The case-study of synchronized swimming: is it really sport for all?
When talking about gender inequality in sports, one would not expect that also men could be victims of discrimination. To the contrary, following the inclusion of women's boxing in the Olympic programme at London 2012, the only two Olympic sports with a gender bias are synchronised swimming and rhythmic gymnastics: indeed, only women are allowed to compete, whereas men are excluded. The reasons for such disparity lie in a long-standing social and sporting discourse of “masculinity” and “femininity”, whereby the notion of gender rises to “organizing principle that shapes social structure, identities, and knowledge.”[1]
By analysing the case study of Male Synchronized Swimming and its historical development, this paper aims to explore and address the unequal and disturbing consequences of genderdized social expectations in sport. To this extent, the following questions must be asked and considered:
- How, and on which basis, is the notion of gender constructed and nurtured?
- How the gendering of sports reinforces and emphasizes the traditional gender binaries and why the male-female dichotomy, which, in other social contexts, seems to have shifted towards a more fluid concept of gender, is still so strong in sport? To this extent, rhythmic gymnastics and synchronized swimming are the exceptions, which confirm the rule, within the “Hegemonic masculinity”[2] in sport: why these activities are still perceived as too “feminine” and socially inappropriate for men? How media nurture such perception?
- In this respect, is banning men from competing in the Olympics consistent with the “Sport for all” mission of the IOC? How sporting federations tackle the issue of gender inequality?
Differences between men and women exist in many domains and are constantly remarked and reiterated, thus producing gender stereotypes and, inevitably, inequality. In this respect, it is important to understand that gender stereotypes are constructed upon the intersection of sex and gender. The words 'sex' and 'gender' are often used interchangeably, despite having different meanings: indeed, sex refers to a set of biological attributes primarily associated with physical features including chromosomes, gene expression, hormone levels and reproductive/sexual anatomy, whereas gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, expressions and identities attributed to either men or women.
The notions of sex and gender unavoidably intertwine to the extent that certain differences between men and women are, simplistically, deemed as biological but are actually the result of social and cultural forces and ingrained attitudes. To this extent, female body is understood as “naturally weak, vulnerable and in need of protection”[3], in contrast to the “physical power, strength, violence, aggression and muscularity”[4] of men’s body. As well as, simply based on sex, women are assumed and expected to be docile, compassionate, gentle, passive and devoted, while men shall be vigorous, brave, dominant, rational, alpha.
The allocation of such, respectively “feminine” and “masculine”, stereotypical attributes influence how people perceive themselves and each other, how they act and interact, and the distribution of power and resources in society. Ultimately, the concept of gender and gender role enable us to organize the world, and any aspect of the human experience, dichotomously.
Thus, to no surprise, the dichotomy male-female is deeply rooted in sport, and in fact emphasised, to the extent that sports and sporting competitions are organized into separate sex categories, male and female, in so acknowledging and formalizing the existence of gender differences and resulting different levels of athleticism. Sport is indeed a “microcosm” of larger socio-cultural structures where the traditional notions of gender and gender relations are reinforced and narrated provided that the differences between the two sexes are objectively measured by comparing performances. In sport, such differences are perceived as resulting from natural and inherent biological factors, which makes the gendered categorization socially acceptable. In other words, sport offers some of the most obvious visual representations of biological sex differences between men and women, in so providing a medical basis to the debate, and therefore a scientific, and less questionable, argument to justify gender inequality and reinforce gender stereotypes.
In actual fact, sex has been shown to predict only 5% of the variance in physical abilities[5]. However, since gender stereotypes are so deeply rooted in the human experience and function as “self-fulfilling prophecy”[6], different types of sport are practiced, broadcasted and consumed on gender bias.
To this extent, synchronised swimming, involving graceful and aesthetically pleasing movements, as well as typically glamourous sport attire, is considered inappropriate for men to the extent that male participation is often, prejudicially, associated with diminished masculinity and homosexuality. As per the processes above specified, such stereotypes are typically, and pretentiously, justified on the grounds of sex biological attributes: specifically synchro, because of its emphasis on buoyancy and flexibility, appears unsuitable for the muscularity and robustness of men’s body. However, by analysing the history of the discipline, it is clear that synchronized swimming has being affected in its development and status by cultural roadblocks and environmental factors.
Indeed, at the time when the first synchronised swimming competitions took place in Berlin in 1891 and London in 1892, contests were solely for men, commonly professional natationists. Known as ‘ornamental swimming’ or ‘scientific swimming’ in nineteenth-century England, the discipline involved displays of aquatic stunts, like somersaults, sculling, treading water, smoking underwater and so on. It is at the 1934 World Fair in Chicago that "synchronized swimming" got its name, when Norman Ross announced “The Modern Mermaids”[7] who, under the direction of Katharine Curtis, were the first to experiment with music, particularly waltzes, as a way to synchronize swimmers with a beat and with one another.
And actually, it is the North American experience of the 1930s and 1940s, and specifically the glamourous Hollywood aqua musical production sharply initiated by Billy Rose with “The Great Lakes Aquacade”, that radically turned scientific swimming into synchronized swimming, shifting the discipline in the direction of an all-female entertainment activity rather than competitive sport. The archetype of this brand new vision must be Hollywood's choreography of Esther Williams' 1950s movies, among other, “Million Dollar Mermaid”, “Dangerous When Wet”, “Bathing Beauty”[8]. Williams was actually a national champion speed swimmer and she was preparing for the 1940 Olympics when IIWW broke out and the Games were cancelled. When recruited by MGM, her athletic skills were quickly downplayed to highlight her “femininity” as disclosed in her autobiography[9]: the choreographies are portrayed as “lavish smoke and water spectacles of swimming synchronicity”[10], featuring “the glamour of diving and swimming mermaids in water ballets of breath-taking beauty and rhythm"[11].
Emphasis was given to the girlish and smiling figure, nice appearance, and feminine grace with the intent to reaffirm socially appropriate gender presentation and sexual preferences: the pin-up culture of the Cold War period is indeed one of the sexiest example of women, and specifically white women, being treated as the object of desire of heterosexual men. It is clear here, how the gendering of the discipline responds to cultural, social and economic, rather than biological, forces.
Despite Curtis’ rulebook stated that "competitors may be men or women or both"[12], the overexposure of femininity in William’s aquatic musicals inevitably and gradually resulted in men’s lack of interest and participation in the sport. Thus, when in 1941 the AAU adopted synchro as a recognized sport, separating men and women categories, the “separate men’s events were finally dropped for lack of competitor interest”[13] and the discipline started being socially marginalized and neglected by the male-dominated sporting circle. To this extent, when, after a 30-year demonstration campaign, synchronised swimming was included in the programme of the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles, men were, and still are, excluded from the competition.
The exclusion of men from the Olympic program is a disturbing and unacceptable form of gender inequality, which is only slightly mitigated by the steps forward made by FINA in this respect, specifically by including mixed gender events at the 2015 World Aquatics Championships in Kazan and, contestably, rebranding the discipline into “artistic swimming”. The so-called “reverse” gender discrimination appears even more dangerous because it tends to be underestimated and legitimized as a bastion of women’s representation in historically men-dominated sport. To the contrary, although constantly associated with women's deprived social condition, gender inequality shall be approached as a general human issue and addressed through a joint fight for freedom. In fact, ultimately, gender stereotypes limit the freedom of self-determination, namely the freedom to determine oneself, regardless of sex and connected social expectations. Indeed, in a dominantly heteronormative context, men and women are "forced" to express hyper-masculinized and hyper-feminized behaviours and therefore to participate in sports deemed as gender-appropriate.
The history of synchronised swimming and the discriminatory condition of men athletes call into question the commitment and reliability of the IOC with respect to its much sponsored “Sport for all” vision and mission: if sport is actually for all, why men are excluded from synchro competitions? Not at Tokyo 2020, not at Paris 2024: when men will be entitled to participate? Great athletes are currently prevented from competing in the Olympics on gender discriminatory grounds, which is detrimental not only to the athletes, but to a whole generation of young boys, left without role-models to look at and be inspired by.
In conclusion, to fight gender stereotypes and break the vicious circle of gender inequality means to understand gender as a fluid expression of humanity, able and free to adapt and change through time and experiences: amazing and unknown opportunities lay behind the wall of gender discrimination. Sport shall break down such wall: it is time to include men's divisions of synchronized swimming (and rhythmic gymnastics) to the Olympic Program.
[1] Meyerson, D.E., & Kolb, D.M. (2000). Moving out of the ‘armchair’: Developing a framework to bridge the gap between feminist theory and practice. p. 563
[2] McKay, J., Lawrence, G., Miller, T., & Rowe, D. (2001). Gender equity, hegemonic masculinity and the governmentalisation of Australian amateur sport. In T. Bennett & D. Carter (Eds.), Culture in Australia: Policies, publics and programs (pp. 233–251). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
[3] Lindner, K. (2012) Women's Boxing at the 2012 Olympics: Gender trouble? Feminist Media Studies, 12:3, 464-467
[4] Ibid
[5] Eagly, A. H., (1995), The Science and Politic of Comparing Women and Men, American Psycologist,
[6] Merton, R. K., (1948), The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy, The Antioch Review, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 193-210
[7] Whitney-Wei, J., (2019), Katharine Whitney Curtis: Mother of Synchronized Swimming, p.37
[8] Sydnor, S., (1998), A History of Synchronized Swimming, Journal of Sport History , Vol. 25, No. 2, Special Issue: The Practice of Sport History, pp. 252-267
[9] Williams, E., & Diehl, D., (1999), The Million Dollar Mermaid
[10] Sydnor, S., (1998), A History of Synchronized Swimming, Journal of Sport History , Vol. 25, No. 2, Special Issue: The Practice of Sport History, pp. 252-267
[11] Bean, D. P., (2005), Synchronized Swimming: An American History, p.12
[12] Kremer, W., (20 July 2015), Why can't men be Olympic synchronised swimmers?, www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine
[13] Bean, D. P., (2005), Synchronized Swimming: An American History, p. 196