114
hkjak
https://doi.org/10.1177/0731121418808800
Sociological Perspectives
2019, Vol. 62(3) 346 365
The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0731121418808800
journals.sagepub.com/home/spx
Education
You Lead Like a Girl: Gender and
Childrens Leadership Development
Alexa J. Trumpy1 and Marissa Elliott2
Abstract
Recent leadership initiatives encourage children, particularly girls, to defy gender stereotypes.
Yet, those creating and participating in these initiatives, like all members of our culture, have
their own gender biases, have received gender socialization, and live in a society where the
masculine is more valued than the feminine. We conducted participant observation of two
gender-segregated leadership summer camps to examine how camp counselors and directors
teach leadership to boys and girls. We find counselors unintentionally reinforce gender
stereotypes and promote gender-typical behavior while attempting to break down these same
stereotypes and behavioral expectations. We argue the gender-segregated environment leads
to a problematic separate but equal approach to thinking about leadership that advances the
individual abilities of boys and girls but does less to decrease gender disparities in emotional
development, physical competition, or leadership styles. This research contributes to our
understanding of how well-intentioned organizations and authorities, seeking to minimize
gender disparities and develop strong leaders, unwittingly reproduce gender differences and
perpetuate gender inequality.
Keywords
children and youth, culture, emotions, sex and gender
Introduction
Children begin to absorb gender stereotypes and expectations in early childhood (Cvencek,
Meltzoff, and Greenwald 2011). By early elementary school, girls are less likely than boys to say
that their own gender is really, really smart. They are also less likely to opt into games described
as intended for super-smart kids (Bian, Leslie, and Cimpian 2017). This pattern continues
throughout the educational trajectory (Storage et al. 2016). There is growing interest in disrupt-
ing gender stereotypes and expectations (Eagly and Heilman 2016; Parker, Horowitz, and Stepler
2017). Most Americans believe exposing children to toys and activities typically associated with
another gender is a good thing. They also believe more emphasis should be placed on encourag-
ing boys to talk about their feelings and teaching girls to stand up for themselves (Parker et al.
2017). Yet, attempts to lessen gendered constraints are often less successful than intended (for
1St. Norbert College, De Pere, WI, USA
2Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA
Corresponding Author:
Alexa J. Trumpy, St. Norbert College, Boyle Hall 430, 100 Grant St., De Pere, WI 54115-2099, USA.
Email: [emailprotected]
808800 SPXXXX10.1177/0731121418808800Sociological PerspectivesTrumpy and Elliott
research-article2018
https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/journals-permissions
https://journals.sagepub.com/home/spx
mailto:[emailprotected]nc.edu
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1177%2F0731121418808800&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2018-11-15
Trumpy and Elliott 347
examples, see Kane 2012; Kissane and Winslow 2016; Ridgeway 2011; Ryan 2016). How does
this gap between the desire to undo, or at least reduce, gendered expectations and the continued
maintenance of gendered expectations and outcomes persist?
We focus on the mismatch between expectations and outcomes in the context of gender and
leadership. Despite increased participation in sports, higher education, and the workforce, women
are underrepresented in leadership positions (Budgeon 2014). Our research seeks to advance our
understanding of this underrepresentation by examining how childhood leadership programs
may affect future gender leadership disparities. How do the adults creating and implementing
childrens leadership initiatives reproduce or challenge gendered leadership behaviors and out-
comes? To address this, we engaged in participant observation of two childrens leadership day
camps, which we refer to as GLEAM and BEAM (acronyms for Girls Leadership Empowerment
and Mentoring and Boys Leadership Empowerment and Mentoring).1
While there have been excellent studies looking at childrens conformity and resistance to
gender expectations at camp (McGuffey and Rich 1999; Moore 2001), this research addresses the
role adults play in maintaining childrens gendered expectations and behaviors. Both camps
explicitly focus on developing leadership skills and self-confidence, as well as encouraging chil-
dren to defy gender stereotypes. Given this focus, we were interested in how camp activities and
counselors statements subverted or reinforced gender stereotypes. How, for example, do camp
authority figures stated attitudes toward gender and socialization intentions line up with the mes-
sages they actually send to children?
Counselors and directors at GLEAM and BEAM frequently downplayed the role of gender in
leadership development. They framed leadership obstacles as individual-level phenomena and
assured campers they could do anything they put their minds to, regardless of gender. As a result,
campers learned simplistic and individualistic strategies for developing leadership skills, such as
cultivating a positive attitude and finding strong role models. This focus may provide helpful
tools for individual boys and girls, but it fails to address broader structural and cultural con-
straints that impact gender inequality in leadership.
As we will discuss, there were surface-level similarities in how GLEAM and BEAM counsel-
ors discussed leadership, but the underlying styles, content, and supporting messages that made
up the substance of leadership lessons were strikingly different. Ultimately, these differences
reflected divergent ideas about gender and leadership. If taken seriously, these differences will
continue to socialize children in gender stereotypical ways and reproduce gender differences in
leadership styles and opportunities.
In the following sections, we describe the camps in more detail and review the relevant schol-
arship pertaining to gender, leadership, and barriers to and advancements in gender equality. We
then discuss our data, method, and findings. We conclude by discussing the future implications
of our results.
Theoretical Orientation
Even when parents want to expand the boundaries of gender, they often feel pressure to teach their
children to do gender correctly by conforming to the gender binary (Kane 2012; Ryan 2016;
West and Zimmerman 1987). Yet, parents, authority figures, and other adult role models can also
disrupt gendered beliefs, especially for girls (Rosenthal et al. 2013; Rahilly 2015; Riegle-Crumb,
Farkas, and Muller 2006). Gender socialization has important implications for leadership. The
gender socialization messages children receive and the gendered nature of the resources and
opportunities they have access to affect perceived leadership ability and future leadership oppor-
tunities. For example, boys still spend more time in formal competitions (e.g., sports tournaments,
debate teams, and chess competition) than girls (Friedman 2013). Competition helps children
develop confidence, independence, ambition, and strategizing skills, all of which are associated
348 Sociological Perspectives 62(3)
with leadership (Eagly and Heilman 2016). Because boys compete more frequently, they are more
likely to acquire skills and characteristics associated with strong leadership.
Gender stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination also affect the assessment of leadership
potential (Brescoll 2016; Shields 2013). Authority, agency, rationality, and other characteristics
associated with successful leadership are seen as masculine, contributing to perceptions of men
as more natural leaders than women (Eagly 2007; Hechavarria and Ingram 2016; Hoobler,
Lemmon, and Wayne 2014). We examine what happens when adults attempt to disrupt these
inequalities by teaching boys and girls leadership skills. Do leadership camps that try to teach
children to be strong leaders and challenge gender stereotypes succeed, or do they reproduce
these stereotypes despite their intentions?
Adult Attitudes, Cultural Messages, and Childrens Understanding of Gender (In)
Equality
Even when they do not intend to, adults often socialize children in a gender stereotypical manner
(Kane 2012; Ryan 2016). Emily W. Kane (2012) finds parents can fall into a gender trap, a set of
expectations and structures that inhibit social change and reinforce the limits of gender. Research
on the mothers of gender questioning, nonconforming, and transgender children finds many
mothers provide trans-affirming messages and challenge dominant gender beliefs to a degree
(Ryan 2016). They help children imagine alternative gender possibilities, provide children with
knowledge and confidence to challenge gendered logics, and support their childrens identities
and choices. Yet, the way they talk about gender sends the message that while it is okay for boys
to like girl things and vice versa, there are, in fact, boy and girl things, and children normally
like gender-typical things.
In contrast, authority figures and role models can disrupt gendered beliefs, especially for
women (Riegle-Crumb et al. 2006). High school and college women who learn about successful
women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) fields are more likely to do well
in STEM classes, feel a greater sense of belonging among STEM classmates, and have scientific
career aspirations. Girls who see other women in STEM fields are less likely to associate these
subjects with masculinity and display more confidence in their own abilities (Levy et al. 2013).
Yet, girls must see similarities between themselves and role models to receive these beneficial
effects. When girls do not identify with role models, their aspirations and self-perceptions can be
negatively affected (Asgari, Dasgupta, and Stout 2012).
When they do intentionally address gender, parents are often more interested in lessening
feminine gender socialization (Kane 2012; Messner and Bozada-Deas 2009). One reason for this
may be that masculine characteristics are more frequently associated with professional success
(Alfrey and Twine 2017; Friedman 2013; Kissane and Winslow 2016). Another is that a soft
essentialist understanding of sex and gender frames girls nature as more potentially malleable
than boys nature, which is understood as more rigid and driven by biology (Messner 2011).
Adults are more likely to see girls as flexible choosers with the freedom to decide whether or
not to participate in formerly masculine arenas. This view portrays girls as bridging two realms
their natural realm of home and family and a chosen public realm of culture, politics, career, and
sports. Boys are more frequently seen as defined by biology. Their participation in sports and
public life is attributed to their rowdy, hyperactive, testosterone-fueled nature. Such beliefs per-
sist into adulthood, as when middle- and upper-class womens work outside the home is seen as
a choice but mens (regardless of class) is not (Messner and Bozada-Deas 2009).
Soft essentialism also manifests in cultural messages encouraging girls to cultivate a mix of
stereotypically masculine and feminine attributes. Magazines aimed at teen and preteen girls
encourage readers to conform to some traditional norms of femininity (e.g., being nice and polite)
Trumpy and Elliott 349
while also asserting individuality (McRobbie 1991). Girl power femininity implies girls are pow-
erful and can do anything they want, but also strongly encourages them to appear heterosexual
and feminine to sustain gender complementarity and hierarchy (Budgeon 2014; Ringrose 2006;
Schippers 2007). This understanding of power and femininity emphasizes individual choice and
ability, obscuring the role of broader structural forces in maintaining gender disparities (Acker
1990; Cairns and Johnston 2015; Rauscher and Cooky 2016). Emphasizing individual choice
reconciles the dominant discourse of gender equality with patterned gender outcomes (Volman
and Ten Dam 1998). Gendered inequalities are explained away as different preferences.
While adults attitudes, organizational initiatives, and cultural messages influence children,
children can accept, reject, or repurpose what they learn (Moore 2001; Thorne 1993). This com-
bination of accepting, resisting, and repurposing cultural dictates persists across the life course.
For example, in their study on womens participation in fantasy sports, Rebecca Joyce Kissane
and Sarah Winslow (2016) found participants simultaneously resist and reproduce gendered
dynamics by questioning gender stereotypes in some cases and accepting some level of gender
inferiority in others. Players often accepted gender stereotypes about women as a group, but
positioned themselves as atypical women who defied these stereotypes (Kissane and Winslow
2016). Although our research examines the initiatives adults create to teach children about gen-
der and leadership, it is important to remember that children can interpret and react to these initia-
tives in unpredictable ways.
Gender, Emotions, and Perceptions of Leadership Ability
The camps we examine are a response to the growing interest in gender and leadership, as well
as the push for more women to enter leadership positions (Eagly and Heilman 2016). So why,
despite interest in increasing the number of girls and women in leadership positions, are there not
more women leaders (Parker et al. 2017)? Some research focuses on the role leadership capital
plays in selecting leaders. High levels of early leadership capital lead to future opportunities that
give access to further leadership capital and opportunities (Bourdieu 1990; Fitzsimmons and
Callan 2016). Gender affects childrens leadership capital accumulation. Growing up, girls still
spend less time in formal competitions, such as sports tournaments and debates (Friedman 2013).
Competition helps children develop leadership capital in the form of independence, self-
confidence, ambition, and strategic decision-making skills (Eagly and Heilman 2016). Because
boys compete more often, they are more likely to acquire skills and characteristics associated
with strong and decisive leadership.
Other research focuses on how gender stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination affect lead-
ership opportunities (Brescoll 2016; Shields 2013). Cultural beliefs about masculine and femi-
nine characteristics disadvantage women in leadership evaluations (Eagly 2007). Men are more
frequently seen as natural leaders because authority, agency, rationality, emotional self-control,
career motivation, and other characteristics associated with strong leadership are seen as mascu-
line (Hechavarria and Ingram 2016; Hoobler et al. 2014). Many characteristics linked to poor
leadership, such as passivity, low ambition, irrationality, a preoccupation with emotions, and lack
of emotional control, are associated with femininity (Eagly and Heilman 2016; Shields 2013).
Cultural beliefs affect how people are perceived and evaluated. Aspiring women leaders
encounter more skepticism than men about their ability to control emotions, be appropriately
competitive, and make rational decisions (Brescoll 2016). Gendered beliefs also affect how indi-
viduals see themselves and the choices they make (Cech 2013). Hierarchies are created and
sustained through relational dynamics (Schippers 2007). Men and women must see themselves
as sufficiently different in a way that justifies mens increased power and privilege for gender
inequality to persist (Ridgeway 2011). To achieve a more complete change, gender expectations
must be disrupted. Simply providing new opportunities and positive messaging for girls and
350 Sociological Perspectives 62(3)
women is not enough (Budgeon 2014). If outdated cultural expectations regarding the obliga-
tions for girls and women persist in the face of new opportunities, change will remain elusive and
incomplete (Rauscher and Cooky 2016). Our study helps to uncover how childrens leadership
training, and the presence or lack of gendered messaging associated with this training, can make
change or stasis more likely.
Data and Method
GLEAM and BEAM take place on a Midwestern college campus. Both camps are nonprofit and
affiliated with the colleges educational outreach program, which provides programming for
interested area primary and secondary school students. The director of the educational outreach
program, Courtney, is also a local middle school teacher and the GLEAM camp director. Given
her position as director of all educational outreach programming, she technically oversaw Mike,
the BEAM camp director, and all BEAM activities. Nonetheless, Mike and the BEAM counsel-
ors seemed to have autonomy over BEAM programming and activities. We never heard Mike or
any of the BEAM counselors mention Courtney or any other source of external expectations
placed on them.
GLEAM began in 2009 and BEAM began in 2013. When we started our research in 2015,
GLEAM had 400 campers (200 per session), 12 counselors, and 13 assistant counselors. BEAM
had 150 campers (75 per session), six counselors, and seven assistant counselors.2 All GLEAM
and BEAM staff identified as heterosexual and cisgender. More than 90 percent of the staff at
both camps was white, reflecting the demographics of the surrounding community. GLEAM
counselors were all state-certified teachers in their mid to late 20s, working at elementary and
middle schools during the academic year. Most were in long-term relationships, recently engaged,
or recently married. None had children. GLEAM assistant counselors were local high school and
college students. Many of them planned to become teachers after college.
BEAM counselors were also state-certified teachers, working at local elementary, middle, and
high schools during the academic year. Many coached school sports teams as well. Counselors
ranged in age from their mid-20s to mid-30s. The majority were married and had children. The
assistant counselors were students attending nearby high schools and colleges during the aca-
demic year. These counselors varied in career aspirations. Some had plans to become teachers or
school counselors. Others planned on going into law, medicine, or business. Many of the assistant
counselors went to the same college and learned about the camp because they had run track with
one of the counselors who had graduated the year before and now worked at a local elementary
school.
BEAM and GLEAM campers ranged in age from six to 13 and attended local elementary and
middle schools during the academic year. Because they were not the direct focus of our research,
we did not ask campers about their race, gender, or sexuality, but the majority of campers
appeared to be white. Counselors told us the majority of campers were middle class, reflecting
the demographics of the surrounding community. The names of the camps have been changed,
but were picked deliberately. GLEAM is meant to have a slightly feminine ring to it; BEAM is
meant to have a slightly more masculine connotation. The real names also had these elements.
All GLEAM and BEAM activities were chosen and planned by the camp director and camp
counselors during a series of planning meetings. At these meetings, the director and counselors
planned each weeks activities and events. They also decided the age of the campers each coun-
selor would work with, who their assistant counselor(s) would be, and what extra activities they
were responsible for (beyond the general activities every counselor and assistant counselor did
with their primary group of campers). At both camps, counselors began and ended the day with
their core group of campers. They also did activities with their core group before and after
lunch. During the rest of the day, assistant counselors would accompany campers from activity
Trumpy and Elliott 351
to activity, while counselors would stay in the same room or area to run an activity with rotating
groups of campers. At GLEAM, these activities were divided into the themes of (1) math and
science, (2) technology, (3) drama, and (4) expression (activities related to speaking up and
expressing feelings). At BEAM, the activities were divided into (1) strategic games and problem
solving, (2) physical games and activities, (3) engineering, math, and science projects, and (4)
leadership skills.3 Each counselor was in charge of one of these four sets of activities and would
implement an activity with various groups of campers (adjusting the difficulty of the activity
based on the age of the group) throughout each day.
Camps were an ideal site for this research for many reasons. First, the camps we observed
were explicitly focused on leadership. Second, the camps encompassed a mix of formal learning-
based activities, social activities, project-based activities, and physical activities, allowing us to
see approaches to leadership across a variety of contexts. Finally, we were able to watch many
counselors and many groups of campers do the same things multiple times over multiple weeks.
This gave us a sense of which exchanges were idiosyncratic or anomalous and which were more
patterned and pervasive in a relatively brief amount of time.
We engaged in more than 200 hours of participant observation. We primarily observed camp
sessions held in June and July of 2015 and 2016. We also observed camp planning meetings held
four weeks and two weeks prior to the first camp session each year and counselor debriefing ses-
sions, which occurred at the end of the day throughout the first week of each camp. We supple-
ment this with information gained from camp Web sites, lesson plans, the daily e-mails sent
home to parents summarizing each days major activities, and camp social media posts.
We took a grounded theory approach to our observation and analysis. Both authors recorded
their observations. These notes were read multiple times, and memos were written to help iden-
tify significant events and patterns. Memos and notes were then coded according to themes that
inductively emerged throughout the research process (Glaser and Strauss 1967). As research
progressed, we began to narrow our focus to examine how gender influenced the leadership les-
sons taught at the camps.
Gender is our primary focus. Although relevant, less significance was placed on camper age,
class, race, or sexuality. While we often refer to campers ages in activity descriptions, age is not
a major focus of this research.4 There were situations where age, class, and sexuality became
more salient in interactions, and we describe a few such occurrences. It is possible our position
as white, heterosexual, middle class, cisgender women influenced what we observed, as well as
what camp staff and participants revealed to us, making us less sensitive to issues of class, race,
and sexuality (Bonilla-Silva 2010; Musto 2014). It is also likely that race, class, age, and sexual-
ity appeared less relevant because while camps were gender segregated, the race, class, age, and
sexual orientations of staff and participants were largely similar across camps.
Counselors generally seemed untroubled by our presence. There are likely a few reasons for
this. First, despite the extensive amount of planning and organization that went into the camps,
parts of each day could also be hectic and unpredictable. Early on in each camp session, counsel-
ors did not have much spare time to think about our presence, and once things slowed down and
routines were better established, we had become familiar and unremarkable. In addition, camp
activities occurred across the college campus. College faculty and staff frequently slowed or
stopped to briefly observe camp activities as they walked by. Although our presence was more
consistent, campers and counselors were used to being observed by outsiders.
The major difference we observed in counselor reception was that BEAM counselors were
more likely to initiate conversations with us while campers were busy with activities. They asked
follow-up questions about our research and shared their perspectives on the camp and campers.
This is probably partly because as cisgender women researchers, we stuck out more at BEAM.
Another likely contributing factor is that BEAM counselors frequently talked to each other when
campers were doing activities, whereas GLEAM counselors typically participated in activities
352 Sociological Perspectives 62(3)
with the campers or circulated among the campers and talked to them. BEAM counselors were
also more likely to assume we were bored,5 and a few seemed to initially feel an obligation to
entertain us, as if they were our hosts. Nothing we observed at GLEAM suggested that counsel-
ors worried about whether we were bored or felt any need to entertain us.
Campers initially took more interest in us. We each followed a different group of campers
every day. While our presence was less noticed and commented on at GLEAM, campers at both
camps were initially curious. We found the best strategy was to introduce ourselves to the group
we were shadowing first thing in the morning. We told them we were doing research on the
camps and said we would be following their group for the day and that they could ignore us or
ask questions if they wanted. Most campers at GLEAM treated us like a cross between an older
camper and temporary visitor. Campers did not assume we were experts on camp, and many were
eager to tell us about it (especially those that had come for multiple years). They never asked us
questions about camp rules, schedules, or expectations, suggesting that they did not see us as
authority figures.
At BEAM, we were treated like outside observers but typically quickly ignored once we intro-
duced ourselves. There were a few exceptions. For example, one boy came up to the second
author and asked how she was allowed at camp as she was a girl. Another time, a counselor told
boys not to make jokes about nuts in front of a lady (the second author). Finally, when one boy
became separated from his group and distressed, he approached the first author and asked for
help. He looked like he was holding back tears, and we suspect he approached her because he did
not want boys or men to see him cry, not because he saw the researcher as an authority figure.
Before the first author could do anything, a counselor saw the interaction and intervened. All of
these interactions happened on the first day of camp. We became less of a source of novelty for
campers and were accepted as an unremarkable feature of the camp as each week progressed.
Findings and Discussion
Gender and Conceptualizations of Barriers to Leadership
GLEAM and BEAM had similar objectives, including building leadership skills, developing
self-confidence, fostering an understanding of diversity and respect for others, and promoting
healthy lifestyles. Yet campers gender influenced how counselors thought about leadership.
GLEAM counselors confidently discussed their perceptions of the biggest leadership obstacles
girls facedlow self-esteem, mean girls and bullies, shyness and the inability to express ones
thoughts, and blatant gender stereotypes. BEAM counselors rarely linked leadership obstacles to
gender. They saw goofing off, being disrespectful, and lacking initiative as genderless leadership
impediments. The absence of an involved father was the only gendered barrier BEAM counselors
discussed. This emphasis on uninvolved fathers allowed BEAM counselors to reconcile their
views of boys as natural leaders with their participation in a boys leadership camp. Despite dif-
fering perspectives, counselors at both camps suggested simplistic individual-level solutions for
overcoming leadership obstacles. These solutions imply leadership deficits are best conquered by
cultivating a positive attitude and finding a strong role model. All campers were elementary and
middle-school-aged, limiting the complexity of gender-related discussions. Yet, these simplistic,
individual-level portrayals of gender obstacles inaccurately frame gender as largely inconse-
quential and the barriers to gender inequality as minimal and easily overcome.
The individual-level focus emerged during the pre-camp planning meetings. Here, counselors
chose daily themes (e.g., brave, friendship and kindness teamwork), brainstormed role
models and activities to pair with each theme, selected the role models and activities they liked
best, and then spent the majority of their time ironing out details related to when activities would
occur, how much time was needed, and what supplies were necessary. The specifics of each camp
Trumpy and Elliott 353
day were extremely well organized as a result. Yet, there was no discussion of systemic social or
political issues affecting gender inequality in leadership. Counselors capitalized on their preex-
isting knowledge of cultural role models, childrens books, and educational activities that could
embody their positive believe in yourself and you can do unbelievable things style messages.
Counselors did not receive training or resources to learn about how larger structures of inequality
might contribute to gender biases and unequal outcomes in leadership. If they were familiar with
any of the broader research on gender and leadership, they did not mention it.6 This produced a
very narrow narrative regarding the relationship between gender and leadership that positioned
leadership success or failure in the realm of the individual.
GLEAM counselors viewed low self-esteem, bullies, shyness, and blatant gender stereotypes
as the biggest barriers to leadership for girls. They taught girls to change the way they thought
about themselves to overcome these barriers. The lessons and activities on the third day of camp
were related to the theme of perseverance. In one activity, girls were given a sheet with negative
statements such as Im not good at this and I give up. They had to rewrite each statement in
a positive and encouraging way. Girls wrote things such as Ill be better if I try harder. These
activities were then connected to girl power statements about how girls could do anything. In
their concluding remarks to the reframing activity, counselors said things such as dont ever let
anyone tell you you cant do something because youre a girl.
GLEAM counselors discussed the role gender played in girls leadership abilities and oppor-
tunities. Yet, gendered obstacles were framed as easily overcome. Counselors pointed to role
models as proof girls can do anything if they ignore other peoples negativity. One of the featured
role models was Misty Copeland, the first black principal dancer at the American Ballet Theater.7
Counselors said Copelands commitment and perseverance were the keys to her success. As part
of the lesson, we observed Miss Carly8 read Misty Copelands (2014) book, Firebird, to a group
of fourth- and fifth-grade campers. In this picture book, Copeland encourages a young black girl
to become a ballerina. After she finished, Carly asked what the girls thought of the book. The first
camper to respond said, I like her outfit. Another asked if Misty was married (Carly had gotten
married a few weeks before camp began, and marriage and weddings were a favorite topic of
conversation in free time). The girls discussed whether Misty was married. One said, If Misty is
married then the girl in the book could be her daughter. Carly eventually redirected the conver-
sation, emphasizing that Mistys story was about perseverance and overcoming obstacles.
Carly then played an Under Armour commercial featuring Copeland (Dockterman 2014). The
commercial zooms in on Copelands lean and muscular form as she warms up and energetically
dances in an Under Armour sports bra and underwear while we hear a series of girls read portions
of a mock rejection letter informing Copeland she will not be admitted into ballet school because
she does not have the right body. We observed this lesson with four different sets of campers and
counselors. Counselors emphasized the same individualistic girl power message in every dis
