Sexy attire works on TV, but not at the workplace

By JENNIFER E. REITZ
Collegian Staff Writer

Viewers of popular television shows like "Melrose Place" are often bombarded with images of scantily clad, cold-hearted professional women, but many members of the Penn State community say these portrayals hardly mirror the real world.

Kathryn Corbin Itinger, path chairwoman for Professional Women at Penn State, said the popular boardroom styles of "Melrose Place" -- including above-the-knee skirts, no stockings and low-cut blouses -- would be considered sleazy in the workplace.

"The old business adage is 'dress for success' -- that's not appropriate dress for success," she said.

Though the women of "Melrose Place" are successful, the TV woman's ascension from the stereotypical homemaker of Donna Reed days to a bloodthirsty executive in a barrage of Aaron Spelling pop hits has not always accompanied the best gender-equity intentions.

"The women are portrayed with a lot of power, but usually that power involves sex," said Erin Questad (sophomore-biology).

Although the women's attire would be considered sexy she does not think sex should be brought into the workplace. Women should be able to wear what they want to wear, Questad said.

There is an almost indistinguishable line delineating what is sexy, and therefore inappropriate for work, from what is acceptable attire, said Questad and her friend, Darren Blais (sophomore-communications).

"With men, sexiness is usually equated with status, money and power," Blais said, pointing out that the standard for professional male attire -- the rarely varying suit and tie -- is often considered sexy.

In addition, women have more freedom of choice with what to wear than men do, Blais said. It would be detrimental to take that freedom away and develop a standard business style, such as the pants suit, for women, he said.

Bette Kauffman, assistant professor of communications, agreed.

"I can't see how less freedom is more," she said. "The women's version of the business suit is no better a dress standard than a mini-skirt and no stockings."

Kauffman said she hopes that in the future, women's attire will not be taken into consideration.

"We will be talking about her competence and performance," she said. "Now her appearance is a constant source of comment, but nobody talks about the way men dress."

Blais agreed, but said today's workplace does not offer this ideal, and unfortunately women must anticipate a reaction to the way they are dressed.

But conditions are improving, Itinger said. She said the stereotype that women who wear short skirts are using sex to get to the top is slowly diminishing, but the way television portrays women is not helping things along.

"It's like taking three steps forward, then two steps back. It doesn't get you very far," she said.

Though portrayals are often detrimental to the movement toward equity, people must recognize that television hardly ever is a mirror image of life, Kauffman said.

"I have never held up realistic-ness as a standard for television," she said.