Thoughtful commentators have correctly pointed out that the proposed Slut Walk (inaccurately translated as Besharmi Morcha) in Delhi trivialises an issue as serious as rape. Certainly, as a well-meaning feminist response to deep-rooted chauvinism, the Slut Walk with its organised parades of scantily clad women is as overblown and probably as counterproductive as public lingerie-burning was in the last century. But as with all extreme reactions, a tiny kernel of truth lies hidden in the rhetoric: women do tend to be judged on how they dress — far more than men, in fact.
To be sure, it would be unfair to write this off only as a “guy thing”. Many women choose to define themselves by their sartorial style and this applies to professional women as much as anybody. The elegant women CEOs in the Indian banking business are a case in point. But don’t be deceived by Mamata Banerjee’s home-spun sari and bathroom slippers either. They are as much of a style statement as Hillary Clinton’s boxy Oscar de la Renta pantsuits and low-heeled pumps. (In contrast, does anyone really notice what Manmohan Singh or Barack Obama wears?)
Back in the early nineties when Enron Corporation was proposing its headline-grabbing power plant on the Maharashtra coast, the head of its International Division Rebecca Mark burst on the scene with her carefully blow-dried hair, skilful eye make-up, figure-hugging skirts and stilettos, creating a storm every time she visited conservative South Block.
Ms Mark’s Power Woman look, it seems, wasn’t a default style either. It was even modified for India; in Europe and the US her twin-sets were either bright red or electric blue and her make-up much brighter. When the Dabhol power plant ran into its many controversies, she gave an impassioned interview to a magazine editor and took care to outfit herself in a homely churidar-kurta in the Indian national colours for the magazine’s photographer. The message was clear and it wasn’t subliminal either: Ms Mark knew what she was about, no matter how she dressed. (It’s the same message Venus William sends out when she turns up for tournaments in increasingly unusual tennis outfits.)
There are many more women in the workplace in India today than there were in Ms Mark’s day, and in the absence of a proper dress code and exposure to global cultures, you get to see a variety of styles on display, western, Indian and hybrid.
Men, on the other hand, tend to be more uniformly and boringly attired, if only because they have less choice. For them, the heavy western suits of the Raj era may have been replaced by safari suits or the shirt-and-trouser ensemble, but the engaging south-east Asian tradition of considering half-sleeved printed shirts as formal menswear hasn’t yet caught on in India.
Men often grumble that women in India get far more leeway in matters sartorial. This is partly true. In many corporate offices, for instance, the churidar-kurta and slippers or sandals would be outlawed for men. No woman would be violating even the strictest official dress code if she wore those (though some offices deem only saris or collared twin-sets as formal wear).
But this is, in my humble opinion, as far as the inequality goes. It is one thing for women to choose how they want to look; it is another for judgements to be made about their abilities on that basis. Few are likely to admit this but people – of both genders – do tend to weigh women’s abilities by the way they dress. Is a professional woman who wears strappy high heels or form-fitting clothes less intelligent or able and more frivolous than, say, a woman who is dressed in flat shoes, ankle-length skirt and all-enveloping blouse?
This was the point Alexis Maybank, founder of a hugely successful technology start-up called Gilt Groupe Inc, made to news agency Bloomberg. She said she made it a point to wear five-inch stilettos just so that people get the message that “being feminine and starting a technology company aren’t mutually exclusive”. It is also a point subtly made in the TV serial Mad Men, where the lone woman who graduates from secretary to copywriter (i.e. to a “man’s job”) in the advertising firm is dressed significantly more dowdily than the rest. She is even portrayed as less attractive.
Sure, this is a long, long way from the proposition the slut walkers are advocating but it certainly adds a layer in the glass ceiling in the workplace and one that will prove as pointless — as all such discrimination eventually does.
