes in social ideology and practice would follow.
McDonagh and Pappano acknowledge that Title IX has been critical in advancing gender equity in sport. The intent of Title IX was to provide females with the same educational opportunities that previously had been guaranteed to white men under the GI Bill of Rights in 1944 and to African-American men via the Civil Rights Act in 1964. Although Title IX has increased female involvement in sport at the participatory level, the authors claim that it also has perpetuated separate sporting spheres for the sexes.
Title IX permits the exclusion of females from male contact sport teams, that is, boxing, wrestling, rugby, ice hockey, football, basketball, and other sports in which the purpose or major activity involves bodily contact. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth amendment, the authors posit, is therefore a more effective judicial tool in achieving gender equity in sport. To support their position, they examine approximately 45 sport cases involving female plaintiffs who relied on Title IX and/or the Equal Protection clause. No case involving sex segregation in sport has reached the Supreme Court; hence, there is no definitive judicial ruling about the constitutionality of either of these two policies. State appellate and federal district courts, however, have ruled on these policies and are more likely to find sex segregation unconstitutional because it prohibits females from playing with males solely on the basis of their sex. One illustrative example focuses on the ruling of the Illinois Appellate Court. The case involved a 12-year-old girl who wanted to play football with the boys in a recreation program. In ruling for the girl, the court reasoned that offering a sport for males but not females was a violation of equal opportunity rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. In the end, the court allowed the girl to play tackle football in Chicago's Park District football games, ruling that the touch football program for girls did not constitute equal sporting opportunity.
Clearly, McDonagh and Pappano's approach to achieving gender equity in sport has some merit. There are, however, those who believe that sporting equality is advanced by providing female athletes with the same resources as their male counterparts and that Title IX, when consistently enforced, is the best way to achieve this goal. The authors question such an assessment. Women's teams, they claim, will never command the same prestige, media coverage, or money as men's teams, regardless of Title IX enforcement. To support their claim, they cite a 2004 study in which National Collegiate Athletic Association basketball fans at 308 colleges and universities paid, on average, twice as much to watch male as opposed to female basketball teams. This perceived higher value of men's play, the authors note, coupled with greater media coverage, perpetuates the devaluation of women's sports. They also point to the numerous examples of gifted female athletes who have been forbidden to play baseball, basketball, and football on men's teams because of sex segregation, rather than athletic prowess. According to the authors, disallowing females to participate with males contributes to sexism in other domains.
What can be inferred from McDonagh and Pappano's analysis is that gender equity in sport will be achieved only when women are able to compete in sport with and against men and when the characteristics that define a successful athlete are equally applicable to women and men. This may be true; however, the authors' presumptive leap from integrated sporting participation to greater gender integration in politics and business appears to be grounded in their belief that what goes on in sport is critical in bringing about social change in other institutions. More specifically, they claim that this ideological transfer effect from sports to the world of politics and business will occur when more women participate successfully in male-dominated sports such as football on coed teams.
If we follow the authors' reasoning, an intriguing question comes to mind: Would more men have voted for Hillary Clinton for President on Super Tuesday if the football teams of Super Bowl XLII had been gender integrated? Although the supposition that integrated sport could play a key role in establishing equality of power in other domains is worthy of consideration, what McDonagh and Pappano seem to overlook is that the majority of sports, particularly contact sports such as football, capitalize on the biomechanical and physiological advantages of the male body—making it very difficult for women to compete successfully with men unless weight and size classifications were established. Although changes such as these could be made, a greater concern would arise if female-only teams were abolished. In this case, girls and women would likely have fewer chances to compete in sport, particularly at elite levels, and it is elite sports that holds the greatest potential for dismantling stereotypical notions of sex difference because of its greater visibility. Moreover, there would be implementation challenges because changes of this magnitude would likely be contested by sport professionals and athletes who value the female-only experiences of segregated sports. Indeed, advocates of gynocentric sporting spaces have long claimed that physical and global self-perceptions (e.g., positive body image, self-esteem, confidence) are more readily developed in single-sex environments, which can help women compete more successfully with men in business and politics.
Following the reasoning presented in the Brown v. Board of Education case in 1954, McDonagh and Pappano argue convincingly, however, that separate can never foster the conditions required to establish equality. They do so by comparing sex segregation in sport to the outdated disability model, which also called for separate but equal practices until integration was recognized as more socially just and beneficial for persons with disabilities and their able-bodied peers. According to the authors, in applying the principle of integration to athletic programs, both males and females would benefit in ways that will ultimately foster a more humane and productive society.
We can certainly appreciate McDonagh and Pappano's optimism and interest in subverting sexism on and off the playing fields, despite the difficulty inherent in making their vision a reality. Moreover, Why Separate Is Not Equal in Sports prompts readers to reflect on the intricate connections between sport and other social institutions, connections that many nonsport scholars fail to recognize as important in shaping how we do business and politics in American society.
