After reflecting on our discussions in class and reviewing "Good Old Boys and Good Old Girls Clubs: Myth or Reality?," I have come to the conclusion that it is most definitely not a myth. The decline of women coaches is a real issue that is directly related to the reality of the "Good Old Boys Club" and the lack thereof the "Good Old Girls Club." Just consider that there have been decades upon decades of male coaches and athletes in the athletic system at a high school and college level. The continued hiring of men to fill those roles is undeniable. It may not be unanimous everywhere, but the traditional pattern is clear.
It is obvious why the Good Old Girls Club does not exist. Simply because female administrators were hardly existent before the passing of Title IX. That makes it nearly impossible to establish a large weave of female administrators who are in a hiring position among high schools/colleges. Title IX may have increased opportunities for female athletes but it seemed to have the opposite effect on females coaches.
After looking at the results in class of our own high schools and 2 person structures, it is clear the Good Old Boys Club seems to exist as a highly identifiable cause. Male athletic directors were quick to offer the lack of female preparedness and shortcomings as the reason for decline of female coaches. However, that seems rather sexist to me to blame the lack of women coaches as a whole on the entire unpreparedness of all women. It would seem more appropriate to me to blame it on a lack of interest in coaching rather than insult the skill of women everywhere.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Actually there were female administrators and coaches before the passage of Title IX. In fact, nearly 90% of women's teams and programs were coached by women, but not under the governance of the NCAA. There was the AIAW, and before that the DGWS, and other governing organizations before that. Furthermore, most programs had women administrators, but they had different philosophies of what sport should be like for girls and women, and those philosophies conflicted with the NCAA. It was very painful for a lot of the administrators in the AIAW to be replaced by NCAA governance. They lost a lot of women in leadership roles as a result. I don't think there was a lack of interest in coaching, but certainly the system in which women were asked to coach changed. Many women may not have wanted to adapt to that new "win-at-all-cost" mentality. In addition, since more money was offered, more men applied for those positions. So, there are a number of factors that contributed to the dramatic decline in the number and percentage of women coaches and administrators.
ReplyDelete