There is something fundamentally different in Western society about how men and women display themselves. I don't think that is disputed. While much of our clothing is equivalent - the business suit, or the jeans and t-shirt look for example - there also seems to be an additional set of clothing that applies only to women. The 'much flesh on show' items, or the incredibly tight stuff. I assume that this is part of the 'women as decoration' phenomenon that Buffy refers too, and she is right - it exists. But the funny thing is, it's an additional option. It isn't compulsory, and it isn't instead of another option that only men have. So it can be difficult for non-feminists, like myself, to see the 'women as only decoration' perspective as a problem. It can seem like women as decoration and doctor/athlete/home secretary/CEO if they so choose.
There are societal pressures to conform to a look, no doubt, just as there are pressures on everyone to conform to certain standards - the problem comes when that is your only option - look pretty, show some leg, drape yourself over a car etc. But when it isn't your only option, surely it's just part of a wide choice that we all have, at least in Western society. And, I am pretty sure that strong, healthy, white, affluent female athletes at a prestigious university are pretty near the top of society. Like their male counterparts. And like their male counterparts, they may be more focussed on themselves, their social strata, their ambitions than any wider consequences of their actions.
And perhaps that is equality in action.