Wearing pants to work is a feminist act
January 14, 2009
by Ann Bartow
|Editor’s note: Beginning this month, The New Agenda Blog will be featuring regular columns from a diverse group of contributors. Ann Bartow is a professor of law at the University of South Carolina. As a legal scholar she writes on intellectual property law and feminist legal theory. Ann also maintains the popular Feminist Law Professors blog.
I know, I can hardly believe myself that I’m writing a blog post with that title in 2009. But in some environments, wearing pants as a woman is still considered a privilege that can be restricted or taken away, rather than a right.
When I went to work for a large law firm in 1990, I was officially informed that women were permitted to wear pants around the office, but expected to wear skirts or dresses when we went into court, or met with clients. You couldn’t always predict in the morning, as you dressed, whether you would be going to court or meeting with clients later in the day, so to be safe, you either wore skirts or dresses every day, or you kept a change of clothes handy at all times.
The people at the firm who communicated the dress code explained that it reflected the perceived preferences and expectations of judges and male corporate executives, rather than being something the firm itself wanted to impose. That of course echoed arguments that were once made against hiring women attorneys at all – judges and clients wouldn’t like them. And my firm was hardly alone in this. But some of the judges we litigated in front of were women, and some of the clients we met with were women too. And many of them wore pants, without seeming to pay a penalty for it. It was probably because of these women that we were allowed to wear pants at the office at all.
Almost twenty years later, some women are still being urged to avoid pants “for our own good.” This “professional advice” article doesn’t even seem to conceive of women lawyers wearing pants to work. But other women are still wearing them, like Nancy Pelosi, and I don’t think it’s held her back:
The wearing of skirts to work opens up additional ridiculous “debates” about skirt length and whether pantyhose are “necessary.” Pressuring working women to wear skirts and dresses is a way to remind us we are different from men. It reminds everybody else too, because when women are wearing dresses and skirts it visually sets us apart from men far more dramatically than would be the case if women wore clothes that were similar or even identical to those worn by men. And I can’t believe using our clothes to constantly remind people we are not men helps us do our jobs better.
I saw one law school’s Guide to Dressing for Interviews With Legal Employers, and I was struck by this advice:
Many professional women appreciate the comfort, warmth, and style of a pantsuit. However, some attorneys (men and women) do not consider pantsuits to be dressy enough for court appearances, client contact, or job interviews. You will not know if your interviewer is “pro pantsuit” or “anti pantsuit.” Accordingly, the safest bet is to wear a skirt suit to the interview. AFTER you receive the job, look around the office to see when other women attorneys wear pants to work (every day versus casual Fridays, days where court appearance and client contact is expected, etc.). If other women wear pantsuits, feel free to wear yours, too.
Our liberation from mandatory skirts and dresses lies in collective action. If you work someplace where skirts and dresses on women seems to be the norm, make a commitment to wearing pants to work at least once a week, and you’ll help make it possible for other women to wear them as well.
Yours in pantsuit clad sisterhood, not to mention comfy shoes.
I guess this is one article all the blue collar women workers who have been wearing pants for several generations can skip, eh? No wow factor here for me, sorry, I grew up in farm country and women put on pants when they had to help out in the fields and barns. In fact, the best farm machinery operators in the community where I grew up were women, Ruby and Violet were their names and it was no big deal. I remember well a field of flax the wind had flattened and my brother, a top-notch operator himself, couldn’t get it swathed so he and the guy he was working for put their heads together and agreed, “we better get Ruby over here” so she came and got the job done. She could mow a field of hay and not leave one strand of alfalfa standing and men openly acknowledged her ability. When I first started reading this article, I thought of Rosa Parks and how she refused to sit in the back of the bus then I thought of Ruby and Violet. Just do it. Why does this have to turn into some kind of meaningful intellectual exercise where a pat on the back is expected for being assertive?
However, goesh, I expect if Ruby and Violet had worn pants to church, or to the school music recital, they’d have been treated with hostility or cold disdain, forevermore. Being a woman of that generation, but not a lawyer, I can attest that I had the same strictures placed on me when job hunting and while performing certain parts of my job. For the latter, if I hadn’t conformed, I’d not have gotten further interviews. I was once told by a prospective interviewee, while trying to arrange a telephone interview, that that wouldn’t do; he looked forward to seeing me sitting in front of him with my legs crossed, holding the notepad on my knee. This was before sexual harrassment laws were in place. If I had refused and called it what it was, I’d have lost my contract.
I suspect the judges had a lot in common with that man, although they’d deny it.
Plenty of women work in offices, and the subject is hardly elitist. I’m sure you’ve heard of secretaries, assistants, clerks and office workers of all kinds, etc., etc., etc. In fact, if you go into any office in America I can pretty well guarantee that most of the faces you’ll see are female.
The pants issue affects millions of women.
Ever heard of dress codes? Do you know that in some offices a woman will be sent home to change if she shows up in pants?
I must say your narrow focus on farm machinery operators is blinding you to the working reality of millions of women.
Ann, thank you for this great post.
Women in blue collar jobs are subject to strict gender conformity. If you manage to get the job, you’ll experience increased (more then the generally horrible) harrassment, on constant watch to be “feminine”. As the present recession settles in for the long haul, women will suffer an uptick of the harrassment and how they dress will be part of that. If a man can’t feel like a man (crotch adjust gesture) through his job, women will be expected to play the role of subordinate, give them something to feel superior to.
Pants, comfy shoes AND no pantyhose!
This is where Sojourner Truth’s great line — “If women want any rights more than they’s got, why don’t they just take them, and not be talking about it” — comes in quite handy.
It is absurd that any woman doing any kind of work would submit to this nonsense, or to the notion of having to gradually introduce the notion of wearing pants into the workplace. And any woman in a position of authority who allows this to continue needs to have a little consciousness-raising.
This is a no-brainer: Just DO IT — and if they challenge you, tell them about Hillary Clinton (or Nancy Pelosi, or Condolezza Rice, or Katherine Hepburn, or any number of other prominent, successful women whose pantswear is their trademark).
If that doesn’t work, tell them it’s vanity (you look better in pants), or tell them it’s a personal comfort issue which affects your productivity (you think better in pants), or tell them it’s a personal safety issue (you feel better able to defend yourself — or run — if attacked on the street or whatever), or tell them it’s a power issue (you feel more capable and respected in pants, and less a sexual object), or tell them it’s cheaper to dress in pants , or tell them all of the above or anything else that comes to mind to put an end to this ridiculous notion.
And if none of that works — take ‘em to court.
Honestly, women are so much smarter than men, but so often we seem to lack the gumption to put our smarts to work for OURSELVES.
Wow. Really great piece Ann. Back in the 1970s, women were suspended from the University of Tennessee for wearing pants to class! Why do I feel like we’re moving backward instead of forward?
I think this is relevant even now! I know dentist, doctor, and legal offices that still have a skirt rule for the receptionist or anyone in the “front office.” Not as many women have to deal with this today, but has everyone forgotten the dreaded Hillary pantsuit jokes and comments. I remember seeing SEVERAL actual news programs doing shows on Hillary’s pantsuits versus Sarah Palin’s skirts and what it all means? What do the clothing choices say about the women? How much did they cost? Can you be taken seriously in a skirt? Can’t you be more feminine than the pantsuits? Blah blah blah! There is no question it is still an issue for a lot of women. The question is WHY?
Wearing pants to work is not a no-brainer when the company has a dress code, and taking employers to court is simply not feasible for the vast majority of working women.
The courts have been pretty consistent in upholding employers’ rights to enforce dress codes, even to the point of requiring female employees to wear make-up.
Most women work because they need the job. That is overwhelmingly true for women in “pink-collar” jobs. Most women can’t afford to just pick up and leave (jobs are slim pickings these days), and launching a lawsuit against an employer is a massive and daunting undertaking.
JB in VA
Some women can’t afford to do anything that might cause them to lose their jobs. Also, I have worked with a lot of women who just aren’t as “spunky” as you are. I once spent almost a month encouraging a woman to go for a management position that she really wanted but kept convincing herself she wasn’t “qualified” enough for. She was #1 in her sales department but still managed to be timid about reaching higher. I don’t think we should shame women who have a harder time bucking the system, whether for financial reasons or emotional ones. Sometimes we all need a little support and encouragement.
Actually, even going to court may not be effective. See:
http://feministlawprofs.law.sc.edu/?p=431
which discusses a case in which a requirement that women wear heavy make up to work was upheld.
I can recall being among a group of female H.S. students who wore pants to school as a protest because at that time girls weren’t allowed to wear pants to public school. It was a big clash that went on for several days and in the end, we won! But, for all I knnow someone somewhere in the US took it to court and my 14-year-old self had no idea. But I do recall the powerful feeling of defying a rule that was arbitrary and needless. How sad that it’s so many decades later and this absurd rules still abounds in many professions. Would that it were as simple as it seemed back then to just defy the rules and protest. Not so easy for women working in corporations with these rules. As Violet has pointed out, the risks are high, many cannot take on a lawsuit for any number of reasons and in an economy like this who can risk their job (not to mention how one can become sort of black listed in certain industries if you appear to be a trouble maker).
I appreciate the point goesh in the beginning of her post which suggested that the title of the piece makes an assumption. Yes, indeed, so-called working class women, women who work on farms, etc, wear pants to work every single day and no one bats an eye. This very well written piece seems to focus on women who work in certain kinds of professions. I thought goesh’s sensitivity to the range of jobs that women do was one that should be welcomed. The piece still stands, it’s just addressing a particular demographic of women in terms of profession which could simply be noted in the title in some way.
Hmnm. All that comes to my mind is the young women who are wearing bikinis to work in their barista or waitress jobs because it’s their best way to support their families. I guess this just isn’t my issue probably cause I am too old to care and anyway I am supposed to wear a lab coat at work for safety reasons
This whole pants thing makes me laugh. When I went to college in New Hampshire, there was a man on campus who decided to wear dresses because they were more comfortable?!!??? Yeah, right dude–when the wind comes whipping off the mountain in the winter what you really need is your bum in a dress. He wore long dresses in the winter, and short dressesin the summer and abandoned the posturing after he was ignored.
I have a sneaky feeling that ties, dresses, pantyhose and other torturous apparel were inventions of the Marquis de Sade.
AnneE
“I have a sneaky feeling that ties, dresses, pantyhose and other torturous apparel were inventions of the Marquis de Sade.”
I think you are right!
I don’t have to dress up for work very much but every couple of months we have meetings in various parts of the country and at night I can’t wait to get out of heels and into my sweats! For some reason the rule seems to be “the dressier your outfit the more uncomfortable you have to be.” I wonder how many companies still have tie rules for men?
It’s a good article.
Women are often forced to conform, even today, in order to keep their jobs. We have waitresses here that must still wear uniforms with short skirts and high heels, we have baristas with their bikini top uniforms.
There’s a tendency to believe this is an issue of the past, but the truth is that there has not been as much change and we like to think. It’s easy to say “just do it” without recognizing that even today wearing pants can be a real act of rebellion that may come with a price.
In 1999 two women lawyers in Seattle were admonished for wearing pantsuits to court.
Violet, Tina and Ann, I am not insensitive to the economic realities and job insecurity that many women face, and I appreciate the ciation to the Jespersen case, and some of the other silly rules from judges.
But a lot of these things could be solved if women would get together and stick together on these issues, in the workplace for starters, and if that doesn’t work, then through activating the broader community in their support.
Granted, it’s one thing if a lone woman challenges the system: she may stand to lose everything, and gain nothing other than her own self-respect. But if an employer is faced with 5 or 10 or 20 or 100 women (along with any men who have the sense to support them) presenting perfectly valid, sensible reasons for eliminating such rules, that’s a whole different story.
That’s what I meant by saying we are so good at using our brains to help others, but so often our brains just seem to shut down when it comes to helping ourselves. There are so many avenues for organizing, for getting the story out, for stirring up public opinion, for mobilizing support. Why aren’t we using them to better effect?
Maybe we just need more assertiveness training or basic schooling in how to effect change. I guess I’m just tired of women acting like we’re powerless, when we are the backbone of virtually everything that gets done, anywhere.
Thia, I’m sorry — I misread your name and addressed you as “Tina”. My bad.
JB
“But a lot of these things could be solved if women would get together and stick together on these issues, in the workplace for starters, and if that doesn’t work, then through activating the broader community in their support. ”
Hey that’s practically our mission statement here!
Don’t worry about the name, most people usually type This.
Okay, “This” (cute).
This whole thing does make me wonder, Where are NOW and MS magazine and the other institutional “feminist” organizations, where are the unions, the DNC’s women’s caucus, our elected representatives, the ACLU, and all the rest of the groups who are supposed to be on our side when these things come up? Honestly, it’s just ridiculous that any woman should feel she is on her own when it comes to dealing with anachonisms like sexist dress codes.
But it’s symptomatic of how so much of women’s unique experience and our very existence is systematically ignored or marginalized. I’m thinking of writing a piece about that, anchored in the media’s near monolithic failure to even mention what to me was THE groundbreaking element in Hillary Clinton’s hearing yesterday: the idea of women’s rights being central to America having a successful foreign policy.
I know a bunch of women who were not allowed to wear pants to school. Some of them are even my age (44), but I suspect I avoided that bit of early oppression because I grew up in the frigid north.
Pants are fine, but I’m just waiting for these people to make a line of business wear.
” THE groundbreaking element in Hillary Clinton’s hearing yesterday: the idea of women’s rights being central to America having a successful foreign policy.”
Woops, I missed that too. The transcript is so long, has this portion been quoted anywhere?
fsteele: These paragraphs were near the end of her opening statement:
“I want to take a moment to emphasize the importance of a “bottom-up” approach to ensuring that America remains a positive force in the world. … Investing in our common humanity through social development is not marginal to our foreign policy but integral to accomplishing our goals.
“Today more than two billion people worldwide live on less than $2 a day. They are facing rising food prices and widespread hunger. Calls for expanding civil and political rights in countries plagued by mass hunger and disease will fall on deaf ears unless democracy actually delivers material benefits that improve people’s lives while weeding out the corruption that too often stands in the way of progress.
“Our foreign policy must reflect our deep commitment to the cause of making human rights a reality for millions of oppressed people around the world. Of particular concern to me is the plight of women and girls, who comprise the majority of the world’s unhealthy, unschooled, unfed, and unpaid.
“If half of the world’s population remains vulnerable to economic, political, legal, and social marginalization, our hope of advancing democracy and prosperity will remain in serious jeopardy. We still have a long way to go and the United States must remain an unambiguous and unequivocal voice in support of women’s rights in every country, every region, on every continent.”
Senator Boxer’s entire question period was taken up with the question of women’s rights, and Hillary was very explicit about being her intention to be pro-active in addressing this, including making it clear to national leaders (in Saudi Arabia, other Muslim countries, and elsewhere) that opening up women’s rights to education, health care and full political participation is essential for those nations to progress, etc.
Several other Senators also talked with Hillary about measures to halt the enslavement of women and children and the sex trade, and centering conflict resolution, economic development, and reconstruction efforts on enhancing the role of women in local communities and economies.
It really was a significant part of the hearing, and clearly something Hillary wants to carry forward. She may feel she is alone in this in the incoming administration, but not if we and other supporters of women’s rights keep the pressure on and let her know how completely we back her work in this area.
Wow, this article brings up a lot of memories.
I remember being five & six years old in a school with a dress code that required the girls to wear skirts. We would try to wear shorts underneath so that our panties wouldn’t show when the boys invariably lifted our skirts. We were subjected to corporal punishment for this act of modesty. I don’t recall any boy ever being punished for their behavior though.
And I remember being in my first job – and women were required to wear skirts. I made sales calls to a company who always sat women on a comfy sofa while the men sat in chairs across from us. It was nearly a year before I was clued in to the fact that this seating arrangement was designed to provide the males with a clear view up our skirts.
I refuse to wear skirts now. I feel so badly for women who don’t have this freedom in their jobs.
So if women want the right to wear pants, they can. What happens when men want to wear dresses and skirts?
That doesn’t even enter the minds of women. When it is very hot out I like to wear shorts outside, how far off can a skirt be to shorts? There is no such thing as formal shorts that I can wear to work. When it is hot and I am sweating I would like to wear something like shorts. Men don’t even have the choice!
Women have much more fashion freedom and should stop complaining if that freedom comes at a price.
I recently read an article that stated that California just passed a law making it legal for women to wear pants in the work place. I’m looking for documentation that can be found on the internet on that and would greatly appreciate help if anyone knows where I can find that information.
Loretta, hope this helps….
T.I.
—
Dress Code Legal Issues
by Robin Thomas, Managing Editor at Personnel Policy Service, Inc.
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Wom.....skirts.htm
more details and links in
The right … to wear pants (summary page; full post from March 27, 2008)
California Labor & Employment Defense Blog
re. wearing pants in CA schools, see this summary of a related article from March 1997
Calif. District Agrees To Allow Women To Wear Slacks
My employer not only forces women to wear skirts, but also makeup, i dont see how this is legal
I’m writing a book about California Supreme Court Chief Justice, Rose Elizabeth Bird (70′s and 80′s). I’m looking for quotes or comments about practicing law in the 70′s or early 80′s as well as specific quotes about Rose Bird. I found your article interesting and informative. I practiced law in Kern County California in the 80′s and saw a judge order a woman out of his courtroom for wearing a pantsuit. That woman now sits as a judge in Kern County.
Thanks. Cynthia Curry (916)712-9342
Cynthia, if you haven’t already seen this site, I recommend searching around it and contacting the bloggers: http://feministlawprofessors.com/
Leave your Response Want an avatar? Get a gravatar!
Community Room
February 6, 2012 at 4:25 pm
January 30, 2012 at 2:36 pm
January 26, 2012 at 4:38 pm
January 23, 2012 at 1:04 pm
January 15, 2012 at 11:37 am
January 9, 2012 at 6:36 pm
January 7, 2012 at 10:10 pm
January 5, 2012 at 9:31 am
BUILD your NETWORK
Our Network of College Women
Protecting our Teenage Girls
We’re in the Media »
Click to see our latest stories in the media
More Stories »Recent Comments
The Latest from our Blog
Archives
Pioneer Mentors
Blogroll
Find us Online
Subscribe Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS)
The New Agenda is a 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to improving the lives of women and girls by bringing about systemic change in the media, at the workplace, at school and at home. More...