Description
I will attach the instructions to the question + the 5 articles needed to write it.
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Essay 3 Prompt
I would like this to be more of a reflection piece vs. a formal essay. This will lessen the stress for you
and give you a chance to sum up topics/points that interested you the most in this class. So here is
the format:
1. Write FIVE paragraphs covering FIVE points of interest to you in this class. Each paragraph
should be about 200 words and include at list two APA citations from one of our assigned
articles. This citation – whether it is a direct quote or a paraphrase, should help to back up
your point. Your paragraphs can be written in first person and totally be your opinion. You are
welcome to use examples or observations from your life. This is also a time to disagree with
topics that were brought up in the class. Remember, you are NOT required to espouse liberal
viewpoints in my class to receive full points – I promise!
2. You will note in my example below that I used THREE citations from the article I selected.
This is because I find it easier to generate more words if I have more stuff to talk about. This
assignment is about your opinions, but you need to back them up with citation. So why not do
more than two citations? Yes!
3. Your five points of interest must come from different weeks of class. You can pick any week
but be sure to not do two points in the same week. This way you will cover more topics! Also,
do not use any material from your first essay!
4. These paragraphs are not connected. Meaning each one stands on its own. You don’t need
to worry about transition sentences, thesis statement and making the paragraphs tie into each
other.
5. While I encourage you to be casual in this written assignment, this does not mean I want a
half-hearted attempt here! You have written important and reflective commentary via the
Reading/Discussion assignments, and I expect that type of caliber here as well!
Five assigned articles
One 200-word paragraph for each article
Two APA citations for each paragraph!
Paragraph Example
One of the topics that really stood out for me was “Disability normalization in children’s picture books”
(Aho & Alter, 2018, p. 303). I always thought using the example of the book “Susan Laughs” was a
good idea because it presented Susan as “normal”. But the normal I was referring to was modeled
after abled bodies ideals. My social conditioning tricked me again! In the book, you only realize
Susan is disabled on the very last page when it is revealed that she uses a wheelchair. Surprise! So
in an attempt to make disabled children fit in, Aho and Alter (2018) report that varying abilities in
children’s books are now played down or left until the end of the story so “the child in question can
still be considered similar enough to be included and liked” (p. 304). Ugh, what a horrific message –
you have to measure up to the ‘ideal’ in order to be accepted! And then finding out that by using this
method in books, we are not only patronizing disabled people but “…inadvertently reinforc[ing]
societal discomfort about disability” (Huges, as cited in Aho & Alter, 2018, p. 5). So, this whole new
drive to lift up children’s books about disability falls flat on its face if you take this approach. I had to
throw out so many of my “good” examples and really think about this. It gets complicated, that’s for
sure!
The Physical Educator
Vol. 72 • pp. 20–43 • 2015
METHODOLOGY
Insidious Influence of Gender
Socialization on Females’ Physical
Activity: Rethink Pink
Nicole M. Mullins
Abstract
Continually accumulating information on the health risks associated with sedentary lifestyles indicates a severe public health need
for increased physical activity, as well as for careful attention to
factors that can curtail it. Study and documentation of such factors,
however, are not enough to promote widespread change in firmly
established sedentary behaviors; if they were, the many existing informants of inactivity’s ills would have already done so. Accurate
information needs not only to reach those who need it, but also to be
communicated in ways that demonstrate relevance and importance.
The purpose of this paper is to enhance awareness, specifically
among physical education and exercise science majors, of some of
the many socializing influences that render girls less physically active than boys from early ages. The underlying intent is to promote
changes that could enhance the future health and fitness of the female population.
Honestly ask, “Have I ever…
• helped a young girl perform a task that I allowed a boy of the
same age to perform independently?”
• allowed a young girl to perform a skill with improper form,
but ensured that a boy learned it properly?”
• complimented a female by comparing her to a male?”
Nicole M. Mullins is an associate professor, Department of Human Performance &
Exercise Science, Youngstown State University. Please send author correspondence to
[email protected]
20
•
•
•
•
employed an expression such as ‘You throw like a girl’ as a
criticism?”
clothed, or seen a female child clothed, in a way that restricts
her ability to play?”
struggled to find a toy for a young girl in a color other than
pink?”
purchased toys or sports equipment that promote physical
activity for young boys, but products that promote sedentary play for girls (e.g., fancy dresses, makeup kits, dolls,
tea sets)?”
If you answered yes to any of these questions, or at least recognize that many people would, you are acknowledging a few of
many gender socialization practices, which have real ramifications
for the health and fitness of the female population. Gender has been
defined as “sets of traits or behavioral dispositions that people come
to possess based on their assignment to a particular sex category”
(Wharton, 2005, p. 7) and socialization as the “process whereby individuals acquire information about acceptable and unacceptable responses, including developing social, cognitive, and physical skills”
(Solmon & Lee, 2008, p. 229). Together, gender socialization
may be considered the “processes of social expectations, control,
and struggle” that sustain male–female traditions (Ferree & Hall,
1996, p. 935). These processes are continuous, are complex, and are
shaped by many influences, including family members, peers, teachers, coaches, coworkers, and media agencies (Stromquist, 2007).
Some hold that “aging successfully starts at birth” and that there
are “critical points in time where well-timed education, referrals,
or interventions by health and fitness professionals could help clients shape a preventive health care game plan for successful aging” (Sanders & Nguyen, 2011, p. 37). However, the potential for
successful aging may be at least partially determined before birth,
through the establishment of environments that will either promote
or impede physically active lifestyles. Definitions of successful aging are complex and vary across disciplines (Kanning & Schlicht,
2008), but physical function has been the most frequent inclusion
across cultures and countries, among academicians and laypeople
(Hung, Kempen, & DeVries, 2010). Good physical function empowers diverse daily, occupational, leisure, and social activities and
enhances subjective well-being (Kanning & Schlicht, 2008; Rikli,
2005). Therefore, regular physical activity crucially contributes to
Mullins
21
successful aging by helping people develop and maintain healthy
physical function. The purpose of this article is to enhance mindfulness of the influences of gender socialization on physical activity,
health, and successful aging, to promote changes in habits that limit
physical activity exposure, competency, and self-efficacy among
girls and women.
Sociologists routinely discuss the tendencies of gender traditions to restrain women and men from engagement in certain activities (Lindsey, 2011), and some have specifically identified such
restraints on physical activity and sports (Schmalz & Kerstetter,
2006). However, such discussion is less common in other disciplines, including physical education and exercise science. With the
curricula of many degree programs now viewable online, it is easy
to see that many physical education and exercise science majors require a general sociology course, but not a discipline-specific one.
Thus, although most students will study some gender-related issues,
they may not specifically examine them with respect to physical
activity. Since gender socialization may profoundly affect youth
physical activity—a known correlate of adult physical activity
(Telama et al., 2005)—this is shortsighted. Physical education and
exercise science majors will eventually assume leading roles in administering physical activity programs, and it is imperative that they
understand the impact of gender stereotypes on physical activity and
health. Thus, in addition to promoting greater awareness of gender
socialization effects on physical activity, an important secondary
objective is to motivate readers to delve into the related literature.
The branches of this topic are extensive, and there is much to learn
about how to avoid perpetuating the common gender-stereotyped
behaviors that render girls less active than boys in schools, sports,
recreational settings, and home environments.
Many researchers have documented that males are more physically active than females, at many stages of development, in many
settings, beginning at early ages (Beighle, Morgan, Le Masurier,
& Pangrazi, 2006; Eaton et al., 2010; Faucette, 1995; Jago, Anderson, Baranowski, & Watson, 2005; Ridgers, Stratton, Fairclough, &
Twisk, 2007; Sallis, Prochaska, & Taylor, 2000; Trost et al., 2002;
P. Tucker, 2008). Although research on physical activity among
children of preschool age is limited, some findings are noteworthy.
P. Tucker (2008) reviewed 39 studies, involving more than 10,000
preschoolers and reported that among the 18 that examined sex differences in physical activity, 16 showed that male preschoolers were
22
Rethink Pink
more active than females. These findings from studies of young
children indicate how early socialization behaviors may substantially affect children’s physical activity levels. Since the gender gap
in physical activity levels only widens as children age (Jago et al.,
2005; Sherar, Esliger, Baxter-Jones, & Tremblay, 2007), and since
adult physical activity is a direct correlate of youth physi¬cal activity (Sallis et al., 1992; J. Tucker et al., 1995), patterns of reduced
activity among preschool girls may have profound implications for
the activity levels, fitness, and health of adult women.
Recent statistics on adolescent physical activity from the Youth
Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS) reveal significant
gender disparities (Eaton et al., 2010). Although only about 37%
of ninth to 12th graders nationwide accumulate the recommended
levels of weekly physical activity, the percentage of girls that meets
recommendations is even lower (girls, 27.7%; boys, 43.6%). Additionally, compared with boys, girls attend fewer physical education
classes (Eaton et al., 2010), participate less during physical education (Eaton et al., 2006), belong to fewer sports teams (Eaton et al.,
2010; McKenzie, Marshall, Sallis, & Conway, 2000; Pratt, Macera,
& Blanton, 1999), and engage in less physical activity during recess
and outside of school (Beighle et al., 2006; Pate et al., 2002; Ridgers
et al., 2007; Trost et al., 2002).
Important research and modern initiatives indicate that “Exercise is Medicine” (www.exerciseismedicine.org) and that, as a nation, we need higher doses to curb the premature morbidity and mortality associated with physical inactivity (Jonas & Phillips, 2009).
To achieve higher effective doses, society needs to counter many
factors that contribute to sedentary living, including the overfeminization of girls. Even before babies are born, the environments that
await them are often furnished with items that teach girls and boys
traditional homemaker and breadwinner roles. Socialization studies, spanning decades, have shown that boys’ clothing, surroundings, and toys generally support sports activity and aspirations of
future work outside the home (Blakemore & Centers, 2005; FisherThompson, 1990; Rheingold & Cook, 1975). In contrast, girls’ surroundings often facilitate early training for less physically demanding domestic chores, parenting, and self-grooming (Basow, 1992;
Blakemore & Centers, 2005; Eccles, Jacobs, & Harold, 1990; Tauber, 1979). Essentially, as girls rehearse engaging in home-, child-,
and self-care, they also learn to spend less time in physically active,
healthful play.
Mullins
23
Rethink Pink
Before going further, please list the first five adjectives you associate with pink.
Despite that this paper’s title and introduction may have led
you to scrutinize your replies, past experience and prior evidence
(Koller, 2008) suggest that
(A) you did not list aggressive, capable, strong, powerful, ambitious, and driven and
(B) you did list pretty, soft, sweet, feminine, delicate, fragile,
and girly.
The point of this exercise is to reveal common tendencies to associate (B) or dissociate (A) certain attributes with pink and, arguably, anyone wearing pink. Such tendencies have been documented
(Koller, 2008), and one need not be an astute observer to see how
few parents dress their boys in pink, presumably to avoid affiliation
with a hallmark of femininity (Karniol, 2011). If pink were merely
a color, devoid of nuance, boys would be similarly surrounded by
it, clad in it, and given toys embellished with it. Instead, boys are
blanketed in blue and steered away from anything pink and its soft
significance.
Some researchers have proposed biological bases for color preferences (Alexander, 2003; Hulbert & Ling, 2007), but most support
social learning as the major determinant (Cohen, 2013; Cunningham & Macrae, 2011; LoBue & DeLoache, 2011). Children begin
to learn what they should prefer from the moment they are wrapped
in pink and blue blankets and brought home to pink and blue bedrooms. LoBue and DeLoache (2011) investigated whether young
children demonstrate color preferences by dividing 192 children
into six age groups (7–11 months, 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, 4 years, 5
years) and asking them, over eight trials, to choose their preference
of a pair of identical objects of different color. One object within a
pair was always pink, and the objects were presented in counterbalanced fashion, with respect to gender, age group, and right or left
orientation. Results showed no evidence of gender differences in
color preferences within the youngest age groups. However, by age
2, girls’ liking for pink increased, whereas it decreased among boys,
creating a sizeable difference by age 4. Girls’ preferential selection
of pink reached significance by ages 3 and 4, and boys’ nonselection of it was significant at ages 2, 4, and 5. Thus, it appears that
children’s tendencies to choose or to avoid pink emerge only with
24
Rethink Pink
increasing age, as they observe, learn, and receive reinforcement
for adhering to color conventions. In a study specifically designed
to investigate color associations in adults, no men (17–96 years)
identified pink as their favorite color and 20% listed it as their least
favorite (Koller, 2008).
Color and “appropriate” activity stereotypes (Azzarito & Solmon, 2009; Schmalz & Kerstetter, 2006) are so pervasive that many
people fail to see them as such, increasing the difficulty of change.
Why change? First, the fundamental concept of freedom centers
on the “power to determine without restraint” (“Freedom,” n.d.).
Gender conventions subvert this right for children by limiting their
acceptable options. Where there are 10 girls’ tops on a rack and
seven of them are pink, are there really 10 choices? Where female
children are given toy vacuum cleaners, Easy Bake Ovens, dolls,
and Rapunzel dresses, what are the chances that they, at some point,
will “play house,” “take care of their babies,” and “wait for rescue
by a handsome prince”? Where girls are not given a diversity of
sports equipment and action-oriented toys, what are the chances
that they will develop diverse motor skills and activity experiences?
Gender stereotypes limit the characteristics and the skills that children can develop.
Second, change is needed because many gender stereotypes perpetuate lower physical activity levels among females, which affect
health. The pervasiveness of the stereotypes cannot be adequately
characterized here, but a few examples indicate their range. Pomerleau, Bolduc, Malcuit, and Cosette (1990) evidenced parental
gender stereotyping, in analyzing the bedrooms, toys, and clothing of children 5–25 months old. Girls had more pink pacifiers,
pink clothes, dolls, dollhouses, and toy household appliances (e.g.,
ovens, vacuum cleaners), and boys had more blue pacifiers, blue
clothes, sports equipment, and occupation-oriented toys (e.g., medical kits, tools). Nelson (2000) analyzed 469 Halloween costumes
and classified a mere 8.7% as gender neutral (i.e., ads or packaging displayed boys and girls or ambiguous figures as models). The
majority targeted a specific gender, with the greatest percentages
of female costumes depicting princesses and beauty queens and the
most prevalent male costumes portraying villains, superheroes, and
warriors. Villains, superheroes, and warriors are perpetrators, saviors, and fighters; princesses and beauty queens are passive figures
to be ornamented and admired. Bridges (1993) reported that birth
congratulations cards for girls were dominated by pink and images
of sedentary activity (e.g., sitting, lying down), and cards for boys
Mullins
25
were predominantly blue and depictive of active behaviors (e.g.,
walking, climbing, reaching).
Readers who question the recency of the previous findings need
only attend a baby shower where the sex of the expected child is
known and observe the character and colors of the gifts. Explore
the website of a children’s store, such as Babies “R” Us or The Children’s Place, and view the clothing options. A recent search (7-513) of the subcategories Baby Clothes, Baby Girl Clothes, and Tops
at BabiesRUs.com yielded 42 tops for girls, with 30, or 71%, being
or bearing pink. In contrast, only one top among 29 (3%) within the
subcategory Baby Boy Clothes contained any pink, among many
other colors. Investigate children’s bedrooms and toy chests, and
browse the aisles of a toy store or the products on a toy store website.
Girls’ and boys’ disparate surroundings directly influence their
play activities. Girls spend significantly more time playing with
dolls, in “house,” and “dress-up” activities, whereas boys spend
more time with construction and vehicular toys (Freeman, 2007;
Giddings & Halverson, 1981; O’Brien & Huston, 1985). However,
kids play with the toys made available to them. Relatively few boys
learn young that they will one day have to wash clothes, change
diapers, push baby strollers, vacuum, and dust because relatively
few people give boys toys that simulate “women’s work.” Similarly, relatively few girls are given toy excavators, harvesters, race
cars, and footballs, and it is therefore not surprising that tremendous
gender discrepancies in certain careers and in sports participation
remain. Parents have been shown to report much greater support for
cross-gender play (e.g., girls playing with trucks, boys playing with
dolls) than their children perceive (Freeman, 2007), indicating a discrepancy between what parents profess and what they communicate
to children. What is important to recognize is that wider ranges of
play experiences allow children to explore wider ranges of roles and
skills. Domestic chores are important for everyone to learn—girls
and boys—just as regular physical activity is vital to the health and
competency of all people to participate fully in life.
State of Affairs: Gender Equity
in Sports and Physical Activity
Gender stereotypes and bias still limit the physical activities in
which girls participate, persist, and succeed. Title IX’s prohibition of
sex discrimination in federally funded educational programs (U.S.
Department of Justice, 2001) has greatly increased athletic partici26
Rethink Pink
pation among girls and women, yet noncompliance with the act is
widespread and inequities persist (Braddock, Sokol-Katz, Greene,
& Basinger-Fleischman, 2005; Simon, 1993/1994; Stafford, 2004).
Mandatory compliance reports on American public schools showed
that in 2000, girls were still 29% less likely than boys to participate
in interscholastic athletics, which may partially reflect the 10% fewer sports teams available for girls (Braddock et al., 2005). A recent
gender equity report from the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) substantiates the persistent inequities in total expenditures, personnel, and other forms of support for male compared
with female sports; for example, despite that female undergraduates
constitute the greater proportion of student bodies at Division I institutions (53.3%), the average number of female student-athletes
per institution is 218, compared with 269 for males (DeHass, 2008).
At Division I institutions, overall expenditures for women’s teams
are essentially half those for men’s teams (51.4%), and trends are
similar for Divisions II and III. The persistence of the inequities is
substantiated in the NCAA (2008) gender equity manual:
Problems arise where institutions create spacious and well-furnished locker rooms for football and men’s basketball and no similarly appointed locker rooms for women’s teams. Access to luxury
items in locker rooms also creates compliance problems when those
are not distributed equitably between men’s and women’s teams. (p.
208)
Media coverage is another well-documented area of inequity
and means of perpetuating gender stereotypes. Eastman and Billings
(2000) reported that throughout 11 weeks of ESPN’s SportsCenter
and CNN’s Sports Today, 95% and 93% of coverage, respectively,
was devoted to male athletes. During the same time frame, USA Today dedicated 5 times as much space to male versus female athletes
and The New York Times 10 times as much. Only 10% of articles
and photos from 36 issues of Sports Illustrated (Fink & Kensicki,
2002) and only 24% of photos from the same volume of Sports Illustrated Kids featured female athletes (Hardin, Lynn, Walsdorf, &
Hardin, 2002). An analysis of 602 issues, from 43 daily newspapers,
collected over 1 year, showed that more numerous articles, more
physical space, more favorable positioning (e.g., front page, higher
on page), and more photos were dedicated to male versus female
athletes (Pedersen, 2002). In their investigation of media from 39
colleges and universities, ranging in size, location, and socioeconomic status, Huffman, Tuggle, and Rosengard (2004) revealed that
Mullins
27
73% of sports stories in campus newspapers and 82% of campus
sportscasts covered male athletes. Cooper and Cooper (2009) analyzed 630 intercollegiate athletics Web pages and found that women
were underrepresented compared with men in all assessed areas: advertisements (29.7% vs. 70.3%), articles (40.0% vs. 60.0%), multimedia (78.1% vs. 21.9), and photographs (39.7% vs. 60.3%). These
findings are particularly noteworthy in that intercollegiate websites
should be in compliance with Title IX regulations for gender equality in collegiate athletics, including publicity (U.S. Department of
Justice, 2001).
Qualitative differences give even greater dimension to gender
bias in the media coverage of male and female athletes. Higgs and
Weiller (1994) reported that television networks provided significantly less air time for women’s events compared with men’s during the Olympic Games and often joined women’s events “in progress” (p. 237) while providing preview coverage of many men’s
events. Analysts distinctly upheld traditional notions of male dominance and female deference, as they spoke at length about males’
strengths, abilities, successes, and difficult tasks and about females’
weaknesses, appearances, and emotions. They framed male athletes
as competitive, strong, powerful, and fast and spoke little about
their personal lives or emotions. In contrast, they described female
athletes with words and phrases that included “long beautiful legs”
(p. 240), “gorgeous,” “Cinderella,” “fragile” (p. 241), “prettier now
with long hair,” “babe” (p. 242), “prettiest nails in the competition,”
and “a little too chunky for this event” (p. 244). Analysts provided
extensive coverage of one gymnast’s fall off the balance beam and
her ensuing tears. Despite that some male athletes are “chunky” and
that some cry, there were no parallel commentaries on males’ body
weights or tears.
Male athletes are more often presented in uniform and in action,
with photos that convey competence and strength, whereas female
athletes are often presented out of uniform, in passive positions,
with images that express femininity, sexuality, and even seduction
(Buysse & Embser-Herbert, 2004; Fink & Kensicki, 2002; Hardin et
al., 2002; Higgs & Weiller, 1994; Kane & Buysse, 2005).
An example of this is one media guide cover that portrayed the
women’s basketball team in formal gowns with heavily made up
faces and styled hair. The message communicated is not about basketball. There is no evidence anywhere on the cover that suggests
that this is a basketball team. Rather, it appears that they might
28
Rethink Pink
be candidates for homecoming queen. (Buysse & Embser-Herbert,
2004, p. 79).
A 2010 issue of Golf Magazine, a publication that primarily
features male golfers, included an article on Michelle Wie (Barrett,
2010). A two-page photo spread, beginning on page 72, showed Wie
lying alluringly on the grass, in a lacy top, dress pants, and heels.
Nothing in the photo indicates that Wie is a golfer or that she is even
lying on golf course grass, as no flagstick, hole, or cut lines are visible. In only one of eight photos within the article, the smallest at
about the size of a postage stamp, is Wie demonstrating any physical
ability, swinging a club (p. 79). Media framing has been said to trivialize the endeavors of female athletes by focusing on their appearances, emotions, and unrelated life activities (Carty, 2005; Duncan
& Messner, 1998; Fink & Kensicki, 2002; Higgs & Weiller, 1994).
Examination of local newspapers, major sports magazines, newscasts, and Web pages will verify the persistence of these inequities.
Societal conventions are such that many people often do not
recognize as sexist the many things they see, hear, say, and do that
are, in fact, sexist. As indicated, sportscasters sustain conventions
through the glorification of male and subordination of female athletes. Some show clear tendencies to refer to female athletes as
“girls,” but not to refer to male athletes of comparable age as “boys”
(Higgs & Weiller, 1994; Higgs, Weiller, & Martin, 2003), and to
refer to males by their last names, but females by their first (Duncan
& Messner, 1998; Halbert & Latimer, 1994). In a study of U.S.
Open tennis match commentaries, analysts referred to female players solely by their first names 57% of the time compared with a
mere 8% of the time for male players (Duncan & Messner, 1998).
Some commentators praise female athletes by comparing them to
male counterparts, as one compared Venus Williams to Pete Sampras (Eastman & Billings, 2000). Although the popular press has
compared Annika Sorenstam to Tiger Woods, Lisa Leslie to Michael
Jordan, Mia Hamm to David Beckham, and Natalie Coughlin to Michael Phelps, few can imagine hearing the reciprocals. The problem
with these media tendencies is that many who hear them later mimic
them in other venues, including sports practices, physical activity
programs, and physical education classes. In her observations of approximately 50 physical education classes, Griffin (1981) noted that
teachers made several male-praising comments such as “Mary, you
throw as well as the boys” and “Jane is a great athlete for a girl” (p.
15). Though Griffin’s report was published decades ago, this author
continues to hear such comments frequently. Wright (2001) reported
Mullins
29
merely a few of hundreds of examples of language and behaviors
provided by physical education teachers, which reinforce restrictive notions of femininity and masculinity, including quotes such
as “You can’t let a girl beat you” and “Don’t pass it to … she might
break a nail”, comments made to ridicule boys such as alluding to
“playing like a girl”, and practices such as bringing in the pitcher’s
plate because a girl is pitching (p. 15).
Examples such as those above, along with the many subtle dayto-day instances of gender bias, can detract from the fun of sports
and physical activities for some girls and women. Golf courses are
some of the most fertile ground for sexism. Some course executives still maintain male-only membership policies, and many more
restrict women from playing on certain days of the week and at certain times of day (Lenkiewicz, 2011). “Women’s tees” and “men’s
tees” persist as common terms, despite that the United States Golf
Association (2008) designates various teeing ground locations as
“forward,” “middle,” and “back tees” and urges golfers to play
from those suited to their ability levels, not their gender. Despite
the prevalence of slow play on many golf courses, among many
types of players, women are commonly assumed to be slow players
before ever giving evidence of being so (McGinnis, McQuillan, &
Chapple, 2005).
Changing the State of Affairs
For girls to develop comparable levels of physical self-competence as boys, they need to be routinely given the same exposure
to sports and physical activities, the same quantity and quality of
instruction, the same patience with their mistakes, and the same recognition of their efforts. Inequities in physical activity settings have
shrunk, but they still exist. Conduct an informal investigation of exposure by surveying the preschool sports programs at a local YMCA
or recreation center. If there were gender equity, there would be an
approximate 50–50, boy–girl split in commonly offered activities,
such as tee-ball, swimming, soccer, and basketball. However, male
majorities abound and will continue to do so until more people recognize the harm in providing girls with fewer early opportunities to
develop motor skills and active behaviors.
Parents, teachers, and coaches influence children’s skill acquisition through the amounts and type of instruction, supervision, and
feedback they provide. Research has shown that physical education
teachers (Dunbar & O’Sullivan, 1986; Griffin, 1981; MacDonald,
30
Rethink Pink
1990; Nicaise, Cogérino, Bois, & Amorose, 2006; Nicaise, Cogérino, Fairclough, Bois, & Davis, 2007), classroom teachers (Sadker,
Sadker, & Zittleman, 2009; Vekiri & Chronaki, 2008), and parents
(Crowley, Callanan, Tenenbaum, & Allen, 2001; Frome & Eccles,
1998; Jacobs, 1991; Tiedemann, 2000) provide more verbal and
nonverbal interaction, more constructive criticism, and more appropriate praise to males than females and demonstrate higher expectations for males’ abilities. These differential behaviors can profoundly enhance boys’ and limit girls’ learning; for example, constructive
criticism from competent sources is a form of augmented feedback
known to enhance the acquisition of motor skills (Magill, 1994).
Although individuals can learn some skills using inherent sources of
feedback, such as the senses (e.g., see an object fall short of a target
and learn to throw it with more force), augmented feedback is helpful in learning complex skills and attaining higher levels of proficiency (e.g., learn to throw the object with optimum efficiency, power, consistency). When individuals attempt complex skills wherein
they cannot discern their own errors and do not receive augmented
feedback, their learning may be severely impaired (Schmidt, 1991).
When girls err, they are less likely to receive such feedback and
therefore to enhance their physical competency. Moreover, since
corrective feedback following errors and praise following successes
are known to bolster perceived competence (Allen & Howe, 1998),
common socialization tendencies may affect girls’ actual skills and
confidence in their skills.
Girls’ confidence in their abilities may be undermined by what
some authors have referred to as “short-circuiting” of learning processes. In their compendium of more than three decades of research
on gender inequities in schools, Sadker et al. (2009) provided numerous examples of ways that teachers “short-circuit” (p. 109) girls’
learning by interrupting t
