If anything (and I have this from a reliable source — namely myself), it will be a sincere relief to the male engineers around her to finally interact with an intelligent and competent woman who is easily recognizable as female. So many of the few females who venture into that domain are veritably indistinguishable from their male colleagues. This is the problem in engineering, and not that the men are in any danger of going into diabetic shock at the sight of a cute smile and even cuter shoes.
Not only should highly intelligent women not attempt to behave in a masculine manner, I would posit that they should not even attempt to behave in a sex-neutral manner. The very idea that intelligent working women should cloak their beauty, vivacious charm, and pleasant personalities with boxy pants-suits and dour expressions is an aspect of feminism that I roundly denounce.Notionally, I join Alte in being open to women who are easily and openly identifiable as women--both in mannerisms and in dress--in the workplace. Moreover, I suppose unfeminine behavior and appearance is less a problem in the pink ghettoes and more an issue in the stereotypically masculine professions and occupations, where women feel pressure to masculinize themselves to fit in, or worse, overcompensate by being gruff, hyper-aggressive, bitchy and all over unpleasant to work with or be around. Added to this is selection effect: more masculine occupations tend to attract women with more masculine traits...one can easily see how male-heavy occupations tend to be chock-a-block full of unfeminine-appearing and -behaving women.
That is not to say that I do not have reservations with suddenly green-lighting feminine dress in the workplace, however. In these days of loosed female sexuality, I suspect that a great many women do not know the line between appropriate and inappropriate attire at the workplace--viz all the wardrobe "fails" in God's house on Sundays--and that classy "feminine" dress may easily slip into provocative "feral female" dress. Confounding matters further is that what is considered classy or provocative varies from woman to woman, from situation to situation, and from man to man, thus setting up a situation where it is difficult for women to know what the standards are or craft standards that apply in all places and times. Thus I can appreciate how difficult it is and will be to hit a moving target. Then again, the similar situation already applies to male behavior in the workplace wrt sexual harassment law--where the standard is how the recipient "feels" about certain behaviors, these feelings being unique to different women in different situations and different locales--and this varying, changing, situationally dependent standard is applied without mercy to unwitting or insufficiently attractive men. Thus, in the spirit of what is good for the gander is good for the goose, a similar lowest-common-denominator "hostile work environment" standard for provocative dress seems appropriate.
In the end, I would welcome women behaving more feminine in the workplace. But I can easily see that, without some adjustments that restrict feminine autonomy and require accountability to the standards of their coworkers, it can easily go off the rails.