A story I've heard more than once is that techie people are intimidated by (for lack of a better term) sexy saleswomen and that actually somebody like my mother-in-law who has had a lifetime to develop customer service skills is often more effective.
I can see where overt sexualization could be a distraction... like dressed as a model or something...esp when I was younger.
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.
Even if they were, asking someone to dress fancy is different then asking them to wear short skirts. There isn’t even a male equivalent of that sort of formal-yet-sexual attire because it’s so unimaginable that male sales reps would be demeaned in that way.
You know a lot of women find a sharply dressed man much more attractive than the same man in a hoodie, right?
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.
Yes, I myself find well dressed men more attractive than men in hoodies. But there’s a difference between dressing in a way that’s attractive and dressing in a way that’s sexualized. Being in a short skirt feels a lot more like being in a speedo than being in a suit.
You know a lot of women have self-image issues about their legs right? Maybe they don't like to show them, or have a scar?
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.
Everyone was told to "step it up". The words are twisted pretty far in that story. What they asked for was business casual for daytime then "step it up" with cocktail causal in the awards dinner, giving details what that entailed for men and women.
There are companies who's purpose is to do "real time conversational guidance and analytics". They say they can measure empathy. It's really fucked up.
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.
As with all generalizations, it's a matter of ratio. I can only speak anecdotally when I say that I've seen this happen between male execs and female subordinates more often than other combinations.
Yes. Given that women on average show higher agreeableness (as in big-5) than men, it seems likely that this dynamic would be more common with a male exec and female subordinate than in other combinations.
The part where both sexes are asked to "step it up" to the same level of "dressing up", which is usually considered appropriate and expected in this kind of events anyway. This dress code description is literally what most people would imagine when told "award ceremony attire". But the headline read as if women were singled out and unnecessary sexualized.
One could argue they are clumsily trying to ask for the same level of dress. At least in context, which is the problem with the quote. They describe it in a salacious way which leaves no room for argument.
Because it implies that only women were given a suggested dress code when in reality both sexes were given a suggestion. Outrage culture is out of control. People are too damn sensitive
The "step it up" is true and low-class even in context, but was directed at both sexes. Of course, being disrespectful to twice as many people would be worse, not better.
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?
First of all, dress code is directed to both sexes, it is obvious this headline is sexualized with bad intent. ever reading gitlab told salesmen to wear black tie and blazer?
Something can be literally true, but in the mean time out of context like this.
Would you mind explaining how "step it up", which I read as "stepping up the dress code" is low-class? For me there is a natural progression from sports wear, to casual, to business casual, to business, to cocktail casual, to cocktail, to black / white tie.
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?
Because the dress code for women is more sexualized than the dress code for men, and also expects women to wear heels, something that's not healthy and bad for your joints.
A common reason for the anti-necktie sentiment among workers is that the tie represent a symbol of submission and slavery (i.e., having a symbolic chain around one's neck), marking which males are lower on the social ladder and thus unsuitable mates.
The disrespect of "step it up" is derived directly from what people are being asked to step up to. The phrase by itself has no context.
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.
What if a 'women' has a different internal gender (no offense if I don't know the lingo, very supportive of LGTBQ), and would be more comfortable dressed in a pant suit or even a Tuxedo? Or some other stylish more in-between thing that still looks nice and could be considered 'dressed to the 9s'.
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.
At the relevant companies I've worked this didn't need to be explicitly told to the sales people.
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.
The funny thing about the examples you gave is that whether a man or woman, the clothing is the same. You're not making the point I think you're trying to make.
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.
High heels and skirt for females and suit and tie for males is what's considered elegant in traditional western fashion.
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
> High heels and skirt for females and suit and tie for males is what's considered elegant in traditional western fashion.
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.
So? Why can't I have a company in which some people are required to show their asses and not others, based on some arbitrary rule? That's the way I sell and employees can choose to stay or leave
>Why can't I have a company in which some people are required to show their asses and not others, based on some arbitrary rule? That's the way I sell and employees can choose to stay or leave
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.
Probably because I believe you should wear whatever makes you comfortable within the context of the event you are attending. Women could be wearing suits, and men dresses or skirts, I don't think that matters. And if and it was just down to my personal opinion, it would be wear whatever you want that makes you happy.
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.
Cause some events have dress code which is applying to everyone not only women. And it is totally accepted standard for host to set this dress code. I dont see nothing wrong here
According to reference.com, “cocktail casual” is not formally defined: “Traditional cocktail attire usually consists of knee length dresses for women, dark suits with a tie for men and fancy shoes for both. Cocktail casual, however, [...] has not yet been concretely defined. It means different things to different people, so partygoers who know the host well should feel free to ask for more specific instructions.”
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/
I agree. There's a big difference between a long, flowing formal gown and cocktail casual women's clothing. If the Gitlab women showed up in the former they'd look and feel out of place, just like if a man showed up in a tux he might feel out of place.
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?
The issue here is not whether a skirt is a dress, but the implications behind the qualifier "short," which are the same both for skirts and dresses, notwithstanding that a "short but somewhat formal dress" and a "short skirt" are functionally the same.
I think the implications are "don't wear a gown" and "wear a plain (this is a business event, not a social one) knee-high dress," since this describes the vast majority of dresses that turn up when I search for "cocktail casual." Anything above thigh-high would indeed be short, but hardly formal.
75 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 128 ms ] threadGirl 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.
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".
https://www.cogitocorp.com/
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?
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.
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.
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.
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...