Women seem to have a lot more options compared to men in terms of workplace clothing (at least when it comes to business casual attire), but that also means we have a higher probability of offending someone for whatever reason.
Case in point: http://www.businessinsider.com/debrahlee-lorenzana-citi-2010-6
First of all, there are so many ways to interpret business casual. In that particular case, it looks like she was going for a stricter interpretation of this vague dress code. But despite her displayed wardrobe falling well within the boundaries of what can be considered business casual, I can see why her managers claimed to be "distracted" by her presence.
So who should have been responsible for dealing with this issue? I'm sure the employee knew that some of her outfits were more provocative than others, not because of their designs per se but because of her body type. However, does that mean she should have made an effort to limit her choices to pant suits and turtlenecks? Or should her bosses have stopped thinking with the wrong heads and just let the matter go?
I'm more inclined to go with the latter solution. Especially because I know how hard it is to find clothes that will (in the case of bottoms) fit me without the assistance of a belt while simultaneously accepting the relatively heavier proportions of my bottom half. Seriously, I've never found a pair of pants that fit me perfectly. So maybe I'm a little biased against people who can so blatantly discriminate against someone for things that she can hardly control.
Plus, who tells a woman that she can't wear heels to work? I don't care for wearing heels regularly myself, but I'd hate to have that option taken away from me. It seems to be common knowledge that many of us will go to crazy lengths to look good anyway, so why rain on our parade?
No comments:
Post a Comment