lph
03-15-2012, 04:09 AM
Story that caught my eye today:
a male psychologist (at a hospital?) in Denmark was told by his boss that he could not wear shorts under his white coat at work on hot days, because with the coat buttoned, it could give the impression that he was wearing nothing at all. (Which is kinda funny, actually :D)
He complained to the Danish Board of Equal Treatment, that deals with discrimination complaints, saying that his female colleagues were allowed to wear short skirts that didn't show beneath the coat. His boss maintained that there was a cultural acceptance of short legwear for women that doesn't exist for men.
The Board ruled that this was a subjective opinion, and that not allowing shorts for men was discriminatory in this case. (Denmark is probably considered very liberal both in regards to dress code and equal rights).
I found this pretty interesting. In principle I agree on equal rights of course, but in practice I sure would be surprised if I went to a hospital and was greeted by a male doctor with hairy bare legs... And I've seen plenty of fine-looking male legs :D It just feels much more casual on men, like that boss maintained.
So why are bare female legs more acceptable? Are male legs less attractive, or is it just what we are accustomed to seeing? Is it that many women are used to showing their legs and groom them accordingly while men don't? Or do only women with pretty legs show them off? And how would this boss or this board react if a woman had ignored the usual standards of beauty and shown off pudgy, white, hairy or bruised and ungroomed legs - would anyone have dared to say that they looked unprofessional?
Do any of you work in professions that give clear guidelines to things like this?
a male psychologist (at a hospital?) in Denmark was told by his boss that he could not wear shorts under his white coat at work on hot days, because with the coat buttoned, it could give the impression that he was wearing nothing at all. (Which is kinda funny, actually :D)
He complained to the Danish Board of Equal Treatment, that deals with discrimination complaints, saying that his female colleagues were allowed to wear short skirts that didn't show beneath the coat. His boss maintained that there was a cultural acceptance of short legwear for women that doesn't exist for men.
The Board ruled that this was a subjective opinion, and that not allowing shorts for men was discriminatory in this case. (Denmark is probably considered very liberal both in regards to dress code and equal rights).
I found this pretty interesting. In principle I agree on equal rights of course, but in practice I sure would be surprised if I went to a hospital and was greeted by a male doctor with hairy bare legs... And I've seen plenty of fine-looking male legs :D It just feels much more casual on men, like that boss maintained.
So why are bare female legs more acceptable? Are male legs less attractive, or is it just what we are accustomed to seeing? Is it that many women are used to showing their legs and groom them accordingly while men don't? Or do only women with pretty legs show them off? And how would this boss or this board react if a woman had ignored the usual standards of beauty and shown off pudgy, white, hairy or bruised and ungroomed legs - would anyone have dared to say that they looked unprofessional?
Do any of you work in professions that give clear guidelines to things like this?