Female Athletic Trainers

 Listening to Barb’s story and her experience as an athletic trainer made me think of feminine expectations. At the beginning of this process, only males were seen in her position. Today we see an increase in women in this field but it is still not female-dominated. The reason mostly being a personal restriction, women are not 100% welcomed. Although women have been taken as the caregivers they were not respected in a professional field. The double standard mixed with social expectations is why women were and still are held back. 

Found to be “unreliable” or “inconsistent” due to their personal lives as mothers, women are not expected to thrive in an athletic space. Bard spoke on the travel times while being a mother and it emphasized the female neglect in a professional position. She said something along the lines of, if the child was sick, the mother took them to the doctors, not the man. If the child needed to stay home, the mother needed to stay home. So there wasn’t flexibility for the mother. Although I can understand the reasoning, it is also slightly sexist. 

As a young woman who might want to be a mother, I realize that my options in life might be limited. Never would I limit myself, but society would try to restrain me to one specific role. It’s either the home or the office. As Bard listed names of young women stepping into these positions I thought of the Packer’s new athletic trainer. She is the first female athletic trainer for their team and it made headlines. Although it is a great achievement I wonder when will be the last time we hear, “the first woman to ever”?

underlying factors of title IX

 When talking about Title IX, I noticed the large focus on the benefits despite the underlying issues. When four women of color who were hired as trainers were mentioned, I thought of the underlying issues and stereotypes in America that commonly placed women of color in roles of caring for more privileged people around them, then being unable to care as much as they would like for their own home. Women of color predominantly had to work outside of their homes, many times for more white people, and could this be an underlying motivation as to why women of color were chosen, their possible families not taken into consideration as needing to be cared for as they commonly are with white women. American propaganda and media’s depiction of women of color differently than white women enforced stereotypes of women of color being less feminine compared to society’s ideals of a feminine white upper-middle-class homemaker. Some argue against women coaching is that it takes women away from looking after kids at home, and while this is inherently based on our Western patriarchial societal standards, I wonder if it was easier for some to accept the idea of women of color as coaches because they were less respected by American society as homemakers like white women. 

Branching off of this, stereotypes of women throughout history overall placed them in a subservient role of doing things for others, commonly at the expense of oneself. The consistent view of women as caregivers with men not naturally having this ability is harmful to all. In the medical field, women are more likely to be nurses, deemed a caregiving role, with doctors, who have more authority and make the final decision, more likely to be men. While women are involved, those with the most authority in the end are men. This is like what we saw with women's sports after Title IX, where while women have been increasingly hired as assistant coaches and other positions, the head coaches are primarily men. 

While many look back on Title IX as a great leap forward, I can't help but think of the many shortcomings that show how performative equality does not deal with equitability. Title IX was made to apply to any organization receiving federal funding, with the penalty of noncompliance being a withdrawal of this money, however, as of 2019, an estimated 80-90% of all educational institutions are not in compliance with Title IX, and no federal money has been withdrawn. It seems as though Title IX acted like a bandaid, legally “fixing” discrimination on some levels and in a simplistic public eye, while not actually following through to the greatest extent and perpetrating other issues like the incredible pay gap and patterns of hiring. Even while Title IX worked to address women’s participation on the field and in the classroom, and women’s sports did grow, it did not address the systemic issues women face building careers in a male-dominated industry.

Athletic trainers; Jobs impacted by Title IX

Athletic trainers are a subject area I am not particularly knowledgeable on, so Barb’s presentation on Title IX and athletic trainers was quite useful and informative. Athletic trainers are a form of primary care providers, who are generally required to have certification and licensure. Athletic trainers only really became somewhat common in the mid 1900s, as caregivers for football players, who often got injured. Unsurprisingly, this field was entirely dominated by men—perhaps this was initially due in part by the lack of women who played football, as it was a male-only sport? Anyways, in 1972, title IX passed, adding many opportunities for women to participate in sports.

It was interesting to hear the contrast between Ms. Barcomb and Barb’s presentations, because women’s coaching jobs and athletic trainers seem to have fairly different results from the passing of Title IX. From Ms. Barcomb’s presentation, she presented information surrounding the negative impacts of Title IX on female coaches and athletic directors, in which women were less able to find coaching jobs than before Title IX was created. But for athletic trainers, the number of female athletic trainers greatly increased after its passing—by the 1990s, 44% of athletic trainers were women, and by 2019, more than half of the trainers were. When asked about this difference during the presentation, Barb mentioned that this may be due to people’s stereotypes, in which women are seen as the caregivers. While I think this is quite possibly part of the difference, I started thinking about other, professional caregivers, and there were some significant outliers; men, for example, hold about 60 percent of the jobs as doctors/physicians. This got me thinking: if the difference between these two doesn’t have to do with stereotypes, what could it be? Ms. Barcomb had mentioned the money that women’s sports made, as far as coaching goes, and how the profits had lured a lot of the men into the business, but it seems that athletic trainers have a similar median salary, so I’m not sure that’s the reason for the difference either. Honestly, I’m still not sure why it is that Title IX benefitted female athletic trainers so much more than female coaches.

On the note of salaries, Barb mentioned the gender wage gap among athletic trainers. Among some other statistics, this one stood out to me: the average salary for women with 16-20 years of experience is about $10,000 less than the average of man with same experience. I cannot imagine the frustration of working just as hard for just as long, but my work being valued as $10,000 less, just because of my gender. Hopefully, in the future, wage gaps as significant as these become a thing of the past.

 

Woman in Athletic Training

At The Governor’s Academy,  all students regardless of gender are required to either play a sport or participate in a club, some who choose sports will face some sort of injury while competing. But could you imagine not being allowed in a training room, and having being treated in the hallway after every injury by a male athletic trainer? Well, before Title IX this was the case. Like here at Govs I could never imagine the training room without Barb or even having to sit on the bench outside to be treated by Wotty. 

Title IX didn't only help female athletes on the field there was a lot of behind-the-scenes work to help them off the field, for example like in the training room. Before Title IX in 1966, there were only 2 known women who were a part of the National Athletic Traning Association (NATA) amongst a thousand men. These women were, Dotty Cohen and Sherry Kosek Babagian and they were clearly outnumbered by their male colleagues. After Title IX was passed 22 women were able to be a part of the National Athletic Traning Association (NATA). It was still difficult for these women to get jobs or be employed during this time for many reasons. First, there were 15 college programs that had athletic training programs, which is a small number of jobs, to begin with, but out of these 15 college programs, only five programs hired women athletic trainers. Although being equally as qualified as their male counterparts, they were not given the same opportunities even with Title IX. 

As time progresses more women can get opportunities not just in college programs, but they can take their athletic training skills to the next level, like the NFL and NHL. This is not only important to the female athletic trainers themselves, but it is also important to other high school girls I know. I have noticed while talking to some of my friends, that they would like to be athletic trainers for NBA teams but they rarely have ever seen women taking on these roles, so although there are about three women athletic trainers in the NBA they are the women setting the new standard that we can do jobs that were originally only for men.

Women and Athletic Training

 Women have been taking on jobs involving health care for years. They initially began taking on the role of the nurse when demand for them struck in World War II. When one thinks of a nurse, they typically envision a female. So why is it that even after going through two World Wars with similar roles, the first female member of the National Athletic Trainer Association (NATA), wasn’t admitted until 1966? And why is it that it took so many years following Dotty Cohen, the first female member, for the percentage of athletic trainers across the nation to reach close to 50/50? 

Even as women started to be accepted into the field of athletic training, they were still at a huge disadvantage compared to men. For example, women weren’t allowed in athletic training rooms and had to be treated in the hallways by men. Honestly, this rule reflected how women’s sports were treated at the time — as second class members. Women had such a small spectrum of sports they could be involved in, and even so they were discouraged from participating at all. Title IX helped change this, and is one of the main reasons that opportunities for women in athletic training changed as well. Although many changes have been made as of 2019 (56% of athletic trainers are women, 44% are men), there are still some changes to be made at the collegiate level and regarding salaries. In 2019, only 31.7% of head athletic trainers in the NCAA were women. However, the upside is that the majority of the 68.3% of men athletic trainers in the NCAA are towards the end of their career and getting ready to retire. The hope and probability is that a good amount of the new generation that will be hired to fill those positions will be women, evening out those percentages. 

Another big issue is the difference in salaries between male and female athletic trainers. It is interesting that 1-5 years of experience has an average difference of $4,000, 6-10 years of experience has an average difference of $3,000, and 16-20 years of experience has an average difference of $10,000. It makes sense that 16-20 years of experience has the biggest difference — women were still getting into the field and weren’t as encouraged to get into athletic training. However, it is hopeful that 1-5 years of experience has less of a difference — the pay gap is starting to decrease. However, A $4,000 is still a hefty difference. How long is it going to take to make it $0?

Is the Perception of Women as "Caregivers" Hindering Their Ability to Excel in the Workforce?

While listening to Barb’s presentation, one concept that particularly stuck out to me was the rapid increase in female athletic trainers, while there is still a very small percentage of women in the role of head athletic trainers. When I asked about this at the end of class, Barb replied that because women are natural caregivers they flourished within the profession. However, I wonder if the preconceived ideas of women being nurturing is causing women’s progress to remain stagnant within other areas of athletics. We have previously discussed the decrease of women in coaching which is primarily due to people’s biases against women in positions of leadership. It was also partially attributed to more men pushing their way into the profession when collegiate coaching became more profitable (in part due to title nine), and men became more interested in coaching women's athletics. It seems as though women are able to excel as athletic trainers due to peoples inclinations to view women as working for and under others instead of being in charge of others. This is similar to how people will always assume a woman in scrubs is a nurse, yet a man in scrubs is assumed to be a doctor. 

The dichotomy between the rising numbers of female athletic trainers and the limited presence in leadership roles suggests a larger challenge amongst women in the corporate world. While the stereotype of women as caregivers might explain their prevalence in certain roles, it shouldn't limit their opportunities for advancement. The assumption that nurturing qualities confine women to specific positions risks perpetuating traditional gender roles and inhibiting progress toward gender equality in the workforce. Addressing biases against women in leadership positions is crucial to fostering a more inclusive and diverse environment within the sports industry. It highlights the need for dismantling stereotypes that may unintentionally impede the full realization of women's potential across various facets of athletics. Deconstructing preconceived notions pertaining to working women and breaking down gender-related barriers is essential for creating an equitable landscape in sports.

Women and Language

 

Language is an undermined form of oppression. “As a scholar of gender and language, and the influence language has on our subconscious thoughts of gender.” Like any other small part of our daily lives, language restricts and retracts women from society. Words such as man, mankind, dude, guys, etc. These small yet powerful words instill male superiority. Whether that’s speaking to friends or making a public statement, addressing a group of individuals changes the tone of the conversation. As a girl raised in a home with four brothers and one sister, I was always referred to as a guy. I never minded it as I knew it wasn’t in a conforming tone but at times it felt out of place. 

In conversations with mostly males, the need to raise your voice was a constant need. Although I felt inclined to speak up, the thought of taking too much space was overbearing. As stated during class, “In a mixed group, men do  80% of the talking, when lowered to 70 % men recognize the women’s voice and believe that women are speaking a lot more.” The ingrained expectation of a woman's submissive character is the reason for such a statement. The expectation of male dominance submerges the assertive women. A woman’s voice is expected to be soft and accepting. As a woman changes her verbal presentation to gain attention and power they are negatively reviewed and labeled. 

As we will never be the rule, and rarely the expectation, I wonder where to begin?

the perception of Women through the lens of Language

The language we use defines a perception of our reality. The way women are talked about and represented in mainstream male-dominated society continues to hurt them. Throughout history, the male body is seen as the default, and terminology about female bodies throughout history has been contorted to represent women in a certain way, fueling the institution of gender roles and stereotypes. Throughout history, women’s health has been minimized and disqualified, solely focused on health in relation to reproduction, only solidifying the significance of motherhood and childbearing as the primary importance of women in this world. Terminology not only favors males but is morphed through their gaze.  Hearing one of the males we saw in class say “the crazy way young women are speaking” reminded me of the centuries of demonizing women for expressing their feelings and ideas. 

Terms like “hysteria,” a common diagnosis for women throughout the ages, encompassed almost anything deemed problematic, “including anxiety, shortness of breath, fainting, nervousness, sexual desire, insomnia, fluid retention, heaviness in the abdomen, irritability, loss of appetite for food or sex, sexually forward behavior, and a ‘tendency to cause trouble for others’.” The word translates to “wandering womb,” the idea that a woman’s womb is wandering about their body searching to get pregnant, and if it goes in the wrong direction, it can affect them, like a spirit taking over their body. The lack of care and critical thought about women's health mongerred fear and inaccurate views of these “crazy” women, supporting the demonization and apparent “wrongness”  of women who acted “differently” and outside of traditional gender roles, as well as minimizing any health issue to an issue of fertility, never addressing the root cause. While hysteria is no longer considered a valid diagnosis, women’s health continues to be under-researched.  we continue to see how women who express traits outside of patriarchal and imperialistic gender roles are demonized, as well as the commonality of doctors not trusting women’s depiction of their own health. While with the women's health movement of the '60s and beyond more exposure has become more widespread of white male dominance in the medical, it is clear the patriarchial and industrialist lens through which much research and education is done is damaging to understanding the reality of all of those among us.

We see changes in language affecting people every day. Newer generations continue to show the ability to see the world differently than previous generations, a theme we see throughout history. As american life has changed over the years, the internet has expanded our access to different perspectives and ways of thinking. The access we have to learn about and understand what is going on around us is greater than ever before, and while the government may be able to regulate the narrative they release, the ability to access information beyond this brings light to issues that may be far more important. 

Issues touted as “complicated” are ironic in today's society where we have more access to information than ever before, derailing critical investigation and education on the topic. In fact, a large factor of the lack of research on women was the claim their hormones are too complicated, too hard, and costly. However presenting information in accessible ways can help push back against this narrative, and social media provides access to people exploring specific ideas from a variety of perspectives, highlighting narratives many times underrepresented in mass media to be investigated through further research. A springboard for future interest and invectigation, this tactic of addressing news in an easier consumed in a more casual style makes information more accessible to a wider variety of people, especially younger generations.

It is clear students respond to this more personal kind of connection. A teacher showed her class a video of a woman whom some adults felt was unprofessional, specifically unauthoritative, while the students sads she sounded good and educational. While the adults tended to conflate the ideas of traditional professionalism with care and trustworthiness, regard of how they perceive someone over the substance of their intellect. The influence of American society on the way people view professionalism is damaging, a clear bias toward those who look, speak, and think a certain way, but younger generations are proving there can be a better way.