 |
| Image copied from, http://onlyagame.wbur.org/ |
“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.”Most often we hear about Title IX in reference to sports, but this is just one of 10 target areas addressed by the law, including: access to Higher Education, Education for Pregnant and Parenting Students, Employment, and Sexual Harassment. Since the law was passed, the number of female athletes has increased nearly six-fold, NPR reports. Recent data from the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) indicates that between 2004 and 2010, there was approximately 14% increase in the proportion of female athletes in Division I, a 21% increase of women in Division II, and 14% increase in Division III (see NCAA Gender Equity Report 2004-2010) . However, at the same time, the number of female coaches has dropped dramatically. Four decades ago, approximately 90% of all college women’s sports teams (there were less teams then) were coached by women. Currently about 40% of college women's teams are coached by women, and in some sports, such as hockey (~12%), the figures are much lower.
Read the following news story asking, "Why has number of women college coaches plummeted since Title IX?" Found at: http://www.indystar.com/story/sports/college/2015/02/23/number-women-college-coaches-plummeted-since-title-ix/23889831/
Listen to two segments on Title IX and the recent firing of wildly successful women's hockey coach Shannon Miller on NPR's 'Only A Game':
http://onlyagame.wbur.org/2015/02/21/shannon-miller-title-ix-minnesota-duluth
http://onlyagame.wbur.org/2015/02/21/female-college-coaches-title-ix
Using the lens of structuration theory (see C. Cooky reading), consider the role of social structure, culture, and/or agency to help explain this simultaneous growth in female athletes and precipitous drop in female coaches in the NCAA. What if any alternate perspectives (e.g. than the ones offered by university administrators or by Shannon Miller or voices in the NPR story) might we consider to make sense out of Miller being fired from the University of Minnesota Duluth after building the hockey program and winning five national D-I championships in 15 years? How should we look at this controversy? What's being discussed? What do you think is not being discussed in the media?
Since Title IX was passed in 1972, female participation has increased by nearly six times. However, shockingly the number of female college coaches has decreased by an astounding 60 percent since then. There are a number of factors that have contributed to the surprising demise of the female coach. One potential cause of the decrease, is the natural wean out of female coaches due to social roles and expectations. Being a head coach is a tremendous time commitment and thus many females have a hard time balancing family and team obligations. Since society usually encourages the man of the house to support the family financially and women to take care of the households needs in other ways, it is easier, in many cases, for men to take on the role of collegiate head coach.
ReplyDeletePlus, after the funding provided by Title IX, the job of being a women’s team head coach is suddenly more appealing. After Title IX, women’s teams became more competitive. Better facilities created better skills and the increase in funding increased the salaries of female team’s coaches. This is why males began to be more interested in coaching positions they did not care about before.
Lastly, an increase in male coaches for female teams can be attributed to the people doing the hiring. Studies show that 80 percent of athletic directors are male. This creates a bias in the selection process of hiring coaches. Head coaching positions for women are hard to come by, and when they are attained they are hard to keep. Even Shannon Miller, five-time national champion head coach at UMD for women’s hockey, was informed earlier this year that her contract was being terminated. This indicates the power imbalance of sports programs today.
Structuration theory analyzes the influence and relationship between structure and agency. Central to this theory is the idea that social structure is always both constraining and enabling. After this, there is a split among classic theorists and contemporary theorists and the differential amounts of power they give to either structure or agency.
ReplyDeleteAfter the passage of Title IX, there has been an increased number of female athletes in collegiate sports. However, the percentage of female coaches has decreased drastically, by nearly fifty percent. Structuration theory can be applied to this observation such that while Title IX has enabled a larger number of females to participate in athletics, it has also constrained the opportunities for women coaches. How can Title IX produce such dichotomous and contradictory outcome for women and how can it be productively changed in order to maintain the positive outcomes it has produced for female athletes, while also protecting and creating more opportunities for female coaches?
In addition, the structured hiring process also plays a role in the decreasing number of female collegiate coaches. The individuals who are in control of appointing new head coaches are frequently men who often elect other males from their social network. This system of hiring perpetuates the structure and dominance of male coaches in collegiate athletics, and undermines the power and hope for female coaches.
More contemporary structuration theorists, acknowledge the role that agency plays in perpetuating structure. We legitimate and reproduce structure through internalizing the norms and values that are associated with the dominant culture. In this case, women coaches are considered on the margin of sports while masculinity and being male is at the center of sport. Subsequently if a female player or coach acts too “manly” or aggressive, though, she is not placed in the center of sport, but rather further marginalized from the female and male communities. It is not a question of acting more like the men, but rather accepting role on the edge; or transforming the existing structure. Starting with female coaches and trying to change the structure within this realm of sports could have widespread effects for women in the workforce in general regarding issues of equal pay, equal opportunity for roles of power, as well as addressing the “third shift” for women and the expectation that if they work they must also maintain the domestic sphere and provide emotional support.
I doubt that when lawmakers put Title IX into place they considered the repercussions it would have on the female coaching profession. The law has been vital for the growth of female athletics at the collegiate level, increasing at an incredibly fast rate. But this same structure that enabled this athletic activity has hindered females in the athletic workplace, coaching.
ReplyDeleteThe reasoning for this lack of female coaching in the current ranks does make logical sense. The supply pool has been greatly increased, as qualified male coaches now view the jobs as desirable. This desire is solely due to Title IX providing female athletics with better facilities and monetary support, on the same level as male athletics. I do not buy the argument that women feeling more responsible for their families is one of the reasons for this change, because before Title IX there was a high amount of women coaches in athletics. Additionally, in recent times, the family caregiving has gotten much more equal between the husband and wife when compared to the past.
Shannon Miller being fired is indefensible. The idea that those who are in the positions of power and doing the hiring, athletic directors for example, being mainly male is a major structural barrier for female coaching as a whole. I wonder how much Coach Miller being lesbian affected the choice by UMD. I am curious if, in the same situation, a Gay male coach would have been terminated. The decision by UMD, made because they were "not able to sustain" Coach Miller's salary, the highest in DI women's hockey, while politically correct, does not seem true. Coach Miller repeatedly said she would take a pay cut to stay on the job seems to counter the UMD administration's point. Regardless, Title IX has had positive and negative impacts on female athletics, some expected, and some unexpected.
The firing of head coach Shannon Miller from the University of Minnesota Duluth’s women’s hockey team has caused an uprising in the gender equality world. Shannon Miller was fired allegedly because Minnesota Duluth did not have enough funds to pay her $207, 000 base salary. Despite saying she would take less money to keep her job, Miller is still being dismissed of her services as head coach.
ReplyDeleteAlthough money may be tight for athletics at Minnesota Duluth, it does not seem like Shannon Miller should be the one to get fired. Over her career as head coach at the school, she has carried her team to numerous NCAA National Tournaments as well as winning 5 national titles for Minnesota Duluth. Why is it that Shannon Miller, who has quite an impressive resume and getting paid nearly twenty thousand dollar less than the men’s coach, is being fired? It appears that there are more reasons than just money, and that is the fact that she is not only a woman, but she is also lesbian. Although equality has taken massive steps in the past century in terms of race, gender, and sexuality; it still plays a significant role and society still has expectations for people. Society still sees women as being the one’s who take care of the household chores and taking care of the children, this is a major factor that only 40% of women’s sports have women as coaches. Not only is Shannon Miller a woman, but she is also lesbian which society places even more stereotypes on her.
According to an article in the Boston globe, the coach who is replacing her is still making $160,000 which does not seem like a significant budget cut, especially when that coaches skill is unknown.
After evaluating the clips and the articles, the statistics surrounding Title IX become disturbing. I am proud of the fact Title IX has increased female participation in such a large way, as well as bringing more attention and resources into the realm of female sports. However, it is disturbing to me that the decrease in Female head coaches could go so unnoticed and i believe it is a serious problem. The fact the such a high number of AD in the country are male, is within itself an issue, but i believe it extends beyond this. Men are viewed in society as a stronger, sometimes more successful leader for no other fact than because they have been denying women the right throughout history. Men are able to come into these Division 1 jobs, as they see a higher paycheck, and more prestige, and steal jobs they don't necessarily deserve do to no other fact than because they are a man. The issue extends beyond the AD into many aspects of society that go unwritten and evolve constantly, but the fact that in todays world such a strong male image is still around is a problem. When hall of fame coaches lose their job for being overpayed, there is more at work than a simple monetary issue. It makes me wonder how many other sketchy cases their are elsewhere, if a hall of fame coach loses their job, what is happening to an above average coach. Likely nothing good.
ReplyDeleteAs the article points out, universities will come up with reasons to fire women's coaches that seem very reasonable, "Tight budget. Not enough wins. Coaching philosophy doesn't fit the university. Need to go in another direction." But a lot of times, unfortunately, this means that a man will be hired to replace her. This can be attributed to a few things, there are probably more men coaches in the market than women, but that doesn't seem like it would explain the drop in women's coaches across the board. There is still a definite gender bias in sports, and it's unfortunate because oftentimes women can be just as good, or better coaches than their male counterparts. There was one recent bright sport however, where the Spurs hired Becky Hammon as the first female assistant coach in the NBA. This is an example of how a forward-thinking organization can make a difference. The Spurs are a world-class organization and want what's best for their players, and if that means hiring Becky Hammon, they're going to do it. Unfortunately this can't be said for most universities. Prof. Gurn brought up that around 80 percent of athletic directors are male, and this definitely plays a big role in the hiring process. I'm sure that some ADs would give the job to a man over a woman, even if all the qualifications are the same.
ReplyDeleteMiller being fired from UM-Duluth is pretty sketchy. It certainly seems her status as a lesbian woman would have factored into the school's decision, although they surely would never say that aloud. I think the media needs to shed more light on this issue; it certainly is not talked about enough and because it doesn't get enough exposure, it can be swept under the rug. It is a delicate subject, but it is one that needs to be broached sooner rather than later.
I found this research on post-Title IX women coaches to be surprising; while I of course realized women faced discrimination in coaching, I would have expected that the proportion of female coaches would be increasing. There is gender-based discrimination in nearly every field, so in that sense it is not surprising to see that it happens in athletics as well. The disturbing part is that it is trending in the wrong direction. While on a case-by-case basis it is difficult to point to discrimination as a reason why women were not hired or were fired, the existing structure on the whole is undoubtedly discriminatory against women, especially lesbians. The Minnesota-Duluth coach being fired is only one situation, so discerning any meaningful evidence from it is tough. It is, however, effective in that it got people talking about the issues surrounding women’s coaching (and the lack of it).
ReplyDeleteWomen’s agency when it comes to hiring practices tends to stop at putting their names into the pool of applicants; the male-dominated structure still makes the ultimate decision. We can see the duality of social structure in this story since sports are both helpful and limiting for women. Division I women’s coaching jobs provide opportunities for women to use their athletic knowledge and prowess. However, just as with the black athletes discussed in Rhoden’s book, the real power structure remains dominated by white males. I believe the key to altering this is to have more female administrators since they will hire more women.
In Cooky's article, she says that “The resistant and transformative collective agency exercised by women in the 1960s and 1970s challenged the gender order in social institutions such as work, family, and sport. While expanding the structures of opportunity for women, these challenges resulted in crisis tendencies in the gender order, as manifested in the backlash to feminism and the rise of conservative political ideologies in the 1980s (Faludi 1991). Thus, the resistant agency, while transformative of the social structure in some ways, can also lead to the rearticulation of ideologies that reaffirm oppressive elements within those structures.”
ReplyDeleteThis is exactly what is happening with the movement to get women as coaches. Since Title IX passed in 1972, women's participation in sports has increased enormously. This was the “allowed” transformation of the social structure. Even though women were allowed to play sports, though, they were no longer allowed to be coaches. There was only so much transformation that the male-dominated sports world could allow, and allowing women to play the sports was the limit. Women could not play the sports and coach them too. Therefore, the “backlash” that Cooky refers to is, in this case, the practical prohibition of female coaches, even for female sports teams. Now, however, there could be a new resistant and transformative agency that could incorporate more female coaches for both men's and women's teams. Though there may be a backlash there as well, it would still be a step in the right direction.
The other argument that could be made is that the “backlash” could be that women's sports will be allowed to exist, but they a) will not be taken seriously and b) cannot be more successful than men's sports. The acquiescence is that women will be allowed an equal number of sporting opportunities as men, as Title IX dictates, but that does not mean that men's and women's sporting teams are required to be taken seriously. In this sense, the “backlash” consists of all the ways that Athletic Directors and others are inhibiting the advancement of women in the sporting world. And even then, only certain women who fit the stereotype are allowed to be coaches. Shannon Miller was gay, so that does not fit their stereotype. The Iowa field hockey coach was recently fired, and players are filing a Title IX complaint because they believe her dismissal was due to the fact that she trained them as hard as a men's team. Again, in this way the people in charge of the athletic department are rebelling against the Title IX regulations and the resistant and transformative collective agency. There are a number of people who do not believe women should be coaches for men (see http://www.debbieschlussel.com/18926/when-coach-is-a-chick/) or women, if the teams want to be taken seriously, and the backlash of these opinions are causing women to lose out on coaching jobs to men.
I believe that there is a combination of causes for this decline in female coaches. One of the reasons is that title IX helps women get into college and now that more women are getting a college education, they may be trying to get different jobs in the area of the degrees they get. These jobs are also more likely to have regular hours so that women can get home to their kids. Additionally, they may choose to find different jobs since female coaches are typically paid less than male coaches. Female coaches also tend not to be able to coach for their whole lives and are forced to find different jobs anyways. In the case of Shannon Miller, you can even be fired for making too much money when your male counterpart has a higher salary. Finally, women do not have the respect they deserve in sports. Athletics have been and probably always will be male dominated and men are not going to let in an influx of female athletes in addition to already having female coaches. If female athletes want in, the consequence is female coaches being pushed out. So why try to become a coach when you could be paid more, have a more regular schedule, and have more respect with another job? Is it really worth it?
ReplyDeleteI think that the decline in female coaches across the country within the NCAA stems from an invalid gender stereotype that must be addressed. One reason for this is women's feeling of obligation to their families. Often women who have children feel obliged to tend to their household before tending to their career, which seems completely unfair. Why should women not have the same opportunities as men with respect to their careers, specifically within athletics? It is more common for a man to prioritize his career because he knows that ultimately his wife will take care of his family and household. In addition, people believe that men are better equipped with regard to sports and coaching. The stereotype that men are stronger, smarter, and more athletic than women is very evident when it comes to the reasons for decrease in woman coaches throughout the NCAA. This stereotype is what we need to change. Women should be able to pursue their careers in coaching just as men do.
ReplyDeleteAnother issue that I had with this article is that woman coaches are declining as women's sports gets more competitive and the caliber of athlete increases. This makes no sense to me. As the caliber of sports gets higher, there should not be a need for men to take over these coaching positions. Women are just as equipped to take on these coaching roles for top tier women's teams across the country. We can attribute much of this issue to the people who are hiring these coaches at colleges and universities. The stereotype that women coaches are not as equipped and are viewed as unable to coach a winning team is blatantly not true. There is ample proof of women coaches who have taken their teams to win national championships. So why does this stereotype still exist? This gender inequality is something that needs to be considered throughout the NCAA in order for change to be instilled.
Both structural and agency factors in the collegiate sports world contribute to low levels of female college coaches. The industry, led by mostly males (Kristine Newhall cites that only 20 percent of athletic departments are run by women), may not only discriminate against women for their sexual orientation or lack of toughness/strength associated with sports, but also may recruit from their own networks that are heavily-male. Women, as agents in choosing their careers, may contribute to their lack of representation by choosing less time-consuming careers or traditional “nine-to-five” jobs. Before Title IX was passes, coaching women’s sports was much less of a time commitment because there were less games, tournaments, and travel activities. Once women’s sports were incorporated through Title IX into the NCAA, these sports began to take up a lot more time for coaches, simultaneously discouraging mothers from taking these jobs and encouraging men to take up these more ‘serious’ positions. Working mothers may be less inclined to take jobs that keep them at work when their children are home from school, while male coaches were more inclined to take these more commitment-heavy, professionalized jobs.
ReplyDeleteThe industry and agency on behalf of male and female coaches contribute to the overall result that women are unrepresented in collegiate coaching, and until one side changes profoundly (e.g. drastic rise in ‘stay-at-home-dads’ or quotas for female coaches), these statistics might not change in favor of women, as they have not done since Title IX.
Title IX was a revolutionary change for gender and society and gave women, men, trans, and those who are non-gender conforming hope for equality. However, which decisions like Title IX, there are always societal consequences that develop over time. I think this policy change introduced the possibility for anyone who is not a male to gain power in society, and that is something that is fearful to our continued male-dominant society. Although the number of women athletes rose heavily since Title IX, the fact that the number of female coaches has decreased drastically reveals that our society has ultimately accomplished nothing in terms of gender equality.
ReplyDeleteThe firing of Shannon Miller showed that the social system that created the society, one dominated and controlled by males, was being reproduced. The structure of our society in America has been heavily weighted on the decision-making of males, and when such a drastic shift in the right direction emerges, like Title IX, there is the fear that power will emerge that will then shift that structure. The decision to fire Shannon Miller also reminds me of how sports teams choose to portray themselves as an organization. Ideally, it would be inspiring to have a number of female, lesbian coaches, but teams try to maintain the status quo, which then eliminates any gender that is not male and any person who is homosexual. If the role of coaches is supposed to be motivational and to create positive role models, the decline in female coaches contradicts that goal. Because sports are such a reflection of society, teams can also be responsible for making a progressive decision to hire and keep female coaches. As this article implied, coaching styles are just as good, but the difference emerges with gender, and this is something that our society must overcome.
Today there are six times as many female athletes as there were in 1972 when Title IX was passed. Since then, however, the number of female college coaches has decreased by sixty percent. There are several factors that accounts for this reduction. The role of being a head coach is now considered more appealing. The funding provided by Title IX made it so women sports became a lucrative profession, and one in which both men and women would be interested in pursuing. These teams now had athletes of a higher caliber which in turn creates more competitive programs and an increase in the salaries of female team coaches.
ReplyDeleteAn additional reason behind this decrease can be the fact that the majority of Athletic Directors are men. Eighty percent of athletic directors are men, and this is the person that hires coaches, so there is a trickle down effect of men hiring men.
Although unfair, these reasons are explainable. What I do not find relevant, however, are arguments raised regarding gender roles and salary expenses. Why is it alright for Shannon Miller, five-time national champion head coach at UMD for women’s hockey to be fired when the male hockey coach (who happens to be a man), remains under contract despite this contract costing more to the university. Additionally, the point made that women no longer hold as many coaching positions due to the fact that they are more responsible for their families is irrelevant. Before Title IX, there were a number of female coaches for athletic teams. In 2015, the role of caregiving is also considered more of a family task where both men and women are responsible.
From analyzing the article and short wbur clips in conjunction within the context of structuration, one can understand how there is a larger institution at play that may be responsible for the inverse relationship between the growth in female college athletes and decline in female college coaches. There is an institutionalized, stereotypical thought of men in our society as naturally more capable leaders. This feature of our society influences how people interact, especially in groups of people With the passage of Title IX in 1972 came not just more female athletes but actually more female teams as the IndyStar article points out. In addition, women’s teams become more “legitimate,” recognized by the NCAA with championship opportunities that had not been previously available. Retrospectively, what this means is that there was new terrain for males to inhabit and profit from. Athletic departments and universities can reinforce the social normalcy of male control and direction by giving this “market” of women’s college athletics over to coaching staffs headed by men. When coaching jobs in women’s sports became lucrative, men wanted them.
ReplyDeleteIf this theory holds, then what happened to the University of Minnesota Duluth’s Shannon Miller is an example of, essentially, the equivalent of Rhoden’s “Jockey Syndrome” – one female coach became too exceptional, made too much money, won too much, and it was time (after building a program from the ground up and winning five national championships to bring the school more prestige) to cut her authority down.
It’s very similar to the type of integration we read about in Rhoden’s book. With Title IX came the necessity of cutting out discrimination on the basis of gender. A change had to happen so that women’s sports got the same resources. As a result the recognition and building of women’s sports programs was established in such a way that women’s sports teams could be exploited to keep the existing status quo intact. Women can get equal sports programs or opportunities to play sports, as long as in the end males run the programs and benefit the most.
Unfair and unacceptable, gender has played a huge role in how sports are run, and played in todays society. Though Title IX has greatly increased opportunity for women, it has not successfully eliminated all discrimination in the sports world. There has been a great increase in women collegiate athletes but a decrease in female coaches. This to me is pretty surprising and there is no one answer as to why this has happened. I think it's important to look at the opportunity for education athletes are being offered, and how that may play a role in what girls do after college as a career. Also, looking at female professional athletes, careers tend to be shorter than their male counterparts'. This is usually because once the players settle down and find a spouse, they want to start a family which takes them out of competition for at least 9 months, usually even more. The same goes for coaching as well. There are many other possible explanations, however none of them can completely explain the decline in female coaches.
ReplyDeleteThe story about Shannon Miller being fired from Duluth is disappointing. She has been one of the most successful college coaches in any sport and built a team from the ground up. It is tough to say that she didn't deserve the money, or was getting to expensive. A great coach like that is almost priceless. I would be interested to see how the lawsuit she filed turns out and what kind of argument Duluth will have for their reasons. Usually teams that win 5 national titles in 15 years, under one coach, don't have issues with funding for that coach. Though mens college basketball has much more funding Mike Krzyzeski of Duke only has 4 national titles in 34 seasons. Miller is in an elite category of successful college coaches which should be enough to show that just because she is a women doesn't make her any worse of a coach.
According to Gidden’s theory of structuration, “power is the ability to achieve outcomes.” The unfortunate truth is that men are the ones who hold all the power and consequently get what they want when they want it. It’s no surprise that the only time females made up of 90 percent of women’s teams’ coaches was when men didn’t care for or attempt to get those positions. Once the NCAA started to take women’s sports seriously and Title IX was passed, the males started going after those coaching positions. Subsequently, the percentage of women coaches was almost cut in half. At first it seems peculiar that this takeover of coaching positions could happen relatively instantly, but then you realize who the ones in power are and what they can do with that power. Like the NPR ‘Only A Game’ interview addresses, only 20 percent of athletic directors are women. The majority of the people making the hiring decisions are male and they are the ones responsible for replacing the female coaches. This example only reinforces that male dominance in sports continues to trickle down from the top and leave no room for women to break the cycle that keeps men in power.
ReplyDeleteConsidering the economic conditions today where sports in schools have steadily decreasing budget, there have been many financial related problem related to the employment of coaches recently. However, the “dismissal” of Shannon Miller who has proven to bring success to the University of Minnesota Duluth’s women’s hockey team five times over raises questions as to whether the consequences of financial problems are gendered, leading to the skewed gender balance in coaching today. This point is especially highlighted when Miller’s salary was compared to that of the men’s coach, Scott Sandelin, to find that hers was in fact lower than his, and yet she was dismissed even when Sandelin’s had only victory so far. I think Miller’s identity as an openly gay woman should be taken into consideration when looking into her dismissal, which is a sensitive topic that the media could be more hesitant to look into as compared to the salary differences and filial roles. One of the main reasons mentioned in “Why ahs number of women college coaches plummeted since Title IX?” was that women feel as though they cannot fulfill their roles as a parent and coach simultaneously. However, there is a possibility that this is influenced by the social structure and stereotype that society has created about women not being as strong as men, and being so invested in their filial roles that it comes in the way of their work. However, if these thoughts did not come in the way couple of decades ago when 90% teams had female coaches, it is definitely as attitude change and perception that has created this “obstacle” for women. Moreover, with men doing majority of the hiring, it is hard to balance the hiring process itself in addition to the supply of coaches. In a more positive light, this controversy has brought light to the dropping number of female coaches and has stimulated discussions related to this discrimination. Hopefully Miller’s fight can bring more people to stand up for women coaches.
ReplyDelete