Isn't this blog supposed to be about... careers?

I understand where you are coming from Tyler. Roles are reversing and there's not much to do other than to accept it. There are women out there who cook and clean but guys end up being called "cavemen" if you say that you are looking for that (even if you do it yourself). Welcome to the post-women's lib world!

So much of this goes both ways. I can't tell you how often I see a woman in a nice outfit, and the man with her in a t-shirt and jeans.

"women have learned to be sloppy and be waited on."

Yes, god forbid we should be waited on, instead of doing the waiting.

I assume this is a joke, or at least supposed to be one. Certainly it's ridiculous.

I agree...wearing pants all year is not feminine at all! What is wrong with being feminine? Must you compete?

Kazi

This definitely goes both ways. We now live in a culture of casual, where sweats tucked into Uggz and droopy jeans below t-shirts with obnoxious sayings on them is considered cool and the norm. I don't get the sense your post was a joke, but I do think it makes some rather broad generalizations (no pun) when nuance and more depth are needed.

My take on this:

"Girls these days don't look and act like I think they should. WAAAHHH!"

When I graduated from college and couldn't cook for myself, my dad was shocked and said no one would want me. What had I been doing the past 8 years?

Um...being an over-achiever at everything but cooking?

I figured that cooking wouldn't be a nonnegotiable in this day and age. And then my mother started to try and marry me off. So I learned to cook. I admit it, I gave in!

But beyond the cooking, what about guys who want girls to be into sports? Instead of complaining about football, to be recapping the last play just like your buddies? I don't know about you, but there are a lot of testosterone-heavy sports, and naturally, it's hard to be feminine and yell at the referee at the same time. Where's the line there?

(1) I'm not a "lady." Welcome to the 21st century.

(2) Feminism is not about becoming more like men. It's about social, political and economic equality between the sexes. That's it. Changing fashion is not feminism.

@Sandra, well said!

Since when are jeans and tee-shirts that are made to fit my curves not feminine?

Don't stereotype, asshole.

Women do not exist for your viewing pleasure. How much time do YOU spend getting ready every morning.
This is a classic example that in the minds of many men, women have earned the right to do as much as men, just not the right to do as little as men.

"How are no other women outraged by this? Anyone?"

@E, I'm not sure why you think no other women have been outraged by this. There may be fewer posts than you'd like to see, but I'm not sure how Sandra, Charlie, and I wound up being "no other women." Jamie and Emily both had responses that certainly questioned the premise.

E, you sound very attractive; your mind excites me. I wish there were more women like you in the world.

Call ME sensitive Sally, but I think that strong independent women, no matter how they dress, should be valued and not criticized, especially in Tyler's sloppy, uninspiring and misdirected rhetoric.

My girlfriend looks smoking hawt in jeans and a t-shirt and she does not need yellow sundresses to drop jaws.

I don't like your post at all. And if I would have read it any other day besides today I'm sure I wouldn't have been that nice.

But today, I wore a dress to work. And I keep getting complimented. Funny, I feel sexier and more competent in my tight black jeans than this dress, but men obviously like the dress. I think that shows men haven't evolved all that much, not women :)

Besides, most women dress far better than men, and that's true in my office and social life as well. Good debate, always controversial.

Another thing: In a debate, you generally support your side of the argument. But all you've done is to say "I like people who agree with me. Haters are mean!"

That doesn't support your point of view. And it tells me that you didn't really want a debate. You wanted to throw a bomb and see how the carnage turned out.

First of all, I choose to remain anonymous because I can honestly speak in my own voice.

As for your rant on what you perceive as a lack of "femininity", apparently all that matters is that the image women project isn't one you want. Boo Hoo.

Tell you what, dump all this on a female colleague or a female relative. I'll stand back with a blotter to pick up what's left of you.

May be I'm expecting too much from the young bloggers here, but I was looking for a reasoned, intelligent and articulate post, not something I would have expected from a Whine-One-One call.

I can give you a great reason why women don't dress as femininely anymore. It isn't COMFORTABLE.
I don't wear pants because I have penis envy. I wear pants because it makes life easier for me. It makes getting ready easier for me not to wear makeup and to have short hair.
Sundresses and skirts aren't horribly uncomfortable, but it makes little parts of life so difficult, like getting in and out of a car without flashing someone, walking/running, sitting the way I'm most comfortable, etc. And those are just basic things, let alone women/girls who have certain jobs, are athletic, and so on.
I'm sorry that this bothers you so much, but women are not alive to look pretty for men. Get over it.

@Tyler, I apologize if I misread your attributions as veiled whines.

However, I still stand behind my points. The real issue is not how someone identifies themselves, but what they say, whether they agree or disagree.

And the other real issue is the person, not whether they conform to societal norms that aren't even norms any more.

I assumed the post was something started with intent to provoke, because the premise is ridiculous. I think most people who read it though the same thing.

KateNonymous- what I posted had nothing to do with driving up comments. Wrote what I was thinking.

Stepford wives anyone.

Sounds like you've got some hangups there, based on your wording. Maybe a little of that time "looking inward" might not be amiss.

And I would, but she died 20 years ago.

"But every damn time I see you girls in pants–usually jeans–and a t-shirt, a little part of me dies inside."

Then you'll die fully inside and outside as my wife the paramedic in shirt, pants and BOOTS (the horror!) passes you by.

"I’m not asking that you wear hooker heels and miniskirts every day, I’d prefer you didn’t, but what’s wrong with sundresses and a pony tail?"

A sundress on a paramedic? You gotta be kidding. As for the ponytail, the last time my wife had hair long enough for a ponytail, a robbery suspect the cops wounded, grabbed her ponytail and put a knife to her throat, until she clobbered him with an oxygen tank. "Never again", she said as she got her hair cut short.

I actually do a speech on "High Heels: How to Advance in Business Without Losing Your Skirt"---tomorrow (March 17) I'll be speaking at Grand Valley State University in Grand Rapids.

In this talk, I share how authenticity is the key to success. As a young female entrepreneur, I've experienced many of the benefits and challenges of being a woman in business. I encourage other women to succeed in their careers by confidently embracing who they are and helping others along the way. (Whether that's wearing skirts, pants, being sensitive, or leading the way.)

Benefits:
• Encourages women to achieve by presenting a positive role model and healthy mindset
• Reviews how to develop a professional image through how you dress, act, and communicate
• Discusses strategies for building business networks and working effectively with men and women

I think Gen Y is redefining femininity somewhere between homemakers in pearls and executives in power suits.

Something that know one else mentioned in the comments by Tyler referred to is that it's not just women dressing like men, but what about the trend of men dressing and acting more like women? Tight jeans, pink/purple shirts, ruffles, sensitivity? Cmon now. I mean to each his own but when this starts to become a fashion trend and a cultural movement it gets a little ridiculous.

If dating a self-styled "manly man" means listening to misogynist drivel like this, I will have to disagree with your analysis about what I want in a romantic partner. I guess I'll just have to keep dating a man who thinks of himself as a person before a man, and who isn't so insecure that he tries to shame women who don't slot neatly into his gender role pigeonholes. The women who want to wear sundresses already do, and the women who don't aren't. Get over it!

Wow. I really wanted to be this post something MUCH different, but all I got was a sexist rant. Tyler - grow up man. I'm sorry I don't have anything more 'constructive' to say - but this is an unintelligent (offensive toward women) post. If you were fishing for attention and comments, congratulations - but your credibility has taken a huge hit amongst the Brazen audience.

Even though there are many, many comments on this post, I feel necessary, as a woman, to write my opinion.

I was torn by this post. Half of me thought, "yeah, why don't girls want to dress up more?" and the other half thought, "Why the hell do we need to wear dresses to look good and show off our femininity?"

Even now, I don't know how I feel about this post. I love to look good, not the slutty "I wanna rip my clothes off" good, but the decent 'cute' look. But I don't do it to expose my femininity, and I certainly don't do it to please the men that see me. And the days I do wear jeans and a baggy sweatshirt are usually because that's what I feel like wearing.

And if you really want a devil's advocate, guys don't dress 'nice' anymore either. Baggy jeans and a shirt 2 sizes too big does not show off masculinity. What happened to the John Travolta in Grease look?? That was hot! And he didn't have a little beer gut. Why do guys have beer guts now?

Honestly, after commenting, I believe I know how I feel; Its a hypocritical post. One that generalizes and doesn't have a point other than women are turning into men are turning into women. However, its unacceptable for women, but not men.

Dumb. Not thought out. And yes, a little insulting.

But I'll still wear my skirts, dresses and PANTS!

We live in a very superficial society where women and men value the visual. No one will deny this. I wear make up and do my hair because I work in an office and want to be viewed as a put together intelligent human being. I judge male and female colleagues the same. I don't begrudge anyone's personal preferences for clothing...on their own time. Not as a call to action for the masses. Gently ask your girlfriend/wife to indulge you in your own time to wear a dress you like. But don't pin that on 'ladies' like me who look hotter in a low cut button down top and pants.

I am still offended by Tyler's post for a few reasons. First, the before-mentioned usage of the word "lady" and "man" clearly demonstrates that Tyler's not interest in equality but in hyper-sexualizing women. He's interested in showcasing how far 'men' have come to learn basic needs like cooking. Hello? Plenty of women still cook. And men should learn to as well. But thing is; as far as women have gotten in the work world they are STILL not in the CEOs chair as much OR getting paid as much. I speak from very personal experience here. As I hit my mid30s I have noticed women being filtered out of the corporate work force - many times it's out of sheer frustration about not being viewed as male counterparts. These women start their own companies or freelance so they have some control.

I suggest that Tyler first advocate the FULL rights of women - to be able to walk down a street at night and not get raped; to get equal pay for equal work; to have control over their own bodies healthwise and be able to fill a birth control prescription in Virginia without judgement or reproach; to have less than 2/3 of the population living below the poverty level be women..... THEN Tyler, come talk to me about sundresses and who cooks. Let's fix the big stuff first ok?

One other point - in the 1950s ( you know that town that Tyler's living in) a much smaller percentage of women worked outside the home. Let's ignore the bit of history where they actually wanted to work but were forced back to the kitchen after WWII ended.....and just go to the fact that men do not as frequently have the 'breadwinner burden' on anymore as their wives/partners bring income to the home as well.

So the housework has got to be split more evenly between man and woman now that BOTH are working outside the home....sundresses don't even factor into this.

Seriously I reread this post and I am embarrassed for you Tyler. How much effort did it take you to scrap your knuckles off the floor to type this? AWWW YEAH (to quote Mr. Tyler himself)

"By nature women tend to be a little more nurturing, compassionate and "feminine" than their male counterparts"

@Eliza, some of it is nature. An awful lot of it is due to socialization, though. There have been all kinds of ideas throughout time about women's roles, and to a great extent, those ideas have been used as a justification for keeping women out of the public sphere.

Tyler, the overreaction is ridiculous. What's curious to me is how thin-skinned many of the commentators are who, in the same breath, demand recognition for having achieved heightened societal status. I am not offended by your observations, nor should I be. However, I am offended by those relying on double standards to attack candid commentary and disparage. Suffice it to say that had you been a female making similar observations concerning men you unquestionably would've been met with an entirely different response.

Tyler - dressing "hot" for male viewing pleasure at work is not going to get me "equal pay" now is it.

The main reason I don't like skirts and heels is that as a poster already mentioned, women's clothing was historically designed to hobble us. We were property. If we had uncomfortable shoes and clothing, all the better for our male owners to have more control over us. I like the freedom of wearing pants and comfortable, flat shoes because I know if I'm cornered by a predator I at least have an equal chance to run. Sounds like the predator might be a dinosaur just like you Tyler. I suppose you'll take that as an "insult" and not back up anything you've put in your post. Terrible writing. Please next time back your opinion up with something other than the 1950s guide to being a good housewife.

My Post on the reverse to this post
-----------
Why do men dress like they're about to go join a gang?

I don't get what the deal is. Men, gentlemen, boys used to dress in nice trousers and button down shirts. They used to have manners like open doors for women and offer their help whenever possible. I would love it if men would just start to wear button down shirts and part their hair to the side again.

Honestly men, you've tried desperately to be more in touch with your feminine side, and if you haven't done that you've just become lazy drug dealers that get us decent girls pregnant and then call us sluts. We get absolutely nothing out of this anymore. I can't even find a man to change my oil anymore.

So now I have to play both the male and female roles and it just isn't right. There isn't a man that can do anything for himself anymore.

I want masculinity back. I want a man that can get sweaty without having to run from the cops. A man that doesn't cry to cheesy movies and a man that can dress like a gentlemen.

Is that too much to ask??

--------------

Does this create a 'ridiculous reaction? Does this even make sense?
I wrote it in 5 minutes, made sure the typos were gone, but really I didn't think about the message I was sending. Very similar to Tyler's post.

@Liza, it seems like a good illustration to me. It's a sexist overgeneralization in either direction, and imposes one view of behavior on everyone. Both are ridiculous.

Maybe I'm missing something, but how does this apply in any way to careers?

Tyler, in order to demand that an entire gender conform to a certain style of dress, you must present a logical explanation of why that is the one and only appropriate style. Can you describe a set of circumstances, even one single instance, where the only logical choice of dress for a woman is a skirt of dress? Your assertion does not constitute proof.

What you are doing is stating your own preferences for how you would like women to dress, and then insisting that they comply. You have, quite literally, declared that the personal appearance of half the population causes you to *die inside*. One would be hard pressed to say something more disparaging than what you’re saying here.

And yet you are shocked, *shocked*, to read comments where people push back a bit and call you on this b.s. after the massive insult that was your original post. That is not a logical position for you to take.

However, I do think it might be interesting and constructive to here more of your thoughts regarding how men and women are adopting the worst aspects of each traditional gender role. Or even some kind of logical defense of the original post.

For your sake I hope I never meet you in person because I will use some very feminine long fingernails to claw your eyes out.

Brian,

As my wife has said on many occasions:

"I don't give a damn if they think I don't look like a girl they want to date. I'm here to work, not date. I care if they will pay me the same rate as the guys doing the same job, with the same benefits and schedules. I care if they work with me, and respect my knowledge, skill and experience, like they do with the other guys."

DO not mess with this woman!

Thats not anonymous! Anyway, I don't hate men, I don't even hate you! I think men can be rather nice actually, that's probably why women like them. But I you got me pegged on the 'violent' bit ;) In a fight, I'd rather be in jeans and sneakers than a skirt and heels (though stilettos *would* be a good weapon, I admit)

Slim,

Only if he was a co-worker or supervisor. Then it's a whole different matter.

Thank you, Tyler!

@Alexander: most (intelligent and decent) people do no think like you. Logical or reasonable responses are only owed in response to logical and reasonable arguments. The simulated outrage in this thread hardly meets the criteria. There's nothing wrong with what Tyler said, but plenty wrong with what some insist be read into it. Thanks for doing your part to drive up traffic while adding nothing to the discussion.

Try doing a search on this site or Penelope Trunk's blog discussing women's dress in and out of the work place for men and women(a good one is the February 6 "Do Women Who Wear Heels Command More Respect?"). The tenor and content of the comments by comparison are really quite interesting.

Clearly some of your harshest critics of this post decided to spout off before or without even having read it.

@SR1 - People read things and understand them how they choose to. I read the post and I thought it was ridiculous. There is nothing wrong with feeling outraged about something, it's not necessary to suppress human emotion like that and I think most of the comments on this thread have been justified. And we can disagree on what intelligent and decent people thinik.

@Tyler - I'm merely suggesting that there's no point commenting any more because there is no real discussion here. You've hardly bothered to defend your views, fair enough if you don't want to, although I do think whinging that you don't want to reply to Anonymous commenters when they have thoroughly and reasonably debunked your argument is sort of weak. But hey, if people want to vent they certainly can. And by the way "femininity" is a complicated concept. I don't think that wearing dresses and skirts is a requirement of being "feminine" and just because they are elements of attire traditionally associated with women doesn't mean that pants, jeans, t-shirts or any other kind of attire are not equally "feminine".

@ Danielle

BRAVA!

Danielle- yes, BOTH genders are guilty. I wanted to write a post about masculinity, but judging from the response I've gotten, I might as well walk through a mine field.

Women SHOULD dress for themselves, whether that means pants or dresses. I just don't think that they should think that dressing in a feminine way means they won't be seen as legitimate in the biz world.

Alexander- if you have something to add to the conversation, please do. Stop trying to regulate what everyone else seems to want to speak about. I'm quite sure everyone here is capable of saying what they want and have no need to be told what to do.

Alex, as a uniformed officer of the Thought Police why do you keep commenting? It only drives-up traffic. You really should turn in your badge. You're practically writing the back half of this post for Tyler.

Tyler, I like traditonally feminine attire and, like most men, wish there was more of it too. Really complex concept.

Can I also say that sometimes women can look mighty damn fine in jeans? Oh crap. Obviously not around here. That would suggest I have a libido. That would be offensive.

Katenonymous, why did you studiously avoid the portion of Tyler's introductory sentence that says "I think ladies should. . . be given the right to choose and have every right to look any way they want?"

I also didn't see where he argued against both genders knowing how to cook and clean. He said he knows how and is willing to do it.

Where's your study about women taking on the traditionally male tasks around the house? I don't see it in my circles either. But maybe I live in different environment than most. So what?

Simply put, why are you so anxious to be insulted by Tyler's thoughts about what he deems feminine or attractive? Nowhere did he attempt to impose "dress code." He explicitely said he believes women have the right to wear whatever the hell they want. Since you obviously do not care whether he finds you attractive, there's got to be more to your outrage and it sure smells alot like peronal insecurity.

Yeah Tyler, but you also mentioned men being sloppy and expecting to be waited on? I am hurt and outraged by this. If I want to be sloppy and waited on it's my damn right. Why is no one speaking out against your veiled attempts to deny me this right!!

(aye chihuahua)

@Peter
Lol. "Thought Police", I like that! You're right I shouldn't really be commenting but ah it's so hard to discipline oneself.

@Tyler/Peter
Regarding what Katenonymous said, I think one quote would be the following:
"But every damn time I see you girls in pants–usually jeans–and a t-shirt, a little part of me dies inside. What happened to dressing like women?"

You may not be saying explicitly that women should wear dresses but you seem to be saying that girls who wear pants, jeans and t-shirts are somehow "not dressing like women" and are therefore implying that to meet the criteria of femininity and even to look like a proper woman in your eyes, girls can't wear pants, jeans and t-shirts.

I don't think you'd like it if someone said that in order to look like a man you have to wear one type of outfit and must not wear another type of outfit. Especially since the outfit we're talking about has been worn by women for, well a damn long time and is currently worn by a hell of a lot of them still (i mean jeans & t-shirts? really?)

Which of course goes back to my earlier point about the fact that I believe that "femininity" is a complicated concept and that one can't outright say that wearing dresses is feminine whereas wearing jeans is not.

Tyler,

To clarify my point, dresses & skirts may be things that men can't wear but I personally don't see why t-shirts & jeans are not "feminine" these days. I don't see how wearing a t-shirt & jeans means a woman is not "dressing like a woman" as you put in your post. Can you also give me an example of the "manly women" that you mention in your post? Are you referring again to women who wear pants or is it women that can't cook/clean that are manly, because I found that a little confusing.

Alexander- are you done nitpicking my argument yet? At least Kate is arguing broader points, you're just picking it apart piece by piece. It's annoying and adds nothing to the conversation.

In reference to manly women, I'm talking about a too large of group of women, mostly in their 20s, who refuse to do anything domestic, as it somehow belittles them to do so. This refusal to be a part of domestic chores was, in the past, what men did, but they also worked outside the home and earned enough money to support both of them. So, these women, who think that anything traditional or feminine is wrong, lounge around in pants and tshirts, more out of laziness than anything else.

So, you have a too large group of women, who refuse to do domestic work, don't have great jobs, and really don't hold up their end of the bargain. And yes, girls in skirts and dresses make many, many men happy, mostly because their a pleasure to look at. Of course, a woman can be JUST as sexy in pants and a tshirt, but there's something about traditional feminine wear that men can and always will find exciting. Dressing feminine certainly adds to the enjoyment between the sexes.

And what the hell is wrong with me liking women to dress in skirts and dresses?

a traveller...- oh christ. Really? That's your argument? For this whole man-woman or (man-man or woman-woman) partnership to work, it seems to me that the partners must be equal, right? Isn't that what all of this is about?

Oh Tyler, your post touches the spear of a very dynamic issue today: gender roles. Though you draw your points from very general statements, dress, historical labor division, etc., the topic is much deeper then that. And I think you know this, yet the generic statements allow for people only to look surface level..not deeper.

As a female, who has been REQUIRED to wear skirts for my sales position and worn pants, the issue of dressing is just the representative of femininity versus masculine. I agree, in general men do not "court" woman the same way as in the 1950's AND there is a growing anti-makeup, anti-skirt movement with woman. As a female, I take pride that I can wear a very professional skirt suit, and stand apart from my male counterparts. Not because I have great legs, but b/c I embrace a choice that is bestowed upon me by woman in history.

The larger issue, is the division of men and woman roles in society. I have had deep discussion over whether or not woman's lib has emasculated men. The dynamics in relationships are in a turbulent shifting process. As a group, men and woman, are fighting how we where raised and the expectations of traditional motherhood, fatherhood, their roles, and how it all fits into having careers. Society has pushed the idea that working woman will not have the same relationship with their children or families as stay at home mothers. There is no science behind it, but society makes that assumption. They make the assumption that all divorced fathers are dead beat dads. Not true at all.

Collectively, we as a society are shifting are "ideals" of the roles we play as a woman and a man. Your generation, Gen Y, will really be the first generation to raised by parents who grew up AFTER woman's lib. More of your parents both have careers, versus baby boomer and Gen X's whose parents still embodied the traditional male and female role.

It will be interesting to watch your Generation get married, become parents, and what type of values / gender roles you raise your children with. I am betting it will be different than any other generation.

@Peter, you're right, I don't think that I've seen that addressed. Perhaps the actual survey does, but it's not what I've seen in the summaries.

Here's a thought: are people more likely to hire someone to clean their home, or someone to work on their yard? How many men actually change their own oil or make car repairs, rather than taking the car to the shop? If money is being spent, what traditional tasks are more likely to be outsourced?

Perhaps you can find a survey that addresses those issues that you think aren't addressed by this one. Or perhaps you can conduct one!

@ a traveler - Sorry but there is definately NOT equality. As long as men can write blogs where they tell women how they should be - in this case "ladies". Tyler it might help this discussion if you would provide your definitions of "lady" and "feminine". You've been getting the reactions you have because withou those your post is coming off the same way as the being told by a man I don't know to "Smile." You might not get this but the other WOMEN here will.

@Tyler

It's not nit-picking. You may not consider it central to your argument but if you outright define femininity and what does and does not constitute dressing like a woman then you're being offensive which is why you've been met with this massive wall of opposition and outrage.

I'm glad that you've changed position since your original post, it's perfectly ok to say that you personally like women who wear dresses but that is not the same as saying that in order to be feminine and look like a woman one must wear dresses.

And it's exactly as Sophie said. These are deep issues, whether you think so or not. Perhaps you should look into studying gender politics a little bit, it might open your eyes to how deep the patriarchy goes.

And by the way I've never met one of these lazy 20-something women that apparently are everywhere, perhaps I'm lucky?

KateNonymous - What are you driving at with those questions about hiring workers for different tasks? Are the answers supposed to be obvious, or were just curious to hear what people think about that?

@Evan, the answers are not necessarily obvious. But what they get at is that "traditional men's work" is more likely to have a defined dollar value than "traditional women's work." I suspect it is also more likely to be paid for (that goes hand-in-hand with the defined dollar value, after all).

As for outsourcing, if you'll pay someone to do a task for you, then that task (or learning to do it) is less valuable than your time. If you expect that the task will be completed as part of the normal order of things during the day, then the task probably does not have significant value, and neither does the time you spend on it.

Traditionally, men's time and tasks have had more monetary and social value than women's. But when so many of us have jobs outside the home, why is that still true? Ultimately, I think that also places less value on our jobs outside the home. That's a bigger issue to me than whether we're wearing cute little outfits at those jobs.

JRandom42- my point is that women don't NEED to dress and act like men in order to be powerful. That's it. There are plenty of times this doesn't apply. I think too many women think that in order to be powerful, they must somehow shun *looking* like a girl while doing it.

I f***ing love strong women. I've never seriously dated a girl that makes less than me or was a traditional homemaker type.

Alexander Lobov - actually, I can define whatever I damn well please, thank you very much.

Traditionally, whether it's genes, hormones or whatever else, women have been more horizontally aware, meaning they are better at forming groups and collaborating in order to get something done. Men, traditionally, are more vertically inclined, and more apt to step on others to get a leg up. I think that many women see this and think the only way to be powerful is to imitate this behavior, which is now untrue. Leaders of horizontally-organized groups are far more powerful than vertically-oriented ones, but take more time to develop.

Alex, what is your point?

I see your point about wanting to spark a debate. Tip of the hat on that one. :)

I wear a suit every day, and I choose to wear pants over a skirt for many reasons. One of the main ones: I am very curvy and do not want to be too sexy in a pencil skirt. I'd expect a busty lady to keep the girls in check as well. It is hard to show up in a sundress without looking sexy or cutesy. That isn't women trying to be like men; that is Corporate America making a more sexless environment. I'm looking to be taken seriously (yet trying to be somewhat stylish at the same time because I like fashion) not find a mate.

I truly feel like I'm looking for a partner in life. I want to work and help out at home. However, I'd like my other half to do the same. It’s not one waiting on the other – it is a team effort.

Tyler the longer you're at this the deeper a hole you're digging. I get that it is beyond your masculine comprehension to figure out how you have insulted the women who are reading. You seem to be trapped in some sort of 1950's time warp. The hooters comment was positively adolescent - and quite a surprise after all your protestations that you think women are equal. With this last response I believe that we are finally getting to what was really your point all along.
"I'm very tired of corporate America pretending that gender isn't an issue, because it is. The world is too PC now. We're not all the same and shouldn't be treated as such."

Please explain how I as a woman should be treated? And please elucidate the rest of us on how corporate America pretends that gender isn't an issue?

JC- I'm not worried about digging a hole, nor am I worried about offending (I agree I may have offended people, but insult, to me, is a much stronger, more personal kind of attack, which I have NOT done) you or anyone else on here.

Did you even read what I wrote? Stuck in the 50s? Seriously?

Yes, my point was that we're not all equal in every way. Never, ever will men and women be equal in every way. We should all have the same OPPORTUNITIES, no doubt.

I've worked in many offices where the dress code varies by gender. Women are allowed to wear pants, skirts, jewelry and open-toed shoes. Men, however, are restricted to closed-toe shoes, no jewelry and definitely no kilts (not really the male version of a dress, but close enough). If you really wanted equality, why the separate dress code?

@Evan: And yet whenever the value of the work of a stay-at-home parent (generally a mom) is calculated, that work is worth over $100K. There are unrecognized skill sets beyond washing dishes; the fact that they are unrecognized is what helps people make the assumptions they do about value of time.

I didn't mean to imply that the duties of a stay-at-home parent are as simple as washing a few dishes. I just think that differences in pay for "women's work" and "men's work" are not due solely to the gender of the worker, and that encouraging people to pursue work they find enjoyable without regard to gender would be the best way to eliminate the gender pay gap.

I've seen some of those articles where the "value" of a stay-at-home mom is calculated (usually there are lots of them published around Mother's Day). The way that the value is usually calculated is by factoring in the average pay for workers doing tasks that a parent would have to do, and this does usually add up to a surprisingly large dollar amount. But doesn't that alone mean that this value is recognized? If it were truly unrecognized, where would the data come from to even make the calculation?

And yes, stay-at-home parents are "working" from the time the kids wake up to the time they go to bed, every day of the year. Can you imagine an instance where someone would be hired to complete all of that work, and be paid less than, say, $100K. Even "full time" nannies typically have some time off for weekends and don't work 18 hour days. I have friends who have done that kind of thing during the summers and they were generally paid $600-$700 per week in cash, which is more than many "men's jobs" pay, but perhaps they were an extreme exception.

"Men have learned to be overly sensitive, women have learned to be sloppy and be waited on. Knock it off.

I want femininity back. Ladies, stop pretending you’re us. We want someone that complements us. We want ladies, not manly women."

Actually, I find it interesting that so many of your commenters did not pull out this particular quote - um, if women being sloppy and feeling like they should be waited on is acting like men, then what you are really saying is that men are naturally sloppy and should be waited on so women need to get back to taking care of what you need? If this was not your argument, please enlighten me.

Maybe I am reading too critically what was an essentially thoughtless post. See, here's the thing, I am a working professional with a husband and two children. I bring home close to 50% of our household income. I do a whole lot of the cooking, cleaning, lawn work, budget managing, laundry and child care. I EXPECT my husband to contribute to all of those activities because if a man wants to go back to the 1950's where he's only good for a paycheck, then I don't have to clean up after him either while I also work full time.

I'm also curious - according to you, if a woman does not want to cook and clean, she'd better be prepared to be good at manly things? And what would those be? Using power tools - I do that - hub isn't handy and I can re-wire a three-way switch. Car maintenance, yep. Budget and money managing, check and check. Earning money, got that too. So, what am I missing?

Finally, I put a lot of effort into looking good, I have long hair, I wear makeup, I dress professionally (in pants) and neatly and am complimented by husband and various others on how I look. I do this for two reasons - looking professional (which for a woman often includes tastefully applied makeup) helps in my career and I want to be attractive to my husband. However, I am aware of the fact that to meet the societal standards for attractiveness in women, I have to work a lot harder at this than my husband - some women are just sick of this double standard. I also know a lot of guys who complain (in fact it's an old sexist joke) about how long they have to wait for their attractive date to get ready - news flash, looking good takes extra time and a lot of women are either unwilling to sacrifice that time or unable because they're too busy.

I've got to say though, since I do not know any of the women you describe in your post, you're hanging out with the wrong crowd - maybe you need to reflect on what you're doing to attract lazy, slovely dates?

Oh, and PS, husband is a Chef - so when he is home two nights a week, he does all the cooking because, while I am a competent cook, I'm not up to his standards. If you suggested to him that cooking was feminine he'd flatten you - he is also a fourth-level student of Kali, a Phillipino martial art - is that manly enough for you? Also, when I gave him a choice for Valentine's day if he wanted me to wear a dress or some fitted pants - he picked the pants because they how off the rear view better.

What I really see in this post is that you have this tiny problem with powerful women - hence your repeated references to "ladies" like we are in a lounge. We don't need to wear pants to be powerful - wearing a sundress to work would not help our image - we don't need to not do house work to be powerful - but now that we have a choice, like men, we choose not to, like men. You can bet your rear that if we could afford a housekeeper we would have one because we BOTH hate housework with equal vehemence and it has NOTHING to do with being feminine or masculine.

Good luck with that...

"Pretty weak"? are you sure you can read?

Anonymouslee--seriously? It actually makes a difference whether I call females women, girls or ladies? WTF?