Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T04:26:45.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sports Talk: How Gender Shapes Discursive Framing of Title IX

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 March 2008

Cindy Simon Rosenthal
Cindy Simon Rosenthal
Affiliation:
University of Oklahoma
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Existing scholarship has shown that the media and interest groups play an important role in the shaping of the public's perception of reality and in establishing the quality of democratic discourse on public policy questions. In turn, interest group actors employ different media and grassroots strategies in hopes of exploiting discursive opportunities that advance their cause. This study explores recent public policy debates over Title IX to illustrate how gender undergirds the discursive framing choices made by interest groups and presented in the media coverage. I find that framing, especially in the media, reinforces enduring cultural aspects of masculinity in sports.

Type
Research Article
Information
Politics & Gender , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , March 2008 , pp. 65 - 92
Copyright
Copyright © The Women and Politics Research Section of the American Political Science Association 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Arnold, Douglas. 1990. The Logic of Congressional Action. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, Frank, and Jones, Bryan. 1993. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Boutilier, Mary A., and San Giovanni, Lucinda F.. 1983. The Sporting Woman. Champaign-Urbana, IL: Human Kinetics, 100–101.Google Scholar
Boutilier, Mary A., and San Giovanni., Lucinda F. 1994. “Politics, Public Policy and Title IX.” In Women, Sport and Culture, ed. Birrell, and Cole, , Human Kinetics Publishing.Google Scholar
Brake, Deborah. 2001. “The Struggle for Sex Equality in Sport and the Theory Behind Title IX.” University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 34 (Fall–Winter): 13–149.Google Scholar
Cobb, Roger W., and Ross, Mark Howard. 1997. Cultural Strategies of Agenda Denial. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.Google Scholar
Department of Education, Secretary of Education's Commission on Opportunity in Athletics. 2002. Official Transcripts of Town Hall Meetings: Atlanta (August 27, 2002), Chicago (September 17, 2002), Colorado Springs (October 22, 2002), and San Diego (November 20, 2002).Google Scholar
Department of Education, Secretary of Education's Commission on Opportunity in Athletics. 2003. “Open to All: Title IX at Thirty.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. http://www.ed.gov/inits/commissionsboards/athletics/ (March 1, 2003).Google Scholar
de Varona, Donna and Foudy, Julie. 2003. “Minority Views on the Report of the Commission on Opportunity in Athletics” Washington, DC National Women's Law Center. http://www.nwlc.org/pdf/MinorityReportFeb26.pdf (June 20, 2003).Google Scholar
Edelman, Murray. 1964. The Symbolic Uses of Politics, Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Ferree, Myra Marx, Gamson, William A., Gerhards, Jurgen, and Rucht, Dieter. 2002. Shaping Abortion Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Frank. 1995. Evaluating Public Policy, Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers.Google Scholar
Gamson, William A., Croteau, David, Hoynes, William, and Sasson, Theodore. 1992. “Media Images and the Social Construction of Reality,” Annual Review of Sociology 18: 373–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelb, Joyce, and Palley, Marian. 1987. Women and Public Policies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
General Accounting Office (GAO). 2001. “Intercollegiate Athletics: Four_Year Colleges' Experiences Adding and Discontinuing Teams.” Washington D.C.: GAO_01_297.Google Scholar
General Accounting Office (GAO). 2000. “Gender Equity: Men's and Women's Participation in Higher Education.” Washington D.C.: GAO_01_128.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Anna. 2003. “RE: Title IX Public Polling Data.” Washington, DC: Greenberg, Quinlan, Rosner Research Inc. Typescript memorandum.Google Scholar
Haltom, William, and Michael, McCann. 2004. Distorting the Law: Politics, Media and the Litigation Crisis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Independent Women's Forum. 2003. “Time Out for Fairness: Women for Title IX Reform.” Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Kahn, Kim Fridkin. 1994. “The Distorted Mirror: Press Coverage of Women Candidates for Statewide Office.” Journal of Politics 56 (1): 154–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenney, Sally. 2003. “Where Is Gender in Agenda Setting?” Women & Politics 25 (1): 179–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kimmel, Michael. 1996. Manhood in America. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Kingdon, John W. 1994. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Krippendorff, Klaus. 1980. Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Messner, Michael A. 1992. Power at Play: Sports and the Problem of Masculinity. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Naples, Nancy A. 1997. “The ‘New Consensus’ on the Gendered ‘Social Contract’: The 1987–1988 U.S. Congressional Hearings on Welfare Reform.” Signs 22 (4): 907–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Coalition for Women and Girls in Education (NCWGE). 2002. “Title IX at 30: Report Card on Gender Equity.” Washington, DC. http://www.ncwge.org/title9at30.pdf (March 20, 2003).Google Scholar
National Collegiate Athletic Association. 2001. “1998–1999 NCAA Gender-Equity Survey.” Indianapolis: NCAA. http://www.ncaa.org/library/research/gender_equity_study, accessed March 13, 2003.Google Scholar
Norris, Pippa, ed. 1997. Politics and the Press: The News Media and Their Influences. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabo, Don, and Grant, Christine H. B.. 2005. Limitations of the Department of Education's Online Survey Method for Measuring Athletic Interest and Ability on U.S.A. Campuses. Buffalo: Center for Research on Physical Activity, Sport & Health, D'Youville College.Google Scholar
Sabo, Donald and Runfola, Ross. 1980. Jock: Sports and Male Identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Save Title IX. 2003. “What's at Stake: Title IX Policies Are in Grave Danger.” Washington, DC. http://www.savetitleix.com/stake.html (June 20, 2003).Google Scholar
Schattschneider, E. E. 1960. The Semi-Sovereign People. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Stone, Deborah. 1997. Policy Paradox. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Strauss, Anselm, and Corbin, Juliet. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory, Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Terkildsen, Nayda, Schnell, Frauke I., and Ling, Cristina. 1998. “Interest Groups, the Media, and Policy Debate Formation: An Analysis of Message Structure, Rhetoric, and Source Cues.” Political Communication 15 (1): 45–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar