National Post (National Edition)

WAITER

DITCHING DRESS CODES WON’T PROTECT ALL WORKERS.

- LAURA KANE in Vancouver

There is much more to gender inequality in the workplace than short skirts and stilettos.

As B.C. and Ontario take steps to ditch sexualized dress codes, researcher­s and human rights lawyers say a broader discussion is needed of the pressures faced by women to spend more time and money on their looks than men.

Women who work in many places besides restaurant­s can face unwritten expectatio­ns, say equality experts.

“Women can be judged more harshly due to these pervasive stereotype­s,” said Julie Nugent, vice-president and centre leader at the Catalyst Research Centre for Corporate Practice, part of a multinatio­nal non-profit organizati­on.

“When you think about dress and physical appearance, women face higher standards in a lot of cases than men.”

Nugent said women leaders are often subject to what’s known as the “Goldilocks syndrome,” where they’re perceived as either too tough or too soft, but never “just right.” This also affects expectatio­ns for how women dress, in which their looks are scrutinize­d more than men’s, she said.

“Sometimes that (focus on appearance) could even take away from a woman’s abilities or her leadership style,” she said. “That can be sort of white noise in the background.”

B.C. Premier Christy Clark recently voiced support for a private member’s bill that would have banned mandatory high heels in the workplace. But rather than pass the bill, her government is looking for the most “effective way” to make the fix, which could include changes to regulation­s.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission put forward a policy position last year making it clear that requiring female staff to wear high heels, low-cut tops or short skirts could violate the human rights code. It also contacted major restaurant and bar companies, with many saying they had already changed their dress code or planned to do so.

But in the U.K., the issue has also been debated in the context of profession­al workplaces. British politician­s condemned sexist dress codes after Nicola Thorp complained her employment agency required “regularly reapplied” makeup and shoes with at least a five-centimetre heel while she was working at a finance firm.

Renu Mandhane, chief commission­er of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, said the issue comes up most often in restaurant­s and bars.

“Often, when you’re talking about offices and businesses, it’s more about the implied expectatio­n, rather than a formalized dress code,” she said.

She said businesses can have a dress code as long as it’s not discrimina­tory. For example, it can’t require that women wear skinny jeans and men wear straight-cut jeans — it should provide both options for both genders.

“If women want to wear skinny jeans, that’s totally fine. It’s about providing equivalent options so that they don’t feel they have to wear something they may not feel comfortabl­e with.”

Robyn Durling, communicat­ions director of the B.C. Human Rights Clinic, said the province’s human rights code already bans dress codes that discrimina­te on the basis of gender. But any regulatory changes by the premier would reaffirm the human rights code, he said.

He said Clark’s government could amend workers’ compensati­on policy to state that high-heeled shoes can cause injuries and therefore employers can no longer require staff to wear them.

It’s important to recognize that men in certain industries probably feel equivalent pressure to look credible for their roles, said Karen CraiggsMil­ne, a gender and diversity consultant.

“But that gender division, where women are taking time to put on makeup and do their hair and spend an extra hour in the morning just to be ready for the role before they’re even judged on the work itself, I think is part of a broader issue of discrimina­tion that shows up in the workplace.”

Diane Craig, president and founder of Corporate Class, which trains aspiring business leaders, said appearance is one pillar of “executive presence,” but it’s probably the least important one. She disagreed that women are required to spend more money or time on their looks.

“We get our nails done. We get our eyebrows shaped. There’s all of those things. It’s like high maintenanc­e. It’s not that it’s necessary,” she said.

Cissy Pau, a principal consultant with Clear HR Consulting, said presentati­on is important regardless of gender. “If you look completely dishevelle­d and that’s comfortabl­e for you, is that going to distract the person from taking your work seriously?” she asked.

“If you come in looking presentabl­e and clean-cut and not presenting anything that’s questionab­le, now appearance isn’t an issue and your work becomes what people focus on.”

WOMEN ARE TAKING TIME TO PUT ON MAKEUP AND DO THEIR HAIR AND SPEND AN EXTRA HOUR IN THE MORNING JUST TO BE READY FOR THE ROLE BEFORE THEY’RE EVEN JUDGED ON THE WORK ITSELF. — KAREN CRAIGGS-MILNE, GENDER AND DIVERSITY CONSULTANT

 ??  ??
 ?? TIM IRELAND / THE ASSCOCIATE­D PRESS / THE CANADIAN PRESS ?? Equality activist Nicola Thorp complained that her British employment agency required “regularly reapplied” makeup and shoes with at least a five-centimetre heel.
TIM IRELAND / THE ASSCOCIATE­D PRESS / THE CANADIAN PRESS Equality activist Nicola Thorp complained that her British employment agency required “regularly reapplied” makeup and shoes with at least a five-centimetre heel.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada