I think you’re over-interpreting a couple of valid facts to draw an unjustified inference.
Valid Fact #1: People who are significantly more physically attractive than the average, by conventional standards, tend to be better perceived and have higher levels of material success than less attractive people do.
Valid Fact #2: People who conform to basic conventions of appropriateness in dress and grooming tend to be better perceived and have higher levels of material success than people who look weird or unkempt.
Your Unjustified Inference: People need to work to maximize their attractiveness in all circumstances where they care about success, because any difference in attractiveness will significantly impact other people’s subconscious perceptions of them.
That last claim is, I think, highly dubious. I agree that there is plenty of data to indicate that the highly attractive do better in life (unless, that is, some of it is simply documenting a reverse cause-and-effect where greater success gives people more resources to boost their attractiveness). And I agree that maintaining a professional appearance in terms of being clean, tidy and presentable is better for your prospects than being dirty or raggedy.
However, I’m not at all convinced that comparatively small changes to appearance really do have a significant effect on other people’s perceptions. I doubt that an average-looking well-groomed professional woman in businesslike flats and a pantsuit really is perceived much differently from the same woman in a skirt and heels.
I think Jodi’s probably right that that kind of intense scrutiny about details of a woman’s appearance in a work environment is much more likely to be a sign of sexist piggery than a universal trait of human psychology.
I actually believe that women are more concerned about how they look to other women. If you don’t agree we can debate that if you like.
Are you telling me that if you were able to work your job at home (a growing trend I hear) that you would undergo the same morning cosmetic and dress ritual ? I know I don’t.
No need to take offence. Nothing I’ve said should imply that I comment on other’s appearance to their face in the workplace or anywhere else for that matter.
As for just having an opinion on your appearance if I was a co-worker, I’d say it is a tall order for blanking an opinion out of one’s mind. I’m sorry to tell you, but all your co-workers have assessed an opinion on your appearance whether you like it or not.
First, let’s review: Hello Again said “Face it, most of you men, we just don’t care what you think as much as you hope we do.” She’s obvioulsy talking to and about “you men.” You rebutted by saying “Oh sure. That’s why you spend so much money on cosmetics and time in front of the mirror,” obviously implying (“oh, sure”) that you disagreed with her assertion that women do not dress for men.
So why are you now asserting that women dress for other women?
Second, who cares what you believe regarding what concerns women about how they look? As I already said, when it comes to work most women I know dress for the job. They are not thinking about men (how to look attractive for them) or women (how to look better than them, or impress them, or whatever). Why would I want to debate you to the contrary?
What does that have to do with anything? Dressing “for the job” obviously includes looking professional and presentable when you are interacting with others. Those concerns become irrelevant when you are not.
Of course. But if I don’t care what it is – and I largely don’t – I shouldn’t have to worry about what it is. IOW, if I am dressed appropriately and professionally, I shouldn’t have to be concerned that men like the OP’er are evaluating my assumed professionalism based on their own subjective and prejudicial opinions of my attractiveness. What if, God forbid, such a pig were my boss? There I am, thinking I look nice, running around working my ass off, being the employee of the freaking year, nevermind month, and he’s sitting in his office assuming that I don’t bother with the clients because I’m in a pantsuit. Do you seriously see no problem with that?
Sure, but as I noted, their opinion is probably not significantly affected by comparatively trivial details such as whether she’s wearing a skirt or pants.
If they are, and if those effects really override the co-workers’ other perceptions of her through her speech, actions, work quality, and so forth—in other words, if they really are basing their opinion of her “smartness” or other characteristics on whether she’s wearing a skirt or pants—then their opinions are probably not worth worrying about anyway.
Any co-worker who really believes that “a woman’s butt says more about her than anything else” (as opposed to, say, just making such a claim for humorous exaggeration when discussing the aesthetics of pants) is not somebody whose views you should take seriously.
Kimtsu: responding to you in a separate post below.
Jesus H. Fucking Christ, Jodi. Are you actually incapable of getting past your own bias here? You make several valid points, but the problem is you are completely and totally misunderstanding my point, probably because you are making unwarranted assumptions and this is clouding your ability to comprehend. Frankly, I find it offensive that you have resorted to some stereotypical bullshit about feminist ideals and sexism and calling me some sort of Archie Bunker, when it has nothing to do with your sex.
Please read closely and think about it with an open mind instead of replying to what you assume I am saying.
First, I don’t give a crawling shit about pantsuits or skirts or hose or whatever, except for what I personally find attractive. But I’m not telling you to dress in a certain way, nor dress for my tastes. I am only pointing out the erroneous assumption some posters in this thread have made.
Secondly, yes, we as a society are encouraged to look past outside superficial things and see the beauty within, yadda yadda yadda. But hey, guess what? It’s a lot fucking harder to fight biases when we don’t even know we have them. I will absolutely positively guarantee that you, Jodi, and everyone else you know make snap judgments about people which are based on attractiveness, and it subconsciously influences the way you interact with them, male or female. Yes, it kind of sucks. But that’s the way all people are built, and it’s been proven again and again that even people who think they are above it fall victim, and the effect is huge. The second study I cited actually asked people to predict their own and other people’s bias, and unsurprisingly, they were off by incredible amounts.
There is no chauvinism or sexism here, because it applies to EVERYONE. Men react better to attractive men in every conceivable venue, even when the other man is a romantic rival.
Thirdly, I don’t give a crap if you’re successful or not. I imagine you do, however. Your bosses/clients/juries/judges, male, female, or other, will all react better the more attractive you are. If you wanna show up to argue motions in a muumuu, fine. But bitching about it being sexism when you lose/are chastised by your boss/etc is a) retarded b) completely mistaken and c) not just a river in Egypt. A muumuu is, admittedly, an extreme example, but the effect is there if you’re, say, refusing to wear makeup to “fight the man” or “be comfortable”.
AK84 might be bitching about you wearing pants, but I am not. I am not asking you to be eye candy. I am not saying that you need to know your place. I am saying one thing, and that is that going against society’s ideals of fashion, weight, hairstyle, tie choice, or horrible disfigurements is going to hurt you, and that refusal to play the game might work to make everyone nicer to the people they find unattractive, but it will never eliminate that bias. And the bias applies equally to me wearing a fish tie, or having a rolled up sock stuck down my pants, or having a unibrow, or any other thing that people find unattractive.
It’s not a fucking societal attitude, it’s how everyone, including you and every other poster in this thread, is programmed, and all the shunning in the world won’t put a dent in it.
This is the kind of stupid crap that idiots pop up with in every debate or discussion that even tangentally touches upon the difference between the sexes. My point applies equally validly to either sex, such as my male friend who had a mullet in the mid-2000s, and was bitching that he kept getting overlooked for the best projects, and was adamant that his outdated hairstyle was only important to “preppie fashion nazis”. He was wrong, and you are too. And fuck you and your horse for calling me some sort of illogical sexist when you can’t even bother to do a little critical thinking.
Yeah, but there’s nothing in a decent professional-looking pantsuit that “goes against society’s ideals” in that regard.
Again, I think you’re overinterpreting a fairly commonplace “big-picture” fact to try to bolster a more specific argument that it just doesn’t support.
Well, it depends. If women are held to more exacting standards of dress or grooming than men, or if women are more heavily penalized professionally for unattractiveness than men are, then it most definitely is sexism.
Again, your “big-picture” arguments are inadequate here. Yes, you’ve provided cites that instinctive preferences for the good-looking and the well-groomed are pretty much universal. But you haven’t shown any evidence that women aren’t subjected to a higher level of scrutiny and disapproval based on sexist assumptions. (And the fact that we’re here in a thread dissing women’s pantsuits in the workplace instead of a thread discussing men’s comb-overs or badly-fitting chinos in the workplace suggests that there might still be a grain of truth in that idea.)
Thank you for getting my point, even if you disagree. The question is “to what degree do smallish changes affect an outcome?” You think it’s smaller than I do, which is fine.
Well, the only way to demonstrate the perception difference is by empirical study. There are several experiments that show statistically significant outcome changes based on things like a 1" height difference (men and women), makeup/no makeup, and even one about lapel width on men. There’s plenty of empirical evidence out there, but feel free to provide studies that counter my assertion. It’s a much more useful and honest approach than railing about sexism, like some others have done.
Maybe for the OP. But since there are a lot of scientific studies that show this effect for men and women both, it’s not really “sexist piggery”. In fact, it’s the complete opposite. And I call bullshit when people bitch about it, because it’s not an attitude, or a prejudice, or a belief. It’s an instinctive and nearly invisible mechanism developed over millions of years, and for that reason, something to take into account.
ETA: Kimtsu: You’re right. I didn’t give you any evidence that women aren’t affected by it more than men, or anything else. Also, please go back thhrough and count how many times I’ve said I don’t care about pantsuits. I’m not even engaging the OP’s frankly stupid ideas on proper workplace attire, because it’s pretty clear he just wants a chance at a panty peek. I’m engaging the people that claim they are fighting social attitudes by refusing to dress for success. They might be, but they (male or female) are still going to be ramming their heads against the wall of human bias.
You’d have to specify what’s meant by an “outcome”. I can well believe that specific perception studies found that quite small differences in appearance make measurable changes in viewers’ immediate impressions. What I’m skeptical about is the idea that such minor details really outweigh the effects of actually interacting with people.
We’ve all been initially turned off by someone’s hairstyle or outfit and then found ourselves just completely overlooking it because we were so impressed by their other qualities. However, I doubt that any of us has ever found ourselves overlooking glaring incompetence or assholery just because the incompetent asshole had a pleasing hairstyle or outfit.
There’s no contradiction on my part . Women dress to look good for the public, men or women. I just believe that that they are more concerned about looking acceptable to other women.
You do apparently. You took issue with my casual opinion, forcing me to defend it. Honestly, I don’t really care.
Look, I can’t say I disagree with you on the above. Motivations for acceptable/attractive appearance are varied and complex. We dress differently for work, parties, picnics and sport activities. Each come with an unwritten dress code that most of us at least loosely adhere to, indicating thatwe do care very much about our appearance to others.
Back in the 60s, I thought I looked pretty good and comfortable in my basketball shorts on the court. Looking at my old pictures, I’m uncomfortably reminded of Richard Simmons
Slight hijack: how are we defining “attractive” here? Because I definitely want to punch Matthew McConaughey in his prissy little smiling teeth every time I see the bastard on a movie poster, and yet I’m told he’s cute.
Right, and there’s innate attractiveness (facial symmetry, etc.) that one can’t do a lot about, and then grooming and how you carry yourself that you can.
I’m biased? Are you shitting me? Thanks for your concerns about my ability to comprehend, but I think I got your post exactly right the first time, and I responded to it absolutely appropriately. Suck it up.
Again, suck it up. I understood you: People judge each other based on how they look. I have no quarrel with that. I have a quarrel with “It might be a stupid game, but not playing isn’t going to accomplish anything.” I have a problem with “it’s not chauvinism, not sexism, not piggery,” because in this thread, it sure as hell is. Now, maybe you want to have some intellectual debate about the extent or value of subconscious judgment based on visual cues and attractiveness, but that’s not what I was talking about. I was talking about this specific OP and the the attitude displayed therein.
Then perhaps “you should care about putting your best ass forward” isn’t really the way to make that point.
You have a lot to say about unconsicous bias and our collective victimhood to it, but you have absolutely nothing to say about how a conscious effort can and should mitigate any such effect. Your bottom line is, that we should just deal with it.
Fuck that, says I. I may be more attractive in a scoop-neck filmy top and short skirt, but that’s not how I dress for work because unlike you I absolutely refuse to accept the primacy of maximizing physical attractiveness as a means of professional success. There’s a world of room between “tits on display” and the muumuu you seem so fixated on, and I reject – absolutely reject – your over-simplified assertion that because everyone makes initial judgments based on visual cues we must in all cases respect and accept those judgments and even pander to them in the choices we make as to how we present ourselves.
Just because we cannot eliminate bias doesn’t mean we have to just accept it and move on. Contrary to your assertion, is not just programming, it is also a fucking societal attitude of which the OP is Exhibit A. I refuse to join you in making the issue less complicated, or in accepting its negative effects with a philosophical shrug. I disagree with everything but the most fundamental kernel of your assertion, but if you think that disagreement means I didn’t understand you, you are mistaken.
No, no, fuck you. You can take your navel-gazing meta-argument about appearance-based cues and shove it straight up your ass. I’m not bowing out of the thread because other people might have points worth reading or responding to, but I’m done dealing with you. Life’s too short for this shit.
If women truly went to the workplace dressed in a manner many men find attractive, they’d be pegged as 1) Unprofessional and 2) Likely unqualified and hired based on their attractiveness.
Again, this is a wonderful example of how men are perceived as the default sex in American society. What is more invisible and generic than a (probably caucasian) 30- to 50- something man in a classic suit? And anything that strays from it – a woman’s form in the same suit, a woman’s legs on display, a particularly loud tie – is up for discussion.
I’m 39 and work in a business casual environment in San Diego, CA. In the winter, I normally wear slacks and sweaters. In the summer, I like to wear linen capris/collared shirts or skirts with cardigans. I do not wear hose - I have pasty white legs and I don’t care. I do maintain a nice pedicure year round.
I have 3 nice suits that I wear to work events (like CES in Vegas) and they are all pants suits. I bought all 3 at Ann Taylor and they are very stylish. I’m actually surprised people would think they might look unprofessional, the suits are size 6 and I rock them.
I did buy a pair of hose for my stepfather’s funeral in April. I was raised in the South and it’s pretty deeply engrained - to me, that is the type of occasion that requires hose. I wore hose because I knew my mom would be wearing hose and I just wanted everything to be perfect for her (as many little details as I could help out with). I peeled them off after the service and went bare-legged to the after-funeral BBQ/get together at my mom’s house. It was pretty warm in Kerrville, TX - the pantyhose were HOT at the service.
Which just begs me to ask why then you decided to somehow conflate me and the OP when I am just “navel-gazing” and he’s asking you to strike a pose. Should I start a whole new thread to navel-gaze about things? Last time I checked, there’s no rule where we all have to line up behind or against the OP and slug it out with full-on Marquis of Queensbury rules. After all, you responded to my intellectualish debate post with a nasty tone. Don’t try and make yourself the victim. If you were talking about the OP, quote him instead of misstating my position.
Waaaah. It’s funny to some people (those with a sense of humor). This ain’t the fucking Lincoln-Douglas debate.
Well, I’m sorry if you actually understood me and then went on to make the issue less complicated by simply reducing it to “We shall overcome” vs “Get back in the kitchen, bitch”. (The irony here is that while there obviously is attitudinal sexism in the world, there is also unconscious bias. Pointing out that fact is the exact opposite of simplification.)
[/quote]
Pardon me while I break out my tiny viola to play you a little concerto of sadness. You’re posting to a message board in response to someone who thinks pants make women look like hermaphrodites and yet somehow I’m wasting your time? Are you hoping to strike a blow for great justice of something? The OP will come around and we’ll all group hug and talk about our hot flashes? In the parlance of teh internets:
Several studies referenced by the studies above showed, among other things:
More attractive defendants were twice as likely to be found not guilty (both in real courts and in fake cases with identical performances/facts).
Attractive candidates were hired at a rate of nearly 3 times more by employers over less attractive people with identical qualifications.
In politics, studies of Canadian federal elections showed that they garnered 2.5 times the votes. (While 73% of voters claimed a 5 for “Not at all” when asked if attractiveness played a role in their decisions.)
There are also a multitude of studies testing how many people would volunteer to help another person (such as moving a desk, or giving them a dime for the meter, etc – these are called helping studies). Attractive people were much more likely to have passers-by lend a hand.
In all but the last, we would hope to find the least influence. But even with actual real criminal trials, people were very highly swayed by appearance. The effect is a lot bigger than most people assume, just like in the Milgram experiments, making it particularly insidious.
All of your points are well and good, but attractive means different things to different people and you can’t please everyone. Might as well go with what you like.