Connotations of Female
Movement and Meaning
The Development of Women’s
Participation in the Olympic Games
John W. Loy, Fiona McLachlan & Douglas Booth*
The modern Olympic Games are the world’s largest sporting event, drawing more
participants and attracting more spectators from more diverse places worldwide
than any other sporting competition. The Olympic Games are also significant in
that they highlight international competition for sportswomen. However, female
Olympians have yet to achieve parity with male Olympians in respect to the number of participants or the number of sporting events. Long excluded from many
sports within the Olympic Games, women have not had equal opportunity to pursue the Olympic motto of Citius, Altius, Fortius (Faster, Higher, Stronger). In this
article we extend the now largely accepted political accounts for women’s restricted
Olympic competition by offering a more nuanced sociological explanation for the
slow increase of female participation and evolution of new sport forms in the summer Olympic Games.
Our sociological explanation combines the insights of Eleanor Metheny and
Pierre Bourdieu concerning the connotations of movement and meaning in sport
for females, and highlights the relationship between embodiment and empowerment in sporting practices. We follow John Hargreaves who contends that the body
constitutes the “most striking symbol” and “core of sporting activity” as well as “a
major site of social struggles” around power and gender.1
❖
From ancient times until late in the nineteenth century, Western society considered sport a male preserve. From the late nineteenth century sport became contested terrain for gender relations, and over the course of the twentieth century
many women, and their male supporters, fought for greater involvement at all
levels and in all forms.2 The struggle for female participation largely occurred
on two fronts; we label these equity and legitimation. While women fight to
achieve equal rights, rewards and resources with their male counterparts in
sport, they also struggle to overcome stereotypes of what the public-at-large
deems appropriate and inappropriate sporting practices for women. These two
forms of social struggles mark the history of the modern Olympic Games.
Thus, in the first section we highlight the struggles for equity in terms of
the basic degree of female participation in the Olympic Games, and the strug*
John Loy is Professor Emeritus a the University of Rhode Island; Fiona McLachlan is Lecturer in
Kinesiology, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand; Douglas Booth is Professor and Dean,
Health Sciences, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Olympika XVIII (2009), 1-24
1
Loy, McLachlan & Booth
gles for legitimation in terms of the kind of female participation. In the second
section we introduce Metheny’s principles as general sociological explanations
for socially sanctioned female sport in the mid-twentieth century.3 We argue
that these principles, especially when combined with the insights of Pierre
Bourdieu, provide a powerful explanation for women’s uneven progress toward
equity in elite sport across the twentieth century. In the third section, we summarize the political explanations for female participation before proffering a
sociological account of masculine domination in the modern Olympic Games.
In the latter we draw on Bourdieu’s theory of symbolic violence.
Equity and Legitimation:
Degrees and Forms of Female Participation
Participation rates of female athletes relative to male athletes reveal the problem
of gender equity in the modern Olympic Games. Table 1 shows the number of
male and female athletes competing in every Olympiad from 1896 through
2008, and gives the relative percentage of women competitors at each.4
No. of female
competitors
Host city
% of female
competitors
Year
No. of male
competitors
No. of female
competitors
Host city
% of female
competitors
Year
No. of male
competitors
Table 1: Number of Female and Male Competitors and the Relative Percentage
of Female to Total Competitors at Summer Olympic Games, 1896-2008
1896
Athens
245
0
0.0 1960
Rome
4738
610 11.4
1900
Paris
1097
21
1.9 1964
Tokyo
4398
683 13.4
1904
St. Louis
621
6
1.0 1968
Mexico City
4655
768 14.2
1906
Athens
841
6
0.7 1972
Munich
6115 1058 14.8
1908
London
1979
44
2.2 1976
Montreal
4778 1246 20.7
1912
Stockholm
2435
55
2.2 1980
Moscow
4093 1124 21.5
1920
Antwerp
2591
77
2.9 1984
Los Angeles 5230 1567 23.1
1924
Paris
2945
125
4.0 1988
Seoul
6276 2189 25.9
1928
Amsterdam
2724
290
9.6 1992
Barcelona
6662 2708 28.9
1932
Los Angeles 1201
127
9.6 1996
Atlanta
6797 3513 34.1
1936
Berlin
3628
328
8.3 2000
Sydney
6580 4069 38.5
1948
London
3709
355
8.7 2004
Athens
6255 4305 40.8
1952
Helsinki
4361
518 10.6 2008
Beijing
6400 4746 42.8
1956
Melbourne
2874
384 11.8
Source: D. Wallechinsky & J. Loucky, The Complete Book of the Olympics (London: Aurum, 2008)
No women participated 1896. Twenty-one women, just under 2% of all participating athletes, participated at the next Games in 1900, but the percentage of
female participants did not reach four-percent until 1924. It took half a century
for female participation to rise above 10% (10.5% in 1952), another 36 years to
2
Connotations of Female Movement and Meaning
Host city
Open to
women
no.
%
Year
Host city
No. of
events
Year
No. of
events
Table 2: Number of Events and Number and Relative Percentage
of Events Open to Women at Summer Olympic Games, 1896-2008
Open to
women
no.
%
1896
Athens
43
0
0 1960
Rome
150
37 24.7
1900
Paris
75
11 14.7 1964
Tokyo
163
42 25.8
1904
St. Louis
84
2
2.4 1968
Mexico City
172
56 32.6
1906
Athens
74
__
__ 1972
Munich
195
61 31.3
1908
London
109
7
6.4 1976
Montreal
198
67 33.8
1912
Stockholm
102
16 15.7 1980
Moscow
203
67 33.0
1920
Antwerp
154
22 14.3 1984
Los Angeles
221
78 35.3
1924
Paris
126
18 14.3 1988
Seoul
237
87 36.7
1928
Amsterdam
109
25 22.9 1992
Barcelona
257
100 38.9
1932
Los Angeles
116
22 19.0 1996
Atlanta
271
106 39.1
1936
Berlin
129
23 17.8 2000
Sydney
300
130 43.3
1948
London
136
28 20.6 2004
Athens
301
135 44.9
1952
Helsinki
149
34 22.8 2008
Beijing
302
137 45.4
1956
Melbourne
151
35 23.2
Source: D. Wallechinsky & J. Loucky, The Complete Book of the Olympics (London: Aurum, 2008)
exceed 25% (25.9% in 1988) and a full century to rise above one third (34.1% in
1996). The highest percent of female participants occurred in 2008 (42.8%).
Recently, International Olympic Committee (IOC) member Anita DeFrantz
predicted women will comprise 50 percent of competitors at the next Games in
2012.5 Notwithstanding De Frantz’s credentials as Chair of the IOC’s Women
and Sports Committee, we note that an increase of more than 7% in female
participation rates between two Games is unprecedented, and, in our view,
most unlikely to occur in 2012.
Another way to evaluate women’s equity in the Olympic Games is to compare the number and relative percentage of events held for men and women,
respectively. Table 2 shows these figures.6 There were no sporting events for
women in 1896 and less than a dozen at each of the next four Games: 1900,
1904, 1906 and 1908. As Table 2 indicates, the percentage of sporting events
held for women did not exceed 25 percent until 1964. In 2008 the percentage of
sporting events for women reached a high of 45.4. Figure 1 graphically portrays
the two sets of relative percentages of women’s involvement in the Olympic
Games (i.e., the relationship between the two forms of equality illustrated in
Tables 1 and 2).
Figure 1 highlights a generally uniform rise in female participation broken
by two “steps,” the first between 1924 and 1928 and the second between 1972
and 1976. In addition we point to the pace towards parity quickening between
1984 and 2000. (As we comment in note five, the inclusion of mixed events gives
a misleading picture of female involvement in the early Olympics; very few
women participated in these competitions.) Figure 1 also provides a sober
3
Loy, McLachlan & Booth
reminder that trends can be easily reversed; this is most conspicuous with
respect to declines in the number of events open to women, although admittedly
these occurrences were more prevalent in the early twentieth century and appear
to have declined in more recent years. Tables 1 and 2 and Figure 1 confirm the
slow movement towards female equity and gender parity in the Olympic Games.
Wh i l e i n c re a s i n g t h e
Figure 1: Percentage of women participants and events
open to women (relative to total number of participants number of female participants and events open to
and events) at summer Olympic Games, 1896-2008
women is important for
gender equity, cognizance
Participants
Events
must also be taken of the
kinds of sporting events in
which women compete.
Struggles over the forms
of sport open to women
reinforce Pierre Bourdieu’s
observation that what is at
stake in the battle for sport
Year
i s t h e “m o n o p o l i s t i c
capacity to impose the legitimate definition of sporting practices” which he
adds is “part of the larger field of struggles over the definition of the legitimate
body and the legitimate use of the body.”7 Indeed, one may argue that the history of sport ultimately represents struggles to impose definitions of legitimate
sporting practices (e.g., boxing and bullfighting as legal or illegal “blood
sports”) and legitimate sporting bodies (e.g., amateur vs. professional bodies,
white vs. black bodies, middle class vs. working class bodies, able vs. physically
limited bodies, young vs. old bodies, male vs. female bodies).
The twentieth century is replete with controversial cases of females allegedly invading the traditional bastions of male dominated sports, from Sarah
“Fanny” Durack in swimming shortly after the turn of the century, Mildred
“Babe” Didrickson in track and field in the inter-war years, to Danica Patrick in
motorcar racing in more recent times. But few insightful examinations have
been made of the perceived feminine images of appropriate and inappropriate
bodily techniques and sporting practices. Eleanor Metheny’s analysis of the
socially sanctioned image of feminine sport competition is an early and highly
notable exception.8
The Principles of Socially Acceptable Feminine Sport
On the basis of attitudes expressed by college women and in reference to Olympic
sports, Metheny proposed a “few general principles” which she said underpinned
“the socially sanctioned image of feminine sport competition for college women in
4
Connotations of Female Movement and Meaning
the United States.”9 Applied
Figure 2: The Difference in Years between the Introduction
to collegiate women in the of Selected Olympic Sports for Men and for Women
1960s, Metheny’s principles
have face validity and also
appear to stand the test of
time when applied to female
Olympians in general. In
this section we examine the
time differences between
the introduction of selected
Olympic sports for men and
women in the context of
Metheny’s three sets of principles. Figure 2 illustrates
the time gaps for the introduction of various sports for men and women, respectively. It graphically compares what Metheny identified as “wholly appropriate”
and “wholly inappropriate” sports for female competition.
Wholly appropriate and generally acceptable forms of sport for women
Metheny lists archery, bowling, diving, figure skating, golf and skiing as examples of approved competitive sports for college women in the United States in
the 1960s. She also identifies a handful of face-to-face competitions as generally
acceptable at this time, notably badminton, squash, and tennis, and the teamsport of volleyball. According to Metheny, one or more of the following movement principles characterize these sport forms, namely:
1 the resistance of a light object is overcome with a light implement
2 the body is projected into or through space in aesthetically pleasing patterns
3 the velocity and maneuverability of the body is increased by the use of some
manufactured device
4 a spatial barrier prevents bodily contact with the opponent in face-to-face
competition.10
Metheny observes that the sporting forms which illustrate these movement
principles typically entail expenditure of time and money and thus limit participation to “women in economically-favored groups.”11 In a detailed analysis of
the class basis of sport, Pierre Bourdieu observed that activities such as golf,
tennis, sailing, and riding incorporate the “features which appeal to the dominant
taste.”12 They reflect the upper class’s unique aesthetic/ethical dimensions, temporal/spatial orientations, material and symbolic status signs, and body hexis.
More specifically, these sports demand
a relatively low physical exertion that is in any case freely determined, but a relatively high investment—and the earlier it is put in,
5
Loy, McLachlan & Booth
the more profitable it is—of time and learning (so that they are relatively independent of variations in bodily capital and decline through
age), they only give rise to highly ritualized competitions, governed,
beyond the rules, by the unwritten laws of fair play. The sporting
exchange takes place on the air of a highly controlled social exchange,
excluding all physical or verbal violence, all anomic use of the body
(shouting, wild gestures etc.) and all forms of direct contact between
the opponents (who are often separated by the spatial organization
and various opening and closing rites).13
Metheny considers bowling an exception among her highly approved sport
forms; bowling involves a relatively heavy ball and does not typically require
the expenditure of time and money like the other acceptable sports. Indeed, she
suggests that bowling “finds greatest favor with middle-class groups.” Today,
bowling in North America is typically recognized as a lower middle class or
even working class sport, not unlike the Italian game of bocce or the French
game of pétanque. Interestingly, Bourdieu describes pétanque as “the least distinguished and least distinctive” sport of all, since it requires practically no economic or cultural capital and demands little more than spare time.”14
Significantly, Metheny’s four movement principles characterize all the
sporting events held for women in the seven Olympic Games between 1900
and 1924. The organizers of these Games limited female competition to
archery, diving, fencing, figure skating, golf, swimming, and tennis.15 It is also
significant that volleyball, introduced in 1964, was the first Olympic team
sport for women involving face-to-face competition.ĐSince Metheny’s initial
theorizing, women have gained access to a variety of other sporting events in
the Olympic Games and her movement principles help explain these forms.
These sports include: the reintroduction of archery (individual 1972, team
1988),16 synchronized platform and springboard diving (2000); synchronized
swimming (duet 1984, team 1996); rhythmic gymnastics (all-around 1984,
team 1996); badminton (singles and doubles 1992, mixed doubles 1996); and
table tennis (singles and doubles 1988, team 2008). In Figure 2 archery, badminton, croquet, equestrian, golf, sailing, table tennis, volleyball, diving, tennis and fencing show the least time difference between their introduction for
men and women at the Olympics.
While the IOC approved fencing by foil for individual female competition
in 1924, it did not enter the program as a team sport for women until 1960. By
contrast foil fencing was a team sport for men in 1904. Of greater symbolic significance in terms of body and movement culture is the fact that women were
excluded from other forms of fencing for several decades. For example, with
respect to the more aristocratic epee fencing, men first competed individually
in 1900 and as team members as early as 1906. By contrast, women did not
fence with an epee until 1996. And with respect to the very masculine, milita6
Connotations of Female Movement and Meaning
ristic form of sabre fencing, women confronted an even longer time line. Men
first competed in individual saber competition in 1896 and team saber competition in 1906; women did not compete in individual saber competition until
2004 and in team saber competition until 2008.17
Wholly inappropriate and categorically
unacceptable sport forms for women
Metheny asserted that some sports were totally unacceptable for women and
she noted that they were excluded from Olympic competition in boxing, judo,
wrestling, weight-lifting, hammer throw, pole vault, high hurdles, the longer
distance running events, and all forms of team games with the exception of
volleyball. Metheny identified three characteristics of inappropriate sport
forms, namely:
1 the resistance of the opponent is overcome by bodily contact
2 the resistance of a heavy object is overcome by direct application of bodily force
3 the body is projected into or through space over long distances or for
extended periods of time.18
These movement principles seem to illustrate the long legacy of women’s exclusion from Olympic competitions that involve excessive body contact, strength,
power and stamina as evident in martial arts, team sports, weight events, and
long distance events.
Sport forms involving bodily contact to overcome an opponent, especially
aggressive and brutal body contact such as contemporary “extreme fighting,”
may well be the last bastions of masculine sport. In any event, the martial arts
have expressed strong opposition to women’s participation in the Olympic
Games. For example, women have never competed in Greco-Roman wrestling
which was introduced as an Olympic sport in 1896. However, females have
slowly, and usually amid great controversy, gained access to other forms of martial arts involving blatant body contact. For example, they began competing in
freestyle wrestling in 2004, albeit a full century after men. Women did not have
to wait as long to participate in judo. Men first entered judo in 1964; women
followed suit in 1992. The addition of Taekwondo to the Olympic program in
2000 saw both men and women competing in this event. Men first competed in
selected weight classes of boxing in 1904 and the sport has been a major media
draw card but women’s boxing remained taboo until this year when the IOC
announced the inclusion of three women’s events on the 2012 program.19
Team sports are another strenuous form that involve various degrees of
body contact, and where the IOC barred women from competition long after
including men. In the case of water polo, women had to wait a full century;
men first competed in 1900, women in 2000. Other long waiting periods for
women include football (soccer) (men 1908, women 1996), field hockey (men
7
Loy, McLachlan & Booth
Table 3: Dates for the Introduction of Various Olympic Events for Women and Men
Sport
Canoeing
Slalom: K1
K1 500m (Men 1000m)
K4 1000m
K2 500m (Men 1000m)
Cycling
Mountain Bike
BMX
3000m individual pursuit
Road time trial
Road race
1000m sprint
Points race
Field
Javelin Throw
Discus
High Jump
Long Jump
Shot Put
Triple Jump
Hammer Throw
Pole Vault
Gymnastics
Trampoline
Floor exercises
Team Combined
Side horse vault
All around
Rowing
Lightweight double sculls
Quad sculls
Double sculls
Pair without coxswain
Eight with coxswain
Single sculls
Four without coxswain
W
M
1972
1948
1984
1960
1972
1936
1964
1936
1996
2008
1992
1996
1984
1988
1996
199
2008
1964
1912
1896
1896
1900
1932
1928
1928
1948
1948
1996
2000
2000
1908
1896
1896
1896
1896
1896
1900
1896
2000
1952
1928
1952
1952
2000
1932
1906
1924
1900
1996
1988
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1996
1976
1904
1904
1900
1900
1900
Sport
Swimming
100m Butterfly
4 x 100m Medley
400m Individual Medley
100m Breaststroke
200m Individual Medley
10km marathon
200m Butterfly
100m Freestyle
200m Breaststroke
100m Backstroke
400m Freestyle
4 x 100m Freestyle
200m Backstroke
200m Freestyle
50m Freestyle
4 x 200m Freestyle
Track
4 x 100m relay
100m
800m
110m hurdles
20 000m walk
200m
4 x 400m relay
400m
1500m
10 000m
400m hurdles
5 000m
Marathon
3000m steeplechase
W
M
1956
1960
1964
1968
1968
2008
1968
1912
1924
1924
1920
1964
1968
1968
1988
1992
1968
1960
1964
1968
1968
2008
1956
1896
1908
1904
1896
1912
1900
1900
1904
1906
1928
1928
1928
1932
2000
1948
1972
1964
1972
1988
1984
1996
1984
2008
1912
1896
1896
1896
1956
1900
1908
1896
1896
1912
1900
1912
1896
1900
1908, women 1980), (team) handball (men 1936, women 1976), and basketball
(men 1936, women 1972). The closest parallels of men and women competing
in team sports is the introduction of baseball for men in 1992 and the introduction of softball for women in 1996.
Like sports involving body contact, those involving heavy objects have
been slow to embrace female competition. For example, men competed in various classes of weightlifting in 1920; women did not compete in weightlifting
until 2000. In Table 3 we extend our analysis into the component events of a
number of Olympic sports including cycling, canoeing, track and field, and
swimming. Table 3 further reinforces Metheny’s principles. For example, in
field events men first competed in the hammer throw in 1900, while women
had to wait until 2000 to participate in this event that involves a heavy object.
8
Connotations of Female Movement and Meaning
The time gap between other weight events has been somewhat less. For example, men first competed in the discus throw and shot put in 1896; women were
competing in these two events by 1928 and 1948, respectively.
Like sport forms involving body contact or heavy objects, those involving
extreme stamina have been slow to sanction female competition. As indicated
in Table 3, with the exception of the 800m in 1928, women were excluded from
long-distance running and long-distance walking events for many decades. In
fact, the women’s 800m in 1928 was an exception. As a result of the controversy
at the conclusion of the event, when a number of competitors collapsed on the
race track and infield, the International Amateur Athletic Federation withdrew
the women’s 800m from the Olympic program until 1960.
Of all the track events, the 108 year gap in the 3,000m steeplechase perhaps
best illustrates the principles underpinning the gender divide. The 3,000m steeplechase combines three highly valued male attributes: speed (i.e., the winner is
the first to complete the distance), strength (i.e., competitors must jump high,
fixed hurdles) and stamina (i.e., 3,000 is an endurance race).
Last but not least, we note that the centenary of Olympic competition for
women in 2000, constituted a significant step in the breakdown of barriers to
women athletes. After 100 years of competition women participated for the first
time in weightlifting, hammer throw, pole vaulting, taekwondo, skeet shooting,
trampoline, water polo, the 20,000m walk, and the modern pentathlon.
Sport forms that may be acceptable to
minority groups within the female college population
From her perspective of collegiate sports in the United States in the 1960s,
Metheny identified a number of sports in which women from lower of socioeconomic classes might engage. The characteristics of these sports include
those in which the:
1 resistance of an object of moderate weight is overcome by direct application
of bodily force, and
2 body is projected into or through space over moderate distances or for relatively short periods of time.20
Here Metheny specifically referred to what she perceived to be the “preponderance of women of Germanic and Slavic ancestry” engaged in gymnastics, and
the disproportionate representation of African-American women competing in
track and field, especially the shorter running races, and field events such as the
discus throw, javelin throw, long jump, and shot put.21
Bourdieu similarly commented on the distinctive movement characteristics of the working classes. “It is the relation to one’s own body,” Bourdieu
remarked, “which distinguishes the working class from the privileged class”
and in this regard he saw the lower classes adopting an “instrumental relation
9
Loy, McLachlan & Booth
to the body.” 22 Bourdieu illustrated this in a comparison of wrestling, practiced
by the working classes in France, and aikido, practiced by the new petty bourgeoisie. While wrestling involves “rough and direct bodily contact,” that in
aikido is “ephemeral and distanced, and fighting on the ground is non-existent.”23 This distinction and the relationship with the ground is particularly illuminating of class position as Bourdieu explains:
if the sense of the opposition between wrestling and aikido can be
understood so easily, this is because the opposition between ‘down to
earth,’ ‘virile,’ ‘hand-to-hand,’ ‘direct,’ etc. and ‘aerial,’ ‘light,’ ‘distanced,’ ‘gracious,’ transcend the terrain of sport and the antagonism
between the two practices of combat. In short, the determining element of the system of preferences is here the relation to the body, to
the way the body is put into action, which is associated with a social
position and an innate experience of the physical and social world.24
Since Metheny’s initial observations, gymnastics, in North America at least, has
undergone transformation into a middle-class or even upper-middle class sport
for young women, demanding great expenditure of time and money on the part
of both parents and their daughters. Simultaneously, African-American females
now thoroughly dominate the majority of women’s track and field events.
Referring back to Table 3, two observations are in order as regards the two
sets of selectively acceptable sports for women identified by Metheny. First,
women’s gymnastics events do not directly compare with those for men;
women do not compete in the horizontal bars, parallel bars, pommel horse or
rings. Second, gender time gaps (i.e., the time difference between when men
and women first competed in an event):
• are shortest in those sports deemed wholly appropriate
• are greatest (longest) in sports deemed wholly inappropriate, and
• fall between these two extremes in selectively approved sports.
Within these selectively acceptable sports, the gender time gaps appear to be a
function of the “power” (i.e., explosive strength) and / or stamina (i.e., endurance)
required for an event as illustrated by the following facts. Women’s foray into track
and field began in the high jump, discus and 100m (1928). This was followed on
the track by other short running events—110m hurdles (1932), 200m (1948),
400m (1964) and 400m hurdles (1984)—and in the field by the javelin (1932), shot
put and long jump (1948). Only very recently have women been permitted to
compete in the triple jump (1996), hammer throw (2000) and pole vault (2000).
Metheny, of course, did not examine female participation in every Olympic
sport. She makes no specific mention of cycling, equestrian events, shooting events
or the water sports of canoeing, rowing, sailing and swimming. Here we refer back
to Figure 2 and Table 3 to build on Metheny’s insights and offer passing comments
on each of these categories. As a sport form involving power and / or stamina,
10
Connotations of Female Movement and Meaning
Olympic cycling was, until relatively recently, male dominated. For example, males
competed in the road race and 1000m sprint in 1896; females did not begin competing in these events until 1984 and 1988, respectively. Similarly, men competed
in the “points race” in 1900 and the “road time trial” in 1912; these events were not
opened to women until 1996. Times, however, have changed: when the International Cycling Union added mountain bike competition to the Olympic program
in 1996, it included events for both men and women. Likewise, males and females
competed in the inaugural BMX events at the 2008 Games.
Equestrian events are clearly the most egalitarian Olympic sports with
respect to gender participation. Since their initial introduction at the Olympic
Games in 1900, every equestrian event has been open to men and women;
although as we commented above, the number of female participants in mixed
events was low. While Metheny does not discuss gender participation in equestrian competition, following Bourdieu we note the class basis of the sport and
the fact that possession of horses requires considerable economic and cultural
capital for agistment, training and management, while ownership usually
involves social capital through forging social connections.
Sailing events like equestrian events appear egalitarian concerning the time
of their initial introduction for competition by male and female athletes. And
like equestrian events, sailing seems to favor participants from the higher social
classes. Canoeing, and especially rowing events, on the other hand, have historically been male dominated. For example, males began competing in Olympic
rowing as early as 1900, whereas females did not get their own rowing events
until 1976. Until 1988 women rowed only half the distance of men (1,000m vs
2,000m). Likewise in swimming the longest distance for women is 800m, just
over half the longest event for men, the1500m.
At first glance it would appear that shooting should be as egalitarian as
equestrianism in terms of male and female participation; there is no physiological evidence nor philosophical premises to justify the segregation of shooting
in the Olympic Games along gender lines. Interestingly, sexual integration of
Olympic shooting began in 1968 but in 1984 the International Shooting Sport
Federation began dividing competition into separate men’s and women’s events
and by 1996 it had re-segregated all shooting competitions along gender lines.
Male domination of shooting no doubt has its origins in the historically masculine practices of hunting, dueling, and warfare. Indeed, early Olympic shooting
events included the dueling pistol, the military revolver, the military pistol, the
military rifle, ‘deer’ shooting, and ‘live pigeon’ shooting events.
Explanations for Masculine Domination of Olympic Sports
Although Metheny’s principles of socially acceptable feminine sport offer a
snapshot of gender relations in the mid-twentieth century, they also provide
11
Loy, McLachlan & Booth
insights into the process of changing gender relations. Once women establish
themselves in one form of sport it is only a matter of time before they seek
access to closely related forms. However, growing female equity and legitimation in Olympic sport does not explain the long lasting legacy of masculine
domination. In this section we outline the basic historical, political and sociological mechanisms, modes and means underlying male hegemony in the
Olympic Games.
First, and foremost, the Olympic Games are haunted by the ghost of patriarchal ideology fostered by their founder, Baron de Coubertin, and propagated
by his immediate successors. De Coubertin’s gendered rationale for the Games
was explicit: “We feel that the Olympic Games must be reserved for men … we
have tried and must continue to try to achieve the following definition: the solemn and periodic exaltation of male athleticism with internationalism as a
base, loyalty as a means, art for its setting, and female applause as reward.”25
Coubertin made no attempt to disguise his objections to what he called “the
indecency, ugliness and impropriety” of female participation in sports. Women
who engaged in strenuous activities, de Coubertin said, were “destroying their
feminine charm and leading to the downfall and degradation of sport”.26 Not
surprisingly then, “under de Coubertin’s tutelage the IOC resisted the participation of women in Olympic sports” and “from the start, the modern Olympics
was a context for institutionalized sexism [which] severely hinder[ed] women’s
participation.”27
The majority of accounts of male domination across society focus on the
concept of patriarchy. But as Remy remarks, “it is unfortunate that a term
which signifies a particular form of a phenomenon should come to designate
the phenomenon in toto.”28 Remy thus proceeds to refine the definitions: “from
a gender-political point of view, the current social order may be characterized
as androcracy, or ‘rule by men’, and that this system takes two forms: patriarchy
(‘rule of the fathers’), and fratriarchy (‘rule of the brother[hood]s’) …”29 Fratriarchies are fraternal interest groups whose masculine practices serve to construct and reconstruct masculine hegemony. They foster masculine domination
in a threefold manner by bringing men together, keeping men together, and
putting women down. “In short, they develop male bonding, maintain sex segregation, and generate an ideology of male supremacy.”30
In our view, the roots of masculine domination of the Olympic Games lie
in those late nineteenth-century and early twentieth-century aristocratic agonal
fratriachies which emphasized ideals of manliness in terms of sporting and/or
military virtues. Prominent examples of such fratriarchies are the amateur Victorian sportsmen within British public schools and Oxbridge Universities,31
elite European military officer corps, and a variety of fencing and dueling clubs
in England, France, Italy and Hungary.32 The policies and practices of sporting12
Connotations of Female Movement and Meaning
related fratriachies fostered public conceptions of the “ideal-male” and influenced the aristocratic political philosophy of sport underlying the formation of
the modern Olympic Games. Bourdieu discusses this influence at some length
and notes that “the first Olympic committee included innumerable dukes,
counts, and lords, and all of ancient stock.”33
Perhaps more significantly, the long history of agonistic fraternal interest
groups has strengthened and greatly reinforced what Lois Bryson contends are
the two fundamental dimensions of masculine hegemony in sport. Fratriachialbased conceptions of the “ideal-male” not only associate “maleness with highly
valued and visible [physical] skills,” they “link maleness with the positively
sanctioned use of aggression/ force / violence.”34
Within the androcentic world of sport, Bryson identifies four specific processes whereby men have effectively constructed barriers to women’s sport participation: (1) male definitions of sport, (2) direct male control of women’s
sport, (3) men ignoring women’s sport, and (4) men trivializing women’s sport.
These processes reveal and reinforce the patriarchal ideology and fratriarchal
interests underlying the Olympic Games.
Male definitions of sport enhance masculine hegemony by linking maleness with highly valued and visible physical skills and with sanctioned applications of aggression / force / violence. As noted above, exclusive male sports
emphasize strength, speed, power, body contact and forceful aggression. But as
Jennifer Hargreaves reminds us, sports would have a very different meaning if
we accorded higher value to “flexibility, skill, artistry, creativity and timing.”35
Direct male control of women’s sport within the Olympic Games is most clearly
evidenced by the fact that between its foundation in 1884 and 1981 there were
no female members of the IOC. In 1994 the IOC comprised 95 men and 6
women; in 2009 107 men and 16 women. Nor are there any female presidents of
international sports federations.
Content analyses of newspapers, sports magazines and television show that
the number of articles and photographs devoted to sportswomen compared
with sportsmen remains exceptionally low, in many cases less than 10%.36 However, in an extensive review of the literature, Markula, Bruce, and Hovden
observe “a general trend of increased media coverage during the Olympic
Games.”37 They attribute the increase to women winning medals and national
glory, conditions they argue overrides concerns about gender, at least at the
time of victory.38 Nonetheless, while Markula, Bruce and Hovden describe the
increase in media coverage afforded to sportswomen during the Olympic
Games as a positive development, they caution that the increased coverage typically pertains to “appropriately feminine” events.39 Although “appropriately
feminine” has specific national contexts (e.g., New Zealand women are apparently “harder” than their North American counterparts40), the concept over13
Loy, McLachlan & Booth
whelmingly continues to pertain to “sports that do not require obvious
strength, power or physical contact.”41 Citing women’s gymnastics in the United
States as an example of a sport receiving elevated media coverage, Markula,
Bruce and Hovden believe this is no coincidence given that the sport “promotes
traditionally feminine qualities as smallness and flexibility.”42
Wensing and Bruce have recently re-affirmed Bryson’s observation that the
media continues to trivialize women’s sport. They identify six distinct strategies
employed by the media in this regard: “gender marking” (e.g., women’s football
vs football), “compulsory heterosexuality” (e.g., sportswomen as mothers/girlfriends/wives of males), “appropriate femininity” (e.g., sportswomen as small,
weak, beautiful, graceful, etc.), “infantilization” (e.g., adult sportswomen
referred to as girls and young ladies, and by first names), focusing on “nonsport-related aspects” (e.g., appearance, personal life, family relationships), and
“ambivalence” (e.g., juxtaposition of positive images with those that trivialize
performance).43
In addition to Bryson’s four mechanisms of social control, we identify a
fifth, namely, the “muscle gap” and the focus on gender-based performance differences. Alison Dewar emphasizes that attention to gender performance gaps
in sports is used to “bolster images of male power and dominance as natural
and immutable.”44 With respect to the Olympics, Margaret Carlisle Duncan
analyzed the sports photographs of male and female athletes in the 1984 and
1988 games; she demonstrated that visual images of physical appearance, poses
and body positions, facial expressions, emotional displays and camera angles
enhance sexual difference. She concludes that, “focusing on female difference is
a political strategy that places women in a position of weakness.”45 Most forceful
examples of gender difference in the context of the Olympic Games were the
gender verification tests to which female participants were once subjected. “By
stereotyping femininity according to heterosexual standards, the tests force
women to ‘prove’ themselves’, says Jennifer Hargreaves who notes they particularly “threaten … naturally flat-chested and heavily muscled” women.46
Sociologically speaking we conceptualize these five major means underlying the masculine domination of Olympic sports as a paradigmatic example of
what Pierre Bourdieu describes as symbolic violence. Bourdieu labels his special form of sociological analysis “reflexive sociology,”47 the focus of which is
“the struggle for the monopoly over the legitimate representation of the social
world.”48 This focus reflects and reinforces Bourdieu’s contention, already cited,
that the battle for sport revolves around the power to define sport which he
believes is part of the broader struggle over legitimate uses of the body.49
One may argue that the history of the modern Olympic Games is the history of the struggle to define legitimate sporting practices and legitimate sporting bodies and that ultimately any such definition will reflect forms of class and
14
Connotations of Female Movement and Meaning
gender domination. Certainly the first half century of the modern Olympic
Games witnessed intense social struggles between supporters of amateurism
(middle-class leisured bodies) and supporters of professionalism (workingclass bodies). In the second half of the twentieth century these struggles shifted
to definitions of legitimate sporting practices for male and female bodies. In
1993 Krais observed that “so far no satisfactory answer as to the bases of female
oppression in modern society have been found, and the same is true for the
‘mechanisms’ of the reproduction of gender domination.”50 More than a decade
and a half on, this observation remains equally valid.
In his analyses of both class and gender domination, Bourdieu recognizes
different forms of domination, as for example, coercion, physical violence, and
the structural violence engendered by the power of economic and political
institutions. However, Bourdieu places special emphasis on what he refers to as
symbolic domination through symbolic power. Bourdieu’s student and collaborator Loïc Wacquant defines symbolic power as “the capacity to impose and
inculcate means of understanding and structuring the world or symbolic systems that contribute to the reproduction of the social order by representing
economic and political power in disguised forms that endow them with legitimacy and / or taken-for-grantedness.”51 Swartz captures the significance of symbolic power which he says “contributes to the intergenerational reproduction of
inegalitarian social arrangements” by “legitimizing existing economic and
political relations.”52
Symbolic power is the underlying force of what Bourdieu calls symbolic
violence, which Jenkins succinctly defines as:
the imposition of systems of symbolism and meaning (i.e., culture)
upon groups or classes in such a way that they are experienced as
legitimate. This legitimacy obscures the power relations which permit
that imposition to be successful. Insofar as it is accepted as legitimate,
culture adds its own force to those power relations, contributing to
their systematic reproduction. This is achieved through a process of
misrecognition…53
Misrecognition, asserts Swartz, is a key concept for Bourdieu, “akin to the idea
of ‘false consciousness’ in the Marxist tradition,” which “denotes ‘denial’ of the
economic and political interests present in a set of practices.”54
Bourdieu conceptualized gender relations as a form of misrecognized symbolic violence. “Gender domination,” Bourdieu states, is a classic example of
symbolic violence which “accomplishes itself through an act of cognition and
misrecognition that lies beyond—or beneath—the controls of consciousness
and will, in the obscurities of the schemata of habitus that are at once gendered
and gendering.”55 Bourdieu’s concept of habitus denotes the “system of lasting
unconscious dispositions and acquired schemes of thought and action, perception, and appreciation, based on individuals’ integrated social experiences
15
Loy, McLachlan & Booth
under specific sets of objective social conditions,”56 such as socialization into a
given gender. Thus, habitus, and the dispositions of which it comprises, “represent master patterns of behavioral style that cut across cognitive, normative,
and corporeal dimensions of human action.”57 Bourdieu refers to the overt,
external manifestation of habitus as hexis, a concept he deploys to encapsulate
bodily deportment in the context of manner and style of posture, gait, gesture,
stance and stride. Hexis is “the mediating link between individuals’ subjective
worlds and the cultural world into which they are born and which they share
with others;” it is the dimension which combines “the idiosyncratic (the personal) … with the systematic (the social).”58 In short, culture is embodied and
encoded through the habitus and hexis: the body serves “both as a mnemonic
device in cultural coding and as an effective vehicle for the less-than-conscious
communication or expression of these codes.”59
In the course of acculturation and socialization every individual acquires
both a class habitus and a gendered habitus. Krais highlights two significant
aspects of a gendered habitus. First, “gender identity is the product of a labor of
differentiation, of distinction, a labor that consists of exclusions, simplifications,
oppression of ambiguities along the antagonistic concept of male and female.”60
Second, the process of acquiring a gender identity paradoxically restricts
women in reaching their potential and facilitates a situation which “the dominants are themselves dominated by their domination.”61 Men and women alike
are caught in personal traps and social binds.
According to Bourdieu, men confront a continuous barrage of social situations, many of which “verge on the absurd,” in which they feel a “duty to assert
[their] manliness.”62 Such is the intensity of this unyielding pressure that some
men invest in “masculine games of violence, such as sports…and most especially those which…produce the visible signs of masculinity, and which…also
test what are called manly virtues, such as combat sports.”63 Bourdieu thus
deems manliness as a “relational notion, constructed in front of and for other
men and against femininity, in a kind of fear of the female, firstly in oneself.”64
While men confront a single significant social snare, women who seek
access to any kind of power are caught in a double social bind: “if they behave
like men, they risk losing the obligatory attributes of ‘femininity’ and call into
question the natural right of men to the positions of power. If they behave like
women, they appear incapable and unfit for the job.”65 This double bind underlies what early feminists in physical education called “the female apologetic” in
which sportswomen manage their appearance (e.g., dress, makeup) to ensure a
heterosexual feminine style. “The necessity and importance of confirming femininity on the part of the woman athletes is so accepted,” says Felshin, “that
there almost seems to be a conspiracy on the part of everyone concerned to
advance arguments for it.”66 And nowhere is “the female apologetic” more selfevident than in the “choice of so-called ‘feminine’ sports.”67
16
Connotations of Female Movement and Meaning
When Felshin made her observations, well over 30 years ago, the so-called
feminine sports were largely those Metheny called “wholly appropriate and generally acceptable sport forms for women.” Even Metheny implicitly endorsed the
female apologetic: “In broadest general terms, these socially sanctioned images
may be described as a composite interpretation of what the members of either
sex may be or do without impairing their opportunities for finding a mate
within their own social classification.”68 And notwithstanding the advances
made by women in the field of sport in the last quarter of the twentieth century,
Bourdieu identifies on-going male domination in somatized social relations:
“everything in the genesis of the female habitus and in the social conditions of its
actualization combines to make the female experience of the body the limiting
case of the universal experience of the body-for-others, constantly exposed to
the objectification performed by the gaze and discourse of others.”69
Indeed, whatever advances women have made in the field of sport, these
largely remain confined to a minority of elite performers who have barely
undermined the logic of symbolic exchanges to which Bourdieu assigns the
structural foundation of male domination and female oppression. In sociological terms, men continue to define women as “objects of exchange” in the reproduction of symbolic capital.70 In addition to three basic forms of capital—
economic (e.g., wealth), cultural (e.g., tastes in art), and social (e.g., social connections)—identified by Bourdieu,71 he recognized a fourth: symbolic. Consisting of “the prestige and the ‘social credit’ conferred by socially accepted or
socially concealed uses of other types of capital,”72 symbolic capital performs a
key function in masculine domination:
Whereas men are the subjects of matrimonial strategies through
which they work to maintain or to increase their symbolic capital,
women are always treated as objects of these exchanges in which they
circulate as symbols fit for striking alliances. Being thus invested with
a symbolic function, women are forced continually to work to preserve their symbolic value by conforming to the male ideal of feminine virtue…and by endowing themselves with all the bodily and
cosmetic attributes liable to increase their physical value and attractiveness.73
Moreover, given the relative autonomy of the economy of symbolic capital,
Bourdieu offers little optimism for a foreseeable end to masculine domination
and female equity and legitimation in sport.
“The liberation of women,” Bourdieu argues, requires “collective action
aimed at a symbolic struggle capable of challenging practically the immediate
agreement of embodied and objective structures;” it will require “a symbolic revolution that questions the very foundations of the production and reproduction
of symbolic capital and, in particular, the dialectic of pretention and distinction
which is at the root of the production and consumption of cultural goods as
17
Loy, McLachlan & Booth
signs of distinction.”74 Certainly, acceptable female physicality in elite sporting
competitions has not translated into faster, higher and stronger bodies in the
home or the workplace, much less the DIY hardware store! The modern Olympic Games may be the world’s largest sporting event and fast approaching equity
with respect to gender participation, but neither these facts nor the increasing
involvement of women in traditional male forms of sport constitute the necessary “symbolic revolution” to effect gender change. “It is quite illusory to believe
that symbolic violence can be overcome with the weapons of consciousness and
will alone,” Bourdieu argued, “because the effect and conditions of its efficacy
are durably and deeply embedded in the body in the form of dispositions.”75
We recognize that some feminists criticize Bourdieu’s overreaching focus
on the structural constraints of masculine dominations, which they argue does
not adequately address gender relations in today’s society.76 But in our view,
Bourdieu’s emphasis on gendered manifestations of material bodies offers a
salient reminder of the ongoing centrality of structured dualisms in social life.
Contrary to the views advocated in some postmodern strands of social theorizing, genders are “deeply rooted in things (structures)” and, “far from being simple ‘roles’ … played at will, are inscribed in bodies and in a universe from which
they derive their strength.”77 French concert pianist and Olympic gold medalist
Micheline Ostermeyer perhaps best embodies the issues. The hands that Ostermeyer used so delicately to play the piano also threw the shot and discus at the
1948 Olympic Games. After winning gold in the shot (having earlier won gold
in the discus), Ostermeyer celebrated with an impromptu performance of
Beethoven at the French team headquarters. But Ostermeyer had to publicly
“defend her ‘divided life’” and “her success in athletics actually hurt her reputation as a concert pianist.”78 As Ostermeyer’s case illustrates, until unfamiliar
gender dispositions become familiar in everyday life—the home, playground,
the hardware store, the theatre, the spectrum of sport—there is little prospect of
real equity between the genders.
Endnotes
1
2
18
J. Hargreaves, “The Body, Sport and Power Relations” in Sport, Leisure and
Social Relations, J. Horne, D. Jary & A. Tomlinson, Eds. (London: Rutledge
& Kegan Paul, 1987), 141.
See for example, S. Cahn, Coming on Strong: Gender and Sexuality in
Twentieth-Century Women’s Sport (Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1995); P. Grundy, Learning to Win: Sports, Education, and Social Change
in Twentieth-Century North Carolina (Chapel Hill: The University of
North Carolina Press, 2001); J. Hargreaves, Sporting Females (London:
Routledge, 1994).
Connotations of Female Movement and Meaning
3
Metheny’s work has attracted more attention among sports psychologists
(e.g., D. Gill, “Psychological perspectives on women in sport and exercise,”
Women in Sport D. M. Costa & S. R. Guthrie, Eds. (Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics), 253-284) than sports sociologists. Two exceptions to the
latter are M. J. Kane & E. Snyder, “Sport Typing: The Social ‘Containment’
of Women,” Arena Review 18 (1989), 77-96 and B. A. Riemer & M. E.
Visio, “Gender typing of sports: An investigation of Metheny’s classification,” Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 74, no. 2 (2003), 193-204.
4
Following Wallechinsky and Loucky we include the Intercalated Games of
1906 in our data. Although the IOC does not recognize these Games, many
historians agree they were well organized and the competitors themselves
believed they were partaking in an Olympic festival. The Intercalated
Games were also the first event in which National Olympic Committees
selected representative athletes. From our perspective, the participation of
women adds important insights into our analysis. Nonetheless, some caveats are necessary. Records of participants in the Intercalated and other
early Games are incomplete and vary between sources. On this point see,
for example, L. Peavy & U. Smith, Full-Court Quest: The Girls from Fort
Shaw Indian School, Basketball Champions of the World (Norman, OK:
University of Oklahoma Press, 2008). Wallechinsky and Loucky put the
number of female participants at six in 1906 but do not identify in which
events. Similarly, while women competed in archery events in the early
Olympics, Wallechinsky and Loucky no longer classify these events as part
of the Olympic competition.
5
M. Fong & R. Blumenstein, “Women’s Place Is Here,” Wall Street Journal,
Aug. 22 (2008), A8.
6
A number of events (e.g., equestrian, sailing and shooting) at early Olympics were classified as mixed and open to women. However, female participation was low and can skew the picture with respect to gender relations.
P. Bourdieu, “Sport and Social Class,” Social Science Information 17, no. 6
(1978), 826-827.
7
8
E. Metheny, Connotations of Movement in Sport and Dance (Dubuque, IA:
William C. Brown, 1965).
9
Metheny, Connotations of Movement, 51.
10 Ibid., 52.
11 Ibid., 50.
12 P. Bourdieu, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1984), 215.
13 Ibid., 215 & 217.
14 Bourdieu, “Sport and Social Class,” 837.
15 The 1900 and 1904 Olympic Games were attached to World Fairs in Paris
and Louis respectively and in both cases the sporting events were spread
19
Loy, McLachlan & Booth
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
20
out over many months. The organization was ad hoc and chaotic. For
example, in several sports in Paris (tennis, football, polo, rowing, tug-ofwar) athletes from different nations competed on the same team, while in
St Louis only 42 of the 94 events included competitors from outside the
United States thus making the events more akin to national championships. Madame Brohy and Mademoiselle Ohnier, both of France, were the
first women to compete in the modern Olympic Games; they competed in
the croquet tournament. The first female champion in tennis was Charlotte Cooper of Great Britain. Official records nominate golfer Margaret
Abbot, from the Chicago Golf Club, as the first American woman to win
an Olympic gold medal. She won the “Ladies Division of an International
Tournament held at the Societe de Sport de Compiegne, October 2-9,
1900, held in connection with the Paris Exposition. Although golf was a
short-lived Olympic event (surviving only through 1904), her record
stands as achieved and her name is duly inscribed on a plaque along with
those of other American gold medallists, hung on a wall in the Olympic
House in New York City.” E. W. Gerber, “Chronicle of Participation,” in
The American Woman in Sport. E. W. Gerber, et al., Eds. (Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley), 138.
Archery appeared at the 1900 and 1904 Olympic Games but was subsequently omitted from the program until 1972. However, Wallechinsky &
Loucky, The Olympics, argue that these contests were “really national
championships and only by the most extreme definition could they be
considered ‘Olympic’ competition” (381). Figure skating was transferred
to the program of the first Winter Games in Chamonix in 1924.
For a well informed historical account of the different forms of fencing see
R.Cohen, By the Sword: A History of Gladiators, Musketeers, Samurai, Swashbucklers, and Olympic Champions (New York: Random House, 2002).
Metheny, Connotations of Movement, 51.
“IOC approves new events for 2012 London Olympic Games,” IOC press
release, Aug. 13 (2009). Available at, http://www.olympic.org/en/content/
Media/?FromMonth=August&FromYear=2009&ToMonth=August&To➦
Year=2009&currentArticlesPageIPP=10&currentArticlesPage=2&article➦
NewsGroup=-1&articleId=72490. The announcement drew predictable
chauvinistic responses from opponents such as British WBA light-welterweight champion Amir Khan who argued that “women shouldn’t fight. It’s
a tough sport; it’s violent…and I think the women should leave that to the
men.” Cited in R. Boock, “Equality gone mad,” Sunday Star Times (New
Zealand), 16 August 2009, B14.
Metheny, Connotations of Movement, 51.
Ibid., 51.
Bourdieu, “Sport and Social Class,” 838.
P. Bourdieu, In Other Words. Essays Towards a Reflexive Sociology (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1990), 157.
Connotations of Female Movement and Meaning
24 Bourdieu, In Other Words, 157.
25 Gerber, “Chronicle of Participation,” 137-138.
26 S. Mitchell, “Women’s Participation in the Olympic Games, 1900-1926,”
Journal of Sport History 4, no. 2 (1977), 213.
27 Hargreaves, Sporting Females, 209.
28 J. Remy, “Patriarchy and Fratriarchy as Forms of Androcracy,” in Men,
Masculinities, and Social Theory. J. Hearn & D. Morgan, Eds. (Boston:
Unwin Hyman, 1990), 44.
29 Remy, “Patriarchy and fratriarchy,” 43.
30 J. Loy, “The dark side of agon: Fratriarchies, performative masculinities,
sport involvement and the phenomenon of gang rape,” in: International
Sociology of Sport: Contemporary Issues. Festschrift in Honor of Günther
Lüschen, eds. K.H. Bette & A. Rütten (Stuttgart: Naglschmid, 1995), 267.
31 See for example, R. Holt, Sport and the British: A Modern History (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1989).
32 See for example, Cohen, By the Sword; K. McAleer, Dueling: The Cult of
Honor in Fin-de Siecle Germany (Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1994); R. A. Nye, Masculinity and Male Codes of Honor in Modern France
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1993).
33 Bourdieu, “Sport and Social Class,” 825.
34 L. Bryson, “Sport and the Maintenance of Masculine Hegemony,” Women’s
Studies International Forum 10, no. 4 (1987), 350.
35 Hargreaves, Sporting Females, 286.
36 P. Markula, T. Bruce & J. Hovden, “Key Themes in the Research on Media
Coverage of Women’s Sport,” in Sportswomen at the Olympics: A Global
Comparison of Newspaper Coverage, T. Bruce, J. Hovden & P. Markula,
Eds. (Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, 2009), 1-19.
37 Markula, Bruce & Hovden, “Media Coverage of Women’s Sport,” 5.
38 Ibid., 8-10.
39 Ibid., 12.
40 T. Bruce, “Winning Space In Sport: The Olympics in the New Zealand
Sports Media,” in Olympic Women and the Media: International Perspectives. P. Markula, Ed. (Hampshire, Palgrave Macmillan, 2009), forthcoming.
41 Markula, Bruce & Hovden, “Media Coverage of Women’s Sport,” 13.
42 Ibid.
43 E. Wensing & T. Bruce, “Bending the Rules: Media Representations of
Gender during an International Sporting Event,” International Review for
the Sociology of Sport 38, no. 4 (2003), 387-396.
44 A. Dewar, “Incorporation or Resistance? Toward an Analysis of Women’s
Responses to Sexual Oppression in Sport,” International Review for the
Sociology of Sport 26, no. 1 (1991), 18-19.
21
Loy, McLachlan & Booth
45 M. C. Duncan, “Sports Photography and Sexual Difference: Images of
Women and Men in the 1984 and 1988 Olympic Games,” Sociology of
Sport Journal 7, no. 1 (1990), 41.
46 Hargreaves, Sporting Females, 222.
47 Bourdieu, In Other Words; P. Bourdieu & L. Wacquant, An Invitation to
Reflexive Sociology (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992).
48 Cited in L. Wacquant, “Symbolic Violence and the Making of the French
Agriculturalist: An Inquiry into Pierre Bourdieu’s Sociology,”Australian
and New Zealand Journal of Sociology 23, no. 1 (1987), 67.
49 Bourdieu, “Sport and Social Class,” 826-827.
50 B. Krais, “Gender and Symbolic Violence: Female Oppression in Light of
Pierre Bourdieu’s Theory of Social Practice,” in Bourdieu: Critical Perspectives, C. Calhoun, E. LiPuma & M. Postone, Eds. (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1993), 158.
51 Wacquant, “Symbolic Violence,” 66.
52 D. Swartz, Culture and Power. The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1997), 89.
53 J. Jenkins, Pierre Bourdieu (London: Routledge, 1992), 104.
54 Swartz, Culture and Power, 89.
55 Bourdieu & Wacquant, An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology, 171-172.
56 D. Booth, & J. Loy, “Sport, Status and Style,” Sport History Review 30, no. 1
(1999), 5.
57 Swartz, Culture and Power, 108.
58 Jenkins, Pierre Bourdieu, 75.
59 Ibid., 179.
60 Krais, “Gender and Symbolic Violence,” 170.
61 Ibid., 171.
62 P. Bourdieu, Masculine Domination (Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press, 2001), 50.
63 Ibid., 51.
64 Ibid., 53.
65 Ibid., 67-68.
66 J. Felshin, “The Social View,” in The American Woman in Sport. E. W.
Gerber, et al., Eds. (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley), 203.
67 Ibid., 205.
68 Metheny, Connotations of Movement, 48-49. For a current update see L.
Davis-Delano, A. Pollock & J. Vose, “Apologetic Behavior among Female
Athletes: A New Questionnaire and Initial Results,” International Review
for the Sociology of Sport 44, no. 2/3 (2009), 131-150.
22
Connotations of Female Movement and Meaning
69 Bourdieu, Masculine Domination, 63.
70 Ibid., 43.
71 P. Bourdieu, “The Forms of Capital,” in Handbook of Theory and Research
for the Sociology of Education. J. G. Richardson, Ed. (New York: Greenwood Press, 1986), 241-258.
72 Wacquant, “Symbolic Violence,” 69.
73 Bourdieu & Wacquant, An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology, 173.
74 Ibid., 174.
75 Bourdieu, Masculine Domination, 39.
76 See, for example, J. Butler, Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performance
(London: Routledge, 1997).
77 Bourdieu, Masculine Domination, 103.
78 For more details see, IOC, Micheline Ostermeyer; http://www.olym➦
pic.org/uk/athletes/profiles/bio_uk.asp?PAR_I_ID=84385; Micheline Ostermeyer obituary: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1360539/➦
Micheline-Ostermeyer.html.
23