User:Trevgeley/Sports and gendered language

Sport and sports media (re)constructs male dominance (of power and privilege) over females. This is exhibited through the definition of sports, the direct control of women's sports by men, the ignoring of female sport, and the trivilization of female sport and athletes. Though more recent media coverage of sports has become less sexualized, infantilization and trivialization still exist in sports media commentary.

Gendered Language in Sports Broadcasting and Reporting
An examination of televised sports in the late 1980's, namely NCAA basketball and professional tennis, found evidence of gender marking in female athletic events; male athletic events had no incidences of gender marking. Verbal ("Women's Final Four") and graphic (pink-themed scoreboard) marking of gender for female events and athletes continued the tradition of hegemonic masculinity in sports; that is, male sports and athletes are considered the norm. Marking females as "other" (versus the "norm") perpetuates female inferiority in sports.

Marginalization of women’s sports and athletes is found in the stereotyped adjectival phrases used by commentators, even during Summer and Winter Olympic games. Sportscasters often employ narratives that invoke emotional and interpersonal conflict for female athletes, as opposed to the traditional athletic commentary used to describe male athletes.

The gender bias in sports broadcasting has been slow to change, as coverage from the 2002 Olympic games gave more air time to male athletes and events. More male athletes comprised the top 20 athlete mentions, and more descriptor were given to male athletes.

Hierarchy of Naming
A hierarchy of naming in televised sports coverage, wherein female athletes are more likely to be referred to by first name only and males by either first and last name or last name only, perpetuates hegemonic masculinity in sports and contributes to the historic inferiority of female athletes. Dominance research indicates that first name only reference is reserved for subordinates; dominance of male athletes over female athletes is therefore constructed through the naming hierarchy.

Quality of Verbal Attributes
Ambivalent and/or sexualized language is often used to describe the strength and success of female athletes. In sports commentary, male athletes are more often framed as active agents in their success, while female athletes are described as reactive objects to their success. Commentators focus on female athletes' personalities more than their athletic abilities and often follow strength descriptors with a qualifying weak descriptor.

Audience Preference
Sports media actively and socially constructs an audience preference for male over female sport by framing male sports events as "must-see" dramatic games, while female sports events are framed as just another, less-historic game.

Though female athletes and women’s sports are hyped in sports telecasting, audience impressions indicate favoritism towards male athletes and sports. Olympic coverage from the 1994, 1996, 1998 games demonstrated more gender equal reporting from studios, yet a male-biased perspective from on-site reporters.

Basketball
In the 1989 NCAA final four tournament, women’s games used gender marked terms 25.7 times per game, while men’s games had no such incidences. Graphic gender marking was also present for women’s game, which included logos marking women’s, but not men’s, games.

During the 1992 Summer Olympics, the female basketball team were labeled “US Women’s Team,” while the male team was called “US Olympic Team.”  Female players were most often called by their first names, evidence for the naming hierarchy.

Gymnastics
In the 1992 Olympic games, women’s gymnastics received more television coverage than men’s gymnastics; yet, in five hours of media coverage, female gymnasts were referred to as “girls,” while men were not once called “boys” in only forty minutes of televised coverage. Additionally, narratives and descriptions of female gymnasts focused on their beauty and appearance rather than the difficulty of the event. There was also a sharp contrast in the strength and weakness descriptors used for females and males in this sport: female strength/weakness descriptor ratio was 30/100, while male’s was 60/8.

Volleyball
The naming hierarchy is evident in televised coverage of female versus male volleyball matches. Gender marking in female games is obvious as well. For the 1992 Olympic games, commentators used the word “kills” (referring to dominance in the game) 37 times for men’s games, and only 7 times for women’s games. Descriptors for female volleyball players often alluded to the player’s beauty and appearance, as opposed to the strength and power commentary for male athletes.

Tennis
Gender was marked graphically during media coverage of the 1989 US Open; color-coded score tickers were employed to differentiate female and male events (pink for female, blue for male). The naming hierarchy is most evident in this same coverage, where female tennis players are more commonly referred to by the “infantile” first name than male players.

Swimming and Diving
Swimming and diving were the most equitably covered events in the 1992 Olympics, yet female swimmers were framed and commented on in an overtly sexual manner. However, diving was covered in an androgynous manner, likely due to the skill and grace needed for both female and male divers.

Track and Field
Commentary on female track and field athletes tends to be overtly sexual and has a focus on the athlete’s appearance and personal narratives.

Team Names
Trivialization occurs through the naming practices of sports teams, at university and college teams in particular. Gendered naming of sports teams reinforces the gender division and reinforces the secondary status of female sports and athletes. Violations of gender neutrality include physical markers of gender, use of term such as “girl,” “gal,” or “lady,” the addition of feminine suffixes, using the male form as a false generic, double gender marking, using a male name with a female modifier, and male/female paired polarity. Three-eights of American colleges and universities have team names employing at least one of these violations of gender neutrality. Eitzen and Zinn outline and describe the following eight violations:

Physical Markers
The emphasizing the physical appearance of women, usually as "beauties," in an arena where men are characterized by their athletic achievements leads to the trivialization of female athletes.

"Girl" or "Gal"
This addition presumes immaturity, just as the addition of "boy" would do for male teams (this male counterpart is not found in any college or university naming practices). Furthermore, the terms "girl" and "gal" are patronizing in nature, due to their infantile connotations.

Feminine Suffixes
Tagging "ette" or "esse" to the end of team names is a popular, yet trivializing, gender distinction. The female derivatives "ette" and "esse" underscore the secondary position of the male norm in collegiate athletics.

"Lady"
Affixing "lady" to team names demeans female athletes as it indicates an unusual role (for example, "lady doctor") held by a woman and infers helplessness on the part of women as well. "Lady" is often correlated with polite, delicate, and hyper-correct behavior, which are characteristics not attributed to athletics.

Male as False Generic
Assumes the male form (grammatically or lexically) as the standard, or norm, thereby excluding certain members (in this case, female athletes). Examples include Stags, Steers, and Rams. This common naming practice undermines the equality of male and female athletics by giving status to the male form.

Male Name with Female Modifier
A naming practice that adds female modifiers ("lady") to normally male names (as in those example in "Male as False Generic"). Therefore, "Rams" would be modified to be "Lady Rams." Such names mark female teams as lower in status due to the inferior connotation that the oxymoron evokes.

Double Gender Marking
The addition of a feminine modifier ("ette", "esse", "lady"), making the team a diminutive of the male team (in which the male team name does not have a normed gender, for example, "Choctaws," which can be both masculine and feminine, yet the female team is named the "Lady Chocs"). This practice is indicative of the rarity of female athletic teams, again suggesting their inferior status.

Male/Female Paired Polarity
Assigning male/female opposition through naming, in which women's teams are often given a "cuter" name (as in Blue Hawks/Blue Chicks) and men's teams the more competitive name, reinforces the de-athleticization of female athletes through trivialization.