I have had to sit through many sexual harassment indoctrination, er, I mean "training" sessions. I always bring up that women wearing revealing clothing is sexual harassment of men. That pisses off the "trainers" every time.
I have had to sit through many sexual harassment indoctrination, er, I mean "training" sessions. I always bring up that women wearing revealing clothing is sexual harassment of men. That pisses off the "trainers" every time.
"I always bring up that women wearing revealing clothing is sexual harassment of men."
I'm absolutely dying to hear your reasoning here. And how do we define what revealing clothing is? If a woman has big breasts, say, and can't really hide that fact no matter what she wears, what should she do?
The sexual harassment “trainers” weren’t interested in my definition of revealing clothing, as they never asked me for it. What I see is relevant is that they were pissed off that a man had the gumption to question the feminist narrative that only men are evil.
I don't think it's about your gumption, I think it's that defining women's clothing choices as "harassment" makes no sense.
Obviously some clothing is inappropriate for the workplace. But that's quite different to saying that a woman wearing whatever she wants is "evil." And as both you and Bob are demonstrating, defining what is "too revealing" is difficult and can easily slip into "hijab" territory.
I'm obviously not suggesting that men are all evil or that women never are. But unless you actually have a definition of revealing clothing, and it's one that most women would be happy to conform to, you're kind of stuck, no?
It is only right that women be able to enter the workforce. Furthermore, we need what they can do. A society which takes advantage of the capabilities of all its people will prosper more.
We do need to agree on some ground rules. The first rule is that the mission comes first. We should avoid doing anything to distract from that. That’s more difficult in a mixed environment.
OK, here are some definitions: low cut, tight-fitting tops that show lots of cleavage. Tight miniskirts that show lots of leg. I once had a large-breasted girlfriend. Not once did she show off her breasts in public, the entire time I knew her.
I think it may be more that they resent male interference with female intrasexual status games. Women can be deadly serious about those games. Never mind how disruptive they can be in the workplace.
Certain cues provoke an involuntary reaction. Civilized men can and will control themselves, but it’s distracting. It’s much easier to ignore a full figure with a high neckline than power cleavage on a trimmer figure.
Women shouldn’t inflict these cues on coworkers. Save it for face-to-face negotiation with an adversary, where your coworkers will be out of the line of fire.
"Women shouldn’t inflict these cues on coworkers."
Ah, okay, so you're thinking a dress code of some sort for women that prevents them from "distracting" the men? Maybe something in black? That covers them from the neck down?
Although, better cover the face too as some women's beauty is distracting. The hair too, of course.
I mean, I'm being ever so slightly flippant, but come on, you can't be serious here can you?
I say that clothing is communication. For most jobs you should be telling the world that you are competent; that you are dependable. You should not be telling people that you are young and fertile and hot to trot.
If a woman wears clothing a man can’t then it construes as a problem. Men showing hairy cleavage would cause a ruckus.
I posted a comprehensive list earlier.
The sole exception is a skirt, but it has the same hairy-leg problem as shorts. If a man can’t wear shorts exposing hairy legs by convention, why a woman?
Confession: I’ve been thrown out of a gym for wearing exactly the same structured clothing as a woman, “come back and wear something family friendly.” This means in practice that while women can wear bicycle shorts, men can’t.
In some states (Tennessee) gogo dancers of either sex cannot expose their nipples. While men in the audience can take their shirt off, women can’t. In a gay bar this means the male dancers can wear religion-exposing shorts but have to have pasties while the audience doesn’t.
LOL now say this again but with 'male parts', not breasts. Pretend it is normal for male adults to wear tight, stretchy pants and underwear that puts 'male parts' to levitate straight forward from the body with no sag. LOL. Big breasts do not naturally project straight out, levitating in thin air. They sag with gravity. Any clothing choice that removes the artificial shelf and contrast of the transition from stomach to the breasts would make even big breasted women look more barrel shaped (just like a man). I appreciate the female physique and the breast shelf, so I am not advocating this. It is, however, easy but unflattering to do.
I have had to sit through many sexual harassment indoctrination, er, I mean "training" sessions. I always bring up that women wearing revealing clothing is sexual harassment of men. That pisses off the "trainers" every time.
"I always bring up that women wearing revealing clothing is sexual harassment of men."
I'm absolutely dying to hear your reasoning here. And how do we define what revealing clothing is? If a woman has big breasts, say, and can't really hide that fact no matter what she wears, what should she do?
The sexual harassment “trainers” weren’t interested in my definition of revealing clothing, as they never asked me for it. What I see is relevant is that they were pissed off that a man had the gumption to question the feminist narrative that only men are evil.
I don't think it's about your gumption, I think it's that defining women's clothing choices as "harassment" makes no sense.
Obviously some clothing is inappropriate for the workplace. But that's quite different to saying that a woman wearing whatever she wants is "evil." And as both you and Bob are demonstrating, defining what is "too revealing" is difficult and can easily slip into "hijab" territory.
I'm obviously not suggesting that men are all evil or that women never are. But unless you actually have a definition of revealing clothing, and it's one that most women would be happy to conform to, you're kind of stuck, no?
It is only right that women be able to enter the workforce. Furthermore, we need what they can do. A society which takes advantage of the capabilities of all its people will prosper more.
We do need to agree on some ground rules. The first rule is that the mission comes first. We should avoid doing anything to distract from that. That’s more difficult in a mixed environment.
OK, here are some definitions: low cut, tight-fitting tops that show lots of cleavage. Tight miniskirts that show lots of leg. I once had a large-breasted girlfriend. Not once did she show off her breasts in public, the entire time I knew her.
I think it may be more that they resent male interference with female intrasexual status games. Women can be deadly serious about those games. Never mind how disruptive they can be in the workplace.
Agreed.
Certain cues provoke an involuntary reaction. Civilized men can and will control themselves, but it’s distracting. It’s much easier to ignore a full figure with a high neckline than power cleavage on a trimmer figure.
Women shouldn’t inflict these cues on coworkers. Save it for face-to-face negotiation with an adversary, where your coworkers will be out of the line of fire.
"Women shouldn’t inflict these cues on coworkers."
Ah, okay, so you're thinking a dress code of some sort for women that prevents them from "distracting" the men? Maybe something in black? That covers them from the neck down?
Although, better cover the face too as some women's beauty is distracting. The hair too, of course.
I mean, I'm being ever so slightly flippant, but come on, you can't be serious here can you?
Literally, not having breasts magically levitate would be a start.
I say that clothing is communication. For most jobs you should be telling the world that you are competent; that you are dependable. You should not be telling people that you are young and fertile and hot to trot.
Be free to be you. Just don't expect respect when your look says sex instead.
Power cleavage comes to mind.
If a woman wears clothing a man can’t then it construes as a problem. Men showing hairy cleavage would cause a ruckus.
I posted a comprehensive list earlier.
The sole exception is a skirt, but it has the same hairy-leg problem as shorts. If a man can’t wear shorts exposing hairy legs by convention, why a woman?
Confession: I’ve been thrown out of a gym for wearing exactly the same structured clothing as a woman, “come back and wear something family friendly.” This means in practice that while women can wear bicycle shorts, men can’t.
In some states (Tennessee) gogo dancers of either sex cannot expose their nipples. While men in the audience can take their shirt off, women can’t. In a gay bar this means the male dancers can wear religion-exposing shorts but have to have pasties while the audience doesn’t.
LOL now say this again but with 'male parts', not breasts. Pretend it is normal for male adults to wear tight, stretchy pants and underwear that puts 'male parts' to levitate straight forward from the body with no sag. LOL. Big breasts do not naturally project straight out, levitating in thin air. They sag with gravity. Any clothing choice that removes the artificial shelf and contrast of the transition from stomach to the breasts would make even big breasted women look more barrel shaped (just like a man). I appreciate the female physique and the breast shelf, so I am not advocating this. It is, however, easy but unflattering to do.
Silhouettes are easier to ignore than cleavage.
My imagination appreciates the unseen. I suspect most breast-loving men are in your camp, not mine.