quote:

---

One of the highest courts in the land, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, has determined that it's legal for an employer to fire a female employee who refuses to wear makeup. Think this through slowly and carefully, girls: if you live in the 9th Circuit (which covers California, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, Idaho and Montana), you could be fired tomorrow if your boss decides your "uniform" for work includes makeup. Supposedly this ruling doesn't run afoul of discrimination law because it doesn't impose an "" on women. Do you want to know why, ladies and germs? Because a rule for women enforcing face paint is "equal" to a rule forbidding men from wearing it.

---

From the Scarleteen blog.

This is beyond stereotyping. It is sheer superstition.

Ye gods! Some Americans really have to be brave people, just to go on living in a place that puts dinosaurs on the bench!

Blush?!? The law can require anyone to wear blush?!?

I used to work at a Black's Camera store back in about 1989, and was told many times that I was forbidden from wearing an earring and that they were within their rights to forbid this, even though I always pointed out that women who worked in the same store were not.

If workers had more rights, you'd be able to charge that supervisor with assault. Supervisors have no right to lay a hand on a worker.

1. Lipstick
2. Mascara
3. Eye-shadow
4. Blush
5. Foundation

It's your choice what you want to wear, as long as you're wearing five of them. The idea being, they are hoping a customer will ask you, "Gosh, I love that colour of eye-shadow! What colour IS that, anyhow?"

I always thought it was ridiculous, considering that many people who shop at The Body Shop do not shop for make-up but for other supplies. When I worked there (just seasonally - extra money at Christmas) I was going through a stage of my life where I didn't wear much make-up at all. I really resented it that I had to wear it. I got out of wearing foundation (which I HATE) by trying to use the least noticable products and considering it one of my choices.

Labour standards exist to protect workers from abusive management powers. They must be extended to such cases of sexism and an infringement on PEOPLE'S BODIES.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
There is not always the option of getting another job.

Labour standards exist to protect workers from abusive management powers. They must be extended to such cases of sexism and an infringement on PEOPLE'S BODIES.

That is the ugliness of sexism and untrammelled predatory capitalism.

---

And that's great. I'm thinking right now of several lovely babblers I've met who have such a talent for such delight, and it is wonderful to meet people who can enjoy make-up as free play.

But as several people have written above, make-up can be hazardous to your health, and workers are not slaves.

quote:

---

Originally posted by C.Morgan:
There is always the option not to work there, and not to shop there.

The beauty of choice.

---

Yeah. Your boss wants to fuck you and makes passes at you on a regular basis? Heck, don't complain, just find another job. Your boss tells you to fuck off on a regular basis? Heck, that's okay, you can always find a job somewhere else! Your boss pays a man twice as much as he pays you for the same job? Well, the beauty of choice is, you can always go work somewhere else! Never mind fighting for fair employment standards or rights.

Of course the places that will only hire women who wear extensive makeup (yecch, foundation) wouldn't hire someone my age anyway, or someone who looks rather artsy-bohemian, even in her "good" (conference interpretation or party) clothes...

To me, the key is a reasonable connection to the job. Wearing perfume at a perfume counter, make up at a makeup counter , Gap clothes as a gap salesman or a love/knowledge of movies/music working at HMV is not unacceptable. But the key is a reasonable connection (not to mention a unbiased one). So refusal to wear the outfit but wanting to be a hooters waitress doesnt fly with me but needing to be madeup for a casino doesnt work for me at all. It is a blantant attempt to objectify women in a place where it is not expected.

That hooters or a stripbar objectifies or sexualizes women (as a male strip bar does to men) is expectied from that type of place and if women or men wanna go there or work there, they know where they stand. In a 'regular' establishment where sexualization/objectification is NOT the norm or expected, it is unacceptable

quote:

---

Originally posted by C.Morgan:
There is always the option not to work there, and not to shop there.

---

Ah yes -- as long as we outlaw actual slavery, there's no need for any workers' rights because they can work wherever they wish.

quote:

---

...is expectied from that type of place and if women or men wanna go there or work there, they know where they stand.

---

I don't recall supporting bosses wanting to "fuck" their employees but whatever.

From high school through to my current decrepit state, I have found that the amount I have in common with a woman tends to be inversely proportionate to the amount of makeup she wears on a regular basis. I am particularly amazed by the women who feel they must put on makeup to go the gym. (There is a male corrolary to this - the guys who surreptitiously flex every time they see themselves in the mirror).

That is a bit of a generalization, I know, but it has tended to apply through much of my life.

Nobody should be forced to wear makeup, or prevented from doing so (in the case of men, apparently). Personal appearance is a personal choice, period.

quote:

---

I seem to recall some similar complaints or lawsuits from women who went to work at strip bars as a server and were expected to basically "tart up" for the clientele, even though they weren't dancers and had no intentions of becoming dancers.

---

If it was the uniform that they were shown when they applied and in a strip bar they should not be surprised. I dont support that one. Though most of the strip bars I've been to, the waitresses were dressed pretty average (t-shirt, jeans, skirt, shorts but nothing really 'tarty')
I put that right up there with my other examples (perfume at a perfume counter)

If what they want relates to the product (perfume, stripping, makeup ) then I dont see a problem. If its not germane to the business then its BS and should not be tolerated.

edited to add

My wife used to model and such had to wear makeup. As a result she rarely if ever wears makeup and doesnt actally like it. In fact the only time I've ever seen her really made up was at our wedding, otherwise its the occasional lipstick or blush.

[ 17 January 2005: Message edited by: Bacchus ]

The makeup ended then and the point was that a woman doesn't need makeup to do a good job.

quote:

---

Not sure how defending an employer's right to excercise dress codes defines me as a chauvinist but whatever.

---

On the one hand, I will admit that I will be sorry to lose my perfume. I have loved my perfume.

But when I walk into Holt Renfrew or any other store that puts its cosmetics bars right up at the front door, even I feel sickened by that war of artificial smells. I'm sure that it is not good for the human body to be immersed in those chemicals, and I doubt that these fetishes are going to survive more and more environmentally aware younger generations.

If I was asked to wear a nose ring, I would either wear one or quit. Pretty simple. I guess that assumes that there are other qualified men willing to undergo the nose piercing for the job.

quote:

---

Originally posted by C.Morgan:
I
Perhaps one should direct their vitriol more at the women who seem to have no difficulty in wearing the makeup. If they were not there to fill the jobs, the employers would certainly hesitate before requesting it.

---

quote:

---

Perhaps one should direct their vitriol more at the women who seem to have no difficulty in wearing the makeup.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by C.Morgan:
There is always the option. It is called the want ads.

---

quote:

---

I wonder if exceptions could be made for those of us with allergies to most makeup? I can wear it for a short time (like, for a one-day shoot or so), but afterwards, I have at least itching, if not a rash.

---

Theoretically you could assert a claim about this under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Practically speaking, the Supreme Court has narrowly construed what constitutes a covered "disability," and a skin rash caused by makeup may not count. I recall a similar case involving an African American man who challenged a "no beards" policy on the grounds that he suffered from a skin condition called PFB, which made daily shaving very painful. I don't believe that he was successful on the disability claim although he may have been successful on a race discrimination claim, because PFB disproportionately (maybe exclusively?) affects African American males. I'll see if I can dig up more info on this, as it seems at least tangentially relevant to the thread.

[ 18 January 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

Personal Appearance. Some companies prescribe standards in dress and personal appearance. At times, certain dress and personal appearance (e.g., no long hair) codes have been attacked as being either discriminatory or as violating a person's rights of privacy.

In many situations, arbitrators and judges will uphold a company's personal appearance policy provided it is reasonable and justifiable. For example, requiring firefighters to be clean shaven has been upheld in some counties. However, one company's no-beard policy was held to be racially discriminatory. After being told about the company's no-beard policy, the worker explained that he wore the beard because he suffered from a skin condition peculiar to many black males which made him unable to shave. The company told him it made no exceptions and the man was eventually fired. He then filed a race discrimination charge with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The U.S. Court of Appeals held that the company's no-beard policy effectively operated to exclude those black males from employment.

NOTE: The court noted that the mere fact that a black male employee suffers from PFB is not sufficient to exempt him from the no-beard policy; only those who suffer greatly and cannot shave are protected.

---

Business Week: Small Business Legal Survival Guide

A lot of this pertains to bosses treating their workers like shit, and saying "since I'm the boss, I can control the rest of your lives".

"There is always the option not to work there, and not to shop there.
The beauty of choice."

Your simplistic in-the-extreme response exposes the fact that you are totally unaware of the world around you, the world in which many people do NOT have the choice of leaving their job, for many reasons. eg:
lack of qualifications/skills/work experience
single parenthood
alcoholic/unemployed/disabled partner
child with disability requiring costly services
social isolation
geographical isolation
high mortgage repayments
self esteem
etc, etc.
And that's not even getting into the issues originally discussed in this thread.

quote:

---

But it is all examples of what we call "l'arbitraire patronal" - arbitrary exercise of management powers to ground down workers, without a real relation to the job.

---

Actually, stockings are seen as rather gauche nowadays in chic circles in even slightly warmer climes ... They are an absurdity, except in autumn or spring when tights might be too much and bare legs too little.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
The most logical option is none of the above. Even Princess Diana was famously photographed, most elegantly, in a summer frock and NO HOSE.

---

I have also worked as an interpreter in France and seen well-dressed women without stockings when it was hot.

Anchoress, what is your problem. You are practically young enough to be my daughter, and you think women should be forced to wear nylon stockings (with the attendant health problems)?

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
Anchoress, what is your problem.

---

I don't have a problem. I particularly don't have a problem with employers dictating dress codes - provided it is done clearly at the time of hiring.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
You are practically young enough to be my daughter, and you think women should be forced to wear nylon stockings (with the attendant health problems)?

---

What health problems? And what does my age have to do with it?

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
Where the f have you been???????

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Walker:
Anchoress, get a grip! Provide an example where a woman's work (or their colleague's) would be enhanced by them covering up their legs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anchoress:

Define 'enhanced'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Walker:
Give me a valid reason why an employer might require women to cover their legs in some way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anchoress:

Define 'valid'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Walker:
"well grounded in logic or truth or having legal force."

---

Wearing safety glasses in an industrial situation protects the worker from potential eye injury.

Wearing non-synthetic clothing in an environment involving heat and flames protects the worker from burns.

Wearing nylons ....(insert garment function here)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Human Fly:
Anchoress:

Wearing safety glasses in an industrial situation protects the worker from potential eye injury.

Wearing non-synthetic clothing in an environment involving heat and flames protects the worker from burns.

Wearing nylons ....(insert garment function here)

It's not that tough a question, surely.

---

Personally, I believe that in some professional situations, a business suit (complete with jewellery, smart shoes (not necessarily heels), make-up and nylons, and a tie for men) constitutes a 'uniform' which it is perfectly acceptable for an employer to demand from employees.

Am I engaging in a conversation with people who don't think it's valid for McDonalds to require its employees to wear uniforms? If so, then there's no point in my defending my position.

If people *do* believe it's an employer's right to demand a uniform from employees, then the questions are a) what constitutes a uniform, and b) what situations should require one?

There are numerous industries (I am thinking professional service industries such as corporate training) where the 'traditional' corporate uniform is a requirement, because - however unreasonable or irritating it may be - corporate clients will a) immediately judge less-professional-looking service providers to be less competent, b) be willing to pay more for services delivered by more professional-looking consultants, c) look elsewhere if they think their current consultants can't be bothered to mirror the 'corporate' look, etc etc etc.

I don't have a problem. I particularly don't have a problem with employers dictating dress codes - provided it is done clearly at the time of hiring.

What side are you on? (Old Wobbly hymn) Why the fuck do you support our enemies?
-------
Originally posted by lagatta:
You are practically young enough to be my daughter, and you think women should be forced to wear nylon stockings (with the attendant health problems)?
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anchoress:
"What health problems? "
lagatta:
Vaginal infections

And what does my age have to do with it?

Because I thought stupid rot like that went out with my mother's pre-feminist generation!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by lagatta:
Where the f have you been???????
---------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure how to answer that question; could you be more specific?
---------------------------------------------------------------
Other than sticking your tongue out at me, since I'm a "foreigner", after all????

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
What side are you on? (Old Wobbly hymn) Why the fuck do you support our enemies?

---

I'm on my side, lagatta, and I may be supporting your enemies, but I'm not supporting mine.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
Vaginal infections

---

My dear, try stay-ups, and you will never itch again!

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
Other than sticking your tongue out at me, since I'm a "foreigner", after all????

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
Where the f have you been since the development of the feminist movement?

---

"Folks, the reason why I'm cagey in my responses is partly because I don't know where people are coming from, and partly because I know from long experience that I am much more pro-business than most other posters on this board"

Lagatta's response to "pro-business" persons of any sex is that this board is "news for the rest of us - including the defence of workers' rights and dignity against FUCKING PRO-BUSINESS SHITHEADS!!!!!!

Personally, I believe that in some professional situations, a business suit (complete with jewellery, smart shoes (not necessarily heels), make-up and nylons, and a tie for men) constitutes a 'uniform' which it is perfectly acceptable for an employer to demand from employees.

rabble.ca is a public, progressive news and information source.

There are plenty of news media around to support the status quo and the oppression of the working class. Go there.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anchoress:

So are you saying HF that in order for nylons to be valid they would have to have some kind of safety application?

---

I've been right here.

If I recall, the little fuck is sticking her tongue out at me. Like a reminder that the enemy is always at the gates.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
Reminder of the purpose of this board: news for the rest of us (that is to say, not for corporate whores of any sex

rabble.ca is a public, progressive news and information source.

There are plenty of news media around to support the status quo and the oppression of the working class. Go there.

And I am not your dear, you fucking piece of oppressive corporate shit.

---

Geeze with a mouth like that on you I can see how you have difficulty understanding situations that demand good public presentation.

quote:

---

Pantyhose can be damned uncomfortable and is one reason I tend to wear pantsuits if I need to look somewhat professional. It also makes my feet smell, as do knee-highs. It is also a waste of money, since you often get a hole after wearing it once or twice. I don't think offices can order women to wear only dresses now, can they?

---

But you didn't catch the utter contempt in the words of Anchoress, did you?

To my mind, the only courteous response to such contempt is attack.

Anchoress, your posts amuse me. I've been having exactly the same argument with a 50-something y.o. man in Aus., who also thinks that business is God and infallible, and if we all just play along and follow the rules, everybody will be happy.

Edited to fix spelling.

[ 18 January 2005: Message edited by: Anchoress ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mandos:
I have to remark that this is a persistent problem of any liberatory movement that has any degree of success: what to do about those who, now liberated, adopt the ideology of some other oppression-purveying group, seeing as they are now free to do so?

It's an inevitable consequence of women's entry into the workforce that there would be many women who would immediately adopt a corporatist ideology and perhaps even succeed that way.

---

I recall there were those after the 'liberation' of Iraq (whatever you think of it) who were saying it was better in the days of Saddam.

quote:

---

Personally, I believe that in some professional situations, a business suit (complete with jewellery, smart shoes (not necessarily heels), make-up and nylons, and a tie for men) constitutes a 'uniform' which it is perfectly acceptable for an employer to demand from employees.

---

Why is makeup part of that uniform? Men only need to be clean, I don't see anyone demanding they look prettier(except some skin product companies).
And how far do you go with getting employees to make a good impression- are you going to need plastic surgery and dental work just to be seen by people?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anchoress:
Well so far I've been sworn at, called names, and seen a lot of assumptions made about how I view the world and live my life, but my main question hasn't been answered, namely when - if ever - does a company have a right to dictate that its employees wear a uniform, and if yes, can a dress code that optimises an individual's presentation in a particular professional situation and furthermore is germaine to the success of a company be considered a uniform?

Edited to fix spelling.

[ 18 January 2005: Message edited by: Anchoress ]

---

Far be it for anyone to make assumptions about how you view the world! Sorry, but that actually made me laugh. Let me compose myself before I address your question.

AHEM!

quote:

---

...when - if ever - does a company have a right to dictate that its employees wear a uniform...

---

Requiring a certain standard of dress from men, and an entirely different one from women, would prima facie be discrimination on the basis of sex unless the employer can demonstrate that the requirement is central to the purpose and nature of the job. I'm not the ultimate expert on the subject, but I suspect that a claim that requiring makeup to be work by female employees only would be viewed by the BC Human Rights Tribunal as sex discrimination.

Personally, my experience tells me that uniforms may be handy in quickly identifying persons with specific roles, but are useless in indicating competence. In fact, they are often a convenient blind behind which the marginally-competent can hide. Some of the most vacuous, garbage-ridden nonsense I've ever heard has been spewed by people wearing $1000 suits. People who place greater trust in business attire are truly living within a corporate fantasyland.

quote:

---

Originally posted by angrymonkey:

Why is makeup part of that uniform? Men only need to be clean

---

Because when a female consultant is at the front of the boardroom of a company offering a programme the company has paid $20K for and she doesn't have any makeup on, or she isn't wearing nylons, *unfortunately* (and I really really do mean unfortunately) the thought going through people's minds (not only men, women too) is ... 'gee, my company is paying a ton of money for this course, we're all taking a day off work and the consultant hasn't even bothered to look like the professional the company promised she would be?'

It's stupid and it's unfair, but it's the way a lot of the world works. People have shallow preconceptions about what it means to be professional, and a huge part of it is looking the part. And if the people who in their minds are supposed to look the part - don't - then those with the money to spend on professional services will spend their money elsewhere.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Walker:
You see, the problem with your question and your insistence on sticking to generalities rather than specifics is that you don't want to discuss real-life issues that identify the problem, you just want to stick with the mantra. Specifics are just too messy aren't they? With avoidance tactics like that you should go into politics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anchoress:

Sorry, but I thought I was very specific. How would you like me to be more so?

---

To quote you back: "I don't mind answering your question fully, but I'm not interested in getting into a discussion where I provide examples that I think are valid but that you reject because they don't meet *your* definition of valid."

So, to go back to MY question, "Give me a valid reason why an employer might require women to cover their legs in some way."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anchoress:

Because when a female consultant is at the front of the boardroom of a company offering a programme the company has paid $20K for and she doesn't have any makeup on, or she isn't wearing nylons, *unfortunately* (and I really really do mean unfortunately) the thought going through people's minds (not only men, women too) is ... 'gee, my company is paying a ton of money for this course, we're all taking a day off work and the consultant hasn't even bothered to look like the professional the company promised she would be?'

It's stupid and it's unfair, but it's the way a lot of the world works. People have shallow preconceptions about what it means to be professional, and a huge part of it is looking the part. And if the people who in their minds are supposed to look the part - don't - then those with the money to spend on professional services will spend their money elsewhere.

And sure, you can make this about me defending companies instead of workers, or you can call me naive, assume that I'm defending an institution that I'm actually a part of, etc etc etc, but the problem is way bigger than individual employers dictating individual dress codes - it's about all our unconscious expectations when we are at the receiving end of services. And if presenting front line workers with a particular dress code is going to get a company a bigger market share, they're going to do it.

---

OK, so we're getting to the heart of it. I absolutely reject the 'it's not me, it's us, it's society, really I'm on your side but that nasty thing called society dictates these things.' Come off it, own up th your attitudes, don't blame them on society or your employer.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Walker:
To quote you back: "I don't mind answering your question fully, but I'm not interested in getting into a discussion where I provide examples that I think are valid but that you reject because they don't meet *your* definition of valid."

So, to go back to MY question, "Give me a valid reason why an employer might require women to cover their legs in some way."

In other words, how is an employer's insistence that a female employee wear nylon stockings relevant to their job?

---

I think I already answered that in a previous post.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Walker:
How is that insistence not a clear example of sexism?

---

Because nylons for women are, like ties for men, a generally-agreed-upon element of the corporate 'uniform'.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Walker:
Why not just cut to the chase and insist that all female employees come to work naked?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Walker:
OK, so we're getting to the heart of it. I absolutely reject the 'it's not me, it's us, it's society, really I'm on your side but that nasty thing called society dictates these things.' Come off it, own up th your attitudes, don't blame them on society or your employer.

Anchoress, YOU ARE SOCIETY. YOU control your thoughts, not your employer, not society. You couch your words in corporate rules, yet ironically you are being most shallow and UNprofessional by saying 'if the woman I'm listening to ain't got nylons, she ain't worth listening to'.
Really? Is that really true? No, it's not. The truth is that if the person has got it, it doesn't matter if she is wearing a cardboard box.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mandos:
Walker: I recently had dinner with an Iraqi man who does believe that Iraq is better off now with the Americans. However, his wife believes otherwise.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mandos:
Walker: I recently had dinner with an Iraqi man who does believe that Iraq is better off now with the Americans. However, his wife believes otherwise.

---

quote:

---

Wouldn't this be required for certain places though. If a woman where to work at a store selling make up it seems logical that they would be required to wear make-up at least similar to the products being sold.

---

It was late (for me) and Iost my temper - I think other babblers have better described the harm done to the human rights of workers, in particular to working women, by those who mouth such an attitude.

quote:

---

you could be fired tomorrow if your boss decides your "uniform" for work includes makeup.

---

I take this to be the key line, which has gotten a bit lost in the intervening argument.

- It's not about whether you 'need' makeup to perform the job (stripper)
- It's not about whether 'society' dictates you 'need' makeup to perform the job (business executive, makeup counter saleswoman--I use woman intentionally here)

The legal ruling seems to make it completely legal for any owner/manager of any place of business to require female employees to wear makeup. Any business, any situation, any time, and it's legal.

That implies, for example, that you could lose your job as a letter carrier for not wearing makeup, if your manager decides his female postal employees "really should be taking better care of their appearance".
The Sarge wants his female soldiers to doll themselves up? Better break out the pink camo, ladies, or you'll be discharged.
etc, etc.
From nighttime janitor to CEO, you can now be fired for not wearing makeup, irrespective of whether it affects your job performance, simply because someone higher up decided it was suddenly going to be mandatory.

I think that this is the nub of the problem, precisely because it is true, in a way:

quote:

---

the problem is way bigger than individual employers dictating individual dress codes - it's about all our unconscious expectations when we are at the receiving end of services. And if presenting front line workers with a particular dress code is going to get a company a bigger market share, they're going to do it.

---

That is true. Why would we (or some of us, anyway) be socialists if it weren't true? (Ok: that's only one of our reasons, but it is one.)

What bothers me, Anchoress, is that you don't seem to be imagining that history and resistance and brave intelligence can ever make any difference to that clearly mindless status quo. And yet, demonstrably, workers' struggles and women's struggles have made a difference, some difference, so far, and we can continue to make our world both more fair and more intelligent if we keep the pressure up.

We're certainly not going to do it if we accept trite notions of what looks "professional" or "respectable" as timeless verities. They aren't! Until I was an adult, eg, every single middle-class man felt that he had to wear a hat to work in order to look professional. (There was a women's hat culture too, but that's even more complicated.) Look at group photos of those guys of my dad's generation: they always make me think either of a bunch of Mafia dons holding a confab or of the G-men who would have been after the Mafia dons. I mean, too funny.

And I think that that is our weapon against the corporate toadies right now, who indeed are still wearing silly uniforms. Already, the eye has changed, I think. Corporate uniforms are ugly. They just are. Take every opportunity you can to make clear to the next condescending "professional" airhead you meet that you feel FABULOUS as you are, and why would he/she want to look so stiff and boring and probably tacky? I certainly do.

I always have this thought especially sharply when I watch the G-8 guys get together in some sublimely beautiful place, like the Plains of Abraham or an ancient palace in Genoa or the Canadian Rockies, and what are they wearing? They are wearing bad suits! I'm sure those suits are expensive, but they are ugly! And why are they ugly? Not because they are badly tailored (an ancient and noble craft), but because they are all the same! They are a uniform, and not even an interesting uniform (like a Swiss guard's, eg) -- they are boring! They are UNFABULOUS!

I'm serious, you guys. This is a guerrilla tactic. Our eyes have changed, but it is true that most people's haven't yet, or at least most people don't feel confident to defy the grey guys yet.

So Anchoress is right: a woman like me, who insists on looking FABULOUS rather than like Belinda Whozit, is effectively ruled out of one major labour market at the moment. One way of breaking down that form of discrimination is to start laughing -- yes, laughing -- at the pinheads who have so much vested in their pinstripes.

You know, I do not personally like the idea of uniforms. I think they function primarily as markers of social and economic status, and in a practical sense what htey do is let us know who we can shit on and who can shit on us. I don't think they would have any place in an egalitarian world. Of course, we don't live in such a world, and most people like to know their place in the pecking order--hence, uniforms.

After all, it used to be a criminal offence to wear clothing outside of one's social rank. People wanted to know who they could shit on safely and who could safely shit on them. That was the whole point of such "uniforms." And I dare say little has changed today. We want our secretaries to dress like secretaries so bosses know who to order around for coffee and photocopies. The bosses want to dress like bosses so no one will order htem for coffee or photocopies. The engineers and techy people want to dress like engineers and techy people so that people won't either order them for coffee and photocopies OR ask them to sign the timesheet. And the cleaning staff wear a "real" uniform so that people don't even have to say hello to them; it is a marker of their very low social and economic status.

Generally speaking, the vast majority of people forced to wear "real" uniforms are paid shit and thought of as low-skilled and basically uneducated. The only exception I can think of to this off-hand is military high officials. But even there, uniform denotes rank--status and power--and their uniform still marks them as a servant, if of a very peculiar and powerful sort. It is a mark of one's social and professional status, the extent to which one can *not* wear a uniform without penalty. As I sit here at work in my blue jeans and a sweater (it is absolutely freezing here today), I am well aware that if I were an admin assistant, in teh current parlance, this would not be considered acceptable.

OF course then you have people who voluntarily wear quasi-uniforms (suits) because it assists them in their power struggles as part of management and upper management.

Generally speaking, I believe when people say "people have to wear uniforms to present a professional image to impress clients" or whatever, what is actually happening is that these quasi-uniforms appeal to the hierarchical and classist nature of our society--they let us know where people "fit" and make us comfortable. ("Us" used very loosely. Include yourself or not, as you like.) Wearing a quasi-uniform is essentially adopting and reinforcing the status quo of professional and economic status and power.

Not, I would have thought, a dearly held socialist or left-wing principle. Anyway.

Accepting pantyhose or makeup as a legitimate part of a "female uniform" is essentially, as far as I can see, accepting that business and employers generally have a right to force female employees to mark themselves as such--as female. If uniforms function primarily as a marker of social status, adn if women are forced to differentiate themselves by adopting a different uniform than men, then these special female uniforms are a marker of a special female status. Generally an inferior one. Thus sexist.

AGain, I realize my privilege in being able to resist these demands--I'm a professional in a technical field, so I have no makeup on most of hte time. I don't "do" my hair, although I dye it bright red and pretty well only to clash with my clothes. I haven't worn pantyhose in, god, must be at least five years. Even so I'm aware that I'm pushing the uniform envelope for my workplace, and to some extent it's drag. And I am also aware that I am doing this to fit into the expectations of my role in this organization, primary among those being who can tell me what to do, who can't, and what they can tell me to do.

quote:

---

That. Stinks.

---

And should be utterly make illegal.

Tho I do disagree with Athena, in that most uniforms do not for me, mean people of low pay since I see them most often in industry (manufacturing) and they are union paid workers, paid very well indeed as is my plumber and electrician, both who wear uniforms. I myself used to have to wear jacket and tie to work and now Im sitting in a sweater and black jeans (cuz its freezing here) and the only suit/jacket I have is the one I bought for my wedding in sept 2003. And I lvoe it. Though I do look smart in a suit (and killer in a kilt) I very much prefer what I work in now

I dont disagree with Anchoress necessarily, she is arguing from how the world is and she could make her mark and refuse but she would do so from the unemployment line.

Lipstick is optional.

[ 18 January 2005: Message edited by: Contrarian ]

quote:

---

Bacchus, I wanna see you in a kilt and pantyhose!

---

Hey, it's been done before. Check out this article (with pictures!)

Swedish bus driver protests dress code by wearing skirt

quote:

---

BBC News, August 06, 2004

Skirting around Sweden's heat
A combination of summer heat and a rigid dress code has led a Swedish bus driver to wear a skirt to work.

Mats Lundgren, from the northern Swedish town of Umea, got fed up of sitting in the drivers' seat for hours at a time in dark uniform trousers.

He asked his boss whether he could wear shorts for comfort as temperatures hit 25C (77F).

But when his boss said "no", Mr Lundgren decided to find an alternative. And he began showing up to work in a skirt.

"The reaction here has been nice - the passengers all smile and my workmates think it's hilarious, but I don't expect to set a trend among them," he told BBC News Online.

"I wore it all day yesterday. It was very nice to have a bit of a breeze," he said.

Mr Lundgren is exploiting a loophole in the firm's dress code, which allows skirts to be worn but does not specify which sex should be wearing them.

---

quote:

---

Because nylons for women are, like ties for men, a generally-agreed-upon element of the corporate 'uniform'.

---

There really isn't an equivalent for women. They're still trapped in the power suit-nylons-jewellery-makeup trap. And why is that? Because the vast majority of people who set the rules for the average corporate dress code are men. They've made themselves more comfortable attire for the workplace, but there persists this archaic notion that bare legs on a woman is somehow scandalous or cheap. So no comfy clothes for you girlie!

Used to be that a woman couldn't leave her bedroom, never mind her house, without being tightly corseted, otherwise her virtue would be in question. Those corsets were uncomfortable and created health problems for the women who were forced to wear them. Eventually, women rebelled and refused to wear them anymore. Then they demanded the right to wear their hair short, then to wear (gasp!)slacks, to wear underwear instead of those nasty restrictive girdles, etc., etc.

Some women enjoy wearing pantyhose and stockings. Yay them. Many women consider them a form of torture. Yay also to them. As they rarely serve any practical purpose, can cause fungal infections in moist dark areas like the crotch and the feet, are impractical from a durability standpoint, why the hell should any woman wear these things on her legs if she doesn't want to?

The status quo in style, in what is acceptible and what is not, in society in general, is constantly shifting and changing because it is constantly being challenged. And that's a good thing. To passively say, "gosh yes, it's nasty, but that's the way it is so just accept it" is regressive. Uncreative. A cop-out.

[ 18 January 2005: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]

Few people were happier at the demise of the corporate uniform (in it's earlier sense) than clothing manufacturers. Variation in clothing options for the workplace opened up huge markets for the fashion industry- and created the opportunity for people with money to differentiate themselves more easily by wearing more expensive clothing. It also created a reason for massive advertising campaigns.

Forcing women to apply makeup (a bizarre and non-uniform practice, given the variations in makeup) imposes an extra cost on women that it does not on men.

Makeup is expensive, far more so than male razors etc. That is an undeniably sexist imposition, not the requirement of some form of uniform. In that frame, the judgement was blatantly discriminatory (unless it provides for extra wages for the women, to offset the cost of purchasing all that muck). This also applies to workplace requirements that cause, or may cause, health issues (like nylons for some women).

I realize that work clothing (of the office variety) tends to be more expensive for women, which is another concern and needs to be addressed, but the absence or presence of uniforms does not affect this issue, except that uniforms reduce the competition somewhat, and actually levels some of the class differentiations.

We have a cognitive mixup between uniforms (a fundamentally anti-consumerist idea) and conformity. Does anyone here really, honestly think that what they wear defines them as an individual? More so than your actions and words? Real non-conformity comes with career choices, personal and public choices, not fashion sense. We can all be fabulous, but I'd rather be a drably dressed fabulous activist than a fashionable and attractively (and therefore expensively) dressed person in a boring job.

[ 18 January 2005: Message edited by: arborman ]

I read both the news and text of the legal decision several days before this thread was begun. It disturbed me then, as it does now; though I took some comfort in feeling (reasonably) assured that the result would be different in this country. However, my ire was raised by on labour and human rights fronts. It didn't then, and doesn't now strike me as being uniquely "sexist" in nature. Because of that perception, it has been suprising, and somewhat disheartening to watch this break out into a bush war (h'mmm, now there's a colloquialism that needs to be re-examined)between good people who are ultimately all "on the same side.

I'm also questioning how the "dress code" and "uniforms" analogies are particulary apt. My thinking on that is, if an employer wishes to present an "identifying" corporate image through a unique wardrobe, and is willing to supply and pay for the same, O.K., so long as that is known up-front before hiring. To use an employer mandated but employee suplied "code of dress is unwarranted and wrong.

Why ? Because the only plausible justification for such as "dress code" is "corporate image". IOW, consumers, the public, whoever would not be as comfortable with the organization as a whole if its representatives looked ( fill in you won blanks).

A valid employer concern, I grant. However, it is only valid (1)if the individual employee will be interacting with the customer base, and (2)If that particular employee's appearance is shown to have a negative impact on customers or clients.

So, we are left, as always, with performance based criteria being the only which are valid. If Dominic, who recently started wearing a nose ring and spiking his hair is now selling way more Benz's than he used to, or than expected, then there is reason to iniate progressive discipline; not for his appearance, but for his performance. Dominic is on his own to analize whether his appearance contributes to his faltering production. If he concludes that it is a negative factor, he is then left with the choices: change the image, use the image to attract a new client base, or accept the risk of dismissal.

An astute corporate governance could not help but recognize the financial wisdom; let alone the justice in such an approach. Emplyees who choose an "image" that proves to "turn customers off" can be terminated on performance grounds, something that is almost always proper. Meanwhile, the employer gains the experimental value of seeing what effect this particular "mage" has on its clientel.

Do any of you remember when anything remotely even "gay tollerent" was considered a corporate "kiss of death".

They do learn, over time. Just seems to take them a "long time".

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
What bothers me, Anchoress, is that you don't seem to be imagining that history and resistance and brave intelligence can ever make any difference to that clearly mindless status quo.

---

I didn't realise that was expected of me, skdadl. What I'm frustrated by is that I have provided an example which *I* believe is valid where an employer can reasonably demand that female employees wear nylons, but most of the responses to my posts have been either personal attacks (very personal) or comments to the tune of 'yes, but why aren't you objecting to it?' or 'yes, but don't you realise how that status quo is just contributing to the worker/overlord disparity?' or 'yes, but not fighting it makes you a bad feminist' or 'yes, but even *mentioning* it makes you a bad feminist' etc etc etc.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bacchus:
I dont disagree with Anchoress necessarily, she is arguing from how the world is and she could make her mark and refuse but she would do so from the unemployment line.

---

"Because when a female consultant is at the front of the boardroom of a company offering a programme the company has paid $20K for and she doesn't have any makeup on, or she isn't wearing nylons, *unfortunately* (and I really really do mean unfortunately) the thought going through people's minds (not only men, women too) is ... 'gee, my company is paying a ton of money for this course, we're all taking a day off work and the consultant hasn't even bothered to look like the professional the company promised she would be?'

It's stupid and it's unfair, but it's the way a lot of the world works. People have shallow preconceptions about what it means to be professional, and a huge part of it is looking the part. And if the people who in their minds are supposed to look the part - don't - then those with the money to spend on professional services will spend their money elsewhere."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rebecca West:
That's no longer so for men. Many successful men in the corporate sector, tired of the restrictive and boring appearance of the suit-and-tie uniform, opt for "business casual", a mode of dress that can convey confidence, success and style. It's very popular in offices and board rooms all over the world now.

There really isn't an equivalent for women. They're still trapped in the power suit-nylons-jewellery-makeup trap. And why is that? Because the vast majority of people who set the rules for the average corporate dress code are men. They've made themselves more comfortable attire for the workplace, but there persists this archaic notion that bare legs on a woman is somehow scandalous or cheap. So no comfy clothes for you girlie!

---

I feel I would like to politely differ with just a small part of what you say, Rebecca. In summer, when women are allowed to dress more coolly, men are still expected to wear a suit or sports jacket, at least in the kind of fussy offices you're referring to.

As a self employed consultant I don't need to dress according to any written or announced code. Sometimes I wear a suit, sometimes a sports jacket and slacks, sometimes the same sports jacket with jeans or cords. Most days I wear a tie, but I don't have to. I do have to shave, though, as a day's growth would arouse suspicions of a hangover.

The offices, business or government, that I visit in the course of my work don't generally have dress codes either, so no one, male or female, is making them up.

One thing that has always astounded me is how much more women do have to pay for dress and grooming and cosmetics. If I get a pair of Rockports on sale for $125 I figure I am doing OKay, but still forking out more than I would like. My wife generally pays well over $150 for something similar. I can get a bottle of cologne for about $60, but perfume for my wife is about $90. The last two suits I bought were on sale at The Bay for $130 each; they were originally $400 or something, but had been remaindered. They look fine to me! I cannot imagine what a woman has to pay for a wool suit, but I am going to guess that $300 is about the minimum even at the end of the season.

Why women pay these prices I'll be damned if I know. And lower paid female white collar workers, bank tellers, who make little, are always dressed up! Is that a dress code imposed by management, or a cultural thing, a peer pressure thing among those female workers, or a code imposed by the fashion and pop culture industries and reinforced by their boyfriends, or maybe a bit of all three?

In any case, the old slogan "the clothes make the man" can be rewritten in non-sexist terms and still be just as silly. And varying the "look" to something more casual, but just as expensive, and then pressuring people to keep up with that, is just as extractious on the worker's bottom line, mainly, how much does it cost to keep working.

[ 19 January 2005: Message edited by: Budd Campbell ]

I love the language used in these policies:

This policy will outline a contemporary dress code that is consistent with the Council’s commitment to:
Providing high quality, friendly, responsive service to the community; and
Enabling its staff to effectively serve the community..."

"Employees’ clothing, grooming and personal accessories:
must appear neat and clean; and
-must not be extreme or detract from their appearance as members of a citizen responsive, professional organisation."

and then we get to the heart of it:

"Smart business attire must be worn by all staff who are not required to wear a uniform. Minimum standards are defined as:
-Slacks/Trousers/Skirt (not denim)
-Open-necked business shirt (tie not necessary for males)
-Appropriate long or short sleeved tops or shirts for females."

Damn! Seriously, by the end of my working week, I just can't be bothered ironing a shirt, although I can stretch a pair of trousers across 3 days.

to be honest, i am totally disgusted by babble. i really expected more from a site that labels itself progressive. i keep hoping each time i login that i will be proved wrong, that i will come upon a thoughtful, reflexive debate on the issue at hand, and that the people who have nothing useful to say on the topic or who don't see it as an "issue" will have kept their keys quiet. i have yet to have that happen and, after five months of trying, i'm giving up.

is it really that hard to just 'walk' on by a thread that doesn't pertain to you or that you feel is "silly"? i guess so. to those of you who seem to be hampered by this need to always get in your $.02 and repsond to every thread that you find(i think you know who you are): step away from the computer, go outside, take a deep breath of fresh air, and ask yourself if it's really worth it. after that, try to get a life.

i know the loss of someone who does not reside within the babble clique will not be of great concern but maybe it should be

It wasn't so long ago when there were only two types of women who wore make-up, actresses and prostitutes and they were both on the same social level. Only respectable ladies refrained from make-up.

This judgement is just plain wrong. The most an employer should expect from their employees is basic hygenine and grooming, clean clothes and shoes. Looking like you are prepared for work is being "professional". Gamblers are there for the gambling, not oggling the dealers. If they want to oggle they go see the floor show.