NP Rank:
Botswana dress code is sexist says women's group
by Amy Judd | April 1, 2009 at 01:32 pm
477 views | 22 Recommendations | 3 comments
The Botswana government have issused a ban on women civil servants wearing clothes that are too tight or too revealing and a women's group says that is sexist.
The new rules state that if women come to work in too tight skirts or trousers or sleeveless tops or showing too much clevage. They are also not allowed to wear headscarves or 'elaborate hairstyles'.
But the government says workers should dress in a manner appropriate for public office.
Bonolo Khumotaka, publicity secretary for the women's group Emang Basadi, told the BBC the ruling was sexist as the directive did not mention "anything about tight trousers for men".
The government is saying however, that the dress code applies to both men and women, but for women, headscarves are a traditional part of their dress.



Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (3)
at 14:00 on April 1st, 2009
I am a feminist, but I think there should be an appropriate dress code. Like in nursing, you don't see us wearing mini skirts. And men don't dress "sexy" when in public office, showing off their hairy chest. Uggg...You can look feminine and chic without looking cheap. How else would they expect to be taken seriously. Enough of women trying to sleep their way to the top, if I may say so. We are better than that. Excuse me for being so blunt.
It is only sexist if it didn't apply to men too.
at 18:24 on April 1st, 2009
For several years, I have picked up Botswana government workers who come to the Northwest to take courses to make them better at the job of government bureaucrat.
Thank you, Sara. You have said it all.
I just wanted to add that these people are extremely nice. I find it hard to imagine them imposing a cruel and/or vindictive policy on the women, who inevitably come dressed modestly, by the way.
at 18:58 on April 1st, 2009
Interesting comments -thank you.
What do you think about the banning of headscarves? do you think that was necessary?