Ok, there is the option not to dye. But for the 75% that do dye, it’s expensive to keep that up well.
I’ll concede that workplaces have unspoken notions of what’s professional and what isn’t and that people can be punished for not going along with the program.
But I refuse to pretend they’re anything other than arbitrary and capricious rules. There’s a different between thinking, “OK, I gotta go get my hair dyed so these jackasses at work won’t look me over for a promotion” versus “I won’t look professional if I don’t color my hair.” Workplace culture would never change if everyone thought like this. There’s just a half-step between “I won’t look professional unless I color my hair” and “You don’t look professional because you don’t dye your hair. Thus, no job or promotion for you.” Women can’t complain about the double-standard if we are the main ones perpetuating it.
That proves that men are more expensive. We ARE a woman’s hobby, and they need to fund the whole smash. A
As my father is so fond of saying, “Whats her’s is her’s and what’s yours is her’s.” So in the end, it all comes out of her ledger. 
So you’re saying you’d make a great professional woman? pix pls
Huh? I’m saying that I think saying it is “unacceptable” for even minimum wage cashiers not to dye their hair is insane. And a lot of people agree with me.
Oh, and that “70% of women dye their hair” number? That comes straight from hair dye maker Clairol… in an advertisement… first published in 1962. Excuse me if I wait for a better cite. Perhaps you’d like L’Oreal’s claim of 50% in a 2011 study they did. Or maybe the 54% that Clairol cites as recently as 2005. Oh, and in the 1970s, they said hair dying went down to 40%.
Nobody knows shit. And even the people who do, are only saying it because the hair dye companies are paying them.
12
Goodness. I’m not making moral judgements. In a perfect world everyone would wear whatever they want. I’m not endorsing all this ridiculousness, I’m just saying it exists. I find some of this stuff- like feeling pressure to cover gray- outright offensive. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Sure, but how does that not fall under the general umbrella of keeping your hair professionally maintained, no matter what your style choices are? I can’t get behind “being blonde” as a necessity, whereas I can get behind “making sure your routine” – bleaching, highlighting, godknowswhating – “is maintained by a professional.” I relax my hair, but I wouldn’t call a relaxer a thing women MUST do, because most women mustn’t. I’d file that under going to the salon. You dig? But we’re way off track from the original point that dying your hair isn’t a necessity in order to not look like a slob as a woman in the professional world. We’re farther off the point of what goes into, overall, ensuring a woman fits in in a professional environment. I’m not going to argue with you, or anyone, that women’s beauty regimens are far more expensive than men’s, especially when a woman is in a visible role, because I agree entirely about that. Hearing men bitch about razors makes me shake my head and giggle at the same time.
But we’re even farther away from the point of whether being a woman is more expensive than being a man in general. We can all agree that in certain fields and in certain areas, looking the part is going to cost money. The question is is that cost more for a woman or a man? My vote is woman, but I say let’s not get carried away with what those costs for a woman are.
But it doesn’t exist in the sense that it’s a requirement. It’s a requirement you’re putting on yourself either because you mistakenly believe it’s a requirement or because you actually like all this trendy fashion stuff.
I’m sorry, are you speaking from your vast experiences as a woman? Have you noticed that while the women in this thread are arguing about the numbers and line items, none of them dispute the basic premise?
Nothing except food, water and shelter is required. I mean, you don’t technically have to shave, right? But workplaces have norms. The workplace norm for men is to be clean, well groomed, and in professional clothing. The norm for women is to be all these things AND be attractive. It’s the “attractive” that gets pricey.
I don’t know about you ladies, but this has been my experience.
In 13 years, I worked two corporate-level jobs and a couple of temp placements. Even though I worked in the “back office”, there were still expectations.
At the first job, the dress code was business casual. I wore mainly blouses and skirts, or sometimes slacks. When it got a little cooler out I would wear dressy boots. One time I misjudged the temperature and ran out of the house in boots. By mid-day I was baking, and, since I was not in the public eye, slipped off my boots. The company president’s wife caught me at the photocopier, without my boots, and ripped me a new one. When I explained my boots were too hot, and who was going to see me anyway, she DEMANDED I show her my boots so she could be the judge.
At the other job, I overheard a co-worker complain that my white athletic shoes (ex. casual dress code - jeans were okay) were not sufficiently spotless. Another woman got talked about behind her back because her clothes were TOO dressy (lacey blouses and knee-length skirts with heels). You totally could not win.
When I was with Goodwill, being counseled in my job search (which had already gone on 1 to 2 years before then), they advised that I get a new “updated” hairstyle, strongly consider dyeing my hair (I have dark hair - it was maybe 20% gray then), take care of my nails, get more professional-looking clothes for my interviews, and wear makeup.
This stuff costs money, which you generally don’t have when you’re looking for employment.
I’m with even sven here. I can totally see an upper-level professional woman have to spend a significant amount on clothing and maintenance, particularly as far as hair care is concerned. I don’t dye my hair right now, because if I did, I’d have to get it done again within 3-4 weeks (I have dye-resistant gray). Sure, if I got it done at a salon, it would last longer, but also cost way way more.
Also, certain hairstyles do require visits to the salon every 4-6 weeks, particularly if you have anything like bangs or a side-swept fringe. You cannot trim that yourself and have it look good (unless you have a cosmetology degree or something).
An additional thing that I don’t think some people adequately understand; the general perception is that gray hair makes women look old. I am 43, with bright eyes and a young-looking face. I have a friend who is about 10 years older, who is fortunate to have lighter hair with little-to-no gray. Objectively, I look older than she does.
When I go back out into the workforce, I’ll be competing with younger women, as well as women of similar age who “keep up” (spend money on) their appearance. I can’t NOT make an effort. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous. Our society judges first on appearances, then on qualifications and less-visible assets. No, I don’t like it either, but not liking it does not make it any less valid.
Regarding panties - I usually ruin one pair of panties a month, or at least have to take them out of my “public” rotation. I do have black panties, but they have white crotches, so that does not help. 
Bullshit. Have you been reading the replies to this thread? Your opinion is in the minority. I vaguely remember you having unrealistic opinions on how much it costs to own a car too, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.
And you’ll notice that I never disagreed with the basic premise either. I think woman pay more than men to look presentable in 99% of all cases.
I don’t have any basis to disagree with the contention about women who dye their hair. I am shocked at the figures, however. I would have guessed 20% or so.
Of course it’s more expensive for a woman. They have to buy fashionable clothes and such and guys can wear torn-up shirts and pants that don’t fit.
My wife is an ad agency VP. The amount she appends on her hair is outrageous, but she looks great. There is one salt-n-pepper (mostly salt) woman she works with who is able to get away with it due to her incredible talent. But she is the subject of a lot of talk. Women “wish they could get away with that”.
And the clothing! She buys a dress/gown for an advertising awards ceremony, wears it once, then donates it. I wear clean jeans and Hawaiian shirts everyday. When my clothes get too ratty for work, I wear them to work in the yard. I never give clothes to charity.
I could see that being the case for an “ad agency VP”, but would you agree with even sven’s claim that the same level of attention to hair and the rest is an absolute requirement for minimum wage work?
That’s what some of us are having trouble swallowing.
That’s not even remotely what I said. I gave a selection of things a woman in management might do.
Yeah, I think there’s some upper middle-class insularity showing in this thread. I’m not denying that people in certain positions are pressured to maintain an expensive image. But if the penalty for nonconformity essentially just boils down to being the subject of catty gossip, I don’t see how this pressure is any different than the pressure we all faced in high school. Which is to say, it’s not a real hardship if you don’t live to please others and are fine with being non-trendy.
I work for the feds for a regulatory agency. There are plenty of female managers here walking around with unmade faces and clothes that look like they came off the Marshall’s clearance rack. They may dye their hair, but none of them are sporting hairstyles that look they cost more than $50 a month to maintain. It’s probable that they do spend more than men to maintain their appearance, but not substantially more.
Perhaps they could get away with that if they tried? When everyone assumes that they have to adopt a certain image to get ahead, then everyone who wants to get ahead will adopt that image. Doesn’t mean that image is as much of a dealbreaker as it is assumed, though.
I find it interesting that kayaker’s wife’s coworker “can get away with it due to her incredible talent”.
I once read an article about a study that showed artists tend to be more favorably evaluated the more eccentric they are perceived to be. I recall another study that showed that male professors who dress in a non-conventional manner (sneakers, jeans, and t-shirt) are seen as more intelligent than professors who dress more conventionally. (I’d post links, but I’m posting from my portable device right now.) I’m wondering if a woman who eschews workplace cultural expectations in dress/appearance can experience similar halo effects, at least in certain fields. Perhaps the salt-and-pepper woman with “incredible talent” is just a hack. But because she isn’t afraid to stand out from the crowd, people assume she’s special and thus deserving of a pass.