Badminton World Federation orders female players to wear skirts
By Jessica GentileMay 27th, 2011, 12:45 pmComments (28)
Because shuttlecocks aren't hot enough, the sport of badminton wants to sex up its image. As of Wednesday, The Badminton World Federation will implement a new dress code that requires all female players to play in skirts, in order to create a more "attractive presentation." Many women currently wear shorts or track pants, but after the Federation consulted with a marketing firm it was decided that players should look more feminine to attract greater numbers of fans and sponsors. But hey, at least they can keep their shorts on under the skimpy skirts.
Officials are claiming these new wardrobe guidelines aren't sexist. According to an interview in The New York Times:
"We're not trying to use sex to promote the sport," said Paisan Rangsikitpho, an American who is deputy president of the Badminton World Federation, which is based in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. "We just want them to look feminine and have a nice presentation so women will be more popular."
Um, sounds like poor Mr. Rangsikitpho is a little confused. Using women's looks, especially when you're forcing them to conform to a rigid notion of femininity, is using sex to sell your sport, especially when their athletic ability is being completely overlooked in the process. Let us know when they're ordering men to play in Speedos.
Commentarium (28 Comments)
Absolutely ridiculous. Make it fair -- make the men play without shirts.
Most insidious misinterpretation of "equal rights" feminism. Men and women ARE different.
https://googledisappointsme.blogspot.com/
man, let me guess, still no gf? This "marketing campaign" is pure sexism, and you're just too busy being a sexist fuck to acknowledge the obvious.
You make it sound that looking attractive is purely sexually motivated. I'm pretty sure that people are psychologically inclined to look at attractive people more favorably than frumpy or otherwise un-enticing people. This is basic marketing; there are many studies to affirm this line of reasoning. For example: a well dressed child will be looked upon more favorably by most people than one that's exhibiting an appearance of poverty. This isn't sexual appeal: it's just appeal. Maybe class appeal? I think the goal of BWF is to aesthetically align competitive Badminton with Tennis (since they are both racket-based) where the majority of female players wear skirts out of tradition. The more they can market the sport, the more sponsors they can get, the better off the players are, and more and more new players become interested in the sport.
Do women find it immediately degrading to wear a skirt (I know nobody can speak for all women, I'm phrasing rhetorically)? Is it degrading because some men find skirts more attractive? Because some men prefer women in pants. Or are womenfolk reading it as a symbol of past oppression? In India, a majority of men wear skirts on a daily basis. They're not called skirts, but they're effectively the same thing. And they're out doing all the same man-stuff that men-that-wear-pants do. So, I don't see any functional issue with wearing a skirt... just a group of people that consider any and all aspects of traditional clothing choices and heteronormativity to be sexist. It's just marketing. Not a treatise on the genders of man.
Good post. Feminism and Ur-feminist ideas have made a laughing stock out of our progressive society.
Women find it immediately degrading to be to told we must wear a skirt. Because we're girls. And girls wear skirts. Bleh.
Good point! But the rule applies only to the athletes that have potential televised appearances, not to all women that participate in the sport. Which is to say, women that have to represent the image of the sport, not just play it, have a more rigorous standard of dress. Most workplaces have a dress code, many schools as well. Does the BWF not have a right to manage the image of its sport? The Men's sport isn't suffering from comparative ratings failure... If they were, perhaps they, too, would have to resort to dress code appeal. Actually, I think a lot of classist institutions maintain stricter standard of dress and gender roles. I also think Badminton is trying to align itself with Tennis, which is perhaps the most classist sport. So yes, I agree that forcing women athletes to dress a certain way is unfortunate, but in this case I think the motivation is more classist than sexist. This appears to be the best way the BWF can figure out to increase the appeal of the sport. I certainly can't think of any better ideas. Can you?
Unless it's functional clothing, the only "image" athletes have to portray is the one they signed on to with their sponsors. You're assuming these people must have a good reason for enforcing a dress code, but search your feelings because they don't. Like I said below, forced feminized and superfluous dress codes ruin sports.
The point I'm trying to make is that this is a business decision, not an ideological one. I'm not sure where you get the notion that athletes don't have to answer to the governing bodies of their sport for their conduct and attire. Here is an example from the NBA:
https://www.nba.com/news/player_dress_code_051017.html
As you can see, players are required to dress and behave as per the guidelines set forth by the NBA, those found in non-compliance will be forced to pay a fine. In the Women's Badminton Dress Code, players are allowed to wear shorts or pants underneath the skirt and the skirt does not have to be miniature. Clearly they are focusing on changing the most superficial elements of their appearance for marketing purposes.
I'm not assuming that "these people" have a good reason for implementing the dress code, I read the statements of the organization and its motivations appear consistent with what should be considered a business decision. Do you honestly believe that the people in charge of this sport don't run it with their best intentions?
But the "feminine" ideal is not a sporty one. Traditionally (at least in American culture) men were supposed to be the athletic ones, not women. And short skirts weren't worn until the 1950s or 60s. Before that they were taboo, and only highly-modest, long skirts (which did significantly impede physical activity) were tolerated. When Rangsikitpho said he wants women to wear skirts so they'll be more popular, he's talking about /popular to men/.
completely was actually spot on, because if men's badminton cared at all about making the men more popular to women, they'd ask the men to play shirtless. Women actually get turned on by men's bodies, believe it or not. But the truth is, the people in charge here only care about what male viewers think. It may be a money-making strategy, but it's ALSO sexist. Money before ideals.
I appreciate your thoughtful response.
...But! I still have to disagree. First, the sport of Badminton appears to be primarily growing in India and East Asia, so I'm not sure how extensively Western expectations apply in respect to gender roles. Actually, if you go by East and South Asian standards, pants never took off for anybody until well after European colonials arrived. Even then, you'll still see a lot of skirt-wearing men in South and Southeast Asia. The samurai skirt and pants-less Chinese robes have gone by the wayside in East Asia, but I think the rapid adoption of pants had more to do with the coldness of the climate than a celebration of masculine identity. However, in Japan, I will say that the skirt has become a completely feminized symbol (during and after American Reconstruction), but, I digress. (I wonder if people in these countries see it as a flagrant attempt to Westernize people's appearances? Hmm...)
Sure, having the female players wear skirts may make them more attractive to male viewers, but are you sure it wouldn't also make them more attractive to female viewers? The girls I know judge other girls much more harshly upon their appearance then the guys I know–most of the girls I know don't appreciate female athleticism because they come off as "dykes"; not that this is representative of all guys/girls (and I acknowledge that they are close-minded, I happen to love the athletic female form), and I understand that this is anecdotal but I think it brings up a point worth considering: is a girl not allowed to appreciate any historical feminine ideals without being seen as espousing antiquated gender roles? I've seen that Asian women are much more concerned than the typical Western woman in appearing or behaving feminine. Not that I consider this the healthiest approach to gender identity, but also I don't think there is a single athletic ideal or gender ideal that has to be espoused by all sporting institutions. Can girls not want to be both pretty and athletic? Don't you consider that to be a false dichotomy? Wasn't Kim Possible an extracurricular cheerleader? Why should that been seen as inferior?
I think, demographically, Badminton has limited appeal to people interested in "hard" contact sports like football/soccer/basketball but high appeal to people that appreciate a "softer" lifestyle. Golf and Tennis may occupy similar sporting niches. It makes business sense that the BWF would try to co-opt the appearance of their demographic to generates an aesthetic inroad and form a community around the sport. The article states that the ratings are bottoming out for /Women's/ Badminton, and I'm sure they hired some marketing consultants to see what they could do to reverse this trend. So, you are correct: money before ideals.
blah blah blah. Your whole spiel about women being more attracted to girly women than dykes (or athletic women) is homophobic at best. Shame.
I was merely recounting exchanges I've had with actual women. I acknowledged the close-mindedness of their statements and was not referring to sexual attraction. Simply that there are women that can appreciate other women for being feminine–not sexually, just appreciate them for what they are: women. Such women make up a large demographic of women, women that BWF would likely like to include in their viewership. Presentability is a strong component of solidarity in many groups of people, female or otherwise (i.e. sororities, community service organizations, religious associations). As such, they might be more enthused about a sport that affords a more manicured appearance. If the alternative is insolvency, what's the harm in trying something that might make the appearance of the game more appealing to more people?
I am not homophobic. You are Straw-Manning my position. Perhaps I could have further clarified that such words were not mine in the paragraph and that I was using the term connotatively; but, AT, I think it's more likely that you are just a judgmental troll that's too self-absorbed to acknowledge the relevance of observations outside of your personal world view.
I'm a woman, and I'm very confident that /female Badminton viewers/ on the whole don't care whether the women wear shorts or skirts. If you were marketing to female fashion designers, pom pom dancers, or certain other demographics perhaps, but not female sports fans (or most women, I think for that matter).
And again, if they cared about what female viewers though, they would have male Badminton players play shirtless. I guarantee you there are more women who'd rather watch men shirtless, than women in skirts.
atl, but short skirts doesn't make the appearance of the game more appealing to more people, unless by more people you mean sexist men (is "sexist men" redundant?). Also, I strongly suspect that the "girly women" you so eagerly quote are also not as inclined to watch sports, seeing how sports-watching is marketed by and large to dudes (if a girl wants to stay girly, she's well advised to not show too much interest in sports - except for yoga and pilates of course, but those are not "real" sports etc - and spend larges amounts of time and money in making herself a drag queen... er, I mean, a girly girl).
Your whole argument is filled with hot air and your grammatical usage of full sentences doesn't make it less so.
p.s. you sure sound like a homophobe (or at least a lesbophobe; no, those women in porn are not real lesbians). You seem to strongly long for a time when men were real men and women were real women and small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri were real small creatures from Alpha Centauri.
Thank you, again, for your thoughtful response, nn.
I agree with your point that current female Badminton viewers would not care too much about the attire of their athletes. I also agree with your point that female fashion designers, pom pom dancers (and perhaps, country clubbers?) may find the more sport more appealing if the athletes had a more formalized appearance. That said, expanding viewership was the point of the BWF setting a dress code in the first place, wasn't it? So, aren't we on the same page? Also, I think Women's Badminton and Men's Badminton are separate events: increasing the ratings for Men's (by making them play shirtless, haha) would still leave the ratings for the Women's, unfortunately, in the toilet. Having the Men's sport financially prop up the Women's sport seems both unsustainable in a business sense, but perhaps more insidious than a dress code in the egalitarian sense in that the Women's sport will never have a chance define its own place in the sporting world. Most companies just drop net liabilities, don't they? By improving their marketing position, aren't they trying to turn a financial liability into an asset? Thereby allowing Women's Badminton to define itself in the marketplace instead of limping along, tethered to the Men's sport, perhaps forever?
AT... shifting from a Straw Man position to an ad hominem attack doesn't make your argument any more credible. I don't think any of my statements say anything about my position on gender politics or are at all defamatory to homosexuals, let alone imply any "long[ing]" on my part for a time gone past. Once again, I'm not homophobic, the word "dyke" is used by female friends of mine, lesbian and straight, to refer to other women, lesbian and straight, of more masculine persuasion. Since I'm not a lesbian myself, you're correct, I should be more careful in my usage of language co-opted by the lesbian community. Which is why I placed it in quotation marks and indicated that the words were not mine. I also go to clarify that I personally appreciate the athletic female form. Perhaps it was incorrect of me to assume most Hooksexup readers would not see that as an attack on sexuality and merely an attempt to define an appearance. Furthermore, you're not actually arguing any of my points, just making blandishments that what I say is "hot air" or "blah blah blah," which leads me to believe you're not actually reading what I say. I've already explained in my first comment why I think wearing skirts isn't necessarily appealing just to men or all men, also the rule allows for the players to wear shorts or pants underneath the skirt and doesn't require the skirt to be a mini-skirt. The women I quote are not "girly women," they are just women; I'm not sure I understand why you are being so condescending, let alone hostile.
Because you're sexist in your relentless and misguided efforts to justify a sexist (misogynistic, rather) sports-decision, that's not even about sports but about sexism, this is why I am hostile. Any other stupid questions?
Also, your ideas about getting women's sports on par with men's sports are missing the mark. This decision to make women even more visibly the sex-class by wearing really short skirts is simply a misguided attempt to solve the symptom of the problem. The Problem is not that women athletes get fewer spectators than men athletes, but that women are discriminated against in sports since day 1, by being provided with fewer resources and facilities, for example (Title IX happened for a reason). That is the problem and it most definitely won't be solved by forcing women athletes to dress in skimpy clothes.
Also, don't you think it's about time chess - and a variety of other sports - stopped being sex-segregated? Also, would you suggest that female chess players be required to wear skimpy clothes when they play against the male opponents?
First you accuse me of homophobia, now of sexism. I suppose you feel justified in saying so because I think this maneuver by the BWF is a classist marketing appeal, not a sexist denigration of female athletes. Once again, you're not arguing my points, you're attacking a baseless fabrication of my character.
At no point do I say that "Women's [Badminton]" should be "on par" with "Men's sports", whatever that entails. I surmise to say that a product should be financially solvent if it's expected to survive in the marketplace. If you actually read the dress code, or my previous comments, you would know that the female players can wear shorts or pants beneath their skirts and the skirts themselves don't have to be "skimpy" or "short". Your formulation of "The Problem" is incorrect because as far things that directly affect the BWF, the lack of viewership is the primary force holding the sport back; meaning the ratings problem is something the BWF can actually address, while your gender discrimination for training facilities problem is not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_World_Chess_Championship
If you read the article you will see that the World Chess Championship is integrated. The top-ranked female player for the past 20 years has never played in the Women's Championship, neither do a plurality of high-ranking women's players: they only play in the (Integrated) World Chess Championship. Clearly, the existence of the Women's Championship is to encourage more women to play Chess competitively since they are overwhelmed by the number of men and as a result are not very visible in the (Integrated) World Chess Championship.
How do you constantly mistake outreach for misogyny? This is the danger of making your mind before you comprehend the facts.
As for the sex-unification of other sports, you're going to have to be more specific. I really don't think integrating the NBA and WNBA would end well for the majority of Women's players. Are you saying, in general, that Women's athletes /are/ in every way the same as Male athletes? Because I hope you realize you're robbing the Women's athletes of their own gender identity by saying so.
Nevertheless, recasting the argument away from a proactive decision by the BWF to curb their ratings decline to a vague declamation about global state of women's affairs proves that you have nothing of substance to say about the actual subject.
At this point, I think you're just dogmatizing on the fumes of your wounded pride.
I am comprehending the facts, sir, which facts are that the bozos from the Badminton Federation (like the vast majority of the world of sports) are Still Actively Discriminating against their women athletes. Their "business" decision is a sexist one.
I do not comprehend, however, why you find it valuable to spend your time defending these various sexist practices.
Besides, those shorts are horrendous. Ladies, surely you must agree at least to this.
https://googledisappointsme.blogspot.com/
Look at what this sort of marketing did to women's beach volleyball! Now we have a sport where athletic and often masculine women are being forced into bikinis they constantly have to adjust and look ridiculous in that nobody can respect anymore.
Nobody can respect? Really? I don't personally find anything disreputable about Beach Volleyball players. I think compared to most athletes, they appear rather pleasant. It's not their fault Beach Volleyball is built around an image that can pull in more marketing dollars than the sport itself. I also don't think they need to be ashamed of showing their bodies so prudes like you can feel better about their antiquated notions of womanhood. If they are complicit in this branding, maybe it's because they'd rather be playing Beach Volleyball in a bikini than not at all. Just because the sport appeals to a voyeuristic demographic and makes money doing it, doesn't mean the athletes have to be slut-shamed. I'm pretty sure most of them do it because they love the game, not necessarily the attention. Yet they need the attention to keep the money flowing, don't they?
If the dynamics of the current state of the business disgust you so deeply, get with a group of friends and found your own professional volleyball association. It'll cost you several million dollars, but if you plead your case to corporate backers, banks may be willing to meet you halfway. Then you can take your own league to the market and directly compete with the misogynistic abomination that is Beach Volleyball and allow the athletes to wear /whatever/ they want. And then, you too can compete for advertising dollars to maintain your sport and pay back your loans. I wonder who'll win the ratings war?
S's comment demonstrates pretty nicely how sexism is mainstream in the way female athletes are looked at. In beachvolleyball the fivb rules even state a maximum height of 7 cm on the sides for female athletes' briefs. Of course this is sexist.
Yep. Sports are still largely a bastion of misogyny.
Why do pro athletes, especially those who command some advertising dollars, put up with this?
The Williams sisters tried not to put up with all that crap and then everybody started feeling "comfortable" calling them all kinds of names in public re: their appearance.
They put up with it for the same reasons lesbian and gay athletes "choose" to stay in the closet, because of a perceived (or real) sense of powerlessness about being able to fight a whole Big Mean Machine by themselves. And in between time it takes to train and do business, there is little time left over to organize with other athletes and put up a strike or whatever. I think that fact that we heard about this badminton thing is proof that some athletes are trying to do something about it.