Throughout the reading of this paper, I really couldn’t tell if the author was being overly sexist or feminist. There were certain lines and quotes that just rubbed me the wrong way. Perhaps it’s just the culture we have established now, but I really hate the fact that women ever had to dress a certain way in order to look professional and get ahead. I realize that was just a result of the time and expectations back then, but it just seems so foreign now.
For example, the following passage that was quoted from Molloy just strikes me as a bit condescending towards women:
The results of wardrobe engineering can be remarkable. By making adjustments in a woman’s wardrobe we can make her look more successful and better educated. We can increase her chances of success in the business world; we can increase her chances of becoming a top executive; and we can make her more attractive to various types of men.
It just seems to suggest that women are not successful or well-educated. I would hope that this is not the case, but I can’t really tell not having that particular reading in front of me. I understand the ignorance of certain people during this time frame at thinking women were not as intelligent as men or deserved to not be paid as much, but this quote just seemed to be a little bit of a blatant dig at women.
Perhaps it was the fact that men have always worn suits in the business world, but it just seemed that hiring stylists to help women to look better and smarter was a bit over the top. Making men look more masculine hardly seems to be
A comparison that I draw to this, but with a much more positive and non-condescending tone (at times) is TLC’s show What Not to Wear. Granted, Stacey and Clinton can be a bit…ummmm…frank about women’s less than stellar initial wardrobes, I feel like they always strive to play up particular body styles of the women and cater to their personality. The paper mentioned certain instances of individualism in the clothing, but Molloy’s idea of dressing just seemed a little bit too prescriptive and hardly individualistic.
It’s a hard call to make for what the author actually thinks in regards to feminism and individuality, and obviously Entwistle recognized that Molloy may be a bit outdated. The following quote is from page 216 and speaks of Melanie Griffith in the film Working Girl definitely made me question what the author thought of this idea that the movie brought out:
The moral of this story is a highly individualistic one which emphasizes that all a girl needs to succeed is self-motivation and good standards of dress and grooming.
I’ll agree with the fact that a girl (or boy for that matter) does need great self-motivation and good standards of dress and grooming. Pretty people tend to be more approachable and likable, especially if they have nice clothing and smell good, but I don’t think that’s all you need to get ahead in the world. The author doesn’t really talk about how they view this “moral” of the movie. It’s interesting that it is mentioned by the author, though, at least for me.
Overall, it’s an interesting overview of the history of how power dressing came to be, and perhaps that’s why the author doesn’t really assert much of their own thoughts on the issue. Just some things that struck me while I was reading the piece. Take them or leave them.
6 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 27, 2013 at 10:21 pm
meredithelzea
I found the article really interesting, especially considering it’s timing (with interviewing for jobs). I found myself comparing how I would dress for an interview today versus dressing for an interview 20 years ago. It’s sad that a woman had to tone down her femininity or I guess they referred to it as “frivolity” in order to be considered serious. At the same time, if I had been around then as a woman wearing a power suit, I think I would have had the attitude like “YEAH business men, I dressed like you in order for you to take me seriously and guess what? I look way better in this suit than you do. And I’m STILL way better at my job than you are.” Sorry, I just pictured myself power dressing and that’s what came to mind. Anywho, I do believe that women at this time were in an intimidating position and to start power dressing must have taken confidence. I wish there was a follow up reading to this about the emotional aspect of power dressing. What was it like for a woman to buy her first serious suit? What was it like for a man to see women power dressing for the first time? Just questions that came into my head…
February 28, 2013 at 11:09 am
What is Entwistle’s Position? | Interaction Culture: The Class Blog
[...] This blog post is a reaction to Zach’s post from earlier today, “Molloy’s (Sexist?) Style Guide.” [...]
February 28, 2013 at 12:10 pm
Sarang
I felt the same when I read it.
When I read the instructions for facing for an interview at some websites, they explicitly state, we are interested in you and not what you wear. Even In the awesome companies, the clothing in the work environment is mostly casual, Is it the case that the importance of clothing is getting reduced in the work environments and more focus is given to the skills?
March 1, 2013 at 2:41 pm
thaiyue
A little late to the party, but I am reminded of something that I saw during Beyonce’s documentary on HBO. Undoubtedly a brand unto herself, Beyonce is very aware of the role sex and attraction play into her business. However, her views on what sexy is and for whom is fascinating. Based on her own words, Beyonce sees herself as a champion for redefining what “sexy” is for women as the term has generally been defined by men for women. This has been done (in her words) through the economic advantage men have held over women, shaping everything from roles to appearance. While I agree with the inequality of the situation it begs the question that, in at least heterosexual attraction, would equality be necessarily redefining what sexy is for the gender you are a part of or the gender you find yourself attracted to? For instance, I define my attraction to certain women and in turn I conform my appearance to what certain women want. When there’s a mutual attraction sparks fly and what not. So would it not make more sense for (heterosexual) women to have more say in defining what they find sexy in (heterosexual) men?
March 8, 2013 at 11:38 am
schaplin22
I see what you are saying Thai. Beyonce has definitely been that way, redefining what “sexy” is for females. I feel that she never quite dressed according what was defined by men. In her song “Runs The World”, you simply hear throughout the song “who runs the world… Girls”. Not saying that its completely true, but you have to think about that women go beyond the standard and define themselves. I do agree that (heterosexual) women should have more say in defining what they find sexy in (heterosexual) men, to a sense we do but we can be more influential.
March 3, 2013 at 4:36 pm
Katie O'Donnell
I read an article a while back that might speak to this a bit. XOJane is a (feminist) web magazine that has a variety of topics similar to this in their articles.
http://www.xojane.com/issues/beauty-standards-applied-by-bosses
Basically, she was told she wasn’t getting promoted based on how she dressed (well, her hair and makeup). Once she conformed her appearance, she was promoted. The comments are also pretty fascinating.