Areas of Unrest

2 May 2000 - Post-feminist Blues

QOTD: "It's written this way so that it won't be understandable." - one of our contractors explaining the wording in a requirements document to me

Reading: Ernest Shackleton, The Heart of the Antarctic

Listening to: Warren Zevon, Sentimental Hygiene

I keep reading that feminism has won, that we're in this grand post-feminist era in which all the battles have been fought and that nobody makes stupid sexist assumptions any more. I am expected to believe that it is strictly coincidence that of the 17 people invited to an off-site meeting to determine the future direction of our program, all of them are men. That all anyone needs is a diversity newsletter here or a special day of recognition there.

And then I read the business section of the Sunday Los Angeles Times and run across an article on the spread of casual attire to more conservative businesses, such as banks and law firms. The article is fine up to the last few paragraphs which discuss the downside of casual wear. "Men who were accustomed to dark suits with white shirts and red ties now stand in front of their wardrobes scratching their heads. DeBerardine [a lawyer who was quoted earlier in the story] said his wife won't let him out of the house without inspecting his ensemble." And the last two paragraphs talk about women calling stores to make consultation appointments for their husbands.

Now, maybe I am reading too much into this, but a grown man who needs his wife's help to figure out what to wear doesn't sound mature enough to be a banker or a lawyer. There's another paragraph in which a woman complains that the men in her office play it safe by wearing khaki pants and blue Oxford shirts. Well, I can safely say that years of telephone consultations with other women discussing suitable attire for various events suggests that women don't have any magical fashion ability either and are just as inclined to "play it safe." In particular, I can assure you that there are an awful lot of women dealing with casual days by wearing khaki slacks and blue Oxford shirts, too.

That's a pretty minor incident to get worked up over, but it fits with other annoyances along the same lines. Another good example has to do with "Take Your Daughters to Work Day" last week, a subject that has been making the rounds of several web journals and forums lately. My secretary insisted on correcting me when I said I'd forgotten it was "take your daughters to work day" and said, "no, it's all kids." I told her that I remembered how it came about and that I didn't care what the company was calling it.

You see, I actually remember the article in Ms. Magazine that started the whole thing. A study had found that parents took their sons to work much more often than they took their daughters to work and that this had some influence on how girls perceived what work was all about. The idea was for both men and women to take their daughters to work, to show them the possibilities.

Then the schools got all upset over how to fill in the time of the boys who wouldn't get to go to work with their parents. And the companies got into the act and had to be non-sexist. The companies also set up various programs to keep the kids occupied and entirely defeated the whole purpose of the event. One can argue (and I would) that it was a bad idea to do this during the school year. But the main point is that boys were already being taken to work and girls weren't for the most part. I'm entirely mystified by how many people believe that it is strictly a day for women to take their children to work, by the way, although that odd notion hasn't entirely taken hold and I did see a few men with their children.

I'd like to encourage parents to take their girls to work on normal days so the girls can see what they really do at work. And then we can have a "Take Your Boys to Work" day on a casual day and have a special program for them on appropriate clothing.