Sexist Female Oppression? Cleavage In The Workplace

reply to post by Wildbob77


women have an equivalent of that too. breasts are food thingies. not sex thingies but because we have mystified them, they have become evil sex thingies. if you saw them all the time, it'd become just natural like seeing someone's nose.

reply to post by intrepid


Interestingly, there have been studies done on this and it has been shown that the more someone fits with society's "ideal" the more advantageous it is for them. For instance: men who are 6ft or taller and who have that "V" shaped body type (i.e. tall, broad shoulders, narrow waist, etc.) have been shown to be more successful at work (though I'm sure there are many other factors that contribute to the success, as well.)

Hey if women can show cleavage in the workplace, I think men ought to be able to too!

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/325d1d4e53f1.jpg[/atsimg]

(If I worked next to this every day, I'de never get any work done - God I just get warm all over looking at this picture, I'm not dead yet!)

Personally though, I was raised that for work one should dress "business like" and not like they are going to the beach or out to a bar.............but maybe I'm just showing my age.

An example I can think of is the charactor "Cuddy" on House............I've worked several hospitals and none of the Hospital Administrators would dare dress like she does.

Come on folks, wake up. This is Hollywood, la la land and people are buying this fantasy.

Dressing sexual in most offices is a big no no.

Yes there is a fine line, you can dress feminine but showing cleavage or too much leg, in a regular office is not a good idea.

And while we're talking sexist female opppression, why then can't men show cleavage, sounds like a good idea to me, I'de rather see a man's chest than a women's any way.

Sexist female oppression - don't get me started: Men are the oppressed ones in today's society

-- 80% of all divorces end up with the mother (female) getting custody (joint means the father might get to see HIS CHILD every two weeks for 48 hours.

-- Men can get drafted and sent off to war while the princessess can sit on their royals behinds safe at home, I say if men get drafted to the front line - let the women get the same exact treatment.

-- Men are portrayed on TV commercials and programs as brutal, abusive and stupid.........women as the poor victims and smarter.

-- I've worked under men and women bosses, and I'll take a man boss any day. They are more fair, less emotionally unstable (PMS, etc).

No, I think our society here in America, treat men poorly. Case in point, it was okay for my ex daughter in law to hit my son in a police parking lot, the cops even laughed, but if he had just smacked her back (equal is equal) he would have been thrown into jail.

Women get away with all kinds of feces (not allowed to say the brown word any more on ATS).

Law wise, I've seen my ex daughter in law get away with far more stuff than my son ever could because she is a woman.

She has called up my son's work and got him fired.
She has hit him around in front of police and they laugh (he is 6' she is 5')
She has stalked him
She has called his fiance and threatened her
She has slandered my son's name, actually lying about him

And yet the courts don't care.......................if he had done any of those things back he would be in jail.

Women have it all over men from a legal stand point in most cases.

Example, very few women murderers ever get executed compared to men.

I believe everyone should be treated fairly.

And you know what, why not make everyone at school and work simply wear a uniform so we are all exactly equal.

reply to post by LadySkadi


apparently the studies are out of date, as regards women in the workplace. there's a backlash against women being feminine or identifiable as female in more than a very antiseptic, bland way. non-sexual work environment=everyone looks like men, even the ladies. this suggests that looking like a lady is equivalent to not being professional. what's wrong with women again?

reply to post by undo


Well, now you're getting into the idea of glass-ceilings and what women have had to do to compensate for that. I agree, that in the past and to some extent to date, that women have had to walk a very fine line in the workplace. One cannot be too feminine but also cannot be too masculine. It is a double-edged sword and I've no doubt that "most women" have had to work much harder then men (sorry guys, but this is true in most cases) to reach and hold the same or similar positions of power that were traditionally male dominated in corporate life as well as to succeed in the typical male dominant blue-collar jobs. No arguments from me on this.

reply to post by hotbakedtater


He has a valid point. I think he is saying that if your brains suffice, you want to be respected for that. If they don't, you want to play the oldest card in the book. Then, if the highly developed intuitions of many people can read between the lines, you plea discrimination. But if you flirt your way to the top (using sexuality for advancement), then that is OK. In other words, you can use sexuality to your advantage, but if it is frowned upon, they are not playing fair, when it was you who was not playing fair all along. If you win the petty game, it is wonderful. If not, it is a tragedy. But if you play games, expect to lose occasionally. Men have had to concede many things that they wouldn't have otherwise in order to work harmoniously alongside women. Women should do the same. Many already do. The only way different people, whether it be different cultures, different genders, etc., can work together is through true compromise. This may sound harsh, but you are going to have to choose whether or not someone sees you as sexy or competent. Some people can pull off both, but many can't. Nevertheless, if you are going to play with fire, do not complain if you get burned. Life is full of risks. You decide which ones to take.

Intrepid is not the only man who have noticed some women, especially young women, play stupid or cutesie sexy when it gets them what they want, and if it doesn't, they play another character, like totally self-absorbed chameleons. Women have been expecting their men to have "character" for ages, largely because that integrity is predictable and stable, and this integrity makes one a steady provider and good at employment. Women may have been objectified, but men were subjectified if you want to be honest. Besides, this crap is all old news in my view. Again, from a man's perspective, things needed to be done in order to advance equality, but some women like to pretend (even quite privileged ones) that they are perpetually snubbed and discriminated against, and they play some pseudo victim card which is laughable. In the workplace (and in life), character is important, because it shows that you don't see the world as revolving around you, ready to play whatever angle gets you what you want. Selfish times 10.

reply to post by LadySkadi


That is true Lady, but not for all men. Men who didn't want to integrate into a good old boys network are screwed (or at least have been) as well. Of course, you can say they have a choice. But many did make that choice. Besides, I am of the view that power corrupts. Pretty basic really, but true. In the short future, we will have agreed upon equality, but we will then realize that those in power, men and women, can be quite dishonest and selfish and ruthless. Then, we will have a campaign to eradicate the dangerous ideological perspective that holds power. At least that is what I want. But I am sure there are many others. Besides, you have always seemed like a reasonable poster. The OP seems to be looking for affirmation, not reality.

reply to post by undo

\
Undo, in these environments, men are forced to wear the blandest of apparel as well. I fail to see the discrimination.

reply to post by LadySkadi


yeah it's pretty complicated glass ceiling, with filters on it that only allow passage based on about 1000 different parameters:

1) mood of the boss,

2) mood of other employees who may have the boss' ear,

3) your place in polite society, or lack thereof,

4) your personal attributes vs. your personal shortcomings,

5) your religion or lack thereof

6) have you paid your dues yet? if not, expect this particular glass ceiling to be the equivalent of a never ending, ever changing maze where you will only succeed when your usefulness in each category, has already expired. even then, you only pass these hurdles, as a result of some merciful benefactor, who feels sorry for ya

7) your gender, which carries its own challenges, particularly in a mixed environment where you have people of varying sexual preferences, intermingling and judging each other's job performance.

8) the slings and arrows of life's misfortunes (ya broke your fingers and can't type for a month, etc).

9) laws and societal norms causing pseudo realities (women who must not look like women, etc)

10) the appearance of the rest of your body, such as skin color, bone structure, facial attractiveness, racial variations, and so on, ad nauseum, so on.

reply to post by orwellianunenlightenment


what if you were required to wear happy colors only, and you had to have feminine touches on your clothes to be considered correctly attired? women are being turned into men. don't you agree?

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by orwellianunenlightenment

 

what if you were required to wear happy colors only, and you had to have feminine touches on your clothes to be considered correctly attired? women are being turned into men. don't you agree?

IF THIS WAS DEEMED APPROPRIATE ATTIRE FOR THE JOB I WOULD WEAR IT.

Seriously, turn on a childrens show and you'll see men dressed just like that. "OHMYGAWDZ THEYRE TRYING TO TURN THE MEN IN 4-SQUARE INTO WOMEN! CONSPIRACY BECAUSE I SAID SO!"

This is not rocket science.

This thread should be in the HOAX section by now, between the two of you all that has come up to prove this "conspiracy against women" is.... wait... nothing.

Hoax.

reply to post by Brood


we're not talking about a kid's show.
we're not talking about white men.
we're' not talking about the psychology of the op.
we're not talking about divorce court or child custody law suits.

we are talking about the problem with perceptions and projection.
we are talking about forcing women to look like men in order to be considered professional, presumably based on the idea that the true appearance of women is too distracting for men in a work environment and thus is unprofessional. the idea this ownus must be squarely on the shoulders of women, who incur higher clothing costs (some of which are entirely psychological) to do the same job, is part of the topic as well.

reply to post by undo

What absolute hogwash.
Asking women to cover the cleavage, where that does happen, is NOT making them look like men.

Your straw-men are getting more and more absurd, and I'm just surprised how patient the men are being in discussing this with you.

And women can dress as cheaply as men at work if they choose to get a few good suits to switch between, or mix'n match, and stick to them. But our greater freedom to choose from a variety of clothes means we generally choose to purchase more work clothes. This is freedom, not oppression.

reply to post by orwellianunenlightenment


problem is, why does it have to be considered the oldest card in the book? they are just a pair of feeding tools. they don't produce babies and therefore, are not part of the requirement for sexual congress. the only job they play in reproduction is related to triggering ovulation, which can happen with or without intercourse. i just don't get the big emphasis put on them and the mystique surrounding them. maybe somebody left out that part of the story.

Originally posted by Brood

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by orwellianunenlightenment

 

what if you were required to wear happy colors only, and you had to have feminine touches on your clothes to be considered correctly attired? women are being turned into men. don't you agree?

IF THIS WAS DEEMED APPROPRIATE ATTIRE FOR THE JOB I WOULD WEAR IT.

Seriously, turn on a childrens show and you'll see men dressed just like that. "OHMYGAWDZ THEYRE TRYING TO TURN THE MEN IN 4-SQUARE INTO WOMEN! CONSPIRACY BECAUSE I SAID SO!"

This is not rocket science.

This thread should be in the HOAX section by now, between the two of you all that has come up to prove this "conspiracy against women" is.... wait... nothing.

Hoax.

edit on 20-12-2010 by Brood because: (no reason given)

How is it a hoax? besides, I said the same thing you just said, unless the clothes are specifically forbidden, it is fair game to wear.

reply to post by Kailassa


notice i said part of the cost is psychological. when you look in the mirror, do you see a woman wearing work clothes, or a woman trying to look like a man, in order to not offend or trigger their "boobs in proximity" warning system.

reply to post by undo


Right, and I'm flat out saying that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Find me a single professional outfit for female that has a V-structure designed for women rather than an hourglass and you will have a point. Unfortunately they don't exist. Actually, although the "rectangle" structure is seen as the secondary shape for women's upper bodies, it is not used very much in formalwear at all because it does not look feminine enough.

Women's formalwear is not even made with a masculine form in mind whatsoever.

Hoax.

These ignorant stampedes from the desk of feminists need to stop.

I work in the medical (veterinary) field. We normally wear shapeless scrubs that look like PJ's. Some few people fit them well. I'm a guy, yes I look. I appreciate what is before me. But personality is more important to me.

reply to post by hotbakedtater


It is a hoax because you have no proof and the situation clearly unapparent in general reality. Just like every other thread in the Hoax section, no?

reply to post by Brood


i'm not a feminist. i'm a realist. i promise. just have alot of life experience to draw from, and hind sight, as you know, is always 20-20