Well, not surprisingly, there's not ONE typo in the following article. It's by a female law school graduate, wrestling with the sorry fact that in the legal community, the strict Dress Code Tyrannizes Women Lawyers as a "weapon" of patriarchal sexism.

As a recent law graduate, I shun the day when I will have to appear before a judge and make a well-reasoned, strongly worded, highly articulate legal argument wearing a dress and stockings!

I have made it through 30 years of life never being forced to wear a dress until now, when I am required to bow to one of the oldest vestiges of patriarchy.

All lawyers swear to show due respect to the court, but only women lawyers must do this by wearing dresses or skirts. This discrimination perpetuates the subordination of women, despite our admission to the bar. URSULA ABRAMS Brooklyn, June 12, 1992

I think her words illustrate Molly's point of view above very well! And I can relate to how she dreads wearing dress and stockings while presenting her arguments before a male-dominated court. There's a certain aura of restriction, of vulnerability and weakness evoked by 'feminine attire' -- both in the wearer and in the observer. And unfortunately, this same attire-based sexism is still the standard in the business community ie

Wearing a tie is a sexist act

The major issue comes down to this. Male white-collar workers have to conform to a fairly strict dress code - shirt, tailored pants, tie, dress shoes, suit jacket optional. Why is this done? So that in a meeting with people from other companies, they will be treated as serious businessmen, and their word will have some weight. This seems sensible and fair, right? Everybody does it because everybody does it. If a man turns up at a business meeting wearing a pair of jeans and a T-shirt, he will not be taken seriously unless he is already in a powerful position.

Where the sexism comes in is in the lack of such strict requirements for females. Many women basically wear "business casual" all the time, in circumstances where their male counterparts would be reprimanded for doing the same. Why is this?

BECAUSE THEIR OPINION DOESN'T COUNT ANYWAY. The standards are lower because of an implicit and perhaps even completely unconscious realisation that women are not treated the same as men in the business world; that women are automatically assumed to be inferior.

And one final beef, from the world of academia ...

Grub Day at the Office

Every second Friday is 'Casual Day' at the office - the principal lets us wear jeans to school. I need two degrees to do my job, but apparently I just can't seem to dress myself...

...the more formal the attire, the more gendered it is. Formal dress is rigidly male or female: three piece suit and tie or dress and high heels. Less formal attire is less gendered: slacks or jeans and a blouse or shirt. The most casual is completely ungendered: the old 'sweats'. The thing is this: a suitcoat and tie outranks a dress and high heels. (Women wear pseudo-suits; men never wear pseudo-dresses.) So as long as formal attire is required, men will outrank women.

Now this takes us quite far afield from cross-dressing -- or does it? I remember reading about a boy in California who was suspended for wearing a skirt to school last year. He was protesting the school's dress code, which bans the wearing of shorts except in summer months. So while the girls are comfy and cool in their summer skirts, the boys must sweat away in long pants till June. Apparently just the sight of a boy in a skirt short-circuited so many brain cells the school board suspended him. THe religious right was in a frenzy over it -- crossdressing in our schools? Unthinkable!

I'm not sure if he won or lost the court case that ensued ... does anyone know? At any rate, I can't imagine a girl being suspended or suspected of "crossdressing" for wearing pants to school -- at least not for the last 30 years or so.

Now, that's sexism. In my book, anyway.