The Race to Gender Equality in Sports

Although women are increasingly becoming involved in sports, there is still a discrepancy between the way society treats male and female athletes. There is a long history of privileging men in athletic competitions. For example, although the Olympic games have been around since 776 B.C., women were not permitted to compete until the 1900 games in Paris (Frantz, 2016). At that time, women made up only 2% of total athletes. This ratio has increased over time with women comprising of 44% of the total athletes competing at the 2012 London games. However, even this number can be improved. And that’s just the Olympics.

The gender divide in sports begins at an early age and widens over time. After the age of six, there is a lasting gender gap in athletics, with more males involved in sports than women (Tinsley, 2015). There are many factors that contribute to this divide. Boys are often more encouraged to play sports than girls. Boys begin to receive sports related toys at age two (Women’s Sports Foundation, 2011), and generally enter athletics two years earlier than girls. This causes many girls involved in organized sports to feel inferior to boys who have already developed the practice skills required to perform well in sports (Women’s Sports Foundation, 2011).

Although in recent years young girls have become increasingly involved in athletics, statistics show that “teenage girls drop out of sports at a rate that is six times higher than that of boys” (Hardin and Greer, 2009). During their teenage years, girls become more concerned with their body images. Since sports cause people to look sweaty and red-faced, many girls decide to stop engaging in athletics (Tinsley, 2015). As boys mature, they are respected and envied if they are particularly skilled at sports.

While girls are not necessarily discouraged from participating in sports, they do not receive the same incentives encouraging them to continue athletic involvement. While this pattern begins in childhood, it persists at all life stages for female athletes. Even at professional levels, female athletes competing on national sports teams in the United States receive less recognition compared to their male counterparts. The Women’s National Basketball Association (WNBA) contains 12 teams compared to the 30 in the National Basketball Association (NBA). In 2015, the United States women’s soccer team won the World Cup, while the men’s team did not win. Yet, as of 2016, female soccer players still receive smaller salaries for winning all of their games ($99,000) than male soccer players who lose all of their games ($100,000) (Yourish, Ward and Almukhtar, 2016). Without the same resources and encouragement, girls are less likely to pursue athletic endeavors.

Discrepancies in pay between male and female professional soccer players
Discrepancies in pay between male and female professional soccer players.

Gender inequality extends to the broadcasting of sports. Women’s events receive less coverage than those of their male counterparts. Gymnastics and figure skating, which portray women as graceful, delicate, beautiful creatures (Harding and Greer, 2009) receive the most broadcasting.

Women who appear strong and powerful in athletics often receive less media coverage because society continues to place large importance on a woman’s appearance. Leading up to the 2000 Olympic games in Sydney, the very muscular, track athlete Marion Jones confidently expressed her chances of winning multiple gold medals. Yet, Jones received little media coverage compared to her teammate, Amy Acuff, a part-time model whose chances at winning a medal were slim. When interviewed, reporters rarely asked about Acuff’s athletic endeavors. They instead focused mostly on questions relating to her upcoming Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue (Bernstein, 2002). Not only did Acuff receive more media coverage than Jones because of her traditionally “feminine” appearance, but also the attention Acuff received did not focus on her athletic ability at all.

Society is happy to allow women to prance around in leotards and sparkles, but it does not want to see women dripping with sweat or developing large muscles. Such displays compromise a person’s ability to appropriately “do” gender as public audiences would expect. Candace West and Don Zimmerman (1987) explain, “doing gender consists of managing such occasions so that, whatever the particulars, the outcome is seen and seeable in context as gender appropriate or, as the case may be, gender inappropriate, that is, accountable.” If a woman does not present herself in a way that is “physically appealing,” she is not playing into her gender role and is more likely to receive criticism. Society has taught females that participation in sports goes against feminine performance norms, and thus, women receive little praise for their involvement in athletics.

If a female decides to participate in athletics, especially in male-dominated sports, she is often subject to harsh criticism. After tennis powerhouse Serena Williams, won her 21st Grand Slam title, reporters were quick to judge her for her deviant portrayal of femininity. Rather than asking her about her athletic achievement, reporters questioned why she was not sitting, smiling and acting as if she had not just completed an exhausting athletic feat.

When girls decide to opt out of sports, they miss out on many of the benefits that physical exercise offer. Girls who participate in athletics tend to lead healthier lifestyles and perform better in school compared to girls who do not regularly participate in athletics. They are also less likely to consume alcohol, use drugs, or become pregnant as a teenager. Female athletes report higher levels of contentment with their lives than girls who do not participate in physical activities.

Girls should not lose out on all the benefits that physical exercise provides because of concern with their appearance—something they would not be conscientious about if society did not place such a large importance on it. Rather than imposing standards of beauty that discourage girls from participating in athletics, women and society would be better off focusing on the elimination of the inequality gaps between the genders in sports.

To my fellow female athletes:

When you go to a mall and cannot find a single pair of pants that fit you—that’s when you know you are too “big” in our society. Every time you go out to buy clothes, you get a constant reminder: “YOU ARE TOO BIG!” Having played hockey since I was young, I have had many of these experiences. I don’t know how many times I teared up in a fitting room not being able to fit into any of the clothes that I brought in. Online shopping? That’s not an option. I just end up returning 99% of the clothes that I’ve ordered. If you are like me, don’t worry about it. You are not alone in feeling that way. Many female college athletes struggle to find clothes that fit their muscular bodies and constantly receive the message that they are different from other “normal” women (Krane et al. 2004). Sadly, this is not the only negative experience that women who participate in sports go through.

As female athletes, we have to play two seemingly incompatible roles, as a woman and as an athlete. In our society, individuals who fail to perform gender appropriately are considered not competent or inferior (West & Zimmerman 1987). Therefore, to be accepted as competent women, we have to show traditionally feminine characteristics, such as being emotional, gentle, and passive. On the other hand, being successful athletes requires engaging in intense training and adopting more competitive and aggressive attitudes that are traditionally considered masculine characteristics (Krane 2001). Consequently, many female athletes struggle to balance the two sets of conflicting characteristics: traditional femininity and athleticism.

If we fail to show feminine characteristics, we face serious consequences, which can negatively impact our athletic performance. For instance, female athletes who appear masculine are more likely to suffer from verbal harassment by spectators. This can psychologically affect the athletes, which in turn, can affect their performance. Moreover, officials or judges favor female athletes who are more explicitly feminine (Kolnes 1995). This, unlike the spectator example, can directly influence the results of thier games. Given the indirect and direct effects of gender performance on athletic performance, we have to go out of our way to exhibit feminine characteristics.

It is not easy being female athletes and having to play the two incompatible roles at once. But because it is so difficult, we gain so much from it. Strength, self-esteem, independence, and pride—these are all characteristics that the college students in Krane et al. (2004) said they gained through their participation in sports. They even said that they were empowered by committing themselves to playing sports.

So next time you feel overwhelmed by the pressure of being female athletes, just remember three things:

  • You are not fighting alone. There are many female athletes struggling like you.
  • By playing sports and going through many hardships, you will become strong, confident, independent, and proud of yourself.
  • Most importantly, the very fact that you participate in sports challenges the current restricted definition of femininity (Krane 2001). You are playing an important role in freeing women from the narrow gender norms!


Woman First, Athlete Second

Participation in female athletics has skyrocketed in the past two decades and continues to be on the rise. The passing of Title IX in 1972 required all federally funded programs, including athletics, to provide equal treatment and opportunity for participation for men and women. High schools and public universities subsequently were required to spend equivalent amounts of time and money for male and female athletes (Curtis & Grant, 2001). Because of this law, more women began to participate in athletics. In 1971, only 1 in 27 girls participated in high school athletics, whereas in just 20 years, 1 and 3 girls participated (Women’s Sports Foundation, 1998).

Although female athletic participation increased, the media still objectifies their bodies. The popular magazine, Sports Illustrated, portrays male and female athletes very differently. In 1997, Sports Illustrated started using female athletes in the Swimsuit Edition. This had the potential to show the athleticism of female athletes. Instead, female athletes are posed exactly like fashion models; they show no athleticism in their photos. Similar to models, female athletes are portrayed to showcase their looks rather than their athletic talent.

Psychologists Barbara Fredrickson and Tomi-Ann Roberts proposed a theory explaining why women are portrayed as sex objects. The objectification theory proposes that women’s bodies are looked at, evaluated, and always potentially objectified. They believe people view women as bodies and evaluate them through a sexual gaze, specifically for their own pleasure. The American culture spotlights women’s bodies and body parts, causing viewers to have an implicit sexual gaze. The pictures in Sports Illustrated, in particular, show how the media targets women’s bodies for sexual objectification significantly more than men’s bodies (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). A previous study compared the female athletes in Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition to the models in the same issue within 4 categories: photo location, hand placement, body pose, and facial expression. Researchers found few differences. They also discovered that female models were underrepresented in general coverage and over represented as sexual objects (Kim & Sagas, 2014).

Building upon this study, I looked at seventeen issues of Sports Illustrated, ranging from December 2015 to April 2016. Of these seventeen issues, five had women on the covers. Of these five, three were female athletes and two were models (swimsuit editions). The covers that were female athletes portrayed minimal athletic ability and depicted more femininity. Descriptions of the pictures are as followed:

Help me, Ronda?

The May 2015 issue has UFC fighter, Ronda Rousey, on the cover. Around her says “Worlds Most Dominant Athlete.” She is in fighting attire. However, her blow-dried, long, light brown hair is down and placed perfectly around her face. In the picture, she has on light pink lip-gloss, her cheeks are perfectly blushed, her stomach is showing, and her breasts are visible. On the page of the article, she is dressed in a short, navy blue skirt, a white, laced, see through shirt, and high, strappy, red heels. She has on bright red lipstick, and has her hair down in a more messy fashion. Her hand is on her hip, like a teenage girl often does, her back is arched so her breasts stick out, and she is stepping on strong men who are on the ground. In the corner of the image it says, “Help me, Ronda?”


“We got this dance.”

The March 2016 issue has University of Connecticut’s women’s basketball player, Breanna Stewart, on the cover. She wears black eyeliner and mascara. Her long, straightened, reddish-brownish hair is down. Her eyebrows are perfectly arched and photo shopped to complement her face. Her hand is also on her hip, and she is wearing earrings. A basketball sits on her arm. Her blue eyes pop right out of the page and right above her, the words, “we got this dance” are shown. Last time I checked, basketball had nothing to do with a dance.  


Tennis in a leotard?

Lastly, in the December 2015 issue, the cover shows “Sportsperson of the year,” Serena Williams. This picture shows no signs of athleticism; rather it shows multiple signs of femininity. Serena is posed to seduce the reader. Her long, black, shiny hair is perfectly curled; she has on dark red lipstick and has pink blushed cheeks. She wears a black, laced, partly see though leotard with black high heels. She sits sideways in the chair; one leg is up over the armrest, and the other is on the floor. Her legs are extremely shiny. Her face is seductive, serious and her cheekbones are very defined. The article is about her tennis ability…yet the picture has nothing to do with tennis.


I bring these examples to your attention because on every other magazine cover, there is a picture of a male athlete. These pictures are all action photos of the male playing his sport, showing masculinity, athleticism, and strength. Female athletes, on the other hand, are depicted as weak, feminine, sexy, and having no athletic ability.


What is the big deal…?

Depicting female athletes as sex objects reinforces gender stereotypes and stresses femininity rather than athleticism. The media already creates false expectations of female beauty with models. These gendered images and expectations can harm younger girls’ mental and physical health. In a study conducted by Fredrickson and Harrison (2003), sport magazine reading led to increased body shame and disordered eating for adolescent girls. Adolescent boys have plenty of athletic male role models to look up to, due to how they are portrayed by the media. Female adolescents, however, see the skinny, perfect looking models all over the media and think that is who they should look up to. How about we start providing real role models for young girls to idolize.

Conversations about Race at Columbia University

It’s no secret that feelings of oppression and exclusion on the basis of race have been manifesting themselves in unprecedented ways across the country. The other day I came across a post in the Columbia University Class of 2018 Facebook group that did not receive national attention, but perhaps warranted the attention because the way in which it represented conversations about racial relations within the US. The issue began when a student of color asked her class’s Facebook group if anyone knew of any Contemporary Civilization sections that were taught by a professor of color. After receiving no help, the student specifically asked if any white students wanted to give up their seat in a section taught by professor of color:

Screen Shot 2016-05-09 at 1.17.15 PM

The post sparked a heated discussion about the student of color’s right to be taught by professor of color and the role white students should play in responding to requests like this.

In the book Doing Race by Hazel Markus and Paula Moya, the two authors assert that conversations like these about race and ethnicity can be divided into eight themes:

Screen Shot 2016-05-09 at 1.17.46 PM

Among the eight different way of talking about race, there are two racial schemas that are particularly prominent in this Facebook post and the subsequent discussion. The first of the two viewpoints, “that’s just identity politics,” is predicated on the idea that race and ethnicity are “irrelevant to, or a distraction from” more important universal concerns. Those who share this opinion often express frustration that those who “have” race or ethnicity receive special privileges that are unfairly denied to those who do not.

The first student to respond to the post expressed these sentiments when he argued that such a request was symptomatic of a sense of entitlement and added that it was an “unnecessary step to specifically call on white people.” Other students questioned the importance of sharing an identity with one’s professor: “Could someone please explain to me why it’s acceptable to refuse to be taught by a highly educated, highly trained professor because they’re white?” Yet another student expanded upon this argument by asserting that a professor’s pigment does not define their teaching methods, subjects of interest, or their beliefs. Therefore these students suggested that grouping professors of color into one category seems racist. This student was essentially making a cry of “reverse racism.” Doing so disregards the systems of racial disadvantages that permeate higher education and therefore such a request is inherently not racist. Instead, what the student of color was seeking was a professor likely to be more sensitive to how white scholars’ perspectives shape interpretations of Classic Civilizations.

A student responding to these two comments vehemently disagreed with assertion that being able to identify with a professor does little or next to nothing for a student. She asserted, “this is easy for you to say when America looks at you, affirms your humanity, and teaches you your experiences are normative, while those of others are deviant from it and their own faults.” She then added that many of the texts in the class inspired the racism that her and other students of color were forced to deal with daily. Therefore, having a professor with a deeper and more personal understanding of what these documents mean for people of color can be an invaluable experience for students of color.

This school of thought falls under the category of “It’s a black thing – you wouldn’t understand” in Doing Race. The main idea behind this viewpoint is that, as a result of one’s racial identity, one’s life is so different that it cannot be completely understood by others who do not have such identity-related experiences.

Although it is not fair to expect minority students to explain their points of view to white students whose experiences are better integrated into the educational institutions they are a part of, it is important to analyze and unpack dialogues like this. In the conclusion of their essay on “Doing Race,” authors Paula Moya and Hazel Rose Markus assert that though “it may not be easy, and it may not be total, humans are able to communicate across [their] differences.” Though often times, ignorance and a lack of desire to find a middle ground precludes this possibility, this assertion certainly can be true. As a white male, I cannot reasonably say that my review of this incident has made it entirely clear to me what this student of color is going through. However, I can say reading the conversation and thinking about all the systems of power that underlie it, shed a great deal of light on the issues for me. I am now more understanding of the request and more sympathetic towards students who are forced to learn about sensitive historical topics from someone whose own struggles are quite different from their own.

When a Compliment Isn’t a Compliment

“Asians have great skin. That’s why they look so young! You’ll love that when you’re older.”

I became self conscious of how young I looked when I was sixteen because that was when people started to make me aware of it. Their comments were meant to make me feel good about myself. Instead, I grew uncomfortable with how I looked, wondering if my perceived immaturity affected what people thought of me. As a twenty year old today, I’m surprised when someone says I look my age without any makeup on. The comments that people thought were harmless and flattering actually made me sometimes wish I was not Asian. Then, maybe I would not be infantilized. Thinking that Asian women looked younger than other races is an example of a positive stereotype that has negative consequences for both the stereotyped person and the person perceiving it as a compliment. Positive stereotypes do more harm than good to everyone involved.


A positive stereotype is a subjective “belief that attributes a favorable characteristic to a group” and implies an advantage because of your association with that group (Czopp, Kay, and Cheryan 2015; Lombrozo 2015). Negative stereotypes differ in that they associate negative traits with a group. Here are some common examples of both:

Positive Stereotypes vs. Negative Stereotypes

Asians are good at math vs. Asians are socially awkward

Women are nurturing vs. Women are emotional and irrational

Positive stereotypes do not seem so bad next to explicit prejudice. But positive stereotypes categorize an entire group of individuals based on an external characteristic, showing that even with a “positive” connotation, a stereotype is still a stereotype (Czopp, Kay, and Cheryan 2015).

Being positively stereotyped can lead to various negative unintended consequences. Because your identity is reduced to racial stereotypes, positive stereotypes can lead to feelings of depersonalization (Czopp, Kay, and Cheryan 2015; Siy and Cheryan 2013). When you feel as if your individuality is taken away, negative emotions such as hostility, anger, and annoyance result (Siy and Cheryan 2013). Another consequence is that the stereotype target is likely to think the other person also has negative stereotypes about them, and therefore will think that person is prejudiced (Czopp, Kay, and Cheryan 2015; Kay, Day, Zanna, and Nussenbaum 2013). The scary thing about positive stereotypes is that they can actually make this true.

Changing stereotypical beliefs requires knowing that they are incorrect and biased. But if you perceive positive stereotypes as compliments, you may continue to believe in them (Czopp, Kay, and Cheryan 2015; Kay, Day, Zanna, and Nussenbaum 2013). Additionally, thinking about positive stereotypes triggers the brain to think of other stereotypes, including negative ones. It also contains an implicit understanding that differences between your group and another’s is biological. Basically, even though positive stereotypes seem like compliments, they can actually lead to negative judgments about the target group and even discrimination, which is why they can be so damaging to society. (Kay, Day, Zanna, and Nussenbaum 2013; Medlyn 2013).

Although positive stereotypes seem relatively harmless, they have subtle, detrimental consequences. The next time you want to compliment someone on something you think is  due to their race, instead try saying something positive about their individual features. I guarantee they will appreciate that more. The bottom line is, it is always better to attribute a positive aspect of someone to who they are as an individual, rather than saying they were born with it. Hopefully, being aware of how stereotyping makes someone feel will make the next person refrain from saying that I’ll appreciate their stereotypical comment when I’m older.


The Beginning

During our first class devoted to issues of race, we wrote reactions, feelings, and musings on sticky notes. While we wrote, Professor Kucinskas lined the wall with the sticky notes from years prior, providing the opportunity to see how other students felt about race. Though each piece of yellow paper held the thoughts of different people from different years and different backgrounds, the sentiments were the same. Race is hard. Race is scary. Race makes us uncomfortable.

This is a familiar song, one we’ve sung for decades (and will likely continue to sing). But why? Markus and Moya, in their book Doing Race: 21 Essays for the 21st Century, boil discomfort about race down to two factors: the view of race as a biological thing, and the assumption that the individual is the “source of all thought, feeling and action” (59). According to Markus and Moya, the idea that individuals may not themselves have the power to overcome racial barriers or remove themselves from racial associations similarly contributes to this discomfort.

These factors do play into the widespread unwillingness to address issues of race, but so too does fear of insult. When talking about race, we often tread upon eggshells. In doing so, words come protected, guarded, and therefore lose the ability to yield honest and meaningful conversations. This dynamic comes from the fact that racial differences stand rooted in long histories of hurt and abuse. For some, race is more than just an identity, but exists as a connection to other and to those who have come before.

The fear of insult comes also from the heightened push for political correctness. With attempts at full inclusivity and equality, humanitarian groups and social movements influence patterns of speech by constantly changing terms and labels, updating what is and what is not appropriate. The unintended effect, however, is that people fear using the incorrect term and therefore avoid discussion altogether (this is not only limited to race…a perfect example is sexuality, and how people struggle to know/remember the correct words for transgender individuals). There is an easy solution, though. We must create spaces where mistakes are allowed, where open discussions about difficult issues thrive and where, if a mistake is made, it is politely corrected so that everyone learns.

I firmly believe that hate speech comes largely from a place of fear. By signing up for “Race, Class, Gender,” we all took a step towards eliminating such intolerance and fear, creating the exact type of space where people can take risks, where they can speak and be heard. Unfortunately, the world is very different from our classroom. A mere glance at YikYak shows that our campus is even different from our classroom. We therefore all have an obligation to take this semester out of our notebooks and into the world, using what we have learned and discussed as fuel to fight the racist structures and sentiments around us.  As educated and informed individuals made aware of prevalent systems of inequality, the charge falls on us. This class and the experiences we have shared will light our path forward, so together, let us now lead the way. The semester is ending, but our work is just beginning.

AmeriKKKa: Too Much to Bear

It’s too much to bear
Wish i knew of none of this
Ignorance is bliss
Unfortunately, Eric Garner’s story will not be the last I hear.
White supremacy is too exhausting
I can barely breathe
I dont ever want to be screaming “I can’t breathe” unless it’s my asthma attacking or I’m at a protest fighting for my brothers and sisters.
I’ve been marching too long
We’ve all been marching far too long
I can’t breathe and I have blisters
It’s exhausting
White supremacy
It’s too much to bear

Displaying FB_IMG_1459775001214-1.jpgDisplaying FB_IMG_1459775001214-1.jpgFB_IMG_1459775001214-1 (1)

When Life Gives You Apples: American Children Left Behind

Many black and Latino children in America are given apples and expected to make lemonade.

In America, the achievement gap refers to the difference in Black, Latino, and White students’ average levels of educational achievement (Young). White youth achieve more on average than black and Latino youth. Only 72% of black and Latino youth in America graduated high school in 2012, while 85% of white students graduated nationwide. In 2013, only 4.6 million black and Latino high school graduates attended college compared to the 10 million white high school graduates that attended college (NCES). This achievement gap exists because minority children aren’t as rich in cultural capital as their white counterparts.

The majority of black and Latino children aren’t as privileged as me. I was an A and B student throughout elementary, middle and high school, and I now attend Hamilton College, an elite college. How did I get here?

Although I’m not very rich in terms of economic resources, growing up in a single parent household with my little brother and a single mother who failed to receive child support from both of our fathers, I’m rich in cultural capital. Cultural capital is the general social tastes, preferences, and knowledge of how to skillfully navigate society. It is learned through one’s education, and socio-cultural background.

Growing up in Boston, I was surrounded by educational opportunities and programs. Massachusetts was ranked number 1 in education in 2014-2015 (Bernardo). I was fortunate enough to go to a collegiate charter high school. My graduating class had only 62 students and two college counselors. The school funded college tours around Boston and even out-of-state. As a junior, I began creating drafts of my personal statement; I kept working at it until my college counselors gave it a 100%.

I was involved in many extracurricular activities, especially sports. I played baseball, basketball, and tennis. I worked at a makerspace and entrepreneurship center, where I launched my art business as a sophomore. I was even a part of my school’s debate team. However, my high school and the support I had were by no means the norm in this country for Black and Latino children. There is a lot of progress to be made in other cities and states around America (The Nation’s Report Card). Many esteemed American cities like Washington D.C. lack good education systems. Washington D.C., the nation’s capital, where so many intellectuals, politicians, and judges live fails to educate the children that live in the same area (Bernardo). D.C. is ranked 50th in the nation. In Washington D.C., only 64.6% of black and Latino students graduated high school compared to the 84.5% of white students that graduated (OSSE); these rates are worse than the national average.

The achievement gap in Massachusetts is much smaller. In 2015, 75.8% of white high school students graduated while 69.6% of black and Latino high school students graduated (Massachusetts Department of ESE). So what has the State of Massachusetts done right in their education system to close the racial attainment gap?

In 1993, Massachusetts decided to focus on improving public education. The Massachusetts Education Reform Act of 1993 set out to reform local education systems throughout the state (Horan). Resources were allocated to revise curricula, and update facilities and equipment, including new books and working computers. Programs were also created to provide more college prep for students. Since the 1993 reform, a higher percentage of kids have been graduating per year Boston’s 4-year graduation rate has climbed from 59.1% in 2006 to 70.7% in 2015 (Horan). Academic performance in the classroom has surged. Boston should and needs be looked at as a national leader in education reform

If not, the achievement gap will continue to exist. If so, the American state and federal governments are illustrating their apathy for America’s failing education system that claims no child should be left behind. Why have legislation like the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 if its basic premise is not being practiced?


Humanizing the American Poor: A Review of the Documentary Rich Hill

“We’re not trash. We’re good people.”

Early on in Andrew Palmero’s and Tracy Tragos’s documentary Rich Hill, Andrew, age 13, delivers this message. Andrew is an adolescent boy subject to a seemingly endless cycle of broken homes and extreme poverty. In documenting the life of Andrew, the directors opt to forgo narration, choosing instead to document his life as it happens. Though the film is void of an explicit narrative, it sheds light on the problems plaguing impoverished families. It provides the viewer with strong ethnographical evidence that supports sociological and economic evidence of the limited upward economic mobility in America as well as the cyclical nature of poverty.

Throughout the film, the directors juxtapose extremely patriotic shots of the town’s Fourth of July celebrations with shots of Andrew struggling to achieve a normal life. At first, I thought these shots served only to make the film more aesthetically pleasing. But as the film progressed, it was clear that they served to demonstrate that, despite what we may think, the American Dream is not always within reach for the extremely poor. For a kid like Andrew, who is forced to bathe in water heated by irons and coffeepots, the day-to-day battle to survive poverty makes long-term planning all but impossible. Furthermore, given his parents’ lack of education and his inconsistent attendance at school, it is very clear that he lacks the cultural capital necessary to understand how one can attain a higher education and a successful career, much less actually achieve these things.

In a similar manner, Palmero and Tragos also include shots of a Ferris wheel at the local carnival in order to represent the cyclical nature of poverty. The academic world has long understood that poverty has a propensity to be passed along from generation to generation. Economic data tells us that the offspring of families in lowest income quintile have the smallest probability of ending up in the highest income quintile (Norton et. al. 2011).

Similarly, sociological literature tells us that parenting styles perpetuate income levels across generations. In her book Unequal Childhoods, Annette Lareau (2003) draws distinctions between the way in which lower and upper classes approach parenting as well as the consequences of the different approaches. She explains that wealthier parents use a child-rearing approach called “concerted cultivation” that is characterized by very active and guided parenting in order to foster the growth of their child’s talents, opinions, and goals. This approach is adopted to prepare children for future academic and occupational endeavors. On the other hand, lower class parents tend to let their children grow and mature more on their own, through a “natural growth” parenting style. As a result, these children are dependent on the institutions they are a part of. They are less likely to seek out alternative guidance or directly question authority. Furthermore, lower class kids are far more likely to spend their time “hanging out” instead of participating in organized extracurricular activities that ultimately are rewarding in the long run (Lareau 2003).

Throughout the film it is apparent that Andrew’s parents’ do not use the concerted cultivation approach. Andrew spends the majority of his afternoons aimlessly playing. The fact that Andrews’ parents frequently move houses in the pursuit of new jobs further eliminates any sense of institutional consistency that would have otherwise existed in Andrew’s life. One cannot help but worry that Andrew will be subject to the same cycle of poverty that his parents experienced as a result of his upbringing. At the conclusion of the film, it is clear that the use of a Ferris wheel could not be a more apt metaphor for Andrew’s family’s life as well as the rural poor as a whole.

Unfortunately Andrew’s experiences are far from unique and are characteristic of the struggles that most young, poor Americans face. It is not clear by the end of the film what could or should be done in order to reverse these troubling trends. While the film fails in this regard, it does deserve considerable praise for its ability to humanize the American poor and strike down stereotypes of a lazy lower class unwilling to work their way out of poverty. It is abundantly clear at the end of the film that Andrew and his family are indeed good people. They are just facing numerous, overwhelming challenges that make it nearly impossible for them to break out of poverty.


Hillary’s Hurdle: The Effects of Gender and Sexism on Professional Women


Hillary Clinton might lose the presidency, and even the nomination, because she is a woman. Among Sanders’ fans who support him with militant millennialism, or Trump supporters who talk about women as if they were dogs, this statement will likely be written off. I might be seen as another worried supporter crying sexism to distract from the actual shortcomings and missteps of Clinton’s campaign. But call off the Berniebots and silence the Trumpeters, because I aim not to qualify my decision to vote for Hillary nor to challenge yours not to. Pointing to professional gender norms and the role of sexism in the media, I aim instead to trace Hillary’s backlash to her gender performance, illustrating the double binds that obstruct paths to success by holding professional women at higher standards than their male counterparts.

Performing gender doesn’t happen in a social vacuum. It happens, rather, in a world of social hierarchies and pressures that enforce expectations and consequences of performance. Women and men are held to different standards of self-presentation, with male-associated behavior more suited for professional success. Tyler Okimoto and Victoria Brescoll’s (2010) study of women in power shows that ambitious women tend to engender feelings of anger and contempt from their male counterparts. These feelings likely come from the cultural understanding of women as “communal”- kind, sensitive and caring, and men as “agentic”-aggressive, competitive, and assertive. Women in public leadership positions who exhibit behaviors not traditionally associated with their gender often risk backlash, even if these behaviors are necessary for their job or position. This theory gains credence from a 2008 study in which male and female participants both “assigned less status” to women who exhibited competitiveness, strong leadership styles, authoritative rhetoric, and ambition (note that each of these characteristics are intrinsic to the demeanor of a president).

Gendered expectations force women to do intense identity work to prove their qualifications and capabilities both as a woman and as a professional. As a result, women can “easily cross the line and appear to be insufficiently feminine- that is, not “nice” enough” (Carroll 2009, 6). Sociologist Rosabeth Moss Kanter comments on this dynamic in her work on gender and tokenism, laying out four common stereotypes and associated identities forced upon professional women. Three of these four identities are markedly feminine (the seductress, mother, and pet), while one bares masculine undertones (the iron maiden). The latter is implicitly critical, using masculine imagery to shame strong women. This unfairly places women into roles they may or may not identity with, since “women inducted into the iron maiden role are stereotyped as tougher than they are (hence the name) and trapped in a more militant stance than they might otherwise take” (Kanter 984, 1977).

Viewed by many as an iron maiden, Clinton bears harsh attacks for her perceived lack of femininity. As articulated by Diana B. Carlin and Kelly Winfrey, in the 2008 race, “both Clinton’s physical appearance and her choice of pantsuits over skirts and dresses were the source of considerable derision.” Public figures speak often and sharply of Clinton’s appearance. Rush Limbaugh in 2008 contrasted Clinton with Sarah Palin by saying that Clinton is “not going to remind anybody of their ex-wife, she’s going to remind men, ‘Gee, I wish she was single’’ (Carlin and Winfrey 2009, 331, 338). The double standard therefore extends to the media by creating a platform to judge men on a basis of merit while women, as illustrated by Limbaugh’s statement, are judged by personality, physical attractiveness, and gender performance. FOX news contributor Tucker Carlson once said of Hillary: “when she comes on television, I involuntarily cross my legs.” This statement directly paints Clinton as a danger to men everywhere, reinforcing the harmful characterization of powerful women as threats to male-dominated institutions.

Screen Shot 2016-04-13 at 3.06.34 PM

Journalists bear equal blame for negatively reporting on Clinton’s gender performance. Prominent amongst these pen-yielding mudslingers is New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, whose scathing columns boil to the brim with sexist sentiment. In a 2015 column, Dowd described Clinton as a “granny” who should learn to “campaign as a woman.” Dowd, who once called Clinton “the manliest candidate,” later criticized her as over-feminizing, stating that she “should have run as a man this time.” From these wildly offensive (and contradictory) statements to the claim the Hillary “killed feminism,” Dowd and reporters like her use Hillary’s sex as a weapon of slander and hate, harming public perception by shaming her non-hegemonic gender performance.

Some media sexism comes in abrasive and obvious forms, like calling Hillary “shrill” or “bitchy,” but the majority of it comes by subtly addressing female candidates with less respect than their male opponents. As discovered in Joseph Uscinski and Lilly Goren’s 2010 study of the 2008 Democratic Primary, both sexes tend to call men by their titles and women by their first names. In the 2008 primaries, Clinton was referenced in newspaper coverage “by first name 3 percent more [than opponent Barack Obama) and her title of Senator was omitted 15 percent more.” On television, Clinton was referenced by first name four times more than Obama was. These seemingly minute and peripheral statistics actually resonate deeply within the dynamics of a campaign. As Uscinsi and Goren (2010) found, “referencing a woman by a first name may project an image of inferiority to the audience.” The media therefore disadvantages Clinton not only through overt sexism, but by subtly painting her as a less viable candidate.

Hillary Clinton is, and always has been, a polarizing figure. Her long career of spotlight scrutiny left her seasoned with scars, dividing the American public sharply between champions and critics. As a fellow on Clinton’s campaign who spent months canvassing door-to-door, I heard time and time again that people like her policies but not her personality, her vision but not her voice, her ideas but not her identity. These criticisms come largely from those who see Hillary as a threat to hegemonic gender norms, and who watch, unsettled, as she every day cuts cracks in the glass ceiling not with a stiletto or kitchen knife, but with her own two hands. We need to stop pretending that the playing field is level. Like it or not, Hillary Clinton is not a man. She’s a woman (a strong woman), and it’s time we stopped punishing her for it.