Despite women's dramatic surge in athletic participation and achievement during the last three decades, feminists generally have not seen sport as a major theater for gender politics and cultural transformation. Indeed, it is fair to say that the historical alliances between feminist activists, university-based feminists, and community-based advocates for women's sports have been periodic and spotty. We argue here that there is much to learn about the relevance and irrelevance of feminisms for women athletes and their advocates. This essay examines some intersections between several types of feminism and women's sports movements within a general historical framework. We also examine the current relevance of feminism for women's sports advocacy within a case study of a network of community-based programs that use sports and exercise to enhance the lives of urban girls in Boston, Massachusetts. Particular attention is paid to the fit between feminisms and the fates of girls of color.

The current cultural visibility and celebration of women athletes is rather remarkable when you jump backward three decades or so to around 1970. Kathy Switzer had to write "K. Switzer" on the entry form for the 1967 Boston Marathon because women were not allowed to run. During the race male judges tried to physically pull her off the street, but with the help of other runners, she finished the race. It took a United States Supreme Court decision in the early 1970s to allow an 11-year-old girl to play Little League baseball with her neighborhood friends. Women's athletic abilities were unrecognized or ridiculed by the dominant culture when in 1973 tennis star Billie Jean King punctured a big hole in patriarchal presumption by defeating braggart Bobby Riggs in the nationally televised "Battle of the Sexes" at the Houston Astrodome.

In the 1971-72 school year, just 1 in 27 high school girls participated in a high school sport, compared to 1 in 3 girls during 2002-03.[1] Intercollegiate sports was a man's world in the early 1970s, swollen with male privilege and patriarchal values, supported by male-dominated athletic administrations, booster clubs, and alumni organizations, and buoyed up by a rapidly growing televised sports industry. At the same time, athletic scholarships for college women were almost nonexistent during the 70s, but they increased markedly during the 1980s. But even by academic year 1995-96, female athletes and their families received $142,622,803 less in scholarship awards than their male athlete counterparts.[2] Women were marginalized participants in the Olympic Games of the 1970s, and women's professional sports had yet to come on the scene. Today U.S. women win Olympic medals in numbers comparable to their male counterparts, and women's events like figure skating, gymnastics, and soccer generate television audiences few media moguls would have dreamed of before the late 1980s.

It is doubtful that this rapid transformation of women's interest and participation in sports could have occurred without Title IX. Congress enacted Title IX in 1972 in order to stop discrimination in any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.[3] The male-dominated National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) unfurled a massive lobbying campaign against the implementation of Title IX during the 1970s. The forces against gender equity in sports later got a legal boost in 1984 from the Grove City v. Bell case, which limited Title IX's ban on gender discrimination to specific programs, rather than entire institutions that received federal funds. However, Congress reinvigorated Title IX with the passage of the Civil Rights Restoration Act in 1989. The legal and social forces seeking gender equity in sports gathered momentum, and girls' and women's participation rates climbed. The struggles between gender equity advocates and opponents of Title IX remain active to this day.[4]

Women of color also participated in the growth of women's sports in the United States. They are especially visible in sports like basketball, tennis, and track and field. The number of female intercollegiate athletes of color increased from 2,137 in 1971 to 22,541 in 2000.[5] While female athletes of color received less than $200,000 in scholarship funds in 1971, they garnered $82 million in 1999.[6] Despite these indicators of achievement and progress, however, it is also true that many girls and women of color have been left behind in women's historic sprint forward in sport. High school sports, for example, typically thrive in affluent, predominantly white school districts and wither in poor urban and rural areas, where percentages of students of color tend to be higher. Socioeconomic status exerts powerful influence on who wants to play and who gets to play. The merging of class and racial inequalities is also evident in the clustering of athletes of color in certain sports but not others. Whereas female athletes of color were overrepresented in college sports like badminton, bowling, basketball, track-outdoor, and track-indoor, they were highly underrepresented in the next 20 most popular college sports (like softball, gymnastics, golf, rowing, soccer, swimming/diving, ice hockey).[7] It is these larger patterns of racial stereotyping and disparate economic impacts on populations of color that produce much of the underrepresentation of females of color. Swimming pools, equine training facilities, country club tennis courts, and affordable rents for hockey practices are difficult to find in poor and working-class communities. Even if poor girls of color do develop an interest in sports, many do not have the personal, familial, or school-based resources to help them pursue their interests. With sports, like other valuable opportunities in the United States, many are called but few can afford the price of admission.

Academic Feminism and Women's Sports Advocacy

Before 1980 there was no substantive discussion of women's sports in mainstream feminist writings.[8] Women athletes were off the radar screens of Simone de Beauvoir, Susan Brownmiller, Kate Millett, Juliet Mitchell, Mary Daly, and Betty Friedan.[9] However, a feminist critique of sport as a major sexist institution did emerge in North America during the 1970s, spearheaded mainly by pioneering women physical educators.[10] They indicted male-dominated sport for its gender inequalities, trivialization of women athletes, hoarding of administrative power and resources in men's hands, and biologistic claims about men's athletic superiority and women's athletic inferiority.[11]

The radical vision of these early women's sports scholars was fueled not only by their love for athletics but, perhaps more crucially, by their multiple forms of marginalization. As physical educators, they did not have as much scholarly legitimacy within the academy as women scholars from other disciplines. In addition, their involvement in sport and physical education was often perceived as a cultural marker of lesbian identity, opening the door to slander and discrimination.[12] It was also true that, on most campuses, physical education and sport in general were marginalized by academics, whether feminist or nonfeminist, male or female. Many academics did not see athletics as an educational process or even as part of the educational institution where they worked. And especially for many feminist scholars, sport was dispensed with categorically because it epitomized male dominance and patriarchy.

Most academic feminists, whose numbers increased during the 1970s and 1980s, did not generally discover or incorporate the work of the early women sports scholars. It was not until the 1990s that the research and writing on women in sports started to seep into more interdisciplinary academic soil, extending its roots into psychology, history, exercise science, cultural studies, anthropology, and literature. And even today, in some women's studies programs, sport is seen as separate from or peripheral to feminism and women's movements.

On U.S. campuses, there was not much connection between academic feminists and women sports proponents, and the distancing went in both directions. Historically, the generation of Second Wave academic feminists had little or no personal athletic experience in their cultural backgrounds. They were part of the pre-Title IX generation of women, for whom shooting hoops, throwing elbows, and sweating buckets were as alien as boardroom banter. In addition, those women who were involved with sports during the 1970s and 1980s (e.g., as athletes, administrators, and coaches) often resisted being associated with any form of feminism. Nor did they line up to take women's studies courses. To be labeled a "feminist" in the masculine and homophobic culture of sport could have drawn unfriendly fire from colleagues and those in power.[13]

Mainstream Feminist Activism and Women's Sports Advocacy

Outside academia, feminist activists were also slow to discover and integrate the vision of women's sports advocates. Two historical events illustrate how earlier mainstream feminist activists did not fully understand women's sports activism as an institutional theater for political or cultural struggle. Carole Oglesby and Eva Auchincloss were among a small network of women's sports activists who participated in the 1977 Spirit of Houston National Women's Congress. They recall that the national conference was preceded by more than fifty state and territory conferences in which a "platform" was developed "from the grassroots."[14]

Ironically, the organizers used an Olympic marathon-like event to generate public awareness and enthusiasm for the upcoming conference. Oglesby and Auchincloss joined women from the National Association for Girls and Women in Sport (NAGWS) to organize a "Torch Run," a staged run (50 miles per day) with torch in hand from Seneca Falls, New York, to Houston, Texas. Day coordinators arranged to have the torch passed from one female or supportive male runner to the next runner, and 25 people a day carried the symbol forward for two-mile intervals. These were also the days when women's political struggles for equal rights were being met by conservative opponents like Phyllis Schlafly and the new religious right. The two sides clashed in the state of Georgia, where the opposition convinced an entire day of volunteer runners to back out of the run. The goal was to disrupt and end the run. A marathoner was flown in to carry the torch for twenty-six miles, giving the organizers time to recruit others to complete the run that day. A photo of the marathoner appeared on the cover of a national magazine and, later, on the cover of the published conference proceedings.[15]

A number of women's sports resolutions did not make it onto the conference platform, but as Oglesby recalls, "I do not think our effort was in vain." She observed that "the conference was the beginning of the bridge building between the mainstream women's movement and the women's sports advocacy movement."[16] (During the 1980s and 1990s, there emerged greater awareness and cooperation between women's sports advocacy organizations (e.g., NAGWS, the Women's Sports Foundation, and Melpomene) and mainstream feminist organizations (e.g., National Organization for Women, Feminist Majority). Within the latter circles, it was the symbolic significance and appeal of the female athlete as a cultural icon, more than the specific cause of women's sports advocacy, that was most appreciated.

A similar awakening took place within the American Association of University Women (AAUW), founded in 1881 and a leading proponent of education and equity for women and girls. It was not until 1993 that the topic of gender equity in athletics became the focus of an AAUW regional conference in Buffalo, New York. The March 27 conference "Aspiring Higher: Sports Equity for Women in the 1990s" included sessions on the history of Title IX, sports and teen pregnancy, coaching women athletes, careers for women in sport, and women's health. Donna Lopiano, executive director of the Women's Sports Foundation and a leading women's sports activist, was among several women's sports advocates to address the conference. Many of the AAUW members who attended the conference reported that for their generation, a pre-Title IX generation, sports had not been part of their girlhood experiences. The conference sparked awareness about gender equity issues in athletics and gave many of those who attended an initial insight into some of the positive developmental impacts that sports can provide girls and women. The regional conference created a ripple effect, and Donna Lopiano was subsequently invited to speak at the national AAUW conference. One outcome was that bridges were built between feminist activists and women's sports advocates, collaborations that were few in number before the 1990s.

The Word "Feminism" and Women's Sports Advocacy

Today multiple intersections exist between women's sports advocates, academic feminists, and mainstream organizations that advocate for girls and women. For example, National Girls and Women in Sports Day is celebrated annually both as a lobbying event staged in Washington, DC as well as through regional or campus-based events throughout the United States. Now in its 19th year, this event is jointly organized by several women's advocacy organizations in the United State, including the American Association of University Women, Girl Scouts of the USA, Girls Incorporated, the National Association for Girls and Women in Sport, National Women's Law Center, the Women's Sports Foundation, and the YWCA USA. But if you attend a local National Girls and Women in Sports Day event, replete with speakers, star athletes, and awards, the chances are that you will not hear the words "feminism" or "feminist." Similarly, for the national event, the web-based promotional narratives for the various sponsors do not refer to feminist agendas explicitly; rather, they describe themselves as "girl-serving" or "women-centered" and espouse increased opportunities for girls to participate in sports and fitness and to engage in healthy lifestyles.

So just what are the contemporary relationships between feminisms and women's sports advocacy? Feminist movements and feminist scholarship certainly influenced the development of U.S. women's sports movements. The women's movement put wind in the sails of women's sports advocacy. But a lot of women's sports advocacy remained apart from conscious or overt ties to feminism because, especially for women who worked inside sport, brandishing a feminist label was likely to draw professional fire or evoke misunderstanding. The priority, after all, was giving girls the opportunity to participate in sport because of its myriad benefits to health and emotional development and ability to teach teamwork and other habits to be applied later in life.

There were economic forces operating as well. For example, there was no real government support for women's sports. The United States was no Canada, Germany, or Russia that invested economic resources in women's athletics. Likewise, private foundations in the United States had little or no history of giving when it came to women's athletics. Women's sports advocates were thus forced to look elsewhere for funding. The Women's Sports Foundation, founded in 1975 by Billie Jean King, was among the first to glean support from corporate sponsors, taking up the banner to get more girls and women involved with athletic and fitness activities.[17] While the corporate sponsors were partly motivated by the cause of women's sports, the bulk of their sponsorship was about marketing outcomes, sales, and corporate profit. Today "cause-related" marketing in women's sports may be ebbing and becoming just plain marketing; i.e., companies directly aim to capture the imaginations and dollars of the millions of "active and athletic women" who were previously birthed by women's sports advocates and feminist movements during the decades following Title IX. Within the current corporate scheme of things, for better and worse, "Nike women" are consumers first and women second.

During the 1990s, Title IX litigations opened more doors for girls and women to enter high school and intercollegiate athletics. Across the nation, parents, coaches, and school administrators who did not have a "feminist" consciousness advocated for athletic opportunities for girls as well as boys. Some administrators pursued a vision of equity or fairness while others were motivated more by the threat of lawsuits, while others simply saw sports as an asset for girls, families, schools, and communities. Sexist myths about girls' athletic inadequacies bit the cultural dust, and as the number of female athletes mushroomed and efforts to secure gender equity in sport gathered momentum, women's sports advocacy organizations grew in stature and influence. Ironically, as the century turned, despite its historical origins in feminist movements and ideals, it became less and less culturally fashionable, politically functional, and organizationally viable for women's sports advocacy to espouse traditional "feminist" rhetoric and labels.

The perceived drawbacks of using overt feminist discourse in women's sports advocacy circles were evident as early as 1983 during the New Agenda Conference on Women in Sports. Delegates and speakers from around the United States attended the November 3-5, 1983 conference in Washington, DC, which aimed to produce a "blueprint for women's sports for the 1980s." The women's sports advocacy movement was at a tipping point, weak and fledgling but gathering momentum and cultural credibility. Meanwhile, Ronald Reagan was in the White House, and lobbying against Title IX was heavily funded. Women's athletics suffered mightily from homophobic slurs and strategies that, across the landscape of intercollegiate sport, helped to maintain the male-dominated status quo and to keep women's quests for equity and advancement in coaching and administration at bay. Women's sports advocacy organizations were limping along, buoyed up by ideals and ambition, but held back by meager resources. The male-dominated and sexist media regularly ridiculed feminists and their causes, and the threads of patriarchal backlash were being sewn into American culture and politics. Amid this cauldron of events and concerns, and after heated debate among the delegates, it was collectively decided to eschew public use of the words "feminism" and "feminist" because these words could so easily be manipulated and distorted by unsympathetic and sexist male reporters. Similarly, whereas the term "homophobia" was eventually accepted and adopted within the official conference discourse and platform, the word "lesbian" was not.[18]

Has feminism faded from the vision and practice of women's sports advocacy? Has the backlash against the women's movement theorized by Susan Faludi[19] forced feminist theory and practice underground in women's sports circles? Or have women's politics in the United States become so pluralized and normalized that former distinctions between "women's organizations" or "feminists" and "nonfeminists" no longer make sense? Have gender politics left the arena of gender and sports?

Conscious Feminisms, Implicit Feminisms, and Feminisms by Default

Across the 30-year-plus history of the women's sports movement, we suggest that there have been several orientations to feminism, including "conscious feminisms," "implicit feminisms," and "feminisms by default." Conscious feminisms operate where advocates or scholars self-identify as "feminists" and proclaim feminist values and political goals - e.g., bell hooks arguing that feminism is a movement to end sexist oppression.[20] Implicit feminisms occur when advocates are guided to one extent or another by what could be described as feminist values or aims, but they do not publicly identify as "feminist." For example, a group of coeds may pursue gender equity in campus athletics but not call themselves "feminists," or a law professor may lecture about homophobia in sport but not label her/his lesson as "feminist practice." If queried, however, these individuals would recognize that their action or work is grounded in feminism and say something like, "Why yes, of course, in relation to these kinds of issues, I consider myself a feminist." Finally, feminisms by default refer to cases where individuals do good work on behalf of girls and women, yet there is no conscious linkage to the history of the women's movement, feminist theory or practice, or other similar "women's political agendas" - e.g., the passionate soccer mom or devoted male coach of a girls' team fights to increase girls' opportunities because she or he believes that the sports experience will help young women succeed in education or the work place.

We argue that all three feminisms are part of the contemporary scene and, moreover, that the typology can be a touchstone for historical speculation. For example, the 1960s and 1970s were an era of conscious feminisms among mainstream women's activists and academic feminists. Women's sports advocates outside academia did not generally wear their feminist identities and policy agendas on their sleeves, but feminist ideals and the struggle for equity were implicit in their thinking and actions. With the 1980s and 1990s came the patriarchal backlash, but, at the same time, women made gains in the workplace, business, and sport. As women's sports advocacy groups became configured as nonprofit organizations, the discourse of political feminism became less visible, relevant, and tactical.[21] For example, women's efforts to confront sexual harassment during the 1970s would have been considered "radical feminist activism," but by the dawn of the 1990s such actions were consonant with dominant case law. Today most of the women who do sexual harassment law or who clamor for equal pay in the corporate sector do not often identify themselves as feminists, yet they are implicitly aware that their work and perceived rights derive historically from women's political and cultural movements. So too, we believe, would many women sports advocates embrace implicit feminisms. Indeed, it is fair to say that implicit feminisms now reign in progressive circles and organizations partly because it has become politically impractical or functionally irrelevant to overtly espouse "feminist" agendas.

Today it is mainly academic feminists and, perhaps even more so, the older generation of Second Wave feminists who still call themselves feminists and adhere to conscious feminisms. Some younger women academics are developing conscious feminist identities and political agendas under the banner of Third Wave feminism.[22] However, most women doing advocacy work for girls and women outside academia no longer outwardly identify as feminists, opting instead for either implicit feminisms or feminisms by default. Many women today, particularly but not exclusively in sport, feel that "feminism is a done deal." Their actions, thinking, and even activism may be grounded in feminism, but they do not dwell on it. Feminism is historical background and informs their thinking, but it is not the name of their platform. Just as we can talk about American ideals without having to rehash the 1776 Continental Congress, or race theorists can discuss contemporary America informed by the principle of racial equality without explicitly detailing the abolitionist movement, some women flow with feminisms without naming the river.

Implicit feminisms and feminisms by default are evident elsewhere in contemporary culture. Many younger women do not identify themselves as feminists because, for them, it makes no sense personally or strategically. And yet, they may see facets of their lives as linked to feminist agendas; e.g., they want equal opportunity in the work place, the right to use contraception, and stiff penalties for rape. To cite another example, women in sport often experience the bite of homophobia and recognize it as a "women's" or "feminist" issue. Single female coaches regularly have their sexuality questioned and young women in "butch" sports (like softball) endure teasing from their male counterparts, sometimes to the point of having to "prove" they are hetero.[23] Women with Third Wave sensibilities may see body image and pathological weight loss issues as "feminist" issues, but they may have only a little or some latent feminist identity, may not call themselves "feminists," or, if they are women of color, may be reluctant to ally too closely with what is perceived as white women's agendas.

The Boston Girls' Sports & Physical Activity Project: A Case Study

Typologies are by definition generalizations and, as such, they can put scholars out on proverbial limbs. In order to climb back down to empirical ground, we want to discuss the intersections between feminist activists, feminist scholars, and women's sports advocates in the context of a specific program, the Boston Girls' Sports and Physical Activity Project (BGSPAP). The BGSPAP grew out of national and local concerns that girls, especially poor urban girls, were being underserved in relation to sports and physical activity. A growing body of research emerged during the 1990s that documented the favorable developmental contributions of sport and physical activity to girls' lives, such as physical health, pregnancy prevention, educational attainment, and psychological well-being.[24] Sports and exercise got on the radar screen of many public health officials who aimed to meet the needs of girls and young women.

In 1999, the Harvard Prevention Research Center at the Harvard School of Public Health, in collaboration with the Center for the Study of Sport in Society at Northeastern University, issued key findings from the Play Across Boston project. The results of this comprehensive community-based assessment revealed that Boston girls were participating in sports and exercise programs at about half the rate of boys. Girls of color also exhibited lower participation rates than their white counterparts.[25] Several private foundations in Boston contracted with the Women's Sports Foundation in order to create the BGSPAP, which aims to increase the number of girls participating in physical activity in Boston, to enhance the attractiveness and quality of programs, and to develop an integrated and sustainable network of community-based programs that aim to use sport and physical activity to enhance girls' lives.

The BGSPAP consists of 13 community-based programs that use various forms of sport, exercise, dance, and educational components to help steer urban girls toward positive developmental outcomes. Below we discuss some of ways that this vision and these developmental practices can be said to reflect or foster feminist goals. Both the authors are integrally involved with the evaluation of the BGSPAP. We are completing our second year of assessment, which includes participant observation and site visits, in-depth interviews with program heads and stakeholders, interactive focus groups with girls, and ongoing communication with the project managers. As "facilitative evaluators," our goals include not only to evaluating the girls' experiences and program effectiveness, but also identifying the best practices and helping to move the network toward growth, integration, and sustainability.

Not Much Room for Conscious Feminisms in the Trenches

Conscious feminisms are rarely seen in the BGSPAP. Several academic members of the advisory board would probably identify themselves as "feminists" in certain contexts, but they have never done so in connection with the BGSPAP. Rather, feminist research findings, theory, and policy agendas are implicit in some of the work they do within the network. Similarly, feminist declarations have not been made by the staffs or leaderships of the various private foundations involved, and it is unclear how many personally identify as feminists. Finally, we have not observed any overt references to feminism among program administrators and staff.

There is no conscious feminism in the trenches of BGSPAP programs. Program heads do, however, share an overall vision of the value of sport and exercise for girls. First, they see sport and exercise as a way to broaden girls' horizons by offering opportunities that are not provided in their schools and communities. Second, they believe that increased physical activity is likely to produce favorable physical and mental health impacts. Third, they feel that the reduction of idleness after school and greater social engagement in girls' lives will reduce risk for teen pregnancy, delinquency, and other ills. Fourth, they contend that sports and fitness can offer opportunities to teach life lessons, foster self-esteem, and empower urban girls with an "I can" attitude. One might argue that liberal feminist goals are implicit maximizing girls' entry and participation in the formerly masculine historical domains of sport and exercise. The fourth point, personal empowerment, can be a feminist ideal, but under what circumstances? There is a lot of emphasis on individual or personal empowerment in the programs, but not as much focus on collective empowerment - at least not with reference to gender, race, and class. When does "I can overcome" meld with "We shall overcome"? Is the former approach to empowerment less of a feminist strategy than the latter, or are the two dynamics inextricably bound together?

Empowerment at Play

Naomi Wolf distinguished between "victim feminism" and "power feminism"; the former views women as exploited by patriarchal institutions, while the latter encourages girls and women to become strong and pursue their dreams and succeed.[26] The "victim" orientation was implicit in the initial rationale for the BGSPAP itself, in that urban girls were positioned as held back by poverty, hamstrung by prevailing race relations, and underrepresented in sports and fitness (gender discrimination). Yet, at the program level, it is mainly "power feminism" that is operating either implicitly or by default. The economic and cultural marginalization of urban girls is understood as an in-your-face reality, but programming is often designed to encourage girls to pursue their dreams, to be ambitious, to try new things, and basically to succeed at what they want to accomplish in their lives.

We found examples where girls' immersion in sport and fitness encouraged them to rethink their beliefs about femininity and masculinity and what it means (or does not mean) to be a girl. During one focus group discussion among mainly 10-13-year-old African American and Latina girls, for instance, one participant said that some "girly girls" choose not to play sports because "they worry about their nails and hair." The facilitator interrupted and said, "Hey, I'm into sports and I worry about my nails. I don't want to break them, but I play." She showed the girls her long, polished, beautiful designer nails. The girls were highly impressed and crowded around her with admiration. But the lesson they appeared to learn was that an older girl could choose to occupy both spaces - being the girly girl and the strong athlete - simultaneously. This could be described as a "Third Wave moment" in that "feminine things weren't truly the problem; being forced to adopt them was."[27] The feminist sensibility was "not about forsaking the feminine for the masculine" but combining them in new ways.[28]

Race and Gender

The BGSPAP is a mesh of multicultural, multiracial, multiethnic, and cross-class practices and identities. In some programs, culture is expressed through hip-hop and Latin dance programs. Spanish is spoken daily in some programs. Parents and grandparents may attend a special event with ethnic foodstuffs in hand. In other programs, race is basically a demographic category, and girls of color are earmarked for recruitment and retention. In some programs, race and gender are critically discussed within the wider contexts of girls' lives. An example follows.

A 75-minute session officially called the "Think Tank" was planned within the context of a larger tennis program for mainly African American girls. The Think Tank provided the girls (ages 11-15) with an opportunity to discuss current events or issues that affected them as they approach adolescence. On this day the girls filed into the room after a practice to hear a presentation from a former professional dancer about the physiology of sports and taking care of one's body - eating properly, exercise, not over-doing it. She talked about the history of the Alvin Ailey Dance Company (her former dance group), explaining that Ailey had created the company in response to those who said that black women's bodies were not properly shaped for real ballet. The discussion turned to how prejudice, discrimination, and beliefs about black women's bodies have also been evident in sport. The f-word was not used, but implicit feminisms were at play here, and the session was part women's history lesson, part political socialization, and part black feminist empowerment all wrapped into one. That day the Think Tank provided a programmatic intersection between gender and race. Black adult women engaged black girls by helping them to understand potentially harmful and limiting societal messages and cultural practices.

Defining "Girl-Centered" Programming Is Not Easy

The term "girl-centered" is sometimes used by some BGSPAP program heads. But just what is "girl-centered programming" in relation to present-day feminisms? To begin with, the term could mean almost anything one wants it to mean. In one situation, "girl-centered program" might mean doing what the girls want to do, whether these actions are in the girls' best interest or not. Another girl-centered approach might start where girls' interests reside and then figure out ways for programs to address a larger array of behaviors, values, and challenges. In short, "girl-centered" need not presuppose a feminist consciousness; it merely suggests a basic attention being paid to gender or the idea that girls are different than boys. Thus, you can envision girl-centered programs being organized by both conservative religious groups and the National Women's Law Center.

Another approach to "girl-centered" programs focuses on the individual girl as a site of change. Rather than helping girls of color or low-income girls to address their collective social, cultural, and economic marginalization, a "girl-centered" program would aim to induce change in individual girls.[29] Developing self-esteem in this model, for example, is offered as a developmental panacea for girls' problems, while institutional forces are put in the background. In addition, if a girl fails to build self-esteem or make other personal changes, it is the girl who fails and not the model. In summary, when feminism is defined as individual change, these kinds of psychological approaches make sense. However, if feminist work with girls is viewed as collective resistance to patriarchy and the transformation of social inequalities, then individualist-psychological approaches fall short at best or actually may reify gender inequities at worst.

While these theoretical considerations invite legitimate feminist debate, they do not have much play in the trenches of BGSPAP programs. It is difficult to ponder Newtonian theory if you are on a crowded airplane that is hurtling toward the ground at 300 miles per hour. Similarly, the programs face tremendous challenges in relation to providing services. The BGSPAP is composed mostly of community-based programs, which means that resources are meager, staffs are overworked, and the needs of the service populations can be overwhelming. Some program administrators are engaged in week-to-week struggles to garner enough resources to keep the doors open. Federal aid for cities and public health is minimal, and the war economy and other fiscal realities are grinding away at nonprofits.

What about The Men?

Men are involved with BGSPAP programming as members of the private foundations that supply funding and vision to the network, as program administrators and staff, as coaches, counselors, volunteers, parents, and grandparents. Yet we strongly sense that conscious feminisms are not part of what sparks these men's commitment to urban girls. Most of the men in the BGSPAP, perhaps all of them, would endorse liberal feminist goals such as maximizing participation in sports and fitness among girls, providing girls with the same athletic opportunities as boys, and recognizing that physical and psychological empowerment through sport can help girls confront harsh social realities and pursue larger goals in life. Yet we suspect that their perception of the integrity of these goals stems not from feminist movements or consciousness, but rather from wider institutional changes that were formerly birthed by feminist movements and women's sport advocacy. The end result is feminisms by default.

Conclusion

So just wherefore art thou feminisms? We wrote this essay not so much to proffer analysis and answers, but as a touchstone to raise questions about where feminisms have been, where they are, and what the future might hold. We hope that you, our readers, find some use in the typology of feminisms. We conclude with a few general comments.

First, we do not believe that feminisms have been sucked into a "postfeminist" black hole. The Second Wave generations are aging but they are not down for the historical count. They populate the academy, manage organizations, participate in political campaigns, conduct research, write, spin viable theory, raise funds and muster hopes, and work with girls in education, athletics, and community programs. A post-Title IX generation of Third Wave feminists has emerged and they are culling theory and strategy from the Second Wave as well as identifying their own visions, agendas, and issues.[30]

Inside and outside women's sports, feminisms are morphing into multiple forms, above and below the cultural and political radar, some ascendant and some dwindling. While conscious feminisms have waned in some contexts and been muzzled by political expediency in other circumstances, they are not dead. Today it is mainly implicit feminisms that resonate and inform, inspire and inflame many who work on behalf of girls and women in athletics. And finally, there are tens of thousands of people working on behalf of girls and women in athletics who have no institutional memory of feminist movements, no intellectual moorings in gender theory, no academic background in gender studies, and no interest in gender politics. And yet they embrace feminisms by default. They believe that girls deserve the same athletic opportunities as boys, that sports can give girls the grit and confidence to face obstacles and aggression, that the athletic arena is no place for sexual harassment and homophobia, and that girls' engagement in sports and fitness is a pathway to women's health.

All three forms of feminism are now at play in sport, and, in a larger context, women's involvement with sports is linked to resistance to timeworn patriarchal images of male supremacy, masculinity, and femininity. Many of the lessons learned by girls through sport erode the patriarchal traditions of physical constraint and passivity that were hallmarks of middle- and upper-class womanhood. Girls' physical and psychosocial empowerment in sport also challenges widespread practices of men's violence against women. Catharine Stimpson followed women's pursuit of athleticism from antiquity to the present, arguing that sport has been a major cultural site for gender struggle and liberation.[31] She calls upon scholars, activists, and athletes to deepen their attention and struggles for gender justice within sport.

Second, the concepts of inclusive feminism and Third Wave Feminism challenge the Second Wave assumption that "women" comprise a collective category in relation to the collective category of men. This bipolar gender schema makes little sense within the trenches of BGSPAP community programs. We observe more of a "Third Wave-like" stance that emphasizes that all girls are not the same. The lives of the urban girls in the BGSPAP are shaped by economic disadvantage, racism, and racial-cultural traditions, practices, and beliefs. These elements of diversity need to be incorporated into practices at the level of community programs. If Third Wave feminism is about discovering what feminism means to and for young women today in their own terms, then the best practices are those that offer girls the skills to create their own life strategies. This means that information must be culturally relevant and based on an understanding of girls' needs within the contexts of their communities.

Third, whatever forms feminisms take in the future, we feel it is important to move beyond the individual to the collective. Helping girls to link up with other women at both the psychological and social levels is beneficial to girls' development. In other words, Latina girls who learn about the importance of keeping their body healthy can absorb this lesson in the context of learning about the various ailments that afflict Latina adult women. For example, a girl's attempt to learn to care for her own body (individual effort) can be linked to her desire to take care of her Latina sisters in general. Health education and individual empowerment can be linked to an awareness of healthy mothers, wives, sisters, daughters, and community. Lessons can also be taught about the social barriers and political inequalities that prevent so many Latinas from becoming and staying healthy.

Fourth, urban girls desperately need to be the recipients of fundamental social change. Programs here and there will help but they will not solve their collective problems. Giving girls what they personally need to be physically and politically strong may eventually bring about the social changes they need. The feminist refrain "the personal is political" is still valuable today. It means that we should not view our lives as separate from events in society, politics, or history. It also means that we can better understand girls' gendered lives in sport by exploring the social and historical contexts in which gender emerges, and vice versa. But both approaches to evoke change are needed in women's sports advocacy. The BGSPAP provides evidence that sport can help urban girls with personal change, but without changing the political, economic, and cultural structures that surround them, individual insights will fade away. Put another way, "personal change needs the support of institutional change. Without a raft or boat or some structure to hang on to, even the best swimmer will tire and slip beneath the waves."[32] So picture a 9-year-old girl who gets recruited into a community rowing or soccer program. She develops her skills and a love for the sport. At age 14 she becomes a peer leader who recruits other girls into the program. Later in college she majors in pre-law and gets active in campus politics to ensure gender equity in the athletic programs. Upon graduation she possesses the confidence and vision to apply for a job in city government with eyes peeled toward community work and, later, law school. Here sport informs the interface between individual development and institutional change. Those of us who are engaged with the BGSPAP are also striving to build an integrated network of community-based organizations that will become a force within the larger opportunity structures that make up the city of Boston.

Fifth, as we saw in the BGSPAP network, men are intricately involved with community-based programs that use sports as a developmental vehicle to enhance girls' lives. These men believe in the empowering potential of sports for girls but would not see themselves as feminists.[33] Rather, they practice feminisms by default. Many men are generally unable or reluctant to consciously ally with feminism mainly because, for the last four decades, they have drunk from poisoned wells. The media portrayed feminists as man haters, hysterics, opportunists, troublemakers, lesbians, femi-Nazis, anti-family, anti-life, baby killers, and witches. Macho hip-hop discourse turned assertive and serious women into "bitches" and "hos." Male academics often characterized their feminist colleagues as unreasonable, extremists, unscientific, ideologues, disgruntled, and one-sided. Young men were fed images of feminists as man bashers, ball busters, or competitive women who were making it more difficult for men to succeed. Even men's studies practitioners or men who harbored profeminist sentiments often felt apart from feminists. Like the white liberal who frets about letting a patently racist phrase pass his lips, feminist-inclined men tried to put their best political foot forward in feminist circles, playing hide-and-seek with feminists, shielding some or much of who they really were while seeking higher and more liberated ground. After all, much Second Wave feminist theory revolved around separatist categories and a "presumed oppositionality" between "men" and "women," or the feminist "we" versus the male "they." As Sandra Bartky noted, "the Second Wave feminism of the late sixties and seventies emerged and grew strong and confident in an environment where men were largely excluded."[34] Yet we suggest that within the emerging environment of multiple and morphing feminisms, more political and cultural spaces may open up for men in "women's" movements and women's sports advocacy initiatives. A key presupposition of Third Wave theory, for example, is that everyone has a gender, and that feminisms therefore necessarily include men. This is why Third Wavers prefer the term "gender studies" to "women's studies."[35]

Finally, feminisms are not what they used to be. Feminist movements rarely take to the street or smack the face of the dominant culture. The backlash took a big bite out of feminism's verve and visibility, and it is mainly implicit feminisms that now operate underground. Perhaps one way to bring feminisms back to the surface is to rename them. We use the term "renaming" here in two ways. First, we wish to begin to use the term "feminism" again as just one descriptor for who we are and what we are doing. And second, giving feminism many names could help it break out of the stereotypical, political corner that it got forced into during the 1990s. This is partly what our typology of feminisms is about. More fundamentally, the complexity of our lives no longer fits under the conceptual umbrella of "feminism." Today there is no such thing as feminism, only feminisms, some covert and some overt, depending on goals and political context. We can see a parallel erosion of categorical singularity in relation to the words "Christian" and "Muslim," "conservative" and "liberal," "American" and "immigrant." Emerging global, political, and cultural realities are rendering these terms problematic generalizations. The time has come for women's sports advocates to de-venomize, pluralize, and publicize feminist visions and practices in their efforts to pursue equity and health through athletics.

Today, in a variety of neighborhoods across Boston, the BGSPAP work is getting done. Private foundation leaders, health educators, development directors, academics, program managers and staff, counselors, coaches, and peer educators are engaged in an urban experiment that uses sports and exercise to enhance the lives of girls. The academic feminists linked with the BGSPAP know that gender theory and politics are not easily spun at the grassroots level. The women's sports advocates are doing what they have done for decades, harnessing scarce resources in order to deliver programs that favorably impact girls' development. And the battle cries of former women's movements resonate within the BGSPAP - gender equity, physical and personal empowerment, reconstructing traditional gender identities and boundaries, and breaking out of sexist cultural constraints. Though the word "feminism" is seldom heard, there are feminisms at play.

Endnotes

1. National Federation of State High School Associations, NFHS Handbook 2003-04 (Indianapolis, IN: National Federation of State High School Associations, 2003). [Return to text]

2. Don Sabo, "The Women's Sports Foundation Gender Equity Report Card: A Survey of Athletic Opportunity in American Higher Education," Women's Sports Foundation, East Meadow, NY, 1997, http://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/cgi-bin/iowa/
issues/rights/article.html?record=190. [Return to text]

3. Don Sabo, "Different Stakes: Men's Pursuit of Gender Equity in Sports," in Sex, Violence & Power in Sports, 202-213. [Return to text]

4. See Nancy Hogshead-Makar and Donna Lopiano, "Foul Play: Department of Education Creates Huge Title IX Compliance Loophole: Women's Sports Foundation Position Paper" Scholar and Feminist Online 4, no. 3 (Summer 2006). See also Don Sabo and Christine Grant, "Limitations of the Department of Education's online survey method for measuring athletic interest and ability on U.S.A. Campuses," Center for Research on Physical Activity, Sport & Health, D'Youville College, Buffalo, NY, June 2005, http://www.dyc.edu/crpash/limits_of_online_survey.pdf. For an update on current advocacy efforts to save Title IX from erosion, go to http://www.titleix.info and http://www.savetitleix.com. [Return to text]

5. Jennifer Butler and Donna Lopiano, "The Women's Sports Foundation Report: Title IX and Race in Intercollegiate Sport,"Women's Sports Foundation, 2003, http://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/cgi-bin/iowa
/issues/disc/article.html?record=955. [Return to text]

6. Ibid. [Return to text]

7. Ibid. [Return to text]

8. Sport, Men and the Gender Order: Critical Feminist Perspectives, ed. Michael Messner and Don Sabo (Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers, 1990). [Return to text]

9. See Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex (New York: Knopf, 1952); Susan Brownmiller, Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1975); Kate Millett, Sexual Politics (Garden, City, NY: Doubleday, 1970); Juliet Mitchell, Women's Estate (New York, Vintage, 1973); Mary Daly, Gyn-Ecology: the Metaethics of Radical Feminism (Boston: Beacon Press, 1978); Betty Friedan, The Second Stage (New York: Summit Books, 1981). [Return to text]

10. See Susan Birrell, "Achievement Related Motives and the Woman Athlete", in Women and Sport: From Myth to Reality, ed. Carole Oglesby, (Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger, 1978); Mary Boutilier and Lucinda San Giovanni, The Sporting Woman (Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1978); Mary Duquin, "The Androgynous Advantage," in Women and Sport; Mary Duquin, "Power and Authority: Moral Consensus and Conformity in Sport," International Review for Sociology of Sport 19 (1984): 295-304; Jan Felshin, "The Triple Option for Women in Sport," Quest 17 (January 1974): 36-40; Susan Greendorfer, "The Nature of Female Socialization into Sport: A Study of Selected College Women's Sport Participation" (PhD diss., University of Wisconsin, Madison,1974); Susan Greendorfer, "The Role of Socializing Agents in Female Sport Involvement," Research Quarterly 48 (1978): 304-310; Ann Hall, "Sport and Gender: A Feminist Perspective on the Sociology of Sport," Canadian Association of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation Sociology of Sport Monograph Series, 1978; Dorothy Harris, "Women and Sport: A National Research Conference," in Proceedings from the National Research Conference, Women and Sport, Penn State HYPER Series No. 2 (State College, PA: Pennsylvania State University: 1972); Women and Sport, ed. Carol Oglesby; Nancy Theberge, "A Critique of Critiques: Radical and Feminist Writings on Sport," Social Forces 60 (1981): 341-353. [Return to text]

11. Some men at this time also adopted feminist perspectives in order to analyze sport as a sexist institution that was problematic for both women and men. See Jock: Sports & Male Identity, ed. Don Sabo & Ross Runfola (Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1980). This anthology contained many, perhaps even most, of the profeminist writings on men and sport that were generated during the 1970s. [Return to text]

12. Pat Griffin, Strong Women, Deep Closets: Lesbians and Homophobia in Sport (Champain, IL: Human Kinetics, 1998). [Return to text]

13. Susan Cahn, Coming on Strong: Gender and Sexuality in Twentieth Century Women's Sports (New York: Free Press, 1994). [Return to text]

14. Personal communication, May 2005. [Return to text]

15. For a video documentary of the Houston conference, go to http://www.mediaprojects.org. [Return to text]

16. Personal communication, May 5, 2005. [Return to text]

17. The first executive director of the Women's Sports Foundation, Eva Auchincloss, was not a self-identified feminist when she began to build the organization from scratch. Billie Jean King had enjoined her to create an organization that would help more girls and women to become involved with sports, and she was the right woman for the job. The rationale was that sports were fun, challenging, physically engaging, and produced positive developmental outcomes for girls and women. It was not until later that Auchincloss began to see connections between expanding girls' athletic opportunities and American women's political struggles for equal rights in the work place, government, and family. [Return to text]

18. For example, coauthor Don Sabo was interviewed in the mid-1980s by a radio sports talk show host who began with the question: "So is it true that women athletes are a bunch of dykes and why are you on their side?" [Return to text]

19. Susan Faludi, Backlash: The Undeclared War against American Women (New York: Crown Publishers, 1991). [Return to text]

20. bell hooks, Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center (Boston: South End Press, 1984). [Return to text]

21. It should be noted that legal statutes mandate that nonprofit status is predicated on the avoidance of political involvements and positions. If a nonprofit organization were to publicly pursue a political agenda, its 501c-3 status could be revoked. [Return to text]

22. For a Third Wave analysis of current issues surrounding women athletes, see Leslie Heywood and Shari Dworkin, Built to Win: The Female Athlete as Cultural Icon (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003). [Return to text]

23. This insight was provided by sports journalist and women's studies scholar Amy Moritz, personal communication, July 12, 2005. [Return to text]

24. For example, see Don Sabo, Kathleen Miller, Michael Farrell, Grace Barnes, and Merrill Melnick, "The Women's Sports Foundation Report: Sport and Teen Pregnancy,"Women's Sports Foundation, East Meadow, NY, 1998, http://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/cgi-bin/iowa/
issues/body/article.html?record=883; Kathleen Miller, Don Sabo, Merrill Melnick, Michael Farrell, and Grace Barnes, "The Women's Sports Foundation Report: Health Risks and the Teen Athlete," Women's Sports Foundation, 2000, http://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/cgi-bin/iowa/
issues/body/article.html?record=771. Numerous articles stemming from these reports have been published in refereed journals. For a recent summary of existing research on social and health correlates of physical activity and sport for girls and women see Don Sabo, Kathleen Miller, Merrill Melnick, and Leslie Heywood, "Her Life Depends on It: Sport, Physical Activity, and the Health and Well-Being of American Girls," Women's Sports Foundation, 2005, http://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/cgi-bin/iowa/
issues/body/article.html?record=990. [Return to text]

25. See also "Keeping Score: Girls' Participation in High School Sports in Massachusetts," Harvard Prevention Center on Nutrition and Physical Activity and the National Women's Law Center, 2004, http://www.nwlc.org/pdf/
KeepingScoreGirlsHSAthleticsinMA2004.pdf. [Return to text]

26. Naomi Wolf, The Beauty Myth (New York: HarperCollins, 2002). [Return to text]

27. Jennifer Baumgardner and Amy Richards, "Feminism and Femininity: Or How We Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Thong," in All about the Girl, ed. Anita Harris, (New York: Routledge, 2004), 61. [Return to text]

28. Amy Moritz. "Real Athletes Wear Glitter: An Introduction to Third Wave Athletes," unpublished paper, Departments of Sociology and Women's Studies, State University of New York at Buffalo (April 2005). [Return to text]

29. Janie Victoria Ward and Beth Cooper Benjamin have explored this distinction in relation to girls' studies. See "Women, Girls, and the Unfinished Work of Connection: A Critical Review of American Girls' Studies," in All about the Girl: Culture, Power, and Identity, ed. Anita Harris (New York: Routledge, 2004), 15-27. [Return to text]

30. See Third Wave Agenda: Being Feminist, Doing Feminism, ed. Leslie Heywood and Jennifer Drake, (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997). [Return to text]

31. Catherine Stimpson, "The Atalanta Syndrome: Women, Sport, and Cultural Values," Inaugural Helen Pond Lecture, The Scholar and Feminist Online 4, no. 3 (Summer 2006). [Return to text]

32. Don Sabo, "Feminist Analysis of Men in Sports," in Sex, Violence & Power in Sports, 196. [Return to text]

33. For a discussion of the relevance of feminist theory for understanding men's experiences in sport see Masculinities, Gender Relations, and Sport, ed. Jim McKay, Michael Messner, and Don Sabo (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2000). [Return to text]

34. Susan Bartky. "Foreword," in Men Doing Feminism, ed. Thomas Digby (New York: Routledge, 1998), xi. [Return to text]

35. Leslie Heywood, "Introduction: A Fifteen-Year History of Third Wave Feminism," in The Women's Movement Today: An Encyclopedia of Third Wave Feminism, Volume 1, ed. Leslie Heywood (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Reference Works, 2005). [Return to text]