It was a long and happy weekend, and I spent very little time near the computer. We’re headed into the last (and short) week of classes, with finals beginning next Monday. I’m on taper for Sunday’s Rock n’ Roll Marathon. I’ve also have made the resolution to get back in shape this summer. I’m still reasonably fit, but I’ve let the pounds creep back on in the last few years, and it’s time to take some of them off. It’s vanity, of course, but as my fiancee and I talk about having children, I imagine that it will be much tougher to get workouts in once I become a father. If I want maximum fitness, I ought to pursue it now. I can increase my exercise only so much, however; the key for me this summer will be changing my diet. I’m one of those people who can happily run forever — but I have a very hard time controlling what goes in my mouth. After the marathon, I’ll be doing an eleven-day "cleanse" (details to follow, like it or not), followed by a summer of careful attention to restricting sugar and fat intake.
On a related note, I’ve been thinking about women and sports. Like so many others, I watched the finish of the Indy 500 for the first time in years, rooting on young Danica Patrick. As a passionate supporter of women’s sports, I spend relatively little time arguing for the inclusion of women in traditionally male activities. (I’m more interested, for example, in making sure that sports for high school and college-age women are well-funded than in getting a few individual girls onto boys’ football teams.) Most of the sports I follow, however, are sports where biological differences necessitate two different sets of teams, one for men and one for women. That’s obviously not true in auto racing, one of the few sports where sex alone is unlikely to have any noticeable impact on an athlete’s performance. Here, as in equestrian events, men and women can compete on a level field — though it will surely be easier for the likes of Patrick as more and more women begin to do well.
I’ve been thinking lately about Title IX and its impact on young women and their self-esteem. Many studies (here’s one recent one) have connected participation in organized athletics and improved body image among young women. I’ve noticed this as well, though it’s important to remember that this varies a great deal from sport to sport. In events such as softball and basketball (where staying slender is not absolutely essential to success), it does seem that young women athletes have less anxiety about their bodies than their peers. But those who compete in events where weight is closely linked to performance (cross-country, gymnastics) may not derive the same self-esteem benefits. I was able to find one study that looked at female athletes in specific sports and eating disorders; predictably, gymnasts and cross-country runners topped the list.
As someone who loves distance running, this concerns me. As I’ve written before, I’ve occasionally worked out with a local high school cross-country team coached by two dear friends of mine. (It’s only May 31, and we’re already talking about gearing up for the fall campaign!) I love running because, frankly, it’s the only sport I’m any good at. (No hand-eye coordination in this old body). But I also know that when I was at my most successful as a runner, I was also most acutely body-conscious. My small successes on the track, road, and trails, fed a desire for faster times. I knew that each pound I added to my frame meant more for my heart, lungs, and knees to carry. I watched my weight scrupulously, and worried a great deal about my body. In my case — and I suspect that this is true for both young men and young women who run — participating in my particular sport made me more anxious, not less. This means, I think, that those of us who work with young people in vulnerable, weight-conscious sports (gymnastics, wrestling, cross-country, track, diving) ought to be doing a better job of monitoring eating patterns and self-esteem among "our" athletes. Those of us who issue sweeping claims that "sport is good for young women" must remember that different sports make radically different demands upon the human body. And those sports that prize leanness and lightness are sports where coaches and other involved adults must be committed to caring for highly vulnerable student-athletes. It would help, of course, if we who compete in these activities from time to time had high self-esteem ourselves! It’s a little difficult for me to proclaim the virtue of self-acceptance when it’s fairly obvious that I still struggle tremendously with my own body image.
I often wonder about the impact of Title IX on young women who don’t play sports. Joan Brumberg (whom I quote monthly) suggests that prior to the 1970s, women’s dieting patterns rarely focused on developing fit, toned bodies. In her Body Project, she notes that from the 1920s to the 1970s, the concern for millions of young American women was pure "thinness." Few of the girls in the ’40s, ’50s, and ’60s from whose diaries she quotes report exercise as a means of weight control. None whatsoever talk about "going to the gym" or "working out". But as Title IX opens doors for female athletes (starting in 1972), Brumberg notes a gradual increase in concern not only for thinness, but for fitness. By the 1980s, the ideal young woman’s body cannot be achieved through dieting alone; it must be built with light weights and cardiovascular activity. Is there scientific evidence of a cause and effect relationship between Title IX and this change in women’s ideal body type? No. But chronologically, the connection makes sense.
Gym memberships cost time and money. In one sense, dieting is free and fast; it doesn’t take many resources to restrict what goes in your mouth. High school sports, on the other hand, are rarely truly "free"; parents are expected to contribute substantially in most schools for uniforms and equipment costs. Gyms are not always available on high school campuses, and even on some college campuses their equipment is barely adequate. As our cultural ideal for American womanhood moves towards an increasingly toned and fit physique, that ideal becomes more and more difficult to obtain, particularly for those who lack the resources to effectively pursue it. What impact does this have on young women who, for whatever reason, aren’t athletic?
I know of no study that focuses on the question of how young women who don’t "work out" are affected by the bodies of their more athletic and active classmates. I can’t say for certain, therefore, that an increased focus on women’s athletics has had a negative impact on the self-esteem of girls who don’t exercise regularly or play sports. But as much as I love sports and physical activity (and believe them to be vital to a balanced life as I understand it), I worry about those whose own personalities or pocketbooks make building a truly fit body an unrealistic option. And as much as I want young men and women to experience the joy of pushing their bodies to the limit and discovering their physical potential, I worry — with good reason, from my own experience — about the pitfalls of narcissism and self-obsession.
Hugo, what impact do you see on lower- and working class young women (and young men) due to the cancelling of elementary and secondary school athletic programs an P.E.? Or the barring of children from school playgrounds after hours? Or the inadequate or unavailable public parks and playgrounds?
In my community, “working out” is increasingly a rich-person’s game. Used to be, playgrounds and public parks were available for kids, and so were schoolgrounds. Now, the district closes and locks the playgrounds after hours. The park district pours money into development in the wealthy suburbs, and lets playground equipment fall apart in the middle of town. Parks that formerly had basketball courts now do not; the park district either made parking lots out of them or tore them down—the “wrong element” was hanging out. I see this as punishment for the kids who aren’t doing wrong.
When I was growing up, there were plenty of outlets to “play”—and now there seem to be few. It’s all “pay-for-play” now, which limits the participation of children whose parents can’t afford or don’t have the inclination to let their kid join a team.
I think Title IX made a huge difference. When I was a kid, there wasn’t any real enforcement of Title IX even though it was around (not at the elementary and secondary level, or at least not out in the Illinois “sticks” (meaning, anywhere except Chicago). Young women are more enthusiastic about sports, and there is more of a variety of sports for them to participate in….but again, ya gotta pay to play. If your child hasn’t been on a sports team at the Y since kindergarten, chances are they won’t be on the team in fifth grade at school. That was the subject of dicussion at the break table one morning; guys lamenting that they had to continually truck their kids around to sport after sport, season after season when very young, or they wouldn’t be allowed to play (or, be last string) by the time they could play in the public school system. When we were kids, at the elementary level, they focused more on development; now they expect to train the kids like adults–they are expected to perform at a higher level and to know quite a bit about training principles! So, in order that kids will someday possibly be able to tag a scholarship, kids have to start early.
Yeah, I think the focus on fitness/athleticism can be pretty detrimental to those who aren’t athletically inclined, particularly in high school. Of course, it’s good to encourage health, and it’s good that those women who are into sports now have more opportunities to play and more options to choose from, but schools can overemphasize them to the point that those who aren’t athletic begin to feel inferior. It’s particularly unfair that in my experience, those who excel academically get nowhere near as much attention as those who excel athletically– at my high school, we had to listen to detailed recaps of every game played by every sports team on the announcements each morning, but we never heard a word about the kids who made the honor roll or had the highest grades in their class. Of course athletes deserve recognition, but the fact that it was so unbalanced points to some fairly skewed priorities from an institution that’s supposed to be about learning above all else.
High school sports also involve a huge time commitment, at least if my school was a representative example. From time to time I considered trying out for the swim team or volleyball team (the only sports I wasn’t completely wretched at), but I’d always end up turned off by the amount of time I would be expected to dedicate to it. Sports teams at my high school practiced for hours every afternoon during the season, and often on the weekends as well; with all that plus the time spent competing, traveling to away games, etc., it would have meant giving up my free time almost completely for an activity I didn’t really even like all that much compared to other things I could be doing. I understand that teams need a lot of practice to stay competitive, but I can’t help thinking it’s an unfair catch-22 for schools to insist we should all be active and healthy while making it really difficult for anyone but the most dedicated athletes to get involved in the sports program. It turns out that those who need the physical activity the most end up being the ones who are excluded, whether it’s because they don’t have the talent or aren’t willing to make the time commitment or can’t afford it or whatever.
I don’t know why more schools don’t make an effort to create casual, minimally time-consuming athletic groups that are less competition-oriented and more fitness-oriented, in addition to the traditional sports program. If they really want to promote health, that’s the sort of thing they ought to be doing– the intensive, ultra-competitive atmosphere of a traditional sports team probably isn’t the best place for most people who are honestly just interested in improving their health.
The thing with “working out” is that it really doesn’t get you thinner, just more “tone”. It’s hard to tell the difference in clothes between “working out” and simply being thin. So that might be hard to tell.
I think high school marks the beginning of a line between the fitness “haves” and “have-nots,” especially for young women. For instance, even at my all-girls’ high school, all sports were heavily organized and competitive. It was either 2 hour practices after school everyday, or nothing at all. And the costs of those sports, as Hugo mentioned, are significant. I think that having a completely organized set-up like that described above excludes a wide swath of students who like sports, like to move around, and want to be more in shape, but who want something less competitive and more casual–more fun, as it were. College students routinely organize clubs for almost every sport imaginable–parents and administrators should take note of that concept and try to offer similar arrangements during the middle- and high-school years. Participation in group sports can do wonders for a girl’s body image, but there is a point at which the stress of competition and high expectations negates or reverses those gains (as in gymnastics, dance, cross country, etc.)
Great post
coaches and other involved adults must be committed to caring for highly vulnerable student-athletes
I don’t want to be too negative here, but it’s been my experience that coaches are committed to winning at any cost. And don’t even get me started on the behavior of the parents.
High school sports, on the other hand, are rarely truly “free”; parents are expected to contribute substantially in most schools for uniforms and equipment costs.
Close; Parents aren’t “expected to contribute,” they’re charged a great thumping fee;)
La Lubu said, If your child hasn’t been on a sports team at the Y since kindergarten, chances are they won’t be on the team in fifth grade at school. As a conservative, I didn’t want to miss a chance to agree with her with all my heart.
It’s never been entirely clear to me why we have to pay a government employee so our kids can run a 5K or play basketball. How exactly did we get here?
Tom, paid high school coaches go back to the 1920s, if not before — hardly an era of rampant socialism! And while some coaches are committed to winning at any cost, many whom I know are committed first to the personal development of their student/athletes.
Keri, you’re right that we need fun and interesting physical activities for those who are not interested in competition at a high level. That’s not a concern, of course, that Title IX addresses.
In this respect, I’m definitely a “have”: I’ve spent most of my adult life on university campuses, and I’ve always had free access to excellent athletic facilities. But as a non-athlete, I would say that the trend towards fitness has been an unmitigated good for me. I have a much saner relationship with my body than I did before I started exercising. I am much more able to think of my body as functional rather than ornamental. I am much less obsessed with external indicators such as the number on the scale or the size on my clothes. I am much less likely to diet, which is good, because I’m not capable of dieting sanely.
I’m a total klutz, and there’s no way I would have done sports in high school. And at the time, I profoundly resented the excess attention and resources devoted to sports. I still do. But if Title IX is the reason I go to the gym regularly, then I’m all for it.
Also, this isn’t just about self-esteem. I started lifting weights so I could look toned. I now lift weights in a desparate attempt to head off osteoporosis. (I already have osteopenia, and I’m at the age when women attain their peak bone mass.) Women sometimes use “health” as a code for wanting to be thin, but for me it really is about health.
Hugo;
I supposed it had less to do with socialism than with militarism. Wasn’t American Physical Education modeled after what the Germans were doing in the 1880’s? But hey, if that’s the way we’ve always done it, who am I to oppose tradition?
Not that change is at all likely, barring some tinkering around the edges. I think the best we can do as parents is try to get our kids whatever benefits high-school sports offer while minimizing the damage it does. On balance it seems to do more good than harm.
Title IX-fitness? Please!
I grew up in the (reletive) country so I had a distinct advantage. In grade school we had no organized sports. We did, however, spend recess with dodge ball, snow fort construction/snow battles, king of the hill,football,jungle gym tag,kick the can,four square,kick ball on sand,grass, and snow. Everyone played!
Little league in the summer was available. Strangly,most of the time was spent gathering equiptment.fussing with uniforms,sitting on a bench or traveling in a car. Fast food meals were common.
High School offered a wide variety of organized sports. Once again, the most beneficial health aspects came from training than actual(and short) playtime.
I started working earlier than most. The “pampered” kids, more obsessed with the social status-recognition,name in the paper, team letter,and,of course,”attractive” school transcript, made a commitment that more often than not relied on parental shuffling.
There were those of us who, in our “free” time, worked. Moving sheets of plywood,sheetrock,bags of concrete, bundles of shingles.Swinging a hammer,using a hand saw,troweling ‘crete,joint compound, and mastic. Up and down ladders,across spaced floor joists,through mud and sand,in rain and sun.
In the case of both boys and girls
Some kids went swimming at the pool, others of us went to the river, swimming the current, rope swings and the repeated long steep climb to the stone ledge for diving.
We were the buff “bad boys” that usually had dates, the respect (and a prequalified employment voucher)of the working class men in the community. We established a naturally evolved social structure based on actual preformance and commitment in the community. We had cash in our pockets that came with the self esteem of earning it.
The best fitness, physical,mental,and social is a natural byproduct of earned respect, commitment to the mundane aspects of an objective that are gloryless yet essential to the completion of any prospect, and the self esteem that is earned by the posession of honorable personable foundation.
“Set asides”, like title IX,driving to the gym, elevator to the 3rd floor dorm room, reserved “hour” for exercise, “fitness” foods, celebrity workout tapes, in home treadmills that hold up cloths or hide under beds, just don’t cut it. Standing next to, or just behind, the champions in the photo after the race is a sad association with personal self esteem.
There were those of us who, in our “free” time, worked. Moving sheets of plywood,sheetrock,bags of concrete, bundles of shingles.Swinging a hammer,using a hand saw,troweling ‘crete,joint compound, and mastic. Up and down ladders,across spaced floor joists,through mud and sand,in rain and sun.
I agree with you, Capt. DMO, that this is a better path to fitness than team sports. However, it is a path that is seldom open for young women. As an electrician, I often see “summer helpers” on the jobsite, but in almost seventeen years of being on the job, never have I seen any female summer help (”summer helpers” being high school or young college students). Contractors around here just aren’t willing to hire young women to do the work—and that’s union and nonunion alike.
When I was in high school, my best friend and I used to walk around the (majority elderly) neighborhood soliciting work shoveling snow or raking leaves (lawn mowing was a bust, as all the old timers had riding mowers!); we got some work, but sometimes the old timers would bluntly state that they wouldn’t hire us because we were girls and that work wasn’t “proper” for young women. Or, they’d say that if any boys didn’t come around offering to do the work, to check back with them; they wanted to give the boys a chance first because girls don’t really need the money.
You can moan about Title IX, but before it was passed, girls and young women were SOL when it came to school and community sports. Hell, when I was in kindergarten and first grade, there was a huge flap in Alton about a girl joining the Little League. Her parents had to fight a battle in court to get her on the team. Neither they nor the little girl wanted to make some big, bold feminist statement, she just wanted to play ball with all the boys in her neighborhood, since they had reached the age where they joined Little League rather than play sandlot ball. She just wanted to join them! Anyway, her family received a lot of death threats; threats of blowing the family away with a shotgun, firebombing the house, stuff like that.
Running around out in the country may have been an option for you, but it isn’t for city kids. And increasingly, less so. In my city, the school district locks the playgrounds up after hours. Parks have inadequate space and facilities, and what is available is geared away from the working class—for example, the park district has two ice skating rinks within a mile of me (read: expensive skates or skate rental, admission, lessons(?)), yet there are no public basketball courts within a five mile radius (cost: one basketball). Now me, I’ll pony up the cost of whatever sport my daughter is interested in. But many parents won’t, or can’t. Why should the kids have to do without? Back in the day, it was generally recognized that kids needed and deserved a place to play. Now, the attitude is that there shouldn’t be parks, that you should drive your kid ten miles to the Jungle O’Fun, where it’s pay-to-play and complete with fast food. Gaah! And we wonder why children are out of shape in the U.S.?
Look, my opinion is whatever gets people moving is a good thing. The human body was designed for motion, and lack of motion destroys the body. Title IX helped get girls interested in sports and physical activity. When I was a kid, I was physically active and loved playing sports, climbing trees, running, whatever. Yet there were few outlets for me to indulge that energy. When I was a kid, Title IX wasn’t really being enforced yet. Now it is, and there’s a world of difference. Most of the young women who are active in sports in school continue to be physically active as adults, with positive results for their health.
Absolutely, La Lubu — a better response to the Capt. than I could have given.
I’m distressed by the huge cuts to PE programs across this country. PE (or sports) ought to be mandatory along with English and math from K-12. We do need activities both for the competitive and non-competitive, of course, but we need to embrace the idea that public education is as much about the healthy body as it is about the healthy mind.
Without disputing the point that health is significant, I’m not comfortable saying that mandatory PE is a good thing for students until the whole system undergoes some drastic reform. As it stands, judging by my own experience and what I’ve heard from others, far too many schools foster an environment that is as unpleasant and humiliating as possible for the unathletic types during mandatory PE classes.
Offering non-competitive options at all times would go a long way toward eliminating some of the factors that make the atmosphere particularly oppressive (team-picking, pressure and criticism from overly-competitive teammates, etc), but even those can be done in an embarrassing way. (I remember one gymnastics/tumbling unit in which we had to line up and practice maneuvers one by one, while everyone else in the class watched. I’ve never felt quite so inferior for anything so insignificant as the inability to do a cartwheel.) Again, when the only people benefiting from the experience are those who are already fit, healthy, good at sports, etc., and the ones who actually need it are the ones who end up hating it with a passion (and perhaps being turned off to physical activity permanently), there’s something very wrong.
And I’m well aware that this is a very biased opinion, coming from someone with a certain amount of intrinsic academic ability and absolutely no intrinsic athletic ability, but I am strongly against the idea of grading students on their performance in PE. If schools must give grades for this class, they should be pass/fail, and effort-based rather than performance-based. I know that academic ability may be just as attributable to factors (biological or otherwise) that are beyond a student’s control, in terms of things like concentration, memory, test-taking ability, etc, so I’m not entirely sure why I’m comfortable with performance-based grades in all other subjects (aside from the bias mentioned above). I guess I just consider it wildly unfair to put a bad grade on an otherwise brilliant student’s transcript because she didn’t put a ball through a hoop enough times. And I hate to perpetuate the “unathletic smart kids vs. dumb jocks” dichotomy, but when my school switched to performance-based PE grades, the general feeling was that it was intended to bring the “nerds” down a peg while making the star athletes who weren’t doing so well academically look better. Maybe we were just paranoid; I still really hate the idea of grading kids on athletic ability, though, particularly if it’s going to be a class that’s required every year.
Keri, I have no problem with grading on effort — but I want to see real effort.
As an public school teacher, I send my kids off to P.E. class every other day. I notice that it’s the responsibility of excellent P.E. teachers to create an atmosphere in which students can wholly participate with “effort”. Those not gifted athletically (that’s me!) have to feel comfortable and not judged by their ability in order to give real effort.
I also notice it is the students (4th graders) who are most self-conscious about their changing bodies that dislike P.E. most. Some of the girls are just starting to physically develop and have to worry about awkwardly moving around and jumping in front of everyone… I can’t really blame them for their anxiety.
Neither can I, Sarah. I’m not averse to having gender-segregated PE classes, if that will help young girls to become more comfortable running around in athletic attire. The key is to get them to see their bodies as theirs, worthy of being taken care of, worthy of being healthy and fit and strong, worthy (if they choose) of competing with.
Back in the day, it was generally recognized that kids needed and deserved a place to play. Now, the attitude is that there shouldn’t be parks, that you should drive your kid ten miles to the Jungle O’Fun, where it’s pay-to-play and complete with fast food. Gaah!
One of the problems faced by our big city, is that parks in urban areas, especially ones in more economically disadvantaged areas were magnets for vandels.
I remember one really great park I used to take my kids to. Herman Brown Park. It was really nice with tennis and basketball courts, lotsa rides for the kiddos, a huge wooden “Ship” that the kids could climb in. Bike and run trails. A nice little pond with a pier.
The city put a lot of money into it, but vandels cam in and trashed the equipment. What they didn’t paint or trash, they burned. The city never did anything else to the place after they removed the damaged equipment.
The other problem, I think someone else mentioned it, was that the park attracted older more rowdy individuals. So a lot of drinking and drugs were taking place there. Of course the cops were about as helpful in reducing that problem as they were the vandelism.
Keri - I completely agree with you. It sounds like your PE experiences were very similar to my own.
As for “wanting to see some real effort”, well, in my experience it was next to impossible to demonstrate effort in our PE classes. For instance, my high school PE class seemed to spend a great deal of time playing softball. It didn’t take long to identify those of us who weren’t very good at batting, throwing, or catching. We were then always stuck out in the farthest possible spot in the outfield, where we would do the least amount of “damage” to our team.
The kids who were good at softball got better. Those of us who were crummy didn’t have any opportunity to improve. When you never get to practice catching the ball, how are you supposed to get better at it?
The PE teachers were useless. They just stood by and watched. Never offered instruction. Never explained the rules.
Imagine for a minute a math class in which, on the first day, the teacher passes out tests. A few students who came into the class with more advanced knowledge/skill do very well on the test; the rest of the kids fail. The teacher continues giving these tests, day after day, and never offers any instruction in how to do the problems. The kids who know how to do the problems get lots of practice in doing them. The kids who don’t already know how to do the problems keep struggling and failing. It doesn’t matter how much effort they put into it — they aren’t going to learn math this way. Why would we expect people to learn how to play and excel at sports in this way?
PE was a miserable experience. The sad thing is, I wanted to learn how to play those sports. I wanted to get better. It just never seemed possible. Eventually, like Keri describes, I became very turned off by any physical activity beyond walking.
This remained the case until the year I turned thirty, when I participated in an AIDS fundraising bicycle ride. It involved pushing myself physically in a way I had never done before. I was completely, utterly shocked by the fact that I really had the ability to ride my bicycle 100 miles in a day, ride over mountains, ride long distances 7 days in a row, etc. I am glad to have found a form of exercise that I love, but I am angered by the way PE classes killed the desire for exercise for such a long time.
La Lubu:
“Most of the young women who are active in sports in school continue to be physically active as adults, with positive results for their health.”
No doubt there!
As much as I may have held ridicule for school sponsered sports (and other activities)that was mostly social. Something is always better than nothing, and the MASSIVE cuts to public school PE that Hugo refers to are fairly disappointing to me.
All the more reason to NOT rely on town/state govt. based arenas. (triple entendre Libertarian pun)
Hey wats up wat are you doing? wat is this about agian?