my hair is died purple

[mehc012]

Typically questions are repeated when the answer given is repeatedly inadequate.

If my prior, loooong explanation with the bolded sentence about respect and professional dress did not communicate my message to you, I'm afraid I must admit an inability to get the point across in a way you will understand. If you want more, you'll have to come up with a more specific question.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[caxoo]

Again, there is a difference in implied respect between failing to put in effort to prepare for a specific interaction and in making choices in your personal life which may have some effect on your appearance despite putting in effort.

Noted. Perhaps in an ideal world we would be free from all social biases, image archetypes for values such as professionalism and whatnot. But as it is, this is how the perspective of 99% of the world is shaped, and I don't think it's such an injustice that it deserves serious contention. I think you'll find yourself simply giving in to the norms of society further down the road, out of expediency more than anything, rather than trying to carve your own space in a landscape that is hard and unyielding

Or you could be the doctor who DGAF and dyes her hair, all the power to you if that's the case

 

[mehc012]

Noted. Perhaps in an ideal world we would be free from all social biases, image archetypes for values such as professionalism and whatnot. But as it is, this is how the perspective of 99% of the world is shaped, and I don't think it's such an injustice that it deserves serious contention. I think you'll find yourself simply giving in to the norms of society further down the road, out of expediency more than anything, rather than trying to carve your own space in a landscape that is hard and unyielding

Or you could be the doctor who DGAF and dyes her hair, all the power to you if that's the case

I already give into those demands...but that doesn't mean that I don't find the attitudes worth protesting. I hope I do have the guts to be that defiant attending someday!

 

[Zelda840]

This is the only acceptable response to this thread:

You just gained about 1000 cool points in my book.
Ever been to one of their shows? The violin.....OMG.

 

[blackroses]

It does not make the assumption of appearance being the only thing that matters. Minimize variables, study one concept. All things considered, does appearance matter to patients? Yes.

Well, exactly. It studies only one factor in the choosing of a doctor: appearance. It does not study to what degree appearance affects a patient's choice in doctor.

To put this study in a different context, it would be like presenting patients with pictures of doctors all dressed the same, but with varying degrees of attractiveness, and asking which doctor they would choose. Most patients would choose the more attractive doctors. Does that mean that we now only require med school applicants to provide a photograph of themselves and only interview the attractive candidates, because patients are more comfortable with them? Of course not, that would be ridiculous. We study to what DEGREE attractiveness affects a patient's decision regarding what physician to visit. Is it fairly minimal? Great, no reason to prevent less attractive people from becoming doctors. If we find out that patients will never, ever see a doctor they find unattractive? Then maybe we need to find a way to address that.

All I'm saying is that it isn't unreasonable to investigate to what degree a non-traditional professional appearance affects a patient's decision regarding which physician to choose. If it's a very minimal effect, then it's a waste of time to worry about it. Unfortunately, there will always be things that will cause people to not return to a doctor. Maybe the doctor's accent bothered them. Maybe they don't like that the doctor had a shirt with a flower print. Maybe the Danskos that the nurses wore somehow offended the person. If the negative effect of a patient not liking a doctor with 4 ear piercings instead of 2, or with a streak of non-natural color in their hair, or with a small visible tattoo is less than or equal to the negative effect of a patient not liking other behaviors or looks that are allowed, then it's a little ridiculous to insist that it's wrong.

 

[mehc012]

If the negative effect of a patient not liking a doctor with 4 ear piercings instead of 2, or with a streak of non-natural color in their hair, or with a small visible tattoo is less than or equal to the negative effect of a patient not liking other behaviors or looks that are allowed, then it's a little ridiculous to insist that it's wrong.

So much 'like' that hitting the Like button doesn't cut it.

 

[Rhino1000]

Ah yes, because having colored hair clearly means you're immature, rather than just, say, enjoying having colored facial hair.

Reworded to make this more relevant to my exact feelings on the relevant men's issue.

 

[mehc012]

Reworded to make this more relevant to my exact feelings on the relevant men's issue.

On that note, I really, really wish that girls could do cool stuff with their hair and then just shave it off when they need to be professional.

 

[TooMuchResearch]

I do indeed - I was using hyperbole to indicate that I feel there should be a limit on efforts to cater to the patients' idea of an acceptable physician.

After all, all of these are modifiable from the patient side: just get a different doctor

Your employer may have that same thought. Physicians are surprisingly easy to find in much of the nation.

 

[TooMuchResearch]

Well, exactly. It studies only one factor in the choosing of a doctor: appearance. It does not study to what degree appearance affects a patient's choice in doctor.

To put this study in a different context, it would be like presenting patients with pictures of doctors all dressed the same, but with varying degrees of attractiveness, and asking which doctor they would choose. Most patients would choose the more attractive doctors. Does that mean that we now only require med school applicants to provide a photograph of themselves and only interview the attractive candidates, because patients are more comfortable with them? Of course not, that would be ridiculous. We study to what DEGREE attractiveness affects a patient's decision regarding what physician to visit. Is it fairly minimal? Great, no reason to prevent less attractive people from becoming doctors. If we find out that patients will never, ever see a doctor they find unattractive? Then maybe we need to find a way to address that.

All I'm saying is that it isn't unreasonable to investigate to what degree a non-traditional professional appearance affects a patient's decision regarding which physician to choose. If it's a very minimal effect, then it's a waste of time to worry about it. Unfortunately, there will always be things that will cause people to not return to a doctor. Maybe the doctor's accent bothered them. Maybe they don't like that the doctor had a shirt with a flower print. Maybe the Danskos that the nurses wore somehow offended the person. If the negative effect of a patient not liking a doctor with 4 ear piercings instead of 2, or with a streak of non-natural color in their hair, or with a small visible tattoo is less than or equal to the negative effect of a patient not liking other behaviors or looks that are allowed, then it's a little ridiculous to insist that it's wrong.

That's not context. That's making up a different study. And you're getting out of scope.

 

[mehc012]

Your employer may have that same thought. Physicians are surprisingly easy to find in much of the nation.

Which was exactly what I said in the post you quoted.

My initial comment, which you objected to, was simply showing that we have a line drawn somewhere when it comes to selecting physicians and changing behaviors to cater to patient whims. Hair is on one side, currently, but many things which patients may discriminate by are not.

See the rest of my comments if you want to see my explanation as to why I disagree with where the line is drawn.

 

[blackroses]

That's not context. That's making up a different study. And you're getting out of scope.

How is saying that studying the degree to which a non-traditional professional appearance affects patient choice in doctor is a good idea out of scope? That seems pretty in-scope for a discussion about whether or not it's appropriate for doctors to adopt more non-traditional looks.

 

[allantois]

What's your opinion on ethnic women (Asian/ African American/ Latino) with blond hair? Mine is not like platinum or anything. It's more like dark blond or really light brownish with highlights. It is a natural color but because of my complexion it's obviously not my real color. I've had this hair for a long time and it's long and curly like Shakira or Mariah. I won't dye it black just for interviews but I could get a really nice lace front wig to wear.

I'm not sure how interviewers perceive blond hair on people of color but a wig sounds like a safer bet.

Perhaps @Winged Scapula has more insight

 

[TooMuchResearch]

How is saying that studying the degree to which a non-traditional professional appearance affects patient choice in doctor is a good idea out of scope? That seems pretty in-scope for a discussion about whether or not it's appropriate for doctors to adopt more non-traditional looks.

No, it's out of scope for that paper.

 

[blackroses]

No, it's out of scope for that paper.

I don't care about what's in scope for the paper. I care about how relevant the information provided by the paper is to the discussion at hand. My conclusion is that it isn't particularly relevant, as it simply states that people do have a bias regarding appearance (which most people are already well aware of) but does nothing to measure how that bias plays into a patient's choice in doctor.

 

[Dr Van Helsing]

Just for clarification, how did you diagnose your hairs' death? Based on it turning purple?



Also, what's with the increase in mostly not useful/troll threads? Reaction to the thread about the reddit premed stuff? Random internet wanderers? Minimally self aware robots trying to take our jobs?

It just reminds me why I never lurk in pre-allo.

 

[Dr Van Helsing]

Which specialty are you?

I know, at least when I see residents in the ER and ICU, their appearance is a little more relaxed. For example, I saw a resident with hair like this once before:

Probably why I always figured my hair would be fine, this thread is what got me nervous.

Trauma surgeons seem to be pretty wild too. I've seen ponytails on some of the older guys and an Asian girl with red highlights.

I've seen full sleeves (full arm tattoos).

 

[deleted407021]

I know the thread is sort of dead but I saw this picture of some MSUCOM students...

Surfer Dude DO is on the case.

 

[Dr Van Helsing]

I know the thread is sort of dead but I saw this picture of some MSUCOM students...

View attachment 187211

Surfer Dude DO is on the case.

He can pull it off.

 

[mehc012]

I've also seen at least one MS4 with some definitely non-trad hair. He matched Plastics, so I'm assuming this wasn't a problem. He also was the sort of guy who dressed super classily even when it wasn't indicated, but with his own style which matched his hair pretty well, so, yeah...I guess you just have to do it right.

 

[janmcat]

I have kind of the opposite problem. I was raised in a very plain household and am very plain myself. I'm a woman, but I've literally never worn heels, makeup, or jewelry, and some comments on these boards and particularly the women's interview clothing threads seem to suggest that being "too plain" is just as "bad" as having purple hair or piercings. I'm quite feminine am fine wearing a skirt and flats and a blouse--i.e. fine for actually being a doctor--but am nervous when I read a list of "requirements" for professionalism that include makeup, heels, and jewelry and the suggestion that if anyone deviates from more than one requirement they consider themselves a "special flower" who doesn't need to comply to the "rules." (Sorry for using so many quotes here!)

So I'm pretty terrified of interviews, which obviously require this style of "professionalism." I feel like however I try to put myself together I will fail. If I try to be the adcom definition of professional I'll look like a clown because I have no experience with that (think, I guess, of your 7th grader trying to wear mom's makeup), but if I don't wear heels, jewelry, and makeup I will get rejected based on my "unprofessional" appearance despite wearing a suit and being clean and groomed. To be honest, and I'm not trying to start another war here, but it seems kind of sexist. If I were a guy I could wear a suit and not worry about the accoutrements women are expected to spend countless hours worrying about. It says something that I'm more concerned about shoes, jewelry, and makeup than I am about the actual interview.

I do agree that societal expectations of professionalism need to be changed, particularly with regard to women, but as a lowly applicant I realize I'm not in a position to change anything, which still leaves me at a crossroads.

 

[mehc012]

I have kind of the opposite problem. I was raised in a very plain household and am very plain myself. I'm a woman, but I've literally never worn heels, makeup, or jewelry, and some comments on these boards and particularly the women's interview clothing threads seem to suggest that being "too plain" is just as "bad" as having purple hair or piercings. I'm quite feminine am fine wearing a skirt and flats and a blouse--i.e. fine for actually being a doctor--but am nervous when I read a list of "requirements" for professionalism that include makeup, heels, and jewelry and the suggestion that if anyone deviates from more than one requirement they consider themselves a "special flower" who doesn't need to comply to the "rules." (Sorry for using so many quotes here!)

So I'm pretty terrified of interviews, which obviously require this style of "professionalism." I feel like however I try to put myself together I will fail. If I try to be the adcom definition of professional I'll look like a clown because I have no experience with that (think, I guess, of your 7th grader trying to wear mom's makeup), but if I don't wear heels, jewelry, and makeup I will get rejected based on my "unprofessional" appearance despite wearing a suit and being clean and groomed. To be honest, and I'm not trying to start another war here, but it seems kind of sexist. If I were a guy I could wear a suit and not worry about the accoutrements women are expected to spend countless hours worrying about. It says something that I'm more concerned about shoes, jewelry, and makeup than I am about the actual interview.

I do agree that societal expectations of professionalism need to be changed, particularly with regard to women, but as a lowly applicant I realize I'm not in a position to change anything, which still leaves me at a crossroads.

I had not gotten the impression that makeup, jewelry, or heels were requirements. If they are, someone please enlighten me, because I currently have no intention of wearing any of the above, even during interviews.

 

[Dr Van Helsing]

I have kind of the opposite problem. I was raised in a very plain household and am very plain myself. I'm a woman, but I've literally never worn heels, makeup, or jewelry, and some comments on these boards and particularly the women's interview clothing threads seem to suggest that being "too plain" is just as "bad" as having purple hair or piercings. I'm quite feminine am fine wearing a skirt and flats and a blouse--i.e. fine for actually being a doctor--but am nervous when I read a list of "requirements" for professionalism that include makeup, heels, and jewelry and the suggestion that if anyone deviates from more than one requirement they consider themselves a "special flower" who doesn't need to comply to the "rules." (Sorry for using so many quotes here!)

So I'm pretty terrified of interviews, which obviously require this style of "professionalism." I feel like however I try to put myself together I will fail. If I try to be the adcom definition of professional I'll look like a clown because I have no experience with that (think, I guess, of your 7th grader trying to wear mom's makeup), but if I don't wear heels, jewelry, and makeup I will get rejected based on my "unprofessional" appearance despite wearing a suit and being clean and groomed. To be honest, and I'm not trying to start another war here, but it seems kind of sexist. If I were a guy I could wear a suit and not worry about the accoutrements women are expected to spend countless hours worrying about. It says something that I'm more concerned about shoes, jewelry, and makeup than I am about the actual interview.

I do agree that societal expectations of professionalism need to be changed, particularly with regard to women, but as a lowly applicant I realize I'm not in a position to change anything, which still leaves me at a crossroads.

Firstly, sex sells; men are biologically more attentive to beauty. Make up makes most women more attractive, therefore increasing their likability.
Secondly, I am only a male here, but can you not find someone to help with the outfit? Keep in mind the interview will be the first of many..

 

[Winged Scapula]

So I'm pretty terrified of interviews, which obviously require this style of "professionalism." I feel like however I try to put myself together I will fail. If I try to be the adcom definition of professional I'll look like a clown because I have no experience with that (think, I guess, of your 7th grader trying to wear mom's makeup), but if I don't wear heels, jewelry, and makeup I will get rejected based on my "unprofessional" appearance despite wearing a suit and being clean and groomed.

Then you have misunderstood the threads. No one has ever said that an applicant who is "clean and groomed" will be rejected because they didn't wear mascara or earrings.

To be honest, and I'm not trying to start another war here, but it seems kind of sexist. If I were a guy I could wear a suit and not worry about the accoutrements women are expected to spend countless hours worrying about. It says something that I'm more concerned about shoes, jewelry, and makeup than I am about the actual interview.

You clearly haven't read the "Men's Interview Clothing" threads then. That thread is full of males asking advice about which tie, socks, shoes, cut of suit, watches, wedding rings, hair styles, etc. While they may not have to worry about makeup, men do worry about these things. IMHO you're trying to make a sexist argument where no exists.

 

[xffan624]

I have kind of the opposite problem. I was raised in a very plain household and am very plain myself. I'm a woman, but I've literally never worn heels, makeup, or jewelry, and some comments on these boards and particularly the women's interview clothing threads seem to suggest that being "too plain" is just as "bad" as having purple hair or piercings. I'm quite feminine am fine wearing a skirt and flats and a blouse--i.e. fine for actually being a doctor--but am nervous when I read a list of "requirements" for professionalism that include makeup, heels, and jewelry and the suggestion that if anyone deviates from more than one requirement they consider themselves a "special flower" who doesn't need to comply to the "rules." (Sorry for using so many quotes here!)

So I'm pretty terrified of interviews, which obviously require this style of "professionalism." I feel like however I try to put myself together I will fail. If I try to be the adcom definition of professional I'll look like a clown because I have no experience with that (think, I guess, of your 7th grader trying to wear mom's makeup), but if I don't wear heels, jewelry, and makeup I will get rejected based on my "unprofessional" appearance despite wearing a suit and being clean and groomed. To be honest, and I'm not trying to start another war here, but it seems kind of sexist. If I were a guy I could wear a suit and not worry about the accoutrements women are expected to spend countless hours worrying about. It says something that I'm more concerned about shoes, jewelry, and makeup than I am about the actual interview.

I do agree that societal expectations of professionalism need to be changed, particularly with regard to women, but as a lowly applicant I realize I'm not in a position to change anything, which still leaves me at a crossroads.

I definitely feel your pain. I was in the Army for 5 1/2 years so wearing makeup or jewelry beyond some coverup was something that was not required or even appropriate in a professional setting for females. I have started to do a little eyeshadow and mascara since I've been in school when I go to the clinic. Unfortunately it is somewhat of an expectation in the clinic for females. Definitely a double standard! Still don't bother with the jewelry, but I might get my ears pierced again for third year.

 

[mehc012]

Firstly, sex sells; men are biologically more attentive to beauty. Make up makes most women more attractive, therefore increasing their likability.
Secondly, I am only a male here, but can you not find someone to help with the outfit? Keep in mind the interview will be the first of many..

I would venture that heels actually have far more impact on that front then make up. To be honest, I typically find it the way those people wear makeup is highly unattractive, and many of my guy friends agree. However, heels cause you to walk and hold yourself entirely different differently. I'm not comfortable in them, so I still don't plan to wear them, but if you were to make one change, I would stick to heels.

 

[Winged Scapula]

I had not gotten the impression that makeup, jewelry, or heels were requirements. If they are, someone please enlighten me, because I currently have no intention of wearing any of the above, even during interviews.

They are not by any means requirements.

However, they are considered more professional and as noted above, can enhance attractiveness. Males and females respond more positively to attractive people. These things are under your control which is why the recommendation for interviews has been given.

 

[fancymylotus]

how big of a deal? it's a dip dye~so only the bottom parts of my hair, and i think i'll be able to hide it reasonably well, but does anybody have experience with this?

Use a semi-permanent dye the color of your natural hair and get rid of the purple, at least for the interview. If your hair is naturally dark, that should blend the ends into your natural darker color..

 

[mehc012]

They are not by any means requirements.

However, they are considered more professional and as noted above, can enhance attractiveness. Males and females respond more positively to attractive people. These things are under your control which is why the recommendation for interviews has been given.

No worries then, I am plenty attractive without makeup which I don't know how to apply, heels which I don't know how to walk in, or jewelry beyond the basic professional watch.

I'll definitely wear some nice shoes, but unless the interviewers think that falling on your face makes you more attractive, I'm skipping the heels! If I have to walk around all day, look at their school, or even just stand for a while, there is no way that I'm going to have pinched toes while all of the guys have normal, comfortable singh.

 

[Dr Van Helsing]

I would venture that heels actually have far more impact on that front then make up. To be honest, I typically find it the way those people wear makeup is highly unattractive, and many of my guy friends agree. However, heels cause you to walk and hold yourself entirely different differently. I'm not comfortable in them, so I still don't plan to wear them, but if you were to make one change, I would stick to heels.

Guys will always say women look better without make up. They are usually lying, or at the very best exaggerating the awesomeness of a natural face.
I do not care for heels, but other males do.
Most men care about the face, the body, and then the clothes, in that order.
Think about all the handsome men with a gorgeous girl who is chubby or disproportionate.
Make up is a necessity either way; it shows one cares because it takes more effort than not applying make up.

 

[Winged Scapula]

No worries then, I am plenty attractive without makeup which I don't know how to apply, heels which I don't know how to walk in, or jewelry beyond the basic professional watch.

Fair enough although I would venture that if you are intelligent enough to get into medical school you are bright enough to learn how to apply some makeup or walk in heels. You might want to back off on the implication that people who wear makeup do so because they are less attractive as its the rare person who doesn't look at least a little better with some. But that's an argument for another day.

I'll definitely wear some nice shoes, but unless the interviewers think that falling on your face makes you more attractive, I'm skipping the heels! If I have to walk around all day, look at their school, or even just stand for a while, there is no way that I'm going to have pinched toes while all of the guys have normal, comfortable singh.

If your heels leave you with "pinched toes" then you are buying the wrong size, or style for you. There is no reason that heels inherently have to be uncomfortable.

 

[mehc012]

Guys will always say women look better without make up. They are usually lying, or at the very best exaggerating the awesomeness of a natural face.
I do not care for heels, but other males do.
Most men care about the face, the body, and then the clothes, in that order.
Think about all the handsome men with a gorgeous girl who is chubby or disproportionate.
Make up is a necessity either way; it shows one cares because it takes more effort than not applying make up.

If you've applied your makeup correctly, nobody can really 100% tell that you're wearing it. If they can, you did it wrong and it generally looks bad.

I suppose that I hang out with a different group of guys than you, because I've always heard the priority being the body.

 

[Dr Van Helsing]

No worries then, I am plenty attractive without makeup which I don't know how to apply, heels which I don't know how to walk in, or jewelry beyond the basic professional watch.

I'll definitely wear some nice shoes, but unless the interviewers think that falling on your face makes you more attractive, I'm skipping the heels! If I have to walk around all day, look at their school, or even just stand for a while, there is no way that I'm going to have pinched toes while all of the guys have normal, comfortable singh.

Than you are probably an exception to the rule.
Personally, I think heels are very primitive; they look so awkward and forced to me.

 

[Winged Scapula]

Guys will always say women look better without make up. They are usually lying, or at the very best exaggerating the awesomeness of a natural face.

I don't think they're lying (in most cases); I think they don't realize when women are wearing makeup unless its patently obvious. The gossip magazines and on-line sites are full of "celebrities without makeup" stories and its clear that many of the women are wearing mascara, lip gloss etc but the male (and sometimes, female) editors don't recognize it.

Most men care about the face, the body, and then the clothes, in that order.
Think about all the handsome men with a gorgeous girl who is chubby or disproportionate.

I've always assumed the opposite - men care about body first, then face. I do think it changes with age and the order reverses, but I see a lot of unattractive women with great bodies who seem to blind men to anything above the neck.

 

[janmcat]

Thanks for your response Winged Scapula! I'm really relieved to hear from such a reliable source that I misunderstood the advice in that thread. There was a checklist there, primarily for the benefit of clueless women like me, and it was noted that more than one deviation from the checklist wouldn't be so great at the interview. The checklist was really helpful for me though, and I really appreciate you taking your time to advise folks like me! I'm not sure you know how much it helps I want to be the best doctor I can be and learning how to get through formal situations like these is part of it.

I'm not sure I agree with you on the sexist part though. Women worry about each thing you mentioned that men worry about (with the exception of the tie) PLUS all this extra stuff. I will never forget when a friend who works in finance had a broken foot and was in a boot for a while. This happened to be during the time she was interviewing for new positions, and not wearing heels to the interview wasn't even a consideration for her; she said that a woman not in heels would never get the job. As she's pretty high up I tend to take her word on that. She bemoaned the fact she wasn't a man and could just wear flats, but as a woman heels were a necessity for her and she took off the boot and made it through the day in heels, risking re-injuring her foot. It sounds like doctors are a bit more forgiving when it comes to that double standard, which unfortunately is still prevalent in some sectors. (I said she should show up in the boot and that nobody would hold a broken foot against her. The look on her face when I said that showed me just how out of touch I was )

 

[Dr Van Helsing]

If you've applied your makeup correctly, nobody can really 100% tell that you're wearing it. If they can, you did it wrong and it generally looks bad.

I suppose that I hang out with a different group of guys than you, because I've always heard the priority being the body.

It is really subjective. That was my 2 cents as being a male.
When I have a gorgeous girl over to my house I won't mind my family seeing her; mind you "she," in this example, is fit.
However, if I have a girl over who is not cute with the same body, I sneak her up to my room.

 

[fancymylotus]

Than you are probably an exception to the rule.
Personally, I think heels are very primitive; they look so awkward and forced to me.

you would hate me IRL then, i love my pretty heels

 

[fancymylotus]

also i think girls who CAN walk properly in heels and girls who CANT make all the difference in the world- there are some people on whom even a 2 inch heel would look awkward

 

[Dr Van Helsing]

you would hate me IRL then, i love my pretty heels

It is not that I detest the look. Personally, I see them as extremely non-practical and funny.
I could never h8 u shh.

 

[fancymylotus]

It is not that I detest the look. Personally, I see them as extremely non-practical and funny.
I could never h8 u shh.

Theyre totally non practical, and standing and working for 6+ hours in some heels is not the most comfortable thing, but if I have a CE or an event or something to attend right after work, I'll either bring heels to work and change(shoes make or break an outfit!!!!) or just deal with it and wear the heels all day.

bff

 

[Dr Van Helsing]

I don't think they're lying (in most cases); I think they don't realize when women are wearing makeup unless its patently obvious. The gossip magazines and on-line sites are full of "celebrities without makeup" stories and its clear that many of the women are wearing mascara, lip gloss etc but the male (and sometimes, female) editors don't recognize it.



I've always assumed the opposite - men care about body first, then face. I do think it changes with age and the order reverses, but I see a lot of unattractive women with great bodies who seem to blind men to anything above the neck.

Interesting. I don't know, now I'm thinking of a perfect ass and the face is starting to melt away.. Just kidding.
To each his own.
What about you women?
I think you prioritize body. If I take a month of from the gym I am invisible; but, when I start running miles and lifting again, it is as if I'm a different person lol.
PS I need to get off SDN and go to the gym lol.

 

[Winged Scapula]

What about you women?
I think you prioritize body. If I take a month of from the gym I am invisible; but, when I start running miles and lifting its like I'm a different person lol.
PS I need to get off SDN and go to the gym lol.

I don't pretend to speak for all women but I'd venture face first then body.

The way I see it, fat can be fixed, ugly can't (short of surgery). Of course that's "within reason"; being morbidly obese makes facial attractiveness hard to appreciate.

I'm watching a movie with Richard Gere right now; even as an older man, he is much more attractive to me than someone with an unattractive face but good body. Let's use these 3 as an example: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_JH7AyhEPdVs/SvRUYkh6QgI/AAAAAAAAA8I/SR8Q1pImymw/s1600-h/butterfaces.jpg

 

[mehc012]

also i think girls who CAN walk properly in heels and girls who CANT make all the difference in the world- there are some people on whom even a 2 inch heel would look awkward

That would be me. It is a calculated decision not to wear them because when I do, the lack of stability/control in my ankles is even more evident than when I try to ski!

 

[Winged Scapula]

Thanks for your response Winged Scapula! I'm really relieved to hear from such a reliable source that I misunderstood the advice in that thread. There was a checklist there, primarily for the benefit of clueless women like me, and it was noted that more than one deviation from the checklist wouldn't be so great at the interview. The checklist was really helpful for me though, and I really appreciate you taking your time to advise folks like me! I'm not sure you know how much it helps I want to be the best doctor I can be and learning how to get through formal situations like these is part of it.

Bear in mind that these threads are offering advice on "final touches"; they were not meant as a checklist in which any variance from which means rejection. Presenting a professional image is important for interviews, in a patient setting and beyond. Learning to do so will enrich you and your career in many ways. I'm glad to be of service.

I'm not sure I agree with you on the sexist part though. Women worry about each thing you mentioned that men worry about (with the exception of the tie) PLUS all this extra stuff. I will never forget when a friend who works in finance had a broken foot and was in a boot for a while. This happened to be during the time she was interviewing for new positions, and not wearing heels to the interview wasn't even a consideration for her; she said that a woman not in heels would never get the job. As she's pretty high up I tend to take her word on that. She bemoaned the fact she wasn't a man and could just wear flats, but as a woman heels were a necessity for her and she took off the boot and made it through the day in heels, risking re-injuring her foot. It sounds like doctors are a bit more forgiving when it comes to that double standard, which unfortunately is still prevalent in some sectors. (I said she should show up in the boot and that nobody would hold a broken foot against her. The look on her face when I said that showed me just how out of touch I was )

Perhaps we differ in our definition of sexism. I don't believe that just because the dress expectations are different for men and women that is inherently sexist. Men are expected to wear a tie. Women are not. If your friend wasn't hired because she was a woman, then that is sexist. I do find it hard to believe that she wouldn't have been offered a position because of the boot and wearing a flat, but since finance is not a world I'm familiar with, I'll have to take your word for it. I suspect however she was overstating the case (as do many users here who seem to believe that if they don't have the appropriate shade of blouse or perfect sized pearl earrings, that they'll be rejected).

 

[Winged Scapula]

That would be me. It is a calculated decision not to wear them because when I do, the lack of stability/control in my ankles is even more evident than when I try to ski!

You know its a learned skill, just like skiing!

 

[janmcat]

Perhaps we differ in our definition of sexism. I don't believe that just because the dress expectations are different for men and women that is inherently sexist. Men are expected to wear a tie. Women are not. If your friend wasn't hired because she was a woman, then that is sexist. I do find it hard to believe that she wouldn't have been offered a position because of the boot and wearing a flat, but since finance is not a world I'm familiar with, I'll have to take your word for it. I suspect however she was overstating the case (as do many users here who seem to believe that if they don't have the appropriate shade of blouse or perfect sized pearl earrings, that they'll be rejected).

To me it's an extension of the same theme. If you're not hired because you aren't wearing heels, and heels are an expectation for women only, then that means you weren't hired because you were a woman. When it's a situation where if you were a man wearing flats you would have been hired but because you're a woman wearing flats, you aren't, that's sexism to me. I can see how opinions differ on this, though I do think that in 100 years we'll see less of the strict dress dichotomy that we see today. After all, 100 years ago women wearing pant and not skirts/dresses would have been scandalous! Too bad I won't be around to see if my prediction holds true

(On another note, I think a lot of my discomfort from the differing standards of dress stems not so much from the fact that they're different, but from *how* they are different. Women are expected to invest lots more time and money into making themselves seem attractive than men are. They paint their face to hide their flaws, they wear heels to make their legs seem longer. Men don't have flawless faces, but they aren't expected to hide it to the same extent. One thing that men are supposed to wear that women aren't are ties, but a tie does not affect a man's perceived attractiveness. This isn't just me spouting nonsense, it's actually a thing that people have studied.)

I do tend to believe my friend on this one. I'm a non-trad in my upper 20s and my friend is in her upper 30s, has worked in finance for over 15 years, and manages several departments so I'm not talking about a 23-year-old fresh out of college here. She's the opposite of dramatic, a very hard worker, and I think it's just reflective of the climate in finance. Much more of a here today and gone tomorrow field. There are some absolute horror stories I could share about what people were fired for in her company.

But now I'm completely derailing the thread, which I never meant to do. Apologies to the purple-haired OP. I hope we all are successful at navigating these unknown waters, whatever that may look like to each of us!

 

[mehc012]

You know its a learned skill, just like skiing!

I spent several years wearing heels (thicker, 'easy to walk in' ones no less) frequently as required for my orchestra events. I gained proficiency at falling without protecting myself because I had to use both arms to hold my cello above my head in safety as I wiped out. Sadly, I did not gain proficiency at not falling while walking in them - a wipeout wasn't a common thing, but it wasn't rare either.

I really do have floppy ankles - I can walk around and completely comfortably bear full weight with both ankles fully inverted, such that the soles of my feet are entirely out of contact with the ground. I don't even try to not twist my ankle while playing sports...I just let them invert and it causes me no problems, maybe a twinge if I was turning or stopping.

At any rate, you are right...I could certainly learn if I put a fair amount of effort in, as I'm actually a pretty coordinated and athletic person. However, I don't think the benefits of heels (cosmetic) outweigh the downsides (every other consideration ever), and it seems weird to me that women have to wear torture devices in order to look 'professional' when really what they do is more 'sexy'. Just not my jam, I'll take my risks in shoes which look nice and which I am so comfortable wearing that I don't ever think about them!

 

[fancymylotus]

I spent several years wearing heels (thicker, 'easy to walk in' ones no less) frequently as required for my orchestra events. I gained proficiency at falling without protecting myself because I had to use both arms to hold my cello above my head in safety as I wiped out. Sadly, I did not gain proficiency at not falling while walking in them - a wipeout wasn't a common thing, but it wasn't rare either.

I really do have floppy ankles - I can walk around and completely comfortably bear full weight with both ankles fully inverted, such that the soles of my feet are entirely out of contact with the ground. I don't even try to not twist my ankle while playing sports...I just let them invert and it causes me no problems, maybe a twinge if I was turning or stopping.

At any rate, you are right...I could certainly learn if I put a fair amount of effort in, as I'm actually a pretty coordinated and athletic person. However, I don't think the benefits of heels (cosmetic) outweigh the downsides (every other consideration ever), and it seems weird to me that women have to wear torture devices in order to look 'professional' when really what they do is more 'sexy'. Just not my jam, I'll take my risks in shoes which look nice and which I am so comfortable wearing that I don't ever think about them!

Hey, I have my days when I show up to work in pink ugg slippers, but those are my IDGAF days and its usually like under 10 degrees F outside

 

[fancymylotus]

Bear in mind that these threads are offering advice on "final touches"; they were not meant as a checklist in which any variance from which means rejection. Presenting a professional image is important for interviews, in a patient setting and beyond. Learning to do so will enrich you and your career in many ways. I'm glad to be of service.



Perhaps we differ in our definition of sexism. I don't believe that just because the dress expectations are different for men and women that is inherently sexist. Men are expected to wear a tie. Women are not. If your friend wasn't hired because she was a woman, then that is sexist. I do find it hard to believe that she wouldn't have been offered a position because of the boot and wearing a flat, but since finance is not a world I'm familiar with, I'll have to take your word for it. I suspect however she was overstating the case (as do many users here who seem to believe that if they don't have the appropriate shade of blouse or perfect sized pearl earrings, that they'll be rejected).

SPEAKING OF WHICH, there is this gorgeous mikimoto necklace I am lusting after. It has this pink jeweled clasp...I cant even. :/

 

[mehc012]

Hey, I have my days when I show up to work in pink ugg slippers, but those are my IDGAF days and its usually like under 10 degrees F outside

If you like wearing heels, it's a totally different ballgame!

It's like coffee...I don't like the taste. I could probably learn to like it, but there are several perfectly good substitutes which work better for me, so why put in the effort to be able to participate in something which I like less than my current?