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.1 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.”2 The feminist sensibility was “not about forsaking the feminine for the masculine” but combining them in new ways.3
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.4 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.
- Naomi Wolf, The Beauty Myth (New York: HarperCollins, 2002). [↩]
- 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. [↩]
- 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). [↩]
- 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. [↩]
