no sleeveless dresses for women in the house lobby

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: ketsuko
Sleevless dresses and blouses are only worn by women seeking sex? I rest my case.

That's not what I said, but please feel free to misconstrue me to your heart's content.

a reply to: Shamrock6

#womensshouldersmatter

a reply to: SprocketUK

interesting

why are brown shoes considered casual?

I'm mixed on this one. The rebel in me does not want to be told whether or not my dress is inappropriate because of sleeves.

On the other hand, decorum in dress is fading away by the day, and that saddens me. Maybe I'm just getting old (I'm 42). I'm a musician, and was taught that when on stage, or performing anywhere for that matter, you wear an ankle-length dress (or pants) of a conservative nature. Same when you're teaching. But these days, girls show up for performances in tight-ass skirts above the knees, strapless tops, OR in jeans and flip flops.

I see this everywhere in society, of course. Being comfortable is great and it has its place, but boy I just think we are turning into a society of slobs.

Ugh.

So- I say, good job that they are trying to uphold respectable standards and traditions of dress code over there in the Capitol. At least they are taking SOMETHING seriously.

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: SprocketUK

interesting

why are brown shoes considered casual?

I don't know why. Just how it is (I am in the UK, so it may be different over there).

Looking smart for the office and suchlike generally means, black or grey suits, brown shoes don't go well with those. They are more suited to, say, tweed, or cavalry twill, or sand coloured chinos. Similarly, your black shoes need to shine. If they don't then people will assume you are either lazy or just too thick to be able to bull your shoes up to a decent standard.

a reply to: TinySickTears

Why can women wear skirts but men can't wear shorts?

To be honest, none of it matters to much.

Its all social constructs. And we're constantly trying to improve without going to fast.

And as sad as it is, it's all we got. Go to a bar with no dress code and go to one with a fancy dress code. Count the fights for each.

People act differently based on how they're dressed.

Just like the police departments in America getting old military equipment makes them more aggressive.

a reply to: SprocketUK

interesting still

frank zappa has a song called brown shoes dont make it from 1967

en.wikipedia.org...

The title was inspired by an event covered by Time magazine reporter Hugh Sidey in 1966.[2] The reporter correctly guessed that something was amiss when the fastidiously dressed President Lyndon B. Johnson made the sartorial faux pas of wearing brown shoes with a gray suit. Johnson flew to Vietnam for a surprise public relations visit later that day.

a reply to: TinySickTears


There ya go then! haha.

For what it's worth, I bet we all on this forum understand how different ways of dressing are appropriate for different situations.
I look like crp most of the time. Black Tees, skanky blue jeans, scuffed boots and long hair with a few days growth on my chin and my tattoos showing.
When I go for an interview though, I am shaved, my hair is cut and I am wearing a decent suit, white shirt and a nice, not garish, tie and ever so shiny black oxfords or, if I am feeling racy, slip ons or Chelsea boots


ETA www.telegraph.co.uk...

a reply to: SprocketUK

I don't think it's the color so much, as it is maybe the materials used. If the shoes are brown and polished, I certainly wouldn't look askance at it.

Not that I'd take a chance...black and shiny all the way.

Although it does depend greatly upon the job and the situation. When I was doing job interviews for the processing company I worked for, seldom, I can only recall a few instances where appearance was the major deciding issue. We were hiring from the shallow end of the economic pool, and few could afford a nice suit and tie for an interview...as long as they were neat, and clean, it really didn't factor in all that much.

As I recall, the hiring criteria was: 1) On time for the interview. 2) Sober. 3) Neat appearance, showered, etc... 4) Reasonable command of the english language...though lack of wasn't a killer, it certainly didn't help.

I hated conducting interviews, it was generally unpaid, while I was home on vacation... One of the reasons I usually went someplace else...

a reply to: seagull

I know what you mean, but your second para nails it. Why take the chance? Go for what you know works.



Thing is, there are just as many conventions on how males dress as there are for women. I guess, with the history of sexism in the workplace, they are more attuned to pick up on things whereas the average guy just reaches for the dark suit and black shoes when he needs to without thinking about it.


I was at a state school in the 80's and we often had a bit of time with the head where he explained the importance of these little things to us so we would be prepared when we went out into the world. It's the same sort of stuff as writing cover letters for your CV...You know, "You cannot be sincere with someone you don't know, so if you start Dear Sir, end Yours faithfully" 30 years and I still remember lol.

originally posted by: TinySickTears

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: TinySickTears

Even if this is true... How are dress codes regressive?

Plenty of restaurants and local government buildings have them.

Go to court and there is a dress code.

If you go to a bar with no dress code, the conduct is different of that of one with a dress code.

People act inherently different while dressed more fitting for certain environments.

im not saying there should be no dress code

i just dont get why opened toed shoes or dresses with no sleeves are not allowed

i also asked if theyre considered unprofessional cause i know # about this stuff.

just seems silly. its 2017
its not like a sleeveless dress or some heels that show a toe are lounge wear

Open toed shoes are widely considered both unprofessional and a safety hazard at many, many places of business. A lot of serious foot injuries occur because of open shoes. And in a high traffic area where people can easily get their feet stepped on, equipment dropped on them, etc., it's not practical to wear silly shoes like that.

Besides...how nasty is it when some chick with jacked up toes is walking around in shoes like that out in the public eye? Pretty f*cking. Seriously, if your feet look like you might fly around and snatch your dinner out of a swamp...cover that horror up, please and thank you. Know what I mean?

I get the sleeveless thing too. Women take that and run with it. Spaghetti straps with bra straps underneath, racer-back tops that show way more bare flesh than appropriate for a place where you're working in the public eye, representing a government office. And, as a woman who has spent untold amounts of time around other women, I'm sorry to have to tell you but...not all women bother to shave under their arms, nor utilize the magical substance known as deodorant, either. Why do men not get to wear sleeveless attire? Same reason women shouldn't.

If they allow sleeveless attire, people will push it to the absolute limit. Then, you've got resources being wasted on arguing over what attire is considered sleeveless, blah blah blah...that's just a pain in the ass. Men can't wear sleeveless whatnot either, so what's the difference?

Nah...save the casual attire for your weekends off, like most people do in ordinary business environments every day. The chick in the story even says she walks really fast past security so they don't nail her for her open toed shoes. I'd be willing to bet that her sleeveless attire was something more suited for a casual summer day than what is appropriate for a professional environment such as that one.

the dress code for most governments is very strict. Being that most governments are male dominated, it is logical to conclude that males are the primary victim of this restriction. Women should not be offended that they have a dress code in government. The men have put up with it since the dawn of civilization.

a reply to: skynet2015



There has always been a dress code. This is sharia law. A woman's bare arms is an invitation for sex and must be covered. The manly idiots can't even pass bills in the making for 7 years so time to exercise some power, a Viagra high.

I think we should all just go around naked--it is too hot for clothes anyway.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: skynet2015



There has always been a dress code. This is sharia law. A woman's bare arms is an invitation for sex and must be covered. The manly idiots can't even pass bills in the making for 7 years so time to exercise some power, a Viagra high.

Hey look who came back to make up some more crap, pretend other people said it, throw in some wildly irrelevant hyperbole, and pat herself on the back!

Good work, you. You keep living up to the caricature of feminazis

a reply to: Shamrock6

The thread is not about me.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: skynet2015



There has always been a dress code. This is sharia law. A woman's bare arms is an invitation for sex and must be covered. The manly idiots can't even pass bills in the making for 7 years so time to exercise some power, a Viagra high.

Of course its religious related.

Not everyone chooses denial.

a reply to: MOMof3

My comment wasn't about you, either, Miss High-Horse.

It was about what you said.

a reply to: Shamrock6

"Hey look who came back to make up some more crap, pretend other people said it, throw in some wildly irrelevant hyperbole, and pat herself on the back!

Good work, you. You keep living up to the caricature of feminazis"

It sure sounds personal to me, Mr Arrogant.

All of sudden there is a rule that women's bare arms are taboo! In my day we called it the "Little Man Syndrome", weak creatures in D.C.

a reply to: MOMof3

For somebody who doesn't want the thread to be about herself, you're sure going out of your way to make it about a perceived slight against you.

I mean I know that's sort of the common tactic with perpetual victims, but it's like seeing a rare creature in the zoo - still ponderous to behold live and in person.