I mean golf is almost entirely just a rich Old white man’s game.
They’ve deigned to allow other leagues to happen, but “damnit if women are gonna play, they have to be pleasing to the eye”.
Because old men make the rules on most golf courses.
Cause they won’t let the men wear skirts too the sexists.
Same with tennis. Why do women have to wear short skirts and moan when hitting the ball… Because it’s regulations were made by nasty old men and for women to progress they have to moan and look hot, otherwise these old men will make sure they won’t have a career.
Male gaze. Much like volleyball.
Volleyball athletes were multiple times offered less revealing clothing and denied them because it actually harmed their performance, compared to the current standard.
New efforts for streaming guidelines do limit certain close ups or angles, given the outfits, though.
Y’know if that were true and it actually did give an advantage, you’d think the men would be wearing something similar too. You got a citation?
In Olympic beach volleyball, women have several options. More than the men in fact:
The women can wear either a one-piece or two-piece bathing suit; shorts with sleeved or sleeveless tops; or a full body suit in cold weather. Due to the typically warm playing conditions, most opt for the two-piece. The men must wear shorts and a tank top. Players are allowed to wear hats and sunglasses.
https://www.nbcolympics.com/news/beach-volleyball-101-olympic-equipment
This absolutely ignores sponsorship pressures. Men get millions of dollars playing in full clothes. Women have to wear bikinis just to ensure a few thousand dollars “because it sells more tickets”. Choice or not, there are structural cultural norms that nullify the offer of alternatives. Misogyny doesn’t disappear just because you can choose different clothes.
https://www.today.com/news/why-do-women-s-beach-volleyball-players-wear-bikinis-today-t226134
https://www.businessinsider.com/why-do-women-beach-volleyball-players-wear-bikinis-olympics-2016-8
https://people.com/sports/beach-volleyball-olympians-react-bikini-controversy/
Female volleyball players have said over and over and over again “we wear bikinis because we want to.”
Great, none of the articles mention the issue of sponsorship or the gender aspect of bias in sports regulations.
By the way, it’s not cool to link without reading the articles.
Last month, bikini-wearing athletes again made headlines when the European Handball Federation fined Noway’s beach handball team for wearing shorts rather than the required two-piece bathing suits.
There are still problems with the lack of choice, why?
Ultimately, the 2016 FIVB uniform guide actually offers more options for women than it does for men […] who are stuck with a tank top and shorts as their only style choice.
Wouldn’t it be interesting to try to understand why this is this way?
“There are also certain times of the month that wearing a bikini isn’t always such a comfortable option, especially when you’re on TV.”
Interesting testimony. Should we actually ask a follow up question to the person who said this to hear her opinion about why being on TV is a factor…Nope, too late, narrative is done, article is over.
Like, seriously, I’m not talking about infantilizing women or restraining options. Quite the opposite. I’m talking about turning your damn brain on and actually look at the world with curiosity beyond the common places of thought terminating memes, cliches and manufactured narratives. It’s not hard as long as you are focused on actually having healthy discussions instead of being obsessed with being right on the internet (the worst kind of right).
I read all the articles. That lack of choice in handball and other sports should be addressed, and I hope it is soon. But in Olympic beach volleyball athletes have the choice and many choose to wear bikinis.
I’ve never heard of a female athlete saying anything like “I feel pressured to choose more revealing uniforms because of sponsorships or cultural expectations from males.” If you have, I’d love to see it. I have seen a bunch say that they prefer them, given the choice.
Olympic swimming is the opposite though, women are allowed to wear full suits, men aren’t allowed to wear anything above the navel.
Which begs the question. If the most efficient equipment to use is a full suit (remembering here the snark skin controversy), why are men not allowed to wear it, but women are.
It is absolutely arbitrary and based on historical gender biases. But that is too complex for some idiots to digest.
I don’t understand this infantilizing of women. At least half the women at the gym and yoga studio are in sports bras.
Should I tell them they are victims of male gaze and the tyranny of sponsorships, and they would be happier if they covered up more?
Or are they adults who can dress themselves?
No, why would you do that? It is extremely rude to comment on a person’s body unprompted. They get to choose whatever they want to wear. That doesn’t erase the reality of social pressures or its relevance when discussing genre politics.
You’re missing the point.
They’re adults. Treat them as such.
Since 2012, yes I’m aware. But that does not address anything I said.
It literally is the citation you asked for, dingus
and denied them because it actually harmed their performance, compared to the current standard.
The part I responded to by saying "Y’know if that were true and it actually did give an advantage, you’d think the men would be wearing something similar too. " Your link says absolutely nothing about it being a competitive advantage - did you respond to the wrong person?
That’s irrelevant. The point is they have a choice, and many choose to wear two pieces. Whether it’s because they feel like they play better, or it’s comfort, or even if they simply just like how they look. They’re allowed to wear shorts and tank tops if they want.
[citation needed]
The International Volleyball Federation (FIVB) has said it will allow shorts and sleeved tops at the 2012 Games, along with the traditional bikinis and body suits already permitted.
“Many of these countries have religious and cultural requirements so the uniform needed to be more flexible.” FIVB spokesman Richard Baker told The Associated Press.
The less revealing outfits were already permitted for the the five Continental Cups, through which 142 nations are competing to qualify for the London Games.
“Winners of the Continental Cups will qualify for the Olympics, so it has to be applied,” said Baker.
The modified rule permits “shorts of a maximum length of three centimeters (1.18 inches) above the knee, and sleeved or sleeveless tops.”
And there were new guidelines for photography and video released this year:
New “Raising the Bar” camera guidelines have been introduced in women’s athletics which advise broadcasters to consider more respectful angles when filming live female athletics competitions. The European Broadcasting Union (EBU), which provides sports coverage to more than a billion people across 57 countries, worked alongside female athletes to establish a new 23-page guide to try to help reduce the sexualisation of female athletes through certain camera angles.
While not an Olympic sport, the Norway women’s beach handball team took a similar stand when they wore shorts – instead of the requisite bikini bottoms – while competing at the Beach Handball EURO 2021 in Bulgaria earlier this month.
The attire defied International Handball Federation regulations – which require female beach handball players to wear sports bras and bikini bottoms, while men can wear tank tops and shorts – and the Disciplinary Committee of the European Handball Federation fined the Norwegian Handball Federation 1,500 euros – 150 euros for each player who wore shorts.
deleted by creator
Some males want to wear the skirts too.
That’s the beautiful part - men can wear skirts whenever they want, too.
Most of us who want to are afraid to.
Maybe I guess I am sarcastic but a female using a club to hit a ball. Does not really draw my engine up. Maybe it is the whole club hitting a ball thing.
Men wear golf shorts to golf all the time. The fit is generally looser, just like the golf polos, though.
“Jesus Christ, Barry! You’re 79 years old! Yes, your balls hang out the bottom of your shorts! Now put 'em away before someone tries to see if they can get a birdie!”
They’re called skorts. They’re simultaneously useless, goofy-looking, playful and ridiculously fun to wear.
Everybody should try on them at least once.
They should make skorts for men.
There are no gender requirements for skorts. You can just buy them and wear them.
Very true, however we live in a society where it is highly frowned upon. I don’t think i’m brave enough to wear skorts in public. Maybe some day, idk.
Just get it in plad and call it a kilt.
There’s a part of town that’s gay enough for you to wear pretty much anything
True, but then I get hit on by men which isn’t the goal. Yes, that’s likely to happen anyway but I don’t see why I should go out of my way to go someplace where it’s almost guaranteed. Yes, I’m very aware that’s a me problem.
Ye, but if getting hit on by men wasn’t danger-coded or gross, it would be less of a deterrent. You don’t have to blame yourself.
If getting hit on by men is the only problem we’ve got to find you a supportive lesbian friend group or bar where you can try on pretty dresses (I think they’re called drag clubs)
The PGA bans shorts and the LPGA’s dress code doesn’t. There’s more to it (why are the dress codes this way, historically?) but that’s a simple answer to your question.
Fun fact Augusta national which is home to the Masters tournament didn’t allow its first African American as a member until 1990 and the first woman until 2012 and the woman was Condoleezza Rice
That some kinda mexican dish?
No just a really stupid bitch who loved waterboarding people
I think it’s BS, and the primary reason I don’t play in the PGA.
It used to be men in skirts and the women stayed home.
I see what you did that. Nicely done.
Because wearing an inflatable dinosaur costume would interfere with their range of motion.
Misogyny
Sex.
It sells.
The patriarchy… Seriously.
A lot of golf courses used to be mens only, and the ones who did let women on the field had strict dress codes. Going as far back to Victorian times women had to have specific Golf dresses, corsets, crinolines, bustles, and multiple petticoats.
So a lot of it is based on social mores surrounding both class and sex. Even after dress codes loosened in the modern age, the culture of golf tends to be immersed in the social normative of the upper class.
Personally I actually think class has more to do with it than sexism in general. For example the first professional woman to play golf in slacks was in 1933, while the first black professional golfer was allowed in the PGA in 1967.
Then again the dynamics between social norms in sex and class are dynamic and inseparable.
I feel like if all the world’s gold course and clubs burned to the ground overnight and were never rebuilt that there would be negligible impact on humanity.
Personally I actually think class has more to do with it than sexism in general. For example the first professional woman to play golf in slacks was in 1933, while the first black professional golfer was allowed in the PGA in 1967.
It’s weird that you keep saying only “class” when you mean both class and race. Yes, they’re correlated, but they’re not the same and both really are at play here.
It’s weird that you keep saying only “class” when you mean both class and race.
Up until very recent history class and race were inseparable constructs. Even now you could legitimately argue that even the wealthiest black members of society are not truly part of the ruling class in western society.
During the time periods and activities we were discussing assuming that race is part of class is perfectly reasonable. Specifically when it comes to dress codes class is going to be more of the focus.
What are you talking about? Many women wear pants, but they have more options so some of them wear skirts ,or shorts, or ‘skorts’… men don’t wear anything but pants because they will lose every sponsor in a matter of minutes. Somehow men having fewer options than women/been told what to wear is men’s fault and patriarchy or whatever, idk. Kinda ironic given that, iirc, it was invented in Scotland.
Somehow men having fewer options than women/been told what to wear is men’s fault and patriarchy or whatever, idk.
The only reason women are allowed to wear pants now is because we demanded it.
It used to be illegal for women to wear pants. Take a wild guess as to who were the ones to make those laws.
There are examples of women in Europe and the US wearing pants long before it was socially acceptable, as writer Kathleen Cooper detailed in The Toast, even though in countries such as the US, England, and France they could actually be jailed for it in the 18th and 19th centuries. Some would dress as men to do things such as join the military. The most famous example was probably 18th-century Englishwoman Hannah Snell, who served for years in the British navy and later become a minor celebrity after revealing that she was a woman. During the US Civil War, Mary Walker, an assistant surgeon with the Union Army, chose pants over skirts (and was once arrested for impersonating a man).
In polite society, though, the fight to make it permissible for women in the US and Europe to wear pants began in earnest in the 1850s, with the women’s rights movement. Feminists were seeking liberation, not just from patriarchal oppression, but from the restrictions of corsets. Though Edwardian and Victorian women had adopted them voluntarily, the undergarments literally made it difficult to move, sometimes even to breathe. Suffragists such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton saw dress reform as part of their battle for rights, and some adopted an alternative outfit in the form of baggy “Turkish” pantaloons worn with a knee-length skirt. In April 1851, Amelia Bloomer, the editor of the first women’s newspaper, The Lily, told her readers about it, and thereafter the pants picked up the nickname bloomers.
The only reason women are allowed to wear pants now is because we demanded it.
Many women are still not allowed to wear pants. Also, bit of a tangent, but is that like an ‘anti-royal we’ or are you old as fuck?
Take a wild guess as to who were the ones to make those laws.
I don’t have to guess, I have relation with people from cultures where it’s not acceptable yet for women to wear whatever they want. It is enforced by their whole community, not only men, and it, the community, also imposes strict rules on how to live for men too.
I didn’t mean it in the sense that there’s no sexism anymore, because there absolutely is. But every time I heard, or read, someone using the word ‘patriarchy’ is to spout some culture-war nonsense that doesn’t help fight sexism at all, quite the opposite—if it has any effect is pushing boys and young men (and some girls and women) that don’t know any better into the arms of conservatism. These lads are not your oppressors, and they have no more say than you or me into how society works, but if you treat them as if they were your enemy many of them will eventually become your enemy.
I feel like it’s most useful to view patriarchy as something that does exist and does generally give men more power, but that doesn’t mean it actually benefits men or even empowers men in every domain. It is to the detriment of all people, male and female, that the distribution of power is weighted towards one sex.
And since people of whatever sex/gender can be harmed by the patriarchy, there is of course no reason to “blame” it on men. Or really, almost anyone.
Is it useful, tho? Whom for? Because I only see it dividing the oppressed people, blaming each others as if they were the oppressors, when they are not. It’s only useful for the real oppressors.
It’s only useful for the real oppressors.
Who are the real oppressors?
Do you want like names or something? They’re the people you’ve voted for (and also the other people in the ballots), the people you’ve worked (or will work) for, people you’ve paid rent to…
Also, bit of a tangent, but is that like an ‘anti-royal we’ or are you old as fuck?
I’m a woman.
It’s the patriarchy that is the reason for these laws. The patriarchy is not synonymous with men and boys. It is the system that upholds strict gender roles for both men and women. The patriarchy is detrimental to men and boys as well.
I don’t have to guess, I have relation with people from cultures where it’s not acceptable yet for women to wear whatever they want. It is enforced by their whole community, not only men, and it, the community, also imposes strict rules on how to live for men too.
Don’t play coy. Those cultures are run by men in positions of power. The law-makers help hold up patriarchal norms.
Even the Wikipedia entry is a good place to try to wrap your head around what the patriarchy actually is instead of erroneously assuming what it is:
Patriarchy is a social system in which positions of authority are primarily held by men. The term patriarchy is used both in anthropology to describe a family or clan controlled by the father or eldest male or group of males, and in feminist theory to describe a broader social structure in which men as a group dominate society.[1][2][3]
Sociologists posit that the process of socialization is predominantly responsible for the establishment of gender roles.[4] They contend that gender roles and gender inequity function as instruments of power and have evolved into social norms that serve to maintain control over women. Patriarchal ideology explains and rationalizes patriarchy by attributing gender inequality to inherent natural differences between men and women, divine commandment, or other fixed structures.[5]
Patriarchy has manifested itself throughout history in the social, legal, political, religious, and economic organization of a range of different cultures.[6] Most contemporary societies are generally patriarchal in practice.[7][8][9]
The patriarchy is not synonymous with men and boys. It is the system that upholds strict gender roles for both men and women. The patriarchy is detrimental to men and boys as well.
It means literally being ‘ruled by the father’. I know languages are living, evolving things, and words’ meanings change and drift, that’s why when we want one to hold its meaning we use dead languages like Ancient Greek. The word that fits that definition is ‘sexism’.
Don’t play coy. Those cultures are run by men in positions of power. The law-makers help hold up patriarchal norms.
I am not, and I’ll give you an example from one of those cultures I’m closer with: in my country gypsies (the Calé people) are a patriarchal culture, in the sense that they have literal ‘patriarchs’, kind of like community leaders with a bit of extra-official power. But in most gypsy families I’ve met it was the women the ones that owned everything: homes, cars, bank accounts… and the keepers and enforcers of some quite barbaric, in my opinion, traditions and rituals (practiced by many, but not all) against women and girls, when they could literally just walk away with everything if they so wanted, they usually don’t legalise the marriages because they don’t trust the payos’ (non-gypsy) laws and system (can’t blame them) so they wouldn’t even have to divorce. But they don’t, and if a young woman strays from tradition they are the first to make her pay. They are as responsible as the men on maintaining the sexism.
I’m a woman.
Ok. I already suspected that. But did you have to demand being able to wear pants? Or are you including yourself with the ones that did it because of a shared (gender) identity? This is just a me thing, but I just find the latter weird, not just for gender but for any other facet of someone identity, probably because I lack the identity part of my brain, or it’s not developed, I think.
It means literally being ‘ruled by the father’. I know languages are living, evolving things, and words’ meanings change and drift, that’s why when we want one to hold its meaning we use dead languages like Ancient Greek. The word that fits that definition is ‘sexism’.
If you’re not going to fully read my replies to you, this is a complete waste of time.
Patriarchy is a social system in which positions of authority are primarily held by men. The term patriarchy is used both in anthropology to describe a family or clan controlled by the father or eldest male or group of males, and in feminist theory to describe a broader social structure in which men as a group dominate society.[1][2][3]
I read your comment fully and carefully. I ain’t no troll, I’m really discussing in good faith and I think that my believes are not very far from yours. I’m saying that equating patriarchy with sexism is just wrong, and has the undesired effects I mention in my previous comment. On that line, also, I don’t agree either with equating feminism with ‘equality’, because it is not, it is the fight to better women’s lives, which is absolutely fine! I’m not an anti-feminist and I don’t think any of that crap that it’s women supremacy or whatever, but it definitely isn’t trying to better men’s position in the matters where they are at a disadvantage, and it doesn’t have to, that’s why it’s called feminism.
Feminist theorist, sociologists, or anthropologists trying to push these meanings, in a totally artificial way, is not helping feminism or equality, it’s pushing people toward sexism and other quite bad -isms.
Feminism is literally the belief that all genders should be treated equally.
feminism noun fem·i·nism ˈfe-mə-ˌni-zəm
: belief in and advocacy of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes expressed especially through organized activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests
Feminism is a range of socio-political movements and ideologies that aim to define and establish the political, economic, personal, and social equality of the sexes.
