Sexist Female Oppression? Cleavage In The Workplace

reply to post by Kailassa


you do realize that is not the point of the op, when alls said and done. the point is, without a clearly defined dress code, that bar can be pushed all over the place, and reinterpreted based on personal opinion over what is and isn't acceptable coverage of breasts, particularly if those breasts are larger than normal and harder to dress down.

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Annee

 

this would seem to suggest that bosses will never again play fast and loose with the defintion of acceptable attire. let's say he's black and doesn't like oriental people but has to have a few in his employ due to equal opportunity laws for his per capita location, he can just make stuff up to promote others instead of an oriental female, to his heart's content, with no oversight, if he doesn't have a dress code spelled out specifically. and it would have to be pretty darn specific to make sure it also made contingencies for women with "inherently obscene" breast sizes.

I think we've already covered - - owner/boss - - dress code prerogative. Let's not rehash it over and over.

I think the correct terminology is Asian. Why are you bringing EO laws in to this. I worked on an EO report - - its quite specific. Lying on a government report has nothing to do with the subject.

Why can't you stay on subject?

reply to post by intrepid


it's an example how a racist position can be maintained in a job environment by simply using an invisible dress code, that the employer has neglected to write down. i'm not saying it's the point of the op, entirely, just that it applies to how not defining the dress code specifically, can result in issues the op is bringing up.

are we assuming employers have all become thoughtful, fair, well-balanced, non prejudicial people?

Originally posted by undo
it's an example how a racist position can be maintained in a job environment

OK, we're passed sexist and on to racist now. Damn the topic changes fast in this thread.

are we assuming employers have all become thoughtful, fair, well-balanced, non prejudicial people?

I work for the gov't and I haven't seen anything like, "thoughtful, fair, well-balanced, non prejudicial people" in years.

Originally posted by Kailassa

Back then, as you pointed out, there was no legal protection from sexual harassment.

In one early job I had, the floor supervisors, all male, each took their pick from the floor workers, all female, and if the chosen woman refused sex, she was fired. I was lucky enough to be able to just lead the guy on, supposedly preparing his office, while I utilized his phone and got myself a better job.

That was Hanimex, Brookvale, (NSW), 1973, and women there could dress as scantily as they liked. Unsurprisingly, most of us dressed rather modestly.

Yep! I've played "Dance Around the Desk".

I've been drug into storage closets. Fortunately - - they all accepted NO as NO.

It is a little bit difficult - - discussing those "Hippie/Free Love" days - - when "vanity panels" had to be attached to the front of desks that used to be open.

That was a cultural period - - that tested all the rules.

reply to post by Annee


what did tater originally post on the subject? she suggested the scenario that the boss is not promoting people who don't follow an invisible dress code he has not even written down. and that his invisible dress code is based on his personal view of what is and isn't acceptable attire (

reply to post by intrepid


racism and sexism are practically synonmous, as the well spring from which they both draw is the inability to see things from any possible perspective but the current one being locally experienced.

Originally posted by undo
racism and sexism are practically synonmous,

OK, this time I AM going to ask for material to back this up. Not just opinion. Grab your Google.

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Kailassa

 

you do realize that is not the point of the op, when alls said and done. the point is, without a clearly defined dress code, that bar can be pushed all over the place, and reinterpreted based on personal opinion over what is and isn't acceptable coverage of breasts, particularly if those breasts are larger than normal and harder to dress down.

How does this relate to my post which you are supposedly answering? -

Originally posted by Kailassa
reply to post by Annee

 

Like me, you'd remember the days when some employers liked to have a woman or two displaying their bootie. But that tended to be because they regarded the workers concerned as eye-candy, and were more interested in getting an eyeful than having a competant worker. And some bosses did it as an ownership thing, to show off and make other men jealous.

Back then, as you pointed out, there was no legal protection from sexual harassment.
In one early job I had, the floor supervisers, all male, each took their pick from the floor workers, all female, and if the chosen woman refused sex, she was fired. I was lucky enough to be able to just lead the guy on, supposedly preparing his office, while I utilised his phone and got myself a better job.

That was Hanimex, Brookvale, (NSW), 1973, and women there could dress as scantily as they liked. Unsurprisingly, most of us dressed rather modestly.

I'm wondering if some women want to go back to those times.

We all know the power a display of uncovered breast gives a woman over men.
However a smart woman realises that she will rarely be the winner if she tries this in a workplace where modesty is expected.

I believe women are plenty smart enough to figure out what's acceptable in their own workplace.
However some just insist on pushing the boundaries.

A simple guide is that in a workplace where men have to refrain from showing off their chests, women should do likewise.

Wanting every detail in writing is silly, when there is so much variation in women's clothing. A written code would inevitably mean restricting choice even further if it was done to avoid hassles about breast exposure.

It's not that its oppressing you or any other women to not show your cleavage, its just, if you show more, then your likely going to be taken less seriously because 'if you wear a police mans uniform, then it wouldn't be wrong to ask you for help''.....''If you wear a slut's uniform, then it wouldn't be wrong for people to think...'' you get the idea.

You see, you say its sexist but men don't have such things to show off as women do.

Your just nit picking.

I think it's sexist how women refer to their breasts as "assets"

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by intrepid

 

lips were a reference to other parts of the body being sensitive, frequently employed during sex, that actually are not sex organs in the strictest sense of the word, and yet we don't cover them up.

whereas the other example seems to suggest that if we must compare, the only available comparison is penis or breasts ,when in fact, ladies have a penis equivalent just as men have a mammary equivalent.

That makes it easy.
If women are working in an environment where men can show their breasts, the women can demand equal treatment.

If men can only have the top button unbuttoned, the same should go for women.

Fair enough? Or would such rules make women less free?

reply to post by brutalsun


i think it's sexist to suggest a woman's breasts make her a slut, the moment they make an appearance of any amount, from neglible to excessive.

reply to post by Kailassa


i agree as the work place where dress is important enough to change your chances at promotion, should have guidelines that indicate the reviewers personal understanding of acceptable attire.

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Kailassa

 

i agree as the work place where dress is important enough to change your chances at promotion, should have guidelines that indicate the reviewers personal understanding of acceptable attire.

Really? Not according to one of the ladies in the OP's source material:

When I was an editor of a magazine, I would NEVER have employed a woman who’d come for an interview showing off her cleavage, any more than I would have hired a man wearing tight shorts with his lunchbox on prominent display.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

I recommend reading the source material if one hasn't already. It's rife of the abuse of cleavage use. "Assets"? It looks like that is the case.

reply to post by undo


it should be common sense and if it must be an explained rule, employers are subjecting themselves to potential harrassment suits.

there was a case here in NYC recently, a woman was fired because her skirts were too tight, too short and her cleavage was a bit too overexposed. She sued the bank for harrassment. If her employer had said to her, you can't dress like this, she'd have sued her employer for harrassment.

lose lose situation so the dress code you seek becomes one where, if you cannot figure out that your work ethic and your abilities will be the impetus for promotion, you probably shouldn't expect to move too far up the proverbial ladder.

As an employer, I can say that I would never, ever tell one of the women working here that they shouldn't show their cleavage or they should dress a certain way. it's a lawyer's wet dream

Originally posted by brutalsun
I think it's sexist how women refer to their breasts as "assets"

Why?

reply to post by Crakeur


So essentially as with so many things it comes down to people using lawyers to sue over the most minor things to get a bit of quick cash that has resulted in an environment where employers cannot give detailed dress codes, cannot tell their employees their dress is innapropriate and so must do things in a secret manner to avoid lawsuits.

That sounds about right and causes me to go back to the position i've had all along.

If you are not smart enough to work out what is and is not appropriate dress for the work environment you are in then you probably are not worth promoting.

reply to post by intrepid


we discussed this particular aspect at length several pages ago. what i got from it was: the ladies saw the advantages of using their breasts to get ahead, decided that it wasn't much fun anymore after becoming successful and went for the reduction surgery to downplay their appearance.
then impressed it on the rest of the work force, that showing cleavage was simply whoring for dollars.

i'm not in disagreement with them on any of their positions. i agree that using their cleavage to their advantage in the work place, to the degree described, was cheap, although it does not automatically indicate they are whores (unless the entirety of the human female race are whores. we have all had some use for our breasts, other than just spill cloths for coffee dribbles)

i thought it was ridiculous it had to get to the point where they felt they could only be assured they were succeeding due to skill, by having them removed. and that now, the new trend is, to punish women for looking female. (sorry, that's just how i translate the choice of styles and colors in the corporate world)

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by brutalsun
I think it's sexist how women refer to their breasts as "assets"

Why?

I can't speak for him but I do agree. Look at "assets".

noun: anything of material value or usefulness

www.onelook.com...

Women have fought long and hard for their rights to equality. This would be a step back imo. If one has to use boobs to get ahead, or to avoid repercussions as is pointed out in the source material, it's a slap in the face of those women that knew they were equal and didn't need to perpetrate this in the male dominated world.