Boy, oh boy, talk about a feminista double standard! There are big problems for men who try to impose a dress code for women. The subhead of a Wall Street Journal article from June 19 read “When a Man Regulates Attire At Work, Women Often See an Oppressor, Not a Mentor.” The ultimate suggestion is to have a woman boss lay down the wardrobe law.
Tom Mills, Managing Partner of a Washington DC law office, was asked to make a firm-wide apology for complaining to the Wall Street Journal’s “On Style” column that the work attire of some young female law associates was based on the “TV-woman lawyer look with skirts 12 inches above the knee and very tight blouses.” Evidently, the attire seen in many law offices and courtrooms reaffirms the accuracy of his statement.
Mr. Jim Holt, president of the Mid-American Credit Union in Wichita, Kansas, has become a target since he expressed his view publicly that panty hose are more professional than bare legs for working women. That relatively benign statement got him lots of actual hate mail – hate mail!! Gee, it doesn’t take much for feministas to start spewing hate, does it?
The rage seems to be centered on the concept that men should not be able to comment, criticize, suggest, offer an opinion, have a preference – nada – towards a woman without being accused of oppression. What would female bosses do with male associates who came in with muscle shirts and low, baggy pants revealing skin really low on the abdomen?
If women wish to be taken seriously (for their minds, and not their bodies), then they shouldn’t be using professional circumstances to dress as they might if they were looking for casual sex.TrackBack URI