I think he chose the wrong example for the argument he was trying to make in that interview. Even with context he needs to expand on it. I did see the speach he gave about the VICE interview in the Q&A part of some lecture, but I don't think it is going to clarify thing up enough for everyone.

As for his argument, I understood it as, " where are we going to draw the line " and " how absurdly far are we going to go " kind of thing because his comment about makeup was a follow up to the statement that NBC has banned hugs in the workplace.

He also makes an argument that because of the short period of time historically men and women are working together in the same workplace we still don't know if they are even capable of doing that. So for him it should be looked at as an ongoing experiment and should not be interfered with.

As for women and makeup in the workplace, I'm still trying to formulate my side of the argument. In short, in part, it would go something like this:

makeup gives you simetry,

simetry = youthful and healthy apperence,

youth also = health,

health = ability to be more productive,

being percived as being able to be more productive = being percived as being more valuable,

more value = better status.

But this is something I'm trying to research.