July 15, 2008
A 1-2 punch on women’s athletic apparel
Without further editorializing on the seeming requirement that female athlete’s garb be “sexy” (save for those nasty lesbian WNBA players, snark), I read these 2 posts today:
From Hoyden About Town (AU):
A bipartisan report produced from a Senate inquiry into women’s participation in sport found that teenage girls were leaving amateur sports because of body image issues exacerbated by uniforms.
From Figleaf’s Real Adult Sex:
What is it specifically about women athletes that they need to bare, oh, maybe 25-30% more skin compared to male athletes?
People have been talking about women’s outfits at Wimbledon as if they were high couture when they’re actually… mostly *short* couture. At least compared to men at Wimbledon who all seem to wear the same basic white polo-style shirt with long-cut shorts.
Same with beach volleyball. Men manage to function in these *enormous* jams-style shorts while as of 8 seconds ago women players can’t work in anything heavier than bikinis.
Oddly women’s and women’s basketball, baseball, football, and track uniforms are all roughly equal size and length and meanwhile Men’s pole acrobatics outfits cover *much* more than do women’s.
Oh, and a 3rd…
From Uncensored Feminista:
I have such a problem with this because why do women need to prove that they’re sexy and can play? I don’t see the same thing happening for men. It’s as if they need to show their sexiness and their femininity in order to be recognized for the players that they are.