Sexist Female Oppression? Cleavage In The Workplace

It is amazing where a thread on cleavage in the workplace can go. When I studied for my MBA (never got it), I took a course called "Organizational Management Theory". Every company, corporation, workplace, office, small business, etc has a culture. The culture develops from the leader and is enforced by the leader's closest supervisory management. No matter how an employee decides to dress, whether within or without of the culture, the employee is making a choice. Using cleavage as an example only, I have seen the counter culture woman sporting cleavage get the big job because she was smart and independent and didn't back down and I have seen it backfire. I have seen employees trying to be some one they are not resign with every form of stress disease imaginable. Do your soul's work and be yourself and find the workplace you need to do your work. If you cannot find, build it. Forget the clothes.

reply to post by angelwrangler


that sounds like reasonable advice. i give ya a star for clarity of thought and useful input.

Originally posted by Kailassa
Your straw-men are getting more and more absurd, and I'm just surprised how patient the men are being in discussing this with you.

actually, except for commenting on what you have to say here, I gave up this arguement

fact is, dress code is subjective to company policy, not your personal beliefs on what you have a right to...
and a company can change its policy at its whim

if you are asked to show less cleavage, do so or face the consequences...

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
arousal is involuntary. Now if you claim otherwise you prove yourself to know nothing of neurology, arousal is utterly involuntary, it is what you do about it that's voluntary.

...i dont agree with that at all...

...a father will be involuntarily aroused when changing his daughter's diaper or giving her a bath or if he should see her running around naked - and - he has to conciously make the effort to control himself?...

...no, thats just crazy talk...

...male doctors arent involuntarily aroused when their patient is female... males artists arent involuntarily aroused when the model is a naked female... i believe it might happen sometimes (with either gender) but only with those who have a mental disorder or were just raised wrong...

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
arousal is involuntary. Now if you claim otherwise you prove yourself to know nothing of neurology, arousal is utterly involuntary, it is what you do about it that's voluntary.

...i dont agree with that at all...

...a father will be involuntarily aroused when changing his daughter's diaper or giving her a bath or if he should see her running around naked - and - he has to conciously make the effort to control himself?...

...no, thats just crazy talk...

...male doctors arent involuntarily aroused when their patient is female... males artists arent involuntarily aroused when the model is a naked female... i believe it might happen sometimes (with either gender) but only with those who have a mental disorder or were just raised wrong...

the examples you post are about context...

each of them know they are going into the situation you are giving

but said doctor, artist, or father could be caught off guard and see a random naked person and in fact become aroused

reply to post by kalisdad


if you saw them more often in a normal setting, where the impetus wasn't "now it's time for some private hanky panky!", they would lose their shock value and become more of what they were originally designed for: feeding kids. your value system is projecting unto them, things they are not. (and some women are manipulating that perception).

reply to post by undo


I do agree to a certain extent. However, I think that a huge driving force behind this was (a few) women, and ironically, primarily women of great privilege. That is understandable, because they had the time and resources to do what they did, but they were still out of touch with the needs of the "commoner." Be a man for the power. Be a woman for the emotional freedom. All I am trying to say is that, no matter what, each gender (not necessarily sex) has it's perks and advantage. Some people (and I am all for people being themselves, so don't get me wrong) want the best of both worlds. It is my opinion that in this very brief window of history (not true a decade ago, probably won't be true a decade or two from now), there is a certain class of women who want all of the benefits of men and women. And, granted, certain men want it too, but I think it is more socially acceptable for a woman to play all angles. She does have to have a certain measure of wit and confidence to pull this off, however.

And to answer your question about whether men should be forced to wear happy colors or pastels or floral prints or whatever, I agree they should not. However, if they chose too, I am sure there would be repercussions. I don't think women should be forced to wear masculine clothes either. It is both a simple and a complicated thing. I think someone who dresses a little differently and/or something that might be perceived as provocative should just be prepared to talk with their boss, to show they are not rocking the boat. They should also carry themselves professionally so there is as little confusion as possible. And trust me, the world is trying to get men to see things more like women as well. This is not all bad. There are good aspects. However, women and men are intrinsically different yet share many common elements. Society seems to be so retarded that the zeitgeist tends toward one or the other, and never a harmonious dance between the two. But I think that was one of the ideas behind equality. When the masculine and feminine meet, all sorts of dynamic things happen. It is basically learn to get along or watch society go down the drain. I think society (in America) is still in the stage just before that harmonious dance, but stupidity from both men and women must be ignored for us to get there. I also see that certain men have allowed women into areas of traditional masculine power. Women must now do the same. Some already are, but I do not think it has reached a societal tipping point as of yet. We can both be territorial. Women demanded certain things. They got many of them. I think men need to demand the same, but the onus is on us for that one. Things always start very slow then rapidly accelerate. Above all, I think people shouldn't lazily ride the coattails of these power ideologies. We should just honestly discuss the freedoms and opportunities we want. But good luck on that. Selling one's soul is awfully convenient in many cases.

i think this entire issue is evidence of how our culture is trying to separate the human from the animal, and while i agree with that idea immensely, the fact remains we would have to do alot more than hide our breasts for this to be a success. singling out breasts in particular for this in the work place, makes day to day reality for large breasted women, more than a little uncomfortable.

examples are:

1) binding them like geishas do
2) sports bras which achieve the non jiggly smooshed look
3) having them surgically reduced
4) shopping at specialty stores, which can be costly, depending on where you live
5) resorting to overly large sizes, to fit a breast line, even though you may have a much smaller waist, making you appear either a) obese or b) pregnant.

and etc. i don't know why this subject is so sensitive for men, who even agree that the problem is their perception of them. if it's your perception, can't you figure out some way to redirect the energy without requiring your female counterparts hide themselves in such extreme ways?

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Kailassa

 

notice i said part of the cost is psychological. when you look in the mirror, do you see a woman wearing work clothes, or a woman trying to look like a man, in order to not offend or trigger their "boobs in proximity" warning system.

Even in my fake army suit, which I wear for a laugh if people start telling me I'm too pushy, I don't look like a "woman trying to look like a man". - And not even when I was working as a sign-writer, wearing second-hand paint-stained mens' overalls.

I'm not afraid of showing skin, I even waitressed topless one afternoon for a dare, and played beach volleyball nude, but they were in appropriate settings. In the workplace I'm more interested in dressing with understated class than exhibiting my body. Yes, it's harder to look classy with a huge bosom, it's also harder to look classy when you're up every night looking after a couple of handicapped kiddies. We've all got our problems.

The fact is, one might as well accept responsibility for one's own choices, planning to get the best results. No-one else has the responsibility to hold our hands and explain it all to us. Life is never under an obligation to be easy.

Originally posted by kalisdad
the examples you post are about context...

...if its an involuntary response, there is no context that precludes it...

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Brood

 

we're not talking about a kid's show.
we're not talking about white men.
we're' not talking about the psychology of the op.
we're not talking about divorce court or child custody law suits.

we are talking about the problem with perceptions and projection.
we are talking about forcing women to look like men in order to be considered professional, presumably based on the idea that the true appearance of women is too distracting for men in a work environment and thus is unprofessional. the idea this ownus must be squarely on the shoulders of women, who incur higher clothing costs (some of which are entirely psychological) to do the same job, is part of the topic as well.

no we're not.

we're talking about what the article is talking about. women wearing plunging necklines not getting promoted. a little bit of cleavage is when you can just see the tops of the breasts, maybe they're together forming a line, maybe not. a lot of cleavage is when the top shows much more. plunging necklines are like saying "hi my names cindy, and i'd like to lick your naughty bits!"(at least to many straight men) which as this article the whole thread is about says, is going to get less women promoted. and rightfully so. PLUNGING NECKLINES, aka tons of cleavage is inappropriate for work attire, excepting working environments where it's required. no one is saying women can't look feminine, or that they have to be masculine. the article merely points out that if you dress like you're at a bar lookin for a man while at work, chances are, today's bosses aren't going to promote you for it.

that's not oppression. remember when women couldn't vote? that's oppression. get a freakin clue.

(you in the previous paragraph is a general you, and not directed at any individual member.)

reply to post by Kailassa


you were starred for your response because: 1 ) you mentioned being topless and nude . lol 2) because you just relieved the guys of their responsibility in all this and put it right back on the women. that's how the ladies ended up in burkas and veils, to begin with. they claim they have so much more freedom in a burkha because they don't have the stressors of western women, to have to smash their breasts or cut them off, to be perfectly attired, carefully coiffed or professional flat chested non descript worker (all hail the kremlin),

problem is, they pretty much can't do anything else either. they trade in the pain option for policing their husband's male member. the fact men haven't been expected to learn to tame their personal beast, and rather expect the women to do it for them, as if she were her own conscience and the conscience of her man as well. the reason i bring this up is because it's an extreme end game for where all this "must hide boobies" ends up at

reply to post by undo


Undo, granted some men may not be redirecting their energies properly, and women shouldn't have to wear burkas in order for men to function around them. That is not my issue here. My issue is that this is something so small on a grander scale that it just just seems more likely that one who would bring it up is myopic to a degree. Not necessarily true, but more likely. Also, the intent of the woman is important. Unless one is in a manipulative position such as sales, manipulative behavior is not to be tolerated at work in my opinion. In the case of a woman just wearing what she is comfortable with without crossing that invisible line, I am fine with it. It is not my call how a woman dresses nor do I want it to be. I am speaking more of correlation of dress and personality. Obviously, some women are dressing a certain way for comfort or basic sense of style. Others are poison in the well. This goes for men as well. And I do think it fairly obvious that women who show cleavage in the workplace are more likely to be the type that poisons the well. Again, and let me make this clear, a little bit of cleavage does not, ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT put a woman in this category. It is just that this type is almost certainly more inclined to show cleavage. And that, in addition to the basics of appearance, has got to do something with the results of the presented study. It has got too. This is one thing I can't stand about statistical studies. You can come up with the results you want anyway. And all factors are not considered. Let me put it simply: Manipulative, underhanded women = more likely to wear this attire. This attire being worn does not equal manipulative, underhanded women. Do you get what I am saying?

Edit: I wholeheartedly agree with your previous post. Makes perfect sense. I just have this thing about manipulation. I think it is an evil that cannot be proven, that goes somewhat unnoticed, and therefore, it is socially acceptable. Both men and women do it. And being merely playful or convincing doesn't count. I am talking more about the finely tuned, intelligent, psychopathic behavior that is, unfortunately, not all that uncommon. And these types are masters at shifting blame and playing the system. Nobody should be able to hide under the blanket of discrimination.

reply to post by orwellianunenlightenment


aren't those rare cases though, or are you saying they are so prevalent they actually required the new more stringent laws about apparel?

reply to post by undo


I am not talking about more stringent laws for apparel at all. I am just saying that certain personality types are more inclined to wear certain types of clothing. You must see this. It is only natural. Again, not saying that wearing a type of clothes automatically puts you in that box, but nevertheless... I think it is clear that personality, in addition to appearance, is relevant to the results of this study. But this nation is woefully uneducated in mathematics, logic, probability, the scientific method and things of the sort. Statistics are abused relentlessly. Some people don't abuse them, but that is the exception as far as I am concerned. The prover proves what the thinker already thinks. It is also intellectually dishonest, and hence supremely biased, to not consider all the factors in play.

And just to flip your burka paragraph (I do agree, just illustrating something), civilization, in the extreme context you have provided (granted not necessarily considered extreme in certain locales), required women to be the hearts, and men the minds, working together. In this end game, you would not only end up with men with bad emotional intelligence and impulse control, but you would also end up with women with bad logic and poor understanding of the mechanics of society. In order for us to get along and not dictate one to the other (women and men have both bossed each other around forever, at least in the context of natural evolution. You don't get laid if you don't make some concessions), we have to get over these hang ups and be honest. These gender threads kind of irritate me, but I can't look away. They always seem to be so biased and intellectually dishonest whether they originate from somebody with a hole or a pole.

Plus, in this survey, they don't give any details. If half favored a woman with too much cleavage, and the other half rejected her, then it balanced out. There is simply not enough info here. Plus, it only presents the biased angle of women being rejected. It did not say whether the other half favored them or was neutral. If it said half of the bosses favored women with more cleavage, you have a completely different story on your hands. But it did not state the preferences of that half one way or the other. And that is entirely possible, because we have not been given enough info. This is an elementary school level survey that has no validity. And on top of that, they wanted the reader to come to a certain conclusion based on the omission of highly relevant information. In other words, they are liars. Just some fluff piece in the political vein to gain readers. Tripe as the British would say. Everybody in my workplace who was fired breathed oxygen. My boss must have been discriminating against breathers.

in the backdrop of the religious rationale for all this, is the story of adam and eve, which people often don't visit in the sense of social moral structures. they probably should, especially when referring to the places on the globe mentioned in this thread (primarly abrahamic cultures)

god said, "adam, you knew what you were doing and blamed it on your wife. your wife was tricked but you weren't, you went along willingly."

in effect, god, in the verse, is trying to show how expecting your women to be your cover, is not quite correct. you're supposed to teach yourself not blame the closest thing with female bumps.

i know it's not easy for men. i realize it's a comfort issue, but it's also a comfort issue for women. or am i just reading the verse wrong and the human social implication wrong?

reply to post by undo


But blaming women is so easy. After all, I wouldn't be on this crazy rock if it wasn't for one. Oh wait, that's a double-edged sword. But in all seriousness, I like the concept of Adam and Eve too. I also like your interpretation. I don't think it was necessarily as sexist (against women) as some think. I honestly believe that in the religions that stuck, they contained valid truths for the time. Even some timeless. But doesn't your interpretation also say that Eve was a dupe for believing a smooth talking snake (a parody of the sinister version of the alpha male maybe) and instead of Adam saying, "Hell no!" he was like, "Screw it, this woman is always going to go for this BS version of the alpha male, so I might as well get with the program of good vs evil." Adam was a damn sellout, being the very man he hated just to get some. What a wimp! I tend to hold the view that both Adam and Eve were retarded (don't actually believe, but a concept I play with), and they needed each other to gain some sense of what this world is about. So started the long process of reconciliation. Or maybe this is all symbolic of the pains that go along with consciousness. Who knows.

I also like the name Adam, like atom, or something absolute and universal. And Eve, I like that name too, like the evening, a place where there is a vibrating, magnetic dance and no absolutes. The two work together. Each one is BS without the other. The absolute being shredded if it doesn't fit with the dance. The dance being thrown away if it doesn't mesh with an absolute that society favors. Besides, we humans like to level up in this role-playing game of life. Separate and perfect. I believe that was a concept espoused by this. Basically, men were in the shadows to women, and women were in the shadows to men. That way, each side can be as self-centered as they like, committing evil so to speak, but since neither side can fully understand the other, even if the two are at war, both views get advanced. And when the last of the wars is fought, people see evil personified, so they know what they are not. I believe the concept of Jesus was to end this war. I think it presented the view that you have played the level up game long enough, now dance together.

reply to post by orwellianunenlightenment


lol don't get me started on the original language of those verses or how many of the english word translations, were actually in the original writings. i always thought of atom too till it donned on me that moses was raised an egyptian and was probably talking about atum (sumerian adam/adapa), but that's for a different thread.

anyway, yep, that's my take on it too. if we don't figure this out together, symbiotically, that pendulum just swings wildly back and forth, wreaking havoc along the way.

reply to post by undo


Show me a woman whose natural breasts you would deem too large to look appropriate at work.

...And I will show you a shirt that she could wear that would not only eliminate the cleavage and be more appropriate for work, but compliment her body type.

Also, this "conspiracy against women" is nonexistent:

Allow me to go back to the feet; if a man has size 24 feet, he is responsible for procuring the appropriate attire for his workplace to the best of his ability. If he cannot find footwear to accomodate it, can we accuse his employers of a conspiracy against men? They are oppressing him and trying to make him more like females in the workplace because females on average have smaller feet than men?

Men are just as responsible for covering their chests as women are in the workplace. Arguably even moreso in most work environments.

reply to post by undo

I doubt you were speaking in a mathematical sense. In fact, I am pretty damn sure you were being intuitive. But please, humor me and let me take a mathematical approach.

I think we hope for some common things, but I also don't know about the whole pendulum thing. I think the pendulum stopping is a bit terminal. I think it most closely resembles the true and higher natures of people, but I also think it makes the world static. I know when this sort of zero point happens on the individual level, from personal experience, there is great clarity and awareness, but also that everything is sort of drawn together. When I was feeling like this, the thoughts and emotions of those I was around seemed to draw very close. I think without a bit of a pendulum swing, as weird as this might sound, that everybody starts getting so similar that they are approaching being the same person, and with no pendulum swing whatsoever, get so close to being one (which would destroy the world, we need diversity) that an entire cultural aspect of society collapses, causing others to collapse with it.

Instead, I think we need to learn how to control the pendulum, basically become a society which reinforces through natural cultural standards all types of behavior that are favored by society during the pendulum swings. Also, learn how to make the pendulum swings really swift, so society is not allowed to favor one extreme over the other to much extent at all. Or maybe I am being cynical in not believing at least an equality version of the pendulum swing can be avoided. Yet the vibrant dance continues. I can't know for sure. I suppose we'll cross that bridge when we get there though. I think things have a way of naturally working out. Simply put, nobody likes to be burned by a hot burner over and over. We learn from the pain of our stupidity. And collectively things move toward a more pleasant society with all, and it naturally tends to a more symbiotic arrangement.