Appropriate Female Dress - Burqa?

[DNK]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/23/us/23lawyers.html?ref=us

The article brings up an interesting question: what is "appropriate" attire for professional women, especially those whose line of work is to be a part of an objective system of justice?

I personally find the calls of sexism dishonest, since men have extremely small bits of latitude in how they dress yet women have a significantly larger variety of options and potential for expression, albeit within the clearly restrictive standards of "professionalism" (granted the article suggests even these standards are being dropped). The article points this out when the judge complaining about women's dress has to use tie choice as his male alternative. Men, for instance, can't really choose a suit that shows off their bodies or sexually objectifies them through appearance. The cultural norms don't really allow much latitude in pant length or shirt tightness for men, but women have historically been treated more as objects and so have a better, culturally-accepted ability to "show off" through dress and style.

And this is where I think the calls of sexism are backwards. In this instance, men are clearly more restricted but that is because of sexist objectification towards women. Showing off physical appearance may be satisfying to the ego, but it creates a problem when you are in a business that requires objectivity to properly function.

I guess I follow the comment that "[what point is there to dressing like this, if not to influence others through sexuality?]" What is the point of showing off cleavage and wearing a miniskirt? What are you expressing and what are you getting from this that you cannot get nor express through a long skirt and proper shirt?

Is it fair for judges to complain about women being so distracting? But, really, what is the point of skimpy clothing? Is it fair to restrict the options of expression for a gender based on another gender's innate tendencies? But isn't the whole point of business dress to create a fairly unsuggestive, bland, emotionally unarousing cover for the physical body so as to keep all genders focused on the business/etc perspective and not on the "baser" thoughts? Are women effectively breaking this unspoken communal aggreement by dressing down? Isn't the point of "dressing up" to dress "up" into a particular social scheme that demonstrates personal conformity with the ideals and mores and perspectives the scheme embraces (in this case efficiency, conformity... somewhat, power/monetary hierarchy, and objectivity), whereas dressing "down" is to dress towards the "baser" aspects of the communal human scheme, one which is defined more by emotion? The up/down here is both related to inclination and declination towards a given thought-dress code AND the movement between the "higher" levels of rational/objective thought and the "lower" levels of subconscious/emotional desire?

Personally, I quite despise corporate dress codes, but at the same time I understand that it can be a plus for the community to have such thought-dress.

(weee, I coined a term)

 

[Valka D'Ur]

So are you complaining that some women do dress skimpily, or that men would be laughed out of town if they dressed skimpily?

Honestly, when you consider the getups men wore during the Tudor era and up until about the mid-1800s or so, they seem more professional now. There aren't many men who would willingly wear the older fashions.

Or you could always wear kilts. Lots of women enjoy looking at guys in kilts.

 

[DNK]

They let you wear kilts to work in Canada?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

They do if you're Farley Mowat, or one of the men who does ceremonial duties in Parliament or the Senate. Or if you teach Scottish country dancing.

Actually, there's no law that says you can't wear a kilt, but I would not expect to see any men in kilts at most ordinary business places or in places where it wouldn't be safe or practical. Like most places, I suppose it depends on what the company dress code is.

Of course, that doesn't always help... I once had a situation where I wanted to speak to the manager of the local Real Canadian Superstore (sort of like Wal-Mart but more expensive and with much ruder staff). He was dressed in a T-shirt and jeans, and I told him that I would have taken him for a janitor instead of the store manager - another example of the company's lack of professionalism (I was pretty upset that day, and rightfully so).

As for courts, what the judge and lawyers wear depends on if it's just an ordinary day-to-day sort of work or if it's a jury trial. In the most formal situations, everybody wears some kind of judicial robes over their other clothes, so the issue of nitpicky details doesn't tend to be a problem in the courtroom.

 

[Hundegesicht]

There's nothing wrong with women looking nice (as this is a matter of aesthetics, not sexuality), but when it gets to the point that the article is talking about - micro skirts, super low cut blouses - it seems rather unethical. It's the same as if the male lawyers were coming in wearing muscle ts and tight fitting jeans, or tight fitting workout clothes. It arouses sexual desire in the judge, courtroom, and jury, and that state of arousal can impair judgment and give unfair advantage to one party.

For those who take the line of the feminist quoted towards the end of the article, it's not just "stupid men" who are at least subtly impaired by the effects of being aroused, it's (almost) all men and women. It's just the fact that men typically don't dress in sexually suggestive dress during business hours that women aren't afflicted as much. That being said, as the equality level evens out, more and more men are going for the "metrosexual" look.

 

[Arwon]

In a truly post-patriarchal society, the question of whether women look hot at work, and whether it's good or bad for women to look hot at work, would not even be an issue.

 

[Hundegesicht]

In a truly post-patriarchal society, the question of whether women look hot at work, and whether it's good or bad for women to look hot at work, would not even be an issue.

Could you explain this?

 

[Arwon]

Ask yourself this: why don't men get judged based on whether they dress sexy or not, but women do? Why does this question exist for professional women in the public sphere but not for men in the same position?

It's the concept of Male Gaze, basically. Women don't have a choice in the matter, they get evaluated on a sexual basis regardless of what they do. If they dress sexy, they're sluts, unprofessional, distracting the menfolk. If they don't dress sexy, they're acting like men or dressing frumpy or being castrating b*tch career women. Etcetera. Just look at how people react to and judge female politicians, compared to their dudely counterparts.

The question of what women wear and how they look is still considered important in our culture. Women don't get a choice, they simply have to exist under this gaze, they only have a choice about how they respond to it. This is a sign of assymetric power relations based on gender. Sure, everyone is expected to dress "professionally" in these environments, but men don't have to navigate issues of objectification and sexualisation when they do so.

 

[Hundegesicht]

Hmm, all right, I understand you then.

I agree it's remnants of patriarchal society that makes it so women are much more likely to dress up sexy. I disagree that people wouldn't care if men dressed like sluts - it's just that most men simply *don't.* (in a given office place, how many men do you see coming in wearing their shirt open hasselhoff style, or not wearing underwear, or wearing sleaveless suits or something like that?) The reason men generally don't dress slutty in business situations is again, patriarchal stuff.

Here's where I disagree: I think in this case it's about ethics, not gender roles. I think things like sexual arousal and sensuality are much older and deeper rooted than gender roles, and won't go away when you do away with patriarchal society. Rather, you'd just see more men exploiting sensual dress as well.

Why is it unethical? Because dressing intentionally slutty (and again, I'm not talking about dressing nice, I mean really intentionally slutty) is taking advantage of the fact that others will be aroused by you, and that arousal will inhibit their ability to reason coherently.

In most situations, this isn't a bad thing. If you're at a party looking for a mate, or trying to seduce someone, or just wanting attention, I'm all for it. In a courtroom situation, or a place where business transactions are taking place, though, it constitutes gives you an unfair and unjust advantage - court cases should be as cerebral and logical as possible, not based on which attorney you'd rather sleep with.

Again, I don't think this is directly caused by (though it's certainly influenced by!) Patriarchal society, nor do I think it'll go away once we establish a truly egalitarian society. Sex is sex, seduction is seduction. Male or female. I'd say the exact same thing if it was a bunch of male lawyers wearing skin tight leather chaps and open chested shirts to court, or whatever the ladies are into nowadays.

 

[Masada]

I agree it's remnants of patriarchal society that makes it so women are much more likely to dress up sexy. I disagree that people wouldn't care if men dressed like sluts - it's just that most men simply *don't.* (in a given office place, how many men do you see coming in wearing their shirt open hasselhoff style, or not wearing underwear, or wearing sleaveless suits or something like that?) The reason men generally don't dress slutty in business situations is again, patriarchal stuff.

How can a man dress up slutty? Have you ever seen one? Do they exist? I mean seriously? Men can do sexy... but I just can't see men doing slutty at all. The use of slutty presupposes a number of things as well; sexy is perhaps more appropriate.

 

[Kraznaya]

I support the difference in social acceptance of pimps and sluts.

 

[Hundegesicht]

How can a man dress up slutty? Have you ever seen one? Do they exist? I mean seriously? Men can do sexy... but I just can't see men doing slutty at all.

Get rid of your masculine misconceptions! It's much more subtle with men - if they do it at all - but it exists. I know a guy who purposely buys his t-shirts a size too small so they'll outline his muscles, for example.

But part of what I was saying is that men don't, and that's why we're viewing this as a female only problem. But it's only mostly female only due to our current society - but it has the potential to be both a male and female problem in a hypothetical egalitarian society.

Really, I mentioned the possibility of man-sluts so people wouldn't jump to conclusions and assume I'm a misogynist due to my views. (I'm quite the opposite, but jumping to conclusions and labeling are things that seem to happen very quickly in most internet discussions) Don't take it too seriously.

The use of slutty presupposes a number of things as well; sexy is perhaps more appropriate.

I was trying to find a word that means "intentionally dressing in a certain way for the soul or primary goal of arousing intense sexual attraction or uncomfortableness." I realise "slut" might have negative connotations as well, so if you want, we can define "sexy" as meaning that for the rest of this discussion. Though I've come to understand sexy, despite it's obvious nomenclature, to involve at least some aesthetic classiness - not like the micro-skirts and very low cut blouses described in the OP.

Forgive me for being so thorough/nerdy about it, I just want to have things properly explained and defined as they come up so this thread doesn't turn into a war of semantics 5 pages in. (It will anyway, but it's the thought that counts, right?)

 

[Arwon]

Dressing "slutty" is an "unfair advantage" in courts or politics?

That's a pretty weird assertion.

 

[bhsup]

I've thought about this before. If I did own a large business and required men to wear business suits to work, I'd require the same of women. Not dresses, but business suits. They make them for women. Slacks or long dress, white blouse underneath buttoned at the neck with a jacket over it.

 

[Arwon]

That's one answer, but some old dudes (such as some of these judges by the sound of it) would probably still accuse them of being dressed inappropriately because they looked hot. Or think they were dressing "frumpy" for not being sufficiently pleasing.

There's no easy answer to this dilemma within our present cultural attitudes to these things because there's no escaping the judgements of others.

 

[bhsup]

I don't view it as an issue with them looking "hot" at all. But if the requirement is business suit, then business suit it is. And not what catalogs are now calling a "business suit". Why should a female executive get to wear a nice, breezy dress to work if the male executives have to suffer in a damned three piece with a tie choking the crap out of them all day? Make them both suffer.

http://www.bluesuitsonline.com/index.html <<< === Those things on the home page are not suits.

 

[Arwon]

Wait why not?

Edit: Oh I see, the picture changes each time. The first thing that popped up for me was definitely a suit.

 

[bhsup]

Oh crud, sorry! I was seeing dresses.

 

[flyingchicken]

Everyone should wear masks and homogenizing suits, like in the more dangerous parts of nuculer reactors.

 

[aelf]

I have doubts about the reality of this issue. First, there is no real point in business dress other than to look 'professional'. People constantly strive to look good, even in their professional dress, to create better impressions and thus help them deal with people. This clearly has little to do with being objectively focused on business alone. Hence, people don't adhere to any code in wearing business dress other than that of mere appearance.

Second, looking good is defined by social standards, and social standards have it that women look good sexy and men look good suave/handsome/whatever. Social standards and human instinct also have it that men in suits look suave and women in revealing clothing look sexy. Hence, the fact that men wear suits also have little to do, in practice, with maintaining objectivity. Instead, both men and women are merely conforming to social standards for appearance.

Third, it follows then that it's not so much a question of sexism, but more a question of obsession with appearance. It's sexism only inasmuch as the stereotypes involved in defining social standards for looking good dictate that women look sexy and men look suave, and dictate the associated style of clothing respectively. And even if we talk about sexism, is it sexism towards women? Or is it just a general social prejudice? You can see this as purely sexism towards women only if you regard women as somehow alienated from and outside of society. In reality, at least today, women are very much part of society and contribute to forming social standards and prejudices.

In short, if you want to complain, complain about the obsession with appearance (including the appearance of professionalism), because nobody really talks about dressing in an objective manner. Propriety has little to do with objectivity.