March 16, 1995
Freshly graduated from SF State and unemployed, a friend of mine needed to raise funds for a future trip to Europe and eat in the meantime. Decidedly against coffee jerking or waiting tables, she saw only one alternative: to work for a temporary employment agency.
No long-term commitment and fast cash, she thought, and promptly applied to several agencies.
My friend -- who will remain nameless to protect her employability -- upon presenting her resume, was told that she was very qualified. They wanted college graduates. Of course she would need to meet the minimum typing speed requirement of 55 to 60 words per minute.
A writer, not a transcriber, she barely passed the accuracy test.
After a week or so of patiently waiting by the phone, she got a call to come into the office the following day.
"Oh," the manager looked her up and down, her eyes aimed at my bewildered friend's bottom half, "I can't send you out on this job. You don't look, well, corporate enough. This place has a conservative image."
Confused, my friend glanced down at her neatly creased black wool slacks and cream silk blouse.
Not corporate enough?
Then it dawned on her. She wasn't wearing a skirt.
Hadn't this woman heard of the pants bill?
When the Pants Bill hit the State Assembly last fall, people scoffed. This was 1994. What client would take his or her business elsewhere because a woman was wearing pants? Certainly the government wouldn't need to enforce a woman's right to make her own clothing decisions.
But oddly enough, the assembly passed the bill by a 42-30 margin. Even Governor Pete Wilson, who has subsequently announced that he is against affirmative action, signed the bill.
"Women make important business decisions every day," he told reporters at the time. "Indeed, working women should be able to make the simple choice on the professional business attire they wish to wear."
The bill was also aimed at barbers and dry cleaners who charge more to women for the same services.
Supposedly the bill took effect at the beginning of this year.
But in reality, women are still asked to wear skirts to work, only the requests are worded in such an ambiguous fashion: "corporate" or "formal," law or no law.
As my friend continued temping for the agency, the manager, little by little, revealed the agency's policy on pants. "Corporate" was defined as either a matching suit jacket and slacks or a skirt with a coordinating jacket. But it made clear to my friend, she would work more wearing a skirt. She would not be sent out on jobs wearing slacks, unless it was part of a suit; it was unprofessional.
Is this professionalism or is it sexual discrimination?
It's possible to look professional without bearing one's legs.
Unfortunately, women do need some kind of legislation to reenforce their right to choose for themselves, even when it comes to a trivial decision like what to wear for whatever reason.
Once attention is focused on a woman's capabilities rather than her appearance, a woman will be able to wear fabric comfortably encompassing her legs without risking her job.