Should women be forced to paint themselves?

[apowerr]

While I don't know of any women who feel forced to look 'feminine', I can say this: every single women I know takes pride in their appearance and wants to look the best that they can. They are deeply concerned with how they look, and are very upset after something like a bad haircut. I'm sure that there may be some employers who have unfair dresscode policies, but for the most part things are pretty equal. In fact, when I see my friends at work, it's surprising because I'm used to them looking so much better and 'feminine'

[superstition]

every single women I know takes pride in their appearance and wants to look the best that they can.

The best according to whom? Women aren't born painted up. I suppose many Chinese women wanted to have their feet bound and southern women liked wearing corsets so tight their organs were squished... Why? Because men said it made them more attractive.

I'm used to them looking so much better and 'feminine'

More attractive to men is not necessarily "better", especially in a work setting. What' the limit? Should women be forced to wear high heels, mini skirts, and transparent tops in order to get a job?

don't know of any women who feel forced to look 'feminine'

You do now:

When you get up tomorrow, take a shower first thing. Shave your legs and your armpits, shampoo and condition your hair. When you get out of the shower, get dressed, apply makeup, style and comb your hair just so, then apply 3 coats of nail polish (base coat, color, top coat). Then tell me its not a big deal. I do not wear makeup. I can understand exactly where this woman is coming from. It's one thing to require 'business attire' but it's another thing to tell a woman that she does not look professional unless she has a half inch of glop on her face.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread....8923&page=2

[apowerr]

You do now:http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread....8923&page=2

I guess I do. I'm not a woman, so I really cannot contribute much more to this topic. Thanks for informing me.

[aduffbrew]

Oh brother.

 

Why can men work without makeup and women have to have it? It's totally arbitrary. And, having competent employees be kept out of the workforce due to arbitrary dress codes is hardly ideal.

 

Any dress code should apply equally to both sexes, unless there is a special reason why an employer requires special things, like makeup. Men and women wear makeup in certain professions, like TV anchors.

The Constitution is not perfect... nor are the human beings it is intended to serve. The rights of the individual can only be protected up to the point where they impose upon the rights of others. When that happens, concessions have to be made. Do the rights of an employee not to wear makeup supersede the rights of the establishment's owner to create a unique and compelling environment conducive to free commerce? Why must the rights of the owner to determine what is arbitrary be negated and preference be given the employee?

 

I'm 6ft 5in tall and have never been accused of being pretty. If I woke up one day and decided I couldn't live without wearing makeup like Mimi from the Drew Carey Show, are you saying that the little old lady around the corner who runs that conservative Christian bookstore be legislated into hiring me and scaring off all her customers? I realize this is an extreme example but still.. what is your take? How is this categorically different? Where do we draw the line? An for the record, the world of THX 1138 isn't all that appealing to me.

 

I've rambled on long enough. I'm sure the girls down at the Hot Dog on a Stick stand are waiting on this issue with abated breath. Aren't there other more pressing issues of discrimination that need addressing! Why aren't we discussing adoption rights or that constitutional abomination formerly known as the Defense of Marriage Act?

[superstition]

Do the rights of an employee not to wear makeup supersede the rights of the establishment's owner to create a unique and compelling environment conducive to free commerce? Why must the rights of the owner to determine what is arbitrary be negated and preference be given the employee?

Those are good questions, but an employer should have to have a permit to require a special dress code in my opinion. For instance, news anchors wear makeup, both men and women. It's much more reasonable, therefore, to ask a news anchor to wear makeup. In a job where men aren't required to wear makeup, asking women to wear it becomes unfair.

 

I'm 6ft 5in tall and have never been accused of being pretty. If I woke up one day and decided I couldn't live without wearing makeup like Mimi from the Drew Carey Show, are you saying that the little old lady around the corner who runs that conservative Christian bookstore be legislated into hiring me and scaring off all her customers?

Because you don't look like Mimi? I don't follow your logic. Working at a bookstore, Christian or otherwise, doesn't require makeup.

 

Women should not have to be sex objects for men to get jobs where being a sex object isn't important. It's really that simple. Plus, if people are going to be sex objects, except in special circumstances (strippers, models), men should be held to the same standard.

[killbot1000]

People pay way too much attention to clothing, makeup, etc.

 

People should at work wear what is comfortable and doesn't cause mass disruption, which is pretty much just about anything. If one must dress nicely, do so at meetings, or important events, not day to day operations.

 

People should be able to wear or not wear pretty much whatever they want. If the employer doesn't like it they should hire people who agree with them more.

 

People should even be allowed to walk everywhere naked if they want (although society is not liberal enough, so its not going to happen).

 

Clothing's main purpose is warmth, to basically protect from the elements, I wouldn't look into it much more deeply than that.

 

Employers and employees seriously just need to chill out and go with the flow, if more people did that the world would be a better place

[Special-K]

Women aren't born with...big hair...

What is this the 80s?

[aduffbrew]

I don't follow your logic.

... and I don't follow yours.

 

You find this situation outrageous. I get it. What I don't get is where you plan on drawing the line.

 

There isn't a lot of information on this particular case on which to make solid opinions. I can only assume the proprietor of the bar wants all his bartenders to look their best... male or female. I realize "best" is a subjective term and this woman did not agree with the standard given her. The crux of the matter is who, in this situation, has the right to determine what "best" is and why.

 

I certainly won't dispute the fact that wearing cosmetics doesn't make for a better drink. But while on the job, we represent who we work for. How we groom, how we dress, how we act, even how we speak has a direct impact on our employer's reputation and their ability to conduct business. Yes, it's a partnership between employer and employee but not an wholly equal one. Ultimately though, it is the employer's venture and their capital at risk.

 

We as employees have been invited to participate at their discretion. They should be able to dictate the terms of that participation. Situations change. Competitive challenges change. Success is often the result of trial and error. You can't legislate that everyone always be a perfect fit in every situation nor can you legislate away the right to ask for employee cooperation when innovating. If we find the terms of employment unacceptable, we are free to find employment better suited to us. This is what a market society is all about. We are not a socialist society.

 

I applaud you for wanting to make this world as egalitarian as possible. I can't help but think our collective social conscience is evolving for the better. Personally, I find anyone, male or female, who maintain good hygiene and keep a neat appearance don't really need cosmetics to be appealing and approachable. Why this particular barkeep feels makeup necessary, I really couldn't say. It is his establishment and not mine. I do know you still think requiring a woman to look "feminine" to be arbitrary and irrelevant to doing business with precious few exceptions That opinion is shared by many. To protect our own freedoms, it is often required to protect the freedoms of those who disagree with us. I am not ready to start curtailing the rights of others because I disagree with them as long as choices remain. There are plenty of bars that would welcome this woman... and even prefer her look.

 

You've really narrowed your perspective to just one small aspect of a larger issue. I've tried my best to understand and appreciate it. I think if we were able to keep this issue laser focused just on makeup and hair, I might even side with you. I don't mean to offend but I think you are missing the bigger picture here.

[3nigma]

Women must do their part as well to ensure that they are presentable. This includes wearing makeup.

 

she has the freedom to quit, as others have said.

Oh brother.

 

Why can men work without makeup and women have to have it? It's totally arbitrary. And, having competent employees be kept out of the workforce due to arbitrary dress codes is hardly ideal.

 

Any dress code should apply equally to both sexes, unless there is a special reason why an employer requires special things, like makeup. Men and women wear makeup in certain professions, like TV anchors.

Superstition, nobody agrees with you. That is because you are wrong.

 

You quoted socal swimmer to debunk him, but you only quoted half of his text, then you took it out of context, then you misrepresented his point, and then you manipulated it to make your own point. You are clearly not interested in other people's thoughts on this topic, and are blindly representing only your own.

 

Here is what he actually said, the part that you removed:

Employers have the right to set rules so that their establishment maintains a good image.

 

Men must shave, shower, wear suits, cut their hair, and keep themselves properly groomed. They always have, and nobody debates this.

Now, apply your same logic to his ENTIRE post.

Why do men have to shave every morning and put on first a t-shirt, than a dress shirt, then a tie, then a suit, just to sit in a cubicle? Why don't women have to do that? "Do you know how much work that takes to shave your whole face every morning and put on all those clothes?"

 

As you said- Oh brother.

 

Here is a news flash for you. Men and women are different. They can have equal rights and equal treatment, but "equality" is not the same as "identical." Political correctness is taken to extremes that are absolutely moronic. Men have to shave and present themselves by the social standards that our Western, 21st-Century, American social sphere expects. Women have to do the same, in their own way according to their own criterion. Not Western, 11th-Century, European. Not Eastern, 21st-Century, African.

 

Certain professions have makeup for both genders because it is specific for that profession.

 

The debate, as you are presenting it, is a non-issue. As you said it yourself- "Oh, brother." Grow up, and get some sense.

 

As a final point, the source that you cited in the original past was promoting homosexuality, and highlighting the implications of this legislation and story concerning {censored} rights and equality, etc. If the point of your debate is for reasons more related to this, then that is a separate debate entirely. For example, "If a woman is {censored}, and she is a less 'feminine' woman, should she be expected to adhere to the 'feminine' dress code, or to the 'non-feminine' (male or neutral) dress code?" If this is your intention, then you need to highlight it. Because as you currently present it, it is a non-issue.

 

This is one thing I like about living in the UK. Homosexuality is normal, and not all hyped up. In America, if you're {censored}, you have to be "{censored}" as a lifestyle, it's not just your sexual orientation. This is a broad generality, and there are exceptions, but it is true as a generality. In Europe, it's not as big a deal, you're just {censored}. Nobody has to act all "{censored}" about it, they're just {censored}. Get over it.

 

Back to the topic (as you originally presented it)- The woman needs to grow up and work/dress as expected by the company and according to how the company wants to present itself, or leave.

 

What about the "rights" of the employer? Does the employer not have the "right" to present her company the way she wants to? It's her business, her money, her investment, her credit-rating, her jeopardy of failure. An employee can easily get another job if fired. If an employer loses a business, they lose everything- money, credit-history, future opportunity. What about their rights?

 

An employee's "rights" are things like not being subject to harassment. It is not an employee dictating to an employer how the ship is going to sail.

 

If you want to live your own way, by your own rules, then live by yourself.

Women should not have to be sex objects for men to get jobs where being a sex object isn't important. It's really that simple. Plus, if people are going to be sex objects, except in special circumstances (strippers, models), men should be held to the same standard.

Sexuality permeates every facet of our society. If a bartender is sexier, the customers buy more drinks. If a definition of "sexy" is wearing makeup, then the bar will expect the bartender to wear makeup. This is a business to make money, not a place where the employee goes to get money every week. Moreover, if she wants a paycheck (i.e., for the company to have enough money to support having her), it is in her best interest to be flexible.

 

You are barking up the wrong tree. If you don't like sexuality being intrinsic to the fabric of humanity, stop being a human. Go live with animals, where sexuality isn't as important. Oh wait, that's part of being an animal, too- they find mates and have sex. And humans are just animals, right? Huh.

 

As someone else pointed out- try your argument on a "HOOTERS" restaurant and see how far that gets you.

 

People should be able to wear or not wear pretty much whatever they want. If the employer doesn't like it they should hire people who agree with them more.

LoL, that's a lawsuit waiting to happen. I can see the headlines now:

"Company only hires people with white skin"

 

That argument goes 100% against the idea that people can wear whatever they want. Your argument is saying that if the employer doesn't like what the person wears, then just don't hire them. That's the same before the job as after- if you don't dress right, you're fired.

 

[sarcasm] But this goes against my "rights" to be hired, this is discrimination! [/sarcasm]

No, it's life. You can't go to a job interview without a suit, and expect to be hired, the same as you can't wear wear whatever you want and expect to keep your job.

People should even be allowed to walk everywhere naked if they want (although society is not liberal enough, so its not going to happen).

 

Clothing's main purpose is warmth, to basically protect from the elements, I wouldn't look into it much more deeply than that.

What does society being conservative or liberal have to do with being warm? Conservative and liberal are measures to denote positions on economics, social issues moral issues (more recently), so what does heat and warmth have to do with conservative or liberal?

 

Here in the UK, it is society is liberal compared to America, especially in the "moral" realm. When it's warm, why don't people here walk around naked?

 

This summer, when it's warm, walk around naked. That is, assuming you're not bashful. But wait- why would you be bashful? Clothes are just for warmth, right? Huh.

Employers and employees seriously just need to chill out and go with the flow, if more people did that the world would be a better place

Exactly. Employers expect female bartenders to wear makeup because they are going with society's "flow." The bar didn't make up that social norm. Now the employee needs to do the same.

 

The "flow" is determined by social norms. superficial, if you want to change it, go change humanity. Or if you're unhappy, go live with animals.

 

-3nigma

[maclust]

the argument will end on what state you are located in in md where i am it is considered a "will work state" wich means you can quit or be fired for any reason they want and there is nothing any one can do about it. unless you can prove that it is a civil matter in court. so if your job says you can't drink on the weekends and they say you did and fire you you can't do anything. either way get a job with a contract that stipulates the not wearing of make up and your golden if not do what your told or risk the consequences

[superstition]

Superstition, nobody agrees with you. That is because you are wrong.

Ah, the old "truth is determined by popularity" canard. By the way, since you're interested in popularity contests, you should note that Fee, who is a woman, has already been quoted here.

 

Sexuality permeates every facet of our society.

Which is why women should have to wear high heels, transparent tops, and miniskirts without panties if they want to get a job. They should give head to any male manager or customer who feels needy, too. That's being a competitive and competant employee.

 

If a bartender is sexier, the customers buy more drinks. If a definition of "sexy" is wearing makeup, then the bar will expect the bartender to wear makeup. This is a business to make money, not a place where the employee goes to get money every week.

Exactly. The bars in my area have even realized that facials bring in customers more than handjobs.

 

Moreover, if she wants a paycheck (i.e., for the company to have enough money to support having her), it is in her best interest to be flexible.

Very flexible. Up to four men at once.

[3nigma]

You quoted socal swimmer to debunk him, but you only quoted half of his text, then you took it out of context, then you misrepresented his point, and then you manipulated it to make your own point. You are clearly not interested in other people's thoughts on this topic, and are blindly representing only your own.

Which is why women should have to wear high heels, transparent tops, and miniskirts without panties if they want to get a job. They should give head to any male manager or customer who feels needy, too. That's being a competitive and competant employee.

All that you did just now was prove that I was right.

 

-3nigma

[superstition]

All that you did just now was prove that I was right.

If you say so. For those of us who don't see how, perhaps you can explain?

 

Starting with a logical position "sexuality permeates every facet of society therefore women should have to be sexy to be employed" and seeing where it goes helps to clarify the wisdom of the position.

[u1m2]

The issue here is that the standards by which we determine whether the employees present a generally acceptable physical appearance or not can not be determined by the employer only. Sure all men and women have to comply with standards of the society and not only when it comes to dress code but manners etc. as well if they want to be employed at jobs that are somewhat of a social nature. Who would eat at a restaurant where waiters are rude and smell bad? Who would rent a house from someone who is arrogant and repulsive? However, if one starts firing employees for personal reasons only like not liking the way they look, the way they talk, the way they breathe, even though they would be considered generally acceptable, courts should intervene to prevent such injustice. For all we know, the employer must be able to prove that the appearance of the employee is an important factor in fulfilling the job requirements. This is a civilized world, it is important that we keep a fair balance between the rights of the employee and the employer, an attitude of "My business, my rules" is not acceptable anymore.

 

In this case, people can claim an attractive female bartender creates more business so the employer should have the right to tell her to wear make up but how do we prove that wearing make up is generally acceptable or if it goes beyond that? Do majority of the women in U.S. wear make up? I think there is an argument here that goes beyond make up anyway. Can the employer ask the employee to flirt with the customers because that would increase business more than wearing make up. After all, she is a bartender right, her job is not to prepare drinks but to entertain people while doing that. I believe, one should not be able to ask from their employees in a job environment anything more than what is acceptable in any social context and nothing beyond that. People who complain about wearing suits should be well aware that suits are not clothes of sexual nature, they are not designed to portray the masculine side of a man to make you more appealing to the opposite sex. If you were asked to wear tight shirts and leather pants on the other hand, to display your masculinity, it would be. Make up is by nature, is to make women look more feminine, and to ask for wearing it is asking for the employee to appear more attractive to the opposite sex, it is not just asking for having a generally acceptable appearance. Nobody is asking you of this when you shave, or when put on a suit so it is not the same thing, not at all. What would you feel if your boss told you to hit the gym and get an ass, because your bony back wasn't attractive to the lady customers? What if your job -which is not by definition a job that is of a sexual nature- depended on the opposite sex finding you attractive. Would you then think, it is only fair that your boss asks this from you? This woman here is a bartender people, not a stripper, not a Vegas show girl, not an escort. Keep that in mind.

[superstition]

great post

 

People should even be allowed to walk everywhere naked if they want (although society is not liberal enough, so its not going to happen).

I agree, albeit with restrictions. Sanitation precautions are an issue with naked people. Underwear with fairly thick rear fabric is probably a good baseline in situations where people will be sitting on public things other than grass or something else where germ buildup isn't an issue. Public nudity would go a long way toward normalizing our relationship with the human body. The hysteria over Janet's breast defies my sense of reason. Much of it was manufactured for political gain, but some of it was genuine. One other benefit of public nudity, I imagine, is that people would have more of an incentive to get in shape. Simultaneously, people would likely become more accepting of their bodies as they aren't being confronted by just the Photoshopped images of supermodels.

[Paranoid Marvin]

They can wear what they want - at the end of the day, it's not going to make them more sexually attractive

[killbot1000]

great post

 

I agree, albeit with restrictions. Sanitation precautions are an issue with naked people. Underwear with fairly thick rear fabric is probably a good baseline in situations where people will be sitting on public things other than grass or something else where germ buildup isn't an issue. Public nudity would go a long way toward normalizing our relationship with the human body. The hysteria over Janet's breast defies my sense of reason. Much of it was manufactured for political gain, but some of it was genuine. One other benefit of public nudity, I imagine, is that people would have more of an incentive to get in shape. Simultaneously, people would likely become more accepting of their bodies as they aren't being confronted by just the Photoshopped images of supermodels.

 

 

Good point on the sanitation thing, I made the assumption that other people shower as much as I do haha.

 

to 3nigma:

 

What I was saying in respect to society being liberal is that the society just couldn't handle it. In my definitions of liberal and conservative I basically boil it down to one thing, liberals are ok with progression and change, conservatives are not. There is a time and a place for both . Work for change but don't fix what isn't broken right?