[quote I was stunned to learn in the U.K., maybe an old company that for professional woman, they might be still addressed as Mr. in a letter. Jeez.... old, old thinking and practices.

---

That's quite right, Orchid. I am addressed as Esq (Esquire) in correspondence but only at first instance. Further correspondence reverts in the form I wish to be addressed i.e. first name basis or titular, depending on familiarity with my counterpart. The protocol in the legal profession usually address correspondence in the masculine form in the same way countries are referred to in the feminine form because of the personality they are given. There is nothing, however, that would restrict one from using "Sir/Madam" salutations should one choose to deviate. It is just not the common practice within the legal profession. I have still to come across any form of complaints from any of my counterparts at other law firms when it is presumed they are men. Perhaps, it is because further correspondence and the accompanying conduct allow for the women in my profession to rectify that presumption. I have, on a few occasions, addressed a Vivien, Leslie, Marion and a Jocelyn, as a "Madam", only to discover that I should have referred to a "Sir".

This post is an eye opener. Our Russian sisters have a long way to go to catch up. Is there anything we can do? Are they(women) doing anything that you know of to make change, MrsM? I think you are right, it is happening elswhere.

chick

For women, I think the rationale for asking marital status is to discover whether or not the lady in question will likely be taking [expensive] long term maternity leave. I have heard here that one reason employers favor young single women is that they are certainly less likely to become pregnant and disappear from work.

As for the photo thing, it would seem self explanatory. Nobody wants to employ fat dirty ugly people. Every company wants attractive employees. I think it's not different in America except that you just can't demand photos with an application. You have to wait and waste valuable company time with personal interviews before you can discover whether or not the applicant is a dog.

Come on, we all know that looks count in this world. Brutal yes, but true.

Do you think looks overcome experience/education when a company is looking for an employee? Sad, brutal world sometimes. Fat, dirty, ugly people? Wow, that's a lot to have against one when job hunting. Fat and ugly sometimes can't be helped but dirty can wash up.

chick

If the job is client-facing/client-oriented ....in order to drum up revenue for company, yes, looks might be influential in final hiring selection.

Well, come ON.....if you have 2 women equally qualified by education, same work experience and time spent, both good intelligent people with good personal characteristics, who is going to be remembered?

OTherwise that far less attractive woman must have a dynamic /charasmatic personality. It boils down for the hiring manager/managment team, who do you feel most comfortable to share coffee with and who will stick with the firm for awhile to make employee training investment pay off?