« Previous|
Next »
 

About That Picture, and Work-Appropriate Cleavage

May 14, 2011

While the new design is generally going over well, several people have said they missed the original picture, which was me burning my PhD in a bikini, with one even going so far as to say it really captured my persona.

Well, in the first place, y’all don’t know me. It was getting a little weird to have people expect me to be brunette  — did they not realize it was a wig? And worse yet, did they expect me to show up in a bikini wherever I went?

Degrees = toast

That picture captured my rebellion against a very specific form of academic social repression: the idea that smart women are not allowed to have any hint of sexuality about them. At all. Period. End of Stop.

(Yes, that is exactly why you laughed so hard. As a humor theorist, I was well aware of the incongruity formula at work: PhD + cheesecake = haha.)

It’s pretty obvious that women can’t win here. As Tina Fey noted, many men think you’re not worth listening to if you’re not sexually interesting. But even while damaged girls everywhere are enthusiastically equating their worth with their fuckability, the desire to look attractive also means you’re not worth listening to because you’re a) too stupid to realize the urges you’re provoking, b) a deliberately superficial, unfeminist trollop, or c) perversely, willfully not interested in being taken seriously.

The cover of a book called Nympho Librarians

The Sexy Librarian archetype MUST DIE, for it rests on the assumption that smart and sexual are opposite enough to be juxtaposed.

At least that’s was the message I was getting. One of my friends used to call me “The Porn Star Professor,” not because she actually felt I deserved this title but colleagues often gave me unwitting Looks of Disapproval. The combination of (shortish! flat!) blonde hair, difficult-to-conceal rack, and refusal to wear glasses apparently screamed “please do not treat me as a serious professional.”

Tina Fey as a sexy librarian

Oh, Tina, I love you so but I fear part of your success came from wearing glasses...

To a certain extent, that was my choice. I could have frumped it up, and that is absolutely what you’re supposed to do if you want to be taken seriously. I did at first, but then got fed up, refused and eventually left the field that insisted my PhD didn’t count without the correct rites to avoid “distracting” everyone.

(There is a workaround here, by the way, which is looking attractive accidentally. That’s totally okay, and in fact preferred. As Cynthia Heimel brilliantly noted, this was Marilyn Monroe’s thing, to jiggle around in a state of near unconsciousness. What fun!)

Now, I would never walk into an office wearing a bikini and expect to be taken seriously — and yes, that’s one reason I didn’t want that picture on the header – but fretting about cleavage ( = female attractiveness = any sort of obvious feminine form) is another issue altogether.

A Virginia Tech job hunting site says it outright : “cleavage is not business-appropriate (despite what you see in the media)” and later clucks “Don’t be deluded!” in the “for Women” section. Um, thanks, Patronizing Big Brother Business Advice Site, because otherwise I might have believed that Sex and the City could happen to me! On a managerial forum, a recent post by a male manager who felt his co-worker’s cleavage was inappropriate set off a whole nother debate, with one woman noting that if you have big boobs, their visibility is basically unavoidable. So it’s a major pain in the ass to be told that your first priority in life is  hiding them.

And you kind of are. I never wore anything inappropriate but there the girls were, even if I wore a freaking turtleneck, inappropriately reminding everyone that women have boobs. Shame on me!

That’s the subtext of “professionalism” debates, that you can’t possibly expect people to focus on what you’re saying if your secondary sex characteristics are at all apparent.  And some jackass pseudo-scientist like Desmond Morris would probably use biology to define as natural what is, in fact, a behavioral decision on everyone’s part — everyone, not just the women involved. It’s called the social contract, or politeness, and the whole point of being evolved brainful neotenous monkeys (or whatever) is that we’re not allowed to use the “natural” defense anymore.

But no, I’m forgetting it’s my job to singlehandedly control everyone else’s biological inclinations. This has been one of the most dramatic successes of The Program, getting us to internalize, apply and self-impose The Eight Million Double Standards of Common Decency! Hahahahahahaha.

I really don’t get it. I ogle men’s asses all the time, but I don’t make it obvious, and even the most perfect male buttocks are no excuse for not focusing on my work or any other such nonsense. When faced with this crap, and people wigging out over Serena Williams (wow, she’s too sexy for her athleticism!) you can’t blame women for organizing Slutwalks to emphasize that “asking for it” is never a valid legal interpretation of rape.

So, although the Vandy students wore cleavage so low I found it distracting, I would never have thought to tell them this entitled bystanders to behave in any particular way.

I would, however, tell them you pick your battles. If you’re in desperate need of that job, it’s not the time to make Slutwalk-style stand on your right to wear cleavage. On the other hand, if nobody ever pushes boundaries, nothing changes, so maybe wait until you’re indispensable before letting your freak flag fly. There’s no single right answer here, and it’s not simply a matter of personal choice to be who you are or not caring what anybody else thinks because societies — social contracts — just don’t work that way.

I would also tell someone who needs a job to get a great haircut and interview outfit. Insisting that looks can’t matter at all is just naive escapism that usually conceals an active agenda against those wanting to look attractive.  And who the hell knows, maybe you’re like that yourself and would really like to work with others of your ilk, getting together over lunch and calling all of those stupid superficial lookists “sluts”. Fine, great, go ahead and have fun with it. I’ll be shopping for scarlet letters in the meantime.

That picture was a single, joyous moment of escape. But it wasn’t me for all time, or even for most of the time. In fact, I’m getting some up-to-date photos taken for my websites. The photographer said the current header picture was “cute and flirty” and I groaned and told her that, while it was a cute picture, it was everything I hated about being a professor. So she asked what I wanted to look like in the new pictures and I hadn’t a clue. Except that I would not be wearing glasses, and I would wear cleavage if I damned well felt like it.

Tags: , ,
33 Responses
  1. tangle says:

    something could be said here about weight/body type in the academy

    • wopro says:

      Except that there are plenty of fit individuals. So I don’t think it even needs to be that specific. I think the general rule, for both men and women, was “the more androgynous, the better.” Though traditionally handsome male professors can get away with the “dashing” thing a helluva lot more than women can.

      • tangle says:

        I think that’s what I meant – wispy and thin is good, while being either muscular or curvy seems to be somehow not as good? I think part of it is the desire to be insusceptible to criticism of any kind. But generally I don’t find it surprising when I see men and women in the academy who appear actually underweight, and I at least feel an instinctive respect for people who do. I know some women try to minimize curves through weight control. I also think a genteel aesthetic still survives in some circles (i.e., it’s more or less good to look like you’ve never had to work for a living, and sexual differentiation is low class or vulgar). I’ve also noticed that the scientifically dubious idea that thin = healthy, fat = unhealthy is also more prevalent in academic circles than one would think.

        • wopro says:

          That’s true…I know a PhD who looks like a farmhand, and though he’s smart (and quite popular with the ladies) he always gets funny looks at conferences. I think you’re right about the low class/vulgar connotations of any noticable difference, as though true evolutionary progress will remove all sexual difference. And sex, since that’s obviously vulgar.

  2. Cassie Beyer says:

    I think perhaps you’re confusing cleavage with breasts in general. I agree that *cleavage* is not work appropriate. That is to say, people should not be able to see the split between my boobs. That doesn’t mean I have to wear a poncho to work. I wear plenty of fairly tailored outfits, and like you, my girls are right out there. (I’ve, uh, grown since we last saw each other.) Never had a professional problem with it. But I don’t show cleavage.

    And, honestly, I don’t think cleavage is generally even attractive, particularly on me. A form fitting outfit shows off my shape. Cleavage just says “look at my tits.” I am an entire person, not just tits.

    • wopro says:

      I’m gonna come back to the “I can’t freaking hide them” argument. If I wear a v-neck, I’ve got cleavage. V-necks are more flattering all around than high necks. Ergo, I will wear v-necks, and everyone’s just going to deal with the ensuing cleavage (which I’d define not just as a hard line between the boobs, but the shadow that shows up in/around/near the separation proper.)

  3. Eileen says:

    I remember having a long, semi-drunken conversation about this with a friend of mine – because we were in a class with a professor who was absolutely gorgeous, and based on how she dressed for events that called for cocktail dresses, she knew it and she knew how to work it. To class, it was no makeup, hair back, shapeless suits that looked a size too big, and usually reading glasses. If that’s how she wanted to dress, then fine, but we always got the feeling she was trying to downplay how pretty she was so that people would notice how smart she was.

    She published like crazy and got promoted pretty quickly, so I guess it worked, but I still think she was smart enough that no one should have cared about her looks.

    • wopro says:

      Sounds to me like she was smart enough to know exactly how much everyone cared about her looks. And yeah, there’s tremendous pressure to downplay how pretty, or hot, or whatever you are. But it’s really freaking tedious to cultivate two separate identities.

  4. Love this post all around, but will miss the bold image of your degree going down in flames :)

  5. ReadyWriting says:

    I have the exact same problem; short of a tent, my breasts will be displayed prominently. And, once you get up past a certain size, cleavage and just the prominence of the chest are one and the same when it comes to where people tend to look with disapproval.

    I am in a capital of frumpy female professors. A friend of mine was scolded on her “inappropriate” dress (she’s not faculty, professional research staff with a Masters). Anyway, we couldn’t figure out why anyone was compalining; each and everyone of her outfits was high cut, provided complete coverage, and clearly professional. The problem, finally, was that it was tailored and actually fit her.

    Now, it’s my mission to wear the nicest clothes possible, in solidarity with her. I don’t look nearly as good as she goes, but it’s the thought that counts, right?

    • wopro says:

      Agreed, it’s the thought that counts! And I’ve often wondered if it’s less a boob issue and more a “having an obvious waise” issue..like I said, having any sort of feminine form seems to be the problem.

  6. mindgrapes says:

    I really liked this post. You seem to have a gift for understanding and explaining contradictions in human behavior. To add to this thread, though, I feel that some women dress androgynously because they weren’t naturally built with boobs and/or hips and so they just feel sexier that way, and not necessarily because they are trying to conceal their femininity. They just might not be able to pull off the v-neck or the bikini top as well as a woman who has boobs. I agree about women who just look frumpy though; they’re a different case from those who dress androgynously.
    Also, do you tend to reply only to those who comment on your posts, or do you reply to people who contact you through your blog as well?

    • wopro says:

      It’s true that everybody has to dress differently to suit their body type, but I keep coming back to the fact that at work (or at least at academic work) it seems that there’s only one acceptable body type, which is the one that’s least noticable! I try to reply to everyone, though it does take me a while with mail sometimes.

  7. mindgrapes says:

    P.S. Thanks for the insightful posts and comments.

  8. -k- says:

    The comment said that it captured your writing persona, which both you and we know is not the same as ‘you’. We’re all academics here. We’ve thought way more than necessary about the constructedness of identity, blah blah blah. (Anyone who expected you to be a brunette hasn’t been paying attention.) It certainly makes sense for you to change the picture if you don’t feel it represents ‘who you are’ or the image of yourself that you want to convey as you market yourself in a new way, but you can’t really fault anyone for preferring one version or another.

  9. Beyond the specific issue of cleavage is the deeper one of how we’re expected to only be one thing. Scholar? Check. Confident and attractive (by our own standards, as much as that is possible) human being? Check. Both at the same time? Watch the heads explode.

    I am a damn fine scholar, but also a go-like-hell in-traffic cyclist and a fit and physically confident woman in her forties. No reason to compartmentalize just because other people can’t figure it out.

    • wopro says:

      Like, that description, ‘heads explode’. I guess it really does produce actual cognitive dissonance. But why, oh, why??

  10. SK says:

    I’m a nursing mom (and grad student & TA), and sometimes I worry about the cleavage situation. I often wear a nursing tank under a blazer to class, so I just try not to lean over the desk. Speaking of multiple identities, it’s strange to have these functional baby-feeding breasts and then try and conceal them. The androgynous look is never, ever successful for me, as I am a curvy gal.

    I agree that “Insisting that looks can’t matter at all is just naive escapism that usually conceals an active agenda against those wanting to look attractive.” And I like Notorious PhD’s comment about how we are “expected to only be one thing.” Smart + Confident + Attractive? Stop the presses.

    Sometimes there’s an unspoken sort of, “hey, pretty girls, you had high school, but this is grown-up academia and you don’t belong” attitude. One of my grad-student colleagues is a working model. She’s gorgeous and brilliant. More power to her! But I wonder if she is discriminated against because of it.

    P.S. Let you think Judd Apatow and academia are incompatible, I presented a paper about Judd Apatow’s ‘Knocked Up’ at a conference. Yep. Got a GREAT response on it, too.

    • wopro says:

      Good to know Apatow has made it to the conference circuit. Should add that my own experience was in an exteremely conservative field, and that fields like (e.g.) Communications have obviously got more reason to talk to the outside world.

      Love the image of nursing tank + blazer though. That kind of says it all.

  11. Doc_Harding says:

    I guess this varies across institutions, locales, & disciplines.Bi work at a 2nd tier state uni in a midsize southern city. I’ve got tattoos and don’t think twice about them being seen. I occasionally curse in class. I’ve shown up at a professional conference wearing biker leathers. My dept chair is an old hippie with a grizzled ponytail.

    I earn (or don’t earn) the respect of colleagues & students based on my work (teaching or research & my interaction with them.

    Until recently, I moonlighted as a limo driver. Yes, there was a dress-code. But I still earned respect (and tips) the same way: solid work and personal interaction.

    • wopro says:

      Varies across genders, too. “Don’t think twice” is a luxury you don’t have if you’ve had your tits stared at (at work!) enough times, or been dismissed at first sight enough times, etc. etc. So while I too believe that ideally, solid work and personal interaction can earn you respect, the power of first impressions is indisputable in the real world.

      And woe betide a woman who makes the mistake of correcting the misapprehension that she’s stupid…people tend to get pissed off at you, even though it’s their own dumb assumption that got them into trouble! And, to be fair, tats, leather, beards and whatnot are somewhat more of a choice than largish lumps of tissue getting in your way all the time…

  12. JLD says:

    I am clearly a product of my environment. I was actually somewhat uncomfortable with the picture of you in a bikini! I kept coming back to the blog because I love to hear what you have to say, but I was somewhat relieved when your current picture went up. How sad is that? I am not overly “curvy” myself (unless overweight = curvy), but I generally do show just a tiny bit of cleavage – as mentioned in a previous comment, v-necks just look better. I don’t think people pay that much attention to my boobs. Maybe because I’m somewhat overweight? Maybe because I don’t wear make up and often pull my hair up in a loose bun? Maybe because I’m in a department with a lot of senior females? I notice none of them wear make up either. Thank you so much for this post. As a youngish female academic, I already have hang-ups about my appearance and about any possible sexism in my environment. It’s just nice to hear about other people’s similar experiences sometimes.

    • wopro says:

      Thanks for being honest. I am most suspicious of people who swear up and down that they could never, ever be affected by anyone’s appearance/race/sex/etc. in any way. That’s just bull, and like I said, in academia it does seem to me that the party line is to be judgmental about anyone who wants to look good. And hell, I’ll admit it, I get a little judge-y about people who don’t want to look their best — I mean, c’mon, you’re standing up in front of people all the time, how you look does matter!

      But if we’re all going to be fair about it, I don’t get to judge someone for not wearing makeup and they don’t get to judge me for wearing makeup. And the hang-ups…that’s my point, really, that’s it’s not just about personal choice, it’s about the atmosphere that gets created where you have to worry about this crap rather than just thinking brilliant thoughts.

  13. KP says:

    I love this post! Your responses too, especially when you say “It’s really freaking tedious to cultivate two separate identities”.

  14. Z says:

    My dissertation director used to complain at me for being blond (I thought she was just jealous) and for not blow drying my hair — I’d go swimming at noon and come back to the building with damp hair.

    I wouldn’t have done that at a formal presentation or something, I guess, but just to go study in the departmental library until the 2 PM seminars started?
    Of course, she was right, having wet hair reveals you went to the gym, which reveals you have a body.

    I’ve had colleagues who showed cleavage but they were usually the wrong ones. If saggy then don’t is what I say.
    I’ve gotten complaints about clothes, not that they were too revealing or sexy or non professional, but that they were too edgy, not banker-ish enough.

    I have a friend who won’t even wear dangling earrings to work, afraid it will be not conservative enough and she won’t get tenure. I know people who have gone to quite great lengths to appear as androgynous as possible. And generally speaking professors do not look good, and I do not get it.

    • wopro says:

      Yup, I’ve had the dangling earrings quandary, as have others I’ve known. Not only does it speak to the fashion sense, it speaks to the arbitrary nature of tenure-getting….and you’re right, going to the gym is clearly objectionable on the grounds that it proves your corporeality. We aim to be brains in jars, don’t you know.

      Re: sagging boobs, I dunno, my time in Italy convinced me that you should wear whatever the hell you want, or at least not let imperfection be an inpediment to showing skin.

  15. readrgrl says:

    While I agree that the double standard about women’s looks is alive and well, in the academy just as everywhere else (indeed, why treat academia as a separate entity?), I find myself reacting poorly to this piece. The overall points stand, but the underlying argument here seems to be that being so cute and hot, with a magnificent rack, was the curse that forced you out of your vocation. Yes, appearances matter; yes, we may agree that double standards and exist in workplaces, and that women’s bodies “matter” more than men’s. But the line of personal lament (“I’m too sexy for academia”) strikes me as really overstated, as well as fairly self-indulgent. To say that academia is just up-and-down judgmental about anyone who tries to look good and conflate that with the imperative to leave the profession seems simplistic, and a disturbing statement to young academics.

    Lest it seem that I just hate you for your hotness and honesty, let me clarify: I am a female professor in my thirties who cares about style. I go to the gym, and so on. Yes, I’ve seen male students look at me many times, and I’ve been mindful of that, as I’ve been of dressing professionally. If I’ve felt taken seriously, does that mean I’m just less hot than you? Possess smaller breasts? This is where your formulation falls short (even if yes, I am an A-cup). To state that having a beauteous female form that no one can stop drooling over is an irrevocable obstacle removes any agency or notion of changing standards from the argument.

Leave a Reply

but try reading the comments policy first.