Ok but like, how is it any better to force them to wear skimpy bikinis they don't want to wear? Is it not better for the regulating body to offer choice to everyone, rather than enforcing coverage or non-coverage that will inevitably upset someone?

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I think you misread. The commenter said no choice is bad in general.

[–] shuzuko@midwest.social 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

The commenter I replied to said, "when there isn't a choice, it's repression". This goes the other way, too. When the volleyball teams didn't have the choice to cover up because the regulating body enforced "less than 10cm coverage" - which is a fact, this is a thing they did until recently - it's just as bad. No woman should be forced to wear more or less clothing than they want. My comment was specifically in reference to the change in rules by the governing body allowing teams to come to their own decisions regarding appropriate uniform. Will some teams enforce regulations that are also bad? Yes, but progress is progress. A smaller group of people being forced to follow shitty regulations is always better than a huge group of people being forced to follow shitty regulations. That individual teams do not allow choice in no way undermines the progress of the regulating body.

[–] discount_door_garlic@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I'm not saying that all the women need to wear 'skimpy bikinis', I'm just making the point that the teams that are wearing the 'sport hijab' aren't doing it because they have any kind of freedom, but because there is enormous societal pressure and political/legal/religious oppression, that extends beyond the games into their daily lives. Calling that 'freedom' is unreasonable, because the choice is either 'wear these specific clothes (men-excluded) or face social outcast/death'

I completely agree that the frequent sexualisation of women's sporting outfits is something which is still shitty and I'm not defending the objectification of talented athletes who want to be seen as skilled, rather than oggled for their body - but claiming that because the voluntary admission sports-team outfit is more revealing than necessary, doesn't mean the athletes were forced into wearing it, and in the broader society, people in those same countries actually have the freedom to wear whatever they please, whether it's 'skimpy' or not.

Sure, the women on the western team are perhaps pressured into the bikinis from decades of objectification and commercial sex-appeal underwriting womens sports, but in their daily lives outside, they aren't beholden to a religious dress code, and consequently have much more 'freedom'. The argument can also be made that even though the 'skimpy' outfits are objectifying, the athletes would have known what the prevailing dress code at the sport was before they signed up, and were 'okay' with it - at least to the extent that they still participated.

well nobody is forcing anybody to wear anything in the western countries - the huge difference is that outside of the sporting environment, women can choose to wear or not wear 'skimpy bikinis' - but in a sharia observant country, there is no such allowance made, so the sports team outfit actually is indicative of the dress standards forced upon women and expected by society.

[–] shuzuko@midwest.social 1 points 2 months ago

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm talking about the change in the regulating body now allowing the teams, or at least the countries sponsoring them, to make their own choices. It used to be that the regulating body enforced skimpy bikinis, and now they don't. That's progress. Individual teams using that choice to be shitty in no way undermines that progress. Less people being forced to do or wear things against their will, better judgement, or desire is always better, even if there's still progress to be made.

And this is tangential and I don't really wish to get into an argument over it, but I have to point out that the logic of "well they knew what they were getting into so they by default consented to it" is really fucking terrible logic. Here, make the choice between being objectified so you can continue competing, or give up your dreams to maintain your dignity! What the fuck kind of choice is that? That's coercion hiding behind choice. That's one step below "have sex with me or you're fired". Fuck that noise.