I’m 23 and work in a semi-creative field — we’re hybrid, only in the office two days a week, and it’s a pretty relaxed dress code where we can actually express our personal style. Nothing I do is client-facing either, so it’s not like I’m representing the company publicly.
The other day, my boss (female, in her 50s) called me in and told me my outfit wasn’t appropriate for work. I was wearing low-rise pants and a blouse that showed just a little tummy. Note that I was channeling office siren, not club girl. I genuinely thought the look was stylish and pretty typical among women my age. Plus, some of my older coworkers regularly show cleavage, which — honestly, good for them! — has never been flagged. I don’t recall anything in my contract prohibiting a bit of midriff.
On top of that, a male coworker recently wore shorts, and no one batted an eye. Is there a double standard here? For women, styles and rules are constantly changing: in the ‘70s, it was standard to go braless; in the ‘60s, it was super-short skirts. So how do I know what is tasteful and what is inappropriate, while staying true to my personal style?
To read my answer, click here: Is Showing Some Midriff At Work Inappropriate?
My dress code has one more “B.” Back. And I receive the same comments from my 20-30 year old women that don’t understand why showing the 4 Bs is not appropriate.
We had an issue at my work where we hired a very tallented, highly educated scientist with a freshly minted PhD from a university known for its warm weather and beautiful people. She showed up with a work wardrobe that showed a lot of skin and looked like she was still in college. It didn’t help at all that she was very attractive. The female colleagues started gossiping and her manager had to have a talk with her. Rather than her technical credibility, her wardrobe was what she was known for and she left to a different job within the year.
Spot on and well said. Would also mention that cross-referencing women’s dress in the 1960’s and 1970’s is not really comparable, as back in the 60’s and 70’s rarely did women have leadership or senior roles, which thankfully is much more common today (grateful to those pioneers back then).
At my work, our policy is business casual. We define it as full midriff must be covered and shorts should not be 6 inches higher than our knees. It also states, if we would wear it to the beach or to the gym, it is not welcome at the office. I personally would not want to see my coworker’s stomachs at work, but that is just me. I am a young woman that is pretty hip and fit, and I would not wear that to work.
Also, it’s good that you are not trying to channel “Club girl”. But in what universe is “office siren” a good role to channel?
Do you want to be the “office eye candy” or the “awesome kid who really comes up with great ideas and gets them DONE!” The latter may box you in a little in this company because “kid”, but it might not. And certainly it won’t box you when you decide to move on. But “office eye candy” (aka “office siren”)? Not only will you never move forward in *this* company. It’s going to hold you back when you want to move on. People who get asked about you are not going to talk about how awesome you are, or even about your basic competence. Because that’s not how they are going to see you.
I remember a woman that worked in an office I worked at years ago. Very attractive, and routinely wore outfits that flattered her figure. Sundresses, long skirts, that sort of thing. She was also one of the best people in her role. She was one of those people that would routinely go above and beyond to get the job done; you knew if you asked for her help she’d handle it. Had the respect of multiple regulatory agencies. And she was a genuinely nice person, so it was pleasant to work with her, which isn’t universal in my line of work (lot of Type A personalities).
Then one day in a meeting she got called out–not by name, but with all the subtlety of a brick to the face–for her outfits. I could see her deflate. You can bet she didn’t go over and above anymore. No more staying late, no more going out of her way to help people. I don’t know if she still works with the company, and that’s the point. Prior to that comment it would have been something we knew. After that? She faded into the background, at least as far as work is concerned. Because she stood out and got slapped down for it.
That’s one of the two things I remember in these discussions: The loss of a good worker because immature children couldn’t keep their hormones in check and took it out on a woman who did nothing wrong. I still believe that some petty coworker couldn’t compete with this woman in the work, so they attacked her for something totally irrelevant.
The other thing I remember is a conversation with a father. His daughter had been pulled from class for wearing a distracting outfit. It fit all the dress code requirements, but apparently boys couldn’t keep their eyes from wondering. Instead of punishing the boys for their misbehavior, they punished the girl for causing it. The father was, quite properly, livid. It’s the old “sin of Eve” nonsense, pure and simple–pushing women for the crimes men commit. (For what it’s worth, I’m a cis/het male.)
For my part I’ve never cared what people wore, outside of PPE requirements. I’ve been on conference calls naked before (it was at 7 pm, I was traveling, and showering after field work was a requirement). I care about whether or not someone can do the work. If you can, I don’t care if you wear elf ears and lederhosen. If you can’t, I don’t care if you’re in a three piece suit and $500 watch. To be blunt I have enough real problems on my plate that your outfit simply isn’t worth my time or attention. I just wish more people took that view. We’d lose fewer good people that way.
Which is all well and good. But totally not relevant to the discussion at hand.
There is a difference between “attractive woman who dresses nicely” (what you seem to be describing) and “Office eye-candy” / “Office Siren” (the LW’s own description). By the same token, there is a huge difference between people who complain about the former – to which I say “grow up!” and people who notice the latter.
It’s not that I care what you* are wearing. It’s that when you TRY to attract a certain type of attention you don’t have any standing to complain when you GET that kind of attention. And you need to think about the consequences of succeeding in getting that kind of attention.
*Generic you
“There is a difference between “attractive woman who dresses nicely” (what you seem to be describing) and “Office eye-candy” / “Office Siren” (the LW’s own description).”
My argument is that there’s not. The same woman dressed in the same garments will be viewed as one or the other based on office politics/the relationship of the accuser to the woman. If you’re friends the woman is an attractive woman who dresses nicely; if you have a grudge against her, she’s the “office eye-candy”. Same woman, same outfit, completely different evaluation.
Further, attacking women because of how they dress is an age-old method for attacking them, at least as old as writing itself. And at least in my experience, that’s what these accusations usually are. The woman is a threat to someone in some way and they choose the most petty, irrelevant, childish means of attack: her clothing. I’m sure there are women who dress with the intent of using their looks to get ahead, but at least in my experience it’s far more common that someone accuses the woman of this because of office politics.
We should at the bare minimum question ourselves about why we’re falling into this pattern.
Toss in a big dash of “Clothing norms have changed and some people don’t like it”, of course. It’s not unique to women, but since women have a broader suite of fashion choices changes in norms are more obvious among women.
“And you need to think about the consequences of succeeding in getting that kind of attention.”
This is just “She was asking for it” with extra syllables. And if you really hold this belief you DO care, deeply, about what the woman is wearing.
“And you need to think about the consequences of succeeding in getting that kind of attention.”
This is just “She was asking for it” with extra syllables. And if you really hold this belief you DO care, deeply, about what the woman is wearing.
No, it’s not. And, in my experience, the claim, at bet, indicates someone whose judgement should not be trusted. It *certainly* does nothing to help women, or keep them safer. Because inability to differentiate different things is never something that improves safety.
For me in hot weather, business casual was a Utilikilts Mocker (kilt equivalent of chinos) and a button down shirt. I never got anything said that I was out of line.
I worked for a mid-size municipality in Washington state.