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?” »

Our daily roundup of sex and gender in the District and beyond.

* Melissa McEwan over at Shakesville says a cat’s place is in the cleavage:

this morning, after [the cat had] been driving me bananas for about an hour with this new routine, I tucked the bottom of the tanktop I was wearing up under my boobs to create a little pouch, then stuck her inside, where she promptly fell asleep for about three hours.

And yes, there is a photo.

* Over at The New Gay: A David Foster Wallace obit, from the perspective of someone who’s never read a book by David Foster Wallace.

* The District cracks down on clubs that have different age requirements for men and women, the G.W. Hatchet reported last week. Metro News Editor Alexa Millinger writes that it’s “not uncommon for bars and clubs to advertise events with a minimum entrance age of 18 for females and 21 for males,” and writes that ABRA community resource officer Cynthia Woodruff-Simms “said she knows of a few places in Adams Morgan, U Street and the Southeast Waterfront that use these practices”—all of which seems unnecessarily vague. Can we get the skinny on the effect on those “few places”?

* Via Feministing via Boing Boing: Sexist men make more money. Writes Vanessa:

Most of my friends who make a lot of cheese (finance, technology – all male-dominated fields mind you) seem to have experienced or witnessed more sexism than others. (The corporate world alone is enough to make one nauseous.) And what is there to be said for women who believe in traditional gender roles making less money than women who don’t?

* Via Slate: How the “Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood” made the case that “Bratz” dolls—along with “explicit music,” “rap videos,” and M&M flavored “lip gloss,” contribute to “eating disorders, low self-esteem, depression and poor sexual health.”

* Larry Craig is back: The Idaho senator has started a legal defense fund to aid in his attempt to overturn his guilty plea from a June 2007 “misdemeanor disorderly conduct” charge, the Idaho Statesman reports. Last February, the Senate Ethics Committee admonished Craig for spending over $200,000 of unused campaign funds to try to reverse the plea; now, he’s accepting donations after the fund, dubbed “The Fund for Justice,” was OK’d by the Ethics Committee.

* Larry Craig extra: While perusing the Senator’s Web site, I came across this page, wherein Larry Craig debunks common Internet rumors for his constituents. The page features a totally creepy photo of Craig who, through some feat of dark magick, appears to be balancing a man-sized Fabergé egg in his palm. My favorite of Craig’s “fact or fiction” crusades for truth, filed under “Tax on email“:

Some folks have contacted me about a possible five-cent tax on email. This is a hoax that began circulating on the Internet several years ago. An email message warns people that “House Bill 602P” will levy a five-cent surcharge on every email sent. It goes on to say that the bill is sponsored by Congressman Tony Schnell, and the funds would go to the U.S. Postal Service. Further, it refers to an “editorial” in the “March 6 issue” of The Washingtonian supporting the tax. . . . Let me assure you, there is no Bill 602P. There is no Member of Congress by the name of Tony Schnell, and the United States Postal Service has nothing to do with delivering email. The Washingtonian is a monthly magazine, and does not even have a “March 6″ issue. It is highly unlikely that a measure like this will ever come to the Senate floor for debate.

Glaring omission: That pesky Larry Craig gay rumor.