tan@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Greer Hsing Tan) (06/02/89)
Here is a little pet peeve of mine. Physical appearance ... I'm not talking natural beauty or vogue looks, I'm talking about appearing like to took care of your dress and make-up. Question, what is the appropriate "dress" for a woman in the office? My mother thinks I ought to wear light pink, light blue, beige ... pleated pants and a silk blouse ... no argument that this is appropriate, but she holds that this is all I should wear. I tend to favor executive skirts with a tailored jacket or some times a sleeveless top (I work in a casual environment in Southern California ... it gets hot) ... she deems this totally inappropriate. So, we came to the issue of what the objective is to dress. We agreed that offering an "image", i.e. making a first impression, is really the issue. But the question is who has defined the appropriate "female" attire in the work place in the past? Was it not male employers with female secretaries? If we dress as secretaries, is that how we will be constantly perceived regardless of our job? (I'm a Software Engineer), but if we are to dress toward the position we are to achieve, what if the only Lab Directors and Executive Technical Directors have all been men in the past, does dressing in masculine clothes promote women in executive offices? I think women have come a long way in corporate America and this is no longer necessary. Do we, or do we not believe that there are quality women in the work force? Do we, or do we not believe that a woman's place is in the work force, in the home, in the field, ... whereever she feels comfortable ... as is a man's place? Comments??? Greer H. Tan
jimb@decwrl.dec.COM (Jim Burke) (06/06/89)
In article <5041@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV> tan@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Greer Hsing Tan) writes: > >We agreed that offering an "image", i.e. making >a first impression, is really the issue. But the question is who has >defined the appropriate "female" attire in the work place in the past? >Was it not male employers with female secretaries? I have often wondered who it was that defined the "appropriate" male attire in the workplace as being a conservative suit (grey or navy) with white or pastel shirt and conservative tie. Not a lot of variety. Seems to me that the purpose behind such "rules" is to demonstrate to customers a level of maturity in order to obtain their confidence. Thus, any mode of dress that achieves that goal should be appropriate. Guess I'll have to leave my plaid pants in the closet a while longer... -- Jim Burke (mas1!jimb) Measurex Corp. {...}pyramid!voder!mas1!jimb One Results Way {...}apple.com!mas1!jimb Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 255-1500 ext. 2014
marla@Sun.COM (Marla Parker) (06/08/89)
In article <5041@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV> tan@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Greer Hsing Tan) writes: >Here is a little pet peeve of mine. Physical appearance ... > >Question, what is the appropriate "dress" for a woman in the office? My >mother thinks I ought to wear light pink, light blue, beige ... >......(I'm a Software Engineer), I, too, am a Software Engineer. My belief is that I am paid to use my brain, not to look pleasant in the office. I dress for comfort. Occasionally I will dress up for fun or because I have plans for the evening, but never just for work. I cannot bring myself to pay the big bucks required for a well-tailored, executive wardrobe. If/when I go into management I'll maybe consider it. There is a well-respected & popular female manager here whose style might best be described as "dumpy housewife". Obviously her wardrobe isn't holding her back. Also, I make a point of not wearing sexy things at work, even subtle sexy things. When I am talking to another engineer, I want them to be listening to me, not admiring/abhoring my outfit. How do your male peers dress (assuming they outnumber the females, as they do here)? If they all wear ties every day, then I suppose that you ought to wear tailored outfits to fit in. In my group, nobody below a Director wears a tie, so I never wear stockings, much less a suit. Marla Parker (415)336-2538 marla@sun.com
pettit@decwrl.dec.COM (Teri Pettit) (06/09/89)
In article <5041@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV> tan@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Greer Hsing Tan) writes: > >Question, what is the appropriate "dress" for a woman in the office? My >mother thinks I ought to wear light pink, light blue, beige ... pleated >pants and a silk blouse ... no argument that this is appropriate, but she >holds that this is all I should wear. It depends on whose office. What is appropriate at a bank is different than what is appropriate at a music production company is different than what is appropriate at a software company. Your mother must be blind to the variety of office environments there are in the real world. >I tend to favor executive skirts >with a tailored jacket or some times a sleeveless top (I work in a >casual environment in Southern California ... it gets hot) You call executive skirts with a tailored jacket "casual"? I wear blue jeans and T-shirts or cotton shirts to work almost every day. (I'm a software engineer too.) A lot of the second level managers also wear jeans to work, except on days they have meetings with Japanese businessmen (Japanese businesswomen seem to be a nonexistent breed) or IBM representatives :-) This is appropriate here. It wouldn't be everywhere. >So, we came to the issue of what the >objective is to dress. We agreed that offering an "image", i.e. making >a first impression, is really the issue. I would say it is more a matter of expressing an attitude towards ones coworkers and associates. This attitude is much more pervasive than a "first impression." It is also why people will dress differently depending on how the people they are going to be meeting with that day tend to dress. It has more to do with expressing an attitude of "I will respect your conventions and values while we are working together" than it does with what image you want them to have of you. >But the question is who has >defined the appropriate "female" attire in the work place in the past? >Was it not male employers with female secretaries? If we dress as >secretaries, is that how we will be constantly perceived regardless >of our job? Yes, if the secretaries in your environment tend to dress one way and women in different positions tend to dress another way, and you dress like the secretaries, I think you will tend to be perceived like one. But I don't think this is particularly sexist. A very similar dynamic occurs with men as well. They dress differently depending on whether they want to fit in with the technical types or the marketting types or the artistic types or whatever role divisions tend to exist in their workplace. (The dress you favor tends to be seen as a marketting, sales, or non-technical management type around here. Secretaries tend to wear more colorful, less tailored dresses and sometimes pants and blouses or sweaters.) > but if we are to dress toward >the position we are to achieve, what if the only Lab Directors and >Executive Technical Directors have all been men in the past, does dressing >in masculine clothes promote women in executive offices? Not in many places. Even in "dress for success" type environments (like investment banking), "masculine looking" suits for women are seldom seen. I think pants for women are much more acceptable in very casual environments like us jeans-wearing software types than they are in more "business-look" environments. Employers and coworkers tend to look more favorably on women who dress like "one of the gang", whatever the gang in question dresses like, but not necessarily "one of the guys." It sounds like you've scoped out your particular workplace fine, and your mother should spend a few weeks there if she wants to be well-informed enough to critique your wardrobe. Teri Pettit adobe!pettit@decwrl.dec.com
onymouse@ncar.UCAR.EDU (John DeBert) (06/22/89)
in article <16684@paris.ics.uci.edu>, sun!apple!mas1!jimb@decwrl.dec.COM (Jim Burke) says: > Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu > > In article <5041@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV> tan@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Greer Hsing Tan) writes: >> > > I have often wondered who it was that defined the "appropriate" male > attire in the workplace as being a conservative suit (grey or navy) > with white or pastel shirt and conservative tie. Not a lot of > variety. Seems to me that the purpose behind such "rules" is to > demonstrate to customers a level of maturity in order to obtain their > confidence. Thus, any mode of dress that achieves that goal should be > appropriate. Guess I'll have to leave my plaid pants in the closet a > while longer... > (This reply is probably not what some would consider appropriate to the discussion of feminism but there are connections which will no doubt come up soon in other discussion, such as how women and feminism threaten men.) The reason for making men all dress the same way is to make them all appear the same. By dressing the same as all the other men, you show that you are reliable, dependable and predictable. You show that you are like all the other men, thatyou are what society expects a man to be, i.e., mature, responsible, "masculine," entirely predictable and therefore dependable. In business, such conformity is essential to the smooth running of "men's" business world. Nothing frightens a businessman so much as being unable to predict what a colleague or another person with whom he deals will do. If you want to intimidate, distract or cause him to be insecure and uncomfortable, dress appropriately. :) It is especially effective with salesmen and subordinates. J DeBert onymouse@netcom.UUCP > > -- > Jim Burke (mas1!jimb) Measurex Corp. > {...}pyramid!voder!mas1!jimb One Results Way > {...}apple.com!mas1!jimb Cupertino, CA 95014 > (408) 255-1500 ext. 2014
williamt@athena1.Sun.COM (William A. Turnbow) (06/22/89)
In article <18423@paris.ics.uci.edu> ames!claris!apple!netcom!onymouse@ncar.UCAR.EDU (John DeBert) writes: > By dressing the same as all the other men, you show >that you are reliable, dependable and predictable. You show that you >are like all the other men, thatyou are what society expects a man to >be, i.e., mature, responsible, "masculine," entirely predictable and >therefore dependable... ----------- Question. If that is truely the way men judge others, then wouldn't the obvious trait -- dressing non-standardly have the opposite effect? Wouldn't this even, perhaps on an unconscious level, even be more of a problem for women? Women generally take pride in not wearing the same as another. And they are obviously going to be attired differently than a man. Isn't this a built-in problem then if women want acceptance in the work place? It seems that men's perceptions of what is important relating to attire must be changed. The measure of this, truely, then it would seem, would be when men can dress anyway they choose without censure by other men. In a side discussion I had with someone else, I mentioned that for true equality of the sexes, areas in which women have freedom and men don't must be addressed at the same time as the other side of the coin. My reasoning there was that progress must be made in both 'camps'. But using the reasoning on dress matters, it seems that men's strictures in areas of emotion and dress, at least are a covert sign of men's superiority. So either women will have to change and start dressing in dull drab blue's and black's, or they will have to convince men that it is 'ok' to dress non-drab. -wat-
onymouse@apple.com (John DeBert) (06/24/89)
In article <18464@paris.ics.uci.edu>, williamt@athena1.Sun.COM (William A. Turnbow) says: > In article <18423@paris.ics.uci.edu> ames!claris!apple!netcom!onymouse@ncar.UCAR.EDU (John DeBert) writes: >> By dressing the same as all the other men, you show >>that you are reliable, dependable and predictable. You show that you >>are like all the other men, thatyou are what society expects a man to >>be, i.e., mature, responsible, "masculine," entirely predictable and >>therefore dependable... > Question. If that is truely the way men judge others, then > wouldn't the obvious trait -- dressing non-standardly have the > opposite effect? Wouldn't this even, perhaps on an unconscious level, > even be more of a problem for women? Women generally take pride in > not wearing the same as another. And they are obviously going to be > attired differently than a man. Isn't this a built-in problem then if > women want acceptance in the work place? For some strange reason, people generally want all men to be the same. By `people,' I am referring to women as well as men. In Western society, it seems that there is a strong emphasis placed on conformity among men. It is so deeply ingrained in society that to dress in the standard tie, vest, business suit and so on automatically means that such a person is someone who is dependable and so on, regardless of the person's true character. Dressing non-standardly automatically implies unreliability, shiftlessness and other negative aspects. Women are affected by the same attitude in similar ways: Dressing conservatively, she is automatically seen as being more competent than one who does not. Dressed fashionably or provocatively, she is seen as immature, a `floozie,' `tart,' or some such. Women are still not generally accepted in the workplace - not to the degree that men are - but they are tolerated. A woman is more likely to be acccepted if she dresses and acts conservatively. She doesn't have to work four times as hard to prove that she's at least half as good as a man, only about twice as hard. > It seems that men's perceptions of what is important relating > to attire must be changed. The measure of this, truely, then it would > seem, would be when men can dress anyway they choose without censure > by other men. Everybody's perceptions must change. Everyone has been taught from birth what is acceptable and what is not. It is on the television every minute of every day. It is constantly taught in schools (they still use social propaganda materials from the fifties!) and is still in many books, movies et cetera. > In a side discussion I had with someone else, I mentioned that > for true equality of the sexes, areas in which women have freedom and > men don't must be addressed at the same time as the other side of the > coin. My reasoning there was that progress must be made in both > 'camps'. But using the reasoning on dress matters, it seems that > men's strictures in areas of emotion and dress, at least are a covert > sign of men's superiority. So either women will have to change and > start dressing in dull drab blue's and black's, or they will have to > convince men that it is 'ok' to dress non-drab. I think that men are locked into tighter limitations than are women. Women are `permitted` to do virtually anything while men are not. Whatever women do, it is not taken as seriously as it would be if a man were to do it. I have a lot of trouble figuring that out but it seems to be true. For example, gay men are far more hostility (by other men, usually) than are lesbian women. Lesbian women are treated with hostility by other women, true, but it is far less overt than the hostility shown by men to other men and they are tolerated much more even by women than are gay men. Men's strictures on emotion and dress do not imply any kind of superiority. Rather, such strictures are not evidence of superiority. Too often, underneath the surface of a conservative man, one finds an enormous sense of insecurity and repressed feelings, amongst other things. Many so-called conservative men are truly incapable of dealing with emotion in a mature manner, if at all. I think rather, that women tend to be much more emotionally mature than are men. JJD onymouse@netcom.UUCP