What women (don't) want.

[eFestivals]

Hell Tony, Neil being a prick about it doesn't mean you're not being an idiot.

have you ever noticed that it's impossible to talk sense to some people, and that they only begin to wake up to themselves by insulting them?

Yes you do, cos you've just tried doing exactly that yourself.

Prick.

[kaosmark2]

have you ever noticed that it's impossible to talk sense to some people, and that they only begin to wake up to themselves by insulting them?

Yes you do, cos you've just tried doing exactly that yourself.

Prick.

Yep.

[kaosmark2]

Although where I work there is no dress code. Sorry, but it's true.

 

And no written dress code led to this:

 

There was one secretary who used to come to work with ever increasing amounts of flesh being exposed. Her manager had a word with her. A dress code didn't need to be introduced

 

If a manager has to explain to an employee that what they're doing is unacceptable, but it isn't in the rules/agreement/code of conduct/etc. then it's clear that the "no dress code" wasn't explicit enough about what is and isn't acceptable.

 

Why is that hard to understand?

[eFestivals]

where I work there is no dress code. Sorry, but it's true.

 

so full nakedness would be perfectly acceptable?

[fred quimby]

so full nakedness would be perfectly acceptable?

 

I think his place just does not allow dresses.

 

 

 

Sorry

[eFestivals]

Yes, Neil

 

pmsl

[frostypaw]

as I said, my kids (and my sisters kids) went to schools without a uniform policy, and no-one turned up naked. Where I work we have no dress code. People aren't as weird or difficult as you imagine.

 

There was one secretary who used to come to work with ever increasing amounts of flesh being exposed. Her manager had a word with her. A dress code didn't need to be introduced

You've beautifully given an example here that dismantles your whole argument and indeed much of your conservative philosophy.

You believe in 'light touch' - letting people get on with it in the belief that the vast majority will behave and those that don't well you can have a quiet word and no regulation is required.

This is at the core of the whole of conservative thinking - but it's a total ridiculous fallacy based upon their very small experience and view of the world. If your kids go to a 'nice' school and you work in a 'nice' place where no one ridiculously flaunts the rules and no one rebels, then you can carry on in that illusion - but you're a fucking idiot if you genuinely believe that everywhere is like that - if you genuinely believe there aren't schools and workplaces where people push the limits - that is just naive to the point of beggaring belief and I suggest some chats with teachers of standard secondary schools in cities might be an eyeopener.

If you're going to start saying things like "there shouldn't be a dress code" then you're going to find out that to some people no dress code means different things as demonstrated by your company needing to 'have a word' - what happened there was the unspoken dress code rules were enforced, the ones you assumed everyone shared so didn't need mention.

And that's where the conservative view gets so aggravating - the assumption of correctness, that everyone really agrees already - is marginalising and falsely superior. The tone seems "well civilised people don't behave like that so why would we need to say" implies those who hit the limits or disagree are uncivilised and rank outsiders within the group that had been assumed 'civilised',

Thusly, in these circumstances, it is this presumption that makes the 'quiet word' sexist and unpleasant - it becomes "that's too sexy" rather than "that breaks the dress code" which is horrific territory in a school. The judgement point is no longer a neatly defined rule set that anyone can view but down to taste and discretion and prejudice.

Anyhow we've not tried pushing your laissez-faire attitude in the other direction - how about if all the girls wanted to turn up in full face veils and robes?

Edited September 14, 2015 by frostypaw

[kaosmark2]

Because those situations also occurr when there IS a dress code, even more so with a school uniform (which is where this started).

Why on earth does it matter if a kid goes to school with their hair dyed? The only problem is they've broken a 'rule'

Have you ever had to challenge your employer on their interpretation of their rules?

 

It's easier if their rules are clearer.

 

With regards to uniforms, or dress codes, a simpler system of rules makes it easier to understand what is and isn't acceptable. If a child is told what they're doing is wrong, is it better to have a direct system they (or their parent) can challenge both in its enforcement and its reason, or to have an ambiguous "whatever isn't excessively sexual" rule?

 

 

When rules are clear, its easier to challenge them. Whether in terms of outright rebellion, explaining that your behaviour isn't outside the rules, or saying that they're a bad rule and should be amended to something else.

[frostypaw]

My kids didn't go to a 'nice' school, it was a rough and ready mix of kids in Cricklewood

That's not exactly Tower Hamlets issit. Hell I can find a slew of newspaper articles about school uniform clashes because girls were wearing what's been considered to be too revealing so it can be pretty much taken as read that your experience where everyone played nice is not the case all the time.

kaosmark put the next bit i'd wanna say better than i would already.

[fred quimby]

err... precisely. Loads of problems with uniforms

 

I'm not sure the uniform is the problem. They could have been like it with a no uniform policy

Edited September 14, 2015 by fred quimby

[feral chile]

Actually OMFG.

Did it genuinely not ever occur to you?

I think that might be where the sense of some feminists being a little 'jumpy' comes from - to first assume it's a sexist policy than the more obvious "you're here to learn not engage in mating rituals" is well... kinda jumpy. Of course you can't stop them, and the fall out can result in all kinds of dramas but schools have to do what they can.

Now that really is an interesting perspective.... Yes. Let's test it with another item. All kids are not allowed to carry knifes because 'some of them are difficult' - the lowest common denominator rules...? All kids are not allowed to have mobiles on/out in class becase 'some of them are difficult' - the lowest common denominator rules...?

I can keep going. But I thinkhope you see my point here. The reason you need rules is because people break them, it's not for fun.

Well mostly. As with some of our actual laws there are some bollocks rules

I started a thread on conformity, and how you conform to being a nonconformist - so yes, it has occurred to me, OMFG was a bit unnecessary.

Though apologies if I took courtesy to the level of patronising.

[feral chile]

well if tonyblair becomes prime minister and uniforms are abolished, what sort of a time at school do you think your kids will have when they get to 12 or 13 (or less) if they are dressed in charity shop clothes...

 

£100 is a lot, but it's a lot less than parents having to fork out for the latest trainers and whatever else the latest "must be seen in or risk being bullied" fashion fad is every other month.

 

And then there's the matter of kids having their trainers being stolen. I dont think there's many instances of kids having their clarkes stolen..

they brought in school uniform in my kids' primary school to stop kids being bullied for not having designer trainers/other kids nicking their designer trainers etc.

I can see both sides of the argument though - rules can get arbitrary, they should never be about teaching conformity, they should always be open to discussion, justification and revision.

I'd rather teach the values of democracy than those of a dictatorship.

[feral chile]

precisely. What kids wear is nothing to do with education.

 

 

I think a lot of the time kids spend at school is already a waste of time.

Formal education maybe. what kids wear is very much to do with education though, whichever dress code they have. And whichever one they're following.

[feral chile]

But what is "naked" tony?

A naked ankle? A naked shoulder? Too much breast showing? A nipple? What? Are speedos appropriate for men and bikinis for women? What??

Are you really so dumb as to not understand that you are laying out a rule but refusing to define it?

oh - you.....when I said exactly this about the school failing to define it, and society changing 'the rules' you mocked me! And now you're saying it!

[eFestivals]

oh - you.....when I said exactly this about the school failing to define it, and society changing 'the rules' you mocked me! And now you're saying it!

 

No. I'm making the same argument I've always done. Any confusion is your own.

[feral chile]

And no written dress code led to this:

 

 

If a manager has to explain to an employee that what they're doing is unacceptable, but it isn't in the rules/agreement/code of conduct/etc. then it's clear that the "no dress code" wasn't explicit enough about what is and isn't acceptable.

 

Why is that hard to understand?

This was a query I had earlier, and was trying to get at - I also have no work dress code, but 'appropriate' clothes must be worn. this then becomes subjective, because the clothes mustn't cause offence.

We're obviously not talking about illegal states of indecent exposure here, but if someone complains, it gets addressed. And I'm interested in why people complain.

In my earlier example, we were talking about a denim clad barely legal female.

So, I was trying to make sense of what the unwritten dress code was.

Neil still managed to disagree vociferously with me though.

Edited September 14, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

No. I'm making the same argument I've always done. Any confusion is your own.

no...we had a long discussion where you compared showing abit of thight with men wandering around exposing their genitals, and I challenged you on that, because indecent exposure is clearly defined. Showing a bit of leg isn't.

And now you're agreeing with me, 'appropriate' IS subjective and culturally defined!

[feral chile]

You've beautifully given an example here that dismantles your whole argument and indeed much of your conservative philosophy.

You believe in 'light touch' - letting people get on with it in the belief that the vast majority will behave and those that don't well you can have a quiet word and no regulation is required.

This is at the core of the whole of conservative thinking - but it's a total ridiculous fallacy based upon their very small experience and view of the world. If your kids go to a 'nice' school and you work in a 'nice' place where no one ridiculously flaunts the rules and no one rebels, then you can carry on in that illusion - but you're a fucking idiot if you genuinely believe that everywhere is like that - if you genuinely believe there aren't schools and workplaces where people push the limits - that is just naive to the point of beggaring belief and I suggest some chats with teachers of standard secondary schools in cities might be an eyeopener.

If you're going to start saying things like "there shouldn't be a dress code" then you're going to find out that to some people no dress code means different things as demonstrated by your company needing to 'have a word' - what happened there was the unspoken dress code rules were enforced, the ones you assumed everyone shared so didn't need mention.

And that's where the conservative view gets so aggravating - the assumption of correctness, that everyone really agrees already - is marginalising and falsely superior. The tone seems "well civilised people don't behave like that so why would we need to say" implies those who hit the limits or disagree are uncivilised and rank outsiders within the group that had been assumed 'civilised',

Thusly, in these circumstances, it is this presumption that makes the 'quiet word' sexist and unpleasant - it becomes "that's too sexy" rather than "that breaks the dress code" which is horrific territory in a school. The judgement point is no longer a neatly defined rule set that anyone can view but down to taste and discretion and prejudice.

Anyhow we've not tried pushing your laissez-faire attitude in the other direction - how about if all the girls wanted to turn up in full face veils and robes?

 

[feral chile]

frosty, that bolded bit in the above post - yes and quadruple yes, thank you!

[eFestivals]

no...we had a long discussion where you compared showing abit of thight with men wandering around exposing their genitals, and I challenged you on that, because indecent exposure is clearly defined. Showing a bit of leg isn't.

And now you're agreeing with me, 'appropriate' IS subjective and culturally defined!

 

Oh look, you're back to inventing things.

 

Just as I've had to do here, I used an extreme example to make a point about dress codes, when you were arguing the same point that tony has just looked foolish over.

 

You were claiming to have no dress codes at your work. I pointed out that you did have them.

 

How many times you gonna do this to try and cover up your own stupidity, feral? There is a limit to the number oftimes I'll put up with it, just so you know in advance.

[philipsteak]

This thread is going to be showing up in some very odd google searches

[feral chile]

Oh look, you're back to inventing things.

 

Just as I've had to do here, I used an extreme example to make a point about dress codes, when you were arguing the same point that tony has just looked foolish over.

 

You were claiming to have no dress codes at your work. I pointed out that you did have them.

 

How many times you gonna do this to try and cover up your own stupidity, feral? There is a limit to the number oftimes I'll put up with it, just so you know in advance.

 

It's not an example - laws and rules are not interchangeable.

 

by the way, I agree that if there are rules, they should be overt.

 

I also agree with tony that some are stupid and unnecessary.

[eFestivals]

I think I might have just deleted a post by accident, if so, my apologies.

(There's no confirm for delete when using the mobile skin)

[eFestivals]

It's not an example - laws and rules are not interchangeable.

by the way, I agree that if there are rules, they should be overt.

I also agree with tony that some are stupid and unnecessary.

It is an example. What is legally allowed towards nakedness goes waaaay further than any 'no dress code' normal workplace would allow as appropriate. You're just looking for weak get-outs to avoid admitting that the point (legal, rules, whatever) is good.

There is no such thing as no dress code, as everyone has a view on what they feel is appropriate.

There is no such thing as a non-sexist dress code, because of the specifics around the differences in the bodies of the genders and the differences in 'natural reproductive drivers'.

[feral chile]

It is an example. What is legally allowed towards nakedness goes waaaay further than any 'no dress code' normal workplace would allow as appropriate. You're just looking for weak get-outs to avoid admitting that the point (legal, rules, whatever) is good.

There is no such thing as no dress code, as everyone has a view on what they feel is appropriate.

There is no such thing as a non-sexist dress code, because of the specifics around the differences in the bodies of the genders and the differences in 'natural reproductive drivers'.

 

 

so why do you think girls aren't justified in moaning about it then, and should just abide by it? Shouldn't they be challenging it, like you thought I should be doing about Page 3?

 

If you think women are socialised into showing off their breasts, do you not think that they might be socialised to cover up, or that authority figures might be socialised to get them covered up?

 

this might be where we're misunderstanding each other. My interest is not in whether there's a dress code or not - I know there is. My interest is in who's setting it, and who should set it. I don't particularly care whether the dress code is cover up, show yourself, what - I'm interested in conformity and the limits and tensions within.

 

so, to me, patriarchy/society/feminism whatever, it's the unwritten social rules that fascinate me. I'm a functionalist, so I'm curious as to what function the socialisation of the 'no dress code' serves.

 

I personally think it aids conformity, by drawing attention to the dissenters.

 

You can camouflage yourself quite nicely behind a formal dress code.

Edited September 14, 2015 by feral chile