If only big corporates could master the clarity of message that the Sydney ‘slut walkers’ were able to achieve yesterday. Whether the women themselves were dressed demurely, provocatively or not dressed much at all, their message was the same. Hemlines are not guidelines and the difference between sex and rape is consent; which should not be at all difficult to fathom.
Dare I say it but these are the straight forward issues, or should be because no style of dress is an invitation for unwelcome sexual attention much less an invitation for assault.
For me the trickier issue to navigate is holding true to the principles of consent, individuality and fashion as a form of self expression whilst demanding legitimately that men and women at work dress and act “professionally”. In other words, no woman should be exploited or objectified because of how she dresses but a company should reserve the right to ask her to dress in keeping with a professional workplace; not because failure to do so is licence for a “grope and hope” but because no one else should be embarrassed or uncomfortable to work in her presence. Asking people to abide by a number of appropriate cultural workplace norms is no different from asking them to abide by other rules, policies and conditions of their employment. A deep concern that this diminishes or restricts them unnaceptably probably means they should go the route of the independent consultant and be a law unto themselves (and any clients who may hire them).
My consistent observation is that women who are perceived to exploit their femininity and sexuality to get ahead are likely to be resented by other women at work who want to be valued for their intellect and skills. Just as it’s too convenient (and immoral) to look at a woman’s style of dress and interpret that as an automatic invitation for sex, it is too convenient to write off women’s opposition to oversexual dress and behaviour as nothing more than petty jealousy.
Without the evocative drama of the word, ‘slut walkers’ may never have got the attention their cause deserves. This should not be confused with the legitimate right of organisations to set a tone and tenor for their staff that serves them well in respect of brand and reputation, client image and respectability.