Female representation in sports through the lens of fashion and uniformity.
Human bodies are dressed bodies, and our social world is a place where dress seems to follow the rules. The public arena often requires one’s attire to align with the norms and standards of its environment. Even choosing to resist these rules means acknowledging their presence.
In this essay, I explore the role of uniforms both within and outside of sports culture and how it is implemented by a male influenced gaze. I examine how the fashion industry reinforces stereotypes through dress, impacting the representation of women in sports marketing and influencing how women dress.
Fashion can be seen as the bridge between a range of systems that produce garments for different markets. It is a business and a socio-cultural phenomenon that thrives on shaping and selling identities—allowing individuals to construct and perform versions of themselves. Creating the idea that you can buy yourself into anything you want.
But with this process comes a lot of presumptions and stereotypes as well, and uniforms often rely on these to convey certain messages. They can represent conformity, discipline and a collective identity. Used to signify the belonging to a group, whether in military settings, workplaces, schools, or other institutions. Uniformity is where the lack of diversity or variation is an endgoal.
This plays a vital role in the world of sports, where a uniform signifies that inviduals are part of a team, creating a shared identity over an individual one.[1] But the uniform can contradict its own objectivity by reinforcing stereotypical (gender) norms, especially for women. A uniform might emphasize femininity in ways that align with societal expectations—such as tight-fitting or revealing designs that emphasize the female figure—or use colors and styles traditionally associated with women, subtly promoting stereotypical ideas about gender.
The sports archive lacks female representation, as sports have long been associated with stereotypical masculine identities—strength, aggression, and dominance. Uniforms reinforce these ideals, essential for team recognition and fostering unity, while promoting a common identity among athletes. However, female uniforms have often been categorized separately, shaped by the male gaze. Marketing for women's sports often tries to contrast with masculinity by using pastel colors and fitted designs, which reinforce gender stereotypes and can lead to objectification.
FASHION AND FEMINITY
Fashion is often seen as a female domain, deeply tied to cultural and historical expectations of femininity. Historically, women's knowledge of garment-making and textiles reinforced their roles as ‘ladies’ and ‘suitable wives’ within a male-dominated economy. The connection between women and fashion is both direct and symbolic, establishing them as the primary consumer in fashion while simultaneously exposing them to ongoing objectiving based on their appearance in everyday situations.
Distinct fashion expectations for men and women highlight our deeply rooted ideas of sex and gender, which are shaped by heteronormative assumptions and social structures. Garments often signal the wearer's gender at first glance, reinforcing roles and behaviors associated with the perceived biological sex.[2] But garments do more than reveal bodies, they add layers of cultural and social meaning that feel inseparable from the body itself. Fashion is never neutral—it constructs messages that influence how we see ourselves and others.[3] The link between specific garments and concepts of ‘femininity’ or ‘masculinity’ is culturally determined, varying across societies.
Since the 19th century, women have used fashion for self-expression and transformation, while male fashion has been more conservative, often associated with stability and less fantasy. In the 19th century, women's fashion evolved from the simple, high-waisted dresses of the Regency era to the full skirts and crinolines of the mid-century, and finally to the bustles and tightly corseted hourglass shapes of the late Victorian era. Dresses became increasingly structured and ornate, with silhouettes that emphasized modesty and femininity.[4] This aligns with an older moral view of fashion that reinforces vanity stereotypes of women as being more invested in their appearance.
Yet separating fashion into gender ignores the reality that fashion is always relational: both reflect and respond to each other and broader societal views. The way we dress is naturally linked to the act of being perceived and judged by others. Garments play a role in a history of transformation and changing social identities. Dirk Lauwert refers to dressing as the creation of a dividing line between the private, intimate version of oneself to the public and presented version. [1] Meaning that by putting on certain garments, it exhilarates our inner self to a new self. And as fashion is an industry constantly driven on newness, it seems to bite into this process by marketing garments as such; new identities. Linking expectations, gender, and fashion reveals that while fashion creates an identity that communicates one's self to the outside world, it also imposes different rules and expectations based on gender, shaping how individuals express themselves. For example ‘she wears the trousers’ – is used to descibe a dominant woman in a relationship who has acquired characteristics normally associated with men. Here ‘trousers’ signify ‘male’ and ‘masculine’. Here gender expectations are in close relation to the possible hidden meanings of garments. Even in the absence of the gender wearing them, trousers are seen as masculine. Even though garments need people to give them meaning, apparantly they continue producing meaning even without a human body under them.
When we describe fashion as a female-centric domain, it’s largely due to branding that positions women as primary consumers, rooted in a history that ties appearance to femininity. However, masculine influence is present in the creation, marketing, and sale of fashion, affecting the identities that fashion promotes. This can frame a paradox: while fashion is marketed as feminine, its structures and power dynamics are overwhelmingly masculine. In visual culture, women have been objectified for centuries, with fashion images often produced and consumed through a masculine lens. Men are positioned as viewers, and women as the viewed, reinforcing a fashion industry—and society—shaped by and responsive to the male gaze.[2] Garments are actually just objects, made out of textile or any other material. But we treat them as emotional human beings, that we can like or not like based on their visual identity. The effect of this lays in how we then proceed to interact with each other based on our (collaborative) assumptions.
A MAN’S CLUB
There is a clear distinction in how male and female bodies have been treated. Particularly regarding their productive (economic, labor-related) and reproductive (childbearing) roles. These roles have historically influenced how men and women are viewed and what is expected of their bodies. Which is to say affects the male dominant culture of sports and how gender roles within have been just as divided.
Hegemonic masculinity is the dominant, idealized form of masculinity that emphasizes traits like toughness, authority, and control. It upholds male dominance over women and subordinates other forms of masculinity. This concept, developed by sociologist R.W. Connell, is said to supports patriarchy by reinforcing gender inequality. Connell argues that society enforces hegemonic masculinity through cultural ‘policing,’ such as idealizing aggressive, dominant male figures, even if they’re not typical traits in most men. [3] This system perpetuates masculine stereotypes, allowing sectors like sports to profit from these standards, while women are left to ‘run like girls’—a phrase that underscores how societal expectations often diminish their athleticism and potential.
Even though women have participated in sports historically, their involvement has often been minimized or limited by social structures. There has not been a time or place where women have been welcomed into sports with open arms.While ancient women, such as those in Spartan or Indigenous groups, did engage in some athletic activities (albeit with restrictions), the Victorian era imposed societal norms that discouraged women from participating in sports altogether. It was suggested that athletic activity would harm their reproductive organs, categorizing the female body as unfit for physical activity.[4]
Although women historically displayed signs of toughness through other aspects of life (such as childbirth and household activities), this physical strength did not translate into an athletic identity; instead, women’s physical performance was condemned as immodest and attention-seeking.[5] Even so, when women did participate in sports on a higher level, it would interfere with what society defined as feminine: soft, delicate and nuturing. Athleticism on the other hand was associated with the earlier mentioned masculine qualities like aggression, strength, and endurance, typically seen as masculine traits. When women exhibited these characteristics, they often challenged conventional notions of femininity. This created a perception that athletic women were ‘deviating’ from their gender role. [6]
After many decades of resistance, changes in areas like education and workplace inclusion helped foster the idea that women could participate in athletics. Historically, women engaged in various athletic activities despite societal constraints, laying the groundwork for later developments in women’s sports.[7] But it is important to note to regardless of women physically performing sports, it is the reaction it conveys from the outside world that sends a message to society and future generations. Altough women played tennis, rode on horses or ran kilometers outside; they were and are still viewed as a separate category that needs it own rules to socially live by, if wanting to be accepted by the outside world.
UNIFORMITY
A uniform is supposed to be universally identifiable. It displays nonverbal communication and has a language of its own because everyone immediately recognizes what the standardized person stands for.[8] While commonly viewed as stripping away individuality, uniforms actually embody diverse identities, stories, and histories. Throughout various life stages, they signify an individual's societal position and reflect expectations related to behavior, status, gender, and class. Unlike regular garments, uniforms are adopted by specific groups—either by choice or requirement—as markers of particular roles or purposes. This demonstrates that fashion and garments communicate much more than they seem, especially when considering female representation and societal hierarchies. Ultimately, uniforms influence how we perceive and interact with one another based on preconceived notions. Which affects our interactions with one another as facts hide under expectations and stereotypes.
But it is not to say this is purely a bad thing. Hidden language helps us to assume and act without having to talk things trough all the time. Fashion has the power to become one with the body. Dirk Lauwert suggests that we carry our gender not below us, but in front of us.[9] Meaning that garments play a crucial role in how we present not only ourselves but also our sexuality. This then creates a duality of both reinforcing and challenging traditional gender roles. For instance, women's clothing is often designed to accentuate the body, contributing to a sexualized presentation. Lauwert’s notion connects to the idea that fashion is never objective and plays a crucial role in any form of representation. It is intertwined with the idea that garments aren’t just fabric, they form an identity on their own.
In exploring the role of uniforms, it becomes clear that garments are also reflective of broader societal interdependence. The theory that interdependence is a law of life states that all living beings and systems are connected and reliant on one another for survival, growth, and success. Garments are intertwined in this as they serve as a vital means of communication and interaction in human society, reflecting various forms of interdependence. Historically, individuals often did not choose their garments; instead, traditions dictated their choices. And so, their garments can be considered a uniform. Within these ‘rules’ there was room for individual change. If the umbrella language of fashion remained the same.[10] This can still be applied to any stereotypical relation to fashion, which only has effect when everyone has the same understanding of its meaning.
Garments can become a uniform at any stage of life; they only need a human to label them as such. However, individuals often remain unaware of who created these rules or whether they choose to follow them. Uniforms exert control over both the social self and the inner self, serving not just as social constructs but also as supports for personal identity. They enhance self-awareness, reminding us of the interplay between our external appearance and internal sense of self.[11] This creates an interesting tension: while uniforms promote group identity and cohesion, individual agency in shaping or challenging these identities—particularly for women—is often constrained by societal controls. This power struggle over who determines these identities reflects the ongoing limitations placed on gender expression within uniformed settings. Which is to say that the control men can have on female uniforms creates a bigger discussion on whose dressing who, and if anyone is dressing themselves. individuals, regardless of whether they wear an actual uniform, present themselves in a way that reflects a consistent, socially constructed identity of ‘self’. But it might be an illusion to think that any of us have freedom in deciding what we wear, especially when implying these ideas into the culture of sports.
As women's uniforms evolved to reflect their changing roles in society, balancing functionality with expectations of femininity, this transformation set the stage for developments in sports attire. Before the industrial revolution, specifically designed sports garments were non-existent, and players wore whatever was customary at the time, often making adaptations as needed. However, the increased leisure time and higher disposable income in the late nineteenth century led to a rise in participation in sports and outdoor recreation, creating a market for garments specifically tailored for these activities. These early sports uniforms were typically made of natural fibers, with modifications or improvisations to suit specific sports. It was during the twentieth century that sportswear became more specialized and easily identifiable, with team colors and uniforms providing a clear visual identity for fans. This practice transformed uniforms into products to be bought and sold, turning personal or collective identity into a marketable asset. For women, the visual representation of these garments was especially important, primarily to maintain modesty by concealing legs, arms, and the appearance of sweat.
Choosing your uniform is like choosing your team. It’s where fashion and its identity become a clear set of choices and meanings. Because the act of wearing a uniform properly, by following the rules and guidelines associated with it, goes beyond just putting on garments. It turns the uniform into a meaningful symbol or message. The way it is worn communicates something important—such as authority, identity, or membership in a group—which holds more weight than the individual garment or accessory itself. Essentially, it's not just the uniform that matters, but what it represents and how it conveys that message through correct usage.[12]
GENDER NORMS
The history of women's uniforms is closely tied to their gendered position and status in society. As their roles in the community have evolved—whether as caregivers, workers, or professionals—so have their uniforms Reflecting the societal expectations, limitations, or newfound freedoms women experienced at different times. While women have historically used fashion as a form of resistance, uniforms in formal and competitive settings still fall under restrictive controls, reflecting society’s lingering hold over female representation. But before the female uniform was linked to any sort of activity, it was already a representation of what they were and weren’t allowed to be within society.
In the mid-nineteenth century, women began wearing the ‘reform dress’—pants with a shortened, lightweight skirt—as an alternative to restrictive feminine fashions. Organized by the National Dress Reform Association, the movement used dress as a symbol of women’s struggle and social progress, creating a platform for women to connect. The reform dress challenged fashion’s status quo and the notion that high-status women were exempt from physical labor. Driven by functionality and deeper ideas on representing the female body, the movement gained momentum as women entered labor-intensive roles, demanding more practical, less restrictive garments.[13] More than following or not following the social rules of fashion. Women have used their way of dress to actively protest as well. The reform dress was a way of going against the status quo.
As women entered traditionally male-dominated professions, such as military and law enforcement, their uniforms reflected both their new roles and the societal tensions regarding their expected appearance. This illustrates that uniforms are not solely about practicality; they also convey representation and identity within the social hierarchy. In contrast, men’s uniforms align seamlessly with traditional masculine roles—leadership, control, and professionalism. For men, the uniform reinforces these societal norms, reflecting a strong alignment between their garments and the expectations of masculinity.
For women, there is often a disconnect between the attributes typically associated with uniforms and the societal expectations tied to femininity. Women’s uniforms frequently include elements designed to maintain an appearance of femininity, such as skirts, which reflect qualities like modesty, neatness, and demureness—traits traditionally linked to womanhood. However, these uniforms must also avoid any connotations that could be perceived as suggesting ‘loose morals’ or being overly ‘enticing,’ as such perceptions would be deemed inappropriate in formal contexts. This misalignment in dress can result in the female body being projected as inappropriate, highlighting the complexities women face in navigating uniformity and femininity.
This reveals a broader social tension between femininity and professionalism. For women, wearing a uniform highlights the limitations imposed by traditional gender roles and underscores the societal challenges of reconciling femininity with authority. It prompts a reevaluation of what is considered appropriate for women in formal settings, ultimately questioning the structures that shape these expectations. Despite the efforts to reform these norms, the movement encountered significant social resistance, particularly in more conservative circles where women wearing trousers or less restrictive garments were viewed as improper or unfeminine. These rules, and expectations, in history show how women have always dealt with garments representing social norms. And the important role dress has played in following them.
THE LACK OF UNIFORMITY
So while uniforms are meant to foster belonging and cohesion in sports, they also reinforce deeply ingrained gender norms that shape perceptions of women's bodies. This duality—serving as symbols of collective identity while enforcing conformity—underscores the tension between individual expression and societal expectations.
Women’s uniforms often carry the weight of historical stereotypes, embodying both empowerment and constraint. The persistent objectification of women's sports within a male-centric lens complicates their representation, limiting female athletes' identity and agency. Despite progress in women's participation in sports, patriarchal structures still dictate how women dress, perform, and are perceived.
This exploration prompts us to reconsider what uniforms signify for women today, especially given a history of invisible representation. The stereotype that women are vain obscures the diverse realities of their experiences in athletics. Fashion and dress vary across individuals and contexts, always reflecting their surroundings subjectively.
It’s fluidity reveals that uniforms, often seen as symbols of conformity, lack true uniformity. While they may project a collective identity, they also encompass a rich tapestry of individual stories. Recognizing this complexity encourages a broader understanding of women's roles in sports, challenging us to redefine female athleticism beyond outdated stereotypes.
In the end, the way we dress is based on the relation we have to our own body and the one others have to the individual. Uniforms are a way of communicating a whole, a group, but seem to stand in the way of women deciding their own.While dressing became a democratic identity, the layers of history cannot be ignored and the rules that once were can still be present today. Feminity in sports is often linked to colors like pink and skirts that are either to short or not short enough. Stereotypes that keep the line between male and female sports intact. Which is a shame, since sports culture is impacted fashion on a daily basis. Something that seems to not be visible in a long term way, as we often forget that the reality of fashion today is the history of tomorrow.
[1] Dirk Lauwaert, De Geknipte Stof: Mode en Verbeelding (Leuven: Kritak, 1993)
[2] John Berger, Ways of Seeing (Penguin Books, 1972)
[3] R.W. Connell's work on gender theory, 1987, *Gender and Power*
[4] “A Brief History of Women in Sports,” Concordia St. Paul, accessed November 22, 2024, https://kinesiology.csp.edu/sports-coaches-and-trainers/a-brief-history-of-women-in-sports/.
[5] “Women’s Sports History,” National Women’s History Museum, accessed November 22, 2024, https://www.womenshistory.org/articles/womens-sports-history.
[6] Coming on Strong: Gender and Sexuality in Women’s Sport by Susan K. Cahn (1994)
[7] https://www.folger.edu/blogs/shakespeare-and-beyond/women-athletes-18th-century-england/
[8] Michael Schwartz, A.F.Vandevorst: Ende Neu (Antwerp: Ludion, 2001).
[9] Dirk Lauwaert, De Geknipte Stof: Mode en Verbeelding (Leuven: Kritak, 1993)
[10] De macht van mode. Over ontwerp en betekenis. Artez Press.
[11] De macht van mode. Over ontwerp en betekenis. Artez Press.
[12] Jennifer Craik, The Cultural Politics of the Uniform (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005).
[13] Catherine Mas, "She Wears the Pants: The Reform Dress as Technology in Nineteenth-Century America," Technology and Culture 63, no. 4 (2022): 933–964.
[1] Abushaikh, A. (n.d.). Team unity and identity: The power of sports uniforms. Medium. Retrieved from https://medium.com/@abushaikh7261/team-unity-and-identity-the-power-of-sports-uniforms-8b951d869f1f
[2] Joanne Entwistle, The Fashioned Body: Fashion, Dress and Modern Social Theory (Polity Press, 2015)
[3] Fashion and gender – the fashioned body
[4] Joanne Entwistle, The Fashioned Body: Fashion, Dress and Modern Social Theory (Polity Press, 2000).
[5] Jessie Gregg, West Ham kit washer 1966