Abby Kinchy (and Assistant Professor at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute) and Emily Birch sent us another example of the pressure put on female athletes to be not just amazing at their sports, but attractive while doing it. The New York Times ran an article about changes in the Badminton World Federation’s required dress code for players. The BWF issued guidelines that sought to “ensure attractive presentation” at tournaments. They also insisted on reinforcing gender differences; women players “must wear skirts or dresses.” The policy, initially intended to be implemented by May 1st, said it was acceptable to wear shorts or tracksuit pants under a skirt “where cultural or religious sensitivities require legs to be covered.” However, the guidelines stressed that it was not acceptable to wear a sheer skirt over the shorts or pants, and was absolutely unacceptable to wear shorts or pants alone.
The dress code was roundly criticized as a sexist marketing ploy that might hamper some players’ performance. While the Iranian players would be able to continue wearing their long pants, they would have to wear a skirt over them — which, as the NYT article points out, could be cumbersome and restrictive, putting some players in the position of having to accept potentially negative effects on their performance in return for being allowed to wear shorts or pants.
The BWF argued that this was for women’s players’ own good, since it would bring more attention to the sport, pointing out that they recently increased the prize money for women’s tournaments to be equal to men’s and added women’s competitions to be sure men and women have the same options for participation. The argument seemed to be that they are trying to make women’s badminton more popular, and thus the least the women can do is play their part — which means not just being excellent players, but looking more attractive to viewers.
However, as some players and other critics pointed out, the concern with using dress code to enhance the popularity of the sport seemed to fall disproportionately on women, and seemed to focus primarily on making women conform to ideals of femininity:
Interest is declining, Rangsikitpho said, adding that some women compete in oversize shorts and long pants and appear “baggy, almost like men.”
[From NYT.]
The dress code for men, on the other hand, simply requires “proper attire.”
After all the criticism, the BWF delayed implementation of the rules for a month to provide time for more discussion. Finally, in late May, they put off implementation indefinitely.
Though the dress code is on hold for the moment, it’s a great example of the way that concerns about appearance may trump functionality when it comes to women’s sports. In addition, it shows how a particular version of femininity — one that involves showing significant amounts of skin and that accepts skirts and dresses as default women’s clothing — is elevated as the ideal presentation. The fact that many badminton players have cultural or religious reasons to want (or have) to wear pants to play doesn’t require rethinking standards of femininity, but only a work-around that still upholds the ideal by requiring a skirt over pants.
Gwen Sharp is an associate professor of sociology at Nevada State College. You can follow her on Twitter at @gwensharpnv.
Comments 54
HP — June 13, 2011
It's also interesting to note that, with the exception of Denmark, modern competitive badminton is for all practical purposes limited to Asia (wiki lists Indonesia, South Korea, China, and Malaysia as the top badminton nations).
And in those countries, the "skirts for women" ideal does not represent so much "traditional" femininity, as it does represent Western influence.
It is hard not to detect the strong odor of imperialism beneath the stench of sexism.
Forsythia — June 13, 2011
FIFA has been imposing its own hate on women from Iran. Instead of asking "what difference does it make if they wear their traditional headscarves", they keep changing their mind on how they can oppress women beaten down by an oppressive country even further.
Amadi — June 13, 2011
I'm reminded that the organization that regulates beach volleyball requires that female participants' bikini bottoms may not be even 3 inches at the hip. (7 cm or roughly 2.75 inches is the standard.) Women can wear a one piece suit, but most don't. Male participants, on the other hand, wear mid-thigh length shorts and sleeveless t-shirts.
A — June 13, 2011
Absolutely repulsive. I don't even have words. The skirt-over-pants thing is completely absurd.
@HP - I was wondering the same thing. In this case, Muslim women specifically are inconvenienced, more so than players with no religious restrictions against skirts. Sounds like Western imperialism to me.
I also keep hearing about possible WMBA uniform changes in the interest of "visibility". Ugh.
macgirlver — June 13, 2011
This one annoyed me for the WTA recently: http://sport.be.msn.com/kimclijsters/eng/nieuws/?Article_ID=514194&utm_source=www.kimclijsters.be-ENG&utm_campaign=sportbe_rss&utm_medium=rss
The promo tag for the tour is 'strong is beautiful', feminising tennis as a target for objectification rather than skill watching. We don't see male players framed this way. And why after all this time do we not see female players in shorts, instead of having to stuff tennis balls up their underwear? [sigh]
Simetra — June 13, 2011
Forced objectification. I feel sorry for the players. Do you continue to pursue your passion knowing that they're using your body to sell tickets?
lc — June 13, 2011
Ugh, it's even worse than the anti-Muslim new soccer rules:
"Soccer-Iran women's Olympic dream crushed by dress code ruling" - http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/06/soccer-olympics-iran-idUSLDE75518A20110606
Something — June 13, 2011
I used to play hockey in primary and intermediate school and loved it. But as soon as I got to high school, and saw that the hockey uniforms would have required me to wear a skirt, I quit.
Malcolm — June 13, 2011
I don't think it's *just* forced objectification. I think an important component here is the maintenance of gender divisions. Note the 'almost like men' in that quote.
The usual way in which women's athletics are derided- if it's not on the basis of the lack of seriousness of the competition and performance- is in reference to the degree of perceived androgyny of competitors. There's been a long series of posts on this website having to do with the ways in which promotional materials for women's athletics tend to play up the femininity of the athletes in order to compensate for their participation in a very unladylike set of activities and the masculine associations with spending so much of one's time and energy in strenuous physical competition.
It's telling that the particular way in which the femaleness of the badminton competitiors is stressed is so geared towards Western conceptions of femininity. One would think, in the case of competitors from Muslim countries, that adherence to hijab would be a sufficient way of marking gender, but I guess not. I can't help but see a parallel here with the tendency in the US to stereotype butch Soviet female athletes as trans/intersexed- maybe this stress on adopting Western norms of femininity is an attempt to compensate for the tendency to view non-Western-European women as not really women?
Anonymous — June 14, 2011
I can't begin to describe how much I HATE gender-based dress codes.
JJ — June 14, 2011
Well, not all sport organizations are like that... I hope.
AFAIK there wasn't anything like this for the FIFA Women teams, so perhaps it depends on the sport?
Nijuro — June 14, 2011
But the Iranian women still insist on wearing headscarves.
Damon — June 14, 2011
Wait, men's badminton isn't popular either. Are they going to start requiring men to play shirtless to drum up viewers?
Quijotesca — June 14, 2011
The X placement on the shorter of the shorts is so bad that I thought it was a skirt and we were dealing with a situation where women were forced to wear bikinis like in beach volley ball or something.
Nijuro — June 15, 2011
@ Lynne
I don't have a problem with personal philosophy. That excludes religion, being that religion is something regularly indoctrinated into people from an early age. Religion is like child circumcision in that way, so it's no surprise the two have a history together, but circumcision can't be taken back. Religion can be cast off, as it should, allowing people to discover for themselves what they believe in selectively.
I don't believe many people wearing headscarves are doing so because the decision was left up to them. That is something well worth scrutinizing. Religious division creates the illusion that I am an outsider looking at a mysterious and exotic culture to you. I think this is patronizing to the culture in question and another inherent problem I have with religions. That Iranian woman and I are both human beings. We are both equals.
wtf?!?!? — June 16, 2011
What the hell kind of sexist shit is THIS?!?! Oh My God. I am flabbergasted. Wearing a skirt over a regular outfit - well that pretty much sums up this debate doesn't it? Oh, you're able to compete and kick ass in clothes that are sensible to wear for this sport - but wait! You have to put a SKIRT on top of that to show the viewers at home how sexy and attractive and interesting you are. Because a skirt gets the blood pumping and reminds everyone what a sexy sex symbol you are and must be to get people to pay attention to you.
What pieces of SHIT! Seriously!
G — July 4, 2011
I totally agree. Making women wear revealing "feminine" outfits just reinforces female stereotyping that women have to not only be good at their sport, but look good while men can just be good at their sport. Perhaps the real reason is to make female badminton players into sexual objects, much like how professional and college volleyball forces their women players to wear skimpy shorts or bikinis, to show off their bodies. And, of course, that other real reason is to increase ratings and attendance, so that professional badminton can get more money. It is sad how everything comes down to money as if money were the only important thing in the world.
But this idea of restrictions on female fashion as making them look presentable, is also apparent in what women wear in professional tennis. Look at all the attention paid to what the Williams sisters wear.
But there are other examples of where men are restricted in terms of dress and women are not. I live near a private college where the dress code for women is very liberal and they can pretty much wear whatever they want, but not for men. Male students are required to have short hair, no beards (mustaches are okay), and cannot wear any sort of jewelry (no earrings, no piercings), no shorts, etc. In other words, the dress code reinforces traditional masculinity in men students while letting women students have more freedom. I saw similar things in the local public school district, where boys were forced to be masculine in their attire, but girls could be androgynous (assuming that wearing pants is androgynous).
That Joan Ryan article from '98 keeps coming to mind . . .
Kristin — July 5, 2011
Comments on BWF's ongoing debate can be submitted here:
http://www.bwfbadminton.org/form.aspx?id=2993
Soft Revolution » Blog Archive » Grassroots Internet Revolution — September 8, 2011
[...] Femininity and the Proposed Badminton Dress Code su Sociological [...]
Women Boxers Advised To Wear Skirts : Ms Magazine Blog — November 3, 2011
[...] Earlier this year they tried this with badminton, but it didn’t take. [...]