Suits without ties

[meganiwish]

You misquote me.  My capitals were deliberate and you show that you know they were.  Play by the rules.

[Shyheels]

On 02/04/2017 at 3:21 AM, meganiwish said:

Oh yes. stereotyping shamelessly, and hitting the nail on the head, I suspect.

When men bewail being limited in style choices, and colours I think of George Melly.  If you're made to wear a suit, WEAR a suit.  Man up, chaps.

I don't see how I misquoted you. Your putting the word "wear" all in caps only emphasizes my point.

You do seem to be evading the issues I am raising, which is the matter of equality and the expectation of conformity. Read again previous post.

[meganiwish]

I think it's clear what my caps meant.  There's a Billy Connolly line, ' His cardigan wasn't blue, it was BLUE.'  You understand how upper case = shout.  My point was that George Melly WORE a suit where lesser men merely wear them.  Calling you for the second time on disingenuousness.

I don't see how I'm evading the issue of equality, since I said that I thought the rules should apply to women too.  I'll reiterate, if men are required to wear a tie, the women must be too.

[Shyheels]

Your use of caps is ambiguous. In your mind it meant wear it with aplomb. It could equally mean a shouted get-on-and-wear-the-damned-suit. That is how I took it. I am not being ingenuous here.

As to dress codes, the rules do not apply equally. Women are not obliged to wear neckties. Nor is there equal recourse under the law or in social convention to adjust this inequality. There is, however, much sound and fury about the obligation, under some dress codes, for women to wear heels.

Edited April 6, 2017 by Shyheels

[meganiwish]

You're quite right.  I was ambiguous to all but you, and you're right to call me out.  Still, I don't believe that you misread me, as you know that 'aplomb' was exactly the word I had in mind.  Uncanny.

Never have I suggested that dress codes are equally applied, but I have maintained that they should be.

[Shyheels]

I doubt very much that I was the sole slow poke on the planet who read ambiguity into your use of caps. And I did genuinely misread you, pulling 'aplomb' out of my hat only when I read your explanation of what you meant. I am a writer. Words are my palette. It should not be too much of a surprise that I can come up with one that expresses a meaning precisely.

I agree that dress codes should be applied equally - my very point. And that both sexes should have equal recourse to law, parliamentary committees, petitions and the same broad underlying support and social sympathies when their rights are infringed. That is not the case now and from your arguments in another thread I gather that correcting this injustice is not even remotely important - and in fact should be ignored - and that the focus must remain on the difficulties and oppressions faced by women.

Edited April 7, 2017 by Shyheels

[meganiwish]

21 hours ago, Shyheels said:

 from your arguments in another thread I gather that correcting this injustice is not even remotely important - and in fact should be ignored - and that the focus must remain on the difficulties and oppressions faced by women.

Evidence?

I think that dress codes should be equally applied, that everyone in Britain does have equal recourse to the law and that Parliamentary committees, petitions, broad underlying support and social sympathies are all tosh and worth nothing. 

[Shyheels]

Do you genuinely believe that a male who left a job rather than adhere to what he felt was an unfairly applied dress code - the requirement to wear a tie, for example - would have his concerns taken seriously? A requirement to wear two inch heels generated parliamentary enquiries, petitions signed by tens of thousands if supporters, loads of empathetic hand wringing and vast number of column inches in the press. Do you genuinely think a man who didn't want to wear a tie would generate all that?

[meganiwish]

There are women whose work uniform requires them to wear a tie, and they do.  Show me the man who has to wear  high heels and I'll take your argument seriously.  Show me the man who's not allowed to wear heels when his female colleagues do and I'll fight his case.

[Shyheels]

Which job was this that requires women to wear ties? If there is such a thing, and they do wear them, they do no more than millions upon millions of men...

Work places tend to adhere very much to gender specific clothing, as you well know. Employers are conservative by nature. So there would be few if any workplace that would allow, let alone require, men to wear heels - as you know. Show you the man who is not allowed to wear heels when his female colleagues do? Well, just take a look at the crowds pouring out of Liverpool Station of a morning. It's all the men you see. And it's all those men you see along the Strand or Oxford Street. Step outside your front door and look down the street. Again....it'll be all those guys you see. 

A guy who fronts up for work in heels is taking a serious career risk - especially if he's in the banking, broking, law, or corporate sector. But not just in The City, either. Imagine fronting up for your shift at McDonalds or KFC or Tesco?  A woman on the other had who, for reasons of her own, decided to wear a tie in the office (or men's brogues for that matter) would know she could do so with impunity and if she was sent home to change would know with equal certainty that she could create a fuss, rally the masses, get petitions circulating, parliamentary enquiries called, garner the press and generally see to it that this outrageous affront to her right of self-expression was sorted straight away. 

So I guess you better start rolling up your sleeves...

   

Edited April 9, 2017 by Shyheels

[meganiwish]

Well, any job that has a uniform that requires a tie.  I've seen policewomen wearing ties, women in the services, but plenty wearing other neckwear, still required.  There really are only so many ways that I can say that by all means require your employees to dress in a certain way, but apply it equally.  Likewise, you can chose to allow some option into the matter and that has to be equal too.  Suppose you have two uniforms, one with trousers and one with a skirt, aimed primarily at the women.  You must still allow male employees the option to wear the skirt uniform.

Society has different mores that can't really be laid at my door. 

[Heelster]

One thing for sure - - in a steel mill, everyone wears the same stuff - - - and it ain't pretty.

 

[Shyheels]

Let's skip uniforms and focus on work clothes where one (theoretically) has a choice in what one wears, whether it is "smart casual" or corporate. Men have sharply limited choices in what they can wear - indeed they are expected to wear the small uniform, the suit, in a sharply limited range of colours and that is that. Women are granted far, far more latitude in terms of dress and self-expression. No contest. And if there rights are impinged upon in any way, there will great outrage and parliamentary committees. Nothing of the sort can or ever will happen for men. And that is unjust.  

And I have never heard of any employer - whose workforce required a uniform - that would allow a male employee to adopt a skirt uniform. Shall we summon parliament?  

 

Edited April 10, 2017 by Shyheels

[Shyheels]

4 hours ago, Heelster said:

One thing for sure - - in a steel mill, everyone wears the same stuff - - - and it ain't pretty.

 

Same on an Antarctic base where everyone has issued clothing - it ain't pretty either. And for really ugly footwear you would have to go a long way to find something as clumsy or ill-fitting as the "bunny boots" you get issued with (and are required to wear) if you go down to the ice with the US Antarctic Program! Ghastly, hateful things! 

Edited April 10, 2017 by Shyheels

[meganiwish]

On 10/04/2017 at 7:01 AM, Shyheels said:

Let's skip uniforms and focus on work clothes where one (theoretically) has a choice in what one wears, whether it is "smart casual" or corporate. Men have sharply limited choices in what they can wear - indeed they are expected to wear the small uniform, the suit, in a sharply limited range of colours and that is that. Women are granted far, far more latitude in terms of dress and self-expression. No contest. And if there rights are impinged upon in any way, there will great outrage and parliamentary committees. Nothing of the sort can or ever will happen for men. And that is unjust.  

And I have never heard of any employer - whose workforce required a uniform - that would allow a male employee to adopt a skirt uniform. Shall we summon parliament?  

 

Well, we could skip uniforms, then bring them up again in the next sentence.  Actually, I agree in some measure with what you're saying.  Women aren't even given the chance to just bung on a suit.  Something else to think about, and what has self-expression got to do with being at work?  You're there to do a job, not express yourself.

Probably not summon Parliament, but certainly go to Law.  An employer who doesn't allow  male employees to wear a skirt if female employees are allowed to is breaking the law.

[Shyheels]

Why not parliament? At least as a corollary to the present enquiry into eels and dress codes. The inequality exists, although the odds of any male employee ever testing this by wearing a skirt into the office would be infinitesimally small. 

And what do you mean women are not given a chance to bung on a suit? A woman could manage that far, far, far more easily than a man could who came in to the office wearing a skirt. Suits are in fact tailored for women, and they are worn often. There are no skirts tailored for men (outside of whacko fashion shoots which are never meant to resemble real life in the first place) nor is there any likelihood that a man would ever wear one to work. 

[meganiwish]

Not Parliament, because the law is already there.   You're right.  We never just 'bung on' anything, though we could.  You can't legislate for that sort of thing.

Is a coronary caused by eels similar to a surfeit of lampreys?

[Shyheels]

Then what exactly is parliament accomplishing - or imagine they are accomplishing - by discussing heels and dress codes for women?

Yes, as to your latter point.  I've gone all Bow bells.... I'm dropping my h's this week... 

 

 

Edited April 13, 2017 by Shyheels

[meganiwish]

What do Parliament imagine they're accomplishing?  Your guess is as good as mine.

There was a criminal gang called the Oysters.  A journalist asked them why they were called that, was it because they clammed up and wouldn't sing, perhaps?  'Nah, it's because we 'oist stuff.'

[Puffer]

I've come late to this debate and I won't attempt to join it.   I will however say that (a) since retirement from a professional career, I've rarely had the need to wear a suit, or a tie; (b) but when I do need to wear a suit and/or a tie (because of a conventional expectation), I do so comfortably and willingly - it makes a pleasant change not to dress down; (c) the three-piece suit is not dead; I've got one and wear it on 'suitable' occasions; (d) when male evening dress (dinner jacket, dress shirt and bow tie) is called for (perhaps once or twice a year at most), I will wear it happily - again, it makes a welcome change.

What I don't like, however, is the sloppy behaviour of many men who either don't know or don't care how to wear a suit and tie when that is the expected and correct dress - a wedding being the most obvious example.    Taking one's jacket off, especially in warm temperatures, may be acceptable if undesirable but wearing a waistcoat without a jacket, or a tie (and collar) undone destroys the inherent elegance and formality of a special occasion.   I don't think it is too much to expect a man to keep up appearances for a few hours, even though women rarely need to do so in that they can usually choose their outfit to suit their comfort and preferred look rather than to meet a strict convention.

[Shyheels]

My point! Why should women be accorded this special privilege of choosing clothes to suit their taste, style, comfort and colouring when men are so sharply limited by convention, and the strict expectation they will adhere to it?

I wouldn't mind even that so much but for the fact that so much is made of how women are supposedly being oppressed and forced to dress in certain ways, or adhere to certain dress codes. They have far, far, far more latitude in what they can wear to an office or social occasions than men do. No comparison. Yet they complain. And their complaints are listened to by the highest in the land,

They can wear any colour in the rainbow, dress for the day and the climate and can, without stigma, adjust their outfits to suit the ambient temperature, unlike men who are simply expected to cop it sweet, not shed the jacket, tie or waistcoat. 

It is the hypocrisy that annoys me more than the tie!

[meganiwish]

I'm with Puffer.  The important word here is 'convention'.  I appreciate that convention is difficult to go against for a social creature, but it's not impossible.  It's down to the individual to be bold enough.

You make the assumption that women are always wearing what they do through personal choice.  Take the revealing dresses worn on the red carpet.  Do you suppose that those women feel anything but uncomfortable?  No-one likes to be exposed.  As an experiment, walk around for a day with your  fly undone.

[Shyheels]

Right.  I'm really certain the Kardashians feel vulnerable and exposed and tres uncomfortable and would much rather be wearing sensible shoes, and some sensible frocks they've bought from M&S with a long thick home-knit cardigan to keep them warm against the chilly night air.... I can see it in their eyes...

Edited April 15, 2017 by Shyheels

[meganiwish]

Well, they make their living by making themselves fair game.  Why would you suppose that they wouldn't, like the rest of us, prefer to be cosy?  I expect they do feel for the most time vulnerable and exposed, but they get well enough paid for it.  Fair play to them.

[Shyheels]

They love it.

[iggy_ze]

Let's bring back the Norah Batty look.

[Shyheels]

1 hour ago, iggy_ze said:

Let's bring back the Norah Batty look.

Yes, the true, real Kardashian style icon....

Edited April 16, 2017 by Shyheels

[meganiwish]

20 hours ago, Shyheels said:

They love it.

Moot point.

[Shyheels]

8 hours ago, meganiwish said:

Moot point.

Hardly moot, Megan.

if they love it - and clearly they do - they are not the vulnerable, uncomfortable and put-upon women you would have us believe!

Edited April 17, 2017 by Shyheels

[meganiwish]

20 hours ago, Shyheels said:

Hardly moot, Megan.

if they love it - and clearly they do - they are not the vulnerable, uncomfortable and put-upon women you would have us believe!

You doubt that it's moot then begin the next sentence with 'if'.