Posts
I can thank Maureen Dowd's article in today's NY Times as the catalyst for today's post. If have not read her op-ed, titled "Dressed to Distract"- you should. (See link in title of post)
I think that this article is an interesting follow up to the one written about Justice-Nominee Kagan several weeks ago. Once again, it discusses the influence of a woman's dress on the public's perception of her.
My favorite quote from the article is, "“She has to manage her wardrobe so these men can manage their libidos?” said her lawyer, Jack Tuckner". The question is clear- do women have an obligation to dress with others in mind?
For sake of argument- let's narrow the universe to workplace attire. When you wake up in the morning, a lot goes into your decision of what to wear that day. Should the impact of your outfit, or your body on others be part of your decision making?
I know how I feel- but I am actually more interested in hearing your thoughts.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
To answer your question- yes, the impact of your outfit MUST be part of your decision making when you wake up in the morning. Like it or not, clothes send a message and clothes are a way that people judge you. This is something that is almost entirely in your control, whereas so many other things in the workplace are not. If you work in a conservative environment, dress conservatively; if you work in a creative environment, you have more leeway. It really is that simple. Just as you wouldn't go to work in your pajamas because that would invite unwanted attention....
To comment on the Dowd article in general- based on the facts in the article, I cannot decide whether I sympathize with the Plaintiff. An investment bank is undoubtedly a "man's world." Are stilettos and pencil skirts the best choices for this professional environment where you claim not to want excessive male attention? I think not. On the other hand, should a woman be forced to wear baggy pants simply because she is attractive? No. It is a slippery slope, but based on the article, I think that Plaintiff probably could have made better choices. That may be unfortunate, but it is reality.
I also suspect that she was an "at will" employee, so her employer has the right to fire her without cause. Of course an employer can't unlawfully discriminate, but I have a feeling that she will have a hard time proving her case. However, she will probably walk away from this with a large amount of money, because at least in my experience with litigations involving companies like Citigroup, they are highly risk-averse, and will settle out of court (with an iron-clad confidentiality agreement) to make this go away as quickly as possible.
I agree with Ilana in that YES, your wardrobe is a reflection of how you want others to perceive you. It is someone’s first impression of you, their first judgment, etc…
What I thought was interesting from this article was the idea that attractive people are treated better on all accounts – in and out of the work place. I thought to myself after reading that, “How shallow!” But then evaluated my own behavior and realized that I often discriminate in this same fashion (AND yes, I am very embarrassed to admit that).
Why does our society focus so much on looks? I think that it has always been like this, but research and open discussion has brought it to more people’s attention. What do you think?
A person's physical attractiveness -- the look that they're basically born with -- impacts every individual literally from birth to death. People are valued more who are higher in physical attractiveness. As distasteful at that might be, it is the reality. Valued more… YIKES!
Sadly I think that someone’s physical appearance does make a difference in how they are treated, and most likely always will, no matter what we try to do about it. But it doesn't hurt to know that next time we're drawn to one human being over another, that our reasons might not be quite be quite as rational, nor even as fair, as we like to think they are.
I also think that women are often judged more on their physical appearance more than men. This just adds to their fight in our society to be recognized by their intellect and experience. Which goes with the article, “Dressed to Distract.” The woman currently in a lawsuit with Citibank faces the scenario that in the workplace being attractive may backfire, especially if you are a woman.
Thanks so much for starting this discussion! I read the article earlier today and was going to share it myself. My first reaction was that this could not even be a real case. The quotes from her lawyer are ridiculous and seem to almost make light of the situation.
I am in the same predicament as Ilana. I just do not know whether or not to side with the Plaintiff. On the one hand, I cannot believe that someone had not talked to her about her dress prior to her getting fired if it was truly inappropriate. In addition, if she was aware that she was dressing in a way that men in her workplace found distracting, why would she continue to dress in that fashion? I can understand that you would not necessarily want your wardrobe dictated by others but if she found the attention unwanted then it seems she would find other clothes. On the hand, a person should not have to endure any type of harassment.
At some level I understand why situations such as these arise. On the other hand, aren't there more important things for people to focus on?
Post a Comment