Gitlab Saleswomen “told to wear short skirts, heels and 'step it up'”
theregister.co.uk
theregister.co.uk
What part is editorialized?
You know perfectly well that is not what is being implied, nor is it what people take issue with.
Why isn't a dinner gown acceptable?
Why specifically is showing off legs and sexualizing the woman a requirement?
What if they are trans f->m or non-binary and they would rather where a pant suit, or a tuxedo?
Gowns can be just as business professional, so can pant suits.
Longer if always ok
The rest is also true, except the author apparently didn't know that the hanging part of a dress and a skirt aren't synonymous (I don't think so anyway). But that has no relevance to what makes it deserving of "rage", as you say, so what are you actually referring to?
Something can be literally true, but in the mean time out of context like this.
And since we all have that one friend or colleague that's always two levels below the stipulated dress code, I also understand the urge to explain it in male / female terms. It's just more specific. If I extend my sympathy to the non-binaries, I could understand that the dividors "Men:" and "Women:" could have been dropped in the explanation. But why is that such a big thing?
I'm not following your second paragraph - it sounds like you're simply saying that the female and male version of the dress code in question have no differences in terms of respect and reasonableness in-context, but surely that's the crux of the disagreement? The point is that I find "wear a short dress and heels" to be more disrespectful than "wear a blazer/slacks/suit". I am making no comment on how those two things are comparable in other contexts, e.g. whether or not they are members of the same dress code by definition. I can't follow how that relates to respect.
>the dress code for the daytime sessions is business casual. For the Awards Dinner on Tuesday evening, we're trying to step it up a bit and ask that you dress cocktail casual (Men: blazer/sport coat, stacks, suit, Women: short but somewhat formal dress and heels)
(emphasis in original)
Point being, the original quote is asking both men and women to dress up, but the article implies, with its clickbait headline, that it’s only asking women how to dress.
And, yes, I'm still very frustrated at how, in the mid-2010s, the outrage press strongly implied that the scientific consensus states that Alcoholics Anonymous has a 5% success rate. Actually, that was just the opinion of one medical doctor and that 5% figure does not come from a peer reviewed study; the mainstream consensus is that Alcoholics Anonymous works great for the 25% or so of alcoholics who actually go to meetings regularly.
I can see where this could be offensive as some women don't like short dresses, not everyone is comfortable showing off their legs either for one reason or another...
It should've just said Dress like you're going to the Oscar's or something -without giving direction as to what that means.
seriously, this whole thing with telling people what to wear and how to act is depressing.
People seem to be getting upset here because they perceive a "short but formal" skirt as somehow sexualised or demeaning to women, whilst being asked to wear a suit isn't for men. But why do you think so many men wear suits in non-business settings? It's because women like it.
Maybe they are bio-female but identify as a man, and would rather dress as a man, or they're non-binary and go back/forth but always dress up in Tuxedo instead of Dresses, or pant-suits...
All of which can be business professional.
They could've just worded it - dress like you're going to the Academy Awards and leave it like that.
Why did you stop there?
No, they were asked to wear "short but formal skirt".
Also stepping up for both men and women, from business casual to cocktail casual
Knee-length dresses (i.e. “short dresses”) seem to reasonably fall under the definition of “cocktail casual”. For example: https://www.clbxg.com/Cocktail-Casual/
Should they have communicated less information and just said 'Cocktail casual', leaving the receivers to interpret what that means? Is the existence of 'cocktail casual' fashion itself offensive?
Actual email: "We ask that you wear...short but somewhat formal dress and heels"
Maybe they'd be more comfortable in a tuxedo, or a pant-suit.
Maybe they have a scar on their leg and they're self-conscious about and gives them trauma the thought of showing off their legs...
A stripper, no clothes.
A clown, ridiculous clothes.
Different positions require different clothing. If you don't like your job, be it for clothing or what have you, you can quit.
A male and female construction worker both wear dirty clothes and a hard hat.
A male and female stripper both wear no clothes.
A male and female clown both wear ridiculous clothes.
Whereas apparently male salesmen should be wearing short skirts and high heels? Or only women? That's the problem.
It could also be pink hats for men and and yellow umbrellas for women. Or white clothes for the elderly and brown clothes for the young. Or any other arbitrary rule.
Besides, suppose I have a shop and I discovered I sell more if I make men dress ridiculous, women dress erotic and elderly dress funny. So I require a dress code according to age/sex in order to optimize sales. What's the problem? Don't take the job if you don't want to
But the dress code wasn't "high heels and skirt," it was high heels and short skirts.
Men weren't being asked to unbutton their shirts to show off their pecs, or to wear tight pants to show off their bulge, but women were being asked to show off their legs and asses, at least implicitly.
First, it opens you up to massive sexual harassment and discrimination liability issues, and it's probably not even legal.
Second, the bad publicity will drive away good hires and lose you sales, so it's not even good business, unless maybe you're a pimp.
Third, it would make you a regressive, sexist jerk.
2- that's just your hypothesis. In my example I made the opposite hypothesis. That's irrelevant in any case.
3- The greatest jerk is the one who tries to impose their own preferences to prevent deals that have been freely accepted by all the parties involved.
I understand some groups have expectation about people dressing nice and if I'm attending, I will conform.
But my point was that everyone had a dress code imposed upon them and that it could have been handled maybe a little better. Just tell people to dress up I guess, no need to specify which sexes gets to wear what.
Girl next door, or soccer mom might less intimidating as well as the MIL for social anxiety types...
A lot of geeks have social anxiety, and are like Raj from big bang theory around the opposite sex -though I think you grow out of it when you're in your 30's esp if married and have to live with a woman.
Also dressing like a model could have an air of elitism or superiority if they're wearing like something that cost > $2k obviously.
So, I could see that also being a hinderance, people like to deal with people similar to them, or at least I could see it easier to build a rapport.
That probably goes both ways though regardless of sex. Like a car salesman in a normal suit with a mickey mouse watch or one in something a boy band artist would wear with an expensive rolex lol.
I’m gonna go out in a limb here and say it’s common for any executive to pass the buck to any subordinate. It’s human nature to not want blame.
That’s not human nature, it’s a pathological, immature state of mind.
Human nature IS an immature state. It’s our uncivilized base instinct. So yes.
The word "pathological", presumably, means "deviating from the normal". The word "normal", in its turn, has two distinct meanings: one that is about what is desirable, the other is about what is common. On these grounds, and according to the second meaning of the word "normal", I would argue that fear is not pathological, nor is the desire to escape blame. It's quite normal. Whether some people can control this desire is the question.
So, exactly the state of mind that leads one to become a business executive than?
The monetary incentives put in place already had all the saleswomen attending events dolled up to the max, because it directly affected their bottom line in a substantial way.