Hey GitLab, the 1970s called and want their sexism back: Saleswomen told to wear short skirts, heels and 'step it up' Hot on the heels of insisting "diversity and inclusion is a core GitLab value," the code-hosting biz asked its saleswomen to wear "short but somewhat formal dress and heels" to an awards night during its sales kickoff in Vancouver next week – because the company is "trying to step it up." The request, which went out in an …
What timing!!!!
Want to "Fire up Your Quattro"?
Gene Hunts Actual Audi Quattro From BBC's Ashes to Ashes Series
Auction starting price £15,000
FYI, the other Quatrro used exclusively in the first series and wasn't shot up, was sold in 2014 for £38,598
I couldn't give a damn about 'non-binary' whatevers, but even little old reactionary me thinks that having the girls dress like Uhura on the bridge of that old lecher Kirk's Enterprise is going a bit far. Especially if it's Mirror Universe Enterprise, that knife looked sharp.
There comes a point in any email where you have to stop worrying who you might be inadvertently excluding. If you're non-binary, should you feel offended by not being mentioned or considered in this email? Well not any more than amputees, both those without fingers and/or feet, those with a high tolerance for heat, those suffering hot flushes, those with a phobia about emails, those who do not drink alcohol, those who have strict dietary restriction that make social functions a minefield, those socially anxious who hate functions, those who are house bound and cannot attend, and those who must return to their kidney dialysis on Tuesday evenings. All of these individuals are totally ignored, without a second's consideration, by this email.
All these people are different from most others. They know they are different. Sometimes that sucks. But they don't demand that the rest of us must forever look out for instances where we are not acknowledging they are different. Otherwise it would become almost impossible to say/write anything without constant caveats and qualifications.
Please note that when I write "say", I mean to communicate in some form, and am in no way excluding those of the mute community or those who, through personal belief, choose to not speak. And when I write "write", it is not my intent to exclude those who are illiterate.
It seems in that case, "non binary" means something as revolutionary as "women wearing trousers".
So your rant about how difficult it is to let people wear decent clothes of their own choosing, thinly disguised as humour by not only moving, but running around with the goalposts? Wow, the stupidity.
As someone who grew up with his family referring to themselves has having Indian blood--yep.
Not that you would be able to tell by looking unless you are some sort of expert, but I'm 1/8th. Enough to be registered in most tribes. And all of the offendedness in that direction drives me crazy.
I am SO waiting for someone to correct me when I say I'm 1/8th Indian--except that it's not the sort of thing that comes up in conversation BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MATTER--unless some *#$#*$& starts pushing some BS Marxist theory of oppression on me.
You are a so-called "minority". Use it to your advantage.
All of my ancestors are Finns, from north of the Arctic Circle ... Even though I'm as white as the driven snow, there is absolutely zero so-called "Caucasian" blood in my system. So naturally, I am classified as a "minority", at least according to the fine folks in the .gov who payed my way through Uni.
As usual, I have no answers ... Just muddying the waters a little more :-)
So it's gone so far that simply saying that you don't give a damn is now offensive, has it? Laddie/Lassie/whatever, I don't give a damn. I really don't. If you're 2 metres tall, weigh 150 kilos, and have a beard 30 centimetres long but say that you're a girl, more power to you. I DO NOT CARE. If you look like Dolly Parton only with a bigger bust but say that you're a guy, again I DO NOT CARE. It does not affect me in the least. If you insist on using some thing not him/her to describe yourself I may insist on being addressed as Your Lordship the God Emperor Of Barsoom; should the two-metre bearded lady insist on being called 'her' I will, of course oblige her. I'm not using variants on 'they' for just one person. Even if the one person is bigger than I am, which the two-metre bearded lady would be. I'm definitely not using anything more exotic. If anyone doesn't like it, he/she/whatever can try to avoid letting the door hit his/her/whatever's ass on the way out. If this be dismissive and offensive, well, I did state up front that I'm reactionary.
Now get off my lawn, whippersnapper.
I love how the first part of the meeting agenda, states it's going to be COLD, so dress appropriately, because we can't control the weather, but then goes on to ask that the women in attendance wear a short dress, and high heels.
If they are anything like my own wife, they will show up dressed in multiple layers, a long wearing sweater, with leggings under that, and two pairs of socks, and calf high boots.
And let me state, that not all women are 5ft 11 and weigh 110 lbs, and they might feel down right uncomfortable wearing a short dress, especially with high heels. These are coders not super models, let them wear whatever they want, and be done with it.
Sexist is still sexiest, even if it's coming from a woman dictating that they "step it up".
All the women attending should form a solidarity group and show up in sweat pants and sweatshirts saying "Coders Unite! Sweats are pretty too!"
These are coders not super models, let them wear whatever they want, and be done with it.According to the article, these are Saleswomen, not coders (though that does not preclude being a coder as well).
Also, based on these recent stories, it would not surprise me to learn that GitLab's selection process for saleswomen was sexist by only hiring attractive women.
"only hiring attractive women"
I am offended by your assumption that there is a universal measure of attractiveness. What what you, I, any of GitLab's customers, or their interviewers, might consider attractive differs. It is therefore impossible to make it a basis of a selection process. You are insulting all those alternatively-attractive, because they don't conform to your received norm of attractiveness. Please withdraw this statement immediately.
You've also managed to insult every existing GitLab saleperson by suggesting that they were hired based on their appearance and not on their sales acumen. Please withdraw this statement immediately.
Avoiding possibly insulting someone is hard if people are going to pick apart your every word, and decided they're going to be offended on someone else's behalf, isn't it?
> Avoiding possibly insulting someone is hard if people are going to pick apart your every word, and decided they're going to be offended on someone else's behalf, isn't it?
You seem quite put out by the idea that it might not be OK to tell women they should wear short skirts and heels to a work do.
I'd suggest that the issue isn't that the world's generally gone mad and is getting upset over every little thing, but that you're simply perceiving that to be the case based on very little.
> decided they're going to be offended on someone else's behalf, isn't it?
If you actually read the story, you'll note that at least one of the people objecting is in the group that were told to wear short skirts.
"I am offended by your assumption that there is a universal measure of attractiveness"
Sorry, but welcome to the REAL world, in which people are regularly judged by attractive/unattractive _AND_ where "the beautiful people" are generally hired more often and with higher pay scales.
Otherwise, why ELSE would we dress nice and clean up our appearances (decent haircut, makeup for women, whatever) before a job interview? Come on, you KNOW it is TRUE...
To the sales staff, you ALSO know this is true, which is why SUCCESSFUL sales people dress as if they're going to a job interview, whenever they present the company products in front of potential customers.
It just IS, no matter how ANYONE *FEELS* about it. because, HUMAN NATURE.
Sexist is still sexiest, even if it's coming from a woman dictating that they "step it up".
This is for a sales team. They all need to step it up, and be at their most attractive, because that's how sales works. The people they will be talking to that evening need to be persuaded that life would be so much better if you were riding their CI pipeline rather than that frumpy old Jenkins'.
This is how companies get money to pay coders to wear sweatshirts to work and not shave and still be paid good money.
This post has been deleted by its author
Not for nothing, but high heels effectively hobble you while running /attempting to perform any action that requires use of your feet -ie, climbing stairs, climbing a friggin ladder, running from an assailant. I've turned down a waitering job I really needed bc it required them.
You're already physically weaker, shorter and lighter than (let's face it most are male) most potential assailants, then they insist you either hobble yourself while running, or take your shoes off and risk getting broken beer bottle glass or junkie's needles in your feet? No thanks!
heels make you roll your hips so you're more sexually attractive to others. That is 100% not what you're at work to do. fuck high heels and fuck anyone who asks women to wear them
When I was fitted for a kilt (at the request of a member of my Wife's family, was a wedding thing), I was informed by the groom that if/when asked I was to reply "Nothing is worn under the kilt. In fact, it's all in perfect working condition."
Having been born with a bit of an evil streak, I did as advised. The person (who had the gall to ask me such a personal question, mind) was horrified at my answer! On the bright side, the twit hasn't spoken to me since ... and everybody else had a good laugh.
"Nothing but the Pride of Scotland"
Kilts were worn at my son's wedding rehearsal dinner. Turned out to be an Irish pub, day after St Paddy's. We were afraid the piper (his cousin) would get us thrown out, but the management actually enjoyed it.
Personally, anybody should be able to wear what they like - but lets remember, it's not only woman that get this treatment.. so making it about "patriarchy" is just 100% wrong.
Until very recently (2016), my current employer required men to wear formal wear, including a suit jacket or blazer, even in summer - woman got away with short sleeved blouses/formal t-shirt and knee-length skirt...
Thankfully there was some controversy that made the BBC, and it was slightly relaxed - I can now where jeans, but still no shorts - in mid-summer, I'm often tempted to identify as female, just to catch a breeze.
Even today, men are still not allowed to where shorts.. i've
See, that's the issue. You're basically describing patriarchy here. And you are a victim of it, as many of us. You are being forced to adopt a certain dress code, dictated by someone who thinks a "proper man" should wear this or that. Excepting the women from said dress code could be based on chauvinism ("women aren't as professional/committed/essential as men, so they can dress less professionally", or "women can have a relaxed dress code because they adorn the workplace, while men should project an image of professionalism").
>> You're basically describing patriarchy here. And you are a victim of it, as many of us.
No, any time you compromise yourself in order to "conform" you are not a victim, you are an enabler.
Whatever "injustice" of the "patriarchy" people mewl about is, most often, a reflection of their own spinelessness and inability to own the consequences of their actions.
> but being told what to wear does go both ways.
In my view the issue isn't that a dress code was specified, it's that "short skirts and high heels" were specified for the women. In other words, they're being told to sex it up. If they'd just said "dress is business casual" or somesuch and left it at that, there would have been exactly zero problem.
But, really, the deeper problem isn't that short skirts & heels were specified, it's that nobody saw that this was a bad thing to do.
... lumberjacks are often quite proud that they maintain their equipment in such a capable state. My axes are usually sharp enough to shave with. Here's a short clip (not of me!) demonstrating a factory edge on a good axe. Here's another, actually shaving (warning! Contains video of a man getting himself all lathered up! Might be NSFW in some jurisdictions!).
until a week ago I looked like the 'Zig Zag' guy because I mostly work at home and just couldn't find the time to do the haircut thing, but now I've got a nice buzz-cut and super-short beard to match.
Good for another year! (had to spend a day on site, too, and the hair in my eyes was bothering me, and I'd been saying "I need a haircut" for 2 months)
But yea if the job required it, I'd do "suit and tie" with bi-weekly buzz cut and clean-shaven face. You do what you have to. Sorta like when you're in the military.... (which I _was_ for 6 years - and prior to that, I had to wear a tie to work, being a store employee for a large drug store chain)
My old university specifies two forms of academic dress for degree ceremonies, and anyone can wear either. This seems the only logical solution.
I am reminded of the salewoman from a semiconductor distributor years ago who would turn up in "sensible"clothes "because I happen to have a degree in engineering."
exactly - if the invitation had said something like "Business fancy: shirt and tie with blazer and slacks / suit or cocktail dress and heels" without specifying categories to whom the options applied then maybe there wouldn't have been a reason to register complaints?
Mine's the one with the comfy flats in the pocket, for later.
Now that Microsoft owns GitHub, I keep thinking I should do something about moving my (admittedly trivial) projects from GitHub to someplace like GitLab. I really don't need one more excuse for not doing that, but GitLab seems intent on providing one anyway. I suppose there are other options...
Isn't GitLab a fully remote company? So, what they are saying is that the first time they get people together in person in 2020, Diversity and Inclusion goes out the window? Women, no more wearing sweatpants out of view in your Zoom meetings. We need to see legs!
Every time I get caught out by Rule 34 it's when I'm using a work machine. Still, at least I wasn't the person who searched for Shrewsbury College of Art and Technology using its initials from a work machine. The look on his face (and his manager's when they pulled the logs) was priceless.
What a load of blah. Course it is wrong for a company to propose more alluring outfits but the good ladies are quite adept at disporting their charms voluntarily. It only takes one of them to kick off the competition. Go on, girls - admit it.
What if the company had asked "them" to dress demurely? That is precisely what the other half of humanity has been fighting against for centuries.
Scratch my eyes out, ladies, but if the company had only hinted that they might be on display and the target of cameras ......
....... and, as an aside, what precisely is wrong with that?
I think the point is that both of the following are sexist:
"Wear a short skirt to show your legs"
"Wear a long skirt to cover your legs"
It is the act of telling a woman what to show and what not to show which is the issue. "Dress smartly" is what they should have said. That would be open to interpretation, but at least it would not be telling women how much of their bodies they should be showing.
This post has been deleted by its author
"I personally think it's outdated and sexist to require women to wear a short dress and heels and it doesn't recognize non-binary individuals."
I disagree. If it bothered them, they would be justified in saying "I don't feel comfortable doing that" - whether male, female or non-binary.
Nerds like looking at sexy women - who knew? So do most red-blooded men. Everyone else can look away.
PC used to mean an IBM 5150. Not anymore.
I disagree. If it bothered them, they would be justified in saying "I don't feel comfortable doing that" - whether male, female or non-binary.
They would indeed be justified. But some (a lot) of people don't enjoy being put in the position of having to say that to their employer (who, after all, they rely on financially).
The whole point is that you shouldn't be put in that position in the first place.
Your position is like claiming it's fine to say "'ere love, fancy a fuck?" to every woman you meet because she's allowed to say "no". That's really not how this works
"As an aside, a magazine some years ago asked a large sample of female readers about their attitudes towards various chat up lines etc by men, 6 to 10% said "fancy a fuck" got to the point quickly, cut out all the chit chat and if the guy in question was vaguely attractive then why not?"
That still leave you with a 90-94% chance of getting kicked in the balls if you try it. Personally I don't fancy those odds!
1. I think you missed the word *require* in that statement, which is borne out in the original "request".
2. The request also specifies "men" and "women", and some people don't feel they're either.
(TBF, if I was NB, I'd be fine with that and just rock up in whatever. "Sorry, boss, the memo just specified boys and girls".)
3. If you're a woman, apparently you have to wear a skirt. A short one. I don't even OWN a skirt and haven't for, oh, 40 years.
Re your statements specifically:
4. Women are nerds too, but apparently not in your taxonomy. I'm not sure what us nerds who aren't red-blooded men actually are, please explain. (Actually, please don't.)
5. Also, are gay men "red-blooded men"? I'm sure pretty much all of them are, actually. Or perhaps they all have anemia from looking at insufficient numbers of sexy women. Perhaps someone should reveal this scientific insight to the world.
7. I don't look at my colleagues as sexy anythings (unless we are actually in a relationship outside of work), but maybe "sexy women" don't count as colleagues?
8. I'm sure I won't qualify as a "sexy" woman on your scale, but if I did for any of my colleagues, if they didn't leave off the staring very frigging fast, well, they wouldn't be feeling very red-blooded "male" either for a while after that. Since, you know, I'd be there for the event, not someone's leering eye candy. (Since we've already determined women aren't nerds, I wouldn't be worried about any leering from them.)
9. Finally, I like looking at sexy women too. (Not at work events.) So am I a "red-blooded male" after all and allowed to wear trousers?
5. Also, are gay men "red-blooded men"? I'm sure pretty much all of them are, actually. Or perhaps they all have anemia from looking at insufficient numbers of sexy women. Perhaps someone should reveal this scientific insight to the world.
El Reg should start a subscription model, only as your 'credit' grows you get some extra buttons, like 10 "credits" gets you a "+10 upvotes".
I'd find your post quite expensive but worth it.
FTR.. When running wiring for a couple of new "nerdy gadgets" (as a mate calls them) for my bike yesterday, I managed to cut myself. Pretty sure the blood was red, but I guess it may not have been blood after all...
I think if you look you'll discover that the git in question was the bloke who revoked free use of Bitkeeper, forcing Linus to build a new distributed revision control system that could handle the needs of the fine folks maintaining the kernel. From scratch. In a hurry. git was self-hosting in 4 days, and went "live" handling the kernel in about two months.
Note that later Linus claimed that he was the git in question ("I name all my projects after myself."), but the folks who were in the trenches at the time know better.
"I think it's fine to say cocktail casual"
So... specifying that women are to wear a short dress and heels IS fine, as long as you don't state it clearly and distinctly but instead use some euphemistic formulation that people not in the know might misunderstand and misinterpret?
Make your f**kin mind up love.
Firstly, are you new here love? You can type "fuck", no one's going to be frightened (or impressed).
"Cocktail casual" is non-gender specific and means evening wear. That doesn't mean short or sexy, it just means smart and stylish and is gender neutral. That's why it was suggested as an alternative to saying "short skirts".
Try and keep up sugar!
Top google result:
https://www.thetrendspotter.net/cocktail-attire-for-women/
Cocktail attire is a standard dress code for parties and evening functions. For women, cocktail attire typically calls for a dress that finishes at or above the knees and high heels. Although cocktail looks should always appear sophisticated, they can also be fun and embrace exciting colours, embellishments, cuts, and unique accessories.
The company gave an accurate definition of a word.
Ah, so there would have been no outrage were women instructed to wear modest clothing - i.e. no exposed shoulders, clavicles, forearms, and ankles?
I think it is more a Pavlovian response with people getting whipped up into a frenzy at the mere hint of a suggestion that a women should comport herself in some manner, but remain silent when it comes to men being told how to be.
The problem is you not tell people what to wear - you tell people the type of the event (i.e. formal, casual, etc.) and then let people choose what to wear.
Morons - of any sex - will choose the wrong attire, and show what they are. There are many ways to look vulgar, and a few ones to look elegant.
But in no way you force someone to look like sexual prizes for someone else.
And frankly, I wold like to see some man forced to wear like Tarzan when they look far more like Cheeta.
@LDS
"The problem is you not tell people what to wear - you tell people the type of the event (i.e. formal, casual, etc.) and then let people choose what to wear."
That is one of the nightmares I hate. If I get invited to something that isnt every day wear then I wanna know what is expected (general labels dont help). I dont like those various types of clothes (I like comfortable) so I wanna know the kinds of clothes expected.
If its taken as guidelines I dont see whats wrong with the overall message. If the intent is to dictate the exact clothing or your fired then within reasonable (still appropriate) it is sexist.
*I am a bloke
Evidently, because you're not used to those labels, and those events.
There are precise labels that define what you are expected to wear, without telling you exactly what to wear, leaving some kind of freedom to suit your style, culture, religion, etc. etc.
I understand that many people lost this kind of knowledge as most people started to wear like a tramp, while expecting all woman to look like sex toys.
So, in doubt, ask. But rarely you would be asked to wear a very specific style like is asked to women in too many occasion. There are a lot of very uncomfortable clothes and shoes a man too could be asked to wear - but no one is explicitly asked to.
Note: your preferred sport or music start is not usually an example to follow. You can go to a good shop and ask for help, anyway.
RN officer training around 2010 had long dress code advice, including several strictly forbidden items, which you knew someone had appeared in or worn including "swimsuits with fashionable cut out sections", "hotpants", "cartoon character ties have extremely limited usage potential" "no transparent tops"and quite a few others...
Also included "females should should ensure they include formal trousers in their non uniform wardrobe as skirts are not appropriate aboard ship" (and that was for good reason - wind, ladders, mobility etc)
I don't know how they handle non binary, simplest solution would probably be to permit both genders to wear skirts when allowed. Heck they've updated the fitness test to cover both genders to the same standard.
Even then they had a very simple rule "no one touches anyone" covers all bases, however I did hear a dit that a married XO on one ship was having an affair with a female able rating, seemingly known throughout the ship (news travels very very fast), playing with fire as if someone had filed a complaint his ass would be grass over it...scandalous stuff....
> The problem is you not tell people what to wear - you tell people the type of the event (i.e. formal, casual, etc.) and then let people choose what to wear.
The clothing descriptions provided were the literal textbook definitions of cocktail attire.
There are no "literal textbook descriptions". It is custom and practice and varies by country. Fashion textbooks are written well after the event.
(if you can find it read Dorothy Parker's hilarious review of Emily Post's Book of Etiquette.)
No, sorry, you think cocktail dress means short ones for women, and you're utterly wrong.
"Cocktail" means a semi-formal event, where you are expected to be elegant, but still wearing more comfortable clothes than formal ones. Women can wear long dresses as well - which could also be the choice of less young ones, or in more elegant "cocktails".
ask women which they prefer, men in suits, or men in "grubby casuals"...
It _does_ work both ways. But men usually don't get offended by it.
I once bought a funny 'porn for women' picture book for my sister, featuring men in tuxedos doing housework [as a joke of course]. the concept was BRILLIANT!
The one I love is the women who whine wail and scream like professional mourners because they're getting paid 60% of the men (I entirely support equal pay)... Oh woe is us because we can't negotiate at interviews. It's not fucking rocket science - note down the maximum salary and insist on it..
Then when the men take a pay *cut* toddle off under their feminazi rocks smirking like Ted Heath at a boys boarding school ... While the men are laughing themselves to death.
That is NOT equality you mindless idiots. Equality is having your pay *raised to the same level* as the person with the higher pay you sub average cretin - THE WHOLE POINT OF 40 YEARS of whining, causing climate change from all the burning bras, and dungarees was not for THEM to be in equality with you. It was for YOU to be in equality with them. Quite honestly you're an embarrassment to female kind. This isn't equality - it's best described as idiot-signalling. What did you do in the great equality war mummy? Oh, I let them get away with a pointless valueless gesture *and* saved them forever from paying out what they owed. Congrat-u-fucking-lations. Not only did you make yourselves a laughing stock, but you *saved* the companies that short changed you BILLIONS. You make Gwyneth Paltrow look useful and sane.
It's like someone cloned a couple of hundred million female Frank Spensers handed them a leaflet and told them "go forth and irritate".
The only slight good point in all this is the fact that hopefully they were too stoned on bra fumes to breed (probably made with asbestos somehow - everything else was (including brewery beer filters would you believe, I kid you not)) - else the general IQ would have plunged even further..
While some of what you write is true, the revelations about the BBC have shown that the remuneration system is geared to allowing people from the right background at various organisations to pay other people from the right backgrounds far more than they are worth. When a newsreader is somehow worth more than a Prime Minister (present one excepted), a general officer, a medical consultant or a Chief Constable, we have the right to ask why since we are paying for it. When you read about growing inequality with vast pay increases at one end while food bank use is increasing at the other (and many of the people using them are in work), you should be angry at what is effectively institutionalised theft.
Women should be paid the same as men for doing the same job. Pay scales should reflect the real investment in training and education needed to get there, and the responsibility once there. But asking for equality with inflated salaries organised by the Old Boys Network is not progress.
You mean like the annual round of various schools not allowing the boys to wear shorts etc on particularly hot days, so they end up coming to school in skirts and blouses, to make the point about equality quite clearly?
"Why are so many in the comments "indignant" about women being told what to wear, but nary a peep about men being told what to wear?"
Because men are such stupid sheep they think being told to dress in stupid clothes (and neck accessories) is actually a compliment on their abilities to select stupid clothes.
Simple answer - a man making the equivalent complaint would just be laughed at and ignored (see my story elsewhere on this page). And never taken seriously thereafter. I'd just treat that dress code as an excuse to stay away from the event.
A woman can complain and get taken seriously (as this story demonstrates). This is a Good Thing, and will no doubt eventually extend to men. It's just a shame it didn't all happen long ago.
I worked for a company that would put 'dress to impress' as the requirements for the big company party. This always struck me as the right wording when you wanted people to look their best without specifying anything limited by gender or body shape, but still made it clear you should wear clothes...
I'm autistic, so "dress to impress" means less than fuck all to me. Who am I supposed to be impressing? Why am I impressing them? What is the goal of impressing these putative people? Which definition of "impress" is relevant?
On a different but related point, why does what you wear matter? Seriously, it is a cypher I cannot decrypt - the wrapper doesn't define the person, and "dress to impress" seems to be telling me that lying is okay - why should I be comfortable about that?
That's really my point - be specific and avoid confusion. Alternatively, if it is a work do with someone's idea of what should be worn, provide the clothes - perhaps they can have a special name to describe the commonality, or uniformity, of the appearance (which is what happens with a dress code anyway).
I remember sitting in on a conversation between the bloke tasked with overseeing H+S and a woman in the office.
He took the position that she needed to be issued some safety boots in order for her to go out onto the shop floor, what with it being full of (heavy) aviation stores and the like.
She took the position that she didn't like the boots and wanted to continue wearing her open-toed sandals, and that changing in and out of the boots for her trips onto the shop floor was too much hassle.
It was eventually "resolved" with an agreement that he'd issue the boots, and a letter explaining how important they were, and that she'd do what she felt was best and accept that the employer was going to try and deny all liability if she ended up toeless.
She did occasionally complain of having hurt her feet too - almost always through dropping something like a bolt - easily handled by safety boots.
To this day, I've never been able to work out what the hell was going on in her head.
I've witnessed a similar argument. However in our company the rather blunt and gruff shop foreman "don't take shit from no-one" so to speak. He quite clearly (and loudly) told the lady that if she wanted to step foot in HIS shop she would follow the damn rules and wear safety shoes. (Allegedly he at one point physically picked her up and dropped her outside the yellow lines when caught improperly heeled.)
Nowadays if a women insists they must wear something "stylish" there aresome less than perfect options
Those don't seem to meet S3 standards though.
The Wife & I are wearing matching footwear today. Ain't they purdy?
It amuses me that I have two daughters who occasionally have to wear uniforms. One involves a horsehair wig. The other involves a white hat, hi-vis jacket and steel capped boots worn with clothes that make it clear that someone else is digging the holes. Both are authority symbols.
Wearing "men's" clothes in jobs which used to be men-only is a sign of status. But for office workers who have to go on shop floors, it might be seen as identifying with "them" rather than "us".
Status signalling is complex.
When they demanded that women wear heels, did they make a legally binding commitment to cover all medical expenses for injury to their legs and feet from wearing those ridiculously impractical things? Including injuries from tripping or losing their balance, and also long-term damage from holding the feet in an unnatural position?
I don't much care for women dressing in silly heels, and the only time it should be required of them is for an actress whose role demands it.
But a one-off glitzy "awards ceremony" (sounds ghastly for those of either sex who are not career arse-lickers) is not at all the same as requiring a dress code every bloomin' day at the office. Speaking as a downtrodden grunt, I know which of those battles I would pick!
I didn't exactly pick it myself, but I had it thrust on me when I wore shorts to the office. This was just the one half-day's work, having gone directly to the office after spending the morning travelling (booked to annual leave). No meetings, just sitting in my regular office. I pointed out that many of my female colleagues routinely wore shorts (shorter than mine) and that it was direct discrimination to forbid it to me, but PHB was having none of it: they could wear shorts because they ... ahem ... had nice legs!
I'd like to give her a thumbs-up for calling out idiocy. But I wish we chaps had the same kind of right as she exercised there when we're expected to put on a dumb show!
Privacy of individual employees and company-wide policy are two entirely different things. If you're too embarassed to defend a company policy in public, then that's a good sign that there's something wrong with it.
"Smart dress" would have been enough of a dress code. The idea that short skirt and heels should be worn because it will turn male customers into drooling cavemen who'll then buy anything is very outdated in my opinion, and I find it a bit cringeworthy. Detailed knowledge of what you're selling is much more important for technology.
"The idea that short skirt and heels should be worn because it will turn male customers into drooling cavemen who'll then buy anything is very outdated in my opinion, and I find it a bit cringeworthy. Detailed knowledge of what you're selling is much more important for technology."
Riiight ... that's why booth babes don't exist.
"The idea that short skirt and heels should be worn because it will turn male customers into drooling cavemen who'll then buy anything is very outdated in my opinion"
You've obviously never been to CES and it's ilk.
"I find it a bit cringeworthy."
I do too. Doesn't mean it ain't reality, though.
Cocktail attire for women is specifically:
Cocktail attire is a standard dress code for parties and evening functions. For women, cocktail attire typically calls for a dress that finishes at or above the knees and high heels. Although cocktail looks should always appear sophisticated, they can also be fun and embrace exciting colours, embellishments, cuts, and unique accessories.
https://www.thetrendspotter.net/cocktail-attire-for-women/
Sure, tell it to a woman in his seventies like my mother - or do you mean older people should not attend cocktails events Anyway, even the site you cite (is it an authority? Or maybe not) shows far longer dresses.
You'd need to talk to more women, you may discover not all of them are like those you see on TV or on the Internet....
I wonder if there's a semantic issue here. It's possible that "short skirts" might have been a maladroit way to say "not ball gowns and not trousers", but it ends up sounding like an injunction to show lotsa leg. While the decision to tell the women what to wear is inexcusable, the resulting furore has been worse because of the implied request for a sex-show.
As a developer I own one suit that I bought for my wedding. I haven't worn "black tie" since university and I definitely don't have a clue what cocktail casual is.
Is the issue they dared to suggest women should traditionally wear a dress, or that it should be a short dress? I see no outcry the men have to wear a blazer... which is equally outmoded.
I tend to pay no attention to dress codes. They make zero sense for the most part.
The last 9-5 I interviewed for (in 1989), I was wearing my racing leathers. When the interviewer queried my choice of "uniform", I pointed out that he had asked me to drive up from Palo Alto to South San Francisco by 10AM ... and had called at 9AM. I knew I could make it on the bike, but there was no way I was driving the Bayshore without armor ... I got the job.
The 9-5 prior to that, I wore the same outfit, for similar reasons. When queried, I responded along the lines of "are you hiring an engineer or a fashion plate?" ... They made me an offer. I counter offered, they hired me at my price point ...
Not sexist, stupid.
So-called "cocktail casual" is whatever the twats that drink cocktails decide is fashionable this year. Those of us in the RealWorld point and laugh at idiots who spend over half their income chasing a clothing fad that never stops moving.
Neither my wife nor I pay any attention to such stupidity when invited to attend functions[0]. Somehow, we have never been asked to leave due to our incorrect attire ... but occasionally we do manage to stick out. Which invariably pisses off the idiot who set the supposed dress code. I wonder why?
[0] Exceptions: weddings and funerals. The first is about the bride[1], not the guests. The second is honoring the deceased.
[1] If you want to call me sexist for that comment, I'll cop to it ... HOWEVER, in our Western society I have never attended a wedding where the Bride(s) was/were NOT the most important person(s) in the room.
the 1960s. It was during the 1970s that we started to discover the existence of sexism, and to address this issue. Just look at the second season of "All in the Family", an American television series inspired by your "Till Death Do Us Part", but made milder for American tastes.
I am genuinely stunned at the number of people here who think that "but the men have to wear pants/trousers!" is a sensible response.
Do they really think that the situations are symmetric? That being told to wear pants is equivalent to being told to wear a short skirt and heels? Or more importantly that the power relationship is symmetric - that a company notorious for forcing out women from positions of leadership needs to be better about how it tells women to dress?
I'm sure the MRA idiots will be along to upbraid for me my "Political Correctness" any moment. For the record whenever I hear somebody use that phrase, I mentally edit it to "Waaahhh! I can't be as carelessly sexist, racist, and bigoted out loud as I was in the old days. People need to be less sensitive about my rudeness!"
It's remarkable how there's endless issues with sexism in tech, when you'd think that it'd be one are that's all shiny and brand new and was initially full of women working in very high end of development, at least until it took a nose dive in the 1970s.
Then take a look at something like creative / broadcast media / film etc which seems to be full of old-school abusive labour practices - back-to-back unpaid internships, bad wages, abusive bosses being accepted.
Academia also seems to have huge issues with sexism, pay equality, hierarchies, failure to pay people living wages, abuse of junior academic / PhD researchers etc. Something you'd never expect, as you'd think it's the ultimate in highbrow and self-aware employers, but nope!
You'd probably find more diversity and a better atmosphere in a stuffy old bank these days than in some of these trendy companies which is an awful reflection on the whole culture within.
Was the meeting to be in Vancouver, BC, Canada or Vancouver, Washington State USA? The BC Workers Compensation Act prohibits the mandatory wearing of high heels. https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2017PREM0047-001151
I also thought the employer could not force women to wear a dress. The women are allowed to wear pants. This was a ruling because a restaurant required the women servers to wear high heels and a black dress. (I have not heard of any discrimination law suits about guys being fired for wearing a dress.)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
