What women (don't) want.

[eFestivals]

I do agree with this, maybe I'm not making myself clear. I think what we regard as sexual signals/display may be cultural, the need for procreation will be present, and biologically driven, but the interpretation of it may be shaped culturally.

 

So, you have a girl who flashes a bit too much - if you kind of remove dress conventions and get to the naked ape, so to speak - this poor guy presumably had a biological reaction to what his body read as a mating display. Social taboos set in and he experienced embarrassment and guilt, and suppressed it.

 

 

It's not this part that produced much interest for me.

 

It's how humans in an artificial setting (workplace) then deal with it. Should it have stopped there? The taboo did its job, after all. But to 'save embarrassment' (of the male) the responsibility then shifted to the behaviour of the female (no embarrassment saved there then).

 

So, corporate-speak dressed this all up as a dress code ruling.

 

My first reaction was 'hang on, men don't have to worry about showing a bit of leg' - feminist response to a work rule being used in a gender specific way.

 

My second reaction was 'there are biological and behaviour differences between genders, and a conflict between drives and norms' - psychology grad response.

 

And I wondered about the function of the tweaking of the 'no dress code'. Who is it protecting, the male (from negative feelings, temptation etc.), the female (from social censure from other females, possible attack, etc.) or the group (from potential conflict)?

 

As in, the unconscious function, which then gets muddied over by cultural rationalisation?

 

I don't buy the 'embarrassment' bit. Not a jot of it.

 

And given I'm male and you're not...?

 

From one angle it's paternalism - older men believing there's a need to protect those younger women from the risk that older man feels the women are bringing on themselves. Men are sexual predators, remember?

 

And even from the younger men it's more that than anything about 'embarrassment'. They're at work to work, and not to play out mating rituals.

 

I reckon you should stop this line of thought and think about how things would play out if it was the men showing too much flesh by having their cocks out. Would you say women would feel it was inappropriate because they fear they might not be able to stop themselves in that situation from wanting to touch that visible cock and felt embarrassed by that fact?

 

If you take the sort of women-centric view you've done, you'll come out with a women-centric answer - but not necessarily the right answer.

 

If you play it out in reverse you get to see it's nothing like you're saying.

Edited July 4, 2015 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

I don't buy the 'embarrassment' bit. Not a jot of it.

 

And given I'm male and you're not...?

 

From one angle it's paternalism - older men believing there's a need to protect those younger women from the risk that older man feels the women are bringing on themselves. Men are sexual predators, remember?

 

And even from the younger men it's more that than anything about 'embarrassment'. They're at work to work, and not to play out mating rituals.

 

I reckon you should stop this line of thought and think about how things would play out if it was the men showing too much flesh by having their cocks out. Would you say women would feel it was inappropriate because they fear they might not be able to stop themselves in that situation from wanting to touch that visible cock and felt embarrassed by that fact?

 

If you take the sort of women-centric view you've done, you'll come out with a women-centric answer - but not necessarily the right answer.

 

If you play it out in reverse you get to see it's nothing like you're saying.

 

ok maybe I should be a bit more explicit - these are not my assumptions, they're what was actually said - in the earlier case of the man taking off his trousers to dry, management (female, not sure if that's relevant) used the term 'avoiding offence'. In the case of the woman flashing too much (it was never explicitly stated whether any taboo flesh ie vagina was flashed) the terms used were 'to avoid another embarrassing incident in future' (male management) after male bonding type appreciative nods about the wondrous sights to be seen out in the kitchen areas.

 

Also, in a different job, when it was a group of middle aged, overweight women who complained about young girls wearing strappy tops in a dress code that actually specified they were not to be worn, they were chastised by management for being jealous.

 

I'm not making any assumptions here, because I honestly don't understand what's going on, maybe precisely because I have a female mindset.

 

My naïve reaction is if there's no dress code, people 'should' be able to wear what they like, as long as they comply with the law.

 

I am aware that's naïve, there are a lot of gender-specific social conventions I break unwittingly. (not showing my bits, thankfully, I'm not sadistic )

Edited July 4, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

I'm not making any assumptions here, because I honestly don't understand what's going on, maybe precisely because I have a female mindset.

 

but you ARE making assumptions. You've said very clearly that men don't want women showing too much flesh to hide their own embarrassment.

 

My naïve reaction is if there's no dress code, people 'should' be able to wear what they like, as long as they comply with the law.

 

I am aware that's naïve, there are a lot of gender-specific social conventions I break unwittingly. (not showing my bits, thankfully, I'm not sadistic )

It's a long while since I've worked in a shared office now, but I never worked in one that had "no" dress code at all.

 

Some I worked in allowed 'casual' dress - but certain standards of 'business appropriateness' were always applicable.

 

For example, ripped jeans wouldn't ever have been acceptable (for normal office work; special 'dirty' missions such as the techies re-cabling the network might have seen them allowed) - and nothing about that was the sexual angle you're applying to the requirement for standards of some sort.

 

The simple fact is that, as a generalisation, society regards a woman who is showing a lot of flesh as taking part in (something of) a mating ritual (even if that's not how she sees it herself).  Mating rituals aren't wanted in a place of business.

 

Both in and out of the office you get women at a younger age dress down in this way, but you don't tend to get older women doing the same to anything like the same extent. Why is that?

 

Is that because of women's own embarrassment about their own bodies which grows as they get older (the opposite to how 'embarrassment' tends to work for other potentially embarrassing things, where it tends to lessen with age), or is it because biology is acting on women at a younger age to take part in mating rituals and that 'biological driver' lessens as the prime mating time is passed?

 

I'd say you've been waaaaay to fast to latch onto the idea that women are being done down just because men are able to do them down about all this.

Edited July 4, 2015 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

but you ARE making assumptions. You've said very clearly that men don't want women showing too much flesh to hide their own embarrassment.

 

NO, THEY said that! I'm QUESTIONING their rationalisations!

 

It's a long while since I've worked in a shared office now, but I never worked in one that had "no" dress code at all.

 

Some I worked in allowed 'casual' dress - but certain standards of 'business appropriateness' were always applicable.

 

For example, ripped jeans wouldn't ever have been acceptable (for normal office work; special 'dirty' missions such as the techies re-cabling the network might have seen them allowed) - and nothing about that was the sexual angle you're applying to the requirement for standards of some sort.

 

The simple fact is that, as a generalisation, society regards a woman who is showing a lot of flesh as taking part in (something of) a mating ritual (even if that's not how she sees it herself).  Mating rituals aren't wanted in a place of business.

 

You get women at a younger age dress down in this way, but you don't tend to get older women doing the same to anything like the same extent. Why is that?

 

Is that because of women's own embarrassment about their own bodies which grows as they get older (the opposite to how 'embarrassment' tends to work for other potentially embarrassing things, where it tends to lessen with age), or is it because biology is acting on women at a younger age to take part in mating rituals and that 'biological driver' lessens as the prime mating time is passed?

 

I'd say you've been waaaaay to fast to latch onto the idea that women are being done down just because men are able to do them down about all this.

 

Certainly that was my first reaction, it was 'hey - gender bias/double standards going on here'. But I'm trying to look deeper.

Edited July 4, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

NO, THEY said that! I'm QUESTIONING their rationalisations!

ahh, ok.

In which case their own analysis of their own thinking was as flawed as your own in accepting it.

removed, cos i'm not playing your bullshit revisionist game.

Edited July 4, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

And men are uncomfortable at their own reaction, I think, so the woman gets the blame.

oh look, you did assume.

[feral chile]

oh look, you did assume.

 

 

based on their own words - I want to know what's REALLY going on.

 

I think in terms of evolutionary drives, trying to work out which bits are biological group bonding and modern society is difficult.

 

The account itself was a male copping an eyeful, 'not knowing where to look' and then bringing it up in a meeting, presumably, since it got escalated to management.

 

So, the individual male expressed discomfort. Escalated to management. Management acted.

 

Why did things escalate? What are the dynamics involved? It went past social procreation taboo, to prevention. Based on females addressing their behaviour.

 

So - we had female stimulus, male response limited to emotion, action inhibited, appeal to authority, authority action.

 

But the procreation taboo had already worked effectively. So what was the gain here, as there must be one?

 

Any ideas, because I don't have any firm conclusions? The only thing I could think of, is that the female/social taboo caused internal conflict (call it embarrassment, I doubt it was that, probably cognitive dissonance) and prompted a group reaction. And the group traced back the source of the group 'distraction' to the female. So the top-down dress code was tweaked by the local group, - to avoid what? - conflict? individual discomfort? a threat to the taboo?

 

What was the male really asking for help for? Was he covering himself, in case she accused him of ogling her? or is there something deeper, more primal, going on?

Edited July 4, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

oh look, you did assume.

 

The man raised this, both informally and formally, so I think it's safe to assume he was uncomfortable. He was identifying a problem, and I hadn't seen a problem.

 

Why are you arguing with me? You seem to be making assumptions about my assumptions, and I'm mainly confused about the whole thing. I don't have a theory to defend, I'm just curious.

 

(revisionist???)

Edited July 4, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

I don't buy the 'embarrassment' bit. Not a jot of it.

 

And given I'm male and you're not...?

 

From one angle it's paternalism - older men believing there's a need to protect those younger women from the risk that older man feels the women are bringing on themselves. Men are sexual predators, remember?

 

And even from the younger men it's more that than anything about 'embarrassment'. They're at work to work, and not to play out mating rituals.

 

I reckon you should stop this line of thought and think about how things would play out if it was the men showing too much flesh by having their cocks out. Would you say women would feel it was inappropriate because they fear they might not be able to stop themselves in that situation from wanting to touch that visible cock and felt embarrassed by that fact?

 

If you take the sort of women-centric view you've done, you'll come out with a women-centric answer - but not necessarily the right answer.

 

If you play it out in reverse you get to see it's nothing like you're saying.

 

 

It was a feral-centric view, if you can call it a view at all, admittedly - it was more total consternation - 'what's the big deal' was more my way of thinking. I don't assess the girl as trying to look sexy at all. My kneejerk reaction was that she had the right to wear what she liked.

 

I'm a middle aged woman though.

 

So what caused this man to feel he needed to speak to management about this? he hadn't said or done anything inappropriate. It just drew attention to the whole episode.

 

neil, I gather you think I'm working to some kind of revisionist agenda here, but I'm not, I just don't 'get' the dynamics of this at all.

Edited July 4, 2015 by feral chile

[viberunner]

 

Some I worked in allowed 'casual' dress - but certain standards of 'business appropriateness' were always applicable.

 

For example, ripped jeans wouldn't ever have been acceptable (for normal office work;

 

The simple fact is that, as a generalisation, society regards a woman who is showing a lot of flesh as taking part in (something of) a mating ritual (even if that's not how she sees it herself).  Mating rituals aren't wanted in a place of business.

 

 

A prohibition (including informally) on ripped jeans would be more about a neatness thing than a sexuality or gender.

 

A woman is able to display a lot of flesh in the office, short skirt, bare legs, a blouse that is sleeveless, displays cleavage, etc., but a male who showed any significant amount of flesh in an office environment would likely be spoken-to.

 

And that would apply to swelteringly hot days too, which is why I gave up office work.

[viberunner]

Also, in a different job, when it was a group of middle aged, overweight women who complained about young girls wearing strappy tops in a dress code that actually specified they were not to be worn, they were chastised by management for being jealous.

 

I'm not making any assumptions here, because I honestly don't understand what's going on

 

Who don't you understand, the young lassies, the fat ladies, the dress code, or the management? 

 

The lassies want to look a bit glam, the fatties are jealous, dress codes are intended to instil a conservative professional work culture, and the management are happy to bend the rules in favour of good-looking people. [it's not just females, good-looking males and good-looking females are more likely to succeed, to be given good grades at school, more likely to be offered the job, etc. etc.]

[feral chile]

Who don't you understand, the young lassies, the fat ladies, the dress code, or the management? 

 

The lassies want to look a bit glam, the fatties are jealous, dress codes are intended to instil a conservative professional work culture, and the management are happy to bend the rules in favour of good-looking people. [it's not just females, good-looking males and good-looking females are more likely to succeed, to be given good grades at school, more likely to be offered the job, etc. etc.]

 

yeah I get that bit, I get that the oldies were really complaining about the unfairness of life, not the dress code. What I don't get is why a man complained to management about getting an accidental eyeful.

 

neil says he can speak for males and say, contrary to the rationalisation given, it's not embarrassment. What is it then?

[feral chile]

A prohibition (including informally) on ripped jeans would be more about a neatness thing than a sexuality or gender.

 

A woman is able to display a lot of flesh in the office, short skirt, bare legs, a blouse that is sleeveless, displays cleavage, etc., but a male who showed any significant amount of flesh in an office environment would likely be spoken-to.

 

And that would apply to swelteringly hot days too, which is why I gave up office work.

 

men can wear shorts in my office. I think it's very much anything goes till someone complains. That's why I can't understand a man complaining about a girl.

[eFestivals]

based on their own words - I want to know what's REALLY going on.

 

not "based on their own words". You said "I think...".

 

You already believe you "know what's REALLY going on". You said "I think...".

 

But don't let the fact of your own words stop you from now posting bullshit as truth.

[eFestivals]

It was a feral-centric view, if you can call it a view at all, admittedly - it was more total consternation - 'what's the big deal' was more my way of thinking. I don't assess the girl as trying to look sexy at all. My kneejerk reaction was that she had the right to wear what she liked.

and so a man is allowed the same.

No complaints from women if a man dresses with his cock out...?

 

neil, I gather you think I'm working to some kind of revisionist agenda here, but I'm not, I just don't 'get' the dynamics of this at all.

when you deny your own words you're talking bollocks.

[gary1979666]

men can wear shorts in my office. I think it's very much anything goes till someone complains. That's why I can't understand a man complaining about a girl.

 

Maybe the guy was very professional and he stuck to the 'informal' dress code, but the woman was pushing it too much.  Maybe he used the yardstick of "what would a customer think if they walked through the office?".

 

I've seen both men and women complain about incursions of office rules - no jeans, punctuality, personal calls, etc - has less to do about gender and more to do about stopping people taking the mick.

[eFestivals]

A prohibition (including informally) on ripped jeans would be more about a neatness thing than a sexuality or gender.

It's a "standards" thing, as are the other expected standards of dress. It's much less about sexuality than Feral wants to recognise.

People shouldn't (from those 'standards') dress in the office like they're about fix the car, and people shouldn't be dress in the office like they're on the beach or at a nightclub.

 

A woman is able to display a lot of flesh in the office, short skirt, bare legs, a blouse that is sleeveless, displays cleavage, etc., but a male who showed any significant amount of flesh in an office environment would likely be spoken-to.

 

And that would apply to swelteringly hot days too, which is why I gave up office work.

Yep - it's a bit swings and roundabouts.

Feral is only seeing one side of things, and stopping thinking at that point and believing everything about what's going on can be deduced from that limited take on things.

There's much more to it all than she wishes to consider. She'll only reach a right answer via the consideration of all relevant factors, and not just the ones she picks to suit her prejudices.

[eFestivals]

yeah I get that bit, I get that the oldies were really complaining about the unfairness of life, not the dress code. What I don't get is why a man complained to management about getting an accidental eyeful.

 

neil says he can speak for males and say, contrary to the rationalisation given, it's not embarrassment. What is it then?

I said i'm male and you're not. Nothing more.

 

Why not ask that guy, rather than make an assumption from nothing?

 

A man might get distracted by too much flesh - after all, we have biological drivers to help us with that - but nothing of that distraction has to mean 'embarrassment'. If you keep waving a bit of paper in front of that guys eyes he's also distracted - from his work, the thing he should be doing - but not embarrassed.

 

It might be that the guy doesn't want the woman to be embarrassed by him being distracted. Us men are told by women that women don't like to be gawped at, and he was wanting to respect that.

 

There can be a million different reasons.

 

Just as there would be behind the complaints by women if a man was wandering around the office with his dick out.

[eFestivals]

Maybe the guy was very professional and he stuck to the 'informal' dress code, but the woman was pushing it too much.  Maybe he used the yardstick of "what would a customer think if they walked through the office?".

 

I've seen both men and women complain about incursions of office rules - no jeans, punctuality, personal calls, etc - has less to do about gender and more to do about stopping people taking the mick.

 

This ^^

 

Feral might have the right take for some of the complaints, but it's certainly not all of it.

 

As a society we have complex 'rules'. That also means we might have complex reasons for complaints where we feel the 'rules' have been broken.

[feral chile]

I said i'm male and you're not. Nothing more.

 

Why not ask that guy, rather than make an assumption from nothing?

 

A man might get distracted by too much flesh - after all, we have biological drivers to help us with that - but nothing of that distraction has to mean 'embarrassment'. If you keep waving a bit of paper in front of that guys eyes he's also distracted - from his work, the thing he should be doing - but not embarrassed.

 

It might be that the guy doesn't want the woman to be embarrassed by him being distracted. Us men are told by women that women don't like to be gawped at, and he was wanting to respect that.

 

There can be a million different reasons.

 

Just as there would be behind the complaints by women if a man was wandering around the office with his dick out.

 

 

He has already said he was embarrassed. Nobody had to ask him, he volunteered the information. The reason I'm asking you why it's not embarrassment, is because YOU have said that, contrary to what HE said, it isn't embarrassment, because I'm female-concentric. I took what he said at face value.

 

Now then, are you discounting what HE says, or what I say? And is that because he's male and I'm female, or because I'm Feral and he isn't? YOU have assumed I'm making assumptions from nothing, as you have a tendency to do. Why is that? Why are you so keen to discount what I say, and assume some kind of agenda, where there is none? I've explained repeatedly that embarrassment is the justification given, a detail, you seem determined to ignore.

 

All I'm trying to do is make sense out of something that confuses me. At the same time, in a team meeting, the males kind of acknowledged a kind of 'tit Monday' vibe, as a good thing, we were in the middle of a discussion of how to deal with it as a problem.

 

Now, if the men in here understand this, and can provide an explanation, I'd be grateful. Because as a female, I seriously don't understand why this is a male problem, and not a feminist one, as I could see that angle, both from the POV of being treated like a sex object AND as a gender specific censorship of a non existent (clearly unwritten, not unenforced) dress code. Though I can't see how or why both could be happening at once.

 

It's the contradiction and ambivalence that's interesting to me.

 

And why you keep comparing a fully dressed woman in a short skirt as equivalent to a man walking around with his dick out? Surely the equivalent would be a man in skinny jeans, showing off a pert bum? Or a T shirt that showed off a bit of chest hair? Or men in shorts, which actually are worn, without censorship, embarrassment, or comment?

Edited July 6, 2015 by feral chile

[gary1979666]

He has already said he was embarrassed. Nobody had to ask him, he volunteered the information. The reason I'm asking you why it's not embarrassment, is because YOU have said that, contrary to what HE said, it isn't embarrassment, because I'm female-concentric. I took what he said at face value.

 

Now then, are you discounting what HE says, or what I say? And is that because he's male and I'm female, or because I'm Feral and he isn't? YOU have assumed I'm making assumptions from nothing, as you have a tendency to do. Why is that? Why are you so keen to discount what I say, and assume some kind of agenda, where there is none? I've explained repeatedly that embarrassment is the justification given, a detail, you seem determined to ignore.

 

All I'm trying to do is make sense out of something that confuses me. At the same time, in a team meeting, the males kind of acknowledged a kind of 'tit Monday' vibe, as a good thing, we were in the middle of a discussion of how to deal with it as a problem.

 

Now, if the men in here understand this, and can provide an explanation, I'd be grateful. Because as a female, I seriously don't understand why this is a male problem, and not a feminist one, as I could see that angle, both from the POV of being treated like a sex object AND as a gender specific censorship of a non existent (clearly unwritten, not unenforced) dress code. Though I can't see how or why both could be happening at once.

 

It's the contradiction and ambivalence that's interesting to me.

 

And why you keep comparing a fully dressed woman in a short skirt as equivalent to a man walking around with his dick out? Surely the equivalent would be a man in skinny jeans, showing off a pert bum? Or a T shirt that showed off a bit of chest hair? Or men in shorts, which actually are worn, without censorship, embarrassment, or comment?

 

 

I guess the scale has a lot of grey areas - from a suit and tie, through to wanging out your todger.  And the same scale applies to women.  If anything, the scale gives more freedom to women than men and that could be why when a woman pushes it too far then a man is more likely to resent it.  Embarrassment, could just be a cover for 'you're taking the piss with the dress code'.

 

With your examples, chest hair / tight bum - I guess will create complaints depending on the overall 'look' - if it crosses the scruffy line at work, then they get a talking to.  Similarly, a woman can wear a sexy outfit and there be no outcry - but sexy doesn't mean putting everything out on display.  A tight skirt or a smidgeon of cleavage can be just as pleasant on the eyes (or more) than a short skirt / boob-spill top and they can be smart as well.

[feral chile]

I guess the scale has a lot of grey areas - from a suit and tie, through to wanging out your todger.  And the same scale applies to women.  If anything, the scale gives more freedom to women than men and that could be why when a woman pushes it too far then a man is more likely to resent it.  Embarrassment, could just be a cover for 'you're taking the piss with the dress code'.

 

With your examples, chest hair / tight bum - I guess will create complaints depending on the overall 'look' - if it crosses the scruffy line at work, then they get a talking to.  Similarly, a woman can wear a sexy outfit and there be no outcry - but sexy doesn't mean putting everything out on display.  A tight skirt or a smidgeon of cleavage can be just as pleasant on the eyes (or more) than a short skirt / boob-spill top and they can be smart as well.

 

it's definitely nothing to do with scruffiness, believe me!

 

Flipflops and slippers don't seem to be a problem. Band t shirts on men and men in shorts don't seem to be a problem. Band t shirts on women seem to cause offence, and women's thighs seem to be an issue, but not men's.

 

I'm not talking deliberate oppression here, I'm not sure if that's what also neil's getting at, but there are definite gender differences regarding what's considered acceptable.

 

What I'm interested in, is are they justified, and if not, would raising people's consciousness be helpful?

Edited July 6, 2015 by feral chile

[gary1979666]

it's definitely nothing to do with scruffiness, believe me!

 

Flipflops and slippers don't seem to be a problem. Band t shirts on men and men in shorts don't seem to be a problem. Band t shirts on women seem to cause offence, and women's thighs seem to be an issue, but not men's.

 

I'm not talking deliberate oppression here, I'm not sure if that's what also neil's getting at, but there are definite gender differences regarding what's considered acceptable.

 

What I'm interested in, is are they justified, and if not, would raising people's consciousness be helpful?

 

I'm not sure, but your experience sounds to be a bit more exception than the rule.  I wouldn't see anyone having issue with women wearing band t-shirts (mind, depends on the band!! ) and would predict more people wincing if a man wore shorts where you can see enough of his thigh! 

 

So from my experience of offices, I dispute your premise before getting to the justified or not question you are asking. 

 

From some of the responses so far, I would say that the more prominent question is why do so many places think that shorts for men are such a bad idea, but a lot more leg is acceptable for a woman.

[eFestivals]

 

 

women's thighs seem to be an issue, but not men's.

 

Really?

 

Are men showing more leg than a women typically shows in a skirt? Or might the amount of leg be equal for those?

 

Here's betting the women's thighs thing is women in hotpants or ultra short skirts.

 

Which is an amount of leg you almost never see any man reveal when in shorts.

 

When you combine black and white it's no surprise that your conclusion is grey.

[eFestivals]

If anything, the scale gives more freedom to women than men.

 

spot on.

 

In my own experience that applies for both 'formal office dress' and for 'casual office dress'.

 

In most offices I've worked women get away with jeans for even the 'formal office dress'.