he has a point When discussing anti-aging remedies, my view of melanin deficiency has settled on sunscreen, but “skincare” would be better off covering the spectrum. Let’s all put SPF in the mix.
I share this charge as a segue into the broader issue of dress code. Specifically, how do we accommodate and respect the traditions and customs of diverse groups when setting common standards for workplace attire?
The Missouri House of Representatives recently considered updating its dress code to require women in Congress Wear “business attire, including jackets” on the floor and lower galleries of the House. Previously, the code required only “blazers or sweaters” with dresses, skirts, or slacks.
On paper, the change appears harmless and in line with the existing rule for men: business attire, including coat, tie, dress pants, and dress shoes or boots. But context matters.
The proposal targeted only women and sparked backlash over the extent to which women would hide themselves. You may recall a similar ruckus in the US Congress in 2017. That’s when House members successfully fought for their right to bare their arms after House leaders tried to enforce a rule banning female reporters and lawmakers from appearing in sleeveless attire.
Attempts to impose and enforce restrictions on how women can express themselves, then and now, tend to raise concerns that more significant restrictions on women are underway.2017 That irritability is not unreasonable given the national political climate in the United States and the current fight for contraceptive and abortion rights.
For the record, I’m indifferent to bare shoulders at work, especially in hot, swampy summer locations. Because we work in a world that is abnormally too low.
Missouri Rep. Ann Kelly (R), who proposed the jacket rule, is a woman, but two female colleagues across the aisle question her interpretation of appropriate business attire Don’t let that deter you, the pink sequin top works.
“So what is appropriate and why do you decide?” Rep. Ashley Orne (Democrat) requested To know. For groups trying to set standards for workplace attire, this is his excellent two-part question. What is “appropriate” and who can make that call?
There is a difference between dressing for setting and dressing for effect. A few years ago, a style coach kindly but firmly advised me that flared pant legs, cardigans, and sparkly bohemian accessories are all perfect for my office, but they don’t exude a sophisticated, professional vibe. He gave me Workers who want to be successful in any industry must make the same distinction between simply grooming themselves and doing more to achieve the desired effect.
Employers and legislative leaders have the right to set dress codes to establish group coherence and identity. Problems arise, however, when rules are designed with too much emphasis on effects that have little to do with the requirements of the setting. “Culturally incompatible”. (Read: Match the race, gender, or social background of the person writing the rules.)
In some situations, everyone should project the same effect for safety, efficiency, or branding reasons. Rigorous conformance quells chaos and allows everyone to focus on their work. That’s the principle behind the uniform and code, and the rules are downright Levitical. No denim, no visible tattoos, no jewelry, no exposed skin from shoulder to elbow. If maintaining a certain effect is important to your business, your rules should be transparent, rather than relying on vague terms such as “appropriate” or “expert” that are open to individual interpretation.
But in most workplaces, whether public or private, the purpose of dress codes is to establish minimum collective standards that still allow for diversity of expression, beliefs, and needs. Consider the impact on those to whom those rules apply and seek general input to make the language detailed and comprehensive (ideally before laying accidental mines).
Ultimately, the Missouri House of Representatives adopted the jacket rule, but accepted the argument of dissenting lawmakers and added the cardigan as a cheaper and more adaptable option.
By the way, Missouri legislators have at least consistently enforced vaguely worded standards, regardless of party or gender. Just last year, a state senator who appeared on the floor in overalls not prohibited by written rule was stripped of commission duties by his own party’s leader. may not be obtained.
