Absolutely. But is that the case with everyday jobs? If a job doesn’t require you to be a man or woman as a bona fide occupational qualification, as most don’t, then how can one justify different dress codes for them?
Glad you brought that up, because that’s actually something that some women have challenged this too. They assert the right to go topless in public just like men.
That makes no sense either!
Women tend to be smaller and have less muscle than men - should we just ban all women from physical jobs like construction or delivering packages?
Sexism is entirely fallacious too. There are no differences that require us to discriminate in order to enforce or accommodate them. The only difference is that only women can give birth, and even that doesn’t require us to do anything about. We don’t need to make it illegal for men to give birth, for instance.
I know, I know - you have to wait until it is dumped in your lap. I like to think ahead, sometimes far ahead.
It is a great leap to use a tendency to justify an outright ban.
Again, the sexes are different. That doesn’t mean there should be any laws that differentiate between them, but it also doesn’t mean we should pretend there is no difference either.
One area where this has to be faced is in sports. Without discrimination few women would be able to participate in sports based on ability.
Yes, I have to wait until I see evidence of something before pushing for it one way or the other.
I think exploring ideas is fine, I’m just not going to take your word for it that some hypothetical concern necessarily has anything to do with reality.
So you agree that sexism is wrong?
We don’t have to pretend there are no differences to get rid of sexism.
Sure.
But that doesn’t justify all sexism. So back to dress codes - are dress codes like sports?
Ditto. High heels cause physical damage. If you want to destroy your body, go right ahead and wear them, your body, your choice. For a company to require their work force to wear them? No.
As an aside on the argument, my former employer tried to implement an extremely sexist dress code. It specified exactly how long women’s skirts had to be in inches, stated that women had to have their toes covered by their footwear, and how much cleavage they could show, but made no such statements on men. Apparently it was ok for men to come in wearing jock straps and nothing else. Some men considered doing this just to see what would happen, but they failed to follow through.
Everyone completely ignored it other than giggling hysterically. We mostly just sat in cubes and wore sweats. One of my co-workers routinely showed up in PJs and wore bunny slippers.
No. There are different sexes. Not to recognize that difference is simply ignorant. Sexism is neither right nor wrong, you have to address the specific behavior. This is different from racism because there are no races. You do not have to address specific racist behavior, it’s always wrong.
Getting rid of sexism would be just that, pretending that there are no differences.
Is it wrong to be sexist in sports by having different teams for different sexes? Should we eliminate sexism and have all sports teams open to all sexes?
Who’s trying to justify all sexism?
Dress codes are not like sports. Didn’t I already point out to you that I said so in my first post?
ETA: Well I didn’t point out that comparison to you, or in my first post. I said there’s no basis for sexist dress codes in my first post. That and my other posts should make it clear that I consider sports and dress codes to be different.
That’s a far cry from what you started with, which was that sexism could always be justified (as I read it).
It’s still way too broad, but whatever.
There are specific genetic differences between the races too, so I could argue that racism is sometimes justifiable by the same logic.
Again - that’s completely absurd. You can argue that a few instances of sexism may be justifiable due to specific differences in the sexes directly related to the sexism you want to justify, but no, you can’t just sweepingly justify ALL sexism just because the sexes are different.
If I say no, does that mean it is okay to ban women from working outside the home or voting?
You are - or at least you’re being reckless with your words. But if it’s the latter, fine, we’ll move on. Just so you know it sure sounded like it.
Why not?
Okay, cool. Why’d you bring up a defense of sexism in this context then?
No, you can’t do a blanket ban on one sex. Quite a few construction jobs don’t require that much muscle anymore, given the use of machinery. Like as bulldozer driver – why couldn’t a woman do that?
The legal way would be to have specific qualifications or tests that applicants would have to pass. For example, the city Fire Department had specific tests for applicants, like able to carry x pounds of firehose x distance in x seconds, etc. Even these can be challenged in court if they are used discriminatorily. Some years ago, our were challenged because they seemed designed to put such emphasis on upper body muscle strength as to keep out any women. The Judge looked at some of the fire department station chiefs sitting in court, with their beer bellies hanging over their belts, and asked how many of them could pass the current tests. Eventually he ordered that the test had to specifically relate to actual tasks that fire fighters did regularly in their duties, and threw out or modified several of them. Now a good share of the fire fighters are women, even had a woman chief in charge. (And most of their calls are medical emergencies, not fires.)
It depends on the company, but I have worked for firms where makeup and a bra were specified in the dress code.
I don’t know why you read it that way. It is one simply one of the complications in trying to make society fair. We can consider all people equal in almost every way, removing all distinctions except when it comes to sexes. And in the case of sexes there aren’t very many distinctions to be made, but there are a few. I think it’s better to face that and address the question of fairness in sexism instead of pretending that it shouldn’t exist at all. Tossing the term ‘sexism’ back and forth is a distraction, we need to get down to those few distinctions where discrimination is the only way to achieve fairness.
If I’m understanding you, I think you are using “sexism” in an idiosyncratic way. You appear to be using it to mean “distinction based on sex” whereas I believe most folks would characterize it as “unfair discrimination based on sex”.
Can we all agree:
If she really is getting paid less than a man with the same job title, credentials, and experience, that is blatantly illegal and she’s sitting on a big fat lawsuit.
I’ve never worked at a place where makeup was required for women, but I did work at a hospital that required that people wear undergarments. We all surmised that it was a gender-neutral way of saying that women have to wear bras.
Requiring that women wear makeup can be religious discrimination, because some Pentecostal women do not use it, and many other women just plain old don’t want to for reasons that are nobody else’s business.
For men? I suspect it’s hard for men to find comfortable bras.
Dress codes should be gender-neutral unless there is a functional reason related to the job.
So male and female lifeguards should wear the same uniform when working?