Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!purdue!ames!elroy!usc!orion.cf.uci.edu!uci-ics!sun!apple!mas1!jimb@decwrl.dec.COM
From: sun!apple!mas1!jimb@decwrl.dec.COM (Jim Burke)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: The issue of physical appearance
Message-ID: <16684@paris.ics.uci.edu>
Date: 5 Jun 89 20:18:47 GMT
Sender: news@paris.ics.uci.edu
Reply-To: jimb@mas1.UUCP (Jim Burke)
Organization: Measurex Automation Systems, Cupertino, CA
Lines: 22
Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu

In article <5041@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV> tan@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Greer Hsing Tan) writes:
>
>We agreed that offering an "image", i.e. making
>a first impression, is really the issue.  But the question is who has
>defined the appropriate "female" attire in the work place in the past?
>Was it not male employers with female secretaries? 

I have often wondered who it was that defined the "appropriate" male
attire in the workplace as being a conservative suit (grey or navy)
with white or pastel shirt and conservative tie.  Not a lot of
variety.  Seems to me that the purpose behind such "rules" is to
demonstrate to customers a level of maturity in order to obtain their
confidence.  Thus, any mode of dress that achieves that goal should be
appropriate.  Guess I'll have to leave my plaid pants in the closet a
while longer...


-- 
Jim Burke (mas1!jimb)                   Measurex Corp.
{...}pyramid!voder!mas1!jimb            One Results Way
{...}apple.com!mas1!jimb                Cupertino, CA  95014
                                        (408) 255-1500 ext. 2014