But seriously...

[la_marquise]

So, I have a question for my female friends and female-presenting non-binary friends.
For those of us who present as 'feminine' in the more traditional sense (can be having longer hair, wearing skirts or other 'girly' clothing, being soft-spoken and so forth): do you find people are more ready to question your knowledge than they do that of women who are seen as less 'girly' in presentation? It was noticeable in my last academic jobs that my female colleagues with short hair who dressed in suits tended to be taken more seriously than the rest of us, and were less likely to be asked to undertake extra admin jobs and to do emotional caretaking.
I'd be interested in hearing the experiences of others about this.

Skirt of the day: Blue-tiered the 2nd (as distinct from the beloved, much worn, fragile blue tiered the first.)

Comments

[barbarienne.livejournal.com]

That is fucking horrifying.

The USA has many many faults, but if any company attempted to impose "women must wear heels" here, it would be shot to pieces in the first lawsuit. I'm sure there are companies here that try such things, and where the women go along with it rather than make a fuss, but if it were enshrined in a company document, the liability would be enormous.

There are a few occupations where companies are narrowly permitted to restrict employee self-presentation, but these have to be based on the job requirements (e.g. long hair is unsafe in a machine shop, or hair and beards must be covered in a food prep area), and cannot show gender bias.

[dorispossum.livejournal.com]

I agree, it's a total outrage. Unfortunately the law here is much muzzier (hence need for parliamentary petition). Apparently it's legal to set different dress codes for men and women, as long as the level of 'smartness' is equivalent (and in this case - and similar cases involving airlines and cabin crew - that allows management to interpret 'smart' => painful for female staff). BBC has an article on the UK legalities here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36265545

[barbarienne.livejournal.com]

We have at least 3 very strong Federal laws that would be leveled at such a thing here:

1. Clothing choice is considered personal expression here, so there are some protections under our First Amendment (which our Supreme Court has in recent decades defended vigorously and defined broadly).

2. The Civil Rights Act, which forbids gender discrimination, has been interpreted broadly for women's rights most of the time. (Less so for reproductive health, but feet aren't uteruses.)

3. And even if somehow the above failed, ur Americans with Disabilities Act and other medical privacy laws would make it very easy to demand a health exemption.

[dorispossum.livejournal.com]

On the legalities: detail that made me choke on the cornflakes this morning was: "I've been told by the employment discrimination advice service that because men don't usually wear high heels in non-work life, yet women do, it is not sex discrimination to expect women to wear high heels." WTF? Worrying to think that a body charged with PROTECTING people from discrimination is trying to fulfil its remit by employing the Hard of Thinking.

In better news, case had escalated to R4 Today programme this morning, Katie 'Serena Joy' Hopkins is ranting in the Mail about feminazi petitions, and Thorpe's ex-employers are running for cover, having dropped their heels policy like a hot turd. More importantly, the petition is now well over the 100,000 needed to get parliamentary debate. Getting one employer to back down is great, but we need legislation. But well done Nicola Thorpe (and the 106,584 people (currently) who signed the petition.