Do Competitive Sports Reinforce Toxic Masculinity? By: Miley March

Introduction

Competitive sports have always had a strong hold in society, especially for men. This influence has helped shape certain gender norms and ideas about identity. When it comes to masculinity at a young age, sports can play a big role. These sports help define traits such as strength, dominance, and toughness as key parts of masculine identity. Sports like football, baseball, soccer, basketball, hockey, and more have always been competitive in representing masculine traits as well as athleticism. Instead of focusing on the general influence of sports, it is important to look at the central question: “Do competitive sports reinforce toxic masculinity?” Choosing to be an athlete at a young age is either for enjoyment or because of how highly influential of an experience it is. Personally, I never wanted to participate in sports as a kid but did because of how many of my friends played. I wanted to be included in something I heard about daily. Knowing this, many kids choose to participate because they want to be involved in something other kids their age are doing. This could be seen as a good thing but also not. When doing something you aren’t necessarily that interested in doing or are being forced into doing can cause a toxic mentality. These early experiences connect directly to the debate about whether the environment of competitive sports encourages toxic masculinity. When it comes to competitive sports there is always going to be a high chance of a toxic environment. This is from being involved in acts of aggression that stems from the suppressed emotion that builds over time. Another thing that adds to the toxic masculinity from competitive sports is the never ending hazing. Depending on the person, it will either affect them immensely or not at all. All this ties back to the main issue: when thinking of the question “Do competitive sports reinforce toxic masculinity,?” it's important to see sports as more than a physical activity but instead as how they play a role in shaping social norms and expectations. Intense competition includes harsh coaching, relationships, and the media depict how male athletes are seen and how their behavior is shaped based on these factors. Competitive sports can offer positive aspects like teamwork and discipline, while also reinforcing a toxic masculinity that encourages aggression and emotional suppression that leads to unhealthy habits which leads to affecting mental health negatively.

Summary of source #1

The article, “Sport-Related Identities and the ‘Toxic Jock’” by Kathleen E. Miller states that not all sport involvement shapes masculinity in the same way, but by how each player identifies with and interprets their role within the sport. This study looks into the difference of identifying as an “athlete” and a “jock” in how each identity has different relationships with masculine norms and behaviors. Players who see themselves as athletes focused on the sport itself and didn’t act in ways that present masculinity, others who identified as “jocks” were seen as trying to fit the accepted masculine norms like dominance, aggression, and toughness. Students who saw themselves as “jocks” were more on the expected side to show behaviors of toxic masculinity. Being strictly involved in a sport due to the ego that comes with it, such as being a “jock”, can encourage toxic behavior, mainly when their main focus is the identity, not the sport.

Summary of source #2

The article, “Psychological Femininity and Masculinity and Motivation in Team Sports”, by Łukasz Bojkowski isn’t specifically written towards the question if competitive sports reinforce toxic masculinity but instead informs on how masculine traits are related to motivation in competitive sports. This relates to the question, “Do competitive sports reinforce toxic masculinity,?” as the study shows that sports reward traditional masculine traits like dominance and toughness. This leads to the reinforcement of toxic masculinity. Bojkowski’s study goes over how athletes who show strong psychological masculinity through competitiveness, confidence, and focus on their sport have a stronger motivation than the other players. These athletes are shown to be more driven in achieving their goals, improving their agility, and meeting their coaches expectations. Bojkowski also introduced how male athletes with more feminine traits were less motivated to excel or adjust to succeed in their sport. Overall, the study shows that competitive sports encourage and heighten traditional masculine traits, instead of labeling competitive sports as reinforcing toxic masculinity.

Points of Agreement

Even though the two articles examine different areas of sport psychology, they still share similar beliefs of agreement on how internal traits shape athletes’ behavior. Both authors agree that personal identity and masculine traits play a major role in how male athletes act and feel motivated towards their sport. For example, Miller states that “sport participation in itself does not produce negative behaviors unless athletes develop a jock identity,” showing that behavior comes from identity rather than the sport itself (Miller). In addition, Bojkowski believes that "psychological masculinity positively correlates with all types of motivation,” meaning an athlete’s internal traits shape how motivated they are (Bojkowski). Here, both of these authors recognize that strongly competitive, traditionally masculine traits seem to strongly shape athletes’ motivation and behavior. They also agree that these traits can push athletes toward intense or even unhealthy motivation. Miller shows this through the jock identity, which emphasizes “dominance, risk taking, and competitiveness," while Bojkowski states that masculinity is connected to higher levels of “intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.” Miller goes into detail of how jock identity is connected to having ego driven goals and conduct represented in toughness and entitlement. Additionally, Bojkowski states that psychological masculinity is tied to having higher levels of motivation overall, when having competition it leads to having strong motivation, which is connected to striving for success. Together, these points show that neither author believes the sport itself creates toxic or intense behavior, instead, both agree it comes from how athletes understand and identify themselves. An athlete’s self identity, behavior, traits, and mindset builds the way they compete and are as a team player. Both Miller and Bojkowski approach this from different perspectives, but they ultimately agree that psychological factors are central to understanding athlete behavior.

Points of Disagreement

Even though the two articles agree on certain things, they also disagree in a noticeable way. Miller argues that an athlete’s behavior is primarily shaped by the identity they choose to have, either being seen as a “jock” or an “athlete”. Miller defines the terms jock as being tough, egotistical, controlling, etc. They are seen to be the people who reinforce toxic masculinity in competitive sports. These behaviors develop based on the environment that surrounds them. It depends if they let themself accustom themself to it or not. However, these identities don’t just occur randomly, they are shaped by the people they are surrounded with and the expectations that come from them. Bojkowski has a very different angle on this topic. Instead of focusing on the culture of athletics, he argues that athletes’ behavior and motivation are influenced by their own traits, especially psychological masculinity and femininity, stating that these traits "positively correlate with all types of motivation,” which suggests they formed before playing sports (Bojkowski). Consequently, the first article believes negative behaviors are learned from their environment, while the second believes these behaviors and motivations come from traits they already have had before joining the sport, which directly affects how they express masculinity and motivation in their sport. Another point of disagreement for these two articles is their stance on masculinity. Miller connects toxic masculine traits with negative behavior, arguing that these behaviors develop when athletes develop a jock identity that exaggerates masculine norms, which relates directly to how masculinity appears in sports. On the other hand, Bojkowski argues that psychological masculinity can strengthen motivation and effort, suggesting that masculinity itself isn’t the problem but how it is shaped and expressed. This connects to the question of whether or not competitive sports reinforce toxic masculinity. Ultimately, their main disagreement is what shapes athletes, either their environment or internal traits, which ties directly to the issue of whether masculine behavior and motivation come from the culture of sports or from the athletes internal traits.

Strengths and Weaknesses of source #1

When comparing the two arguments, it’s clear they take different approaches, which influences how believable each one comes across. The article, “Sport-Related Identities and The ‘Toxic Jock’,” structures its argument on how sports customs and identity shape an athlete’s behaviors. Miller goes into depth of how taking on the persona of being a “jock” can lead to a more toxic masculinity personality and end up coming across as egotistical. This article has several strengths that make Miller’s argument credible. First, the study uses a large sample size of 581 sport-involved college students, this size supports the reliability of its statistics and conclusions. Miller points out that being an “athlete” and “jock” are two completely different identities, and they come with certain sets of motivations and levels of pressure to conform to masculine norms. This distinction helps show why some athletes come across as more competitive or narcissistic than others. In addition, the question asked towards these college students, “How are sport-related identities related to three conditions hypothesized to promote a “toxic jock” outcome: ego-focused goal orientation, high primary sport ratings, and conformity to masculine norms?” has been used in past studies and has been proven to be reliable (Miller). However, the article also has some weaknesses. An issue of the study is that the sample only came from one college, which means the results might not apply to athletes from other schools or backgrounds. Another weakness is that the data comes from a self-report survey, meaning it’s biased or inaccurate, so the findings could be less reliable. Lastly, even though the study speaks on how jock identity is connected to unpredictable behavior, it doesn’t measure those behaviors, which means it’s basing that idea on past research instead of its own data.

Strengths and Weaknesses of source #2

The article, "Psychological Femininity and Masculinity and Motivation in Team Sports” by Bojkowski has several strengths, but also has its weaknesses that affect its persuasion towards the audience. One major strength is that Bojkowski uses real data from male and female team sports and uses measurement tools like the Inventory to Assess Psychological Gender and Sport Motivation Scale (Bojkowski). This makes the findings come across as reliable as they have data to back up their findings. Another strength of the article is that Bojkowski supports his research with multiple psychological studies, which makes the argument feel more reliable and grounded. In addition, the article carefully goes into detail how masculine and feminine traits connect to team sports, helping the audience better understand how an athlete’s identities influence their performance and skills. Bojkowski has a clear explanation of each concept, making the study easy to understand even for those who don’t know much about gender psychology. An additional strength of this article is its strong structure, each section builds off of one another, which makes the argument flow clearly. One of the main weaknesses in this article is that the sample size is relatively small, with under 110 athletes, making it difficult to know if the results apply to multiple athletes when there isn’t more data to back it up. Another weakness is that the study focuses on the relationships between traits and motivation rather than cause and effect. Also, the study relies on feminine and masculine norms which might not be displayed for other athletes' personalities or encounters. Finally, because Bojkowski looks at the connection between traits and motivation, there aren’t findings on actual performance or behaviors in competitive sports, which lessens the reliability to connect it to sport settings. Overall, this article has credible insight of gender-related traits in relation to performance and motivation, but its restricted study and absence of direct performance data makes some of its conclusions less compelling.

Opinion/Conclusion/Compromise

When I consider this topic, I feel that competitive sports can have both benefits and negative aspects, and the harshness of the environment plays a major role in whether toxic masculinity is reinforced. I agree with both articles that motivation and personal traits are what guide how athletes experience sports, but also agree that social pressures and expectations about masculinity have a stronger influence than we think. I agree with both articles in different ways, Bojkowski focuses on individual traits, while Miller looks at the influence of sports culture in terms of masculine norms. These are both important to consider. Because both perspectives offer important insights, a reasonable middle ground would be recognizing that toxic masculinity in sports comes from a combination of personal traits and outside pressures. A balanced perspective considers both insights together, rather than treating one as more important than the other. It shows that toxic masculinity becomes more likely when both personal and environmental factors engage. This compromise offers a clearer and more realistic understanding of how competitive sports can either reinforce or challenge toxic masculinity.

Works Cited

Bojkowski, Lukasz. “Psychological Femininity and Masculine and Motivation in Team Sports.” National Library of Medicine, 26 Nov 2022, pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9735654/.

Miller, Kathleen E. “Sport-Related Identities and The “Toxic Jock.” National Library of Medicine, 2 June 2011, pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3107047/.