My original paper was centered on a personal experience wherein a co-worker had commented on the clothes I was wearing. My goal was to use that experience to explore why I make certain fashion choices—such as wearing skirts and high heels to work—and how these choices affect my sense of accomplishment. The reaction I received, from both Eben and a number of my peers, tells me that the focus of my paper was misplaced. My focus was on fashion choices in relation to gender and sexuality, but the issue that generated interest concerned the role clothes play with regard to identity and class.

The topic of clothes and class has been explored quite thoroughly in the ClothesMaketheLawyer talk and I don’t wish to simply regurgitate arguments that have already been made. So I have decided to use my revision to refactor that talk in order to make the information therein more organized and accessible. See ClassandClothes, for my refactoring of ClothesMaketheLawyer. Please feel free to add and change anything at all.

--Main.MinaNasseri - 25 May 2008

• The vibrancy of the comment your draft inspired shows the importance of the subject, but I think it is important to point out what is not discussed. Both your original anecdote and much of the commentary (all of it by women) begins from the proposition that the original comment about your clothing was "because" of your sex. I think that's almost certainly wrong. You dressed yourself knowing you were going to do something important, and you wore the clothes that would do what you wanted on that occasion, which was to help you command an audience. The person who saw you about to begin the work, with your "game face" on in all respects, commented on your clothes as making your manner, because that's what human beings do, which is why we care about costume in the first place. Men as well as women. Monday last I had an appointment elsewhere on an occasion important to a client. I carefully chose the suit, shirt and tie I was wearing for that appointment; as you know I do not usually wear business clothes in the law school. Three people whom I met during the few minutes I was in the law school asked me what I was doing and assured me that my appearance would help me, or that I looked powerful. I was glad to hear it--I spent a great deal of time choosing the fabric for that suit, and a great deal of money having it made into what it is--but I didn't agonize over whether they thought the suit was more important than the lawyer inside it.

• So I think one aspect of this conversation--which regards the clothes as signalling unreliable messages in the construction of gender identity--is overstressed. Not entirely mistaken, obviously, because of the strong response you get from female readers and the complete absence of male interest in the question. But the difference is not in how the clothes are perceived at such moments, but that men (with the unconscious benefit of male sex privilege) don't even notice what is said to them. It doesn't raise identity uncertainty. Men think compliments on their appearance are just what they deserve; women consider such compliments "attention," with all the mixture of plus and minus that might imply. Neither is exactly right.

• Which brings us to what is not said in your essay, which is that in American society dress is used primarily to mark class. And since class is not a discussable subject in America, most people don't really understand why they wear what they wear. What you wear as press secretary to a Senate candidate depends on which party, and which component of which party, your candidate comes from: the boots that would work for a Democrat in Beverly Hills are rather different from the boots that would work for a Republican in Omaha, right? What to wear to a law firm interview represents, again, the intricate semiotics of class distinction. Like the nisbah of an Arabic speaker, the identification becomes more specific as one gets nearer one's home. To a union electrician, one could say simply that anyone going to a law firm interview should dress like a lawyer, and he would know exactly what that means. The electrician could tell the right clothing for a male law student interviewee from the right clothing for the firm's chief IT guy, too. He would also be able to do the same thing for the women's clothing, and--in contemporary America--he wouldn't make a distinction between costumes built around skirts from costumes built around pants. He would say that a pretty young woman ought to wear skirts instead of pants, probably, but he wouldn't be dogmatic about it.

• Ask a lawyer, on the other hand, and she'd want to know which firm. Sure, she might well say that at some places a pantsuit goes over better than it does at others. But she'd also tell you that the color could make more difference than the cut. That what gets worn at Hunton & Williams isn't necessarily what gets worn at Cravath, and that what works among self-made real-estate partners at a five-partner shop in midtown wouldn't be in the closet of a third-generation bond lawyer below fourteenth street. And if she really knows anything about male clothing (which is far less likely than women like to think) she'd tell you that the only two things that really matter about what a boy law student wears to an interview are the collar of his shirt and the choice of his tie, both of which--unless he's either grown up in the ruling class or is most unusual--he's going to get wrong.

Another comment...

I just wanted to point out, that the skirt suit approach is generally thought of as the most conservative and formal dress for an interview. It is generally inappropriate to show any leg above the knee and most "tips" will suggest that you wear bland, boring conservative clothing so as not to draw attention from the content of an interview. I'm not an advocate of the skirt, just saying it may not be all about putting women in provocative clothing. Also, I thought this was interesting/helpful/worthy of critique dress-code guide. Missouri dress code Personally, I made a conscious choice not to hide my visible hand tattoo or avoid pant suits during interviews, because I knew I didn't want to work at a place that would rule me out for those factors.

The reality is, we live in a society where we are judged by our appearance. Dress codes exist and as professionals, we are held up to those norms. How much we allow that judgment to enter or intrude upon our sense of self-worth is a second step, left up to us. This reminds me of when J. Clarence Thomas expounds upon the harms of affirmative action, because his degree from Yale was constantly undermined. The likely truth is, his degree would have been scrutinized and undermined for any reason because he was black and smart. His degree is no less valid. You are a smart woman. Cheap digs at appearance are just an easy ploy to undermine your faculties. My guess is, if you were unprepared or incapable of handling the task at hand, you would have been shaking in your boots instead of standing in them confidently. -Mia

Having been in similar situations, I completely understand where you are coming from, and I think that Kate's comment about your accomplishments not changing because of a fool's statement is interesting too. It is a hard line to draw because while it is true that your corner office and your title have not changed as a result of the comment, the comment is still demeaning in a way that does affect one's own perception of their accomplishments. The comment, perhaps without intending to, implies that she would knock them out with her boots, but could not have done so simply by doing her job well. The problem is that the comments are made too often and are too accepted. It is hard to change something when the system is inundated with it.

It is interesting to hear what people's perceptions on clothes are as well. I too like wearing heels and skirts, but I was really interested with your take on things Barb. I had never thought of the pant suit for women as being more casual/step down. (The most common argument I've heard is one similar to Mina's that the skirt/heels is seen more as sexy and less as serious...an argument I find demeaning and overly-simplistic to say the least). It is interesting though because if your argument is true the skirt is still serving a purpose in an interview/workplace, although a different one, but maybe that is another discussion! -- Jennifer Burke

It’s interesting to see that there are different interpretations on this topic, so I thought I would go off Kate’s comments a bit to provide yet another, somewhat different view. Wearing a skirt to an interview can say more than just that you want to look good by showing off your legs and that you want people to notice that. I view wearing a skirted suit to an interview rather than a pantsuit as a way of showing that you are serious about the job and are willing to be more uncomfortable (by wearing hosiery and often higher heels – but not too high), because it is important to you to let the interviewer know that you care enough to look your most professional. I look at someone who wears a pantsuit as someone who is shifting down on the relaxation totem pole a notch – not necessarily a good statement to make, if interviewers look at dress the same way I do. So I view wearing a skirted suit not so much as an instrument to shift focus to physical features as an instrument that serves as a projection of and complement to one’s overall degree of seriousness, as long as the skirt is not too short or tight. Then, of course, the message is entirely different.

I agree with Kate -- men are uncomfortable in their ties, starched, button-down shirts, and hard-soled shoes as well, and it’s not very comfortable to be sweating because you have a suit jacket on. Yes, women’s skirted suits (or just skirts or dresses) include the wearing of heels and hose, and if we wear a skirt or dress we have to keep our legs together. But all together, I don’t think men necessarily get away with much more in the comfort department than we do. And when you compare what women were wearing in Veblen’s day to what we wear now, I think the message has changed significantly -- we wear clothing that doesn’t begin to interfere with our physiques and movement the way late 1800s clothing did (whale bone corsets – I can’t imagine), and our professional clothing is now very similar to men’s, with the exception of possibly trading out the pants for a skirt, and no obligatory tie. All in all, my take on today’s professional garb, whether a woman’s or man’s (and this may be a minority view), is that wearing a suit is a way to connect with the business world by showing that you are part of it, and if you wear a proper skirt with your jacket, you are giving that little bit extra. This is probably why it was suggested to your friend that she wear a skirt. Any other thoughts out there?

A Moment of Humiliation…

…Followed by a Moment of Introspection

The Cost of Looking Good and Feeling Good

Stilettos in the Modern Workplace: A Paradox?

Thorstein Veblen notes that a woman wears undeniably uncomfortable clothes so as to announce to society that she “does not and cannot habitually engage in useful work.” The uncomfortable nature of women’s dress, according to Veblen, demonstrates both their economic dependence on man and their husband’s “ability to pay.” So, it seems to me, a modern woman's wearing such attire to the workplace is a paradox. The modern working woman wants to announce her independence and equal status. But how can she stand for the notion that women are equal to men in the workplace when her attire says the opposite?

Though women, such as myself, no longer consider themselves dependent on a man, they have perhaps become dependent on something else entirely - a sense of empowerment attained through attire such as skirts and high heels. Granted, many women can perform to the best of their abilities and be just as efficient as their male counterparts even while donning a skirt and heels. However, I believe the way a woman is perceived and treated by her male colleagues is just as important as her job performance. Even if a woman can be wholly productive in the workplace while sporting stilettos, there is still the possibility that her success is attributed to the stilettos rather than her abilities. Therein lies the cost of a seemingly innocent fashion choice: a woman's true accomplishments are robbed from her when attributed only to the way she dresses.

Naked, But For My Intellect

-- MinaNasseri - 09 Apr 2008

Disclaimer: This essay is based on my personal experience as a woman in the workplace. I am not pointing fingers, at either sex. These are subjective observations and suggestions for personal change in my own life. Comments are both welcome and appreciated!

I may edit this a couple more times before the day is through...

A moment of humiliation…

It was my proudest professional moment to date. I was the Press Secretary of a U.S. Senate campaign. Before me was a room full of leaders from the state’s Democratic Party and I was to convince them to support my candidate. I had worked out my plan of attack: I would walk up to each person, give him a firm handshake, and engage in an intelligent discussion of the campaign and the candidacy. Just then, a fellow staffer turned to me and said, wryly, “Mina, you’ll win that entire room over with those boots you got on.” My sense of accomplishment vanished instantly. I had forgotten what I was wearing-–a knee-length skirt with boots. I had forgotten what I was wearing because I had forgotten it mattered.

…followed by a moment of introspection…

That moment led me to ask myself why I wear clothes such as skirts and high heels in the workplace. The simple, superficial answer is because it looks good. I started playing dress-up with my mother’s clothes at age six; at 16, I would beg my parents to let me wear high heels. I have loved and always will love beautiful clothes.

The more complicated answer is that I feel better—sexier, more confident, empowered—when wearing a skirt and heels. I admit that such attire is physically uncomfortable. I cannot count the number of blisters I have gotten from wearing high heels or the number of times I had to adjust my skirt and worry about a run in my pantyhose. Yet I have come to accept the discomfort of wearing this attire, convincing myself that it is somehow “worth it.” The truth is that I gladly sacrifice my physical comfort for the sense of empowerment that comes with wearing a skirt or a pair of heels. Delving deeper, I find that wearing such clothes in the workplace attracts attention and this attention, in turn, feeds my confidence. I appreciate the irrationality—and perhaps even immaturity—of this attitude. It is, however, a reality of human nature that attention, whether positive or negative, reinforces behavior.

Returning to my "moment of humiliation," I wonder if I would have preferred to have not been wearing skirts and high heels at that moment. I stood before a room of mostly men feeling prepared and confident to speak to each one. Did I feel prepared and confident in spite of my attire or because of it?

The Cost of Fashion

My decision to wear high-heeled shoes and skirts to work can, however, come at a cost to my image as a female professional. I consider myself an “accomplished” individual; I have never achieved something, academically or professionally, without having earned it. Yet my choice of business attire diverts attention from my accomplishments and capabilities to what I happen to be wearing. “You’ll win that entire room over with those boots you got on” transformed over a decade of education, three years of solid work experience, and all of my hard-earned qualifications into nothing more than the product of a fashion choice.

This focus on a woman’s fashion choice, and its tendency to divert attention from her qualifications, exists in the legal profession as well. When 1L OCI was looming and the Career Services Office was giving students interview tips, I overheard one of my peers discussing fashion advice she had received. She had been told that female applicants ought to wear skirts to interviews. I wondered what purpose wearing a skirt to an interview could serve other than shifting the focus of the hiring process from the candidate’s capabilities to her looks, on display through her attire.

Thorstein Veblen notes that a woman wears evidently uncomfortable clothes so as to convey the fact that she “does not and cannot habitually engage in useful work.” The uncomfortable nature of women’s dress, according to Veblen, demonstrates their economic dependence on man and their husband’s “ability to pay.” So, it seems to me, wearing such attire to the workplace as a modern woman is a paradox. The modern working woman is independent, after all; she stands for the notion that women are equal to men as professionals. Veblen’s analysis of women’s dress should not apply to female professionals today.

Nonetheless, women such as myself continue to wear high-heeled shoes and skirts—which cause inefficiency and discomfort—to the workplace. Though I am not, and never will be, dependent on a man, I have grown to depend on the femininity and sense of empowerment that I attain through such attire. Many women maintain that they can perform to the best of their abilities even while donning a skirt and heels. Though I do not doubt that women can be efficient in such dress, I believe what is also important is how the woman is perceived and treated by her male colleagues. Even if a woman can be wholly productive in the workplace while sporting stilettos, there is still the possibility that her success is attributed to the stilettos rather than her abilities. Therein lies the true cost of a personal and seemingly innocent fashion choice.

One Small Step…

Recognizing that my business attire may have a bearing on my image as a female professional, I will make an effort to change my fashion choices. Gender equality in the workplace is a goal that must be approached slowly and steadily. Demeaning remarks regarding my attire or inappropriate attention given to what I wear during an interview are a few of the unfortunate realities I face as a female professional. Rather than accept these realities as just one of the “indignities” I must endure as a woman in the workplace, I choose to change my choices for business attire. Today, I will start by wearing only pants to the workplace. Someday I will abandon my high heels. In this way, I hope to stand on my own, without depending on my clothes for confidence. “Naked,” but for my intellect.