Comments on: Law Firm Encourages Female Employees to “Embrace Their Femininity”

By: sexetveritas

sexetveritas — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 00:58:41 +0000

Pants-only corporate dress code would discriminate against those women who wear only skirts as part of their religious faith. Of course one can argue the merits of a religion that mandates gender separation. But it is still discrimination on the part of the workplace. Better to state that all employees may wear pants or skirt (of “modest” length, if need be.)

By: neil

neil — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 03:15:42 +0000

these corporations and law firms cater to the upper class, and so it is not surprising that they encourage a posh, classy aesthetic. it is about making the customer feel reassured and at home. no one is being required nor forbidden to wear a skirt. in the practice of law part of dressing professionally can be expressing deference for the tribunal (if you’re a litigator), or deference to the client, by muting your own individuality when you’re acting as someone’s agent or officer.

i agree with the poster that says that dress norms are generally more flexible for women than for men. there is a wide range of attire suitable for professional women whereas mens attire amounts to a few variations on the business suit. establishing a norm for women to wear a suit style tracking as closely as possible the one developed for men would be absurd. perhaps norms for female professional attire will harden over time.

i see the necktie as an oppressive garment. it is alternately a noose and a collar, and is de rigeur for men in formal settings. but, it is a fairly old tradition and serves as a reminder of the role you’re meant to play while wearing it.

By: Jennifer

Jennifer — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 17:18:55 +0000

Oh, but I’m sure the law firm is going to properly compensate their female employees for those pretty skirts, expensive makeup and neverending supply of pantyhose, right?

Maaaaaan, GTFOOBWTB.

By: Lorelei

Lorelei — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 09:02:20 +0000

this is exactly why i’m against dress codes and the idea of ‘professional attire’ because it’s just another way to institute oppression across the board. this is why i cannot stand when people see something about dress codes and are like ‘well you DO have to maintain a certain amount of professional atmosphere…’ and it’s like, why? and why does ‘professional’ seem to always be straight white UPPER CLASS dude? i don’t even believe in this reasonable standard of blah blah blah. i just would not be phased by a lawyer in court in a tanktop, i’m sorry.

By: idyllicmollusk

idyllicmollusk — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 19:39:12 +0000

I formerly worked at a non-prof law org where the entire staff was women. We hired consultants to “re-brand”, as our branding had been done in the 70s and looked it. Weirdly, we hired a non-feminist white male consultant. His rebranding ideas for us involved trying to “soften” and “feminize” us because he was concerned that being a group of badass female lawyers would frighten the public and our allies unless we softened our image with familiar feminizing tropes. When we balked at these ideas, he resorted to sports metaphors to explain his thoughts.

Good times.

By: Bitter Scribe

Bitter Scribe — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 07:39:55 +0000

This is what’s so great about working from home. Half my clothes are rags, and no one cares.

By: roses

roses — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 21:08:37 +0000

Interestingly, at the companies I’ve worked for (an oil company and an engineering firm) the dress code has been a lot more lenient for women than for men. Men wear slacks and a collared shirt, period. Women can wear slacks, skirts, dresses, collared shirts, sweaters or dressy tops. The result being that in the summer, women had the option of bare legs and open toed shoes and men didn’t.

Personally I would be irritated if I had to wear pants to work, because as a plus sized women with an apparently untypical body type, I find it very, very difficult to find pants that fit comfortably and look good. Skirts and dresses are much easier for me.

By: GallingGalla

GallingGalla — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 17:59:30 +0000

Also: you forgot “classism” in there. Because the dress code is generally for all office employees, not just the ones paid well enough to afford it.

Point well taken.

By: Rosalux

Rosalux — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 15:17:05 +0000

Pants only is no more gender neutral than high-heels only. Forcing me to wear pants is like saying “your body does not fit our (masculinized) ideal so you have to wear clothes that make you look dumpy”.

There’s no such thing as a “gender neutral” dress code, unless it’s on the level of “no knees should be visible and you must wear close-toed shoes”. Because if it were gender neutral it would be just as likely to mandate “women’s” clothing as “men’s”, right? And no company is going to mandate skirts for everyone.

Of course, I’m lucky to live in a city and work in a company with enough butch women & transmen that dress shirts, slacks, and plain flat shoes (not “flats” but regular lace-up or loafer dress shoes) is considered perfectly professional. I wonder if that’s true at law firms around here?

Also: you forgot “classism” in there. Because the dress code is generally for all office employees, not just the ones paid well enough to afford it.

By: denelian

denelian — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 03:07:33 +0000

GallingGalla:
yeah, it would be prefered. and better for transfolk. and anyone else whose body (or whose self-image) doesn’t hold up for skirts.

all the fuss thats made over ‘sexual misconduct” and “sexual harrasment”, you’d think corporations who keep being sued over them would implement policies that are gender neutral so they could STOP being sued. but it is apparently more important to uphold gender norms than have a good working enviroment.

if i ever work someplace again that tries to make me wear a skirt, i am suing. i am not a person who normally makes a big fuss, but i’m so done with being treated that crap because i have breasts; i refuse to be forced to wear cloths that make me look even MORE sexual TO WORK!