Sex role orientations of male and female collegiate athletes from selected individual and team sports

The purpose of the present study was to determine whether the sex role orientations of male and female collegiate athletes were more similar in team sports than in individual sports. It was predicted that females in masculine-oriented team sports (basketball and volleyball) would exhibit sex role orientations more similar to those of their male counterparts than would females in individual sports (track/field and swimming). To test this notion the S. L. Bem (The Measurement of Psychological Androgyny, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1974, 42, 155–167) Sex Role Inventory was administered to 381 athletes from 37 National Collegiate Athletic Association institutions. The median-split procedure (S. L. Bem, On the Utility of Alternative Procedures for Assessing Psychology Androgyny, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1977, 45, 196–205) was used to classify subjects as masculine, feminine, androgynous, or undifferentiated. Separate Gender × Sex Role Orientation chi square tests were performed on the frequency data of team and individual sport athletes. The results indicated no significant differences in the sex role orientations of male and female team sport performers, with the greatest proportion (66%) having a masculine (33%) or androgynous (33%) orientation. For individual sports there was a significant difference in the sex role orientations of males and females. The highest proportion of females were classified as feminine (37%) and the lowest proportion were classified as masculine (11%). Individual sport males were somewhat evenly distributed among the four sex role orientation categories, with the highest proportion classified as undifferentiated (36%). It was concluded that sex role orientation of elite female athletes may be associated with the male appropriateness of the sport in which they participate.     

Grading the ‘cultural literacy’ project

The essay examines the argument advanced by E.D. Hirsch, Jr., for instituting ‘cultural literacy’ as a fundamental priority of schools. A number of confusions and equivocations in Hirsch's reasoning are identified, and the propensity of his project to indoctrinate is exposed. Among the features of Hirsch's argument shown to be troubling are his shifting construal of ‘language’, his inconsistency about the requirements of cultural literacy, and his uncritical relation to traditional images of the American past and present. The upshot is to raise the question why Hirsch's project has elicited wide support and praise.