Men and women are inherently unequal. There are physical characteristics of each, along with social norms and customs that separate the sexes that are difficult, on the whole, for many people to see nothing but difference. The real question then is that difference playing a role that illegally discriminates in the equitable treatment and acceptance of both sexes in the workplace, and beyond?
Equality is not an appropriate word to use when it cannot be achieved. The correct word is equitable. Discrimination is a valid cognitive construct. When discrimination is used for non-merit decision does it become illegal under the law. If men and women think and act with equitable intent and purpose, we reduce illegal discrimination. It doesn’t change the fact women have boobs and men are dicks.
Laws and policies should be gender-blind, not because there are no statistical behavioral or emotive differences between males and females but because there’s no compelling reason to treat them differently as a matter of policy. It should be a suspect class.
I disagree, Duckster. Men and women are equal. They may be different from each other in some ways. But then each man is different from every other man and each woman is different from every other woman. What is important is our equality – that is if women are covered by Constitutional Law and if the Declaration of Independence is considered inclusive of women.
Sapo, I’ve been to a clothing-optional beach. I suspect that the last thing on the womenfolk’s minds was offending the squeamish. There were so many pleasant things to occupy our minds.
Good business is what it is ALL about. I would fight against a law that restricted a man’s right to wear high heals, or a woman’s right to wear a tie. But if a business owner/employer decides that it’s bad for their business for men to wear long hair, then that’s up to the employer. Maybe the company is in a conservative area, and the company will lose business if the man behind the counter is wearing a ponytail and an earring. Maybe the employer feels that a woman in a haltertop with no bra would distract the other employees. Maybe the employer just doesn’t like purple polka dotted mini-skirts.
Do I think that all of these kinds of rules are useful or needed? No. I think that some of them probably actually backfire, driving away some very good employees. But that decision is up to the employer, not the government or the public (except in a “I’d do business there kind of way.”
I am undecided between the eyeroll and the dubious smilies. Of course it was tongue in cheek and an irrelevant parenthesis to my point (not that that makes it not based in the reality of ugly boobs and that women with them are more likely to go topless than women with pretty boobs).
That said, the point remains that society as a whole (by which I mean statistically) seems to remain unready for topless women and miniskirted men in the open street. We can debate whether this should be or not, but we would be debating whether people have the right to feel a certain way or have preferences. We might not like some of the tastes of this “society as a whole” but they do have the right to feel that way.
Well, that depends on location and circumstance, of course. Women in miniskirts seem to be accepted in the vast majority of places not related to school or religion. Topless men are a lot less accepted in public places and are prohibited in many places by private rules or even city ordinances.
But why shouldn’t they? I think they should have the right to protect and further their business in any way they can (that is not illegal). Just as you cannot force airlines to hire blind pilots, you shouldn’t be able to force hotels to hire people with visible tattoos or long hair or whatever it is that they feel would prevent them from doing their job.
You might respond saying that a tattoo won’t prevent someone from carrying luggage or dealing cards in the same way as blindness prevents a blind person from piloting a plane. The thing is that a bell hop’s job is not carrying luggage and a dealer’s job is not handing out cards. Their jobs are pleasing customers and projecting an image that encourages them to conduct their business in their place of employment. And body mods, dress codes, hair styles, etc do prevent them from doing that.
You might then respond that it is unfair that the customers feel that way but for that I have nothing but my best wishes fighting that fight. Until you win it, the employer does have to respond to that reality.
Tell that to Hooters. They figured that hiring male waiters was not the thing for their target market and ran with it.
Let me know if you ever manage to get any level of consensus about this “ideal in general” thing. And even if you do, the reality is that many companies thrive in catering to niche markets. Look at Hooters or Apple or The Sharper Image (not to mention sex toy stores, comic book stores, etc). You put a handsome man in a sharp suit and coiffed hair in a hobby store and see how well he does.
Different people want different things and unless you are handing some form of government benefit and have to serve everyone equally, you should be studying your target audience and catering to their whims. If that means only hiring one-legged mustachioed 9-year old girls with a Boston-Czech accent, then find them where you can and turn down the rest.
Why is it that whenever there’s an argument over whether society should have an evenhanded approach to people regardless of sex or gender, the response is always that society doesn’t?
I don’t know, maybe they DO have an evenhanded approach.
Most places where men wear ties, women wear heels.
Men shouldn’t wear their hair long in conservative settings, women shouldn’t shave their heads (unless they are undergoing chemo - even then, hats or wigs or scarves are pretty much considered necessary).
Both should hide tattoos in a conservative setting.
Women can wear earrings in a conservative setting, but they should be conservative earrings. Men are less likely to be able to wear earrings in a conservative setting. Neither should have their nose pierced.
The burden to “not be free to be who you want to be” is seems fairly equally spread out - sometimes in equally arbitrary ways. The same rules don’t apply but as pointed out upthread equal does not equal same.
You see, in that case I am in support of the girl even if it defies social convention. A tux is a perfectly formal and appropriate attire for anyone. Heck, I bet there are ridiculously expensive and fashionable tuxedos tailored for women out there sold under “couture”. Then again, those are probably not what she wants.
Dangerosa nailed it in the post above mine. Wherever there are ridiculous dress codes for a sex there are usually equally ridiculous dress codes for the other. Seldom you see men in flip flops and swimming trunks and women in long gowns and elbow-length gloves.
I bet you could find a handful of boys in that school that would rather wear the girls’ gown instead of their tux.
I came this close to fighting this battle myself. My girl was supposed to attend public school next year. The kindergarten uniform for boys is blue pants and red polo. Available anywhere from any brand, fit and price. The girls must wear this incredibly stupid little dress made in a incredibly stupid tartan available only in the shittiest of fabrics. I was ready to fight for her right to wear pants and polo. Then we decided to put them in private school so we have to put up with some other equally ridiculous uniform madness at that school. The difference being that since it is private we are free to disagree with the uniform and shut up or enroll her elsewhere.
If you refer back to my post, you’ll find I’ve never argued that it wasn’t the employer’s right to do this, or that I wanted any law in place. Can we drop this strawman? I’m responding to the question, ‘Should the sexes be treated equally?’ Yes, I think they should. I think it’s short-sighted and disruptive in most cases to make special rules for men and for women. As you put it, I don’t think they’re “useful or needed”.
My posts are really centered on the workplace, since that’s what the OP was about. I honestly don’t think miniskirts are really appropriate in the vast majority of workplaces, either, that are regulating their dress code.
Just because it is legal doesn’t mean that it’s ethical or culturally ideal. In some jurisdisctions, it’s okay to discriminate against someone because they’re gay. Does that mean that I should have to agree that yes, they should discriminate against gay people, or it’s okay to do so? No. My argument isn’t, and has never been, one of legal policy.
I’ve never argued that anyone should get to dress however the heck they want when in a customer-facing position, because it’s clearly a stupid idea. What I did argue is that I personally do not think that there is any good reason that the average workplace needs to have separate standards for men and women, and I made a tangential argument that dress codes seem more about control than good business sense (my example was regarding people who never face customers, but who still have extensive dress codes). In your example, explain why male and female bellhops having the same uniform is bad?
I think we can pretty safely leave the sex/titillation market out of the discussion. It doesn’t really have any relevance to what happens in the vast majority of workplaces.
So in your view, child labor, gender discrimination, etc. is ethically okay whenever it suits a business’s purposes?
This is an excellent question and makes the point that is at the heart of this discussion, or at least the one I had in mind in the OP.
The problem with defining what society should do is that every individual has his or her own idea about that, and every society in turn has its own ideas. There is no theoretically testable right or wrong, only what society has actually defined as such. Take for example the veiling of women in some countries. In the U.S., we see this as repressive and controlling (I am not just talking about the full veil as in Saudi Arabia, or the burqa as in the Taliban’s Afghanistan, but the more moderate head coverings as well). But in those societies even many women see this as a *benefit *to women. Who are we to say they’re wrong?
Right and wrong is a value judgment, not a universal truth like the laws of physics.
There will always be debate and controversy over what should be done, but you can never achieve a society in which all practices to conform to every individual’s idea of what should be done. Not because you can’t make change, but because you can’t get universal agreement.
Same uniform? no prob. Same standard for hair, makeup, etc? That’s not how society-as-a-whole ™ works. The average Joe doesn’t want his male bellhop with heavy eye liner.
If it is legal (which it isn’t for child labor and gender discrimination and for good reason), yes. The power is still on you as the consumer in backing a business that follows your ideals. That’s what this all boils down to. The business owner is pinned by having to cater to the whims of his customers.
Even in jobs that are not facing customers, a dude in a miniskirt is highly disruptive and not conducive to good business.
But that argument, standing alone, is insufficient considering its frequent application in service of clearly unethical discrimination, wouldn’t you agree? It seems to me to be far too susceptible to possible use as a tool of unadulterated hatred.
Blacks “caused disruption” and weren’t conducive to good business in all kinds of public accommodations, but eventually that wasn’t a good enough reason to refuse them entrance. Jews have been considered socially undesirable in many places, to put it mildly, but that isn’t exactly a justification for the way they’ve been treated all the time. Gay soldiers cause a disruption in the military, in the workplace, in school, whatever (for that matter, simply allowing women to participate in a lot of these things), except, as it turns out, no they don’t.
At some point, it seems like the flat assertion that “society doesn’t like it” becomes circular and loses its normative value, unless it’s accompanied by some plausible reason why it’s bad for society, so we can be assured that it isn’t the case that society isn’t just being bigoted – which, you know, society tends toward now and again. So I think the important question is, why is it bad for society if a dude’s wearing a skirt? What societal benefit, apart from inertia, counterpoises or contradicts the notion that all things being equal, things should be equal?
You’re thinking about it the wrong way. Inertia in society is a powerful force. People don’t like to change their behavior unless there’s a really good reason. In the case of blacks and Jews, there was a really good reason – discriminating against them was clearly hurting them. Discriminating against long hair on a man doesn’t hurt him; he can just get a haircut.
In other words, it’s sort of like those questions I often see on the SDMB – “What is the evolutionary advantage of X?”. It’s not that it has an evolutionary advantage, it’s that it doesn’t cause too much of an evolutionary disadvantage. In this case, it’s not that it’s bad for society if a dude is wearing a skirt, it’s that nobody complains enough about it to make society care.
It’s one thing to say, “I won’t hire you because you’re black” and quite another to say, “I’ll hire you if you don’t wear eye liner to work–wear whatever you want at home but don’t wear it to work.” The former is discriminatory, the latter simply requires a certain level of decorum, the same as a requirement to wear a uniform.
The question of whether a thing is good or bad for society certainly deserves debate but there will always be something that you can call “discrimination” because people all have their biases. Everyone has things they respond to favorably and not so favorably. This is not a correctable flaw in society, it’s just human nature. We have generally, as a society, accepted that you should not discriminate based on a characteristic that a person has no control over and which has no direct bearing on their abilities, particularly with regard to hiring practices. But you can’t eliminate everything that could possibly be considered some sort of “discrimination.” So we need to do the best we can to determine what is unacceptable, and what is reasonable.
What is true discrimination against an entire class of people, and what is merely personal preference and comfort zone? Is “discrimination” limited to hiring practices and school admissions? What about who I can accept as a customer? I am a man–should I sue the bar down the street because they have Ladies’ Night specials? What about who I choose for my friends? Surely everyone discriminates as to who they choose to like and dislike. You discriminate against behaviors you don’t like all the time. Is that right? Of course it is.
People discriminate. That’s what people do, just like cheetahs kill antelope. We can never realize an unreachable ideal of “no discrimination of any kind.” What society “should” do is ensure that discrimination does not unfairly disadvantage entire classes of people.
It isn’t bad for society if a dude wears a skirt. If it were, we’d probably make it illegal for a dude to wear a skirt. But a business has a right to say “Dude, not here” even if their rules are arbitrary.
When enough dudes wear skirts, this will be challenged in the office and men will wear skirts to offices.
I’m old enough to remember when female teachers couldn’t wear pants (!), when men needed to wear ties, and when I started my “big corporate” job I wore nylons and a suit every day. As society changes, business changes. But businesses are generally fairly conservative.
And here we are, contemplating exactly this change, and we’re using people’s hesitancy about change to explain why things shouldn’t change. What I’m pointing out is that historically, this is a terrible way to go about this decision. If all we’re talking about is the fact that we don’t like something, without anybody actually pointing out a reason why we don’t like it, there’s a very good chance that we’re just being bigoted and could just as easily stop being bigoted and just deal with people being slightly different. And yes, I think bigotry hurts people. Not all of it hurts people the same amount, certainly, and it would be an insult to any of the groups I mentioned earlier to try to equate anti-eyeliner discrimination to e.g. Jim Crow, but it’s bad policy for people in general to make social policy based on unexamined gut reactions.
I’m not saying that any of you are wrong that these are true statements (particularly the statements that businesses can do what they want for the most part). I’m saying that in a conversation about what should be, they don’t carry the kind of force for me that it seems like they’re being intended to.
What’s missing from all of the above is an actual reason why men shouldn’t wear skirts. We’re all just saying, oh, people won’t stand for that! And obviously, there’s no point to the conversation if men don’t want to wear skirts, or eyeliner, or whatever, or women don’t want to have short hair and hairy armpits, or whatever, because they won’t, so it seems like that objection is circular as well.
If people want to do these things, which some must, what I’m asking is: how is it a theoretical defense of discrimination against them for these things that, well, people discriminate against them? It’s a great explanation of the fact that things are this way, but it does nothing to advance the discussion about whether they should.
I couldn’t disagree more with the OP. As others said upthread, equality isn’t about sameness. I think rules should be as similar as possible wherever possible. Yes, there is a lot of inertia in society, and it’s important to respect that, especially in fields where meeting with clients is important. But then again, asking a guy who is meeting with clients not to wear a dress isn’t really a whole lot different from asking him not to dress like a clown or wear jeans and a ratty t-shirt. Unfortunately, society hasn’t set equal rules for both sexes.
That said, I don’t see a reason not to have similar rules when all things are equal. If someone isn’t meeting with clients, then why does it matter what they wear, other than not being deliberately disruptive or obscene. I could see, perhaps, someone arguing that a guy wearing a dress might be deliberately disruptive, but at the same time, if a guy is more comfortable dressing that way, it’s up to his employer if the quality of work is worth whatever supposed disruption they think it might cause.
Either way, both the employer and the employee ought to be entering into that contract without coersion, which means there’s nothing inherently discriminating about requiring guys to cut their hair short, because they have a choice not to work there and the employer is potentially losing a quality employee who isn’t willing to cut his hair. For instance, I have long hair, and I wouldn’t cut it for a job and I’m fully aware that, if I were looking for a job, that would potentially limit my opportunities. At the same time, an employer is hopefully making an informed decision that they may lose out on quality employees with that policy; it might not hurt them much or at all in some sectors, but could be crippling in others.