Last week, a couple of really interesting discussions arose on this blog concerning determining consent and preventing rape. I’m going to address some of the lingering issues raised in those threads later today. But right now, it’s 9 a.m. on Monday morning, I’m not terribly coherent, amd I’d rather review the implications of Garfield lunchboxes and noxious aftershave on a young attorney’s career prospects. So let’s kick off this edition of Sexist Comments of the Week with a multiple choice:

(a) stilettos
(b) pantyhose
(c) cleavage
(d) eyeliner

According to one lawyer, two will ruin a female attoyney’s career, while two will send her on the partner track. Are career women held to a higher standard of dress than are men? Is business attire absurd all around? Or is the corporate uniform a valuable tool to help boys and girls get ahead? Reader theories—and the answers to your quiz—are after the jump:

Read More “Sexist Comments of the Week: How Sexy Is Too Sexy?” »

Yesterday, Feminist Law Professors drew my attention to the Miami Daily Business Review’s “Rodent” column, a weekly anonymous rant written by various members of the legal community. The latest missive, “Lady Lawyers Should Dress the Part,” warns female attorneys that they may be sabotaging their careers with overly sexy business attire. Actually, I think it’s more likely that the conveniently anonymous Rodent, who spouts off platitudes like “women who dress like Barbie dolls get treated like Barbie dolls,” is the force that’s keeping women down in the workplace.

Read More “Dressing “Too Sexy”: Career Suicide Or Sexist Excuse?” »