A Crash Course in Feminism Mk. II (or, why everyone should be a feminist)

[Morgrim]

I find the idea of workplaces demanding women wear makeup odd. Mostly because I have a chemistry background, where makeup and many hair products are outright forbidden, for very good safety reasons. After all, when exposed to flame normal hair singes and smells bad. Hair spray causes a scalp-centred fireball that can inflict significant harm. And many body products contain compounds that react unpredictably with organic volatiles and could increase injury if an accidental exposure occurred.

It's a policy that definitely applies to everyone, too despite what some thing. Like the guy who wore contacts instead of glasses and had them bond onto his cornea.

[daboarder]

It's a policy that definitely applies to everyone, too despite what some thing. Like the guy who wore contacts instead of glasses and had them bond onto his cornea.

Its funny but the labs dont have a consistent policy in this.

I know cause I ask every time we have a safety intro if ones been made, but at the moment its a toss up between them offering protection and the above happening.

I mean even PC2 only advise's "no"

[eldargal]

Women looking nice is more important than women's comfort and potentially women's safety as far as men are concerned. Expectations for men and women are wildly different. Meeting the dress code and being clean and neat is enough for the men, but the women are expected to have immaculate makeup and styled hair, especially in retail.

[daboarder]

Women looking nice is more important than women's comfort and potentially women's safety as far as men are concerned.

So just pointing out that

where makeup and many hair products are outright forbidden, for very good safety reasons.

Is hardly a springboard for the statement you made.

but then, lets not even start on the restrictions that are placed on pregnant women or women trying to get pregnant in a lab

[Charon]

but the women are expected to have immaculate makeup and styled hair, especially in retail.

This is a "long hair issue". Hair style is no issue at all for both genders as long as the hair is short. Trouble starts with long hair which can look "untidy" if no styled properly. Own experience...
Most makeup regulations I know are "no makeup". As a notable exception I would bring in cosmetics/parfume retail which counts as advertising. Maybe you are not forced into this regulations as male which is difficult to say because its hard to get a job there as male. Same form of sexism like with women in electronics retail - men can't be experts on cosmetics.

The only job I can think of that has actually both and is largely affecting women is air hostess (which also has height and weight restrictions)

[Mr Mystery]

[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30554719]TLR, but interesting to start with[/url]

Will revisit on my lunch break.

[Wolfshade]

Women looking nice is more important than women's comfort and potentially women's safety as far as men are concerned. Expectations for men and women are wildly different. Meeting the dress code and being clean and neat is enough for the men, but the women are expected to have immaculate makeup and styled hair, especially in retail.

Which totes supports the issue that my female boss had that I wasn't wearing the proper dress code which was smarter than her... oh wait.

I mean we were all given breakway lanyards so that we couldn't be choked and yet as a man I was expected to wear a tie which doesn't breakaway when my female counterparts weren't.

She also complained that my shirts weren't ironed well, which being ina rucksack I totally get where she is coming from, but it was impractical for them not to be creased during transport yet her tops didn't need ironing because teh dress code didn't apply to her.

It works both ways

[eldargal]

Except your issue is one idiot boss, the issue facing women is societal and cultural, its our entire culture expecting women to look their very best in public at all times which means thin, well dressed and feminine. While men just have to look neat and presentable.

[Denzark]

Today, the UK government published its paper pertaining to women in close combat roles. You should be able to see it at link:



[URL="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/389575/20141218_WGCC_Findings_Paper_Final.pdf"]https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/389575/20141218_WGCC_Findings_Paper_Final.pdf[/URL]


I note some interesting pieces, especially physiology related:

1. Actual medical figures of difference in sizes, skeletal mass, musculature.

2. From current operational figures, women present to medics in theatre with Disease or Non-battle Injuries (DNBI - ie stuff that goes wrong not caused by the enemy) at a rate of 72 per 1000 against 52 per 1000 for men. They also have higher incidences of PTSD.

3. There are details of which nations allow women into what we refer to as Dismounted Close Combat (DCC) roles - interestingly, the Israelis are mentioned as not allowing this (footnote 4, in para 9 of P2). Either this is a typo or goes to show, with differing national definitions you can't just say 'well nation x does y' because the definitions might not fit.

4. A major part of the study pertains to Combat Effectiveness (CE). Interestingly: 'The review studied 21 factors that contribute to CE, of which physiology and team cohesion are the most relevant; these were considered under separate workstrands. The review assessed that one of the factors will be improved by the inclusion of women, seven are neutral or multi directional, eleven are likely to have a negative impact on CE and in two the impact was unknown'.

Paragraphs 23-26 describe what the next step for the UK is - in summary, wait for some US data and see what risks can be mitigated, particularly physiological - also see if mixed gender units can perform to the same standards as single sex.


For my thoughts I wasn't sure if this merited its own thread, I thought the stats may be of interest. I still think unless there is an actual measurable military benefit beyond a piece of social engineering, its not worth doing, but I must admit I find this work is a fair balance between science and principle, if both are weighted appropriately at the end.

[eldargal]

[URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/30069564"]I mean this from last year[/URL] illustrates the point with clothing, and when men say it works both ways I have to ask, how many cosmetic products do you own? How many shades of lipstick, eyeliner, mascara etc. and how much foundation and concealer, face primer, lip primer, bb cream, rough, highlights, contour powder etc. do you feel you need before you look presentable enough for your work?

How often do you shape your eyebrows? How often do you dye your hair? How often do you have it professionally styles? How many work outfits do you have because being seen in the same clothes more than once a week can get you in trouble?

And before anyone tries the 'its optional/its vanity' women are literally [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/13/fashion/makeup-makes-women-appear-more-competent-study.html"]judged on their COMPETENCE at their job based on the quality of their makeup.[/URL]