That's totally fucked up! Once again the male patriarchy is exercising their right to "define" the way they think women should be. That totally pisses me off, and is really really twisted. Unfortunately I was already kinda aware of this, but didn't know it was legal, I thought it was just masoginistic cheovanistic bosses, and this "law" allows them to be so.

The "equality" that their talking about doesn't make any sense either. I mean, requiring any of women or woemen, women identifying etc people to wear make up, and then flipping it so that all those male, male identifying etc people can't wear make up on the job still puts women in an more damaging place. As you pointed out Fringe, not wearing make up does take significantly less money, time and has no skin irritation involved or allergic reactions. Personally that makes me kinda fucked if I ever apply for a job that requires make up to be worn(gods I hope I don't have to) because I have never worn more then lipstick ever in my life. I don't even KNOW HOW to put on make up, don't even bother with the whole goth make up cause my skin is pale enough and just never cared to spend all that money and time to go with an "artificially pale look," and am already pale enough. Thanx so much for the info fringe, I knew that there was a lot of sexism and harassment that exists in the job market, but didn't know that make up wearing was factored in as well.

Hugs,

Sincerly,
Ariel Archaicflame

Trusting that this is indeed serious, it's reduculous yet hardly surprising.

Being that we live in such a face value society, it does not surprise me at all that one could view cosmetics essentially as a lifeblood. We constantly hear about people who 'climb up the ladder faster" because they're better looking and studies have confirmed that. Years of TV commercials depicting women in slinky dresses, makeup, and wearing six inch heels while trying to cook dinner is an example of how society places greater value in aesthetics than in practicality or substance.

I don't think this will end until popular culture starts saying that this kinda stuff is wrong. That hiring people based on looks rather than ability is rediculous. That having employees dress in "good looking" yet unhealthy and impractical attire is pointless.

Most people have too short of an attention span to either read or listen to the radio for information, so popular TV shows will have to do the job.

I'm just bubbling with enthusiasm at the prospects of that happening.

I didn't believe it so I looked it up and she is right Jespersen v. Harrah's Operating Co., 392 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir., 2004). The employee was terminated after she refused to adhere to the employer's new policy, which required certain female employees to wear makeup. The employee alleged that the employer's policy discriminated against her on the basis of sex and constituted disparate treatment, in violation of 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e-2(a). The district court granted summary judgment for the employer, holding that the employer's policy did not constitute sex discrimination because it imposed equal burdens on both sexes. The employee appealed, arguing that the makeup requirement imposed innumerable tangible burdens on female employees that male employees did not share because cosmetics could cost hundreds of dollars per year and putting on makeup required a significant investment in time. There was, however, under the unequal burdens test, no evidence in the record from which the court could assess the burdens that the employer's new policy imposed on male employees and whether the employer's grooming requirements exceeded whatever burden was associated with ordinary good-grooming standards.