Beauty, Brawns and the “Acceptable” Female Athlete
Nitya Kakade
SY B.Sc. 2024-28
Reading time: 4-5 minutes
The image of the ideal female body has been shaped by decades of fashion trends and societal expectations. Femininity is often equated with slimness, softness and passivity. Athletes, by contrast, are supposed to be strong and powerful, which begs the question: what happens when a woman’s body is built to win and not to charm?
It is a well known secret that female athletes often have to face lookism and body shaming. For most, this problem starts right from training. Many coaches believe that athletes need to be lean to succeed. These athletes, particularly women, are subjected to negative comments about their bodies and face diet restrictions, public criticism, and punishment when standards are not met. Some sports even have a special focus on thinness. In competitive swimming, for example, many top coaches believe that lower body weight and body fat improve swim times. Female athletes in such sports where weight loss is prioritised are more likely to develop eating disorders.
Athletes who don’t eat enough are at risk for a disorder so commonly observed among female athletes, it is called the female athlete triad. This disorder can lead to conditions like lowering of bone density, absent or irregular menstrual cycles, low energy availability and other health concerns like high cholesterol. For example, female athletes’ risk for bone stress injuries is 4.5 times higher if they don’t eat enough. In addition to physical health issues, people suffering from eating disorders are also at higher risk for mental illnesses like depression, anxiety and body dysmorphic disorder. The toll this has on a person’s health is compounded by the fact that the pressure doesn’t stop at reaching the ideal weight. There is now an entirely new set of criticisms some women have to face for their appearance.
It’s not just fat they have to control; women are also shamed for having a muscular build. For instance, American gymnast Simone Biles opened up about being bullied for her muscular arms in school. Isn’t it counterproductive to criticise an athlete for having prominent muscles, when they are a sign of strength training and clearly improve performance? But apparently a woman’s success in her field is less important than her adherence to traditional femininity. It’s worth noting that traits like strength and competitiveness are seen as masculine, subtly implying that female athletes are somehow unnatural, and their success comes at the cost of womanhood. A modern woman can be strong, but only within narrowly defined boundaries.
On top of this, female athletes are also excessively sexualized. The European Handball Federation faced an uproar on social media in 2021 for fining Norway’s beach handball team 1500 euros for wearing shorts instead of bikini bottoms, stating that it was a case of “improper clothing”, and that shorts were “not according to the Athlete Uniform Regulations defined in the IHF Beach Handball Rules of the Game”. These regulations were said to “help athletes increase their performance, as well as remain coherent with the sportive and attractive image of the sport.” Since the controversy, the International Handball Federation has changed the rules to allow women to wear shorts, as long as they were “short tight pants with a close fit.” It is interesting to note that while women supposedly perform better without the extra fabric, men are expected to wear shorts and no mention is ever made of the shorts’ hindrance to mobility.
A similar argument can be made for many sports. While rules do not always explicitly forbid shorts or leggings for women, they are expected to wear more feminine clothes. The most famous example of this, perhaps, is the catsuit Serena Williams wore to the French Open in May 2018. Her outfit was specifically designed to help her cope with blood clots after a difficult birth not even a year past. The catsuit was subsequently banned, with the Tennis Federation President Bernard Giudicelli saying, “I believe we have sometimes gone too far. You have to respect the game and the place.” However, the rules were changed in December 2019, with the new dress rules saying, “leggings and mid-thigh-length compression shorts may be worn with or without a skirt, shorts, or dress.”
On the other end of the spectrum, women are also judged for being too “suggestive”. In 2019, Brecklynn Willis (who was only 17 years old at the time) was disqualified after winning a swimming competition because her swimsuit had shifted slightly during the race. The referee felt that it looked too revealing. Brecklynn’s mother was infuriated (rightfully) and challenged his decision. And voila! It was overturned the next day, and Brecklynn got her medal back.
Why did the referee notice this in the first place, you may ask? Well, the rule was originally made because students were found intentionally rolling up their uniforms for attention. At the same time, the rules say that a student should be given the benefit of the doubt. This means that unless a contestant is caught rolling up their uniform before entering the water, they should not be disqualified for such a reason. While this rule may be adhered to most of the time, this case proves that unnecessary policing occurs anyway.
These aren’t isolated incidents, whether we’re talking about Norway’s handball team, Serena Williams, or Brecklynn Willis. All these cases point us to the same uncomfortable truth. No matter where a woman goes, she will always be policed for her appearance. Her clothes, her body are treated as subjects of public debate, but not as what they are: part of the job, tools of the sport, or simply irrelevant to the discussion. The scrutiny doesn’t come from a place of genuine concern about sport or safety. It’s rooted in the need to control women, and it seems inescapable no matter which walk of life she is in.
Yet, even in these frustrating stories, there is evidence of resistance. In all three cases, these athletes and their supporters spoke up, and the rules were changed. These victories matter not only for the individuals involved, but also for the message they send; that sporting bodies are not static. They do not exist in a vacuum. They respond, sometimes reluctantly, to pressure and backlash. That responsiveness is a reminder that progress is possible when we acknowledge the problem and push for more.
Progress is not automatic. It must be demanded again and again because every change is met with resistance. And that brings us back to the original question: what happens when a woman’s body is built to win and not to charm? The answer, right now, is that winning comes at a cost. The cost of constantly defending the legitimacy of her body and explaining over and over that clothing is not an invitation. When we stop demanding that female athletes dilute their strength to fit a narrow standard of beauty, we let the game speak for itself. As long as we keep pushing boundaries and speaking up, the game will keep changing for the better.