I think in this case there may be a distinction between presenting yourself as "feminine" and presenting yourself as "well groomed." If, for a example, you showed me a picture of a man who was unshaven, and asked me to rate his competence, I may rate him lower than a clean shaven man. Not because that has anything to do with his masculinity, but because a competent person is more likely to take care in their personal grooming.

Women have worn make-up since Ancient Egypt. Men also wore make-up until the French Revolution, though not all men gave it up at once.

One thing that strikes me is that because the suit doesn't fit her, she looks like she's playing dress-up in a parent's clothes. By contrast, the suits for women and female-bodied people available from places like Tomboy Tailors and Bindle & Keep look (to my eye) like garments, not costumes.

(Feeling cranky and judgmental: this specific suit is ridiculous and probably should not be worn by anybody regardless of gender. I also hate the pigeon-toed stance they chose to use and the model's wide-eyed, almost bewildered expression. Harrumph.)

All I really learned from this fashion spread is that Glamour Magazine is the absolute last place anyone should turn for career advice. They may have even outdone their sex advice, which says a lot.

If you have a pair of eyes, you know right away that any woman who showed up at a business meeting looking like this poor model would be laughed out of the room. She looks like a lost, confused, overgrown child who has raided both of her parents' closets for an ill-fated game of dress-up.

Ironically, I totally agree with the article's premise that women have to perform both masculine and feminine archetypes to be taken seriously in the business world (and beyond). But the way the successful ones tend to do it is almost precisely the inverse of what the picture advises. Looking dumb wearing ill-fitting clothes, drawing too much attention to accessories and patterns, and choosing Jessica Rabbit makeup and hair are easy shortcuts to being viewed as unprofessional and frivolous, even when they fit the trends of runway fashion. Women are harassed and derided in so many workplaces if they're perceived as "sexy," and also if they wear clothes marked as male. Awkwardly conjoining the two can't possibly help, unless this woman's workplace just happens to be the office of Glamour Magazine.

Interesting that the "manning up" woman model has her feet pointing inward towards each other in a feminine stance instead of splayed outwards in the typical masculine stance.

I hate the phrase "man up."

Here's a poem by Guante (warning, language):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFoBaTkPgco

So what male behaviors exactly are you talking about? I can't tell from the post? Can you be specific?

I grew up wearing pants much more often than skirts or dresses. When it came time for me to get formal businesswear for a presentation, I tried on suits with pants and suits with skirts. I felt much more comfortable and secure in the pants. While there may well be other factors, I figure that if I got more respect in the suit with pants, a large part of that was because I was more confident in that kind of outfit. It wasn't until high school that my mother was allowed to wear pants to school, and she feels much more comfortable with skirts than pants for businesswear. My guess would be that when she entered the workforce, she might have gotten more respect in skirts than pants, pants being seen as too much "manning up" but that's not the case anymore.

That suit is hideous and would continue to be hideous on a man or a woman. Ugh.