Talk

Advanced search

Has this been discussed in here? Harrods forces woman to resign a she refuses to wear makeup

(57 Posts)
Lady1nTheRadiator Sat 02-Jul-11 08:10:08

Sorry if this is a duplicate, I am just stunned at this - www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/jul/01/harrods-dress-code-sales-assistant How can they do this? I would understand if it was the Chanel counter where you are representing the products you are selling, but this??? Bloody good on her for not submitting but at the cost of her job sad

Wormshuffler Sat 02-Jul-11 08:15:49

It is wrong however clearly stated in their policy when she started the job. It does seem strange that it wasn't picked up for 5 years.

purepurple Sat 02-Jul-11 08:17:35

I hope she gets a good lawyer.

giraffesCantZumba Sat 02-Jul-11 08:18:27

Bloody hell

meditrina Sat 02-Jul-11 08:19:09

Harrod's has a strict dress code (for both sexes - they measure width of sideburns, and men are told to be well manicured) and it's been well known for some years article on "the cost of working for Harrod's" from 2009.

I think it was brought in by Muhamed al Fayed when he bought the store in the early 1990s.

It'll be interesting to see the outcome of this - the guidance is about 2 pages for each sex. So is the key issue going to be the cost for each sex of complying with the guidelines?

sakura Sat 02-Jul-11 14:55:24

One of the main purposes of feminism is to destroy gender roles. To eliminate the social constructs foisted upon us.

Not wearing make up is one way to do this. It is subversive.
Similarly, not being allowed to resist the strict gender roles assigned to the female sex is oppression.

Meditrina.. are the men told they have to wear make-up? If not why not?

The entire point of gendered clothing (including make-up) is to create false differences between the sexes.. it's not about "beauty" . It really isn't. WOmen might wear make-up in order to look better, yes... but why don't men wear it to "look better".

And lets be honest, men are as ugly as sin compared to women.

The forces at the root of compulsory gendered roles for women run much much deeper.

Trans women (that's men who think they're women) believe that gendered behaviour, such as wearing mascara, is somehow connected to the brain. Women such as this Harrods worker, prove that it is not. It is socially prescribed and mandatory for females.

Females are punished for not conforming.

It's a disgrace.

sakura Sat 02-Jul-11 14:58:07

And if someone pipes up with "men are not allowed to wear make-up" I'll LMAO

If I ever see a Guardian article about a man in Harrods being sacked for wearing mascara, I'll eat the mascara

sakura Sat 02-Jul-11 14:59:21

And besides men are "allowed" to wear make-up. There's an entire movement out there (the trans movement) fighting for men's RIGHT to wear MAKE-UP. And other important shit.

IAmBridesmaidzilla Sat 02-Jul-11 15:14:37

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

IAmBridesmaidzilla Sat 02-Jul-11 15:15:32

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

meditrina Sat 02-Jul-11 15:18:07

Sakura - make up for men - actually, yes. They list what is permissible and what isn't.

You may have to eat that mascara.

I think the reason that it's not been in front of the courts before is because it was (unfortunately) well drafted, and applied (in detail) to both sexes.

The new Equalities Act looks a bit further - and this case is hinging on whether it is more expensive to adhere to the female dress code than the make.

Bandwithering Sat 02-Jul-11 15:20:13

I think sakura is right though, men are allowed to be normal! we don't recoil at a man with flushed cheeks, thin lips, or short eyelashes..... women have to be nicer, brighter, cleaner, freshier and perkier than just normal. in fact, we've no idea what a normal woman looks like any more.

kreecherlivesupstairs Sat 02-Jul-11 15:24:44

I am not shocked by this TBH. When I qualified as a nurse I did some agency nursing at a private hospital. I elected not to go back when the ward manager asked me if I would consider wearing a tiny bit of lipstick to brighten my face up.

sakura Sat 02-Jul-11 15:31:52

meditriana, you haven't addressed my point.

I said I'll eat the mascara if a man insists on wearing it and gets sacked for it.

As I said, I'm not surprised that conservative gender roles have to be strictly abided in some companies, just like in society.

sakura Sat 02-Jul-11 15:33:40

And the idea that gendering women's behaviour and appearance is wrong simply because it's expensive is patriarchal bullshit.

It's wrong because it shoe-horns women into a two-tier sex class system.
Not ascribing to the gender dictates assigned to your sex works in favour of feminism (as long as you then go and spoil it all by pretending you're a member of a SEX you're not hmm )

sakura Sat 02-Jul-11 15:35:59

Anyone here who thinks that gendered roles are good for women need to read some feminism 101 books.
I'm looking at you meditriana

This case is a shocker.

Feminism needs to up the antse

meditrina Sat 02-Jul-11 15:44:46

Thank you for making such a judgement about my personal views on this case.

I made absolutely no comment on whether having a gendered code was "right", I was pointing out that it is (thus far) legal. I am not aware that any had yet been tested under the Equality Act.

If a man wore mascara to work in Harrods, he would be in breach of the code as it affects him, and this could lead to the sack. So yes, you should be ready to eat the mascara at any time, as all the conditions required do exist.

TeiTetua Sat 02-Jul-11 16:31:55

sakura Sat 02-Jul-11 14:55:24

"And lets be honest, men are as ugly as sin compared to women."

Well, I'll be honest. That was vile, and totally unworthy of anyone claiming to be a feminist.

tethersend Sat 02-Jul-11 16:37:04

Does the contract specifically state what make up must be worn?

Because I'd be tempted to go to work like this.

Bandwithering Sat 02-Jul-11 17:04:15

ha HA!

sakura Sun 03-Jul-11 01:48:53

Teitua, it was not "vile" at all.

I was expressing astonishment.

GIve it a bit of thought and analysis for half a second and you'll see what I'm getting at.

Despite the fact that men are clearly not as beautiful as women in any way whatsoever, they are not required to wear make up to look better. They're under no obligation to wear it to improve their looks.

And yet looking at men next to women in an objective sense, men clearly need make up more than women.

All rather strange.

Unless you remind yourself that we live in a patriarchy,
and then it all suddenly begins to make sense.

A patriarchy is a social system in which all judicial, medical, financial and political institutions are designed by, created for and run by men
Two women are murdered in the UK every week by men, for example, and receive an average of four years in jail. Women are frequently raped but the court system is designed in such a way that there is very little chance of conviction.,

The two-tiered gendered system of femininity and masculinity upholds male dominance. (Trans genderism also does this because it pretends femininity is innate and something to do with being a woman, rather than a socially imposed gender role that women have to navigate in order to survive (by keeping their jobs, for example) under a patriarchy

Forcing men to look masculine is oppressive to an extent but not as much as enforced femininity is for women.
BOTH uphold male dominance and therefore forcing a man to be masculine is quite a difference kettle of fish to forcing a woman to embrace her subordination.

Sacking a woman for not embracing her subordination is a shocker.

sakura Sun 03-Jul-11 03:29:01

Misuse of language is a common anti-feminist tactic.

Teitua's post displays a perfect example.

Shoehorning women into stereotyped gender roles in order to uphold male dominance is, apparently, not vile.

Sacking a woman for refusing to comply with the patriarchal dictates enforced upon her, as a female, which uphold the two-tier class system of male dominance and female subordination is, apparently, not vile

Me wondering why men don't feel obliged to wear make up when they're no oil-paintings themselves, especially compared to women, apparently is . Men expect women to "brighten" their faces, which I find kinda ironic, when they aren't known for their bright faces themselves.

ANd there you have it.

Anti feminists can twist language and completely alter the meaning of a word, in this case "vile" in order to muddy the waters and get people believing that questioning patriarchy is "vile" whereas the system itself cannot possibly be

sakura Sun 03-Jul-11 03:29:26

Misuse of language is a common anti-feminist tactic.

Teitua's post displays a perfect example.

Shoehorning women into stereotyped gender roles in order to uphold male dominance is, apparently, not vile.

Sacking a woman for refusing to comply with the patriarchal dictates enforced upon her, as a female, which uphold the two-tier class system of male dominance and female subordination is, apparently, not vile

Me wondering why men don't feel obliged to wear make up when they're no oil-paintings themselves, especially compared to women, apparently is . Men expect women to "brighten" their faces, which I find kinda ironic, when they aren't known for their bright faces themselves.

ANd there you have it.

Anti feminists can twist language and completely alter the meaning of a word, in this case "vile" in order to muddy the waters and get people believing that questioning patriarchy is "vile" whereas the system itself cannot possibly be

nooka Sun 03-Jul-11 04:40:51

I don't think you can rationalise a statement like 'men are as ugly as sin' to make it OK. I bet you would be angry if someone said that about women (and I'm sure someone has).

An individual man is just as likely to be attractive as an individual woman. Neither need make up. Neither need to improve their looks. What you or I might consider beauty is likely to be very different in any case, and what different societies consider beautiful is a societal construct. Of course there is a very valid argument that the current standards of beauty that women are more or less required to conform to are sexist and oppressive, but I don't think that you need to denigrate all men in order to make that argument.

Good luck to the Harrods sales assistant, I'd like to see all these high heels/make up etc etc employment requirements made illegal, especially where they are obviously absolutely nothing to do with the job in question (when I am buying music I couldn't care less what the assistants look like, just whether they can help me find whatever I am after).

fuzzpig Sun 03-Jul-11 06:15:07

I found the whole dress code pretty horrible TBH. Not just the make up issue. Dress codes are supposed to make staff look neat and presentable, they aren't supposed to be about 'beauty'. You can look perfectly presentable without makeup.

Does this mean that a perfectly qualified applicant (of either sex) who was perhaps a bit 'ugly' in conventional terms would not get the job? It doesn't overtly say that but to me it implies so.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now