It is clear to anyone in the corporate world that the standards of professionalism for men and women are unequal. Women wear more colors and more variety, show more skin, including shoulders, back, arms, legs, and feet. Men wear almost uniform apparel, their only real deviation being in tie color and shape.
The inequity is on a few levels. Women are allowed to dress somewhat more comfortably (e.g. cooler dress on warmer days), though social pressure encourages them to wear high heels, tight clothing, and make-up.
Men’s rigid standards do not allow for much expression or for weather-sensible dress, but does not require as much time or effort, and is somewhat more adaptable (a suit-coat is warm, but can be acceptably removed while working).
What I’m curious about is how this affects social equality of the sexes. It seems obvious that, regardless how high they rise on the corporate ladder, women are still sexualized and encouraged to sexualize themselves. The pressure to wear less and reveal more could tip unconscious scales in power dynamics (one could argue in either direction). Men’s dress tends to smooth out physical differences (besides facial features and height), which could influence a man’s ability to get by on physical attributes, while a woman may benefit or suffer from her innate physical structure.
My opinion is that these trends are huge roadblocks in equalizing genders. Whatever their effect, it is clearly unequal. I do not know how it should be resolved, however, because the iniquity extends beyond the workplace. But I think that if equality is a goal, their is an impetus on everyone to be aware of and to discourage such norms.
Interesting topic Carleas, but I have a couple quick comments (the latter you may find more interesting).
I would find that “almost” correct. I have noticed (as Satyr has awoken my observation for this by his landmark thread: The Feminization of Man) that while men may not sway very far from the traditional suit and tie motif, there have been breakthroughs in fashion to allow such suit-wearing gentlemen to not only alter their tie color, but shirt as well (even their suit if possible). There are more laid-back businesses where a suit jacket is abandoned, as well as a tie, in favor for a polo shirt or some other form of “relaxed” clothing. More and more, men are discovering the social acceptability and freedom to “reveal” more, and in some cases, as much as women.
What I find rather interesting (as you may find as well) is that what you describe is only taking place in the Western world or in any culture that has adapted itself to the Western norm (i.e. Japan). In the Eastern world, particularly in Islamic countries or countries with a high Muslim population, you will find that this schema is almost reversed: that the women are the ones who are more clothed than the men. Now, given the observations, while we here in the West may be dealing with issues of inequality, they are drastically minor compared to such issues in the Islamic community.
What is the solution? Well, I would imagine that the first thing we need to do is shatter the foundation by which these “norms” have promulgated. The big question is… what is that foundation? Is it religion, perhaps? Is it a combination of several things?
Great points, and great food for thought. In many ways, your points are intimately related.
You’re absolutely right that the trend is towards a relaxation of professional dress. The tech boom and the rise of twenty-something CEOs have spawned more lax standards, and the drive for innovation has encouraged the adoption of new social modes in the workplace. I think this also explains the differences between western and western-inspired countries and other societies. The west has a socially progressive track record in comparisson with other areas, and our clothing choices reflect that.
The ironic thing in light of this is that the current trend towards more colorful and revealing female dress is that it is actually a product of women’s liberation. The relaxation of restrictions on women’s dress and the appearance and prominence of women in the workplace have gone hand in hand.
But now it seems that it has gone too far. Women are still objectified despite financial independence. And men are still required to be stiff and unexpressive, though within the past 10 years they have loosened up a great deal. This phenomena may be due in part to the fact that, though women’s lib was incredibly successful in a relatively short time, no parrallel men’s lib movement has occured and the change has been much slower.
I think regardless the cause, simply ackowledging the situation can do a lot to change things. It makes people less critical of puching the envelope, and encourages them to push envelopes where they feel unfairly pressured. As with many social issues, awareness is golden in the initiation of social change.
Gasp You mean that the liberation of women wasn’t a liberation at all, it was simply a redrawing of stereotypes, their boundaries and relations?
More seriously, I’ve been saying this for years, and that the true liberation in sexual politics and gender stereotypes is yet to come.
Both men and women are objectified, just in different ways. Ask yourself why you are primarily focusing on the ways in which women are objectified, rather than both men and women (and hermaphrodites, transsexuals and other similar people who defy simplistic categorisation).
Or that in truth, very little has changed. Men are still expected to be men, women are still expected to be women, the only significant change that I see is that now women as well as men are expected to earn a full-time wage in order to be able to achieve economic security for their family. Hence, house and property prices across the ‘liberated’ economic world have risen, families on the whole are not as well-off in terms of the work/time/money exchange as they were 20, 30, 50 years ago and we have a whole shedload of problems for politicians and corporations to pretend to be solving.
On the whole, I’m not particularly convinced that feminism achieved anything good in the 20th century. I say that as someone who ardently believes in the validity of social, economic, sexual and cultural equality. But more optimistically, one of the most significant developments yet to come is the accepting men on equal footing as women in terms of childrearing and nurturing.
I’m not so sure. ‘Raising awareness’ in my mind is simply an excuse for the media to trample out the same old tosh year after year without raising their critical standards. If anything, they’ve lowered them (in this country). We need active ideas, explanations of why people should be motivated to change their behaviour. It’s still ‘just words’, but it’s a lot more effective than simple awareness-raising.
Most women enjoy the power that they gain from dressing provatively. And let’s face it, they can wear feminine or masculine clothing; men don’t have that option.
Most often, a women who relies upon her looks, and not her brains will not rise to the top of the food chain as she will not be respected.
Loose dress slacks, comfortable sneakers, and loose, but not baggy, casual tops are my attire for success and I do succeed. Corporate America is far more confining to women than men, at least it use to be. Mid-length shirt sleeves, must wear nylons and dress shoes, (Levis will earn you a write-up) preferably wears a skirt or dress and seldom wears dress slacks. Yick! Men were stuck with the neckties, dress slacks, and shirts.
I think you could be on to something. In Finland its very rare that people will wear suits and dresses. For example, I am a manager at an IT company and I turn up to work with jeans and a woolly jumper. I also use my push bike.
My boss is female and she too wears jeans and a jumper. If I remember, Finland is one of the most gender equal places in the world. Although 1 in 5 women are beat in their own homes by their husbands.
I have lived in the UK and I know that the culture is completley different, I suspect in the USA too. Maybe clothes have a bigger impact then one thinks.
I tried to highlight the ways in which both sexes are confined by dress in the workplace, and I did not mean to imply that it is keeping one or the other down. Surely, in certain male-dominated environments, a short skirt can be a huge distraction, and anyone who has seen an advertisment in the past half century can testify that there is an agreement that sex sells.
I think the push for a male liberation movement is interesting. SIATD, I’ve butted heads with you over gender before, but I’m pleasantly surprised to see how much I agree with you about gender equality and the effectiveness (or impotence, as the case may be) of modern feminism.
So how to combat it? I proposed awareness, and I still believe in that, though I see that my position needs clarifying. I think that to effectively raise awareness, people need to be made aware of things the can’t do but might want to. By provoking people on that level, it raises the issue to consciousness, explains why they should care, and attaches the emotional tag that comes with oppression.
I’m not sure what you mean here. Do you mean ‘can’t’ as in ‘are heavily discouraged from doing’ or ‘can’t’ as in literally cannot due to biological or other limitations?
If you mean the former, then we’re talking about things people can do, but don’t (for all sorts of reasons). Combating those reasons is worthwhile, I feel, but it should always be a call to arms, of sorts. Or a call to action. Things can be done.
What? Act differently yourself. Resist the temptation to use aggressive and obstructive modes of thinking and acting. Be fluid in your appreciation of gender and all the associated baggage. Advise others to do likewise. When a friend asks you for relationship advice, be wary of what you tell them and what you encourage them to do. Make the uncomfortable decisions yourself to prove they can be made.
