The point isn't about me. The clothing wouldn't stop me from doing my own work. However, employees and what they wear reflects on the employer's image, reputation and so forth.
It is known fact that clients of firms had walked (ie. terminated contract) from the firms because one or more employees have dressed inappropriately and caused discomfort to the clients. There is NO law anywhere on this planet that prohibits an employer from having a dress code standard or from firing or terminating employment of an employee that dresses inappropriately and that is to this very day and minute.
Of course you don't tell the employee that what they are wearing makes them look like a whore or slut, necessarily.
My point isn't about men or women specifically. It's about BOTH genders, if they dress inappropriately it reflects negatively on the business, profession, employer, etc.
How hard is that to understand?
I wouldn't tell someone they must wear explicitly black or anything like that. I would require employees to come to work appropriately dressed for an office setting. Basically, business formal, informal and business casual with pictorial examples.
The idea for business clothing is about dressing conservatively and minimal sexual expression because you don't go to work to have sexual affairs with your co-workers while on the clock (ie. on company's time). It's a work place. Sexual affairs, dating or otherwise belongs at home, in private or otherwise, not on company's time or in any way or form at a company function. Employment environment should be free of sexual influencing.
Take a moment and think about a hypothetical scenario:
What if a woman employee came to work in a bikini and g-string and a male employee came to work in just a swimming trunks. The office is downtown.... a good 100 miles from any beach environment.
How would this look to visiting clients? How would this reflect on the employer and the firm?
What would you think the woman going to work in a bikini and g-string intentions? Is it really for designing buildings or is it for something else?
What about the guy? Probably not for working but for so something else.
Sep 11, 14 8:21 pm ·
·
Would this:
OR
this:
at all be appropriate in a professional office environment?
Yes or No?
Should any employee in an office be dressed in sexually explicit or otherwise disruptive to the working environment?
What would a client think of a firm with employees dressed like the above ?
If I had employees, I have a duty to require some level of appropriate clothing in the office? Right? Employees reflects me and my business. If I require some level of dress code, it is not about any specfic gender. It's about professional image in a conservative downtown community.
Sure, a hottie in a bikini and g-string might be exciting to look at to a male, it isn't the place for such. Sure, the guy with a good six-pack and muscle tone and tan maybe hot to some women, is it appropriate? Yes or No?
This whole thread is bat-s$&@. Women know how to dress for work; it is in their DNA. Guys are the ones who look like total dorks sometimes and it has nothing to do with sex; more like thinking a hideous green or black dress shirt with a light colored tie is OK for work.
Sep 11, 14 8:53 pm ·
·
Volunteer,
That's not true. Most of the time, I would agree that they have a tendency. However, it isn't in the DNA. It's in the upbringing. It is not necessarily DNA and some women dress inappropriate for the work environment.
I had to come back after being out to dinner to see if Richard was still alive.
Richard, I realize you are holding a pen/pencil, although I didn’t know it was “Swedish”. My reference to your filtering your cigarette was slang for filtering some of the too-strong of words you were blowing-out…many posts back.
Donna, of course we had a policy manual but it only dared to be tepid in terms of attire. One year things were so bad (men & women) that I wrote something very specific and passed it out and my secretary (Okay – Office Manager) collected them from the waste baskets and delivered them to my office. In the case that I stated are you suggesting I needed a clear written policy with an underwear stipulation? It’s like that Seinfeld episode were George got caught shagging the cleaning lady on his desk and he asked “Was I wrong on that?” By the way, the posts on this subject are too numerous to find but I remember distinctly you stating that you objected to women wearing blouses without sleeves….and another post or two about your dislike for women wearing shoes with open toes….what happened to all that?
To Miles statements and I guess Richard’s too, now here comes curtkram..…I got into a hell of an argument with a young woman student on Reddit about women in architecture with her vehemently stating that there were NO differences between men & women. I told my wife about it who has owned a nursery school for about 30 years and she told me a story about the 3 year old class last year were the boys were hogging the Lego table and wouldn’t let the girls play on it…pushing them away…some of the girls told on them and after observation my wife had to institute boy Lego days and girl Lego days and man were the boys pissed-off! – And there are no differences between men & women? That’s 3 years old in 2013! It’s born in humans and animals…I owned horses back when and Jesus!
Back to Richard – all the things we’ve made illegal in employment: race, gender etc. are taboo in employment and are in all societal discussions and until the day we can discuss these things openly with all the warts and offence we will never solve any of these problems – better to go back and discuss bow ties.
Clearly stoning is the answer. Measure that hem and if a quarter of an inch too short then off to the courtyard with her. Enough messing around!
Sep 11, 14 9:12 pm ·
·
Hello Carrera,
The pen in my hand in the photo is a type of ruling pen called a "Swedish Detail Ruling Pen". I don't recall exactly the origin story but that is what every documentation I seen. There is various ruling pen types that exists. The Swedish Detail Ruling Pen or if you want to simply call it "Detail Ruling Pen" has a larger nib point area to hold more ink in the surface tension for detail work which often uses heavy line weight. The other two common ruling pens is a shorter one and a longer 'nib'. I have the three common ruling pen types.
It's the traditional tools for hand drafting before the Technical Pens like the Rapidographs pens.
As for the strong words I use, I never claimed political correctness. Then again, political correctness is an oxymoron as far as I am concerned. Whatever the case may be, it stirred up a hornet's nest. I don't have anything personal against Donna Sink so I hope no hard feelings are kept. It wasn't meant to imply strictly to women or demean women. After all, those strong words can apply to men just as well and do.
Carerra, I personally am against sleeveless shirts, bare legs, and exposed toes in a professional environment. If I owned a firm and hired employees, I would stipulate that those things aren't allowed, on men or women. If your employees tossed their dress code, could you not go tell them that they are welcome to work elsewhere? There's nothing wrong with stipulating what's appropriate and not in your own firm. But since I don't have employees, I'm just expressing my personal preferences.
Did this woman in the see-through blouse just suddenly show up one day wearing that while having been in turtlenecks and trousers and suit jackets every day previously? I mention the HR manual stipulating dress code because that's how one has to handle any legal issues that might come up around what people are wearing. But whether or not one has a policy, if someone is dressing somewhat inappropriately then an older firm member, acting as a mentor, should take them aside privately and mention that their clothing isn't quite what is expected. Some people just really *don't* know - in part this is a failure of architecture education.
Man this stuff is coming faster than I can type… curtkram, and now you Donna of all people endorsing “….men who are generally too pathetic to control their base emotions blame women and think they can get away with telling them what to do.” EVERYBODY – go back to the original post statement – it states the problem and the solution in one short paragraph. If everyone in architectural offices followed that statement there would not be any problems. Frankly I really did not have many problems with women’s attire, only a few and the subject in my post…but to suppose that there are no differences between men and women is pure folly.
Donna and other women, I would hold my record up for women’s rights against anybody. Toward the end of my career I employed more women than men, more than any of my competitors – over 50%. I preferred working with women and of all the money I donate to charities I only donate to the YWCA’s battered shelter and other women’s shelters in my community…..go ask them if there are differences…..but of all the big problems I had with people in my life it was with women…starting with my first wife who chased me with a butcher’s knife! It’s DNA, my wife proved it and this problem with women in architecture can be simply solved by following the original post statement.
donna didn't say women who wear sleevelss blouses are sluts. neither did the op.
richard said women who didn't dress they way he approves of are sluts.
Women should not be dressing with the subliminal message of "Take me to bed"
Dress like a slut/whore/lady of the night and you'll be treated like one
that is not what donna was saying in any of her previous posts, and honestly i don't see how you can make the connection between the two. also, as much as richard might say those statements apply equally to men and women, they obviously don't.
Sep 11, 14 10:37 pm ·
·
curtkram,
I didn't say that. I think you are trying to make connections and taking two completely separate sentences without the other context and then misconstruing what I was getting at.
My point in "Dress like a slut/whore/lady of the night and you'll be treated like one" did not mean I would treat the person as one. It is that someone is going to. You just can't dress like that for very long without someone treating you like one.
Don't dress like you are an advertising billboard to have sex and not expect someone in this world to take you up on the advertisement. It's just a matter of time. In other words, don't be an Blipping idiot. Don't be a damn advertising billboard for sex with the clothes you wear, how you wear them and the body language with it.
Duh! I have no sympathy for sluts crying rape. I don't care if they are male or female. I have no sympathy for idiots who think they can dress like a whore/slut and not expect someone in this nefarious world to try to have sex with them with or without permission.
In other words, don't be naive as if the world won't hurt or rape you if you are a walking "Bang me" billboard. In short, I don't have sympathy for stupidity where the most basic of good sense / common sense is totally disregarded for some stupid naive notion of the world is full of pure hearted people.
Don't expect the work place to be pure hearted, either.
Don't expect people to be moral and good kinded. There are plenty of women like that as well as men in this world. I've seen a fair number of them at college and university and around the cities I been to.
That was my point.
Sep 11, 14 10:54 pm ·
·
Now to make it clear, I don't think every woman who dresses like a slut is a slut. Okay. Nor would I treat them as such.
Sep 11, 14 11:03 pm ·
·
Donna, I wouldn't say it is a failure of architecture education. It's a failure of EDUCATION from Kindergarten through to 12th grade and parental guidance prior to college. After all, people should already have a good sense of what is proper to wear in an office by the time they reach high school let alone graduate. It's the same basic attire you wear in ANY office.
I would say this should be true regardless of gender.
Sep 11, 14 11:09 pm ·
·
curtkram,
Okay, the word "lady of the night" might not apply to men except cross-dressers (transgender) but ok. However, Slut and Whore (which is another word for prostitute also applies to men as there are male prostitutes and male sluts. Difference between prostitute and slut is one charges money for sex while the other does not. We know which one charges money.
If you don't believe there is such a thing as cross dressers.... well... watch Rocky Horror Picture Show. Some crossdressers/transgender folks are in the prostitution business. It happens.
observant.... that name seems reminescent but haven't seen that name in awhile.
I would mainly expect appropriate attire for an office. Nothing more... really than that. I wouldn't expect inappropriate attire that is too far in out-field or otherwise just plain out inappropriate.
We are speaking on a forum on a subject that will always have some controversial element to it.
Richard, there's a lot of what you said that could be interpreted according to you or according to those positioning against you...but this sentiment:
Duh! I have no sympathy for sluts crying rape. I don't care if they are male or female.
is just plain ugly. Rape is rape is inexcusable, it is non-consensual...however you describe the victim's attire and mode of conduct.
Also, I myself find something completely puzzling...like tattoos in a non-religious non totemic individualistic society. It might be cultural or personal (doing something because its necessary is closer to my milieu than do anything you want "just coz") but I don't understand why anyone would want to paint her or his skin with meaningless vines and skulls for example. I would think that one would want skin to be what it is - a very limited reserve very difficult to augment or replace- rather than a canvas -or rather a poster- for what is mostly -even if one can argue about exceptions- an inconsequential banal purchasable variation of tem "poster" art. It is skin, a part of one's body...it seems to me that, in wanting to gain a mark of individualism, the tattooed individual actually does the very opposite - she or he marks themselves, camouflage themselves with these reproducible - albeit variable- expressions of popular anonymous consumerist artwork.
Fundamentally, I think it is a stupid thing to do....I don't think that the individual herself or himself is stupid...but the culture that drives her or him to waste their skin, to sacrifice their personhood so cheaply, to waste it...is stupid. However, this in no way makes me any better or more intelligent than that individual and I would be, myself, stupid to assume otherwise. Perhaps, in some other way, I also deceive myself unwittingly, as this tattooed person does.
What I mean to say is...it matters to identify why you like or don't like something but this does not exonerate you from your own fallibility. I am sure that many "sluts" -according to some people's interpretations- are far more intelligent and productive at work, imaginative, their very "proper" - according to some people's interpretation- counterparts.
. With all respect, for instance, while I find Donna's stance reasonable in terms of not disparaging individuals for their choice of dress and so on, I do not think you, Donna, have fully rationalized why "exposed toes" for instance are a no-no, aside from your own preference and understanding of professionalism. On the other hand, while I don't sympathize with Richard's testosterone-tinged rhetoric, he has actually rationalized, to himself at least, why he - probably like Donna- does not like bare legs and visible body parts at work...even if you disagree with his rhetoric.
Sep 12, 14 12:19 am ·
·
tammuz,
True. Don't mistake my point have condoning rape, either. I would have no sympathy for either. The point is, the world is never going to be a perfect idealism by human hands.
Why the person who dresses like a sex billboard.... loses my sympathy is that it diminishes their innocence and puts claim of rape in question as it puts the 'non-consensual' in question.
This doesn't mean I condone rape or rapists. When someone dresses in a manner where they are basically advertising 'wanting sex' by their attire, body language and so forth... how can one rationalize being naive to such a nefarious world.
Sep 12, 14 12:35 am ·
·
It is not necessarily evil that a person who wears clothes that shows cleavage and such and surely attractive and seductive but a work place in not suppose to be that kind of environment.
Surely, the human figure can be quite attractive but the work environment should not be the play ground for sexuality and promescuity.
I know, some people have figures that are very attractive even regardless of what they wear. I do believe that the work environment should avoid unnecessary problems. There is a balance of sexuality and keeping the attire proper and not being too showy. After all, the work environment is suppose to be healthy.
I'm not explicitly against co-workers or such having relationships outside the work environment but it may raise concern but as long as the relationship is healthy, it should be okay but relationships can turn into a disaster and it blows up in the entire work place.
In part, dress code as with an entire base line employee conduct policy is a mechanism for discipline and also to not proactively in way promote sexual relationships with co-workers if anything, it would be to discourage quick & dirty sexual relationships that can turn into a nasty drama. The last thing a small firm needs is workers tied up in custody cases.
This can be a disaster for a small firm. It's reality. It effects the rest. It might be entertaining like a soap opera but it can also be a nightmare.
a girl showing cleavage or other attire that makes you uncomfortable is not advertising sex.
this might be where you start to figure out why you come off as weak. for whatever reason, when you see a pretty girl, you're unable to disassociate that with sex. you blame the girl for the clothes she's wearing or the figure you find attractive because you can't take responsibility for yourself, right? it's your mind that's screwed up, not the girl. it's you that took a normal situation and turned it into something sexual. you want the girl to change because you're too weak to face what's causing the problem.
i don't think there is anything wrong with donna's position that open toed shoes are unprofessional. the original conversation here is about professional attire, which can be part of an office selling a brand or displaying a certain image to make their clients comfortable. closed toes shoes can be part of that message.
richard changed the conversation by making it about sex. there is a difference in telling someone to change their shoes because it doesn't meet the firm's image and telling someone they're a slut because you can't stop thinking about sex.
saying someone shouldn't wear a bikini in the office because it isn't part of your firm's professional image is fine. telling someone they can't wear a bikini because it makes you want to rape them is not.
Donna, my last post followed yours but was not in response to yours – timing.
“By Jove I think she’s got it!” – I truly believe that if one made just those three things (Sleeves-Bare Legs-Closed Toe) policy 90% of all this would be resolved….but I guess we’ll need to add-in underwear.
I suppose what is most needed and missing back then are Forums like this and the Blog I’m going to make you write. I guess I should have been the “words of wisdom” to her but by then it was all just too exhausting – I loved the work but not all the people.
Curtkram! I saw that…take your eyes off Richard’s hands; I know what you’re thinking.....and that pencil is mine if he ends up dead from all this.
I remember engineering offices having a 'no skirts' policy because HR was afraid of what all the boys coming out of men dominated engineering programs would do. In retail one clause stated 'no visible undergarments' pointedly at guys in saggy pants showing off their Disney boxers, but more recently addressed at ladies showing off bright thongs. I also have a vague memory of high school dress codes; they weren't strict but did cover explicit language, sexual content on shirts and covering your undergarments.
Advice I got in college was dress pants, dress shirt & tie with a sport coat for the interview then if you got the job dress at least as well as the middle management - I guess it's more conservative, but it seems to work. I'm sometimes down to a t-shirt and jeans, but keep a dress shirt at my desk.
One night after an ACE program event all the mentors went into a bar. One gentleman at the bar turned to us and asked us what we did since we 'dressed so sharply'. We were all wearing very different attire, dresses to suites and more casual jeans and sweaters. That was one moment when it was clear the group all dressed well in the eyes of the general public.
Sep 12, 14 12:20 pm ·
·
curtkram,
I'm personally not discomfortable with a woman even if she was entirely naked. However, runnng a business isn't about personal comfort of myself or not. The matters of professionalism and image entails not communicating the wrong statements because how you dress DOES send a message to other people no matter how you think otherwise because guess what every single person including you and Donna will have impressions in your mind.
Talk to me when you ever run a business, you'll know what the hell I am talking about. I never said that I will tell the person that dresses like a slut is a slut or treat the person like a slut.
Clothing attire communicate a message. The premise of sex is point I was getting at as an example of how dressing inappropriately may communicate the wrong impression.
The point isn't really about sex so much as the importance of the attire and making sure it communicates the right message. Maybe, I should have used a biker gange attire for example for that. How would that attire look appropriate in an office? I wouldn't care about how the person dresses on their personal time. I would care as the EMPLOYER in how they appear and represent the business/firm when they come to work or present themselves in connection with their duties as exployees of the business.
That was the core point in the first place. We debated the sexual message part of certain attire well enough. More than what I was looking at discussing.
Sep 12, 14 12:34 pm ·
·
Well.... okay... I would amend the first sentence in that it would kind of depend on the figure of the woman.
I would have to concur that some figures would be discomforting (this can be true even on male figures).
If a person (male or female) doesn't have a compatible figure for a particular swimsuit, they shouldn't wear a swimsuit that is not compatible with their figure.
... have fully rationalized why "exposed toes" for instance are a no-no, aside from your own preference and understanding of professionalism.
it's a safety issue - you also save some money on your worker's comp insurance premium if you have a "no-open-toe" shoe policy. plus there are often activities in an arch office where footwear falls under OSHA (if you're in the states) - especially if your office has a model shop - and definitely not ok on a job site.
Richard Balkins - do you realize when someone searches Google for your name, this thread is going to pop up? hope you always apply for work with male architects, supervisors, and hr staff.
maybe a thread about cultivitaing your online persona would be applicable here.
Anyone with half a brain and reading comprehension would understand my point without getting too bent out of shape over. My point about dressing inappropriately for an office enviornment is as much inappropriate whether the person is male or female.
If a guy came in the office dressed in a tutu, that is downright wrong and horrifying and inappropriate. Okay.
If a guy dress like a whore, the guy will communicate the wrong message and some guy just might give that guy a surprise.
Bottom line: Don't dress in a manner that will convey the wrong message. Recognize that how one dresses does convey a message through associated connotations. I'm confident in the intelligence of many women that they'll get my core point. Personally, I don't care if the woman has cleavage or not or a sexy body or not when it comes to employees. When it comes to personal relationships, that maybe a factor in the physical attraction. I expect ANY employee to dress appropriate for an office environment. How hard is that to understand ?
In an office, displaying and showing off ones body in a sexually evocative manner through clothes that are designed intentionally to be sexually evocative, just is not appropriate for a professional office as is any clothes that doesn't convey professional image.
To be honest, I never heard of men's hands being that sexually exciting to women until it was mentioned. Never thought hands are thought of in that manner.
I wouldn't necessarily consider a woman at a night club dressed in a sexually evocative clothing to be a slut, immediately. Then again at a night club, you're trying to pick up a date... right? Dressing to attract is kind of expected.
Why would that be appropriate in an office? As an employer, should I be encouraging such kinds of relationships between co-workers? I've worked with employers where that can be grounds for termination of employment.
Those who have worked in military service will know full well that can be grounds for discharge from service to have such relationships with fellow soldiers.
If for good reason that can be argued, I'll consider relaxing on some aspects of such dress attire standards if considering hiring employees in the future. I can't just choose to have only male or only women employees.
Offices that did hand drafting way back when often had "no skirts" rules when they employed women because of the nature of the drafting table and stool setup... I guess it's true that when you are perched up on a stool under a tilted drafting table with the mind focused on something like line weights that you can easily forget to keep your legs closed and then you are just asking for trouble.
People who are wired more or less correctly don't start dropping the w-word, the s-word, or the p-word to describe some lovely who comes to work in a skirt an inch or two short.
Sep 13, 14 10:53 am ·
·
Of course, volunteer. Of course you don't just call a woman a slut because they wear a skirt that is an inch or two too short. So if the code for skirts are knee level, being 2 inches short isn't a problem.
Can't she just not be denominated relative to your sexual estimation?
And what if she were not really lovely -to you- and still wore the short skirt?
Because I think you're doing one or two of three things:
-discounting women unattractive to you totally from the formula; you prioritize their personhood on the basis of your lust - sexist
-assuming stealthily that women unattractive to you would not be wearing shorts (with, perhaps, an arguable nudge towards a "should not be wearing") - again, sexist as above
-you call all women "lovely" - a condescending view that objectifies them en masse, robs them of their individual distinction, posed to be subservient like pets- again, sexist.
........................
To be honest, while disagreeing completely with Richard's terminology and way of thinking, I've read him repeatedly state that this is not necessarily basing his estimation on his own lust (he's stated this a few times) but on his reading of a certain (most definitely unfortunate) societal code - by all means a sexist one- and using it as the basis of his evaluation. In other words, he's focusing on the assumption that other people will read a certain individual as being a "slut" on the basis of attire or behavior. While the code is abhorrent, that code does exist and yes, Richard,, in buying into it, is party to it
However, Volunteer's "lovely" -while sounding so much less benign than "slut", so much prettier and so on- is a far more personally engaged case of demoting the woman to an object of desire. Here, it is not even a societal code -unjust as it is- that is being read consciously. The woman is sexually cannibalized before even having the chance to show far more complexity than "lovely"; she might be a really horrible person who likes to cut up kittens in her bathtub, for example, and post clips to gory sites. Very lovely...
It is easy to attack Richard; he's voicing his belief in the above mentioned code. He has made himself easy game, honest as he is being and uncritical of this code as he is/
Its more difficult to identify, in more ambiguous cases, and that covers many if not most of us, the prejudices that form the emotive and psychological basis of the said code.
Sep 13, 14 12:00 pm ·
·
I don't try to change society's ways. It isn't even a battle that I, only one person, has any chance to change. I live in a society with long established values and it is... as it basically boils down to..... follow the way of society or get the hell out.
Follow or you are outcasted.
It's bad for business for not conforming to societal codes.
^ That's what the Nazis said at the Nuremberg trials. And the people who drank KoolAid at Jonestown.
Sep 13, 14 12:35 pm ·
·
My point is, a professional office should look professional and convey that message.
Dress attire should convey that message.
Sep 13, 14 12:36 pm ·
·
Wilhedani
Here is something that always drew my attention; what I would have liked to know (although I know that there won't be an answer that fits all offices), is if e.g. wearing a Polo shirt (f.ex. http://promocodius.com/tr/magazalar/u-s-polo-assn-indirim-kodu) conveys a professional look when you wear it instead of a regular shirt? As someone who works on drawings all day, I rather have something more comfortable and something which will not get elbow stains as easily.
Miles, read the article, find it curious that it was in an Aljazeera publication – I realize that Aljazeera is by & for the Arab world and that only 20% of Arabs are Muslim but that’s still a big number – interesting to find a slant against school uniforms coming from there.
There you go Richard – HIJAB – cut and paste 24:30-31 of the Qur’an into your policy manual, there are 1.5 Billion people that endorse that.
ok, this is getting ridiculous. The Sikhs also have a manner of dressing, as do Christian nuns, as do people from different tribes across the world....but, of course, we have to bring up Islam as a "bad example". As for Al Jazeera, you seem not to be educated enough on that topic to theorize on it. It is a really complex subject that doesn't belong to this topic (because it would derail it, its a complex one as stated)
So, lets see, to counter sexism, we must succumb to religious and ethnic prejudices as a means of contrasting it with the western world ethos? Stay within the secular context, within the same cultural milieu to be able to draw accurate comparisons and contrasts.
How to dress like an Architect
Curtkram,
The point isn't about me. The clothing wouldn't stop me from doing my own work. However, employees and what they wear reflects on the employer's image, reputation and so forth.
It is known fact that clients of firms had walked (ie. terminated contract) from the firms because one or more employees have dressed inappropriately and caused discomfort to the clients. There is NO law anywhere on this planet that prohibits an employer from having a dress code standard or from firing or terminating employment of an employee that dresses inappropriately and that is to this very day and minute.
Of course you don't tell the employee that what they are wearing makes them look like a whore or slut, necessarily.
My point isn't about men or women specifically. It's about BOTH genders, if they dress inappropriately it reflects negatively on the business, profession, employer, etc.
How hard is that to understand?
I wouldn't tell someone they must wear explicitly black or anything like that. I would require employees to come to work appropriately dressed for an office setting. Basically, business formal, informal and business casual with pictorial examples.
The idea for business clothing is about dressing conservatively and minimal sexual expression because you don't go to work to have sexual affairs with your co-workers while on the clock (ie. on company's time). It's a work place. Sexual affairs, dating or otherwise belongs at home, in private or otherwise, not on company's time or in any way or form at a company function. Employment environment should be free of sexual influencing.
Take a moment and think about a hypothetical scenario:
What if a woman employee came to work in a bikini and g-string and a male employee came to work in just a swimming trunks. The office is downtown.... a good 100 miles from any beach environment.
How would this look to visiting clients? How would this reflect on the employer and the firm?
What would you think the woman going to work in a bikini and g-string intentions? Is it really for designing buildings or is it for something else?
What about the guy? Probably not for working but for so something else.
Would this:
OR
this:
at all be appropriate in a professional office environment?
Yes or No?
Should any employee in an office be dressed in sexually explicit or otherwise disruptive to the working environment?
What would a client think of a firm with employees dressed like the above ?
If I had employees, I have a duty to require some level of appropriate clothing in the office? Right? Employees reflects me and my business. If I require some level of dress code, it is not about any specfic gender. It's about professional image in a conservative downtown community.
Sure, a hottie in a bikini and g-string might be exciting to look at to a male, it isn't the place for such. Sure, the guy with a good six-pack and muscle tone and tan maybe hot to some women, is it appropriate? Yes or No?
http://www.wikihow.com/Avid-Looking-Inappropriate-for-the-Office-(for-Women)
http://www.allbusiness.com/office-dress-code-dos-donts/15642063-1.html
http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/22/office-fashion-sexy-forbes-woman-style-clothes.html
http://smallbusiness.chron.com/address-inappropriate-dress-employee-19391.html
http://www.wikihow.com/Avoid-Looking-Inappropriate-for-the-Office-(for-Women)
This whole thread is bat-s$&@. Women know how to dress for work; it is in their DNA. Guys are the ones who look like total dorks sometimes and it has nothing to do with sex; more like thinking a hideous green or black dress shirt with a light colored tie is OK for work.
Volunteer,
That's not true. Most of the time, I would agree that they have a tendency. However, it isn't in the DNA. It's in the upbringing. It is not necessarily DNA and some women dress inappropriate for the work environment.
I had to come back after being out to dinner to see if Richard was still alive.
Richard, I realize you are holding a pen/pencil, although I didn’t know it was “Swedish”. My reference to your filtering your cigarette was slang for filtering some of the too-strong of words you were blowing-out…many posts back.
Donna, of course we had a policy manual but it only dared to be tepid in terms of attire. One year things were so bad (men & women) that I wrote something very specific and passed it out and my secretary (Okay – Office Manager) collected them from the waste baskets and delivered them to my office. In the case that I stated are you suggesting I needed a clear written policy with an underwear stipulation? It’s like that Seinfeld episode were George got caught shagging the cleaning lady on his desk and he asked “Was I wrong on that?” By the way, the posts on this subject are too numerous to find but I remember distinctly you stating that you objected to women wearing blouses without sleeves….and another post or two about your dislike for women wearing shoes with open toes….what happened to all that?
To Miles statements and I guess Richard’s too, now here comes curtkram..…I got into a hell of an argument with a young woman student on Reddit about women in architecture with her vehemently stating that there were NO differences between men & women. I told my wife about it who has owned a nursery school for about 30 years and she told me a story about the 3 year old class last year were the boys were hogging the Lego table and wouldn’t let the girls play on it…pushing them away…some of the girls told on them and after observation my wife had to institute boy Lego days and girl Lego days and man were the boys pissed-off! – And there are no differences between men & women? That’s 3 years old in 2013! It’s born in humans and animals…I owned horses back when and Jesus!
Back to Richard – all the things we’ve made illegal in employment: race, gender etc. are taboo in employment and are in all societal discussions and until the day we can discuss these things openly with all the warts and offence we will never solve any of these problems – better to go back and discuss bow ties.
Clearly stoning is the answer. Measure that hem and if a quarter of an inch too short then off to the courtyard with her. Enough messing around!
Hello Carrera,
The pen in my hand in the photo is a type of ruling pen called a "Swedish Detail Ruling Pen". I don't recall exactly the origin story but that is what every documentation I seen. There is various ruling pen types that exists. The Swedish Detail Ruling Pen or if you want to simply call it "Detail Ruling Pen" has a larger nib point area to hold more ink in the surface tension for detail work which often uses heavy line weight. The other two common ruling pens is a shorter one and a longer 'nib'. I have the three common ruling pen types.
It's the traditional tools for hand drafting before the Technical Pens like the Rapidographs pens.
As for the strong words I use, I never claimed political correctness. Then again, political correctness is an oxymoron as far as I am concerned. Whatever the case may be, it stirred up a hornet's nest. I don't have anything personal against Donna Sink so I hope no hard feelings are kept. It wasn't meant to imply strictly to women or demean women. After all, those strong words can apply to men just as well and do.
Volunteer,
Oh come on. Why would I do that?
am I the only one around here who works in a nudist architecture office?
The other two common ruling penis is a shorter one and a longer 'nib'. I have the three common ruling penis types....
Still inappropriate.......
Some architects are dicks with phallic envy.
Carerra, I personally am against sleeveless shirts, bare legs, and exposed toes in a professional environment. If I owned a firm and hired employees, I would stipulate that those things aren't allowed, on men or women. If your employees tossed their dress code, could you not go tell them that they are welcome to work elsewhere? There's nothing wrong with stipulating what's appropriate and not in your own firm. But since I don't have employees, I'm just expressing my personal preferences.
Did this woman in the see-through blouse just suddenly show up one day wearing that while having been in turtlenecks and trousers and suit jackets every day previously? I mention the HR manual stipulating dress code because that's how one has to handle any legal issues that might come up around what people are wearing. But whether or not one has a policy, if someone is dressing somewhat inappropriately then an older firm member, acting as a mentor, should take them aside privately and mention that their clothing isn't quite what is expected. Some people just really *don't* know - in part this is a failure of architecture education.
Man this stuff is coming faster than I can type… curtkram, and now you Donna of all people endorsing “….men who are generally too pathetic to control their base emotions blame women and think they can get away with telling them what to do.” EVERYBODY – go back to the original post statement – it states the problem and the solution in one short paragraph. If everyone in architectural offices followed that statement there would not be any problems. Frankly I really did not have many problems with women’s attire, only a few and the subject in my post…but to suppose that there are no differences between men and women is pure folly.
Donna and other women, I would hold my record up for women’s rights against anybody. Toward the end of my career I employed more women than men, more than any of my competitors – over 50%. I preferred working with women and of all the money I donate to charities I only donate to the YWCA’s battered shelter and other women’s shelters in my community…..go ask them if there are differences…..but of all the big problems I had with people in my life it was with women…starting with my first wife who chased me with a butcher’s knife! It’s DNA, my wife proved it and this problem with women in architecture can be simply solved by following the original post statement.
donna didn't say women who wear sleevelss blouses are sluts. neither did the op.
richard said women who didn't dress they way he approves of are sluts.
Women should not be dressing with the subliminal message of "Take me to bed"
Dress like a slut/whore/lady of the night and you'll be treated like one
that is not what donna was saying in any of her previous posts, and honestly i don't see how you can make the connection between the two. also, as much as richard might say those statements apply equally to men and women, they obviously don't.
curtkram,
I didn't say that. I think you are trying to make connections and taking two completely separate sentences without the other context and then misconstruing what I was getting at.
My point in "Dress like a slut/whore/lady of the night and you'll be treated like one" did not mean I would treat the person as one. It is that someone is going to. You just can't dress like that for very long without someone treating you like one.
Don't dress like you are an advertising billboard to have sex and not expect someone in this world to take you up on the advertisement. It's just a matter of time. In other words, don't be an Blipping idiot. Don't be a damn advertising billboard for sex with the clothes you wear, how you wear them and the body language with it.
Duh! I have no sympathy for sluts crying rape. I don't care if they are male or female. I have no sympathy for idiots who think they can dress like a whore/slut and not expect someone in this nefarious world to try to have sex with them with or without permission.
In other words, don't be naive as if the world won't hurt or rape you if you are a walking "Bang me" billboard. In short, I don't have sympathy for stupidity where the most basic of good sense / common sense is totally disregarded for some stupid naive notion of the world is full of pure hearted people.
Don't expect the work place to be pure hearted, either.
Don't expect people to be moral and good kinded. There are plenty of women like that as well as men in this world. I've seen a fair number of them at college and university and around the cities I been to.
That was my point.
Now to make it clear, I don't think every woman who dresses like a slut is a slut. Okay. Nor would I treat them as such.
Donna, I wouldn't say it is a failure of architecture education. It's a failure of EDUCATION from Kindergarten through to 12th grade and parental guidance prior to college. After all, people should already have a good sense of what is proper to wear in an office by the time they reach high school let alone graduate. It's the same basic attire you wear in ANY office.
I would say this should be true regardless of gender.
curtkram,
Okay, the word "lady of the night" might not apply to men except cross-dressers (transgender) but ok. However, Slut and Whore (which is another word for prostitute also applies to men as there are male prostitutes and male sluts. Difference between prostitute and slut is one charges money for sex while the other does not. We know which one charges money.
If you don't believe there is such a thing as cross dressers.... well... watch Rocky Horror Picture Show. Some crossdressers/transgender folks are in the prostitution business. It happens.
Richard reminds me of observant.
observant.... that name seems reminescent but haven't seen that name in awhile.
I would mainly expect appropriate attire for an office. Nothing more... really than that. I wouldn't expect inappropriate attire that is too far in out-field or otherwise just plain out inappropriate.
We are speaking on a forum on a subject that will always have some controversial element to it.
I think we beat this horse down.
Richard, there's a lot of what you said that could be interpreted according to you or according to those positioning against you...but this sentiment:
Duh! I have no sympathy for sluts crying rape. I don't care if they are male or female.
is just plain ugly. Rape is rape is inexcusable, it is non-consensual...however you describe the victim's attire and mode of conduct.
Also, I myself find something completely puzzling...like tattoos in a non-religious non totemic individualistic society. It might be cultural or personal (doing something because its necessary is closer to my milieu than do anything you want "just coz") but I don't understand why anyone would want to paint her or his skin with meaningless vines and skulls for example. I would think that one would want skin to be what it is - a very limited reserve very difficult to augment or replace- rather than a canvas -or rather a poster- for what is mostly -even if one can argue about exceptions- an inconsequential banal purchasable variation of tem "poster" art. It is skin, a part of one's body...it seems to me that, in wanting to gain a mark of individualism, the tattooed individual actually does the very opposite - she or he marks themselves, camouflage themselves with these reproducible - albeit variable- expressions of popular anonymous consumerist artwork.
Fundamentally, I think it is a stupid thing to do....I don't think that the individual herself or himself is stupid...but the culture that drives her or him to waste their skin, to sacrifice their personhood so cheaply, to waste it...is stupid. However, this in no way makes me any better or more intelligent than that individual and I would be, myself, stupid to assume otherwise. Perhaps, in some other way, I also deceive myself unwittingly, as this tattooed person does.
What I mean to say is...it matters to identify why you like or don't like something but this does not exonerate you from your own fallibility. I am sure that many "sluts" -according to some people's interpretations- are far more intelligent and productive at work, imaginative, their very "proper" - according to some people's interpretation- counterparts.
. With all respect, for instance, while I find Donna's stance reasonable in terms of not disparaging individuals for their choice of dress and so on, I do not think you, Donna, have fully rationalized why "exposed toes" for instance are a no-no, aside from your own preference and understanding of professionalism. On the other hand, while I don't sympathize with Richard's testosterone-tinged rhetoric, he has actually rationalized, to himself at least, why he - probably like Donna- does not like bare legs and visible body parts at work...even if you disagree with his rhetoric.
tammuz,
True. Don't mistake my point have condoning rape, either. I would have no sympathy for either. The point is, the world is never going to be a perfect idealism by human hands.
Why the person who dresses like a sex billboard.... loses my sympathy is that it diminishes their innocence and puts claim of rape in question as it puts the 'non-consensual' in question.
This doesn't mean I condone rape or rapists. When someone dresses in a manner where they are basically advertising 'wanting sex' by their attire, body language and so forth... how can one rationalize being naive to such a nefarious world.
It is not necessarily evil that a person who wears clothes that shows cleavage and such and surely attractive and seductive but a work place in not suppose to be that kind of environment.
Surely, the human figure can be quite attractive but the work environment should not be the play ground for sexuality and promescuity.
I know, some people have figures that are very attractive even regardless of what they wear. I do believe that the work environment should avoid unnecessary problems. There is a balance of sexuality and keeping the attire proper and not being too showy. After all, the work environment is suppose to be healthy.
I'm not explicitly against co-workers or such having relationships outside the work environment but it may raise concern but as long as the relationship is healthy, it should be okay but relationships can turn into a disaster and it blows up in the entire work place.
In part, dress code as with an entire base line employee conduct policy is a mechanism for discipline and also to not proactively in way promote sexual relationships with co-workers if anything, it would be to discourage quick & dirty sexual relationships that can turn into a nasty drama. The last thing a small firm needs is workers tied up in custody cases.
This can be a disaster for a small firm. It's reality. It effects the rest. It might be entertaining like a soap opera but it can also be a nightmare.
a girl showing cleavage or other attire that makes you uncomfortable is not advertising sex.
this might be where you start to figure out why you come off as weak. for whatever reason, when you see a pretty girl, you're unable to disassociate that with sex. you blame the girl for the clothes she's wearing or the figure you find attractive because you can't take responsibility for yourself, right? it's your mind that's screwed up, not the girl. it's you that took a normal situation and turned it into something sexual. you want the girl to change because you're too weak to face what's causing the problem.
i don't think there is anything wrong with donna's position that open toed shoes are unprofessional. the original conversation here is about professional attire, which can be part of an office selling a brand or displaying a certain image to make their clients comfortable. closed toes shoes can be part of that message.
richard changed the conversation by making it about sex. there is a difference in telling someone to change their shoes because it doesn't meet the firm's image and telling someone they're a slut because you can't stop thinking about sex.
saying someone shouldn't wear a bikini in the office because it isn't part of your firm's professional image is fine. telling someone they can't wear a bikini because it makes you want to rape them is not.
^---- Bingo!
Donna, my last post followed yours but was not in response to yours – timing.
“By Jove I think she’s got it!” – I truly believe that if one made just those three things (Sleeves-Bare Legs-Closed Toe) policy 90% of all this would be resolved….but I guess we’ll need to add-in underwear.
I suppose what is most needed and missing back then are Forums like this and the Blog I’m going to make you write. I guess I should have been the “words of wisdom” to her but by then it was all just too exhausting – I loved the work but not all the people.
Curtkram! I saw that…take your eyes off Richard’s hands; I know what you’re thinking.....and that pencil is mine if he ends up dead from all this.
I remember engineering offices having a 'no skirts' policy because HR was afraid of what all the boys coming out of men dominated engineering programs would do. In retail one clause stated 'no visible undergarments' pointedly at guys in saggy pants showing off their Disney boxers, but more recently addressed at ladies showing off bright thongs. I also have a vague memory of high school dress codes; they weren't strict but did cover explicit language, sexual content on shirts and covering your undergarments.
Advice I got in college was dress pants, dress shirt & tie with a sport coat for the interview then if you got the job dress at least as well as the middle management - I guess it's more conservative, but it seems to work. I'm sometimes down to a t-shirt and jeans, but keep a dress shirt at my desk.
One night after an ACE program event all the mentors went into a bar. One gentleman at the bar turned to us and asked us what we did since we 'dressed so sharply'. We were all wearing very different attire, dresses to suites and more casual jeans and sweaters. That was one moment when it was clear the group all dressed well in the eyes of the general public.
curtkram,
I'm personally not discomfortable with a woman even if she was entirely naked. However, runnng a business isn't about personal comfort of myself or not. The matters of professionalism and image entails not communicating the wrong statements because how you dress DOES send a message to other people no matter how you think otherwise because guess what every single person including you and Donna will have impressions in your mind.
Talk to me when you ever run a business, you'll know what the hell I am talking about. I never said that I will tell the person that dresses like a slut is a slut or treat the person like a slut.
Clothing attire communicate a message. The premise of sex is point I was getting at as an example of how dressing inappropriately may communicate the wrong impression.
The point isn't really about sex so much as the importance of the attire and making sure it communicates the right message. Maybe, I should have used a biker gange attire for example for that. How would that attire look appropriate in an office? I wouldn't care about how the person dresses on their personal time. I would care as the EMPLOYER in how they appear and represent the business/firm when they come to work or present themselves in connection with their duties as exployees of the business.
That was the core point in the first place. We debated the sexual message part of certain attire well enough. More than what I was looking at discussing.
Well.... okay... I would amend the first sentence in that it would kind of depend on the figure of the woman.
I would have to concur that some figures would be discomforting (this can be true even on male figures).
If a person (male or female) doesn't have a compatible figure for a particular swimsuit, they shouldn't wear a swimsuit that is not compatible with their figure.
I'm gonna wait for the pulp novel: "Impregnated on the Drafting Board", subtitled "My Summertime Sandals and Sleeveless Dress Drove Him Insane!!!!".
....
... have fully rationalized why "exposed toes" for instance are a no-no, aside from your own preference and understanding of professionalism.
it's a safety issue - you also save some money on your worker's comp insurance premium if you have a "no-open-toe" shoe policy. plus there are often activities in an arch office where footwear falls under OSHA (if you're in the states) - especially if your office has a model shop - and definitely not ok on a job site.
Volunteer,
Are you male or female?
Just out of curiosity.
Richard Balkins - do you realize when someone searches Google for your name, this thread is going to pop up? hope you always apply for work with male architects, supervisors, and hr staff. maybe a thread about cultivitaing your online persona would be applicable here.
Like I said, reminescent of observant.
archanonymous,
Anyone with half a brain and reading comprehension would understand my point without getting too bent out of shape over. My point about dressing inappropriately for an office enviornment is as much inappropriate whether the person is male or female.
If a guy came in the office dressed in a tutu, that is downright wrong and horrifying and inappropriate. Okay.
If a guy dress like a whore, the guy will communicate the wrong message and some guy just might give that guy a surprise.
Bottom line: Don't dress in a manner that will convey the wrong message. Recognize that how one dresses does convey a message through associated connotations. I'm confident in the intelligence of many women that they'll get my core point. Personally, I don't care if the woman has cleavage or not or a sexy body or not when it comes to employees. When it comes to personal relationships, that maybe a factor in the physical attraction. I expect ANY employee to dress appropriate for an office environment. How hard is that to understand ?
In an office, displaying and showing off ones body in a sexually evocative manner through clothes that are designed intentionally to be sexually evocative, just is not appropriate for a professional office as is any clothes that doesn't convey professional image.
To be honest, I never heard of men's hands being that sexually exciting to women until it was mentioned. Never thought hands are thought of in that manner.
I wouldn't necessarily consider a woman at a night club dressed in a sexually evocative clothing to be a slut, immediately. Then again at a night club, you're trying to pick up a date... right? Dressing to attract is kind of expected.
Why would that be appropriate in an office? As an employer, should I be encouraging such kinds of relationships between co-workers? I've worked with employers where that can be grounds for termination of employment.
Those who have worked in military service will know full well that can be grounds for discharge from service to have such relationships with fellow soldiers.
If for good reason that can be argued, I'll consider relaxing on some aspects of such dress attire standards if considering hiring employees in the future. I can't just choose to have only male or only women employees.
Offices that did hand drafting way back when often had "no skirts" rules when they employed women because of the nature of the drafting table and stool setup... I guess it's true that when you are perched up on a stool under a tilted drafting table with the mind focused on something like line weights that you can easily forget to keep your legs closed and then you are just asking for trouble.
lol at all this.
Interesting article popped up this morning. Bad title, but some thoughtful insights.
Does slut-shaming start with school dress codes?
People who are wired more or less correctly don't start dropping the w-word, the s-word, or the p-word to describe some lovely who comes to work in a skirt an inch or two short.
Of course, volunteer. Of course you don't just call a woman a slut because they wear a skirt that is an inch or two too short. So if the code for skirts are knee level, being 2 inches short isn't a problem.
Volunteer, Some lovely?
Can't she just not be denominated relative to your sexual estimation?
And what if she were not really lovely -to you- and still wore the short skirt?
Because I think you're doing one or two of three things:
-discounting women unattractive to you totally from the formula; you prioritize their personhood on the basis of your lust - sexist
-assuming stealthily that women unattractive to you would not be wearing shorts (with, perhaps, an arguable nudge towards a "should not be wearing") - again, sexist as above
-you call all women "lovely" - a condescending view that objectifies them en masse, robs them of their individual distinction, posed to be subservient like pets- again, sexist.
........................
To be honest, while disagreeing completely with Richard's terminology and way of thinking, I've read him repeatedly state that this is not necessarily basing his estimation on his own lust (he's stated this a few times) but on his reading of a certain (most definitely unfortunate) societal code - by all means a sexist one- and using it as the basis of his evaluation. In other words, he's focusing on the assumption that other people will read a certain individual as being a "slut" on the basis of attire or behavior. While the code is abhorrent, that code does exist and yes, Richard,, in buying into it, is party to it
However, Volunteer's "lovely" -while sounding so much less benign than "slut", so much prettier and so on- is a far more personally engaged case of demoting the woman to an object of desire. Here, it is not even a societal code -unjust as it is- that is being read consciously. The woman is sexually cannibalized before even having the chance to show far more complexity than "lovely"; she might be a really horrible person who likes to cut up kittens in her bathtub, for example, and post clips to gory sites. Very lovely...
It is easy to attack Richard; he's voicing his belief in the above mentioned code. He has made himself easy game, honest as he is being and uncritical of this code as he is/
Its more difficult to identify, in more ambiguous cases, and that covers many if not most of us, the prejudices that form the emotive and psychological basis of the said code.
I don't try to change society's ways. It isn't even a battle that I, only one person, has any chance to change. I live in a society with long established values and it is... as it basically boils down to..... follow the way of society or get the hell out.
Follow or you are outcasted.
It's bad for business for not conforming to societal codes.
^ That's what the Nazis said at the Nuremberg trials. And the people who drank KoolAid at Jonestown.
My point is, a professional office should look professional and convey that message.
Dress attire should convey that message.
Here is something that always drew my attention; what I would have liked to know (although I know that there won't be an answer that fits all offices), is if e.g. wearing a Polo shirt (f.ex. http://promocodius.com/tr/magazalar/u-s-polo-assn-indirim-kodu) conveys a professional look when you wear it instead of a regular shirt? As someone who works on drawings all day, I rather have something more comfortable and something which will not get elbow stains as easily.
Miles, read the article, find it curious that it was in an Aljazeera publication – I realize that Aljazeera is by & for the Arab world and that only 20% of Arabs are Muslim but that’s still a big number – interesting to find a slant against school uniforms coming from there.
There you go Richard – HIJAB – cut and paste 24:30-31 of the Qur’an into your policy manual, there are 1.5 Billion people that endorse that.
ok, this is getting ridiculous. The Sikhs also have a manner of dressing, as do Christian nuns, as do people from different tribes across the world....but, of course, we have to bring up Islam as a "bad example". As for Al Jazeera, you seem not to be educated enough on that topic to theorize on it. It is a really complex subject that doesn't belong to this topic (because it would derail it, its a complex one as stated)
So, lets see, to counter sexism, we must succumb to religious and ethnic prejudices as a means of contrasting it with the western world ethos? Stay within the secular context, within the same cultural milieu to be able to draw accurate comparisons and contrasts.
^ Get off your high horse, the "bad example" is in your one-track mind.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.