The different layers of sexism within sport
Dr Kristin McGinty-Minister has recently published some research that explores women's experiences of sexism whilst working within sport.
When I discovered the Kristin’s research (‘Smile more’: women’s experiences of sexism while working in sport from a socio-ecological perspective), I felt very seen. I’ve experienced different forms of sexism whilst working as a coach. Each one made me feel invalidated. Kristin looks at experiences of sexism and what clubs, organisations and individuals can do:
Our research team aimed to explore women’s experiences of sexism while working in sport. There has been a great deal of research on gendered experiences in sport, but we wanted to more explicitly explore sexism as a concept in order to map out and start thinking about solutions to the problem.
Unfortunately, many women are not believed when they talk about sexism, especially in sport (which is evident in our research), so we aimed to contribute to evidence by being the first study to explicitly explore sexism in sport through a socioecological lens.
What forms of sexism do women encounter?
Women encounter a variety of iterations of sexism. Some is what is termed benevolent sexism, meaning it is likely more subtle and socially accepted; this often presents as compliments or rewards for ‘patriarchy-approved’ behaviour (e.g., assumptions that women should be/are better caregivers).
On the other side of the coin, hostile sexism is much more obvious, and is often what is recognised and potentially reported; this type of sexism presents as anger, resentment, or even violence towards women, especially those who step outside of traditional gender norms (e.g., sexist insults, the blatant dehumanisation of women).
In our study, women encountered these two types of sexism in many different ways, whether this be in their relationships, organisational issues, and broader sport culture.
For example, women found that gender stereotypes were often policed by men at work through expectations to tidy others’ messes, make tea, do secretarial work, and other behaviours that did not align with their role.
They also experienced quite aggressive banter or harassment, a lack of pathway for support when attempting to report sexism, and clear barriers to progressing in their sporting career, among others.
I won’t go into a massive explanation of patriarchy, but essentially, the sport has traditionally been designed and used to maintain the white, heteronormative, ableist patriarchy that our society is embedded within.
Sport was built for and by men – this is evident through the fact that many sporting uniforms and arenas are not designed for women, the historical exclusion of women from sport (e.g., banning women in England from football for decades), and more.
As a result, women simply existing in sport steps out of traditional stereotypes of women – which, unfortunately, leaves them open to hostile sexism, which is often used to ‘put women back in their place’.
While we have made many advancements in society and sport, our world is still embedded in patriarchy; even outside of this, it takes decades to make change. Sometimes, when so many aspects of life seem so modern, I think we forget how recently women have progressed to what we see as ‘basic’ rights.
For example, Title IX (in the US) was only enacted about 50 years ago. In the UK, women could not even buy transportation to get to work without the signature of a close male relative/husband at that time (50 years ago), around the same time when women were finally allowed to play football again.
These issues are only a generation away, and still significantly impact all aspects of our society, especially sport!
These experiences still happen because much of sport and society is designed to exclude women rather than promote gender equity, and this filters down into organisational practices, interpersonal relationships, and individual behaviour, thoughts, and beliefs.
Thinking about sexism through different layers
We used a socioecological model that LaVoi and Dutove used to explore coaches’ experiences in 2012; informed by Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory, this model looks at various ‘layers’ that can impact people and society.
Think of the model like an onion. At the most inner layer is the intrapersonal level, which explores the individual – their personal factors such as biology, psychology, emotions, health, coping mechanisms, etc.
Next, we move on to the interpersonal level, which looks at interpersonal relationships – think friends, family, colleagues, etc.
As we move further out, we reach the organisational level, which looks at organisational factors such as policies, job descriptions, professional practice, use of space, career progression pathways, etc.
Finally, at the socio-cultural level, we explore the broader norms and cultural systems (e.g., gender norms), as previously mentioned, that impact the inner layers of the ecological model – or ‘onion’.
Importantly, while these are relatively distinct layers, there is a lot of grey area – as well as interactions between the different layers.
Breaking down women’s experiences into these layers allowed us to map out their experiences and provide some clarity surrounding their experiences, as well as see how their experiences at varying levels interacted.
For example, banter (an interpersonal theme) played a massive role in minimising women’s experiences of sexism and the lack of pathway for support, which were both organisational themes.
The model is one useful way to explore women’s experiences and begin to map the problem so that we can start targeting solutions!
Sexist banter
Banter is an interesting one. While we don’t want to stamp a label on all banter as ‘bad’, in this context, banter was used to exclude, diminish, and dismiss women in their sporting environments.
Blatantly sexist, and even sexual, comments would be directed at women on a consistent basis, and if women attempted to challenge this, either the person making the ‘joke’ or those around them would often dismiss it as ‘just banter,’ and as a result, ‘harmless’.
Banter was a major barrier to reporting sexism or challenging sexism, as at interpersonal and organisational levels, this would be dismissed as just banter.
This was such a pervasive problem that when asked what happens in their organisations when sexism occurs, 65.5% of our participants responded that it was reinterpreted as banter!
Organisational sexism
The women experienced organisational sexism in many different ways. For example, there was a lack of facilities for women – they struggled to get uniforms that fit properly, and many reported working at organisations that didn’t even have women’s toilets or changing rooms.
This is a very active, but often overlooked, way of excluding women from sport. The majority of organisational sexism had the general outcome of excluding women from career progression or sport more broadly.
This was explicitly done through problematic barriers to career progression (e.g., not hiring a woman because she might have a child), inadequate facilities, and a lack of ability to progress with complaints about sexism or their working environment more broadly (as discussed in the next question).
There were also methods of organisational exclusion that were less obvious – and these ‘hidden’ acts of exclusion often make it even more difficult to tackle the problem.
In our study, this came in the form of the Boys’ Club and general minimisation of women’s experiences. The boys’ club has been spoken about quite a bit; it is an informal group of men within an organisation that excludes others, in this case, women.
This exclusion often results in difficulty integrating within the organisation and acts as a barrier to performing one’s role to the required standard.
Finally, women’s experiences of sexism were minimised at an organisational level through excusing sexism as the norm, banter, or untrue.
Overall, women were frustrated at the sexism being perpetrated and tolerated at the organisational level and found that this was a significant barrier that they had to overcome if they wanted to remain in sport.
Coping and seeking support
Women’s various ways of coping were such a focus of the participants that they became the only theme of the intrapersonal level.
While some women attempted problem-focused coping, where they attempted to report or challenge sexism, this often resulted in experiencing even more sexism or even harassment.
Some women used emotional coping, such as “commiserating” with other women friends, colleagues, etc.
However, the majority of women coped using various forms of avoidant coping, which ranged from attempting to ignore or laugh off sexism to leaving the sporting workforce entirely.
Keep in mind – avoidant coping, as well as sexism, can have negative impacts on well-being!
Unfortunately, the women in our study were not very supported when they experienced sexism.
While many mentioned leaning on other women for support, and some described a colleague, boss, or mentor that helped them challenge sexism or offered support more generally, most women reported that they did not receive organisational or interpersonal support when they experienced sexism.
Most actually described experiencing more sexism when seeking support, which is why so many engaged in avoidant coping styles.
The most common responses to sexism were the sexism being reinterpreted as harmless or banter, covering up sexism, calling women uptight or liars when reporting sexism, and encouraging sexist behaviours (e.g., laughing, joining in); additionally, some women even reported intimidation tactics by male members of staff.
Overall, women reported great support from the friends they spoke to, but at a colleague and organisational level, there was very little support.
Next steps: what can clubs and organisations do to help?
There are a number of ways clubs and organisations can (and should) help!
One big step is to implement gender equity education in organisations – people and organisations need to be able to recognise sexism to be able to start fixing the issue, and education can help with this.
Being able to recognise sexism, and that it is problematic, gives people and organisations the chance to challenge the behaviour.
Additionally, organisations should look at equitable vs inequitable practice at different aspects of their organisation. For example, how resistant to bias is an organisation’s hiring practices?
Do women (and other marginalised groups) feel safe reporting issues with colleagues or organisational practices, or might they feel that reporting can have a negative impact on their careers?
Importantly, clubs and organisations should listen to women about what is important to them and engage with educated consultants to design equitable spaces that allow everyone to exist in sport.
There are so many next steps! From a research perspective, we have a number of projects going on at the moment. We are addressing the question of ‘what next’ from the perspective of women working in sport, among other things.
Additionally, we are designing organisational interventions and other engagement (e.g., workshops) to make sport more equitable.
Overall, the next step for everyone is to ask themselves – “how can I be a better ally?”.
Individuals should consider reflecting on their own experiences, potential biases stemming from a lifetime existing in our current culture, and how they can make the women around them (an marginalised groups more broadly) feel safer, especially in sport.
Change happens with educated and reflective people, so I challenge everyone to make small steps in challenging themselves each day.