‘For Those Who Like the Life Nothing Could Be Better’: The Games Mistress in 1920s Britain^†

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a fascinating article which sheds new light onto the profession of the games mistress via the use of a still underused method in sports history, prosopography. I would recommend publication, but I do have a few thoughts and suggestions where I feel some additional information / clarification would be useful for the reader:

 

p.7, line 243 - “it was considered disappointing that more scholarships were not being made available.” Who considered it disappointing and why?

 

p.8, line 253 - It would be useful to put these salaries into context. How do these numbers compare to other careers available to middle-class women at this time? Did PT mistresses earn more or less than teachers, for example?

 

p.9 - It is unclear why Norah Strathairn and Olive Andrews have been singled out here. They were clearly important within the St Leonards context, but why have they been selected as case studies - are they “representative” of the profession in some way? Could the author please explain the reasons for inclusion of their biographies further.

 

p.11, line 382 - Perhaps worth noting that Enid Blyton’s school stories also contained several characters who wanted to be games mistresses. See for example Margery in The O’Sullivan Twins (1942) and Amanda in Last Term at Malory Towers (1951).

 

p.13, line 456 - I am not sure I agree with this aspect of the analysis, which suggests that researchers are just being nosy about something private. British interwar women’s sport may well have been a hub of lesbian sociability in a society where there would have been few opportunities for gay women to encounter each other openly (see Nicholson, Ladies and Lords (2019), p.143 for a women’s cricket example). If the game mistress profession did attract disproportionately high numbers of gay women, this is surely a phenomenon of note? I do agree that it is a complex subject and difficult for researchers to approach practically, but I would prefer it if the author toned down the “Is it really any of my business” question.

 

Otherwise, I commend the author on this important work and look forward to seeing it published in the journal (hopefully incorporating the above suggestions).

Author Response

My thanks to the reviewer for their positive feedback and for the interesting comments/suggestions.

p.7, line 243 I have clarified in the text that Nield considered it disappointing but she did not explain why, although I am assuming that it was because it continued to exclude poorer young girls.

p.8, line 253. As indicated in the text the wages for teaching profession, which included those working as games mistresses in the public sector, were standardised by the Burnham Committee in 1922. Games mistress salaries in the private sector were set by the headmistresses or board of governors and subject to fluctuations according to the laws of supply and demand. Where sports were considered an essential part of school provision then salaries might be higher. Looking nationally, Greg Clark, 'What Were the UK Earnings and Prices Then?' Measuring Worth, 2024, suggests that Average Annual Nominal Earnings in 1922 were £139.51 so teaching salaries were better than average, even if they were not great. I have included this in footnote 38.

p.9 - Norah Strathairn and Olive Andrews were typical of the private school games mistresses of the period and I have noted that in the text. They were the result of opportunity sampling in that I had connections to details about their careers through Jane Claydon and was therefore able to access more details about their lives than would have been possible with the vast majority of these women.

Many thanks for the Enid Blyton examples. I have included them in footnote 52.

p.13, line 456 – Thank you for your comments on this analysis. Raf’s work on cricket is certainly relevant in this context and it is something that we have discussed in the past. I still have reservations about the need to pry into individual lives in this respect but I do take on board your point that this was an exclusively female environment that might have been an attractive safe space for gay women who were therefore found in greater numbers here than elsewhere. I have revisited the text and made some minor changes.

Thank you again for your advice on these aspects of the paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

My thanks to the reviewer for these positive comments and for highlighting some points to consider.

I have added an explanatory sentence on prosopography on page 6 at the start of the section looking at the 1921 census.

As to the marriage bar and the experiences of interwar women I think that, in the context of this paper, this is already well covered both on pages 2-3 and on page 14 and I am not sure any more material is needed on this.

With respect to the use of the term ‘Games Mistress’ throughout, the paper addresses exclusively those who described themselves in these terms. As pointed out at the start of the paper on page 2 many physical educators chose to describe themselves as something else in the census – ‘teacher’ or ‘physical culturalist’ or ‘drill instructor’ etc. To address all these physical educators would have required writing a different paper altogether – something that is on the schedule for future work. This is where the issues of class and the impact of Fletcher’s work will become more relevant.

The breadth of ’regionality’ of the data is important in the context of this paper since it highlights that the games mistress role was not limited to one nation or one part of the country.

The references and footnotes have been revisited.

My thanks again for the reviewer’s observations.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a very good article and makes an original contribution to knowledge. The author/s make a sound argument that Games Mistresses were important symbols of female sporting agency in the interwar period, albeit within the constraints of the period. Indeed being a games mistress was as close as one could come to being a professional sportswomen in the period - something the author's might note. The article is clearly written and referenced. It is also very good to see census data cited to quantify the number of mistresses - although the author's acknowledge data needs to be interpreted with some caution. I could only find one potential spelling error. On page 12 line 400 I recommend the author/s recheck the quote. '...in one of the desert parts you see from the train'  - does this read '... in one of the deserted parts you see from the train'. Otherwise this appears a very clean manuscript and one which makes a useful contribution to knowledge. 

Author Response

My thanks to the reviewer for the positive comments and suggestions. I have taken on board the observation about the professionalism of these women and have adapted that to include ‘games mistresses, collectively operating as a body of professional coaches,’ on page 13 line 463. I have also revisited the quote, which does read ‘desert’ in the original, although I agree it would make more sense to read ‘deserted’.

Thanks again for this advice.