What women (don't) want.

[eFestivals]

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.

 

But they're only grey areas because management is refusing to define the limits in the first place by going with the idea that no rules is a rule that can work well.

 

It doesn't. Humans have complex social - and biological/gender specific (so differing) - rules, and in the workplace there's another set of business norms and expectations on top, with one of those expectations being that the boss sets the rules. When the boss doesn't set the rules it flummoxes some people, because some people need rules.

 

So all of those things are getting applied to the 'causing offence' boundary by each worker but with differing weightings to specific parts, and you end up with an office where everyone thinks the acceptable limits are different to everyone else for a variety of different reasons.

[eFestivals]

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

Which doesn't mean they're right or appropriate for all people, merely that they're 'the law' in that workplace.

[feral chile]

But they're only grey areas because management is refusing to define the limits in the first place by going with the idea that no rules is a rule that can work well.

 

It doesn't. Humans have complex social - and biological/gender specific (so differing) - rules, and in the workplace there's another set of business norms and expectations on top, with one of those expectations being that the boss sets the rules. When the boss doesn't set the rules it flummoxes some people, because some people need rules.

 

So all of those things are getting applied to the 'causing offence' boundary by each worker but with differing weightings to specific parts, and you end up with an office where everyone thinks the acceptable limits are different to everyone else for a variety of different reasons.

 

 

There'll be clear guidelines for those who have t apply the rules, if things ever got formal. So you'd have management and reps armed with the guidance and legislation.

 

But I tend t agree with you that it ignores peer pressure and unconscious bias. I know from personal experience that casual attire tends to make you seem less professional, and your opinions don't get taken as seriously. I keep a separate set of clothes for work.

 

But again, that's my choice. I wouldn't mind a smart/casual dress code.

Edited July 8, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

Which doesn't mean they're right or appropriate for all people, merely that they're 'the law' in that workplace.

 

 

True, they're only as good as the society that endorses them. If that.

[eFestivals]

But I tend t agree with you that it ignores peer pressure and unconscious bias.

yep, that's really all I'm getting at.

Tho I was including the point that not everything about it is purely social.

[feral chile]

yep, that's really all I'm getting at.

Tho I was including the point that not everything about it is purely social.

 

I'm never sure how far to go with that one, because it's tempting to rationalise 'nature' and 'primal instincts' to justify your own cultural norms, as has happened so much in the past.

 

I do think we ignore where we evolved from at our peril, however. So the reverse is ust as likely, that we rationalise out primal urges into socially acceptable norms.

 

Such as the mating behaviour that goes on in many clubs

[midnight]

Thing is, if there's no dress-code other than "nothing offensive" you either give out a very long list of what might be offensive (and for a mixed population like we have in London, that would be a very, very long list), or you leave the responsibility to decide this with your staff. Which can backfire badly.

[midnight]

There'll be clear guidelines for those who have t apply the rules, if things ever got formal. So you'd have management and reps armed with the guidance and legislation.

 

But I tend t agree with you that it ignores peer pressure and unconscious bias. I know from personal experience that casual attire tends to make you seem less professional, and your opinions don't get taken as seriously. I keep a separate set of clothes for work.

 

But again, that's my choice. I wouldn't mind a smart/casual dress code.

 

This.

 

We have more choices now, but with most choices come responsibilities. The achievement to be accepted and taken seriously in the workplace ranks much, much higher with me than the fact that I could wear a certain attire to work if I wanted to. My independence and income depend on having a job. I agree that people shouldn't be judged on what they wear, but life is not like that for various reasons.  All this also feeds into my eternal frustration about the "honey money" advice given to girls (though from what you said, I don't think that is the case with the girl in your workplace scenario): go and capitalise on your charms to get ahead at work. 

[eFestivals]

I'm never sure how far to go with that one

It's bleedin' easy. A piece of piss.

You go with the evidence instead of prejudices.

Disciplines such as the one you like don't go with the evidence they go with their prejudices on the basis of zero evidence.

And then they wonder why their discipline doesn't match the facts, exactly as you've played out in this discussion.

It's laughable that something that likes to think of itself as a science rejects evidence in favour of prejudices, and it's adherents unthinkingly go along with that.

 

[feral chile]

It's bleedin' easy. A piece of piss.

You go with the evidence instead of prejudices.

Disciplines such as the one you like don't go with the evidence they go with their prejudices on the basis of zero evidence.

And then they wonder why their discipline doesn't match the facts, exactly as you've played out in this discussion.

It's laughable that something that likes to think of itself as a science rejects evidence in favour of prejudices, and it's adherents unthinkingly go along with that.

 

 

erm no, there's little difference between social psychology and sociology, they both look at socialisation, peer pressure, group dynamics etc.

 

there are sexist psychologists just like there are sexist sociologists.

 

And you're very naïve if you think there's such a thing as human objectivity. Humans are subjective, by nature we have to investigate, gather information, interpret and classify.

 

We 'act on' the information.

 

(I don't know why you think psychology graduates don't like sociology, most of us studied it, it's another social science)

Edited July 9, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

We 'act on' the information.

 

but the point is: the social sciences often don't.

 

We know that there's an amount of biological determinism going on, we just don't know where that ends with its influences.

 

The social sciences often find it easier to dismiss it entirely.

Edited July 9, 2015 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

but the point is: the social sciences often don't.

 

We know that there's an amount of biological determinism going on, we just don't know where that ends with its influences.

 

The social sciences often find it easier to dismiss it entirely.

 

The social sciences try to avoid assumptions, it's very difficult. When they've tried to rationalise back to biological determinism, we get things like, men demand fidelity while playing the field because they need to know who fathered their children, but also need to spread their genes as far as possible.

 

that one was so obviously a sexist rationale of a cultural gender bias, that I used to have fun making up alternatives - such as it benefits women to sleep with as many people as possible, to ensure the strongest sperm fertilises her egg, while at the same time needs a stable male to provide food and shelter. So it's in her best interests to be promiscuous, but to persuade the most suitable male to stick around.

 

It's one of the most obvious example of a male dominated culture rationalising its own existence.

 

Then there's eugenics and genetic engineering - sadism and hatred dressed up as a coldly rational reality.  

[feral chile]

This article expresses better than I did some of the concerns I had regarding traps feminism can fall into:

 

https://debuk.wordpress.com/2015/07/05/just-dont-do-it/

What this advice boils down to is ‘talk like a man’. The writer doesn’t even try to argue that there’s some inherent reason to prefer ‘less body language’ (whatever that means) to more. It’s preferable simply because it’s what men are said to do. Men are more successful in the workplace, so if women want to emulate their success, the trick is to mimic their behaviour.

Even in the 1990s the flaw in this reasoning was obvious. Men’s greater success in the workplace is largely a product of their privileged status as men: just imitating their behaviour won’t give women their status. Yet here we are in the second decade of the 21st century, recycling the same old advice.

 

 

I really do appreciate these listeners’ concerns, but the notion that my uptalk means I was unsure of what I said is not only wrong, it’s misogynistic. It implies that if women just spoke like men, our ideas would be valuable. If women just spoke like men, sexist listeners would magically understand us, and we would be taken seriously. But the problem is not with feminized qualities, of speech or otherwise, the problem is that our culture pathologizes feminine traits as something to be ashamed of or apologize for.

 

I think Seitz-Brown is right: the problem isn’t women’s speech, it’s the way women’s speech is pathologized and policed. Anyone who does that should be greeted by a chorus of ‘you ignorant sexist, just STFU’.

 

 

 

It was just this: that chasing the masculine standard, conforming to the masculine ideal,  in order to achieve equal status won't work: we're demonising the feminine and perpetuating gender equality.

[midnight]

we have next to no dress code where I work. One guy came in wearing a t-shirt that simply said 'c**t'. I was asked what I thought of it. I said it doesn't bother me (not much does), but if some found it upsetting (why?) then maybe he should be told to change it. 

Another guy wore one saying something like "I'm already imagining you with duc tape over your mouth", which again brought some complaints. 

Mostly they were complaints because of the type of people (?) they were, and it was an opportunity for people who didn't like them to make a supposed legitimate complaint. Well, that's what it felt like to me

The women are pretty free to wear what they like too. There was one, particularly lively girl, who kept wearing shorter and shorter skirts, until one day it looked like she'd come to work in a 'Barbie' nightdress, with plenty of cleavage. The managers felt the need to have a word with her.....

 

It's sort of difficult (to not have a dress code)

 

but not that much

 

Yes. That's the problem that often arises. And even if you do know that this is the likely reason for the complaint, there's little you can do about it, because it's hard to prove. 

[eFestivals]

When they've tried to rationalise back to biological determinism, we get things like, men demand fidelity while playing the field because they need to know who fathered their children, but also need to spread their genes as far as possible.

they're even more stupid than I'd been believing, then.

 

that one was so obviously a sexist rationale of a cultural gender bias, that I used to have fun making up alternatives - such as it benefits women to sleep with as many people as possible, to ensure the strongest sperm fertilises her egg, while at the same time needs a stable male to provide food and shelter. So it's in her best interests to be promiscuous, but to persuade the most suitable male to stick around.

equally stupid. I suggest you try a biology course.

 

It's one of the most obvious example of a male dominated culture rationalising its own existence.

you just can't help yourself, can you?  

 

Then there's eugenics and genetic engineering - sadism and hatred dressed up as a coldly rational reality.

What?

 

If in doubt, post the biggest diversionary idiot bollocks you can think of, to quickly move the discussion somewhere else?

 

Or did you have a lobotomy yesterday?

 

[feral chile]

they're even more stupid than I'd been believing, then.

 

equally stupid. I suggest you try a biology course.

 

Quite. That's my whole point, you can use biology to claim ANYTHING!

 

you just can't help yourself, can you?

 

Don't believe in patriarchy now then? You know, male dominated society influencing ideas? As in, male dominated psychology espousing male dominated cultural values of the day, to justify playing the field while tethering the little woman to the bed? 

 

My, what a strange version of patriarchy you wear, Grandma!

 

What?

 

If in doubt, post the biggest diversionary idiot bollocks you can think of, to quickly move the discussion somewhere else?

 

Or did you have a lobotomy yesterday?

 

Racial inferiority. 'Objective' tests with cultural bias built in. IQ tests used to contain knowledge-based questions so black people came out as having lower IQ's, because the tests were based around the white middle classes. This was then used to justify their disadvantaged status as their 'natural place in society.

 

Eugenics - using social engineering (science) to eradicate 'genetic flaws' (cultural values - racist, homophobic etc. - there's even a movement amongst disability pressure groups who abhor the suggestion of genetically eradicating their disability, because they identify with their 'disability' and see it as discrimination - ie, they're socially undesirable).

 

Don't get me wrong, my personal opinion is that our biology influences us far more than we realise - but proving it would be impossible, because you can't take culture out of the equation. MY take on eugenics is that what's happening is typical in-group out-group tribal primate behaviour - casting out the 'other'. (That's not my piss-take make a point rationalisation, that's what I actually believe). But that's just my rationalisation, and no more valid than their idiotic version or my previous piss-take version.

Edited July 10, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

we have next to no dress code where I work. One guy came in wearing a t-shirt that simply said 'c**t'. I was asked what I thought of it. I said it doesn't bother me (not much does), but if some found it upsetting (why?) then maybe he should be told to change it. 

Another guy wore one saying something like "I'm already imagining you with duc tape over your mouth", which again brought some complaints. 

Mostly they were complaints because of the type of people (?) they were, and it was an opportunity for people who didn't like them to make a supposed legitimate complaint. Well, that's what it felt like to me

The women are pretty free to wear what they like too. There was one, particularly lively girl, who kept wearing shorter and shorter skirts, until one day it looked like she'd come to work in a 'Barbie' nightdress, with plenty of cleavage. The managers felt the need to have a word with her.....

 

It's sort of difficult (to not have a dress code)

 

but not that much

 

We have a strict code of conduct, so we'd know this could cause offence. We wouldn't swear in work or come out with discriminatory comments, so slogans would be treated in the same way as verbal statements. So we do have rules, I suppose, but they're so ingrained that we don't really notice them any more, and most would automatically avoid any controversial clothes.

 

Actually, that has made me realise how diversity awareness and conservative behaviour could go hand in hand.

Edited July 10, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

Quite. That's my whole point, you can use biology to claim ANYTHING!

No, that's what you're doing - claiming anything that suits your prejudices without reference to the facts.

FFS, go read back what you posted, that's factually wrong about biological processes, that you've done to try to give social sciences a free pass on the facts.

(Except you probably can't, because it very much looks like you';re making it up).

It seems to be passing you by that biology is a *real* science, rather than a head-invention that sometimes strays into something science that's part of another discipline.

[feral chile]

No, that's what you're doing - claiming anything that suits your prejudices without reference to the facts.

FFS, go read back what you posted, that's factually wrong about biological processes, that you've done to try to give social sciences a free pass on the facts.

(Except you probably can't, because it very much looks like you';re making it up).

It seems to be passing you by that biology is a *real* science, rather than a head-invention that sometimes strays into something science that's part of another discipline.

 

YES, but human behaviour, and human values, are social, and while our biology allows us to be social, how that's expressed is largely environmental.

 

Society decided on the old 80s double standards, THEN tried to use biology to justify it. We still do this, but now people suffer from sexual addiction. Apparently.

Edited July 10, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

We have a strict code of conduct, so we'd know this could cause offence.

except of course you have a strict code of conduct, yet no one can work out where it's crossed when its around offence caused by clothing*.

(* rather than words written on clothing).

[eFestivals]

YES, but human behaviour, and human values, are social

and you're back to making it up out of nothing again.

You just can't help yourself.

[feral chile]

and you're back to making it up out of nothing again.

You just can't help yourself.

 

You think values are biological? You think marriage, and faithfulness, and social rules, are biological?

 

What version of biological reality do you live in? have you become a Creationist? (We are what God (nature) made us fatalistic bulshit).

 

That's  biological determinism gone mad, mun. Even I'm not that much of a materialist.

 

 

edit: one thing I forgot was an 'explanation' for the seven year itch - anthropologists found that in societies that didn't have the Christian marriage ethic, there seemed to be a tendency for mating bonds to last 7 years. This was thought to be to do with viability of offspring/time invested inprotecting and nurturing the young. The father wasn't necessarily the natural father. (no inheritance law to protect, see).

 

THAT one MIGHT have some validity.

Edited July 10, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

except of course you have a strict code of conduct, yet no one can work out where it's crossed when its around offence caused by clothing*.

(* rather than words written on clothing).

 

 

That's because diversity doesn't really cover legs. just as shorts and minis don't

 

Sorry, I'm feeling a bit frivolous this morning, a colleague posted a status regarding 2 Welsh men she overheard drunkenly discussing the merits of dragons. Apparently, Welsh dragons are better because they're 'more realistic' - whereas Chinese dragons are 'clearly made up'.

 

it's making me feel a bit whimsical this morning

[eFestivals]

You think values are biological? You think marriage, and faithfulness, and social rules, are biological?

PMSL ... please open your mind.

Those are social constructs, but social constructs with biological drivers.

You cannot ignore the part those biological drivers are playing if you want to make the correct assessment of those social constructs.

What version of biological reality do you live in?

A different one to you, where you've recently invented a whole new reproductive process for humanity, as an attempt to prop up your blind faith.

Which of us is getting it wrong?

[feral chile]

PMSL ... please open your mind.

Those are social constructs, but social constructs with biological drivers.

You cannot ignore the part those biological drivers are playing if you want to make the correct assessment of those social constructs.

A different one to you, where you've recently invented a whole new reproductive process for humanity, as an attempt to prop up your blind faith.

Which of us is getting it wrong?

 

 

I haven't invented a different reproductive process, I agree with you, my version was a PISS-TAKE of the prevalent view.

 

And I don't think sperm fertilising eggs is controversial, you know. Mating behaviour and pair bonding can be open to interpretation, however.

 

Also, 'natural' isn't always the best option. Else I'd have died in childbirth 35 years ago, and 3, maybe 4, potential lives would never have happened. So I am quite happy to have medicine aiding biology, thank you very much