Over yonder we are having this discussion about the legality of an employer requiring males employees to have short haircuts (or at least not long hair). There was a question as to whether this requirement is “discrimination.” The following post was part of the discussion, but I felt that responding to it was no longer a factual discussion.
Let me shift gears since you are now talking about principles, rather than what the law deems to be allowable. And this puts us squarely in a Great Debate.
You are saying that “both sexes should be treated equally”. They are not equal. Men and women are not the same in every respect. They don’t dress the same, they don’t have the same anatomy, they don’t have the same hormonal balance, among other differences. Should they be given the same opportunities given equal skills? Yes, absolutely. Should people be able to look like however they want on the job? Of course not. In the military you have to get a haircut if you’re man, and wear a uniform. Businesses that deal with the public have dress codes, and the standards of dress are different for men and women, because men and women dress differently in every society I can think of. That is just reality.
It is my opinion that, in regards to dress codes, there’s no harm in letting the genders dress the same way. If a guy wears a skirt, does this really matter? If a girl has very short hair or a guy has long hair, who cares?
I’m not really in favor of legislating that businesses must allow this, but if you’re asking should men and women have equal allowances, I’d say yes. My experience is that inequality in dress code almost always fosters resentment. It’s not fair at all to say women can wear a suit and have short hair, but guys can’t wear kilts or long hair. I’ve even worked for a company that allowed women to wear capris or long shorts, but not men. It’s just silly.
Sure, there are physical differences between men and women. But there’s no biological reason why women wear their hair long and men wear it short; it’s just a custom, and one that is both culturally limited to certain groups as well as rather outmoded.
I conditionally agree with the OP, on the assumption that the sex-specific dress code cannot be shown to be intentionally punitive or otherwise designed to be explicitly sexually discriminatory in a manner not appropriate to or as reasonably required by the job in question. For example if I ran a software firm and required that my female programmers (who the public never sees) all wear miniskirts and halter tops, then there would something deeply suspicious there.
Private employers have a lot of leeway and such discussion often ends up in a mire.
What about starting with the government qua employer? Suppose I propose that the government shouldn’t be permitted to practice this otherwise legal discrimination?
Let’s go further. Currently, certain officers, such as judges, are permitted to set a restrictive dress code for lawyers and other prople who appear before them (viz. the current topic of another thread My Cousin Vinnie). I think jdges especially should take those seeking justice as they find them and should not be permitted to regulate the dress of those coming before them to seek redress.
If neatness is the issue, then by all means mandate that all hairstyles need to be kept neat, but that can just as easily (or, at least, just as readily) be done with long hair as with short.
Yeah, as i said in the other thread, this is not an issue i’d go to the barricades over, but i think also don’t think it’s completely trivial. Same with things like earrings and other jewelry.
I should add, by the way, that i’m not making this argument as some sort of “Why is sex discrimination only OK if it’s against men” position. I don’t consider myself to be fighting for the rights of “oppressed white men.” I happen to support the general principle of anti-discrimination legislation, and think that it has served an excellent purpose in allowing women to compete in areas where stereotypes and discrimination previously denied them opportunities. I simply think that, particularly in areas such as hair styles, where all differences between the sexes are, as fluiddruid notes, merely custom, there should be equal treatment.
I’d also like to further address the OP’s silly conflation of “sameness” and “equality,” with reference to more general issues of sex discrimination.
I recognize that men and women are different. I recognize, for example, that men are, on average, stronger than women, and more capable of certain physical feats. For this reason, i support the idea of equality of opportunity, but not necessarily equality of outcomes. I’ll explain what i mean with an example.
I believe that women should be allowed to serve in front-line combat roles in the United States armed forces. They should be able to serve in any and all positions currently occupied only by men. In making this argument, i am not arguing that women should necessarily be represented in proportion to their population. It may be that fewer women than men will want to serve in such a position; it may also be that, of the women who want to serve, a smaller proportion will be suitable to the task.
But…
If a woman can pass the same physical and intellectual and psychological tests that are required for men, then she should be allowed to serve. I don’t support lowering the required standards in an attempt to admit more women, but i do support allowing any woman who can meet the standards to serve.
This pretty much sums up my feelings on the more general issue of difference and equality between the sexes. Both should have equal opportunity, even if their differences mean that we don’t always end up with equal outcomes.
The point of this thread has nothing to do with the law. That discussion is happening in General Questions.
This thread poses the question of whether, regardless of what the law actually allows, is it “right” or “wrong” that employers adopt dress codes that have one set of standards for men and another for women. Feel free to expand the discussion beyond dress codes.
A lot of the clientèle, most likely. And thus the business owner.
Rightly or not, a lot of people are not ready for topless women and men in miniskirts. (And as a big fan of boobs and as someone who knows the reality of topless beaches, I assure you all guys out there that this is a good thing. This is for our protection. There are millions of ugly boobs out there and women who would rather punish you with having to see them rather than wear a bra.)
Your employer can already “discriminate” you on the basis of education, et multiple cetera. As long as it isn’t something on the protected short list, it is all fair game. Personal appearance, alas, is not on that list.
If he feels he will make more business hiring only men with short hair, he is in his right to restrict employment based on it. And he would be stupid not to. Businesses are all about the bottom line, in the end. Defending a principle is only done if it helps the bottom line by the way of perception.
If the owner feels that by showing himself to be progressive by allowing long-haired men to work in his place, he will improve his business, be sure that he will.
They are equal in many respects, and our society has recognized that equality in terms of legal rights. It was certainly wrong to allow men to vote but not women. It is certainly wrong to hire or promote a man if a female applicant is better qualified. But your comments are specifically critical of a company dress code that requires one thing for men and another for women. And men and women don’t look the same, nor are they treated the same socially. Women dressed formally can show leg and cleavage, and this is socially acceptable. But a man can’t show up at a formal event in shorts with an open shirt. Most men have shorter hair, though it has become mainstream since the 60s to have longer hair. You could say the same thing about tattoos (for both men and women). However, “mainstream” does not mean “universally embraced.” And these differences are what drives a dress code. If a guy with long hair means that 5% of your clients never return, you’re going to tell him to get a haircut.
Perhaps your argument is not directed so much at what companies should or shouldn’t require as much as “society as a whole should treat men and women equally.” That would be a different discussion, and I don’t want to attack a strawman so I won’t take that any further unless you say that’s indeed where you’re coming from.
…unless you count the fact that men are more likely than women to have thinning or receding hair or go bald altogether. Although I don’t think that’s relevant to the thread topic.
:dubious: Hmm, well, there are a lot of ugly-chested guys out there too (the dread “man-boobs” spring to mind), and nobody’s “protecting” us women from being “punished” by having to see them.
I know your comment was (probably, mostly) tongue-in-cheek. But not even in jest do I think that your personal squeamishness about ugly boobs, and your odd persecution complex about the motives of women with ugly boobs who happen to enjoy going topless, should count as a valid argument against egalitarian dress codes.
The standards are different for men and women because men and women are held to different standards? Surely, for something as simple (ha) as fashion you can simply look to history and across the world for evidence that it is fluid and changing, especially when it comes to gender. Platform shoes, miniskirts, make-up, fancy wigs – all a man’s game, at one point. And women can wear pants now!
Even men with man-boobs don’t have boobs like women do. Remember Bob from Fight Club*? Those are bitch-tits. Man-boobs don’t look anything like those and don’t need bras. On most men the way it looks through a shirt is as if they have huge love-handles on their chest.
Not weighing in on either side, just making sure we’re all educated on this fundamental difference.
No, I’m not an absolutist about gender egalitarianism in dress codes. I’m just pointing out that I don’t think the personal whims of individuals, such as Sapo’s feelings of victimization over being “forced” to see ugly boobs at topless beaches, count as rational arguments against gender egalitarianism in dress codes.
Of course, dress codes permitting toplessness are not likely to be relevant to the vast majority of workplaces. However, I would definitely be against workplace dress codes that took the liberty of poking their noses into employees’ underwear, so to speak.
An employer is certainly entitled to set some constraints on employees’ external appearance, but IMHO has no business making rulings specifically about bras or any other undergarments not properly on view to clients and colleagues. Mandating a generally discreet and decorous look for employees is one thing, but specifically dictating what must be worn underneath one’s visible garments to produce that look is quite another thing.
Mind you, I am personally in favor of having more gender egalitarianism in dress codes than currently exists. For most workplaces, I don’t see at all why men shouldn’t be allowed to have neatly groomed long hair, jewelry, makeup, or skirt-like garments, if that’s what they like. However, I’m not interested in trying to sue anybody to make that happen (not that a lawsuit would work in such a case anyway, as others have pointed out).
But if the public does see them, it’s okay. Like Hooters. I see myself going places with this idea…why call the Geek Squad when you can call the Sexy Squad?
Then don’t allow men to go topless, or women in miniskirts. Really, are either appropriate?
I don’t believe I or anyone else said otherwise. I just argued that they shouldn’t, not that there is or should be a law.
Whether or not it’s good business is really not the point. It might be good business in dealing with certain groups/sectors to not employ women at all; that doesn’t mean that I think they should do that. Being profitable for the individual and being ideal in general are two very different concepts.
For the most part, anyway, I don’t see a huge connection between dress codes and good business. I’ve worked in a lot of places with dress codes where the only time you would ever see a client/customer was on very rare, and pre-announced, occasions, but of course the dress code was often still vigorously enforced anyway. I heard a number of bogus reasons, such as that wearing t-shirts and shorts are disruptive to business and cause people to slack off, or that tattoos or non-ear piercings, no matter how discreet, could cause us to be sued by employees who were offended. (!) The only reason I could see that made sense was giving people a piece of bait (casual day rewards) that costs the company nothing, but even that was silly. In general, if I see a strict dress code which is rigorously and unflinchingly enforced, I tend to stay away. I personally don’t care what I wear, but it’s a fairly good indicator for a workplace which spends a lot of its time and energy enforcing rules that don’t have any particular effect on making the business better. After all, if you don’t work in a customer-facing role, what difference does it really make if a fellow wants to wear a Utilikilt, or if people want to wear open-toed sandals, or whatever?