What women (don't) want.

[feral chile]

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.

 

 

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'.

 

 

You're missing the point. I'm not having a general gripe about sexism, this isn't the situation I find myself in. I'm not talking 'in general'. I'm talking under a genuine no dress code rule. In a worklplace that values equality and diversity. Specific to this situation, which is why this situation baffles me. Yes, men should be able to wear shorts and so should women, both should be able to wear skirts and dresses if they want, which happen to be cooler as they don't touch your legs.

 

It's precisely because women are usually able to get away with revealing more flesh that I'm confused in this specific situation.

 

What I'm curious about is why the difference, under a situation without rules? (or should I say, a strict equality/diversity policy that prevents unfair discrimination). What's going on here? Neil said it wasn't embarrassment, but the men think there's a problem, despite there being no restriction on what they wear (they have to wear clothes, and not turn up in pants, obviously, just like women).

 

So, in a situation that's meant to be 'anything goes,' that has already addressed the inequalities you mention, and actively promotes equality, why the anomaly here? We already have an equality situation here (no dress code), so I'm presuming it breaches some kind of diversity issue that I'm missing?

 

Incidentally, men wearing boxers and loose legged shorts often reveal much more than they realise, (EVERYTHING!) because they don't know how to sit in skirts!

 

.

Edited July 6, 2015 by feral chile

[gary1979666]

You're missing the point. I'm not having a general gripe about sexism, this isn't the situation I find myself in. I'm not talking 'in general'. I'm talking under a genuine no dress code rule. In a worklplace that values equality and diversity. Specific to this situation, which is why this situation baffles me. Yes, men should be able to wear shorts and so should women, both should be able to wear skirts and dresses if they want, which happen to be cooler as they don't touch your legs.

 

It's precisely because women are usually able to get away with revealing more flesh that I'm confused in this specific situation.

 

What I'm curious about is why the difference, under a situation without rules? (or should I say, a strict equality/diversity policy that prevents unfair discrimination). What's going on here? Neil said it wasn't embarrassment, but the men think there's a problem, despite there being no restriction on what they wear (they have to wear clothes, and not turn up in pants, obviously, just like women).

 

So, in a situation that's meant to be 'anything goes,' that has already addressed the inequalities you mention, and actively promotes equality, why the anomaly here? We already have an equality situation here (no dress code), so I'm presuming it breaches some kind of diversity issue that I'm missing?

 

Incidentally, men wearing boxers and loose legged shorts often reveal much more than they realise, (EVERYTHING!) because they don't know how to sit in skirts!

 

.

I think it's because there isn't such a thing as not having a dress code.  OK, I get the lack of an official dress code, but there does exist an informal dress code, not written down, not logged with HR, but a general "what one can wear to work".  It's what stops people from turning up in a mankini or fancy dress - extreme examples, but I guess people have a standard set of clothes of what you should and shouldn't wear for certain situations.  It's why I think it's odd to see people in their PJ's at Tesco first thing.

 

So a short skirt might be socially acceptable on a night out, but in a work setting, a line is drawn. 

[feral chile]

I think it's because there isn't such a thing as not having a dress code.  OK, I get the lack of an official dress code, but there does exist an informal dress code, not written down, not logged with HR, but a general "what one can wear to work".  It's what stops people from turning up in a mankini or fancy dress - extreme examples, but I guess people have a standard set of clothes of what you should and shouldn't wear for certain situations.  It's why I think it's odd to see people in their PJ's at Tesco first thing.

 

So a short skirt might be socially acceptable on a night out, but in a work setting, a line is drawn. 

 

 

I think that's what I'm getting at - where do you draw the line regarding what's socially acceptable, and how can management decide what's actually offensive, when it's so subjective?

[eFestivals]

What I'm curious about is why the difference, under a situation without rules?

 

because you can't abolish the rules of nature, perhaps?

 

I might have mentioned that before.

[kaosmark2]

Look at the fa's comment on the women football team for ridiculous sexism. Male footballers don't go back to being husbands, fathers and sons...

[feral chile]

because you can't abolish the rules of nature, perhaps?

 

I might have mentioned that before.

 

why are the men complaining though, when they're supposed to want to see female flesh? how come they're not getting told to stop being so prudish etc.?

 

I get the argument that women are allowed to expose more flesh, that fits in with 'rules of nature' arguments if you buy into the whole male sowing his seeds - superstud always wanting a shag scenario. Which I don't, incidentally, I think that's a social construct.

 

I think it suits men to be seen like this, it excuses bad behaviour under 'it's my nature' arguments, the same for any kind of dominance displays that aren't acceptable when women express the same behaviour.

 

This isn't that, though.

[eFestivals]

why are the men complaining though, when they're supposed to want to see female flesh? how come they're not getting told to stop being so prudish etc.?

perhaps because they're trying to do what women have asked of them...?

 

I think it suits men to be seen like this, it excuses bad behaviour under 'it's my nature' arguments, the same for any kind of dominance displays that aren't acceptable when women express the same behaviour.

Oh please.

While I wouldn't be so stupid to as to say nothing like that happens - it does, with most men guilty at one or more point - that's the one that *IS* the social construct.

 

Yet that social construct would mean nothing without something validating it.

Meanwhile it suits women to demand men don't gawp who then dress with the intention of making men gawp. In your world it's OK to condemn all women by that, is it?

 

[feral chile]

perhaps because they're trying to do what women have asked of them...?

 

Oh please.

While I wouldn't be so stupid to as to say nothing like that happens - it does, with most men guilty at one or more point - that's the one that *IS* the social construct.

 

Yet that social construct would mean nothing without something validating it.

Meanwhile it suits women to demand men don't gawp who then dress with the intention of making men gawp. In your world it's OK to condemn all women by that, is it?

 

 

This isn't a criticism of men - I think you get confused - I'm trying to work out what makes people tick - there has to be a payoff, or we wouldn't perpetuate myths.

 

I'm a behaviourist, remember? And therefore a functionalist. I'm looking for the reinforcer of behaviour, and the function of the result (social constructs) when they seem to defy the norm.

 

You can't change anything without changing the payoff. I believe men as a sexual predator is a myth, though obviously those who are would have a physical advantage over most women. The fact that it's men who perceive a problem with short skirts would seem to support this. Otherwise, they'd be encouraging all women under 30 to dress like strippers. (no offence to strippers).

 

I think physical advantage is overplayed, and psychological advantage overlooked. And that would very much work to the benefit of those who are physically weaker, both male and female. Social control is precisely the repression of brute force.

 

Incidentally, I suggested that they were frightened of being seen as a perv way early on, and I think you dismissed it? isn't that the same as wanting to be seen as respectful, which would agree with what you say abut trying to do what women want? I think you're seeing criticism of men, where none is intended. I just want to understand.

Edited July 6, 2015 by feral chile

[midnight]

Oh, wow, hello again, everyone.

 

Just as a very small aside: It is perfectly possible to dress in a cooling, hot-weather-appropriate way without displaying lots of interesting parts of the male or female anatomy. So I'd draw the simple conclusion that people who make different choices are not only influenced by what the thermometer says.  

 

The office I work in seems to be the complete opposite of Feral's btw.

[eFestivals]

Oh, wow, hello again, everyone.

 

Just as a very small aside: It is perfectly possible to dress in a cooling, hot-weather-appropriate way without displaying lots of interesting parts of the male or female anatomy. So I'd draw the simple conclusion that people who make different choices are not only influenced by what the thermometer says.  

 

The office I work in seems to be the complete opposite of Feral's btw.

 

hurray - a bit of realism!

[feral chile]

yeah well  now got a definitive answer on this from an equality specialist  - there's no dress code therefore everyone is allowed to wear whatever they feel comfortable wearing. It's potentially a grievance matter, as the company is breaking its own rules.

Edited July 7, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

Oh, wow, hello again, everyone.

 

Just as a very small aside: It is perfectly possible to dress in a cooling, hot-weather-appropriate way without displaying lots of interesting parts of the male or female anatomy. So I'd draw the simple conclusion that people who make different choices are not only influenced by what the thermometer says.  

 

The office I work in seems to be the complete opposite of Feral's btw.

 

hurray - a bit of realism!

 

 

what has that got to do with the question? I go to work without revealing lots of flesh. That's my choice.

 

I'd love to see someone try to make me, though

 

Incidentally, I'm seriously surprised at the comments you two have made - you banged on to me about the patriarchy limiting women's choices, and here you have men dictating what a woman wears, against the rules, I might add, and you're defending that?

 

I always had misgivings regarding the way you were describing patriarchy, because it seemed to support women staying in subordinate positions. You're not doing anything here to change my mind on that.

 

The lady I was speaking to today believes in the patriarchy ie men historically having power, and this is an example of an egalitarian situation where a small group of men are trying to be patriarchal, and you see nothing wrong with it?  You don't see this as an erosion of gains so hard fought for?

 

I thought, regardless of the thoughts of others on here, you two would have been in the definite 'this is sexual oppression' camp.

 

opposite how, midnight - there's a formal code that the women object to the men keeping?

Edited July 7, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

Look at the fa's comment on the women football team for ridiculous sexism. Male footballers don't go back to being husbands, fathers and sons...

 

 

yes, but there's a fair bit of paternalism going on if you start dictating what women can wear, against your own company rules.

 

It's still putting women into a specific category.

 

(We're talking teen denim here, not sexpot, by the way).

Edited July 7, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

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.

 

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.

 

 

I refer the gentleman to my original question. ie precisely for some input regarding anything I've missed.

 

Relevant factors - there is no dress code. None. Only one proviso, you mustn't wear anything that could cause offence. Widely taken to mean swearing, anti-diversity slogans etc. Football shirts, jeans, shorts, fipflops, trainers, tracksuits - all acceptable.

 

So - how does a denim skirt on a young girl cause offence?

[midnight]

what has that got to do with the question? I go to work without revealing lots of flesh. That's my choice.

 

I'd love to see someone try to make me, though

 

Incidentally, I'm seriously surprised at the comments you two have made - you banged on to me about the patriarchy limiting women's choices, and here you have men dictating what a woman wears, against the rules, I might add, and you're defending that?

 

I always had misgivings regarding the way you were describing patriarchy, because it seemed to support women staying in subordinate positions. You're not doing anything here to change my mind on that.

 

The lady I was speaking to today believes in the patriarchy ie men historically having power, and this is an example of an egalitarian situation where a small group of men are trying to be patriarchal, and you see nothing wrong with it?  You don't see this as an erosion of gains so hard fought for?

 

I thought, regardless of the thoughts of others on here, you two would have been in the definite 'this is sexual oppression' camp.

 

opposite how, midnight - there's a formal code that the women object to the men keeping?

 

I thought it might be relevant as you were looking for motivations. 

 

I’m not sure what you think I am defending here - I didn’t argue against this woman’s right to wear what she wants, particularly not if your employers have no rules/dress code on this. I was just wondering whether her choice can be explained by hot weather alone - that was an assumption I found quite amusing. And if I’m perfectly honest, I find the guy’s reaction (to complain to management) a bit meeh. I have no idea what really motivated him, but it’s not the kind of problem we would bother management people with around our place, at least I’ve never heard of such a case. Which brings me to the differences between our offices (both run by equal opportunities employers, at least that’s what mine call themselves):

 

- Different, because we do have a dress code (stipulates "smart business clothes", definitely no jeans - the one thing that enraged me the most after it was introduced some years ago). 

 

- Different, because many of us actively undermine this dress code (i.e. I do wear jeans to work, just smarter ones than I used to, and I now have a business type jacket hanging over the back of my chair to transform myself a bit for important meetings). 

 

- Different, because none of us has ever complained about what anyone else is wearing, although we do have 2 nice young women who practically live in super short skirts all year round, and we also work with a lot of men here who do not seem to mind, and do not comment on it (perhaps they do amongst each other in the pub, but we usually go out for drinks in mixed groups and I’ve never heard anything of that sort); when we do squabble, we squabble over workload distribution and perhaps hierarchy claptrap. The only comment I’ve ever heard from anyone was something fairly harmless along the lines of: that’s nice/looks nice/like your shoes. 

 

- Different, because none of the middle-aged women in my office (myself included) would dream of complaining to management if one of the others, young or older, would turn up to without supportive underwear. We are of the opinion that management can sort this out themselves if they have a problem with it, just like they could sort me out for my jeans, if they wanted to (I’m not aware that any of the managers would even be bothered on their own accord, though) - we don’t have a problem with it. Tbh, I’d barely notice it. I noticed the short skirts, because they didn’t go away in winter, which made me think - they must be freezing! But to say even something like that would make me sound like an old protective mother hen, or someone who is jealous, so I say nothing. They will find out that out for themselves. It is not my business to police anyone on these matters, and I seem to be surrounded by like minded people. Perhaps I should count my blessings more often, my workplace suddenly sounds wonderful (it isn’t). 

 

I should have elaborated on the office differences last night, but I didn’t have time.

 

In a nutshell, I would come to the defence of my short skirted colleagues if they ever came under attack, but I also would like us all to examine our motives for what we do where and why a bit more thoroughly. 

 

Anyway,  the woman you spoke to "believes in the patriarchy" - that makes  patriarchy sound like a religion. I would never say this to describe my own thoughts, nor do I really expect you to change your mind about anything because of what I post around here. But sometimes I'd like to present my point of view. I didn't even quote or address any of your or Neil's posts, and I called mine a small aside for reason. 

[feral chile]

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.

 

 

The rules weren't broken.

 

I'm not sure if I've made this clear enough - this isn't a clubbing sort of look, we're talking college denim.

[feral chile]

 

I thought it might be relevant as you were looking for motivations. 

 

I’m not sure what you think I am defending here - I didn’t argue against this woman’s right to wear what she wants, particularly not if your employers have no rules/dress code on this. I was just wondering whether her choice can be explained by hot weather alone - that was an assumption I found quite amusing. And if I’m perfectly honest, I find the guy’s reaction (to complain to management) a bit meeh. I have no idea what really motivated him, but it’s not the kind of problem we would bother management people with around our place, at least I’ve never heard of such a case. Which brings me to the differences between our offices (both run by equal opportunities employers, at least that’s what mine call themselves):

 

'I know it's hot but...' was part of the talk. I just think she's a very young girl wearing what teenage college students wear. I've not really noticed myself, either, that she dresses in a 'sexually provocative' manner - she's a youngster in denim - might have triggered some paternal instinct. I don't really think that was what was going on, and from neil's comments, neither does he. My equality contact mentioned men accusing girls of being a tease to displace their own feelings. Right back to Eve.

 

- Different, because we do have a dress code (stipulates "smart business clothes", definitely no jeans - the one thing that enraged me the most after it was introduced some years ago). 

 

- Different, because many of us actively undermine this dress code (i.e. I do wear jeans to work, just smarter ones than I used to, and I now have a business type jacket hanging over the back of my chair to transform myself a bit for important meetings). 

 

- Different, because none of us has ever complained about what anyone else is wearing, although we do have 2 nice young women who practically live in super short skirts all year round, and we also work with a lot of men here who do not seem to mind, and do not comment on it (perhaps they do amongst each other in the pub, but we usually go out for drinks in mixed groups and I’ve never heard anything of that sort); when we do squabble, we squabble over workload distribution and perhaps hierarchy claptrap. The only comment I’ve ever heard from anyone was something fairly harmless along the lines of: that’s nice/looks nice/like your shoes. 

 

Yes, this is what you'd expect.

 

- Different, because none of the middle-aged women in my office (myself included) would dream of complaining to management if one of the others, young or older, would turn up to without supportive underwear. We are of the opinion that management can sort this out themselves if they have a problem with it, just like they could sort me out for my jeans, if they wanted to (I’m not aware that any of the managers would even be bothered on their own accord, though) - we don’t have a problem with it. Tbh, I’d barely notice it. I noticed the short skirts, because they didn’t go away in winter, which made me think - they must be freezing! But to say even something like that would make me sound like an old protective mother hen, or someone who is jealous, so I say nothing. They will find out that out for themselves. It is not my business to police anyone on these matters, and I seem to be surrounded by like minded people. Perhaps I should count my blessings more often, my workplace suddenly sounds wonderful (it isn’t). 

 

Different workplace - mentioned as contrast, as they don't have an equality policy, they do have a dress code, the young girls were in breach of it, and still management didn't treat the complaint seriously. (which I agree with). Both complainants and managers were female, not sure if that's relevant but suspect gender is important in both cases.

 

I should have elaborated on the office differences last night, but I didn’t have time.

 

In a nutshell, I would come to the defence of my short skirted colleagues if they ever came under attack, but I also would like us all to examine our motives for what we do where and why a bit more thoroughly. 

 

Precisely what I wanted to do.

 

Anyway,  the woman you spoke to "believes in the patriarchy" - that makes  patriarchy sound like a religion. I would never say this to describe my own thoughts, nor do I really expect you to change your mind about anything because of what I post around here. But sometimes I'd like to present my point of view. I didn't even quote or address any of your or Neil's posts, and I called mine a small aside for reason. 

 

Apologies, this was mostly in reply to neil's quoting your post, and linking both your arguments as one. As for patriarchy, while I still don't like the term, I'm not denying sexism occurs, and while you don't need to look further to see who is actually likely to have breached the rules in this specific case, I was interested in the dynamics of it.

 

Edited July 7, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

Incidentally, I'm seriously surprised at the comments you two have made - you banged on to me about the patriarchy limiting women's choices, and here you have men dictating what a woman wears, against the rules, I might add, and you're defending that?

 

 

 

From your own words, there's both men AND women dictating what women wear.

 

And to prove your angle, you first have to prove this is happening because of - only - male-sexism and not because of other 'social rules'.

 

You know, stuff like the rule that says you're not allowed to break rules. Or the 'rules of business'.

 

And all the while that men are also suffering from the effects of sexism against them, just as women are.

(note: that's not a statement saying they necessarily suffer equally).

 

And, with the rules that you say above, men are now able to attend work with their dicks out. Are you sure that women wouldn't complain for the same reasons you condemn men for?

 

Get back to me when you've even started to tackle the full subject and all relevant data and scenarios, instead of starting with a conclusion and rejecting everything which doesn't fit your pre-decided answer.

 

That 'dicks out' version shows that women react in *EXACTLY* the same way to unwanted sights of flesh. Why is that? Is it because of male sexism, or is it because of some very complex social rules that you refuse to consider?

[feral chile]

 

From your own words, there's both men AND women dictating what women wear.

 

in that contrasting example, women complained that the dress code wasn't being adhered to. which it wasn't, and were basically told (politely) not to be so petty. So they did have a legitimate complaint, because strictly speaking the dress code stipulated no strappy tops. no men were involved in this at any stage.

 

So, I was comparing that with a complaint about what someone was wearing under a NO DRESS CODE rule, which was brought up officially, though not as a formal matter, because this was more a request that was management sanctioned, rather than an enforcement of a RULE THAT DOESN'T EXIST!) It doesn't matter a damn whether people approve of what she wears, it's none of their business.

 

And to prove your angle, you first have to prove this is happening because of - only - male-sexism and not because of other 'social rules'.

 

You know, stuff like the rule that says you're not allowed to break rules. Or the 'rules of business'.

 

THERE IS NO DRESS CODE!

 

And all the while that men are also suffering from the effects of sexism against them, just as women are.

(note: that's not a statement saying they necessarily suffer equally).

 

Where are men suffering from sexism in this particular example? I know you don't mean more generally, because you disagreed with me when I pointed out exactly the same thing with the patriarchy debate we had. Accused me of 'rinsing' and 'squirrels', I seem to remember, and thought it was funny that men get raped by other men. Dismissed all the complexity as me being too stupid to realise patriarchy exists, and that it was all irrelevant to the debate.

 

You've changed your tune, now, I see. Except rules is rules here, written down, formalised, and offering protection.

 

And, with the rules that you say above, men are now able to attend work with their dicks out. Are you sure that women wouldn't complain for the same reasons you condemn men for?

 

You think no dress code would mean that UK law can be flouted? Er no, you still have to avoid bullying, harassment, discrimination etc. So no dicks out or inflammatory slogans etc. You know, the workplace rules, like NO DRESS CODE!

 

Get back to me when you've even started to tackle the full subject and all relevant data and scenarios, instead of starting with a conclusion and rejecting everything which doesn't fit your pre-decided answer.

 

There is a pre-decided answer already decided not by me, but by my organisation. THERE IS NO DRESS CODE!

 

That 'dicks out' version shows that women react in *EXACTLY* the same way to unwanted sights of flesh. Why is that? Is it because of male sexism, or is it because of some very complex social rules that you refuse to consider?

 

THE WHOLE BLOODY POINT IS WHAT COUNTS AS UNWANTED BITS OF FLESH! I'M NOT CAMPAIGNING FOR TOPLESS OR BOTTOMLESS OFFICES FFS!

 

And sorry for 'shouting', but you really are exasperating to discuss anything with, because you just want to argue. You could well have just went 'see, patriarchy does exist' where I'm looking at it from an employees rights standpoint.

 

I'll try again. In a workplace with no dress code, can someone dictate what someone wears, and if they can, who, and on what grounds?

 

NOT - yes, but there are/should be dress codes, and men can get their dicks out if women can show their thighs. Women showing their thighs is equivalent to men showing their thighs. WHICH IS ALLOWED! Complex social rules might affect how a female is perceived, and office gossip etc., but she's still protected by the rules of the organisation!

 

Edited July 8, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

THERE IS NO DRESS CODE!

yes there is. Nudity would not be acceptable.

And so you see, there is a line somewhere, where 'acceptable' becomes 'not acceptable'.

[feral chile]

yes there is. Nudity would not be acceptable.

And so you see, there is a line somewhere, where 'acceptable' becomes 'not acceptable

 

 

Yes! 'Causing offence'!

 

THIS is the bit that interests me! Of course indecent exposure would be a clear example of this, it's against the law, we can argue whether it should be, but exposing genitals would not be OK, and I've never seen any male colleagues exposing their chests, either.

 

So that part's really clear. If this were to become official, management would have to prove offence was caused rather than a vexatious complaint made. You can't disguise bigotry or bullying behind 'offence'.

 

You couldn't, for instance, complain about a transitional man wearing a dress because it offended you.

 

You'd have to have a very good reason for short skirts causing offence, and there are no obvious religious grounds here (though I'm not sure how that would play out).

 

Most people wouldn't push it, either way. most people are reasonable. But them's the rules, if push did come to shove.

 

If clothing was seen as an overall problem, then believe me, there'd be a dress code!

Edited July 8, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

Yes! 'Causing offence'!

 

So that part's really clear.

But it's not. People are offended by different things, and for different reasons.

[feral chile]

c

But it's not. People are offended by different things, and for different reasons.

 

 

I edited my above comment to expand on this a bit, you were posting you reply so probably haven't seen it:

 

'If this were to become official, management would have to prove offence was caused rather than a vexatious complaint made. You can't disguise bigotry or bullying behind 'offence'.

 

You couldn't, for instance, complain about a transitional man wearing a dress because it offended you.

 

You'd have to have a very good reason for short skirts causing offence, and there are no obvious religious grounds here (though I'm not sure how that would play out).'

Edited July 8, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

'If this were to become official, management would have to prove offence was caused rather than a vexatious complaint made.

You'd love the laws that Blair had written.

The whole idea of proving offence is a ridiculous one, because it's so subjective. Just because someone is offended it doesn't mean they're right to take offence.

 

You can't disguise bigotry or bullying behind 'offence'.

well, you definitely can if the test is 'offence'.

 

You couldn't, for instance, complain about a transitional man wearing a dress because it offended you.

 

You'd have to have a very good reason for short skirts causing offence, and there are no obvious religious grounds here (though I'm not sure how that would play out).'

 

You're applying your own opinions and standards of 'offence' &/or 'bigotry' with an expectation that the rest of the world is right behind you. That's not meant as a personal criticism, it's pretty much what we all do, but the world isn't always following.

Which is where it all goes wrong with a pretence of no dress code. Everyone is making up their own rules within the given parameters and giving them justifications in one way or another.

Even an objection to a Trans in a dress could be framed in quite reasonable business terms (not necessarily in your own workplace), because it could make an office-incomer feel uncomfortable and you need to suck up to at least some of the incomers.

 

[feral chile]

You'd love the laws that Blair had written.

The whole idea of proving offence is a ridiculous one, because it's so subjective. Just because someone is offended it doesn't mean they're right to take offence.

 

well, you definitely can if the test is 'offence'.

 

 

You're applying your own opinions and standards of 'offence' &/or 'bigotry' with an expectation that the rest of the world is right behind you. That's not meant as a personal criticism, it's pretty much what we all do, but the world isn't always following.

Which is where it all goes wrong with a pretence of no dress code. Everyone is making up their own rules within the given parameters and giving them justifications in one way or another.

Even an objection to a Trans in a dress could be framed in quite reasonable business terms (not necessarily in your own workplace), because it could make an office-incomer feel uncomfortable and you need to suck up to at least some of the incomers.

 

 

To be fair, my own opinions are in part due to diversity training, so they're standard opinions based on 'official' lines.

 

I am interested in the grey areas here, and within anti bullying legislation, precisely because of the grey areas. You're having to compromise between 2 parties. It's why I'm resisting my kneejerk reaction of 'tough - she can wear what she likes'.

 

As we are all aware, though, there are areas where unconscious bias results in unfair assessments of situations, without any malice intended.

 

As for 'no dress code', while you can in principle where what you like, I'm fully in agreement that, outside workplace legislation, there's no such thing.

Edited July 8, 2015 by feral chile