Gender-Specific Clothing Regulation: A Study in Patriarchy
Harvard Women's Law Journal, Vol. 5, p. 73, 1982
47 Pages Posted: 19 Feb 2009 Last revised: 1 Aug 2011
Date Written: May 1, 1982
Abstract
This note explores the law's response to challenges to gender-specific clothing rules in a wide variety of contexts. Again and again, two themes appear: the perceived need to differentiate men and women (or boys and girls) and the tendency to view women as sexual objects.
Part I looks at two Title VII cases. In Carroll v Talman Federal Savings and Loan Association, a woman challenged a bank's requirement that female employees wear uniforms while men wore "appropriate business attire." And EEOC v. Sage Realty reviewed the firing of a lobby attendant who refused to wear a revealing uniform. Part I also discusses the earlier grooming cases in which men challenged requirements that they have short hair.
Part II crosses doctrinal boundaries, exploring the prosecution of male cross-dressers, a challenge to the requirement that women wear skirts to be married in a city hall, various challenges to school dress and grooming codes, the prosecution of women for swimming with exposed breasts, and the controversial remarks of a judge who suggested that a girl's revealing dress provoked her rape.
Enforcing gender differences helps preserve power imbalances between men and women ("patriarchy"). Seeing women as sex objects can lead to regulating women's appearance in order to control the reactions of men, again affecting power distribution.
Keywords: gender, sex, transvestism, cross-dressing, clothing, grooming, feminist jurisprudence
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation