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.
post
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.
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)
Lesbians love me lol. Never really been interested in drag. I definitely respect it though. I'd be willing to go if a friend wanted to. I don't have any pretty dresses to try on. I want a maid dress. That would be awesome.
The best tailor i ever had did primarily wedding dresses (on Lamar Street in Austin if they're still around, I just am terrible with names) and I was recommended through a friend getting her dress done. I was actually her first male presenting client (unknowingly going for the twink look at the time) and she altered half my tops. Got them nice and snug.
Which reminds me, I haven't fit into my favorite shirt for years, but if I wear it like so... Gimme a minute my wife is going to be so happy she likes the shirt as much as I do
Edit hot damn I'm wearing it to the jazz festival
Now I just need a good occasion for the kilt that isn't ethnically or sprotsbally oriented. Or lesbian game night because they're too supportive. I'm trying to push myself a little, grow as a person.
i mean they are shorts so i'd imagine they're pretty liable to get uncomfortable, as they're presumably not designed with magnum dongs in mind.
But then again i assume they're generally stretchy so maybe it's fine..
Because wearing an inflatable dinosaur costume would interfere with their range of motion.
It used to be men in skirts and the women stayed home.
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!"
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.
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".
Male gaze. Much like volleyball.
Some males want to wear the skirts too.
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.
[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.
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.
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.
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.
Gee, I don't know. Let's see if that has been said anywhere, shall we?
Sponsorships tell a similar story: men typically get $50,000 annually, while women make about $15,000.
Where does the money come from?
Organisations like FIVB have standardised payouts at major tournaments, but league salaries and endorsement deals remain uneven. Differences will persist until sponsors and broadcasters invest equally.
Why would that this sponsor and broadcaster pay differently?
One of the most significant problems female athletes face has nothing to do with the sport itself. It’s how they’re shown in the media. Far too often, the focus is on their appearance rather than on what they can do. In volleyball, that means more talk about kit choices or body image than actual skill or game stats. It’s frustrating when talent gets pushed aside for appearance.
Would you look at that statement? Maybe there are things beyond the surface level that influence people's decision making at a structural level?
Over the years, coverage has been overly sexualised, which hasn’t helped. That said, social media has started to shift things.
What Women’s Volleyball Tells Us About Equality in Sport
But what the hell do I know. I'm just a sociologist during his coffee break pondering about how invisible things like social constructs alter individual beliefs and decision making. I'll go back to work, bye.
The pay gap between men and women exists in every professional sport and is a separate problem, although I can see your point about how it could influence decision making.
This article also touches on the sexualization of female athletes in general, but at no point is the claim made that women who wear more revealing outfits are given better sponsorships nor is there any testimony from any athlete to back that up or to say they ever made those choices for that reason.
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.
Yes, they are adults. Stop talking about them like they don't exist, or like they are a single homogeneous lump of objects.
It is entirely possible to discuss sociological concepts and political issues without insulting or infantilizing the people who are involved. Screaming “infantilizing” like a parrot is not an argument.
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.
That’s irrelevant.
No it's not. Especially when the initial topic was male gaze.
As 2012 London beach volleyball silver medalist Jennifer Kessy explains it, the two-piece outfits make total sense from a performance perspective: “Our suits need to fit just right so they don’t move places we don’t want them to move. So how about this: Let’s call them competition suits or competition gear — then perhaps it won’t make people uncomfortable or there won’t be a stigma attached.”
As a pro athlete, everyone has a different comfort level with either a bikini or one-piece bathing suit. Playing in a one-piece was never comfortable for me. It was restricting and limited my movements...
It’s totally a personal choice. [A one piece] wasn’t comfortable for me. Way too sweaty and too much sand. But, in certain situations leggings could be a good option — just not in the heat. 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. So it’s important to have the freedom to choose what works best for you. Players should be able to wear what they want and what makes them perform the best — and for me it was a bikini.
Emphasis mine.
https://www.today.com/news/why-do-women-s-beach-volleyball-players-wear-bikinis-today-t226134
I am aware they have options. That has never been in question. But, like your emphasis calls attention to, it's important to have the freedom to choose what works best for you. So in the spirit of that, why are men not allowed the same freedom? Again, if it actually is a blanket improvement to a player's performance like the above person implied, you'd think that men would have adopted a similar outfit.
I don't know. You'd have to take that up with the IOC. Males and females have different body types and maybe it's just not comfortable or practical for males to play volleyball in a banana hammock, or maybe they'd all love to, who knows.
My thesis statement here is that the female athletes who choose to wear bikinis are choosing to of their own free will, and whatever reasoning a person has to wear what they wear is their own business. Though I suspect that at the Olympic level everyone is going to wear what they feel most comfortable and capable in, just like the player interviewed above.
My thesis statement here is that the female athletes who choose to wear bikinis are choosing to of their own free will, and whatever reasoning a person has to wear what they wear is their own business.
Ah, I see. Unfortunately for this conversation, it's never been in question that since 2012 women's beach volleyball players have had the option of several less-revealing outfits. So in light of that, could you please tell me why you felt it was appropriate earlier to insult me when your cited article was evidently provided entirely to address your own thesis, but did not in any way address mine?
I didn't insult you. Somebody else called you a dingus. But anyway here's a bunch of female volleyball players saying "we wear bikinis because we want to, they're more comfortable, etc"
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/
Ah, my apologies - I did not realize someone had lept in for one comment.
And while abstractly interesting, those all continue to not address my thesis. They're addressing yours quite well, though. I applaud you for having such a well supported thesis. I do invite insight on this - perhaps the journal of ergonomics would be a better place to start looking than Business Insider though.
I'm not sure what you're looking for. If it's some kind of scientific paper on the effectiveness of different types of clothing on volleyball performance, you're not gonna find that.
You said you were skeptical of two pieces being better for performance than other clothing. I gave you, from a two minute internet search, a half dozen high-level female volleyball players who have all said they prefer to play in two pieces because of comfort and performance. Comfort itself is an advantage. Do you think that they're wrong?
You said you were skeptical of two pieces being better for performance than other clothing.
Where did I say this? It has never been the question I asked, but it has been the one you've answered and I've repeatedly clarified that it was not my question. It would be nice if that was my question - indeed, I think it even requires far less than two minutes to find an answer to. But it's not my question, nor has it at any point been.
We get it man, you hate bikinis
That's uh. Well, rather demonstrably wrong. On both points.
Damn, I'm not reading the room well, pardon me then
Walks away looking confused and disappointed
(Sorry - It's a reference to my post history. You may need to turn on NSFW photos to get the joke, I know some clients block them by default.)
I'm all for the reason they wear them being exhibitionism (clearly) but that's never been what I've said. They're answering the question "are female beach vollyball players forced to wear bikinis", an easy question to answer and one I've never asked; what I asked was "if they're clearly a performance enhancement, why are the men not wearing them too?" which is a much more difficult thing to get an answer for.
Do you believe that female volleyball players who wear two pieces choose to do so because they feel more comfortable and more capable in that clothing?
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.
The men should wear the short skirts too. I volunteer to be first. I've never played golf though.
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.
my take is that simply dropping "the" from "the patriarchy" does a lot to make it more useful and less uncomfortable to talk about.
It's not some specific thing, people don't have meetings on enforcing The Patriarchy, it's just an effect.
I'm not sure if it's strictly comparable but like, talking about "the democracy" would sound strange, but talking about "democracy" is completely normal.
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?
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.
I'd given you the benefit of doubt but I don't think anymore you are engaging in good faith. I've acknowledged that's the meaning many people give to 'feminism', and said that in my opinion, in practice, it is not, that's just a lie, it is not true at all, and I explained why I think that. And you're just throwing at me your feminist-theory-dictionary definitions at me. That's not discussing, you're not addressing any point I made.
Why do women golf at all? Why do men golf? Why do people chase a ball around a pasture for entertainment? Why would anyone even watch that shit at all?
Because people like things you don't like.
I'm sure there's plenty of people who think your preferred pastime is a complete waste too.
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.
all 100 comments