Professionalism and Oppression

Early in the life of this blog, I was trying to focus on being "adultish" -- which included some fashion and lifestyle tips and musings that reflected on acting more mature and professional. But lately, I've been wondering, what does that even mean?

At some point not too long ago, I was introduced to a site called Dress Profesh, which comes with the tagline "challenging notions of what it means to look 'professional.'" It shows people of all different sizes, races, and genders wearing what they work in. It really snaps into focus the fact that being "professional" is an arbitrary and often oppressive guideline.

A post was just going around a few days ago in which a college senior was rejected from a tech job because the guys that interviewed her claimed her outfit was more for "clubbing" than interviewing. There are plenty of people out there who think her tasteful top, skirt, sweater, and tights outfit is "unprofessional" because it's not a suit, ignoring the fact that tech companies are usually pretty casual, and in fact, overdressing too much can make an interviewee look out of touch with the culture of their field.

Regardless, insisting that everyone on the job hunt wear a suit is one of those oppressive things about the notion of professionalism that I take issue with. Suits are expensive. If you're long-unemployed, or you're a college student just starting out, even a find at Marshall's or a thrift store can be out of your budget. Plus, if you don't wear a straight size, or you are a woman with a large chest, it might be impossible to find anything that will even cover your body -- let alone fit well and be without cleavage -- especially when price is a dire concern. Additionally, if you are fat or busty (or both, like I am), there are some who will always classify you as unprofessional. No matter what you wear, being too fat will likely get you called sloppy, and simply having a large chest will get you classed as sexy or inappropriate.

There are racial implications, as well. Black people are often maligned for having natural hairstyles like Afros or dreadlocks -- women are generally expected to relax their hair and wear it straight, or wear a weave, to look "professional," for example. That is, if they even get an interview to begin with, since people with white/European sounding names are more likely to get called than someone with a more "ethnic" (for lack of a better word) names.

The idea of professionalism is outdated and ridiculous. It should be enough to say, perhaps, make sure you are wearing anything required for safety, your naughty bits are covered, you don't smell, and you aren't wearing hate speech symbols. Anything beyond that is unnecessary, and upholds a white supremacist, cisnormative, heteronormative, sexist, sizeist, kyriarchical structure.

From the Archive: Price discrimination is never OK (an open letter to JC Penney)

"From the Archive" is a series of posts that I wrote on past, no-longer-updated blogs that I feel are good enough to need a new home.

This post was originally written in February 2011.

Dear JC Penney:

To the left is a photo I took over the summer, in one of your stores near Buffalo, NY. I believe it was in the Walden Galleria mall, but precise location doesn't really matter as you have consistent stock across the country.

What you see is the exact same style shirt, only one is taken from the misses department and the other is from the plus sizes. The most important thing to note is that the plus size shirt costs $14 more than the misses size.

This is not OK.

There is absolutely no logical reason a size 1X should be more expensive than a size XL. I know what the stock answers are - that plus size clothing requires more fabric or that it is more complicated to make and therefore requires more skilled (and costly) construction.

I will refrain from using profanity in this letter, but let me say that my gut reaction to that "explanation" generally involves the excrement of male cattle.

Especially in this case. See, this is a t-shirt with some non-functional decorative buttons sewn to the front. This is not an underwire bra, a metal corset, a wedding dress or some other item that must conform perfectly to the wearer's body to function properly. IT IS A T-SHIRT. It's made of cotton; intended to hang from the shoulders and maybe cling to the lumps and bumps of the person inside. The construction does not vary greatly with size.

The other common excuse - that plus sizes require more fabric - wouldn't hold much water, either. The two shirts pictured above are an XL and a 1X. Arguably, those are barely different sizes at all. Now, I tried both on and I can say that the 1X had a little bit more room in it, but it didn't feel like it was even a whole size bigger than the XL. If higher supply cost were truly the case, all clothing would have prices that grade up with size. I mean, it takes more fabric to make a medium or large than it does to make an extra small, and yet those are always the same price. The cutoff point at which your company is charging more is arbitrary - based on a pre-determined line between sizes that are considered normal and ones that are othered. But there is no real difference if you look at it objectively.

So why do you, as a company, feel compelled to contribute to the rampant discrimination that plus sized people (in the case of this shirt, plus size women) already face on a daily basis? Is it not enough that we encounter taunts from strangers, rude comments from family and "friends," are ostracized from most clothing stores, kicked off airplanes, and constantly treated like we are stupid, lazy, gluttonous or hideous? Is it not enough that doctors ignore our legitimate concerns or blame every little thing on fat? Since fat people are more likely to be discriminated against for employment and more likely to live in poverty, how does it even make sense to try and charge us more?

And did you really think we were too stupid to notice? Luckily, my body is on the cusp between plus sizes and misses, so I grabbed a shirt from each department. Someone who is slightly larger might not even know the shirt was made in misses sizes, and therefore wouldn't know she was being charged more simply because of her natural body type.

This price gouging and discriminatory practice must end. I realize that this particular shirt is probably no longer in stores, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's not the first or last time you've cheated your fatter customers out of some of their hard-earned money. Therefore I demand that styles be the same price across departments. If they are the same style, there is absolutely no legitimate reason for them to be more expensive in plus sizes. Comparable styles must be comparably priced. Otherwise, you are committing an egregious act of size discrimination. I, for one, will not buy another item from JC Penney until it is rectified, and I will encourage my family, friends, and internet followers (yes, I have some) to do the same.

I encourage you to do the right thing.