If Lady Justice is blind, why do I need to wear lipstick? via armykat1014 @ Flickr.
We got an email yesterday from reader Marie, who calls herself an “apprentice feminist” (welcome to the guild, sister!) and who brought a story from the San Diego area to our attention.*
Shenoa Vild had been working as a waitress at a sports-themed restaurant called Trophy’s for five years when it was bought out by another company. With the change in management came a change in atmosphere and employee requirements. Vild, 27, has never worn make-up, and had never encountered professional challenges about it. She was, by all accounts, very good at her job, and yet the new owner, Mark Oliver, fired her for not complying with his directive to “[wear] adequate make-up, lipstick, earrings and necklaces.” Vild said that Oliver told her “to start coming into work everyday like I’m going out with ‘the man of my dreams’.”
Holy heteronormativity, Batgirl! I have no idea (nor do I care) about Vild’s sexuality, but that statement right there tells me what this is really about: using a certain, enhanced image of femininity to draw more business from men who want to enjoy a little T & A with their G & T. You know, The Hooter’s Effect.
Oliver is within his rights to require his female employees to paint their faces. Late in 2004, the 9th U.S. Circuit of Appeals ruled that requiring make up for female employees is not discrimination. If you’re interested, there’s a little bit of history on the precedent, Darlene Jespersen v. Harrah’s Operating Company, and how it does or does not fit in with a previous ruling on sexual discrimination and gender stereotyping from a 1989 case Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins.
The legal question revolves around whether requiring cosmetics for women is “more burdensome” for women than whatever is required of men (hair length, facial hair, earrings, etc.), and the court clearly believed that it is not. I’m no legal scholar, but I have to disagree on ethical feminist grounds. And not even because make-up costs women money and time that might be better spent elsewhere (although of course it does). I’m concerned about the message sent by requiring a certain, highly stylized form of “beauty,” which has no net effect on job performance (and I’ve been a waitress; eyeliner’s got nothin’ to do with it).
We’ve got a lot of lawyers among our readers, so y’all can bat about the technicalities, but I will never agree that a law requiring women to perform their gender is just. Both men and women are encouraged to perform their gender all the time, of course, but women’s gender requirements–as well we know–are not largely to their benefit. The ruling underlines that women are meant, first and foremost, to be visually pleasing, where “pleasing” represents a narrowly defined image that was established by commercial interests, and it connects beauty to servility: beauty is work that women perform for men. I’m also concerned about the burden such a ruling, and the mindset that undergirds it, places not just on the women who work for such companies, but for women as a class.
Sure, Vild might get more tips if she wore make-up. And I might get some guy to buy me a drink if I hauled my tits up to my neck and batted my eyelashes. Neither of us thinks it’s worthwhile to find out. Vild chose to leave the restaurant, and subsequently found work tending bar at an establishment that doesn’t require cosmetic enhancement for its female employees. This is one time when I applaud a woman for “choosing her choice.” Good for you, Shenoa.
*Thanks, Marie! And to the rest of you: we love leads on stories.
So dumb. How can they write this,
“With respect to sex stereotyping, we hold that appearance standards, including makeup requirements, may well be the subject of a Title VII claim for sexual stereotyping, but that on this record Jespersen has failed to create any triable issue of fact that the challenged policy was part of a policy motivated by sex stereotyping”
and actually believe it? How is requiring that a female employee wear makeup NOT motivated by sexual stereotyping?
oops. Meant to add, that was from the Harrahs case. What a horrible precedent.
And the thing that’s extra-stupid, bluebears, is that after the case, Harrah’s offered to make a special exception for Jespersen and offered to hire her back on. (She refused.) Jeezus, just come out and say “we’re assholes and bullies and we don’t really have a leg to stand on.”
They probably realized they couldn’t find as competent a waitress to fill her shifts. The part that makes you want to cry is that the 9th Circuit is considered comparatively “liberal.”
That is sexual discrimination, even if the courts don’t recognize it as such. If my employer told me that I had to wear make-up, jewelry, and push-up bras to do my job, I’d raise hell, then quit.
Granted, the (higher scale) shop I manage DOES tend to hire pretty women, but NO ONE says “look this way or we’ll fire you.” It’s more “smile, be polite, learn our products/skill set needed to sell our shit; and remember, here, YOU are right, not the customer(90% of the time).”
The place is called “Trophy’s”—are we sure they’re talking about sports? And what the hell is “adequate” make-up?! I’m wearing zero make-up, which seems perfectly adequate. Oh wait, adequate for the “man of my dreams,” not for me or my job. Holy heteronormativity, indeed.
There are lots of good reasons to include gender identity and expression in employment non-discrimination law, the most obvious being to protect transgender employees. And that’s plenty important in its own right, but there’s also a gay rights argument that says: without protecting gender expression as well as sexual orientation, the law can be pretty toothless to protect the many, many gay men and lesbians who don’t conform to gender stereotypes. That is, maybe they can’t fire you for being a lesbian, but they can still fire you for being butch. Of course, you don’t have to be particularly butch or even gay to run afoul of this restaurant’s ridiculous standards. One would hope five years of employment would weigh a little more heavily than lipstick. Cripes.
@Miss Pinot: I used to work in very upscale retail, and I’m the kind of woman who just doesn’t wear makeup. Maybe I’ll add some lip gloss a few times a week, but I don’t own blush, mascara, foundation, etc. Despite the fact that this never seemed to affect my job performance, the store manager was always dismayed that, as a woman in management, I didn’t follow the 10 commandments of cosmetics. I would routinely be sent downstairs to our MAC cosmetics booth to get a free makeover. It was insulting, and I hated the way I looked — like I couldn’t see my familiar features.
Damn, that sure is depressing.
The funny thing is how people say, “oh, women don’t NEED to wear make-up, that’s their CHOICE.” and look what happens when a woman chooses to differ from the norm.
I think the harpies need to declare a no make-up day once a month (if any of you wear make-up) as a symbolic way to give the finger to the patriarchy.
Right about now my dad would start singing John Lennon’s song, “Woman is the Nigger of the World.” He thought makeup and all of that was ridiculous and when my sister and I would be getting all beautified, he’d be singing softly,
“We make her paint her face and dance
If she won’t be a slave, we say that she don’t love us
If she’s real, we say she’s trying to be a man
While putting her down, we pretend that she’s above us.”
I just can’t believe it’s not illegal to fire someone for not wearing makeup. I mean, I could understand firing someone who was just not clean or well-kept, but makeup?
“start coming into work everyday like I’m going out with ‘the man of my dreams’.”
Oh, please. That’s assuming she’s straight, first of all. Secondly, even though I’m straight, I wouldn’t wear any makeup even for the “man of my dreams”. That’s part of what would make me want to be with him – that he likes me the way I am!
Unfortunately, make-up seems like a requirement for getting a job at least. So many clothing stores I go in especially seem to hire a lot of prettier girls. Are they really more likely to know more about clothes?
Wow I can’t believe that is legal. I’ve never worn make up at any of my jobs, nor any interviews for jobs. I hvan’t had any problems thus far, but I guess I’m lucky.
Honestly, I think if my boss told me I had to wear make up, I’d say okay on the condition that he pays for it (and I would charge him significantly more than it’s worth). If he refused, I’d be looking for a new job.
If you work at a cosmetics counter you should probably wear makeup, if you are an actress you should probably wear makeup, otherwise what the hell?
I would assume without knowing much about it that the requirements of appearance in a customer service position is a pretty murky area legally. Obviously there are certain hygiene requirements for some jobs, but beyond that everything should be a matter of personal choice. On the other hand, many employers like all their customer service people to be of a certain “type”. Boutique retailers, for instance, are trying to promote a certain kind of lifestyle and there is an potentially legitimate argument that these businesses should probably have the right to require that their employees dress/groom for work in a way that fits that style. But, then again, there is a hazy line between that and Prada saying “Oh, black models aren’t really our type,” or Abercrombie and Fitch saying “Oh, fat girls aren’t really our type,” and so on.
Also, some people are allergic to most generic brand makeup, should they be forced to buy expensive hypoallergenic/organic cosmetics in order to retain their employment?
I like the idea of make-up free days for us harpies! I don’t wear much to start with, usually just around my eyes, but it has become a habit. It’s gotten to be just part of my morning routine to grab the mascara and eyeliner.
In fact, tomorrow’s Casual Friday, and I think I’ll skip the cosmetics. I’ll let you all know if anyone says anything to me about it!
I’ve only worn makeup once my entire life- for my part in a play. And I hated every minute of it.
I’m insulted by the notion that women “need” to wear makeup to be attractive. I’m attractive enough by my damn self, thank you very much.
In fact, I just don’t understand at all how women are seen as the “attractive” sex, and yet in order to be attractive we have to meet so many weight/clothing/makeup etc requirements that men don’t.
I can’t believe that’s legal. Ugh.
Kelsium: Boutique retailers, for instance, are trying to promote a certain kind of lifestyle and there is an potentially legitimate argument that these businesses should probably have the right to require that their employees dress/groom for work in a way that fits that style. But, then again, there is a hazy line between that and Prada saying “Oh, black models aren’t really our type,” or Abercrombie and Fitch saying “Oh, fat girls aren’t really our type,” and so on.
Most boutique retailers either require that their staff wear their clothes or offer steep enough discounts that the staff would be stupid not to take advantage. If Abercrombie doesn’t sell clothes that fit anyone above a size twelve and they require that their staff wear their clothes (I don’t know if they do) then they could theoretically discriminate against “fat” people without it ever being stated policy.
I worked in a banking for a privately held bank owned by cranky old men. Our dress code was insanely conservative and it still didn’t require makeup. My office rebellion was that I never wore hose, even if it showed up on my reviews.
Personally, I wear makeup almost every day because I have a lot of allergies that leave dark circles under my eyes that make me look sick or tired if I don’t – makes concealer a must. I still find it a pain in the neck and I get tired of it. And I do find that if I don’t wear at least concealer it gets commented on at work which is frustrating because it’s not like it affects my job performance. I find other women are often the most critical in the places I work (maybe because I’m in advertising and image is what we sell) – but I can’t imagine getting fired over it.
I worked at an answering service a few years back (none of the clients or callers ever once saw what the phone operators looked like, obviously, but “professional dress” was required). On the days I’d come into work without eye makeup, the owner (a woman) would always make a huge deal out of commenting in a Very Concerned Tone about how tired I looked. She always did this in the main area where everyone else could hear her. She never specifically told me that I needed to wear makeup to work to comply with “professional dress” standards, but that was definitely the implication.
@S.O.A.L.G
I also HATE wearing make-up. Your eyelashes stick together, you can’t see your real face, and it always wears away in a really unattractive manner. It feels like a sticky, smeary mask.
Thankfully, we aren’t required to wear make-up. I have had regular customers compliment me, and other employees, on days we have worn make-up/nice clothes, but basically our required look is to be clean and somewhat sober(on Saturdays, that’s even out the door). The boss has never ever told us TO wear something specifically, but every now and then he’s had to tell one of us to wear longer skirts or shorts. We also have the right to kick customers out of the store if they are making us feel uncomfortable. I work at an nice wine shop, so our comfort is more imortant than the customers’.
Interestingly enough, the only person who made any comment to me when I came to work without makeup today was the only other woman in the office. She commented that I looked “tired”. Is that some kind of code?
[...] 29, 2009 · No Comments Evidently, that is the case for Shenoa Vild, a waitress who was told to wear makeup and jewelry — dress like she was going on a date with [...]
Hey Maggie, I have started going without makeup a few days a week! It makes me a little stressed to wonder whether my co-workers notice but otherwise I am much happier. And I wore make-up exactly once during my whole vacation (yep, I’m back and will write about it soon); it felt great.
Obscene—I know it when I see it.
Also:
I’m not claiming any real victimhood here, but it also stereotypes the male customers: I prefer seeing women without make-up, or at least believe I do.
Me, I’ve been told to dye my mustache and beard, because the patchy white hairs put me at a disadvantage when competing in the high-tech world….