I'm not very insightful right now (it's late!), but my first impression was that those are *not* very professional-looking shoes! Is a "woman lawyer" really supposed to be taken seriously in 4-in spikes with a little ankle strap? I understand that there is apparently a correlation between pay (and --presumably-- professionalism/respect) and height, but I would expect lawyers to be encouraged to be a little ...frumpier... when trying to appear taller. :p

Being professional means being an automaton. Uniforms may be less identical in some workplaces such as a law firm but a narrow dress code is obligatory. No blue hair, visible tattoos or non-traditional piercings are acceptable. There can be nothing that stands out as being professional means being an emotionless worker drone.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the logic of telling women to wear high heels (which force women to stand in a way that emphasizes the bust and butt) and telling them not to wear necklaces to avoid attracting attention to the bust - wait, what?

One of the types of people this marginalises completely is the physically disabled. I'm not even all that affected, and I couldn't walk in shoes like that if you put a gun to my head.

I also won't go out in public in a skirt, because my legs are so weird-looking, I look much more "normal" in a pair of pants. Since so much of corporate culture involves not threatening other people's comfort levels, I'll take the hit for wearing pants instead of attempting to wear a skirt and having people wonder about me.

You can also note, if you can find one of the "how to dress for success" guides around, that professional dress advice for men has changed a fair bit, but professional dress advice for women hasn't changed substantially since the 1960s. The supposedly au-courant image consultants are still telling women to wear skirts, high heeled shoes, and white blouses...

Agreed, I thought of the disability angle as well, from my perspective as a very fat woman, who would snap those stilettos like twigs. :-p

It didn't even occur to me that by 'professional' skirts they meant necessarily leg-revealing ones, though now that seems obvious. As a modest dresser who never wears above-the-ankle skirts, it now strikes me as even more offensive. It seems that, for women, 'professional' still equals 'on display for men's pleasure'.

re: Bagelsan's comment, indeed, it is a great example of the all-too-frequent laziness in stock image selection by a page designer.

There was some article about luxury items in my paper last weekend that I didn't read, but I chuckled because the image was captioned as Louis Vuitton, something else, and a Porsche ... and sure enough, it was a picture of a Louis Vuitton, something else, and a ... Nissan. The person putting together the photo spread apparently couldn't be bothered (or couldn't get clearance) to uae a picture of what the photo was supposed to portray, so they just substituted a vehicle that I suppose they thought looked Porsche-y.

Likewise here, here we have an article that mentions high-heels, so they use the most ridiculous, stereotypical image of heels they can find, without any regard for the actual content/context.

And of course, on the topic of image selection, any excuse to get sexualized pics of women in the news, amirite? Why not a picture of a man's tie falling just above a belt buckle? Sigh, reminds me of a post from a while back, about Olympic "sport" photography of summer women's beach volleyball ...

ps. I like that it took 2 dudes to write this 200 word opus. Bang up operation the Daily Mail seems to be running there.

The law school at the university that I went to apparently casually mentioned to its female law students that they should wear dresses and heals to interviews because they might have trouble getting a job otherwise (because their JD and experience apparently don't have anything to do with their abilities to act as lawyers?)

The thing that I hate about all these "women have to wear heels" things is that as a women I can not wear heels. I have had so many back problems that are not visible outwardly but basically my doctor told me to stop wearing heels (which I did a lot before the back problems from a car accident)... so I guess I will be judged for wearing flats and not being feminine enough.

Kind of off topic here, but the "secret santa" bit really hit home for me.

I HATE secret santa. Whenever I have worked at a place that tried to push that crap on me I would always go out of my way to make it clear that I was extremely disinterested. Most of the time I was coerced by managers wanting me to be a "team player" or to "get involved". Internally I always felt like I didn't want to take part because I'm not a christian and I didn't feel like the work place was the right place for me to be forced to participate in a religious centric practice. Although this is bullshit because I still exchange christmas gifts with my mom, who is also not a christian...but, you know it's a family thing.

Your comments really hit home. I think that maybe I did feel that exchanging gifts with co workers was co opting an activity that was deeply personal. An act that I reserved for those closest to me. I've never thought of it that way before. Thanks for the insight.

I think you are thinking like sukrat, but I think you should cover the other side of the topic in the post too...

It has nothing to do with appearing "white". Why do you bring up speaking Spanish and wearing Afros and not, say.. Mohawks, tattoos or excessive use of the word "dude"? You are embracing stereotypes.

A man can wear an Afro and still look profressional- It depends on his demeanor and how he interacts with those around him. This goes for everyone, spanish speaker, muslim, dread-headed or stepford wife. Undue hairstyles that distract others or can be seen as offensive should not be worn, but an Afro is not one of them.

Obviously a Spanish speaker should not speak Spanish to an English speaker because that is going to cause a communication gap. It also helps if the Spanish Speaker's accent isn't hard to understand. The fact that he speaks spanish is not a problem- His relationship to his client is.

So long as "unAmerican" (or otherwise) religions are kept to the individual, it is of no concern to the client. If I was getting legal advice and in the middle of the discussion, my lawyer says, "Praise Allah!" or "You're simply not at Nirvana yet" or "You're going to suffer eternity for eating a cow" there IS a problem. But, again- Religion is a PERSONAL experience and should be kept as such.

I found this article a disgrace. Yes, it's about looking professional. It's about clarity. It's about comforting the client- If I have a woman who looks more like a man, I would be confused and this adds to unwanted agitation. I would like to know whether I'm speaking to a male or a female.

I live in Seattle and most companies here are casual. The law firms aren't, to be fair, but they can get away with Smart Casual.

If reflecting your client is a way to build rapport, going into Microsoft or Amazon suited up is losing that opportunity.

As for a long tie and the nether regions, a long tie makes you look like a dork. And I dont tend to look at crotches. If I happen to see one by mistake, it's a bulge, not a tie, that might draw my attention.

As for necklaces, you dont have to have a necklace to have too much boob. In fact, a necklace can draw the eye UP.

I think these image consulants have a good little scam going here.

And just by the way, I'd like to see those image consultants suffer after a 10 hour day in frickin stilettos

AND ANOTHER THING

This is completely insensitive to the traditions of dress that come along with different religions.

Ever seen a miniskirt with a hijab?

Honestly speaking, I comprehend what you mean because I also faced such a problem. Therefore, in this case, I would like to mention this resource https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/5-defense-strategies-if-you-receive-a-9991324/ where there is information about defense strategies if you receive a congressional subpoena. It helps a lot of entrepreneurs and a lot of people who have some problem with the law.