Dress Codes for Women are a Joke

Ever since "business casual" became popular in the 1990s, work dress codes have essentially become male-only. Women's only restrictions could be summed as "no bare breasts, midriff, or groin."

Take Disney for example. For years Disney's dress code for its employees was described as "conservative," which in the gynocentric, feminized liberal media means "women are expected to dress like they are not at work, not a nightclub." A few days ago, Disney apparently decided that they were wrong to hold women to any standards in appearance:

Disney theme parks' dress coder relaxed
Female employees don't have to wear pantyhose with skirts anymore, unless the leg wear is part of a costume.
By Hugo Martín and Jason Garcia
June 16, 2010
Reporting from Los Angeles and Orlando, Fla. —

Chalk one up for women who work at Disney theme parks: They don't have to wear pantyhose anymore.

In the biggest change to the company's appearance code in a decade, the Walt Disney Co. has decided to let most female employees at Disney theme parks worldwide, including the Disneyland Resort in Anaheim, forgo pantyhose when wearing skirts.

Although it may seem a trivial change in any other business, the relaxing of dress codes at Disneyland is a significant move considering that founder Walt Disney was adamant about making sure all employees maintained a well-groomed, all-American look.

"That clean-cut look never went out of style as far as Walt Disney was concerned," said David Koenig, the author of four books on Disneyland and a regular writer for http://www.mouseplanet.com, a website about the Disney parks.

Koenig recounts a time in the 1970s when some Disneyland managers brandished rulers to ensure that employees' sideburns and hair length met strict grooming standards.

But since then, the company has regularly revisited and relaxed its appearance and dress codes. The last major change to the policy came in 2000 when the company let male employees wear mustaches. Disney tweaked its guidelines again a few years later by allowing male employees to style their hair in cornrows.

Disney officials said the latest change, announced companywide May 28, was prompted by a routine review of company guidelines and a comparison with the dress codes of other Fortune 500 corporations.

"We continuously evaluate our appearances," Disneyland spokeswoman Betsy Sanchez said. "We are trying to stay relevant."

The decision to permit female employees to forgo pantyhose applies to most Disney employees, except where the leg wear is part of a particular costume, such as the outfit for characters such as Tinker Bell or Alice from Alice in Wonderland.

Among the 20,000 or so employees at the Disneyland Resort in Anaheim, the changes will apply mostly to staff who work in offices or behind the scenes at the park.

Among other changes to the code, women will for the first time be permitted to wear sleeveless tops — though in typically restrictive Disney fashion, only if the shoulder straps are at least 3 inches wide. Female employees also will be allowed to wear Capri pants and sling-back shoes that also have open toes.

Men, meanwhile, will now be allowed to wear untucked, casual shirts.

This "dress code" like most modern American dress codes for working women is a joke. Note that under Disney's new dress code women can wear sleeveless shirts, capris, skirts with bare legs, and sandals. They can basically wear whatever they want (except shorts, it would appear). That's not professional looking - that's casual. And keep in mind that this is the dress code at a "conservative" company. But of course, "conservative" means "what was liberal ten or fifteen years ago."

Men, in contrast, are now finally allowed to wear untucked shirts, although women were probably doing that at Disney for years before. But even with untucked (presumably collared) shirts, men will still be wearing slacks, socks, and dress shoes, which look a lot more professional than what the women will be wearing.

The headline writer made a big deal over the fact that women don't have to wear nylons anymore (Disney was probably one of the few places left to require women to wear them after bare legs became ubiquitous throughout the 2000s). Nylons make women look professional and polished, improving their image. Of course, American women stopped caring about their appearances long ago, except to make themselves look sluttier, so it's understandable why they are happy about not having to wear them anymore.

Don't mistake me for a prude. I have no problem with women wearing revealing clothing in general and I'm probably less prudish than most Americans in some ways. For example I wouldn't have a problem with women going topless on American beaches as many do in Europe. But I think that there is a time and place for such clothing. Work is not one of them. If men are capable of dressing professionally, then women should be to.

It really shouldn't be surprising that so many companies have nonexistent dress codes for women. HR departments are run by women, like the spokeswoman quoted, who are to busy "trying to stay relevant" with the latest Sex and the City styles than to hold women to any sort of professional appearance standards. That just wouldn't be fashionable. And corporate men are probably too afraid to hold women to any sort of appearance standards, for various reasons.

Professional jobs are becoming more and more feminized as America reverts to a 21st century female farming system matriarchy. Combine this with the fact that young American women have sluttiness ingrained into them from the time they are kids and it's easy to see why corporations don't (or are unable to) hold women to appearance and dress standards anymore.

Grrrl Power in Disney's Prince of Persia

Later this month, Disney is releasing the film Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, based on the similarly named adventure video game series. When I saw the trailer, I noticed that it looks as if the main female character, Princess Tamina, has been turned into an action girl. She can be seen wielding a sword and fighting with it. It's interesting to contrast her role with those of women in the Prince of Persia video games.

In the game in which the movie appears to have been based, the eponymous Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, there was a female protagonist (Farah) who followed the Prince, but she was an archer. Also, in the 2008 reboot, simply titled Prince of Persia, there was a woman (Elika) who accompanied the Prince, but she was a magic-user, not a warrior. Both of them essentially ended up as damsels in distress, though not in the traditional manner.

Evidentally, Disney decided that female archers and mages don't have enough "grrrl power" so they turned her into a warrior. I'm not really surprised, since Disney has made a habit out of making anachronistic "empowered woman" characters, such as in Pirates of the Carribean and Alice and Wonderland. And in modern film and TV, writers are not creative enough to demonstrate a woman's empowerment besides having them kill one or more men in physical combat.

Also, in the video game and its sequels, there were female villains and generic enemies - corrupted harem concubines and sorceresses, among others. Somehow, I doubt that there will be any female enemies in the film. Female enemies are ubiquitous in video games, but are nonexistent in action and adventure movies.

Remember, according to Hollywood, even though female-on-male violence is "empowering" and "kick-ass," male-on-female violence is "abusive" and "misgynistic." And in Hollywood, if one woman dies it's a tragedy (unless an Action Girl kills her), but if a dozen men die it's entertainment. Disney in particular has been promoting both of those (look at Pirates of the Carribean for plenty of examples).

On the good side, it looks as if Disney is depicting the Persians as white, unlike in other films such as Alexander where the Iranian wife of Alexander the Great was played by a mulatto and in 300 where they were a motley assortment of dark-skinned peoples.