| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
Naked, But For My Intellect
-- MinaNasseri - 09 Apr 2008 | |
<
< | Final Draft. | | | 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! | | | 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. 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, with difficulty no doubt, I will abandon my high heels. In this way, I hope to stand confidently on my own, independent of attention gained through my clothes. “Naked,” but for my intellect.
| |
<
< | I hope it's ok to post a comment here. As a woman who also likes to wear heels and skirts, I'm somewhat troubled by your conclusion. To me, putting on pants in order to be respected seems to imply that the only way to get respect is to dress like a man - as if there is this male ideal to aspire to. I refuse to do that. I will not give up being a woman and deny my physical appearance to garner respect. That strikes me as counter-intuitive. The object should be to change people's biases against women, not for women to hide their bodies and pretend to be men. When you get rid of the heels and skirts and don the androgynous, shapeless suit that's exactly what you're saying "see, I don't have breasts, I don't have hips! I'm just like you!" Why should you allow society to change you, instead of changing society? I see an even bigger problem here - that you really think a woman's accomplishments can be taken away from her by one biting remark from a fool. That's simply not true - your corner office and your title go nowhere when confronted with a moron and the boss who promoted you doesn't suddenly think any less of you, either. And in any case, those Italian shoes men wear and the multi-layered suits are hardly comfortable, either. - KateVershov? | | | | |
<
< | “What purpose could wearing a skirt to an interview serve other than shifting the focus of the hiring process from the candidate’s credentials to her looks, on display through her attire?” | >
> |
- 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.
| | | | |
<
< | 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 but 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. | >
> |
- 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.
| | | | |
<
< | 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? | >
> |
- 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.
| | | | |
<
< | -Barb
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
Another comment...
Hey Mina. My first reaction is that you gave too much power away! If you felt like the s*it when you wore your boots, and when you got dressed that morning you felt it was appropriate then--barring any legitimate criticism of it's appropriateness-- wear it and rock it!
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
MiaWhite - 15 Apr 2008 | | | \ No newline at end of file | |
>
> |
- 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.
| | | \ No newline at end of file |
|