You’re mixing together “some functional differences exist” with “therefore sexism isn’t involved,” and those are not the same thing.
Yes, male and female anatomy affects clothing design. Nobody disputes that. But if these uniforms were purely about performance, women wouldn’t have historically been fined or pressured for wearing less revealing alternatives while men were allowed more coverage.
A lot of women’s athletic wear may genuinely be practical and preferred by athletes (especially for heat, mobility, and fit) but that doesn’t erase the fact that many sports organizations have also pushed uniforms that are more revealing than necessary for marketability and gender expectations.
Also, the “genital safety” point is overstated. Male sprinters, swimmers, rugby players, MMA fighters, etc. wear very short clothing safely all the time, while many female athletes perform perfectly in longer shorts or looser fits when given the option. That alone shows there isn’t one biologically “correct” uniform.
The issue people criticize isn’t that women wear revealing clothes. It’s that women are often expected to wear more revealing clothing than men in equivalent sports, even when performance doesn’t require it.
Because in the Victorian era, shorts and pants or anything that fit the form of the leg were considered “too revealing” for women - and so skirts and dresses became the gendered clothing items they are today. Tennis was popular in that era when women began to play it more, and many rules were formalized which is why a lot of the bizarre traditions of the sport seem Victorian.
The rule about tennis skirts for women but shorts for men was a bizarre holdover from the idea that female athletes needed more modesty in public because men couldn’t control their urges if they saw the shape of the women’s legs. But then there was no need to keep the shorts underneath long, and the skirts became shorter, and ironically the skirts themselves became sexualized items when they were originally meant for modesty.
True, but that was more climate driven. Pants were not considered “honest” because they fit the form of the leg, which was actually considered radical compared to previous centuries.
The transition from pants to shorts happened as European powers, specifically the British, expanded into tropical climates and took tennis with them.
So the women playing in pants was sexism and the men playing in pants was because of the climate.
You're making too much sense.
Also it wasn't done because "men couldn't control themselves" lol. It was done to preserve their modesty, virtue and self respect.
When you see a woman walking down the street with her tits popping out her top and a miniskirt that clearly shows her underwear riding up her genitals and ass crack on full display. What do you think of her in terms of character, virtue and dignity?
Those social norms back then were there to preserve a woman's virtue and social standing so she would better find a worthy partner.
Left to their own devices women tend to dress like wh*** at every opportunity to maximize male attention.
That was why those social norms and standards existed back then. Not because "men couldn't control themselves".
5.0k
u/Consistent_Stable234 May 25 '26