It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Sexist Female Oppression? Cleavage In The Workplace

page: 55
<< 52  53  54    56  57  58 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 04:42 AM
reply to post by bigrex

Not sure how to take that since my last post was more biting and I expected you to bite my head off after reading it, I thought my previous post before it was more "generous".

Your first post contained an attempt to categorize and psychoanalyze me, which was personal and offensive. Your second post stuck to the subject we are discussing.

Maybe you misread the first post in the wrong light, you were in a different mood, or it is just plain difficult to decipher one's intended message without the tone of voice coming across...or you are being sarcastic.

There you go again. You don't really get this courtesy business, do you?

We probably have a stalemate as far as I'm concerned.

You seem to think we're having an argument of some kind. You are wrong. It's not 'my theory' I'm expounding here. I am merely explaining what current scientific thinking is on the subject. Whether somebody accepts it or not doesn't matter one whit.

Here are a couple more papers showing the correlation between physical attractiveness and intelligence:

Sexual selection for indicators of intelligence Miller, G.F., in G. Bock, J. Goode,
& K. Webb (eds.), The Nature of Intelligence.. 2000, Wiley

Intelligence tests with higher g-loadings show higher correlations with body symmetry: evidence for a general fitness factor mediated by developmental stability Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, March 1971(!)

edit on 5/1/11 by Astyanax because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 10:11 AM
reply to post by Astyanax

"PPVT-III is the leading measure of receptive vocabulary for standard English and a screening test of verbal ability. This individually administered, norm-referenced instrument is offered in two parallel forms— IIIA and IIIB—for reliable testing and retesting. PPVT-III features:"

I checked your link before, but I am now including the aforementioned description from your link. It expressly states that the test is the standard for receptive vocabulary. Certainly not a full IQ test. No spatial reasoning, mathematics, logic puzzles, etc. This is going to make you a bit miffed, likely, but I will say it anyway. You are entangled by your own webs. I used to be a raging pseudo-intellectual in my college days. I changed. It is so plainly stated (I know it is SO very simple that a towering intellectual such as yourself must derive no narcissistic fodder by even deigning to consider such a base and trivial fact) as to be obvious. Very simple logic here. It is ONLY a verbal test. Intelligence has many aspects. One of which is verbal or linguistic in nature. If all elements of intelligence were to, say, be represented as pie slices in a circle, then the verbal aspect could be represented (for illustrative purposes only, not necessarily this arbitrary measurement I pulled out of my butt) as, say, 20% of the pie. Clearly, the intelligence test you sourced is intended to merely test one facet of intellect, regardless of how large this slice happens to be. Being that the intellect measured was verbal, it seems so convenient that this test was used to prop up the status of so-called "beautiful" people. BTW, I would consider myself at least an 8, so no bias there. Seeing as it is practically axiomatic that beautiful people are more social, as they are more socially accepted, that would lend, regardless of innate ability, to a likely further development of their relative verbal prowess, at least in my view. However, even if one were to accept that beautiful people were naturally born with a greater degree of the measured ability, it still remains to be merely one facet of intelligence. That fact CANNOT be argued, at least by someone making even an attempt at being reasonable. See the forest instead of the trees. This is a laughable argument. I think you just enjoy the whole game aspect of it. Ya know, if you win, you get an imaginary yellow smiley face sticker, a nice badge of honor. I do not think you are even making an attempt to be remotely reasonable, just riding the coattails of your own linguistic mastery. Grabbing a piece of nothing for ease, practically on auto pilot. Saying so much, yet so little.

Edit: BTW, I am sure you understand that correlation IS NOT causation. There are many factors involved behind the scenes, all of which exert influence in their own particular ways. If somebody is a healthier adult, I am sure you can locate studies that they came from a higher socio-economic background than the less healthy. Such a societal position practically guarantees a better educational background, more literate parents, better childhood nutrition, etc., all of which lends itself to a greater development of cognitive abilities. I am positive you can locate studies that indicate all of what I said. I am not going to do the legwork for you, as my time is precious. But, I guarantee you will find them if you look. Google is your friend. It does not mean in any way, shape, or form that genetically more beautiful, or symmetrical, people are more intelligent by virtue of genetics. Perhaps in the days before women's lib (and now too, let's be honest), the rich and powerful and ostensibly intelligent men all effed beautiful women, making for more beautiful babies. This means that the status afforded by apparently exercising one's intelligence in ways which increase the likelihood of financial success makes it all the more likely that one would get some hot pussy. And nowadays, the intelligent, financially successful women are probably more likely to attract a beautiful male. Nevertheless, regardless of the potential factors I listed, there is an entire magnitude of factors that are not even being considered. That much is clear. And, I will say it again, "Correlation does not equal causation."
edit on 5-1-2011 by orwellianunenlightenment because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 01:50 AM
reply to post by orwellianunenlightenment

You never looked at the study home page, did you? You still think it's some small-time study designed to prove that smart people are pretty, or some such, don't you? And exactly what is it that the Peabody test measures, again? Some 'segment' of IQ? Where did you read that?

I advise you to research the matter in a little more depth before replying.

As for your supplementary animadversions, they are really quite hysterical and tedious. I suggest a cold shower.

posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 11:10 AM
I just want to list a few things to help people understand where my opinion comes from before I go on my rant

I work at a car dealership. All of my salesmanagers and salesguys are MEN. All of our technicians are men. Every last one of them, men. We have a few women in our service department [service team managers], but other than that we're all concentrated in the accounting office. And what a small fleet we are. Including myself, there are ten of us. TEN. So needless to say, I'm used to being one of the few workin' girls on premises. I also differ slightly from the ladies in the accounting office because I'm in the showroom. I do my share of paperwork, yes, but my desk is out in the open, whereas the accounting office is on the second floor away from everything else. Being in the showroom I have to greet guests. I have direct everyday contact with clients and salesmen. My desk also sits lower than eye level. This wouldn't be a problem, except..
I have a bust size of 36DDD. I'm 5'2 and 150lbs. It's not as noticeable during the colder months because of longsleeved sweaters and heavy coats, but of course when it's 90 degrees outside, I will try to dress as light as I can, and sometimes it's not the best idea.

With that being said, my argument starts.

I think there are places where it's appropriate to show cleavage and places where if possible, should be avoided.
Like I mentioned above, I have quite a "rack" on me. I can't help it because unfortunately, large breasts run in BOTH sides of my family, so there was never a chance for guess. Because of this, I've learned that in certain situations, they can be an asset or a liablitiy.
When I go to work, I dress conservatively. I wear dress pants, during the summer months the occasional skirt, but never very short. When it comes to shirts, I tread a very difficult line. I like scoop necks, but I recognise that some are work-appropriate and some are not. If there is a shirt that I'm dying to wear that seems a bit too open-chested, I'll wear a lacy tanktop under it to prevent unwanted attention. I'm not going to lie and say that there aren't any cute guys here, trust me there are, but when I think of all the other guys working here, I'd rather stay a little covered up. Looking cute for one or two guys isn't worth having the unwanted guys' attention.
When I go out with friends, though, that's a whole 'nother story. I wear short skirts and very low tank tops. If my boobs AREN'T on display, I feel wrong. I have a lot of Navy friends, and they're your typical sexist guys who love to have fun and share some drunk fights [I love them to death]. I've even had one of them comment to one of my friends [when they were trying to figure out if that was me walking towards the bar we were meeting at] "that's not her [referring to me], she's not wearing a provacative enough top".

Needless to say, my coworkers would probably have a heart attack if they saw how I dress when I "go out" [mind you I don't dress like that ALL the time, just when we go out to bars or clubs!!!]. My friends would probably comment on the lack of skin I show if they see me in my work clothes [they'd never tell me I look nice to my face but I'd hear they liked my non-cleavage shirt like a week later].

So my little opinion is this: go ahead, let your freak flag fly...but just know where it's okay to do so and where it's not.

posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 11:20 AM

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

Moreover, good looks are an excellent predictor of intelligence, fitness and moral fibre. I am always wary of ugly or bland-looking people: they tend to harbour various physical and mental deficiencies, as well as resentments inspired by these defects. Our perception of them as ugly is an instinctive recognition of that.

NO JUDGEMENT, NO JUDGEMENT!!!...but, that WAS a little mean.

posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 08:19 PM
reply to post by hotbakedtater

Allowing females to bully other employees is *not* sexist.

posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 11:35 PM
reply to post by hotbakedtater

A women who over-exposes her mammary glands in the workplace is definitely wanting to attract sexually oriented attention. It is distracting and wholly inappropriate. As a female I must say that I weary of the bulging globular masses pouring out of women's scanty clothing. It is meant to incite lust, I would suppose, in a male but is offensive to many of us secure women. What is worse is when these things are implants. Good grief! It may attract attention but it will not be the sort that is welcome or positive. A secure female covers up her breasts at work and depends on her intellect, balanced personality, intuition and knowledge to gain positive recognition from her peers.

posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 01:22 AM
reply to post by TheColouredFlower

What a very sensible attitude, ma'am. You seem to have arrived at the ideal compromise.

Incidentally, I was discussing this issue with my brother last night. He's a banker, specializing in wealth management for rich individuals. He tells me that while his bank has very specific rules about what employees may or may not wear, customer cleavage is often a distraction and embarrassment. In cases where it seems particularly so, he makes a point of scrutinizing the client's finances, background and history with particular care.

Apparently one of the uses of cleavage in the workplace is to encourage moral hazard in bankers.

posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 01:29 AM
reply to post by TheColouredFlower

You're right, it is a little mean, and people on this thread have been telling me what a wrongheaded, elitist pig I am ever since I posted it. But it is also the fruit of personal experience, and in recent times I have discovered that the theories and findings of evolutionary biology and anthropology tend to support it. So, mean or not, I believe it is true. The truth is not always pleasant to hear.

But I'll tell you something: many others do the same as I, even though they'll never admit it. I have already posted the evidence for this; it is in those studies which show that good-looking people get more trust, sympathy, deference, sexual advances, etc., than ugly ones.

My only crime, really, is not being a hypocrite about it.

posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 04:29 PM
reply to post by Astyanax

I say if something works for you, go for it! Its not like you're hurting anyone else, you know?

posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 07:43 PM
reply to post by DenyIdiocy4

No, it is simply putting a female psychopath in charge instead of a male psychopath. The corporate world is filled with these manipulators who derive satisfaction, on some weird level, from abusing others. There are many levels of psychopathy and we are surrounded by them, some within our own families.
edit on 7-1-2011 by Elderlight because: xtra info

posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 05:26 PM
reply to post by hotbakedtater

I love my body... All of it. I'm 38 triple d. I just turned 27. I wear v necks, because they look good on me. However I wear something under them to prevent "showing off". In any setting.. Work or play... I'd rather people recognize my intelligence and look at my eyes when speaking to me. And.. Needless to say.. They won't be doing so if I'm showing off assets better left to evening attire and hbo soft porn. (Then again I'd probably look good wearing a potato sack). But demand respect and use my eyes to call demand to do so.
Free dress codes leave it to you decide because you should be able to make good choices with out someone dictating how to do so. Showing cleavage tells upper management that your mind is probably still in college mode, and your not ready for anything less then entry level. As well as, it speaks that your advertising your goods... And not for the good of the company. They probably question if your there as an employee or a cast reject off girls gone wild. It may feel good to dress "sexy". But how you dress speaks to others about your level of mind and respect.

posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 05:34 PM

Originally posted by mumma in pyjamas
reply to post by vcwxvwligen

Where did this theory that a bulk of sexual harassment cases involve women with small breasts come from?
I had a bit of a search around and I could find no evidence to support this strange claim.
Feel free to provide any proof of this theory,I would be more than amazed if any evidence for this could be found.

I've personally observed that women with small breasts tend to appeal directly to (male) authority figures, whereas those with large breasts tend to mostly discuss their issues with their good friends, or just keep them secret.

The other theory that all small breasted women are "late bloomers" is absurd to say the least.

It takes three to five years from the time your breasts start growing until they reach their full size. The age when you start to develop does not have an effect on the final size of your breasts. For example, if you develop earlier than most girls, this doesn't mean that you will have bigger breasts than most girls.


By "late bloomer," I refer to more than just breast size. There are a number of factors that affect breast size besides adolescence. Women with small breasts tend to be more spirited and less stereotypically "lady-like." Perhaps because they are less restricted in their mobility. Some women are less reserved than others due to their limited sexual experience, while some simply find a way to enjoy themselves.

There are way too many too many theories about breast and shirts here, and very strange theories at that.
Some people like to wear frilly and floral tops, with a never ending choice in cuts and necklines.
It's called style, just so you know we women don't choose our top designs bases on the "ease" of which we could be fondled against our will.All these theories come off as creepy.

I find that people nowadays tend to engage in their day-to-day behaviors without any rational motive. They simply understand that it is expected or customary, and are unwilling to ask questions. There was a time when these kinds of explanations were passed down from mother to daughter through oral tradition, but those days are apparently gone. Many people don't know that wearing makeup originated as a form of witchcraft.

For the record I think cleavage at work is in general not on, unless it's part of the "uniform", or lack there of.

I personally don't care either way. In some situations cleavage will cause problems, and in others it won't. My main issue is with OP suggesting that disallowing women from showing cleavage is sexist and unreasonably oppressive.

posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 05:36 PM

Originally posted by orwellianunenlightenment
reply to post by undo

If he has a bone to pick with a certain type, he needs to realize that that type is far from all women, only a minority

I'm not sure whether you fully understood the premise of the original post.

posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 05:48 PM

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Annee

it's a matter of degrees. some men think hair is sexual, or wrists, or feet or calves or necks, or lips. your lips aren't sexual but they can be used in the same way breasts can during sex. we aren't freakin' out and covering our lips up. this has got to be a perception and projection issue. i can't think of any other reason

What is the projection here, that only some men likes breasts, and they're forcing all women to cover up? The perception issue is your perception of breasts being asexual. If you look at paintings from ancient Rome, the women whose breasts were most exposed usually served some sort of sexual capacity in the scene.

posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 05:50 PM

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Annee

and that explains lips too? i think it's just anywhere there's a sensitive spot, is construed as sexual and therefore evil. but we have specific hang ups vs. some cultures that pretty much think the entire female should be off limits, visually and even audibly

This is a slippery-slope argument, and a good example for why women are kept out of power.

posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 06:05 PM

Originally posted by Crakeur
reply to post by undo

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.

She lied about her breasts being natural, when in fact she'd gotten implants. She also didn't speak good English and was very defensive about the situation.

posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 06:59 PM

Originally posted by Dark Ghost

Originally posted by Astyanax
Moreover, good looks are an excellent predictor of intelligence, fitness and moral fibre. I am always wary of ugly or bland-looking people: they tend to harbour various physical and mental deficiencies, as well as resentments inspired by these defects. Our perception of them as ugly is an instinctive recognition of that.

Harsh words, but they do ring somewhat true in a "Survival of the Fittest" sense. However, I strongly urge you to reconsider this view. I used to work with a woman that was rather uneasy on the eye - as well as being withdrawn and unfriendly. After talking with her a few times, I realised she was actually a rather nice person that just had a few problems - don't we all?

I have also met some stunning women who appeared Angel-like in their looks (their physical beauty simply breathtaking) who turned out to be mean and unpleasant to be around - they initially seemed warm and friendly. They would be very self-absorbed and indifferent to the views of others.

The point is that our minds sometimes deceive us into viewing physical attributes as the most significant attribute in the person who stands before us. It is important to remember that in many ways what we cannot see (character, intelligence, compassion,ambition) is more important than what we can. Especially in the workplace where Intelligence and Skills are of a higher priority than physical attractiveness.

It's a little more complicated than that.

People who are aesthetically attractive -- and have attracted defenders -- are not worried about predators, which helps build social confidence. Confidence and safety enable attractive people to relax and worry less about basic survival. They are able to focus their energies on more civilized endeavors. Conversely, attractive people learn to depress their personalities, because they are approached so often that they must reject most of the people they encounter. They are not afraid of any retribution from rejecting others, relying on the safety guaranteed by their defenders.

Ugly people have used a different strategy of depressing their looks instead of their personalities. Some depress their personalities as well, and some develop aggressive personalities in order to preemptively deter predators.

posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 07:12 PM
reply to post by Astyanax

I am parasite-resistant! (So far.) Does anyone want me?

posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 03:26 AM
reply to post by simone50m

I am parasite-resistant! (So far.) Does anyone want me?

Why are you asking me? Anyway, if you want an answer, post a photograph. Cleavage optional.

new topics

top topics

<< 52  53  54    56  57  58 >>

log in