skirtcafe.org

As long men uphold dress codes that has nothing to do with safety, shouldn't expect many changes about MIS.
Recently MSN posted about dress codes that targeted mostly against women, that came from Readers Digest. Considering what was posted it must be hell to work at Readers Digest. I consider these same dress codes must apply at Readers Digest equality as well, or they wouldn't post such article.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/lif ... b278&ei=24

The problem with these outdated dress codes is to blame some one else is creating harm to another person. In one instance how a man can blame a woman is harming his marriage by the way she is dress. A man can claim another woman's garment is seductive as a whore, slut, or prostitute and is none professional at work. Her attire is insulting him, because the company is making have to work with a woman who to him appears she is a slut, whore, or prostitute. He claims her clothing is to revealing if she shows her cleavage, he sees her bra through her shirt, wears a top without any covering on her back, to short skirt or dress, or too tight clothing.

The man wants to look innocent that he isn't having any perverter thoughts about his co-worker, even though she isn't trying to seduce him, but claims she is.

In school having you have these same typical dress codes against female classmates. Where men claim certain attire is teaching girls to have loose morals and they are responsible if they boys harm them over it. But then boys are taught girls have loose morals and make poor wives by wearing certain attire. And girls are taught any boy wears girls clothes make bad husbands.

Then there is boys can't keep their mind in getting an education and get bad grades, because girls are wearing clothing that is to revealing. Where girls are being blame for all boys who is getting bad grades. There is a need to have girls stand in line having their skirts and dresses measured to make sure they aren't to short. Having their jeans examine make sure they aren't to tight and their shirt to much of her boobs. But boys can wear jeans' showing their bulge and can run around topless showing their boobs to the world.

These abuses make girls have negative thoughts about themselves, just like boys who wears dresses and skirts and it leads to suicides.

Here it is now 2025 and still telling young girls how they still look like a whore, prostitute' or slut by lining them up to have their attire examine and blamings them for their male classmates bad grades, because they can't study from their attire. And boys should be treated equally as girls and be require wear a bra and not to be able go topless.

Anyone who supports in degrading females students in having them line up and having their attire judge, shouldn't expects the end how men are being judge for wearing dresses and skirts. And should have parents charge with contributing to delinquency of a minor and sentence for 6 months if they violate dress code, this includes girls have grown since the beginning of schools and now the skirt is a hair too short.

I have some support for a standard gender free uniform policy as I have supported at the school I am a governor for. However 16 and above, I see no requirement for uniform in a school/college setting allowing young people to find their style.

I think in the work place, unless a company requires a uniform for its staff, all control has been lost, when you get some women serving you in shops and banks wearing a burka.

I think the notion that how somebody else dresses, affects how you do your work or study, is totally wrong. You should be in control of yourself and be able to work professionally with your colleague, however they are dressed. If you don't start from here, you start making silly rules, normally affecting females, because men can't control themselves. Take that too far and you end up with women totally covered up.

Going back to the MSM rules, the one I had some sympathy for was the one against wearing badly fitting clothes.

Mouse wrote: ↑Sun Jan 05, 2025 12:17 am I think the notion that how somebody else dresses, affects how you do your work or study, is totally wrong.

Absolutely!

I think there should be four, and only four, factors that determine uniform/dress codes:

1. Comfort. Does the uniform afford the required warmth/coolness and range of motion? If so, then it gets a tick.
2. Identifiability. Does the uniform disclose the wearer's job, grade, function and who employs them? If so, then it gets a tick.
3. Smartness. Does the uniform do credit to both the employer and employee by virtue of its smartness relative to the nature of the work? If so, then it gets a tick.
4. Safety. Is the attire safe to wear for the wearer having regard to inherent dangers of the job? If so, then it gets a tick.

I don't see why gender, or employees' style preferences, should also be a factor. The uniform relates to the function performed rather than personal factors or likes of the wearer while they are on the employer's time.

1, 2 and 3 would apply to school uniform.

Stu, I have to question item 3 ("Smartness") --- that factor is entirely subjective, in much the same way that skirts on men, or any style, color, from lip-stick to tattoos are a "false value". 1,2,& 4 relate to function and hold merit when appropriately applied to the specifics; and though I understand there are boxes for "smartness" that are comfortable due to familiarity from our "training" -- it is still a box, wrought with problems just like the box "men can't wear skirts".

I think there is a difference between the "smartness" a company or school may wish their uniform to portray for all genders and the "smartness" applied to men in the man box.

Faldaguy wrote: ↑Mon Jan 06, 2025 5:47 am Stu, I have to question item 3 ("Smartness") --- that factor is entirely subjective,

Smartness is the antonym of scruffiness. You are smart if you, and the clothes you are wearing, are of the required level of formality for the role. If you are a military officer, a public-facing bank employee or a hotel receptionist, then your appearance should accord with certain standards as conventionally determined. This is not expected if, for example, you worked fixing the roads or taking teenagers hiking. Yes, these are subjective - but I don't think that makes them unimportant.

I think smartness, especially for a job, is when the owner wishs to present their business, especially the customer facing side, of a certain standard. I would expect this to be known at the time of engagement, and if that is not suitable to the applicant, then they should look elsewhere rather than try to change the business.