A big reason why this is an issue is because they did not have alternative options at the Tokyo games. The alternative options available now are a result of this type of pushback. The fact that, even with more options, this is the outfit they chose to highlight, shows where the focus is being directed.
The pushback is there to advance progress. It's how we have gotten as far as we have. If people stop pushing back because some progress has been made, further progress will continue to stop.
There is nothing wrong with acknowledging small victories while further advocating for additional reform. Pretending that there is no issue here is disingenuous and erases any historical context that applies here.
I understand that just fine. What part do you not understand about it not needing to exist at all? Also the picture you used as your example for "it's just the mannequin that makes it look bad" is not the one from the OP.Just because there's some outraged people online doesn't mean it shouldn't exist.
Just because there's some outraged people online doesn't mean it shouldn't exist.Are you still referring to the person they literally pay to promote their products?
It exists because it's a preference of some athletes. A lot of athletes like tight fitting outfits with the legs and arms cut off because it offers the least resistance when there's nothing flapping around and it doesn't get in way of their arms and legs movement.
Are you still referring to the person they literally pay to promote their products?I'm talking about Kradek saying how the unitard as a whole appointment exist
Is it any more revealing than what the gymnasts are forced to wear? Or the women wrestlers with the singlets.
Just scanned this topic. Is this fake outrage or legitimate?
So I would say it's an overreaction.
Just scanned this topic. Is this fake outrage or legitimate?
Just scanned this topic. Is this fake outrage or legitimate?Fake outrage. At first I thought they had a point until I read that it was just one of many options and that no one had to wear it if they didnt want to.
i dont get why this is a big deal.
its one unitard styled option out of the almost dozen styles of pants available.
Are singles really revealing? I wore one when I wrestled and I chose to I didn't have to.yeah the singlets are basically the same between the men and women. Thought I have seen the mens be more revealing in the chest area. He is right about the women's gymnastics uniform. Theirs actually does look like the mannequin in TC post.
Fake outrage. At first I thought they had a point until I read that it was just one of many options and that no one had to wear it if they didnt want to.Under this train of thought there would still be room for outrage here. Many female olympians like wearing brief's style. Changing the design of the most popular style so that they show more skin is still sexist as hell. The "options" argument fails if there isn't more than one brief style to wear(that might be the case idk all the options available).
Under this train of thought there would still be room for outrage here. Many female olympians like wearing brief's style. Changing the design of the most popular style so that they show more skin is still sexist as hell. The "options" argument fails if there isn't more than one brief style to wear(that might be the case idk all the options available).I mean people get outraged no matter what. People even ignore the fact that Nike will have tailors available, just as that lady asked. All they need to do is to ignore that one outfit they don't want to wear, and instead pick another one. It's not hard.
What actually clears this up is Katie Moons twitter post. If believed, it was all just a bad media release by Nike.
I mean people get outraged no matter what. People even ignore the fact that Nike will have tailors available, just as that lady asked. All they need to do is to ignore that one outfit they don't want to wear, and instead pick another one. It's not hard.Agree, but ppl can only work with the information given. The publics reaction to this was justified based on the images released at the time. There's also the Olympics poor track record with similar situations fueling this current misunderstanding.
idk it's definitely presented by Nike as the uniform for women, rather than a misrepresentation of one of the uniforms they can choose from. There's definitely an issue with that.
Nos Nikes press release is pretty clear its one of multiple options.
https://about.nike.com/en/newsroom/collections/2024-national-and-federation-kits
they definitely had these options the 2020 Olympics why are we lyingI'm basing it off this comment in the article referenced in the OP:
I'm basing it off this comment in the article referenced in the OP:
Nike said in an email to Reuters that it was offering athletes unitard options with both a brief and a short for this Olympics, whereas it only offered the brief for the Tokyo Olympics.