No Makeup? Can't Work Here

It's been a while since our last post because we've been occupied with summer school, work and the like so we apologize.

This morning I read an article that rankled me, not just because of the content but also some of the comments made.

A story arose a few weeks ago about a young woman, Melanie Stark, who quit her job at Harrods after unfair treatment due to the fact that she did not wear makeup.

Melanie began working with the high end retail store at the age of 19. She claimed that though she was aware of the dress code when she was first employed but had been interviewed nude face and never received censure from management. She continued to work without makeup for five years before she quit. The young woman said that she adhered to all of the other components of the dress code and her supervisors had labelled her one of the company's best employees.

However, when the company began to seriously enforce the policy last August, Melanie was treated like anything but one of the best. She was sent home on two occasions and sent to work in the stock room on some days so that customers couldn't see her. Unable to withstand anymore of this treatment, the 24-year-old quit the job she loved.

The company has a right to implement and enforce their dress codes but I have two big problems with Harrods. The first of which is the policy itself.

 "Full makeup at all time: base, blusher, full eyes (not too heavy), lipstick, lip liner and gloss are worn at all time and maintained discreetly (please take into account the store display lighting which has a 'washing out' effect)."

 I would have thought that Melanie was going to give the six o'clock news instead of working in the music department of the store. Actually, when I first read this piece I assumed Melanie had been working at the cosmetics counter. That would make sense, wouldn't it? A sales assistant at the cosmetics counter with a bit of makeup can showcase the product. However Melanie worked at the HMV department of Harrods. There is no real reason that this young lady would have to wear makeup in the music department if she was always attired according to code (minus the maquillage).

Secondly, Melanie had proven herself to be an diligent worker, excelling in customer service and she did it nude face. The managers knew she was nude face and during her first four years with the company they told her nothing. They didn't even pull her aside on her first day of work and ask her to slap on some concealer so why now? According to a legal expert, Lawrence Davies, Harrods is in the wrong. He claims that "custom and practice would suggest that her contract has changed over the years to allow her to not wear makeup".

I read this article feeling rather incensed because I don't wear makeup (OK, I have been known to put on some mascara but more often than not I am nude face) and I would dare any coworker or manager to call me out for looking unprofessional because of my unmade up face. I doubt some eyeshadow would prevent the sales assistant in the children's department from being rude to a customer or ducking out for an extended lunch. And sending Melanie to work in the stock room so she can't be seen? I won't even touch that one.

So against my better judgement I perused the comments. It was a little shocking that in this 'post-feminist' age that most of the women who commented--I'm assuming they are women--were against Melanie for not putting on a cosmetic face.

This commenter made me wince.

A Polished ,well groomed look makes you look professional,clean,and makes you look more approachable.To me not wearing makeup in a public profession is like not showering,or fixing your hair ,the finish look is “im lazy i cant be bothered to groom myself let leave alone working.

Oh and it continued. 

When I see a women out in public, esp. at work without make-up it looks like she didn’t finish getting ready.

Fortunately not everyone thought along the same vein.

There are plenty of women who can show up to work with a natural face. And why not? Make-up should be a CHOICE not a requirement. So, what, are they saying that women are not beautiful without make-up? And I’m sure the men are not being asked to wear concealer, foundation, mascara, and lip gloss. So, if they’re not being asked to wear make-up, the women should have a choice of whether or not they wish to wear make-up to work

 And this last one made me smile because I do remember hearing stories about how a few decades ago Black women weren't allowed to rock their natural hair at work. This issue with Melanie wasn't racially motivated--there's no talk of that--but it does speak of inhibiting somebody's choice to be themselves even though it doesn't hinder their work ethic.

Let Harrods come up with a policy requiring black women to have permed hair, and watch the fur fly. Cuz, you know, “When I see women out in public, especially at work, without a perm, it looks like she didn’t finish getting ready . . .” (rolls eyes)

Co-sign! Let me go cross Harrods off my employment list. 

Today In The News

Ok, from time to time a news article pops out at me and I feel inclined to share. so here we go!


On July 7th, Janet Johnson from Texas gave birth to a 16 pound baby boy! She had previously been diagnosed with gestational diabetes & and as such was expecting a large baby but no one expected he would be quite this big. He was 24 inches (2 feet!)  long and his chest was 17 inches wide. He encountered a few difficulties shortly after birth with being able to regulate his blood sugar levels. He's presently reported to be doing just fine.

A Change in Time

I find it fascinating how dynamic our society is. I think advertisements are a good indication of just how things have changed.

<><>

 This Slim Fast advertisement is rather recent. As we can see the bride has sunk into the cake because of her weight--it is a Slim Fast ad, after all. The caption at the bottom says 'Need to lose a little weight before your wedding?'

On the flipside, in 1895, you may have been taking Lorings Fat-Ten-U food tablets and Corpula to put on some weight before your wedding. Back then, a thin person was regarded as unhealthy and poor and to be plump was a sure sign that you were well off.

Isn't that something?

Not Everything Is For Facebook

Facebook has literally and figuratively taken over the world.To the point where people are actually naming their kids Facebook & after the popular feature on Facebook, the like button ( as if school isn't hard enough without being teased about your name)

You can fin practically everything and anybody on there, no matter whether you're looking or not. It acts as a personal calendar for events & birthdays, a diary & it has long since made the physical photo album obsolete.

Where am I going with all this rambling one might ask? Well I know there's this box that ask's what's on your mind, some of us need to learn to ignore it. Every minute of your personal life does not need to be recorded on Facebook unless you fear one day having Alzheimer's and you're going to use it as the basis for remembering your younger years.Yes, you may insert the sarcasm here.

A few days ago I was looking at the updates in my news feed on Facebook,a married friend of mine changed her relationship status to "It's complicated" & proceeded to tag her husband to the status. I for one think that these sort of issues have a place & it is not a status update. It's understandable that relationship issues are a difficult & sticky. Why add fire o the fuel by making it public knowledge? If you're having relationship problems talk it out, get a therapist, some to give you counselling do your part by making the necessary changes that your relationship needs to grow.   

Pretty: A Poem

I stumbled upon this by poet Katie Makkai quite by accident and I'm glad I did. We live in an age where beauty seems to trump all. We shouldn't not appreciate beauty but for something that is so subjective and fleeting, we shouldn't value it so much.

Katie Makkai's Pretty is a poem of a her struggle to attain the prettiness that some people think is synonymous with happiness and ultimate refusal of it. Enjoy!

Little Girls Aren't Children Anymore?

Thongs, push-up bras, Brazilian waxes and temporary tramp stamps...all things that you wouldn't associate with an eight year old. Am I old-fashioned or am I justified in being horrified at a little girl sporting a tramp stamp? Please tell me that I am right to be turned off by this.

These days, companies have been introducing a dubious collection of products for girls, those in the eight to thirteen age range especially. One of them being a graphic t-shirt with the words 'I'm tighter than spandex'. Are you serious? We are already having enough trouble trying to keep perverts away from our girls, alluding to her vagina is of little assistance. Who are the people who sign off on the distribution of these things and what could they have possibly been thinking? I am incapable of finding one reason a ten year old would need a bikini wax. Of course, that's because there is none. How could I have forgotten the toy stripper dance pole? No society! It is not and never will be OK to see any child under the age of consent do the spinning chopper on a pole. What next underwear padding for boys?
  

Has childhood, for girls in particular, changed so much that it has become acceptable to create such products for them? This takes the whole dressing up like mommy thing a little overboard, don't you think? And you must admit that all the things I listed at the beginning of this post are quite sexy. It's hard to process that someone out there wants their under aged daughter (or son, but that's for another post) to be sexy. We tend to use the term 'sexy' a little loosely these days but the meaning in the Oxford dictionary hasn't changed that much. I still wouldn't want it to be used as a description for a child. Let's leave it in the adult world and deal with it there.

I am well aware that many parents--I really want to say every parent but you never know--were extremely displeased at the introduction of some of these productions, prompting their quick withdrawal. Of course, as a parent it is your right to socialise your child as you see fit. However, what good does it do you to instill in your child from an early age that being sexually attractive is a value? We are always arguing about women being constantly sexualized--go look at a beer or Axe advertisement--so why are we doing it to our little girls?

This rapidly burgeoning culture of sex is already wreaking havoc on the psyches of adult women and men and that pressure is the last thing our children need. For goodness sakes' buy that girl a chemistry set or something.