Forced to work showing chest and thigh
The word uniform It clearly refers us to the standardization of clothing for a group of people. Generally, those who defend its use argue that it promotes equality among people, in addition to minimizing occupational risks. But the numerous complaints about uniforms speak above all of a sexism that, far from equality, perpetuates the difference between men and women. This has been the case with the female employees of the Palace Hotel in Madrid, who must work in a uniform that sexualizes them, with blouses that reveal their cleavage and skirts with a cut so deep that, when they sit down, their thighs and underwear are exposed. These rigid, tight uniforms hinder physical activity in jobs like hotel chambermaid. It goes without saying that the men's uniforms at the Palace neither sexualize nor hinder movement. Therefore, where is the idea of equality that should be intrinsic to uniform clothing?
In 2022, female workers at the Galpgest Petrogal gas stations reported that they were forced to wear T-shirts with slogans above their breasts, which caused customers to constantly look at this part of their bodies. In the same gasoline sector, in 2017, six women were fired from the AVIA station in La Carlota (Córdoba) for refusing to wear miniskirts, which they were forced to wear despite the need for shelter for that job. Just under a month ago, the Valencia Nursing Union also reported that their uniforms, in addition to violating occupational risk regulations, were sexist, due to a fit and transparency that clearly revealed underwear. In fact, the nursing sector has received numerous complaints, such as the one filed by the San Rafael Clinic in Cádiz in 2011 forcing nurses to wear caps, skirts, and aprons, unlike men's pajamas.
It would be good if those defending uniforms due to occupational hazards would try to justify the requirement for heeled shoes in many professions, which have medically proven harm to the health of those who wear them. Television presenters or workers in sectors such as finance or the judiciary are forced to wear them, often under pressure from equally effective unwritten rules. In 2016, a receptionist in the City of London, after showing up to work wearing flat shoes, was forced to change them for heels or face dismissal. As a result, she collected 123,000 signatures of support, allowing her to take her case to Westminster. It's a shame that, in the end, the government considered that the laws already sufficiently ensured gender equality and that there was no need to change them, despite numerous witnesses from women who claimed to be forced to wear miniskirts, heels, and unbutton the top buttons of their blouses in the workplace.
The world of flight crew also has a history of complaints about their uniforms, which require only women to wear skirts, high heels, makeup, and, in the case of Ryanair, an apron. It's true that many airlines have redesigned their uniforms with a less sexist perspective, but while many allow women to choose between skirts or trousers and between flats or heels, would they give men the opportunity to choose skirts or high heels if they so desired?
It's clear that work uniforms, especially for women, too often depart from functionality to become complicit in the most rancid stereotype of femininity. At the beginning of the 20th century, jobs like nurse or teacher incorporated an apron, to demonstrate that patriarchy tied women to the domestic environment. Now, their objectification as sexual objects dominates many uniforms. And if you have any doubts, just ask yourself how many erotic costumes, designed with male desire in mind, are inspired by the work uniforms of nurses, teachers, or maids.
