Shocking, stunning, horrifying, unmissable. Guardian report on female invisibility.

Why don't my work?

I am glad that my employer concentrates on doing what it can to redress the male/female balance by encouraging women into ICT jobs - they are very underepresented on the IT engineering side particularly - in Belgium only about of 3% of graduates in this field are female.

What they DON'T have is a dress code.

All this talk of women dressing for success and needing to be told how to do so, so that men will think them professional - well that to me is a step in the wrong direction.

And me I personally couldn't give a toss what dd's teacher wears. I would expect her to be neat and clean, but at the end of the day she is educating and doing activities with 7yos. My dd comes home filthy most days. I would expect her teacher to be wearing something comfortable and practical.

"They are very well respected in the community and parents, including myself, approach them for help with raising their children. The teachers in leggings might be more competent than the teachers dressed well but 50% of the adult population (men) probably won't think so."

What the hell IS this? You see a teacher in a smart jacket and go ask them for parenting advice?

want2b, I am astounded that you cannot see the irony in what you have posted. I think YOU are judging these women much more than a man would.

at Bonsoir's cousin - I was thinking the same thing......

Men are not more visual than women.

Want2bSupermum, are you Bonsoir's US cousin?

sakura I think part of the problem clerical and teaching areas is that when women moved into these roles they changed working practices so they could work and take care of their family. Men don't do that. Also, when I walk into my office the assitants are all female and they do not all dress in a professional manner. The ones that don't, devalue the role and all of the assistants suffer. I see the same with many teachers, especially in the UK. Wearing leggings to work as a teacher is not OK in my opinion. I have a couple of neighbours who are elementary school teachers. When I see them go to work they look very smart and could easily walk from the classroom into an office. Both ladies work in well paid school districts and they earn well over $100k/yr as teachers. They are very well respected in the community and parents, including myself, approach them for help with raising their children. The teachers in leggings might be more competent than the teachers dressed well but 50% of the adult population (men) probably won't think so.

While the women in these roles are very good at what they do and worth far more than what they are paid, their appearance doesn't help project that image. Men are still running things and men are far more visual compared to women.

I'm a bit that a thread on visibility of women has descended into 'women must try harder and look polished' - but I suppose that this shows how far we have got to go.......

At work, I like to look professional. But what matters to my patients is what I do and say to them and their families, not what I look like. One of my absolute role models in the hospital is pretty scruffy but universally admired. And another past female colleague is, in the words of a friend of mine, 'too groomed to be true'. So perhaps there is a balance, but really you should be as groomed as you want to be/ have time for without it influencing how far you can progress in your career. I would like to think that my credibility is independent of what dress I am wearing. I don't judge my male colleagues on their clothes.

Also - I would like to go against Xenia a bit and say that the way forward is NOT all women working full-time and out-earning their men. Fine if you want to, but actually I don't. I like child-rearing. I want to do the bulk of my children's care at the moment. That is my own choice (I think!) rather than societal pressure - believe you me, I have had 7 years to think hard about it.

It would be easier sometimes if I did work full-time as the boundaries would be less blurred, I would sub-contract a lot more housework and childcare, and I wouldn't get phone calls from neurosurgeons whilst I was in ASDA. But - no-one actually works full-time ie. all the hours in the week - lets be more flexible for both men AND women, less presumptious, less judgemental.

I'm joining this way too late (and way too late at night), and probably the moment to reply to Xenia's post (way, way up-thread) is past - but I will,. anyway.

I am afraid I am continously appalled by women including on mumsnet who choose ot be home cleaning up the house and wiping babies; b ottoms and leaving their husbands to advance to positions of power. Women will never never get very far at all as long as so very very many husbands have low or no earning wife at home or in part time pin money work and husband putting his all into a career. You need to take action on a personal basis today and aim to out earn your man
Afraid I can't see it your way, I'm sorry. I have zero interest in out-earning DH, or anyone else for that matter. That's not where our power (as women OR as human beings) necessarily lies.
DH and I are in the same field. We are both finishing doctorate degrees while we work PT, and we both have childcare responsibilities. He has older kids (my stepkids) and we have a baby together. I do most of the baby care, while he does most of the parenting of the older kids.
I recognize that we are in many ways not a typical example of marriage, but the thing is - our lifestyle suits us. Neither one of us wants a high-powered career and we both love our life within the home. (Before we were together, DH was a lone parent and a SAHD.) Don't get me wrong, we both love our work, and obviously we want to be respected for it. But the rewards are something altogether different, and less driven by ambition or external trappings of 'power'.
I think what we are doing, and what other families like us are doing, is rethinking the entire notion of success and power. I believe and hope that we are both able to participate in the public and the private spheres, this way. It is certainly true that we need more women in positions of public influence, but my point, I think, is that the way forward does not necessarily lie in every woman leaving home to try and out-earn "their" man as if this were a feminist duty. Maybe the answer is in more men staying at home?

page 80 "Loving to Survive":

"Oskamp notes that "women workers with a bachelor's degree earn $616 less per year than male workers who have not completed high-school."

"It is an often-repeated finding that, as the proportion of women in a field increases, the wage level decreases"

Teaching and clerical work (secretaries) used to be male dominated professions, were paid well, and highly respected. When women entered those fields the value (and pay) of the work dropped dramatically. (Or is it that women were only able to enter them once their value had dropped?)
The same process is happening in medicine now.
WHat women do is not valued because it's women doing it, and the work is paid accordingly.

It's utter nonsense to say "women should try harder" when you see the statistics, and when you see what we're up against.

I think that it is perfectly legitimate to say that to really succeed in work, it should at least look as if you've bothered to be tidy and presentable. To not reach a certain minimum standard does look as if you're really don't care about your job, you're deliberately attempting to buck the system, or you are so unaware that you haven't even noticed how other people dress.

The problem is when the way people are dressed becomes sexist of itself, e.g. women have to wear make-up/have their hair tied back, wear heels etc. I can't think of an equivalent for men, which is why there's an issue with it.

Believe me, I'm visible. And the top US women I know - big 4 partners, highly prestigious people in the profession - are way too busy to spend time on grooming. The ones who spend any significant time on grooming never get to the level where I will ever have anything to do with them.

erotic capital!!!!!! FFS,

Employers do. I've had comments about my breasts from enthusiastic followers of some work stuff on youtube which of course is very funny as I'm known for others areas of my competence and I don't mind at all but yes if you want to get on in many careers you need to look okay (and I accept there are lots of fat ugly female and male authors around as you don't have to go out and persuade people to want you etc - and I am thinking Salman R and women too)

I think it's a great pity if a thread about how women can be more visible has to be discussing women being groomed however. The reason women are not visible is they do not push themselves forwards as experts in their field and too many leave to become housewives. The ones who do push forward to be on TV etc etc tend usually to get their clothes right. It's a tiny part of success. In fact it is another area women can win over men actually - we tend to look better and we have "erotic capital" in spades.

So if you're very very good, also very reliable and "show up" and do what you say come hell and high water, if you're stoic and robust with lots of self confidence plus you have the erotic capital too - gosh no wonder once you discount those who aren't very bright or are lazy or weight 20 stone or dont' wear the right clothes, it is not that hard to do reasonably well even if you have my deficiencies.

Most men didn't need help. A couple of guys were in need of a hair cut, polished shoes, their trouser hem taken up and one guy didn't have a tie on. I pointed this out to them. On the whole men were often better turned out then the women.

"9 times out of 10 the girls would make the changes and get the job or be in serious consideration for it.">

Again you are judging people's worth by their appearance. It is nasty!

I really don't like the word "groomed"

Did you do the same for the men, or were they all perfect?

No I agree that grooming won't give me success an auditor, but when I look at those who are senior managers, partners and directors not only do I see competence but also men and women who are groomed. Those who are not groomed sit in quality control and are not visible. They are just as competent but clients don't see them.

want2bsupermum Please believe me that grooming will not give you success as an auditor. It really won't.

I think you are missing my point. Men who go on television as experts are also judged on their appearance.

In my effort to push women to the forefront, I would always bring in women to interview if I thought they might have the right experience for the job. A few times they would arrive and their appearance wasn't right but they were perfect for the role. Rather then let them get slaughtered at the next round I would tell them nicely what they should change in both their CV and appearance. 9 times out of 10 the girls would make the changes and get the job or be in serious consideration for it.

Trust me when I say it wasn't the CV changes alone that got them the offer or consideration.

The UK NEEDS more female MPs. But obviously they must be smart and look a certain way otherwise their ability to do their job will be judged by other women!!!!

So Margaret Beckett is very competent at what she does? What does her outfit have to do with that? So what should change in this scenario then?

Margaret Beckett does a good job. Margaret Beckett needs a "stylist". Or We should stop judging competent women by what clothes they happen to be wearing as it affects their actual competence not one jot.????

Panto My point is that if women are going to become more visible in society then we not only have to be good at what we do but we have to look the part too. Margaret Beckett wasn't my cut of tea but I thought she was very competent but not give the respect she deserved. I think the lack of respect happened in part because of her appearance.

Also, clothing is one part of appearance. The majority of my time and effort is spent on grooming.

Bill, in that picture, looks like any number of the men I work with. Most of us go to work with ironed clothes and clean hands. But he gets up on the podium in his purple jumper and the world listens. That is to do with who he is and what he does, and NOT how he is dressed.