Harvard librarian Desiree Goodwin, who holds two advanced degrees from Cornell University, charged that she was passed over for promotion 16 times because of her attire and physical attractiveness. Goodwin claimed the jobs she sought were given to women with less experience and education and that a supervisor told her she was perceived as a "pretty girl" who wore "sexy outfits."
Meanwhile, on the shores of the Adriatic Sea, Caterina Bonci, a Roman Catholic religion teacher, said she was fired from her job at a state-run school for being too sexy. (The school principal said both parents and teachers complained about her high hemlines and ample décolletage.)
As a result, dress codes are being imposed which ban such things as "clothing that is particularly revealing and of extreme fit," and "excessive use of makeup." The courts are upholding the codes, despite occasional complaints that they discriminate in favor of men. While it's considered "fair" if employers simply require men to "dress conservatively," I'm wondering whether even that's necessary in light of the phenomenon of Metrosexual Men who sport revealing attire and excessive makeup. If an employer simply forbids such things to both sexes, wouldn't that be enough? There's already a double standard in most workplaces which allows women to dress like men, but not vice versa.
In any case, there are obvious issues of self interest and common sense:
"If you flaunt your figure in a professional setting, colleagues and clients may question your judgment or make unflattering assumptions about your character," warns Susan RoAne, lecturer, author and business etiquette expert, who adds that several clients have sought her advice on how to inform employees that their revealing attire detracts from the company's image.
"After all, who wants to entrust their child to a teacher who dresses as if she'd rather be clubbing or invest their money with a financial planner who looks like she should be swinging from a strippers' pole?"
Analogizing to men, I'd be likely to worry about my money if a banker wore blue jeans to work, or if a doctor's stethoscope dangled in front of a grimy Metallica T shirt. (Likewise, a "sexy" doctor might be unnerving.....)
It's obvious to me that a lot of people are clueless, and lack the most elementary common sense. I'll never forget seeing a fellow UC Berkeley college student who went job hunting. He was told he should wear a suit, so he went out and bought a nice dark suit. But he failed to trim his frizzy, shoulder length hair, and it never occurred to him that conservative suits don't go with Birkenstock sandals. He looked so ridiculous that I couldn't believe it, but he really and truly had no idea, so I patiently explained what it was that employers expected to see. (The way he looked, I think he'd have had a better chance if he hadn't even bothered with the suit, as it's better to look like a slob than a certifiable loony tune.)
Whether flip-flops are sexy or not, there's no teaching common sense.
ADDITIONAL INFO: Charles, by the way, thinks CNN is being simplistic in characterizing this woman as a case of being "too sexy," noting that she herself considers race to be a factor. I don't know the details, but if the dress code is being enforced unequally, she may be right.
posted by Eric on 12.17.05 at 12:47 PM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/3138
Comments
Very interesting.
Women dressing like women. Can't have that. If they dress like women they might actually act like one, too.
Far too dangerous.
So we've come full circle. Dress codes were eliminated when I was a child so that women could break the glass ceiling, thinking that wearing pants would enable them to be taken more seriously, giving them the choice to express themselves in their attire.
Now if they wear a skirt they're considered lewd and unserious.
Sorry, I forgot. It doesn't have anything to do with making a choice. It's about making the RIGHT choice.
If there is only ONE choice, then choice is an illusion.
There's nothing "conservative" (ideologically speaking) about being against women wearing skirts like the old days.
It sure sounds "communist" and not "fascist" for businesses to expect woment to wear pants and that's it.
Women should have the freedom to choose and that's in the spirit of being "Conservative."
I just wanted to make it perfectly clear that those who think that women should only wear pants are more befitting of "Liberalism" than anything else because liberalism is all about the "Higher Power" dictating to you how you should live your life.
Jeff MacMillan · December 17, 2005 07:25 PM
What am I missing here? There shouldn't be a problem with women wearing skirts and blouses or dresses to work- but not too low-cut, short or transparent (in inappropriate circumstances-like in a children's school.) So, how is a librarian supposed to dress?...I can't help but think of so many movie scenes when the comely lass has to go up the ladder to reach something on the top shelf...
The way this "younger generation" likes to present themselves can be quite a challenge to employers-and there can be a legitimate need for strict dress codes in particular situations...but what is "equality" in a dress code (besides for jewelry, percings and tatoos)? I know where to go if I wish to see men in women's clothing and makeup, but would be distinctly uninterested in running into them anywhere else. In our family, we joke about going to a particular eatery for their more-than-fine hamburgers and hand-dipped milkshakes AND to check out the latest in body piercings (and I do mean "body".) It is that employer's choice to present that atmosphere, just as an establishment down the road allows only one small earring in each earlobe, and a uniform which covers up most of their "1000 parts."
American Mother · December 17, 2005 09:06 PM
Working in a courthouse, we ALL have a minimal dress code. Indeed, the judges have dresscodes posted on the doors to the courtrooms for the public, too (no shorts, no barefeet).
And it's not just "common sense" but the failure of too many parents to educate their kids on what is appropriate attire and behavior in certain situations. So much of "appropriateness" went "out of style" during the 60's because appropriate dress, polite language, even courtesy was considered "phony" and "plastic".
I grew up with a closet segregated with "school clothes" "play clothes" and "sunday best." My grandmother wouldn't be caught dead shopping downtown without dressing nicely including stockings, gloves and hat.
And ALL girls wore "slips". LOL. Grandma used to admonish us not to leave a broken slip strap safety-pinned for too long. "How embarrassed would you be to have been in an accident and in the emergency room with the doctors and nurses seeing your ragged underwear?"
I never did say to her "Grandma, if I'm in the ER, the state of my underwear is going to be the last thing I worry about..."
I remember how my grandma handled smart-alec remarks from youngsters and kept it to myself.
Conservative dress is enforced in courtrooms. I have seen women attorneys thrown out of court by the judge for wearing blouses cut too low or skirts hemmed too high -- and that is by women judges. (Male judges seem to be more lenient, probably to avoid seeming sexist.)
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Don?t bang your head!
Very interesting.
Women dressing like women. Can't have that. If they dress like women they might actually act like one, too.
Far too dangerous.
So we've come full circle. Dress codes were eliminated when I was a child so that women could break the glass ceiling, thinking that wearing pants would enable them to be taken more seriously, giving them the choice to express themselves in their attire.
Now if they wear a skirt they're considered lewd and unserious.
Sorry, I forgot. It doesn't have anything to do with making a choice. It's about making the RIGHT choice.
If there is only ONE choice, then choice is an illusion.
F###ing fascists.