Let's Just Diss and Makeup

Next time somebody loftily tells you that differences between the sexes are grounded in biology, you have my permission to slap them with a judicial case. And I mean that literally: just print out the late-December ruling in the Harrah's makeup case, roll it into a hefty tube, and take a swing at their head.

One of the highest courts in the land, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, has determined that it's legal for an employer to fire a female employee who refuses to wear makeup. Think this through slowly and carefully, girls: if you live in the 9th Circuit (which covers California, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, Idaho and Montana), you could be fired tomorrow if your boss decides your "uniform" for work includes makeup. Supposedly this ruling doesn't run afoul of discrimination law because it doesn't impose an "unequal burden" on women. Do you want to know why, ladies and germs? Because a rule for women enforcing face paint is "equal" to a rule forbidding men from wearing it. Now there's some real smart logic. Presence is the same as absence! War is peace! Yup, it's the kind of analysis that's gotten very popular in the United States recently.

Think you read that wrong? Uh uh. A woman can now legally be FIRED from her job in some states for refusing to wear makeup.

Next time an American starts talking about, let's say, how sexist or discriminatory a culture in which women who would choose otherwise and culturally pressured to wear head or face coverings, might want to pull out a powder compact with a mirror in it. Next time someone tells you that, no, really, ERA or no, the sexes are treated equally in the US? Might want to inform them that some of the women already being paid 25 cents less on the dollar than their male counterparts could lose those jobs if they don't spend part of their income on face paint to assure they look purty for their bosses and male clientele.

(Original comments for this entry can be found here.)