Jane's Posts

Feb 29 2004 12:52 pm

but it never occurred to me that multi-colored underwear could be an issue. Do you mind if I ask the reasoning behind that?

Weehaw! We haven't had a good underwear discussion in ages.

I'm intrigued by those thin bandeau things that I see in the stores lately. The ones that are two to three inches wide and look like a stripe across your hips. The look madly cool, but I'm concerned that they might affect the human anatomy differently than they do a mannequin. Bulging above or below could be disastrous.

jane

Feb 29 2004 9:04 pm

It's exactly the same thing, imposing your view of what is right or appropriate on others.
Wendy

Right. And if I lose business because the client is insulted that my representative thinks it's OK to show up at a business meeting in shorts and a tank top, then pretty soon all the people I pay are out of a job.

That's just stupid.

If the client is stupid enough to be insulted that the person I chose to represent me is Black, then maybe his business isn't a huge loss. But if the person I send can't even be arsed to show a little respect for the client and his workplace by dressing appropriately, then I don't see that as defensible. I would expect my representative to dress conservatively, use profanity-free language and not eat with his hands or get drunk at a business lunch. All of these things are within the realm of appropriate behavior, and as an employer, yes, I *am* defining what's right or appropriate **in the people who represent me and my business**. I'm astonished that you don't think that that's reasonable.
Vicki

I don't think it's reasonable because I've been on the screwed side of the "conservative dress" issue all my life. You're even older than I am, so I don't understand why it doesn't bother you too. It pisses me right off that I can't go to some board meetings or into some court rooms without wearing a dress. I'm still angry about walking to school in a skirt even if it was 20 below for 12 years. Even today, when Lee's going to some youth leadership thing, she's supposed to wear a skirt. It really chaps my cheeks - sometimes literally.

jane

Mar 01 2004 3:50 pm

I find myself nodding yes both to Vicki and to you, Jane. The fact is that people will judge you by your appearance. What judgement they make may depend on who your clients are...'frumpy and formal' could be one just as easily as 'way-out weird.' Given that you will in fact be judged, a dress code just simplifies your life. It makes it easy to pick out clothes appropriate to the occasion without thinking about it.

I don't have any problem with people judging me by the way I dress. The way I dress says a lot about me. They might not get what it is, but I expect people to use the tools they have. That's actually part of the reason why it burns my ass to be forced to wear certain clothes. People are judging me on those clothes, and what they're seeing isn't me. It's dishonest to them and denigrating to me.

And almost all my suits are pant-suits, which seems to work out fine in 95% of business situations.

Yabbut don't you resent the 5% of the time you have to spend in drag? There are times I choose to wear dresses. It's sort of exciting and dangerous, all that skin and thighs rubbing together and nothing between your genitals and the ground but some silk. But I'm not looking for the exposed and sexy and vulnerable feeling in a business setting. I want everything tucked in and zipped, just like the guys.

I guess what we need is to push the dress-codes towards being sensible, rather than assuming we can abolish them. It seems to me that abolishing dress codes just sets up another criterion for discrimination -- by how someone dresses.

You know, I don't consider that discrimination. I'm fine with using sartorial choice as a basis for distinguishing among people.

Rational and necessary dress requirements I'm okay with. I don't see limitation of sartorial freedom the ultimate evil of the world. What bugs the crap out of me is the idea that it's no big deal and of course people have no valid claim to the right to wear what they want, after all this is business, where are your priorities? I'm pissed. This subject pisses me right off. I don't know if it's the chapped knees or having to go into business meetings in drag or the inanity of school dress codes or just all of it.

jane

Mar 02 2004 10:03 am

Well, businesses aren't democracies, are they? They're dictatorships.
They're dictatorships that can't deny you an exit visa, but the only thing that stops them from telling you what to do is (a) the law and (b) the risk that you'll leave. That's what all those labor laws and stuff are for.

I'm not necessarily arguing that there should be labor laws against companies dictating clothing unless they can prove it is directly related to job performance. I would support a constitutional amendment guaranteeing individuals the right to be free from pantyhose and polyester.

But I don't agree that it's just laws and quitting. Business responds to societal influences.

Screw it. I do think there should be laws against companies dictating clothing. Why not? Protect individuals' right to freedom of expression. Why should that be secondary to business's right to convey the image they want?

jane

Mar 02 2004 1:04 pm

Because the freedom of expression occurs within the private realm of someone else's business. It's not public.

I'm surprised that you consider a business a private place not a public place. I'm pretty sure it's generally accepted to be public.

Because in addition to the right to express yourself, you also have the right to work elsewhere if the conditions are not acceptable to you. Because the purpose of a business is to be profitable, and a dress code is directly related to image, which is marketing, and the owners/management have the right - no, the responsibility - to make the decisions that will prove to be best for the company in terms of its business plan.

Well, they might have the responsibility, but that doesn't mean they have the right. I can't think of an area of law that doesn't impinge on business's ability to convey the image they want. Zoning laws, civil rights laws, securities law, Truth In Lending, Equal Employment, Fair Trade Acts, Consumer Protection Acts, ADA, censorship laws, sexual harrassment ... that's just off the top of my head. We regulate business behavior just like we do individual behavior. Businesses don't have the same fundamental rights that individuals do, so we really have way more latitude to legislate what is in society's best interest.

Everybody has choices here. Nobody is oppressed.

I don't see what choice or oppression has to do with anything. I have social goals I want to advance: individual freedom of expression, diversity in the work force, and banning discrimination against women. That might interfere somewhat with companies' ability to foster a corporate image, but so what? That's not a goal I'm worried about or that I care about advancing.

jane

Mar 02 2004 8:00 pm

I'm surprised that you consider a business a private place not a public place. I'm pretty sure it's generally accepted to be public.

It's private in that the ownership of the business is that of an individual or entity, not the people at large i.e. government.

I'm not seeing the significance there. Are you coming at this from the perspective that it's not constitutional because there's no state action? Because I'm not making a constitutional argument here, and to be honest I'm less hostile to uniforms in the government sector. I can almost buy the argument that government has an image to project.

I am not seeing how damages are incurred by a standard of dress.

Well, that's been covered well enough for me, but it's irrelevant to what I'm saying. There don't have to be damages or oppression. We can just do it because It's a Good Thing.

I can see how the laws above are designed to protect against specific damages. Zoning laws are designed to protect communites and individual property rights (yes, I know some property owners feel they violate them), securities law, Truth In Lending, Fair Trade Acts, Consumer Protection Acts - designed for financial protection.
Censorship laws are closer, but there are still choices.

I don't see where you're going with this. Choice isn't an issue here. We pass laws that impinge on companies' ability to project corporate image for all kinds of different reasons.

If I own a business, I also own all the financial and legal liability that goes with it. I think I should be empowered to make the best decisions I can to carry out the vision of my business, and to protect myself from the above mentioned liabilities (within the limits of the law).

Talk to me about people being empowered to make the best decisions they can, and I might get a little excited (especially if I'm wearing a skirt). The "right" to corporate image just doesn't get my heart pumping. In fact, there may be nothing I care less about protecting than business's right to project an image. I'm not seeing what financial or legal liability you're either incurring or protecting yourself against with dress codes.

jane