credentials might be judged by how she dresses?

[JessieMcJessie]

I have just been reading an article in which a number of top female divorce lawyers are interviewed. Among their “Top Tips”:

“What you wear in Court matters: Sandra Davis suggests that mothers negotiating 'children matters' such as contact arrangements should wear 'something soft, nothing too sharp with edges'.

I am taken aback at this suggestion that a woman has to dress in a particular way to maximise the chances of gaining access to her children. Are judges really that easily swayed by the lack of a cashmere cardigan?

No, it is conscious judgment. A parent’s job is to teach children right from wrong and about societal norms. Not wearing a tracksuit to court is a societal norm. Therefore not understanding this societal norm is an example of potentially deficient parenting skills.

And I have already said that I have no obligation to propose any solutions to you so stop repeating the question.

JessieMcJessie

You have some very strange ideas.

I disagree with you. That doesn’t make my ideas strange. Please stop being rude.

And I won't repeat the question, mainly because I can't be arsed. It's odd, however, to see someone insisting they want to start a discussion about solutions and then point blank refusing to discuss solutions. Hmm.

I asked the question because I don’t have any suggestions of my own! How hard is that to understand?

Oh right.

Hopefully someone will be along soon with some suggestions.

Here's one of mine: you are part of the problem. You said you were shocked that a person's maternal credentials might be judged by what they wear. Then you judged a person's maternal credentials by what they wore (tracksuit). In my view, that has nothing to do with 'hard facts' and everything to do with internalised bias and classism.

It matters how we dress though for certain events/situations...and regardless of what we might say/think or feel about this, people are judging us on our appearance at these times, so it pays to dress for that 'thing' appropriately, and at least try to be conscious about how we are being perceived, if we want (or in the case of an important court case!) need it to go well. Deliberately sabotaging our chances by dressing inappropriately is just stupid isn't it? Turning up to a job interview for the position of doctors receptionist dressed in a leopard print, knickers-flashing mini skirt, tight, see-through boob tube and sky-scraper heels 👠 is not going to do us any favours is it?

I don't think it's any different for men either! Turning up in court 'blinged up', dressed in a hoodie and trainers will, rightly or wrongly, give the impression that you have not listened to the advice of your lawyer who will presumably have told you to smarten up a bit for court.

Being offended by perceptions doesn't change them unfortunately. Sometimes you just have to play the game.

Because a good mother would know that you don’t go to Court in a tracksuit

Many good mothers are on very limited money and may only have a tracksuit (or similar). Of course she could always stop spending money on her children's basic needs and buy herself some smarter clothes, but I think that would arguably make her a less good mother.

NorthernKnickers

It definitely pays. But the point is that it shouldn't. The OP is entirely right to suggest that judges should base their findings on facts, not on visual impressions. In my view, that includes whether someone wears more casual attire as well as more formal attire. It shouldn't make any difference, but we all know it does.

Penggwyn you are not reading my posts properly. My post was about why a woman should be required to wear “soft” court-appropriate clothing instead of “hard” court-appropriate clothing in order to influence negotiations about child access. Not about whether people should be judged by their clothing full stop.

I am taken aback at this suggestion that a woman has to dress in a particular way to maximise the chances of gaining access to her children.

I think I read reasonably well. What you mean is, you spoke without aforethought and now you want to add an exception.

My post was about why a woman should be required to wear “soft” court-appropriate clothing instead of “hard” court-appropriate clothing in order to influence negotiations about child access. Not about whether people should be judged by their clothing full stop

Ah.... so it is OK to judge whether someone is a good mother by how she dresses. But only to do so using standards which fit with your own life.

I honestly just don't think you could train people to not be affected by something that subtle.

You could do some training to tell judges that they shouldn't judge people negatively for wearing tracksuits etc., but the point about that advice is that it's an almost Derren Brown level of subconscious influence.

Not much different from having to wear a uniform. And Armed Forces, Police, Fire personal, etc etc, HAVE to wear a uniform.

I have to wear a sort of uniform at work, to make me stand out as an employee.

I totally agree that there should be a standard of dress for going to court, for any reason.

A 'mother' that turns up in a pink tracksuit, caked in make-up, false nails, smoking a fag, WILL look bad compared to the mother that turns up looking well groomed and respectable.

How strange.

You complain about an issue do it yourself and don’t accept that you did

Joanna57

I know it is highly likely that she will be judged. That is the sad reality of the world we live in. The question is whether the tracksuit provides a rational basis on which to judge her.
Now, what is particularly interesting about your post is it's display of all the negative associations your minds adds to 'tracksuit': make-up, must be a smoker, false nails. Then, your obvious association between those things and 'bad parent'.

How does wearing make-up and false nails make one a bad parent?

People are divided on smoking, I accept that. But the rest?

Its

I think what's interesting about the lawyers' tips is that men are advised to go into court looking business- like/ as if they've just come from their professional work (i.e. Perpetuating the myth of father as financial provider) and women advised to look, well, "mumsy" and not someone who might attend business or professional meetings because their role is at home being mother.
I don't know why you're getting a hard time Jessie for raising an interesting topic without coming up with solutions
And yes judges do get training on unconscious bias.

No Penggwyn I referred to that particular example - “this suggestion”- in my OP and later made it very clear that I was not talking about all clothes-based judging.

Seriously, where do you get off dictating that an AIBU OP has to be drafted with academic precision and that it is mandatory for an OP to present a set of proposed solutions in order to be allowed to post? Who made you the headmistress?

needasockamnesty I complained about a very specific issue- judgment based on subtle variations in overall appropriate court dress.
I then happily accepted that someone should be judged for wearing non-appropriate court dress, which was not the issue I complained about.

JessieMcJessie

OP, this is AIBU. You post, you get responses. If you don't like mine, you're free to ignore them, aren't they? But pretending you didn't express a very clear double standard doesn't seem to be going well, so I would suggest a different strategy.

*aren't you

I imagine we are all judged by what we wear most of the time.
It sucks, particularly the assumptions about softness, but I’m not at all surprised.

MrsDesireeCarthorse there is a difference between your husband being advised what colour of tie will sway a potential client vs the suggestion that judge will decide to be less favourable to a woman whose lapels are too crisp. Potential clients are perfectly entitled to be a flighty and biased as they like when deciding to whom they will give their business, whereas a judge has a duty and responsibility to make fair, unbiased decisions. So using clothes to convince is fine, and a clever strategy, in the former context but ahoukd not be necessary in the latter.

Because even if we don't think we are assessing based on dress we ARE.
It is a really interesting area and also very subjective. What one person may consider "smart" another may consider "casual".

If you are going to court for something you would give yourself the best chance of achieving the desired outcome...

Similar with job interviews.

Does dress affect performance? Even though you THINK you can do your work just as well in casual clothes, you might actually perform better if you are dressed for the part.
(Obviously this is completely true for athletes etc! But in say education, does a well dressed teacher teach better than a scruffy one? Maybe not... but do the children pay more attention to someone who looks like an authoritative person? Or someone dressed more (hate this word but using it anyway) "mumsy"???)