There is no clothing that resolves discrimination against women at work, say authors of books on the subject

A book about women and work clothes doesn’t have to teach you how to dress better. The lawyer specializing in gender Mayra Cotta and the fashion consultant Thais Farage created a work that seeks to explain why every woman has already felt that she does not fully belong to a professional environment. And no, it wasn’t the fault of the outfit she was wearing.

The book “Woman, Clothes, Work: How to Dress Gender Inequality” (parallel ed.) ranges from Antiquity to the Enlightenment and from Hegel to third-wave feminist thinkers to explain the origin of the workspace, when it came to be differentiating from the private and familiar environment, and what made men — especially white — dominate it.

According to Cotta, the idea came from Farage’s experience with his consulting clients who wanted to feel more comfortable with their professional image.

“She understood that she could even give suggestions and tips to women, but, deep down, she wouldn’t have any clothes that would solve our permanent non-belonging to the world of work”, says the lawyer in an interview with sheet.

The clothes and symbols that the pieces carry (a dress is more like a Picasso painting than a dresser, Cotta and Farage point out) can be used to alleviate the lack of belonging, but a very tricky game has to be played.

Men’s clothing must be imitated to some degree, and the work highlights the role of the suit as the ultimate symbol of a man’s power and status—there is a revealing passage about the tie’s meaning. However, its variation for women, the tighter and shorter pantsuit, will never convey the same message.

At the same time, dressing up as a man is also not a ticket to the male world of work, because the farce can become evident, and bring consequences: this is what trans men or women who opt for a masculine look on a daily basis suffer. “You have to demonstrate that you know you’re not a man, otherwise you’ll be worse, you get into homophobia, into heavy gender prejudice,” says Cotta.

The way is to try to strike a perfect balance between male and female symbols. “There’s a suit, but it’s more waisted, there are pants, but it’s tighter, there’s a button-down shirt, but it’s left unbuttoned, showing the lap”, says the lawyer.

Still, the acceptance game is not won. In her efforts to fit in, every woman runs the risk of being considered too old or young, vulgar or conservative, tidy or sloppy, and not just by men, but by other women as well, who recognize the symbols that clothing and accessories convey.

“Being authentic and not caring about one’s appearance is a privilege that only white men have in institutional politics and in the formal labor market,” the authors write.

Cotta is the lawyer defending actress Dani Calabresa and other women in the lawsuit against Marcius Melhem for sexual harassment, and the book has a chapter dedicated to harassment at work. “Clothing is very used by men to justify the harassment they commit,” he says.

More than provocation, clothing is used as an attempt to defend themselves by women. The lawyer says that when she worked at the National Congress, an environment that she considers one of the most toxic she’s ever been through, she was concerned with dressing in a way that would draw as little attention as possible. “I wanted as much as possible to sublimate my body, make it disappear so no one can see me, torment me, and get to work.”

Despite the efforts, the book reminds us that changing clothes does not solve the problem of harassment or discrimination at work, because they are not aesthetic issues. So much so that, even in the home office, they continue to occur. “The exercise of male domination is very adaptable, we started to see many cases of women being harassed by private messages during meetings”, says the lawyer.

If it’s not possible to control the image that clothes will convey at work, or achieve equal conditions through them, what to wear? According to Cotta, one task the book leaves for readers is to try to denaturalize the association between power and masculinity.

For women who experience privileges over others, for being white, rich, tall, thin or occupying high positions, for example, the authors suggest causing small disruptions in what society expects. “Refraining from coloring your hair can be an individual action that gradually builds a community that is a little less hostile to women”, they say.

Going the opposite way, towards a more marked and obvious femininity, can be equally confrontational in the professional environment. The idea is not to blame women for using or not using something, but to make people think about the reasons for each choice.

“Experience the discomfort, allow yourself to miss the whole ‘nice print of social approval’ list […] fight for other women to have space to not be so feminine, or to be too feminine,” they write.