I remember when I entered the work force back in 1978 right out of college and went to work for Bell Labs. We were required to wear a suit, ties and white shirt. You were not allowed to hang your jacket over your chair; it had to be hung in the closet. You could smoke at your desk, I am not a smoker but many others took advantage of that. You could smoke in conference rooms during meetings and in elevators and many did so (See Mad Men).
It has been very interesting watching the norms shift over the last almost 40 years. Women and minorities filling the ranks, casual attire, smoking prohibitions (all very good things in my view).
One, funny interesting side story, if you will indulge this old timer. When I was in high school, my father was a budding attorney and of course had to wear a suit, tie and white shirt. My mother was a struggling artist. My father wanted her to wash and iron his shirts to save money and only have to pay for the dry cleaning of the shirts. My mother refused (an early feminist perhaps). They had a huge fight over it. In the end, my Mother relented and agreed to endure the task. However, in classic passive aggressive style, she "accidentally" got a red sock in the wash with the shirts turning them a slight shade of pink. Of course that made them, for that time, unusable ! So he had to toss them. After that he simply had them laundered. Ever since then our family calls this ruse "red-socking-it", which basically means intentionally fucking up to get out of doing something you don't want to do. I think we can all think of times when someone at work "red-socked-it".
>I think we can all think of times when someone at work "red-socked-it".
When I worked at Best Buy years ago, they started making us wear earpieces. I hated trying to do my job with constant interruptions in my ear, but instead of telling management I hated it, I pretended to love it.
I started talking over the radio constantly, and I'd end every phrase by making a white-noise sound and saying over. Eventually the managers took my radio away, and they thought it was a punishment.
I went to private Catholic school. In theology class, the priest would punish chatty students by making them eat a dog biscuit in front of the classroom.
I learned which biscuit colors corresponded to which flavors, picked the least-bad one intentionally, and proceeded to slowly savor it in front of everybody. After that, he retired the punishment.
why dog biscuit supposed be that bad that eating them would be a punishment? After all dogs are mammals like us and have pretty similar biology, tastes, nutritional requirements (with the exceptions for some things which are dangerous to them like chocolate, garlic, raisins, xylitol, etc). Though given the Catholic mindset - holier than thou top of the God's creation - the priests and the likes of course would fancy themselves as highly entitled higher beings.
that is my point - why a lot of dog food so bad? Back at the USSR we didn't have dog food, and the dogs we had in my childhood ate what we ate (or a bit better as we, humans, could go on pasta/bread, while cats couldn't and dogs would better get some meat too). Coming in the US i discovered that there is a lot of crap biologically not suitable for consumption by mammals, especially by biological predators like cats/dogs/humans, which is sold under the guise of cat/dog food. Unfortunately for my cat back at the time it took some time for me to learn that.
>Dogs aren't as discerning as humans. They have far fewer taste buds, and they'll eat carrion that you couldn't force down if you tried.
given the sensitivity of their nose, i don't think that's really true. Not having such sensitive taste&smell apparatus as dogs, we - humans - naturally learned to not eat wide categories of "carrion" while dogs can make more fine-grained decisions inside whose categories. Another example would be "dumpster divers" - given enough learning and practical training people also start making more fine-grained decisions inside such previously learned as untouchable category as the "food in the dumpster".
And from my experience, my Chihuahua is much more discerning with regard to food than any human i know.
>My own dog will happily eat her own vomit.
i wonder, do you feed dry food to her? Given the low nutritional content of typical dry food, a dog would stuff as much of it as physically possible and that would lead to vomit. Still being hungry, the dog wouldn't let the food go waste - and there is biologically nothing wrong with a food which has been partially processed by stomach acid as long as such partially processed food hasn't been outside long enough to start to rot and accumulate bacteria.
People, under various non-typical conditions, have also been known to eat the stuff which they would find unimaginable to eat otherwise.
>They also only live 10-20 years, so ensuring they have a completely optimal diet is not quite as important as it is for a species that lives 80 years.
i don't think you thought that well. I'm pretty sure that you do see a big difference between a dog's live of 10 years having various medical problems, like digestive, neuro, joints/skeletal, cancer, etc. vs. 15 years of healthy live.
At my high school we had gender segregated math classes. A few times as punishment 14 year old me got sent to the girls class. All it did was give me a lesson on just how distracting and moderating mixed gender classes could be.
My goodness, when was this? I worked there for a short stint in 2000, right around the launch of the PlayStation 2(which was an utter nightmare in of itself). I probably would've flipped if I had been subjected to that.
It was sometime around 2005 to 2008. You could always take the earpiece off if you were in the middle of a deep conversation with a customer, and it was handy to be able to call a manager or another department without having to chase them down somewhere in the store.
I was in Geek Squad, so if I was always either talking to a customer or fixing computers.
Also like everything else at Best Buy, your experience varied dramatically depending on your managers. At my store, managers expected you to be available over the radio, customer or not.
You could get away with taking it off very occasionally, but that was it.
An old engineer friend of mine once told me a story about when he worked for a large, national electronics design and manufacturing firm (probably GEC, Marconi or suchlike) - that would have been sometime in the 1960-70s...
Apparently, the R&D lab was full of long-haired, cheesecloth-shirt-wearing, sandaled, 'hippy' types. One day the Managing Director walked in, called everyone together and announced in a stern voice that there was going to be a very important visitor on the premises the next day and so everyone needed to smarten themselves up because they looked very shabby and unprofessional.
The next day, the MD walked in to the lab with his visitor...to find that all the engineers in full wedding suits with top-hats, casually soldering, probing, pouring over circuit schematics etc. just like a 'normal' day..!
I've always thought it was a bit ridiculous when we get an email that basically asks us to construct a Potemkin Village because so-and-so is coming around.
I have naturally curly hair, which isn't unruly, it's just very curly. People with straight hair often seem to think that my hair could be 'neater' if I 'did something' with it. Case-in-point: One time the new head of the board was coming in, and HR specifically asked me to comb my hair. I told HR that was a terrible idea, yet they insisted.
So I come to work the next day with combed hair, and I look like the main character of Eraserhead[1]. My hair is a giant poofy frizzy mess. HR comes by, sees what my hair looks like, and freaks the hell out. They kept asking me to comb it better, or do whatever I could to fix it.
They were not amused when I told them that the only thing I could do to fix it was to take a shower and let it settle naturally. So I met the new director of our board with hair that looked like I stuck my hand in a electrical outlet, all because HR felt that curly hair on a guy wasn't normative enough or something.
Given the racial undertones of "your hair is the wrong straightness/curliness/nappiness", I'm kind of surprised anybody would risk it even if they did have strong opinions on the subject.
You would think that. I've actually asked people about that before, and they are like "Well you are white, so it's different." If you press them on the matter they can't really articulate it.
Not to mention that there isn't actually that much difference between my hair and "ethnic hair." The hair product I use is actually in the "ethnic hair" section of the hair aisle, which just goes to show how stupid the actual classification is. I'm probably as far from "ethnic" as you could imagine. I'm not even Jewish, or some other white ethnicity known for having curly hair.
My only guess was that HR associated curly hair with "skate culture" or something, and thought that the appropriate way for a white person to style such hair was to slick it back like an 80's power broker.
The entire HR situation at that company was a mess though, and I'm really glad I no longer work there.
I don't have that condition thankfully. What makes my hair kind of weird is that unlike most people with curly hair, the hair on the sides and back of my head is completely straight. I have curly hair on the top of my head [1], and on the very back of my hair I have 5 cowlicks. So it's kind of like I'm a curly-haired Calvin from Calvin & Hobbes.
It's not at all unkempt though. It's a pain to take care of, but as long as I keep it up people seem to generally find it attractive/stylish.
That HR department really just hated everything that they couldn't control.
Is it? It might be. I feel like there's a perfectly legitimate joke to be made saying "I'll wear a morning coat!", the humor drawn from the antiquation and over-the-top nature of the suggestion, rather than the fact that it describes a style of dress that has always been for a different type of situation.
In fact, I think the structure of that joke ("I'm doing what you said, too hard") is a better one than the structure of the joke you imply, though the joke loses something in the current environment of general unfamiliarity with morning dress...
I remember when I entered the work force back in 1978 right out of college and went to work for Bell Labs. We were required to wear a suit, ties and white shirt. You were not allowed to hang your jacket over your chair; it had to be hung in the closet. You could smoke at your desk, I am not a smoker but many others took advantage of that. You could smoke in conference rooms during meetings and in elevators and many did so (See Mad Men).
Makes an interesting counterpoint to the usual nostalgia about Bell Labs. I'd have guessed the smoking, but probably not that the dress was quite so formal.
This was entirely normal for employers large and small at that time. It really was the first startup era (Microsoft/Apple) that eroded it, as the spearpoint of a wider de-formalisation of society.
I remember an older guy that started wearing his shirt outside the pants just like us two young employees. His fellow employees used to snicker at him and calling him young again and such. Well, he must be laughing now, noone uses shirts any more :-)
An acquaintance worked for IBM in sales when he was just out of the Navy--I'd guess about 1965. He said that one day somebody came into the office in a suit, but with a shirt that was blue rather than white. This made everyone uncomfortable.
Why do you work at a university?
When I was in college, I worked at IBM one summer to earn
money. One day I wore a shirt that wasn't the right shade of
white. My coworkers informed me of my transgression and made
suggestions for improving matters. In great detail. That's
when I figured out that maybe the industrial experience was
not for me.
I interviewed in an office once (mid 90s) where dress code required a collared shirt and tie. Managers were required to wear blue shirts and grunts wore white.
I am surprised I would have expected a lab environment to be jeans and lab coats. My first job was at a RND place in 79 so similar time and it was all jeans t shirts labcoats and steel toe caped boots / wellies (for working out in the lab space)
While Bell Labs did do some laboratory science (where they developed the transistor among other things), the majority of researchers there were mathematicians and computer scientists who don't work in a lab.
A laboratory is the place where you work. From the latin 'laborare', roughly translated 'to work'. A CS grad student would work in a lab. As would a carpenter. The difference between an office and a laboratory is usually that there are specialized tools in a laboratory.
not sure what your point is certainly BT's eqvielent at martelsham was now for its style of dress we even had an internal slang term the "martelman" to describe them :-)
I was replying to the person that that was saying that their idea of lab dress was a lab coat and jeans -- a different sort of lab than what most of what Bell Labs was about.
A couple years ago I was asked to dress up for the company Christmas party that was to occur later that day. On my way home to get dressed, I called up a local costume store and rented a Santa Claus costume. Showed up dressed like Santa Claus. Everyone loved it though. Told my boss that he should have chosen his words better.
Back when I was going to college one day the American Studies professor asked the class if anyone knew the word "sabotage". I was shocked, it is such a common word I thought there would be an answer right away. Since nobody felt like giving a definition, I did. "Yes professor, that is when you throw your wooden shoe into the mill-works". Silence. Everyone looks at me. The professor responds: "Yes, He is correct..."
A former boss had a gig with the LDS (Mormon) Church. First day he shows up in a suit and tie - but his shirt wasn't white. His boss pulled him aside and said, "I respect your courage, but not your wisdom."
Yeah, my boss wasn't happy staying in that environment (even though he was LDS).
Many nice people in that religion, but as an ex-Mormon myself, I can unequivocally say that's very reflective of the whole church. They are very dogmatic about a lot of things. In hindsight I don't understand why anyone would tolerate it, and can't believe I did for so many years. Now when I see people wearing "Mormon" attire (men in white button down shirts, women in shorts to their knees) I just shudder. It's not modesty or respect for God, it's willingness to be micromanaged by your religion.
> Ever since then our family calls this ruse "red-socking-it", which basically means intentionally fucking up to get out of doing something you don't want to do.
My kids try this shit all the time - either fucking it up, or just doing the job so half-assed that it needs to be redone. Whenever I catch this I treat it as a "teaching moment". I make them redo it a few times until they do it perfectly. Seems to help, but I hate how much time it takes almost as much as they do.
Did pink shirts not go with the onions worn on belts?
I don't really care either way on the subject of work attire, with one exception. I hate casual fridays. It matters or it doesn't quit with the bullshit.
Casual Friday means more flexibility at the end of the week if events earlier in the week mean I consume more clothing than expected, and also means I am more able to go straight from work to getting an early start on weekend activities.
I was recently reading the autobiography of the CEO and one of the founders of Sony, Akio Morita. Sony Japan has been famous for having uniforms, like many other Japanese companies (which Steve Jobs really liked and wanted to emulate, except the idea was shot down early on. He did apply the idea to himself though, which is where his famous look comes from).
Many people would ascribe this as Sony being a typical, paternalistic Asian company - however, the reality is a bit more subtle. Keep in mind that Sony was started right after World War 2, in a Tokyo ravaged by years of bombing:
"When we started the company, clothing was scarce and expensive on the black market. People came to work in an odd assortment of gear; returning soldiers wore bits of their uniform or old-fashioned suits that had been saved for many years. If a person was fortunate enough to have a good suit, he didn't want to wear it to the office where he might risk burning a hole in it with acid or soiling it. Some of our employees just didn't have the money to invest in a work jacket. So with company money we bought a jacket for everyone to wear in the office.
Pretty soon these jackets became a symbol of our company family. As the company prospered, we could have done away with the jackets - we used to have a summer jacket and a winter one - because we were all being paid and could afford our own, but everybody seemed to like the idea, and so we just decided to continue to provide them. In the beginning, we executives had a different colored name tag from the others, but we eventually adopted the same kind worn by everyone else.
Today these jackets and tags are being used everywhere, even where class distinctions made people hesitant to wear them at first. Many of us liked our blue jackets, and I still wear mine occasionally."
Does anyone know where I can find a picture of these uniforms? Google image search happily returns a picture of Kim Jong Il and steve jobs, but no actual images of the damn uniform.
You'd think "sony company uniform" would be pretty easy for a search engine to search for.
Taiwan, a former Japanese colony, has a few companies which follow Japanese corporate traditions.
A friend worked for EVA Air in the back office, and besides having to wear a uniform similar to that of flight or gate staff, she said every morning at 9 am people would have to stand at their desks and do calisthenics that were broadcast over a loudspeaker. She said this was something the founder had picked up from visiting or interacting with Japanese companies in the 60s and 70s.
At one company I worked at, a television network, they issued male staff with blue blazers but we never had to wear them during the course of the business day. I think the idea was we could throw them on in case some big shot came to visit.
As a programmer, it's tempting to think that if we were still operating under 1950's social norms, I'd be the guy wearing a suit, but realistically I'd probably be the guy wearing coveralls with my name stitched on the front.
Maybe part of the problem with dress codes is that we (or most of us) aren't the self-employed white-collar professionals who have much to gain by looking successful to their customers. We're actually the blue-collar assembly-line factory workers. No one outside our immediate circle of co-workers has any reason to know or care what we look like.
This. Gone are the days of twenty-tiered hierarchies. And as companies outsource, disrupt, and automate into tiny modules of CTOs/CEOs selling products, it becomes less and less important as social structures break down in this gig economy. I think the future will view suit and ties as just another individual expression of taste among the sea of new ideas competing for paying customers - who may or may not really care how you look.
Friend of mine just got a new tech job with one of those boring old Fortune 100 companies. Wore a suit to the interview; the interviewer told him to dress it down for the job.
So he wore slacks, a belt and a button up shirt on the first day; people seemed really nervous around him, like he was there to audit them.
So he meets the people he's going to work with: his "boss" is in a stained t-shirt, shorts, no shoes, super casual. I mean like 20 years ago he wouldn't have been able to buy a soda in a beach-town convenience store. Looks at my friend like he's from Mars.
A few weeks in and my friend still over-dresses. I mean, his shirt has a COLLAR for christsakes. It looks like it has been IRONED for the love-of-god. We'll see how long he lasts. Maybe when he gets more comfortable he'll start wearing ripped jeans and a pink floyd t-shirt. We'll see.
When I interviewed for my 2nd out of college job (circa 2000), I happened to interview on a day where the folks I was interviewing with had a conference, so they were dressed up. My start date was delayed for some bureaucratic reason.
Not knowing what the dress code was, I showed up my first day in a suit, and headed up to the office, which had been moved the week prior. I'm wandering around looking for my boss, when the Commissioner's secretary (this is a .gov gig) spots me, and thinks I'm a salesman as they had an issue with salespeople crashing the place. Nobody can find my boss, and five minutes later, two policeman show up and escort me out of the building. Thankfully my boss was a smoker, and rescued me as the cops were kicking me out! :)
The particular division I was in had a pretty eclectic collection of dressers. The bigshots wore suits or sportsjackets, and most people did the business casual thing. Then there were the... others. One dude did leather pants and a massive cowboy hat, there was a male and female tracksuit contingent, and a few people wearing sweatpants of all things.
Oh man, and I bet you were really eager looking to! Kept looking at everyone who came your way with an expectant smile? I would totally have mistaken you for a sales person.
Maybe they said: "yeah, right; the two people before you also said they're meeting <T>, except they weren't" and continued to escort him out.
I mean, if I were asked to escort a salesman out of the building, I'd immediately assume that they'll be trying to talk their way into staying, so I'd put my extra assertive face on.
Interesting. I find stereotypical business casual (khakis or maybe jeans these days and a button down shirt/polo shirt) to still be pretty much the norm even at a lot of tech companies, at least on the East Coast. That's pretty much what I wear. It's comfortable and it works even if I have to drop into a customer or analyst meeting.
Honestly, I find dressing down from that involves more thinking about what I will/may have to do in the course of the day. Khakis and a collared shirt let me do pretty much anything that may come up without thinking about it.
It's interesting, isn't it? I myself dress business casual even though my workplace is a casual place (jeans, tshirts, shorts, sandals, whatever). It's just more _me_. I don't like how sloppy I look in t-shirts. I don't think t-shirts are sloppy, just on me. So for me it's usually a button-down and some khakis or nice jeans.
My colleague (the other development manager, same age as me - mid 30s) basically has a casual "uniform" - some band t-shirt and jeans. Every day. He even admits that he has 5 shirts and five pairs of jeans that are his work clothes. It works for him.
the dirty secret of jeans and t-shirts is: the good looking and good fitting jeans and t-shirts are pretty damn expensive. and those band t-shirts, if authentic, probably are too. it has become a fashion category in and of itself, complete with a high end range.
jeans are all over the spectrum, but unless they are obviously from a giant bin at a discount store, probably are at least $100, likely above $200 per pair. and there are plenty of $500 pairs of jeans out there...
my casual white dyed hemp rainbow sandals are $50, some of the special edition ones i've had over the years (braided leather, etc). are $100+. pretty expensive for basically a flat piece of rubber and a strap of material covered in cloth.
when someone shows up to work in truly cheap jeans/t-shirt/sandals, it doesn't look good, they look trashy and nothing fits properly.
it's just a signal of spending power / hipness on the more casual side of the scale. i've seen people dressed in "jeans and t-shirts" wearing vintage swiss watches. in wealthier areas where a tech company would be, a casual 'jeans and t-shirt' outfit could cost either $25 total or $1000 total.
>jeans are all over the spectrum, but unless they are obviously from a giant bin at a discount store, probably are at least $100, likely above $200 per pair.
Hm. Searching for Levi 501 (the canonical 80 heroin rock singer cut) yields prices like: offers from $21.78 - $ 131. I'm not sure what you get for ~40 bucks or how it's different from the one for 131.
Levi's is pretty much bargain bin quality. Last time I tried them on I tiried 6 same size pairs, all fit vastly different. One had a pocket sewn shut. No qc whatsoever. Its like they gave up.
For an extra $9 you could have bought jeans made in the USA by Buddy Jeans corporation of Mississippi, which in my experience are extremely high quality, instead of Chinese clothes that fall apart instantly but cost 20% less.
A place in Wisconsin makes my work shoes that in the long run are cheaper than imports.
The point of these anecdotes, is I am interested to consider as labor arbitrage and cost of oil and whatever else wipes out the price advantage of foreign imported clothes that used to exist for the last generation or two, if the surviving American clothing manufacturers being somewhat fancier and higher end will result in Americans "soon" wearing generally fancier clothes.
As a concrete example of my theory, currently New Balance Chinese made sneakers are the cheapest thing to slap on your feet. They look ultra casual, usually pretty dirty, and are engineered to fall apart extremely rapidly (for example they recently took the eyelets out of the lace holes to make the laces destroy the plastic fake leather faster). However... over the long term its already cheaper to buy Thorogood dress shoes made in Wisconsin because they last roughly forever and as a side effect look quite stylish in my opinion, and as economic trends continue, its conceivable that soon the cheapest shoes available to slap on your feet will be some rather formal looking Thorogoods, then for an extra $20 you can buy some New Balance from China that fall apart in four months of use. And my theory is we are very close to that tipping point with the result that at least in the short term "average folks who don't care about fashion" will be wearing much less casual, much more formal appearance clothing.
It seems a realistic hypothesis, easily testable, fits prevailing trends...
My wife buys me casual weekend clothes from Nordstroms or Von Maur or whatever and that casual weekend stuff costs more than the cheap generic polos I wear at work. Like a hugo boss shirt that looks nice for weekend wear but costs $100 vs yesterday I wore some generic Target polo to work because we "dress up" at this conservative employer. I've also noticed I can sometimes buy cheap dockers or dockers knockoffs on sale for less than what I pay for weekend wear jeans. So with respect to my hypothesis the future is already here, just unevenly distributed.
I'm old enough that I had to wear the suit and tie to the financial employer in the olden days. Its very comfortable if you spend enough money and suits were quite expensive. The field service techs I tangentially worked with would maliciously comply by purchasing the ugliest used clothes imaginable from Goodwill and throw the suit out at the end of a shift if it got ruined. Its interesting to see the tables turn and my clothes on the weekend cost more than work cloths unlike when I was young.
Not sure why you're being downvoted. I'm always interested in USA made clothing sine there is so little of it anymore, you've already named two makers I'm unfamiliar with. Do you have any others?
Since you asked, time to shill for my favorite socks. (Note: Not affiliated. They've just really won me over because these are the most comfortable socks I've ever owned.)
Darn Tough socks [0], which I discovered via Reddit's /r/buyitforlife, are some of the best socks I've ever owned. They come with a lifetime warranty - so if you get a hole in the sock you can send it in for a brand new pair. No questions asked. Made in Vermont, USA.
Downside: $15-22 for a single pair of socks. I used to pay that much for 20 pairs of cheap socks.
Upside: I only need to own 8 pairs of socks. One a day, one to wear on laundry day.
"Smartwool" (company name) merino wool hiking socks, about the same deal, about the same price, $20/pair, knitted in Colorado. I donno the warranty, they don't break or wear out. Those are the only socks I'll wear when I go hiking.
People who buy $300 hiking boots and wear 50 cent walmart socks in them resulting in blisters and fungus infections, just a big question mark.
I don't understand the economics of those businesses. The Chinese stuff wears out fast, intentionally, and has to be replaced in months so they have a twice per year (or more) revenue stream. Its nice that I can buy shoes from Wisconsin or socks from Colorado that have already lasted many years, or jeans from Mississippi that will probably last my entire lifetime, but I bought it all years ago, and what is their business plan today to stay in business? Yeah they cost a little more, but only a little. I mean, sure, if I had to replace my shoes I'd buy from the Wisconsin place again, but the whole point is I bought them because they don't wear out. And they don't. So how are they still in business for you folks to buy from them today?
There are very expensive US clothing makers, but to fit my hypothesis that its becoming cheaper to buy quality US made products than cheap Chinese products, those expensive textile workers would not apply.
In retrospect it would probably be a short term effect and on shore mfgrs would probably soon start to sell cheap products for a slightly cheaper price, but it might only take that year or two to kick of a change to somewhat more formal styles.
i said good looking and good fitting. of course most people don't wear clothes that fit or look good. the person i replied to mentioned he looks 'sloppy' in t-shirt and jeans.
i'm pointing out the fact that you're guaranteed to look sloppy in t-shirt/jeans/sandles unless you buy the expensive stuff or are top 10% fit and attractive, and even then, there's no saving some really cheap stuff. those good looking 'casually dressed' people are spending real money to achieve that look.
I have found nirvana when it comes to buying clothes. This won't appeal to most people but if you close to a decently sized city go check out the thrift stores. Chances are you will find a wide array of suitable clothes for dirt cheap.
Yeah I know, picking through used clothes has a horrible connotation and the signal to noise ratio can be quite small, but you can absolutely find what you need.
thrifting isn't exactly fringe these days, even among yuppies and rich fashionable young people. the problem is it takes a lot of time, because finding the right fit becomes the real challenge.
^This. Like Facebook's Zuckerberg wears a t-shirt so he doesn't have to think about getting dressed, I wear khakis and the same blue polo every day like a uniform. My closet looks like Spongebob's.
That reminds me when I interviewed at AKQA I went suited and booted I was interviewed by a guy in a t shirt that was so raged and dirty that I wouldn't have worn it to do the gardening in.
I got a hint that I might have overdressed when on the way to the Interview a passer-by asked me the way to the ivy ( a very exclusive restaurant)
I once dressed for an interview, and on the way back popped into a comic book store. Inside, a guy started asking me about my little pony stuff - he thought I was the manager..
I was once going to an event in a full suit, but before that, I attended a guest lecture on my university. I was just a regular attendee, but my clothes were enough for people to think I manage this guest lecture. I was handed the keys to the lecture hall, and people would come to me with questions and issues...
> So he meets the people he's going to work with: his "boss" is in a stained t-shirt, shorts, no shoes, super casual. I mean like 20 years ago he wouldn't have been able to buy a soda in a beach-town convenience store.
No wonder everyone's nervous around your friend. If he forms his opinions on whether or not his manager has authority based on his clothing that's going to be an inheriently uncomfortable experience. Why did you use scare quotes around boss? And would you do it if the guy had worn nicer clothing?
Does your friend feel that way?
If so, his new co-workers are right to be nervous. The fellow is seriously misaligned in understanding how his new workplace is structured. He can dress how he likes, but if he starts using clothing to measure respect in a modern workplace... that's a problem.
And here I am today, sat in the UK offices of a Fortune 100 company (one of the big finance houses) wearing scuffed boots, black jeans and my old Megadeth t-shirt...
I am on the scruffier end of the spectrum, to be sure, but not the worst.
I work in Investment Banking. The only difference I have seen over the years is a) Casual Friday and b) tie wearers are in the minority now. Most men still wear suits though.
It would be a stretch to say I work in investment banking - we provide hardware and software platforms for some of the finance types to run their stuff on.
Very casual team, fairly casual office (of a few thousand people). No idea what anyone else here does outside of the five or six people I work with, though.
This is sort of interesting. Typically trends in high fashion come from the counter culture. The counter culture rejects the mainstream and, either intentionally or unintentionally, their fashion pisses people off. The goal of high fashion is to evoke emotion and fear/anger tend to be easy emotions to get out of people (Imagine your mother reacting to goths in the mall).
It seems, from this example, that some future counter culture fashion could be rooted in traditional formal wear considering how uncomfortable it has made your friend's coworkers feel.
I feel like some stagnant big companies do a bit of a cargo-cult thing when it comes to being innovative. "Surely if we wear the stained hoodies, the ripped jeans, and the man-buns we too can churn out brilliant and innovative products! (Let's not worry about our working culture, budgetary priorities, or management styles or anything. The dress code is where the real magic is!)"
reading the last line with my AC/DC tshirt made me think a bit, and yes, I am a "boss" (well just lead, maybe doesn't count), but at least I have shoes.
That's actually awesome, what a ridiculously simple way to mess with people. Something about nerds makes them freeze up when they see a guy in a suit as if it gave one magical powers. People claim not to care about clothes or fashion, but if that were true they wouldn't care if he wore a suit.
It's not about fashion, it's about the fact that we have long folklore about people in suits. Almost everyone who is in a suit is out to get you for something. Bosses, Ignorant Managers, Salesmen, Estate Agents[0], Religious salesmen, etc, etc.
Almost all of those are people who prey on the weak, the meek, and the pitiful.
Also power, which implies risk. Besides the various kinds of salesmen, which you can recognize quickly, people wearing suits are usually those with power that can affect you - bosses, managers, lawyers, government officials. Piss them off, and they can ruin your day. Or life. So one learns to be extra careful around people in suits.
Yes, one can be, but for decades spanning more than a few generations the norm has been that more formal dress was associated with that class of exploiter.
Its a ridiculously masculine discussion but it works the same way when my wife wears formalware dresses or cocktail dresses or whatever they're called.
Simple primate dominance stuff. My work clothes cost maybe $85 at target including the underwear (was that too much information?) because its just work and people don't care much. The point of a dude in a suit is I dropped $85 but he dropped $2K, maybe more. Even cheap off the rack he spent, I donno how much that costs anymore, $200?
Conspicuous consumption, same as the gold watch or womens jewelry or the expensive car. An extremely public display of I can spend money that you don't/can't.
Tyler Cowen (in his typical counter-narrative style) suggests casual culture may anti-dynamism, particularly of the class mobility type.
The argument (which is not fully formed, I think) is that signalling exists anyway. In a more formal envirnonment, you can signal seriousness or whatnot by dressing in a good suit to make a cerrtain impression. In a casual environment, you can't signal with your clothes but that means signals just become more subtle and nuanced.
I think Cowen is saying that casual culture means social signals are harder to fake. You might think "great! Meritocracy.*" But, merit is not a drop in replacement for formal social signals. Informal signals are. What actually replaces the suit, watch and shiny shoes is p speech, body language (or a google search revealing your prestigous keynote speech) that one is a member of a particular group. It's much harder for outsiders to tick the boxes and blend in.
> * But what I find striking is societies with a lot of upward mobility often tend to have strict dress codes. So you see this today with Mormons, at Mormon businesses. You see it in Japan in its heyday years--you know, the businessman or journeyman suit, they more or less all looked the same. There's something about upward mobility where actually clothing is not that casual and one is being more formal in trying to impress; and that is a [?]. But the thing about being casual is it actually makes it harder for people to prove themselves.*
> When I [a correspondent, not Cowen] was a young associate at the biggest law firm in Rome, casual friday was the time when my Sicilian provincial middle-lower class background was most transparent. I didn’t have the money for smart but impressive casual clothing. But above all I didn’t have the cultural and social capital to know how to dress casual in the right way.
In general, social norms often play a substantial role as a level playing field. The people who benefit from their removal are those who can quickly understand and adapt to the unarticulated, informal rules that govern all human interaction. I'm happy I don't have to wear a suit and tie every day (and slightly sad that I never have, but that's a different discussion), but let's not pretend that "no dresscode" is actually to be taken literally if you have any intention of advancing in the hierarchy that we pretend isn't there.
> So you see this today with Mormons, at Mormon businesses
As a Mormon, I thought it might be interesting to point out that to some degree that's actually part of our theology. Basically a dress code that's strict enough that everyone is equal, this de-emphasizing dress and clothing.
In a Mormon temple you're required to wear very simple all white clothing (plain white shirt, tie and pants for
men, plain white dress for women, plain white socks and plain white shoes) - both as a sign of an attempt to be "pure" but also it's noted that everyone dresses exactly the same, causing for less focus on dress and external things.
And it's not just a Mormon thing! I spent two years in a high school with a uniform code, based on the same reasoning you describe here around reducing focus and effort invested in something that doesn't matter anyway. (Unlike what you describe, purity wasn't really a concern, which is as well considering this was a Catholic high school - not all the stories are true, but...)
No one had a problem with it; no one really cared, and even I, a transplant, ceased entirely to notice it after the first month or so, especially after I figured out how to get away with a clip-on tie. I've never since been able to take seriously those people who imagine it must be some kind of horrible imposition that some schools require their students to wear a uniform.
It sounds like the correlation is with dress codes, not necessarily with level of formality. I wonder if having t-shirt and shorts be an official uniform (the world is getting hotter, after all) would provide the same benefits.
>What actually replaces the suit, watch and shiny shoes is p speech, body language (or a google search revealing your prestigous keynote speech) that one is a member of a particular group.
I wouldn't say "replaces"; the speech patterns, body language, and credentials are there whether you're in a suit or not.
As to class mobility: if the kind of people who get promoted in your workplace are the ones that, for example, have mutual friends from the same circles (and maybe the same college) as the boss, then wearing a suit isn't going help your career.
I'd say a similar concept applies. There are certain words that aren't accepted (eg homophobic slurs, words rhyming with runt, etc) but others that are, and if you grew up in a different socioeconomic environment, you wouldn't innately know the difference.
That's not really an interesting thought. Tyler Cowen can be relied upon to suggest that literally anything about the more-conservative past might have a causal connection to economic dynamism. If he could get away with it, he'd claim economic dynamism was driven by indentured servitude, or by hanging crucifixes in the workplace. It's a shtick, not an idea.
He also brings up lsd as a culturally dynamic influence, and compares but to today's culture's preference for grass and opioids. I didn't get a particularly narrow vibe from the book.
>Zuckerberg explained: “I really want to clear my life to make it so that I have to make as few decisions as possible about anything except how to best serve [Facebook’s] community.”
Interesting enough Obama said the exact same thing about his suit choices.
“You’ll see I wear only gray or blue suits,” [Obama] said. “I’m trying to pare down decisions. I don’t want to make decisions about what I’m eating or wearing. Because I have too many other decisions to make.”(1)
So decision fatigue doesn't need to go hand in hand with super casual.
"Zuckerberg explained: “I really want to clear my life to make it so that I have to make as few decisions as possible about anything except how to best serve [Facebook’s] community."
Most likely he just doesn't enjoy fashion. Some people love fashion, shopping clothes, figuring out what do dress, and derive tremendous joy from them.
Zuckerberg and Obama aren't one of them. At least Obama is being more honest about the reasoning, while Zuckerberg is just spinning it.
Pragmatism is a good principle but as you say there are persons who enjoy clothing itself as a form of art and self-expression. Casual/minimalism (as jeans+tshirt only) in clothing is not the rational choice for everyone.
As an example: Someone who doesn't particularly enjoy music could advocate that as a means to make fewer decisions and not waste time in non-adaptive behavior he doesn't listen to music. If the ingroup has similar tastes then it's converted into a "truth" and non-conformity prejudiced.
Overall I think that the intelligent thing is to dress according to what is expected/acceptable. A lot of people seems to think that the move to casual dress is some kind of new achieved freedom and that we're growing out of being biased against other's persons clothing. The reality, as posts here can attest, is that it was simply a change in dressing code. There is still a bias, now it's just placed in the more "formal" clothing.
I personally prefer tailored/formal clothing. But as casual dressers were discriminated in the 60s-70s so I would be in the current workplace if I dressed as I desired. The solution is simple: Dress as expected in work and as you like in your personal life. We as a species have not grown out of groupthink yet.
>I personally prefer tailored/formal clothing. But as casual dressers were discriminated in the 60s-70s so I would be in the current workplace if I dressed as I desired.
Would you though? Because tailored suits are a casual hipster staple nowadays too. You can meet a guy with huge victorian mustache and beard and a fine suit and they're a graphic designer or something....
I agree it's not quite the same thing. At one point not wearing the required jacket and tie was just grounds for dusmissal. Now "overdressing" in some manner is just eccentric. Of course, not everyone has the luxury of being eccentric.
I, too, dress more formally than my peers. I'm in that weird Generation Y (mid 30s-early 40s) that started working in the late 90s/early 00s where business casual was expected but before casual became the norm.
A remarkable number of fashion designers have adopted their own Jobsian uniform. Carolina Herrera almost always wears a white dress shirt with a pencil skirt, Karl Lagerfeld has his peculiar gothic suits and high-collared shirts, Marc Jacobs is rarely seen without a kilt. It's something of a trope within the fashion world - the designers who work to push forward the boundaries of fashion often stick with the same basic style for decades.
It's also harder to be criticized for your fashion choices if you wear the same thing all the time, which is nice if you're likely to be highly scrutinized for your fashion choices. No one's going to call out Anna Wintour for having a stupid haircut.
Americans are generally not as concerned with fashion, period. It might be extreme to wear a black turtleneck everyday, but Steve Jobs didn't invent this, and I'm not sure he could get away with it in say, Paris.
>and I'm not sure he could get away with it in say, Paris.
He could. Low-brow fashion may be about keeping up with the latest trends, but fashion sense in the way they'd appreciate in say France or Italy is mainly about the personality shown in your attire -- and such a personal uniform would be totally acceptable (at worst viewed as eccentric in the good sense).
I work with lots of Italian and French people, and am a bit obsessed with the French culture and language. I observe that the opposite holds -- fashion-conscious Europeans sometimes let their personality be defined by their fashion choices. The personality, whatever that means, is secondary. Not to say that they are superficial at all, but rather that looks and presentation are so important to them (not a bad thing!) that it becomes a bigger part of who you are.
For example just today -- an Italian colleague struck up a conversation with me while we were grabbing coffee in the kitchen. He was wearing a blazer, nice dress pants and nice shoes. I was wearing jeans, hoodie, t-shirt. He asked me what cologne I like, and literally fanned the scent from his neck onto me, so I could smell his good taste in fragrance. His cologne did smell really good, but I was still jarred by the whole experience.
>I work with lots of Italian and French people, and am a bit obsessed with the French culture and language. I observe that the opposite holds -- fashion-conscious Europeans sometimes let their personality be defined by their fashion choices. The personality, whatever that means, is secondary.
That might be, but I wasn't saying that they put personality first above appearance.
What I said is that appearance matters to them, but not in the "is he/she wearing the latest fashion items" sense, but that they (also) appreciate a deeper "does the attire reflect an aesthetic choice/strong personality" (as opposed to someone merely wearing whatever he threw on himself or whatever everybody wears).
In other words, that they might be for fashion, but they would respect opinionated attire -- such like Jobs.
In that it shows some effort and respect for the other's eyes, plus some sense of aesthetics (the looks as in "presentation", not as in being naturally good looking).
>I don't think the saying is "judge a book by its cover"
Well, that's deprecated advice. It hold true when it was created in 19th early 20th century, when books all had the same leather bound cover or bland design.
The last 30+ years books have tons of information on their cover, including awards the book has won, short reviews, recommendations, a summary, and even a small bio of the author in some cases. You are supposed to judge them by their cover -- that's how you pick them in the bookstore.
I've never picked a modern book by its cover because it's a facade that the author/publisher decorates to manipulate you into thinking something. The same applies to putting so much emphasis on looks, it just opens you up to being lied to.
As the sibling comment identifies, you read reviews of trusted people or the masses.
Ironically the authors I've spoken to are often upset that the cover is chosen entirely for marketing purposes and often has little to do with the contents of the book. Things like choosing a cover model of different race and sometimes even gender from the protagonist(s) of the book.
I don't know why we have to presume or assume anything about anyone.
Zuckerberg is just as valid as Obama in why THEY choose to dress the way they do.
I'm a honey badger when it comes to clothes. I just wear free crap i get from conferences and buy jeans/shorts as needed. I don't spend any brain power on doing anything other than making sure i'm comfortable and fit the season(s). I spend money on quality - i don't want my clothing failing when mountaineering but "Fashion" is the last thing on my mind and i tend to get 10-15 years out of my REI / North face outdoor clothing
A focus on fashion or appearance in the scope of work is a distraction. Where whatever you want to wear but don't assume others have any interest or admiration of such.
Austrian / Europe here. We are slightly more formal in business life when it comes to how we dress but certainly more relaxed that our Italian neighbors.
I remember well when I did my military service and ha to wear a uniform. At first I hated it but when I "disarmed" and went back to my civil life, the daily "burden" to decide what to wear was a distraction. Sure I quickly re-adapted but anyhow
Yea Italians are a pain in the ass about dressing; people here are stuck in the 80s still when it comes to work so it only makes sense it works that way.
Italian here. I don't know what your experience is, but I have to call bullshit.
Such generic comments applying to an entire population should be best avoided.
I have worked in Italian, British, American and Spanish engineering companies and I have not noticed any significant differences in dressing code, with the UK probably being the more formal environment (we had "Casual Fridays", which meant that the rest of the week we had to wear shirts). In the rest I could get by with a polo shirt and jeans.
Of course people with more contact with the outside tend to dress more formally, but this has been true for every company I have been.
My experience is being born and raised in Rome, working with people from different cities (Pi Campus here in Rome, H-Farm in Veneto, etc) and now working in Santa Monica. Not much to call bullshit on, if you don't see any difference between Cali and Italy I don't know what to tell you.
I also noticed that after military service.
In the service, I had two uniforms that were exactly the same that I wore every day. At first I hated the uniform, but after I finished, I realized how convenient it is to not ever have to think about your outfit at all.
I sort of practice this now as well, with a well defined 'base' of jeans and a shirt that doesn't need ironing.
This kind of thinking became fashionable a few years ago when the studies supporting "decision fatigue" were getting press. I wonder if they'll survive the replication crisis. It seems like the kind of thing that wouldn't.
Lots of people know from experience that they're staring in their wardrobe every day for tens of minutes to decide what to wear and hate it.
That doesn't change for them if some experts can't replicate the original findings of some "decision fatigue" paper. The burden of choosing every day is enough, even without fatigue.
Oh I agree, and to anyone who doesn't buy several dozen pairs of identical socks once a decade, all I can say is you don't know what you're missing.
But it was fashionable to cite these studies for a while and to consciously adopt strategies based on them. That's a bit different—more like reorganizing your diet based on studies that perhaps eventually get overturned.
I think it does. I'm guessing most of the people who take the single outfit approach do so based on what they've heard about decision fatigue. Not because they want to save the 30 seconds they spend picking out a shirt every morning, but because that decision supposedly impacts their decision making for the rest of the day.
> Lots of people know from experience that they're staring in their wardrobe every day for tens of minutes to decide what to wear and hate it.
Simple solution: Wear what is at the top of the clothes stack in your wardrobe and add clothes that come from laundry to the bottom of the stacks in your wardrobe (for computer scientists: Make the clothing stacks in your wardrobe a FIFO queue).
That assumes that you've optimized your clothes so that everything goes with everything else or that you don't care if things match or not. And if you're either one of those types of people you're probably not agonizing over what to wear in the morning in the first place
I own 3 pairs of dark blue jeans (of the same style), half a dozen tshirts (dark blue, dark grey), 4 shirts (all vertically striped).
I just wear whatever is clean, I don't think I've spent more than an hour on clothing choices in the last year (and most of that hour would have been picking a suit out).
I do make sure everything is clean and ironed though, I like to look neat if not smart.
But when Putin or others decide to do the same - wearing mostly the same-looking suits all the time - it's said that this is to make timestamping photos of the official more difficult.
> Zuckerberg explained: “I really want to clear my life to make it so that I have to make as few decisions as possible about anything except how to best serve [Facebook’s] community.”
What an awkward way to force "Look what a good CEO I am" into the conversation.
I think that reasoning is kind of lame (is it really so hard? do they eat the same thing every meal?) But certainly both Obama and Zuckerberg would be distinctive figures regardless of what they wore.
I can't speak for Obama or Zuck, but I've been eating the same type of breakfast (cereal+milk) consistently [1]for the last 15 or so years (at age 27). Not mainly because of decision fatigue, but because I'm the polar opposite of a morning person, and the morning routine helps my drowzy morning self to leave home on time.
[1] Except when I'm traveling, because I'm certainly not taking a box of cereal with me. :)
Sounds like you are draining your precious life forces with the incredibly burdensome decision of what to eat the other two meals every day! How inefficient.
I find these sartorial/sumptuary rules fascinating. My kid (age 19) is a snappy dresser which I (working in the Valley since I was 18, 30-odd years ago) pretty much wear whatever my hand falls on first, typically T shirts and shorts.
He says it's a status thing: I have status (within the community I work with) and so can afford to not give a shit about my clothing. While service workers (not gardeners, but sales people, lawyers, doctors, janitors, finance people, waiters, etc) all have to wear a uniform of one sort or another.
I wonder if he's right because when I am in Japan or Europe I dress better and do dress up for dinner.
I heard an interesting explanation for SF's acceptance of a much wider norm of behavior: the claim was that it goes back to the gold rush: that crazy person might just have an ounce or two of gold in his or her pocket.
It's kind of a mixture of clothing as a status uniform and rejection of that norm. Lawyers, managers and bankers wear suits and display their white collar status, a high position in the social hierarchy. Salespeople continue with suits as a form of mimickery -- you won't get thrown out of the building quite as fast with a suit versus a hoodie or polo. But the image of suits in the workplace has been tainted with corporate looting, fraud, deception and mismanagement. Dressing like you work for Goldman Sachs is akin to declaring those behaviors as an aspiration.
The causal dress counter-culture blurs the status lines that dress codes would otherwise draw. It reflects a mentality that people want leaders (or maybe even to be leaders) who are judged by the quality ideas, execution, and outcomes, versus their position in the org chart. Or the abolition of leaders entirely, holocratic style.
It's true that at some level, Zuckerberg has enough status to show up to Facebook offices in a hoodie, and he's rich enough that even if investors gave him the boot he'd be well off. But I don't imagine most programmers showing up to work in hoodies do to broadcast how important they are.
Yeah. I bring this up any time I am asked to "dress up" in the summer here in South Carolina. It can get above 100° F / 37.7° C here. At my sister's outdoor wedding in June, three of the wedding party fainted (from being overdressed in extreme heat). South Carolina, at least, would be better off adapting the dress codes of India or Egypt than of England.
Which is crazy a Boston's latitude is about the same as Rome. It came as a real surprise when so realised how far south the US is compared to the UK, or in fact most of Europe. Miami is the same latitude as Luxor in Egypt.
Born in the Nordics, I never felt I'm living very far in the north as it was south of the Arctic Circle and all. But there really aren't big populations that far up -- it was well north of Anchorage, for example. Russia has some inhabited northern places in Siberia like Norilsk, though solely due to the mining industry.
I guess Europe would look very different without the Gulf Stream.
The point of the post was "not all former social norms are always appropriate; here is one counterexample" not "I think every zip code has exactly this weather." Chiming in with a place where the social norm is appropriate is not interesting, because it is already the social norm.
Suits are totally impractical in the southern half of California about half the year. Unless you're in constant air conditioning, which is about as stupid as it gets.
It's something I've noticed as well and something I feel myself starting to react against. I don't own any t-shirts anymore and now dress almost exclusively in business casual, whether I'm at work or not. I plan to get myself a suit tailored this year.
I think the stereo-typical image of the "IT guy" wearing a hoodie or printed t-shirts isn't a good one, and stops us being taken as seriously as we should be. I want to be respected as a professional, not ostracized for dressing like a slob.
You're proving the point: IT guys in suits are from 50 years ago. Of course, if you meat a real old-timer, you respect him, but if you see a 20-something who tries to emulate this style, it just looks ridiculous and out of place.
What is it about a suit that is inherently professional, independent of social norms? There are objective ways to perform your job better, and there are cultural gestures that convey respect and dignity, and both fall under the umbrella of what we call "professionalism". A suit has been one of those gestures at some times in some cultures / industries. But to insist that it's professional independent of culture and industry is like someone coming into my home and insisting one taking their shoes off because in some places that's a sign of respect. Even if I just told them I prefer they leave their shoes on because I don't want to talk to a professional who just removed the shoes they've been working in all day. See how much it would miss the point of a respectful gesture if they insisted on a gesture that is respectful elsewhere? In many tech offices that have a casual dress code, wearing a suit when you're not meeting with a customer for whom that's the norm or something would actually be seen as a disrespectful gesture to your peers, as though you're disingenuously trying to impress someone. So what makes it professional?
I think I may come from a different perspective from you, or indeed many people here. I probably should have pre-faced with this first.
While I code every day I also part BA. I have a lot of contact with non-technical people - I am not just in a big office with other members of my profession.
Basically if I'm talking to people wearing suits/business casual, and I'm wearing a t-shirts and shorts, they will look down on me. You may decry the arbitrariness of social norms but they do exist and they do effect your interaction in a professional setting, whether people in silicon valley think they should or not.
I want to be respected and I want my field to be respected. If we dress much worse than other professionals, we send the message that we're not really on their level.
> We can take lawyers, accountants and business people in suits seriously.
Do we? The overall sentiment that I feel in tech (does not mean that I share it) is that these professions owe their prestige to existing power structures and not their own merits or usefulness to society. Developers look down on bankers because it's banker's job to look presentable - and developers think of themselves as actually doing something of essense as opposed to making a show of it.
To be honest, I don't care much what other programmers think of my appearance. I care what they think of my code to some extent, sure, but a fellow dev thinking I overdress or look silly barely even registers on my radar.
Other professionals won't appreciate me for my code. A lot of their judgment will rest on my appearance - whether that's fair or not is irrelevant.
I'd argue that:
a) as an industry we have far less of a clothes == professionalism association (and that's definitely a good thing)
b) if anything dressing in a suit is an indication that you've primarily worked for older, more formal companies where the technology and management practises are behind the times and you're therefor less likely to be a skilled professional and/or need help to adapt to the culture of cutting edge technology companies.
Also the implication that we're 'not on their level' due to not wearing a suit is absurd.
>Unless you work in a creative industry and live in a big city (read: basically NYC), you probably can’t wear anything too fashionable or avant-garde to work. We’re not talking about Rick Owens, but even somewhat tame designers such as Robert Geller and Stephan Schneider. And if everyone is wearing shorts and t-shirts, the sharpest you can look is in chinos. New, open office spaces still have dress codes – they’re just softly coded as social norms, not hard written into rulebooks.
>Dressing now follows subtle, in-group views – those who understand them know how to navigate the corporate world; those who don’t pay a price.
I remember speaking with some IBM veterans who had been around long enough to see the transition from suits and ties to casualish wear. Some of them spoke wistfully of the old days, and the point they all brought up was that while the old rules may not have been all that comfortable, they were simple and clear.
That's definitely true, and I would argue that "casual work attire" is even more ambiguous for women. One of the things I realized during my first internship is that "casual" and "casual work appropriate" aren't the same thing, even though every recruiter and manager I've spoken to has said to just wear what I'd wear casually on the weekends. There are some types of casual clothing that I wear--such as shorts, low-cut tops, crop tops, strapless anything, shorter dresses or skirts, etc--that are not work appropriate, even if this is not explicitly said or encoded in a company dress code. That being said, I would never sacrifice the luxury of wearing casual clothing to work in exchange for being able to make more straight-forward sartorial decisions.
It's not just biz-casual, all business attire is harder for women. My cousin is a lawyer in Texas, and in court the judge (yes, a judge), made a comment about her not being in a skirt. This judge was from a different era, but the incident happened within the last few years. Pretty unbelievable.
I previously worked a biz-cas place, and while everyone griped about the ambiguity, eventually you get the sense of the dos and donts and fall into line. Just takes more time.
I've noticed this as well. I'm walking around in chuck taylors jeans and a tee-shirt with a hoody in cool weather and I do it year round.
The female engineers I work with would not be what I consider casual. They wear dry clean only clothes, heals or boots. Usually clothes that are nicely fitted (As apposed to my square shirt that has arm holes sewed on. All this, +makup. (I shower, and wear deodorant, and get my hair cut weekly, but that's about it there). I could buy an entire 14 day work wardrobe for > $300.
I've wondered (perhaps worried) that is a reaction to not (or feeling) that they are not taken seriously. I can see when I walk around the halls at work that the women in my work place are putting in more effort than the guys but I don't have a cause for that.
I know that my wife likes to wear nice clothes to work. But I also know that on weekends she wears jeans and a hoody, or hoody and yoga pants. I also know that she enjoys looking at and buying clothes. I find it to be a chore, and try to do it all in about 2 hours for the whole year. I wear the same thing weather I'm doing the yard or writing code.
I don't really know why, but I can see that it's happening.
Especially as a younger female engineer, I consciously try to avoid looking younger since people consistently underestimate my technical abilities. I'm also average height for a woman but typically the shortest one on my team, so if I show up to work wearing a T-shirt, jeans, and converse I can look even more juvenile.
Yeesh... that post perfectly exemplifies how much stress women have to go through to just look "normal". I wish I could say that all you had to be was great at your assigned job, but unfortunately that's not enough (in both tech and non-tech positions).
I'll add though, that guys do deal with these rules too (see article below) but they are pretty clearly laid out. Guys' fashion changes over decades, whereas womans' changes over seasons.
Makes sense, one less thing to battle I guess. I've seen that with guys that look really young too where people assume they are the intern after they've been coming to happy hour for a year. . ..
I worked for IBM as contractor a few years ago and they requested that whole team of contractors should sit in IBM office with sales guys. Now as you can imagine it was hilarious class division - sales guys in suits, black boots and stuff, conducting important meetings with bankers and in the same open office 20 or so "IT guys" in t-shirts, shorts and sandals :) .
I think people don't understand that today's business suit and shirt WERE considered smart casual back when people started wearing them.
This was retained in business for some time after fashion changed in general use.
It's not just that dress codes have changed, more that what constitutes smart casual changed.
I feel like the author of this article hasn't worked in silicon valley, because it doesn't touch at all
on what I feel is the cultural significance of casual attire: Wearing what you want says that your employer values you for your brain, not your willingness to conform. Formal dress runs counter to cultures that value lateral thinking, iconoclasm, and non-conformism; all the things that have made silicon valley successful.
A suit says "I am an interchangeable cog." Normal clothing says that you're an individual with identity and tastes.
(Plus it is hopelessly uncool to be/work for squares).
This made me smile because I was thinking the exact opposite thing :) I think a lot of hipsters dress alike (skinny jeans, boat shoes, et all) and they're worried about not conforming! (not accusing you of being a hipster, just playing on silicon valley stereotypes, no idea where you work)
So? Hipster is one of many "uniforms" a person can choose to put on. It's a big symbolic difference when the person chooses it themselves versus when they're told how to look by their employer. Wearing a suit to work generally implies the latter (and that's not an unreasonable conclusion to draw, since it still works that way in a lot of fields outside of tech, and worked that way historically).
Certainly at my workplace I see all kinds dress styles.
I feel like the author of this article hasn't worked in silicon valley, because it doesn't touch at all on what I feel is the cultural significance of casual attire: Wearing what you want says that your employer values you for your brain, not your willingness to conform.
Funny, I was going to say the same thing for the exact opposite reason.
The valley has quite a lot of non-conformist conformity. With slacks and a collared shirt, it's about "professionalism". With the bland demure dress that shows personality, without suggesting the person has a personality capable of producing thoughts that go against the group-think, it's about "culture fit."
I enjoy wearing suits to work. Sadly, at some tech companies it is a bad idea nowadays. I wore a suit to work at Google and Facebook and regularly got called security on. I made sure to always keep my badge close.
Until recently I had a worked with a friend who wears nothing but suits, not just at work but in day to day life. People found it odd for a few months but then he quickly got a rep as that really well dressed guy and most folk enjoyed it. Admittedly it helped that most of his suits were a bit more out there than typical business suits. Think slightly hipster barbershop quartet. The man had some damn nice jackets.
As long as they are decent quality. I have an aquaintance who dresses up for events in cheap terrible suits and he looks like a caracature of a used car salesman. He is genuinely embarrasing to be around, but thinks the attention is positive, because people recodnise him now. Nice guy, but I can't help but think more people need to know, so they don't do the same.
Same, and same. I get questions about which job I'm there to apply for.
I wear suits to work because it is counter-culture, and they make me look like a programmer version of James Bond. People who don't like wearing suits clearly have never worn a tailored suit.
Boy, this seems pretty surprising. Other folks at google or facebook decided that you looked out of place and then called security? What do executives at FB and google wear?
I work at Google and I don't think I've ever seen an employee wear a suit to work, maybe a blazer but definitely no ties. People who are at a certain level of leadership and above seem to wear button down shirts most of the time, usually with jeans.
The only time I saw people in formal attire was at a masquerade-themed holiday party.
I remember, everyday I'd get dressed for work. Business casual collar shirt or button down shirt. Dockers pants. Colors were pretty dull. Light blue. Red. Gray. Black. White. Black shoes. I'd have an assortment to choose from and that is all I'd ever wear.
Since having been moved into a cubicle, however, where I am visible less than half the time, only seen when I go get a free drink from the fridge, use the bathroom, or take a walk outside, I have been dressing much more casually.
Decent shirt, but probably less than business casual, sometimes as casual as a Pink Floyd or a shirt that I got at a concert. Jeans. Sneakers. Summer=shorts. A lot of times, I'll just find a nice casual shirt and wear it for 3 or 4 days if its fairly clean. Clothing is just the last thing on my mind when it comes to getting dressed in the morning. I know I have to do it in order to go out into the world, but I don't really care what it is.
Of course, my supervisor does warn us if corporate is coming to visit for the day, for which everyone tends to be even more dressed up than usual. But that is just the way our office is. I've worked around the United States.. it seems like the East Coast and Midwest are slightly more strict in wanting people to dress business casual, and be clean-shaven, while the West Coast and Mountain areas are more lenient, and doesn't even seem to mind a mustache or beard, though either should be somewhat groomed.
East Coast/Midwest: tattoos should be covered.
West Coast/Mountains: tattoos are okay as long as they are not offensive.
Just today, I walked into Walmart, and a guy who looked like the manager is loaded up to his neck in tattoos. I don't remember ever seeing that when I lived on the East coast.
No one covers their tattoos (except because it's cold) or shaves (because they're required to, obviously a lot of people shave) in New York tech offices. And, um, there's a lot of tattoos and beards among New York tech hipster types.
Shorts are certainly more useful here in the summer (okay, they're basically mandatory if you don't want to be miserable some days) than in SF where it's usually sort of chilly.
You've obviously never worked at a more conservative place. I worked at a place where tattoos must be always covered completely and beards have to be very well kept. Jeans were a hard no and they had just loosened their dress code so women could wear pants.
I left there 12 years ago and the women could wear pants policy was new then. So it was around 2003-04 when they first started allowing women to wear pants. By coincidence (or maybe not) this is also the time when laws banning smoking in public places (bars, restaurants) first started to be passed.
It was a conservative office. Customers were other business, not the public.
Is it possible you've worked out west and in the mountains more recently than east coast/midwest? I ask because I've worked in a lot of different cultures in the midwest, from banks to startups, and tattoos are not an issue in any of them. 15 years ago that wasn't so true but in the last 7 or 8 for sure I've never seen it be an issue. Facial hair hasn't been an issue ever in my experience.
> East Coast/Midwest: tattoos should be covered. West Coast/Mountains: tattoos are okay as long as they are not offensive.
California: Anything goes. I've seen people walking around barefoot in the office. I have yet to see anyone completely nude at work tho, though plenty on the streets of SF.
Walking barefoot has 2 fairly immediate effects: the skin under your feet becomes much thicker and tough; and your step becomes much lighter and reactive. If you stepped on a tack barefoot, it'd hurt a bit, but it most likely wouldn't pierce through your foot like it would the sole of the shoe, because your foot is much more aware with what it's walking on, and you don't slam down your feet on the ground as much as you walk around.
Putting rigid shoes on your feet is like stuffing your nose with cotton - you're completely blocking a very sensitive organ to the rest of the world.
All this just to say: people who walk barefoot every day are not worried of stepping on tacks :)
I ran all over Creation barefoot as a kid. He's not wrong. Your feet toughen up, and you're aware of what you step on.
On the other hand, I've worn work boots since high school, and wouldn't give them up. (Literally! Uniform required penny loafers or better. I got chewed out more times...) Callused soles won't save you on sun-hot asphalt or gravel, and knowing what you're stepping on won't do you a lick of good when 120 pounds of server and handcart run over your toes.
I love being barefoot, but I don't go barefoot in public because of sharps! I don't typically encounter broken glass or used needles, but both of those things will cut right through your "thicker and tough" skin before you can feel it.
Broken glass is far more common in modern times than it was on the savanna, so it's wise to dress accordingly. You don't have to wear Dr Martens, but a millimeter or two of Vibram can dramatically improve your quality of life.
Get them to sign some sort of liability clause. I imagine even that wouldn't be necessary. Any judge would throw out the case immediately - you probably wouldn't even need to hire a lawyer.
> I wouldn't allow barefoot in the office, just because of lawsuits if someone steps on something like a tack.
As someone who walked barefoot in Chicago for much of a summer: why is this everyone's nightmare legal scenario? Sure, I could be barefoot and step on a tack, but why is that so much more of a nightmare than if I'm not looking and put my hand down on a tack on a desk? (Well, maybe because I put my hand down with less weight than my foot, but that's not the point.) There are plenty of ways to be injured in the workplace, and we are allowed to manage most of these risks ourselves; why is shoelessness so particularly terrifying?
(Incidentally, one of my favourite objections to my shoelessness was someone who claimed that it was unclean (for others, not for me). I wash my feet every day, but almost never my shoes, so which one of those results in more uncleanliness for the places that I walk through?)
>one of my favourite objections to my shoelessness was someone who claimed that it was unclean for others.
The difference might be that shoes aren't as good of a substrate for bacteria as a warm moist foot.
The athletic administration at my college required that I put my shoes back on when practicing soccer on the intramural fields. Their reasoning was that I could get a cut and develop an e coli infection.
> The difference might be that shoes aren't as good of a substrate for bacteria as a warm moist foot.
Oh, good point. I hadn't considered that.
> The athletic administration at my college required that I put my shoes back on when practicing soccer on the intramural fields. Their reasoning was that I could get a cut and develop an e coli infection.
This is also a good point, but not the issue that was being raised, which was specifically about others' health, not my own.
> Why would it be unclean for others? That makes no sense.
The claim was that I was tracking in all the dirt from outside on my feet, and spreading it around where it would dirty up others. Since I'd be doing exactly the same (plus all the other dirt from years of wear) if I were wearing shoes, I agree with you that it makes no sense.
Here in Scandinavia, it's very rare to wear shoes inside. That's probably because most of the year the weather requires shoes that aren't practical inside and you want to leave your filthy wet shoes at the door and not bring the mess inside. Some people wear some kind of slippers at the office but mostly it's just socks.
I find wearing shoes for the whole day extremely uncomfortable.
But it's unlikely that you could sue anyone if you step on a tack either.
Yes, almost everyone at my office walks on socks and it's very common elsewhere too. Some guys have flip flops. It's basically everywhere indoors here, if you get invited to someone's home, you leave your shoes at the door and go with socks.
It's not the same for suit & tie jobs, they usually wear shoes. Or if there's a more formal party at someone's house.
My step-father wouldn't let me grow my hair out long in the early 90s in preparation for the QUOTE/UNQUOTE real world. Of course, I grew up to write code for a living where I've worked with guys with dreadlocks, full sleeves, long beards, piercings, and -- perhaps worst of all -- guys who wear flip flops.
We also talked a lot about how I'd never have a boss who'd tolerate lateness. Cut to 20 years later: my co-workers saunter into the office at varying times, when they come in at all.
The world really has changed right from under the generation before mine. My father thought he was preparing me for a good life.
That part about tattoos strikes me as very odd. I live in Australia and have both of my arms fairly covered in tattoos, no job I've ever had has asked me to cover them, even as a travel agent.
I'm almost 40. It used to be visible tattoos and piercings meant you were unemployable in most "mainstream" jobs. Same with odd colored hair or other unconventional appearance. I remember the "rule of thumb" was it was ok to get tattoos on your sleeves because you could always cover them up for work.
Tattoos are mainstream now so not so they are much more accepted at the workplace now. I remember I was really surprised the first time I saw someone with a facial piercing working a customer service job, it was at CVS.
Growing up in Texas it seemed like most C-level people had at least one tattoo. A lot of them were vets so they would typically be eagles or flags.
I have a theory that the mainstreaming of tattoos comes from the greatest generation. They were the generation who fought the Nazis and came back with markings showing their loyalty to their country and the people they served with.
I am the same age as you. I don't remember any boomer parents with tattoos. I wonder if our kids and grandkids will keep getting tattoos or if it will fall out of fashion
Now the stigma is pretty much gone and tattoos are basically ubiquitous. I'd imagine future generations won't find getting a tattoo to be as exciting. I suspect the fickle Instagram generation will be much more into temporary tattoos.
That's because it isn't true anywhere in American tech. Maybe in some lower level service jobs but you'd usually just be discriminated against before getting the job if management didn't like the tats.
Speaking from my previous consulting career (not my current one, which works exclusively with startups that don't care about this stuff):
Dress code varied --- rarely, but it did --- but rules about tattoos and facial hair did not. No client cared about ink or hair, even when they really wanted people wearing jackets and ties. The companies that cared about this stuff were all east coast financial, but mostly not Manhattan.
> it seems like the East Coast and Midwest are slightly more strict in wanting people to dress business casual, and be clean-shaven
I'm 33, in the Atlanta area, and I've never even heard of a company with a policy against beards. I'd estimate somewhere close to half of the men here under 40 have beards.
I work for a startup in Silicon Valley (hiring devs btw). I work from home most days because the drive from Los Gatos to Menlo Park is a nightmare. Tee and jeans are the normal dress code or track suites if you are one of our Easten European coders. ;) I go to Asia a lot on business. I am sit in Tokyo right now, in a suite and tie. I have a closet full. Only place I have to wear them - NYC, London and Tokyo. Oh well. Bespoke of course ;)
The subway sucks in a suite in the summer in Tokyo. Also they have a mandate to reduce energy hardcore after the earthquake so the AC is set at 28C the offices.
"28c in the offices in a rich industrialized country? I wonder how much productivity they loose because of that."
A lot. The 28-degree "standard" has in fact been in place since 2005, when introduced by now-Tokyo governor Yuriko Koike who spent her younger years in Egypt, and has spread from government offices to almost the entire nation. In winter there is no corresponding artificially-low indoor temperature; if anything, they tend to keep it at 25-26 or more.
Total victory for the warm-blooded lizards and total misery for us hairy folk.
if it's 35-40 outside you don't wanna collapse when you step outside, just because inside office you had 20-21, which actually means free degrees less since temperature sensor is usually on unit at ceiling with hot air
My countersource is that I didn't get used to it at all (several years) and seemingly neither of my co workers have either. The days when AC is off in the office, well it's pretty much empty.
I agree. I am here for a week a month for about the last 10 years. I think it would be possiable to get used to it if you did not have to wear a suite and tie!
I work for a company with a strict and specific dress code - ties and slacks for men, leather shoes, etc. I think there is a huge opportunity cost to this dress code, and we lose a lot of potential good talent.
I was asked when interviewing (in a very serious tone) whether I could handle the dress code. It seemed obvious that they were aware it was a sticking point in recruiting.
It's not that a shirt and tie is uncomfortable, it's that a t-shirt IS comfortable. If I can pick between two jobs where I sit at a desk all day in front of a keyboard, and only one requires a button-down shirt and a tie, the tie job can suck it.
Why would I volunteer for that? Additionally, I think in terms of tech jobs, especially in California, you'd actually have to go looking for a place that makes you wear a tie.
I don't think I've interviewed anywhere in my adult life that had a dress code other than 'you have to wear some kind of pants in the office'.
I once worked for a big company that had no formal dress code at all. I asked my manager about that, and he said the issue was dealt with case by case when someone complained about someone else's attire.
The only time I can remember it being an issue was when one guy wanted to go barefoot at work. The eventual decision was that going barefoot was out, but flip-flops were acceptable.
I turned down a job at an old-school firm because of its strict dress code. This is in New York, where decent to great jobs in fun/casual environments are a dime a dozen.
I also wasn't about to drop $500 to buy formal office attire I would never wear outside of the 8-5. Also, requiring non-client facing devs to be in a 8am!? Ridiculous, and I'm a morning person!
One perspective in the article was about productivity and some belief that professional business attire had fewer distractions, so in theory helped productivity.
After working 20 years in a large corporate environment where you could and I did accidentally literally brush shoulders in the hallway with a Fortune 500 executive this is utter nonsense. There are so many opportunities in a large company to improve productivity that people's attire would be near the bottom of that list.
I like working more in a startup culture where there is less ceremonial BS and more focus on delivering value.
I think a big factor with Americans dressing so casually is that how you dress is no longer a representation of your status in society.
"I think a big factor with Americans dressing so casually is that how you dress is no longer a representation of your status in society."
As a thought experiment this might be happening with car ownership right now WRT the glowing gaslighting reports about the success of gig economy car services, and in theory there's no reason it won't happen with real estate. "Casual real estate prices" is an interesting meme to contemplate.
In the really old days, people used to say an ounce of gold is what a professionals suit should cost. It still does cost that much today, centuries later, its just professionals don't wear business suits as much anymore LOL. Or perhaps the era of LARPing is ending and non-professionals are no longer wearing professional suits...
I've interviewed and been interviewed countless times in the last decade and maybe once I've worn a full blown suit. I don't have a problem with them, but I don't want to look like an asshole when everyone else is running around in hoodies and jeans.
I usually just step it up a notch from whatever the regular office attire is there (either by asking my point of contact or having known the office). If it's full SV/hobo style I'll do a polo and nice jeans. Business casual and I'll wear a nicer shirt and some khakis. If I really have no clue I'll go slacks and a dress shirt.
In my own office (we're all remote) I still wear jeans and a polo most days. Usually just out of sheer laziness.
Haven't worn a suit for an interview in decades. Last interviews, I wore a jacket and tie. I knew I'd be overdressing and certainly didn't need to. But it generally doesn't hurt to signal that you're taking the process seriously.
I've interviewed plenty of folks in the years since and they do pretty much the same. I'm not going to dock people because they approach an interview formally.
The only suit I've ever bought was for a funeral - and I question the logic in that (a rant for another day). Ive had about a dozen interviews over the years from small to very well known companies and I've always just put on jeans and a t-shirt, sometimes a jumper if cold. The only time I did not get a job offer was for a large travel firm in deeside, north wales. They interviewer asked why I thought it was appropriate to turn up to the interview in a t-shirt, my answer was kind of long and opinionated, as the two numpties sat there suited and booted talking about how awesome their company was. Needless to say that was one job I didnt get an offer for, however given that the interviewers were asking questions they didn't understand (e.g. how strings are managed in the CLR) I didn't lose any sleep. I later found out from others it was a shit place to work anyway.
I once interviewed for a job with a "hands on" recruiter clueless about tech culture who insisted I suit up. I overdressed and was interviewed by a VP of engineering who wore ragged cutoff shorts.
Everybody's talking about social norms and signalling, but there's still one objective thing about clothing - climate and health. How could a person in a suit survive in 30+ degrees Celsius? I just can't imagining wearing anything else than shorts and T-shirts in the summer that wouldn't give me a heat stroke or some other heat and sweat-related nastiness.
You can get specially made summer suits made out of light and breathable material like linen. Obviously you wouldn't wear a whole 3 piece suit in the middle of a 40 degree summer day.
But the reality is that if you need to wear a suit to work, you're not working outdoors in the heat, you're working indoors in air conditioned comfort.
If you're familiar with the black and white movie "To kill a mockingbird" the dad/lawyer wore a seersucker suit. Its hard to explain verbally, its like silk-thin corduroy. And how to explain corduroy fabric to someone not a child of the 70s.. um...
Lets just stick with seersucker is like 3-d silk but its actually very fine cotton. Its about as thin of a fabric as you can make that's not translucent.
Also traditional "real" seersucker suits were unlined although "fake" modern seersucker suits are lined.
Fitting a seersucker suit is non-trivial if done right because too tight and you'll roast and too baggy looks bad but there's this magic size where you get maximal cooling while still looking awesome. Being a cotton its so "fun" to deal with the shrinkage.
Its also not fun for the tailor/mfgr because they put a lot of work into faking thickness in the lapels. Here you are wearing something lighter than a polo shirt in total, but the lapels will be cut to appear 1/8 inch thick. Again, this was "real" seersucker and modern "fake" seersucker might be pretty warm without air conditioning.
It feels like wearing summer weight pajamas, its actually very comfortable while being stylish.
Also digital video/photo algorithms famously don't work well with the higher contrast seersucker colors.
No joke, I didn't want to become a software engineer when I was young because I saw pictures in books (published in the 60s -- I was reading them in the 80s) of programmers, and they looked like stodgy boring dorks. If I had seen that SV survival guide, the entire course of my life would have been different.
It's funny because for a long time I would wear casual dress down clothing to my jobs and be cool with that. However now that my company has a no jeans policy I will wear a full suit, tie, shoes getup and I really enjoy it. I've amassed a good sized collection of high end suits and just really enjoy wearing them. Obviously though I really love fashion.
I have strong opinions on this topic from a differing set of influences.
In unranked order:
0. From a part of the US where how you dress a metric for how earnestly your intentions are; be it prayer, asking for a date, or (as mentioned above) interviewing for a job.
1. Military influences: Dad in Navy; lived and visited a big base quite often, knew many veterans (see 2, below). Uniforms in that context subsumed the above (0, above), and added how, for the military services (poster-children for "highly ordered & massively scaled"!) , uniforms matched their operations to a tee.
2. I worked for an airline for a decade-plus and got deep into air transport operations. From the day I was hired, until I resigned, I experienced or witnessed all the different ways uniforms rocked, with one or two counter-cases where the letter of the law was, let's say, liberally interpreted <frown>. Yet, overall, in real-world use, uniforms were clearly advantageous and I got the hang of it in no time.
3. I hope I'm not alone in this, but for me, donning a nice, fresh, crisp uniform - whatever style it might be - makes me feel more assured, more vigorous, more ... "I got this" 'tude than if I just wear whatever. (See 'Interview' block below.)
As for day-to-day, on-the-job; it's just fun to mix it up (time & laundry permitting).
Today was a blazer with a bow tie (MaxAccountantMode, heh), but to wear any tie is rare; maybe a blazer or sportcoat twice a week, at most, with the daily usual being a collared knit shirt (as made famous by Izod (!)) and intact darker dyed jeans, or industrial hiking khakis( which are my new favorites).
Finally: interviews. I wear a dark suit, shined shoes, pressed shirt (often new), proper socks, proper tie that's properly knotted. OMG ... I probably look like a salesman <see above>. But my batting average is pretty good, so I'm not sure I should change the recipe.
"3. I hope I'm not alone in this, but for me, donning a nice, fresh, crisp uniform - whatever style it might be - makes me feel more assured, more vigorous, more ... "I got this" 'tude than if I just wear whatever. (See 'Interview' block below.)"
I have often thought that one of the hidden motives behind the recent trend of making casual dress near-mandatory is to prevent rank-and-file employees from feeling this sense of self-confidence and the unconscious additional respect they would get from people around them when they dress with some formality.
I know I felt it the first time I had a professional job interview when in college; the people around me looked at me and spoke to me in a slightly more respectful way than they would have if I had been wearing typical college-boy casual.
I wouldn't agree. First to tackle the colour part, having a tie in a nice color offers a great accent to the larger canvas which allows you to use bolder colours then when applying it to the entire shirt.
And for the practicality I find myself half freezing to death this time a year when I walk to work without a tie (around 45°F/8°C with brisk winds). Having a tie efficiently blocks the wind from entering the chest area through the button seams and around the neck without requiring me to bring a bulky scarf (which is very unpleasant in the afternoon when temperatures have risen to about 70°F/21°C.
All the jackets I've ever had have a zipper in front. You zip them up, and wind doesn't get in. It's far more protection than a silly little piece of silk cloth tied around your neck.
We've banned this account for continuing to engage in personal attacks after we've asked you many times to stop. If you'd like the account to be unbanned, please email us at hn@ycombinator.com.
I've had the misfortune of working under French management twice. Once because I was young and dumb, and once because my employer's company was sold to a French competitor. In both cases things were horrible, and I've heard similar (or worse) stories from other devs under French management.
It mostly boils down to maddening bureaucracy.
Pointless meetings (when everything is decided in the hallways before the meeting starts, why have a meeting?).
An utterly bizarre obsession with certification over competence. You have a degree from this uni? You're hired! Even if you're as useless as they come. You're very skilled but don't have a degree from their favourite uni? Need not apply.
Simulating work is more important than working. You must be present from 9 to 5 at all cost.
Want something trivial done? Be prepared to submit it in writing (hard copy!) to management. You can expect a reply in about a month.
I've worked with two french (really great guys!) that shared the same sentiment.
9-5 at all cost, looking busy was adamant compared to completing actual work. 2 hour lunches...
They would probably never work in their home country again. There are probably exceptions, but they both worked for big banks in Paris (not the same).
I interned at the French consulate one summer in college...
The bureocracy was madness, I'll tell you that. I think I got one single project completed in three months because of all the hoops and faxes and signatures and approvals required
Others considered the external appearance the manifestation of internal character. That philosophy is bound to overlook technical greatness, but it contributed to centuries of beautiful artwork in the daily objects of common people. Not devoting care to appearances is, perhaps unintentionally, a rejection of art and artistry. We have the opportunity to contribute to our descendents, the same way our ancestors left so many interesting things behind.
I remember 20-odd years ago I was working for UBS the investment bank in the city of London just as "Casual Friday" was becoming a thing.
One Friday I looked out of my office window near Liverpool Street Station and saw about a dozen smartly dressed gents in pinstripe suits with rolled umbrellas and bowler hats holding placards protesting against Casual Friday. I suspect it may well have been a stunt, but it was funny to watch.
I wish we could. My company has a very strict dress code. Suits and ties are recommended, but slacks and a dress shirt and sport coat are the bare minimum. Suits are required on many occasions. And man, let me tell you, I do not look good after schlepping 3/4th of a mile to the train and another 1/5 of a mile to the office in high summer in NYC in a suit. I look like a sweaty, disgusting mess. I basically just work from home during the summer except for when I really have to go into the office.
Where I'm at (NASA), there is a broad spectrum of dress formality. Generally I do the typical polo shirt and khaki or jeans. When giving a local presentation or low-level sight visit, business casual. When going to a conference or getting a visit from HQ/congress/president's staff, business suit.
I notice more academics having the same approach as well. I dress to match expectations, but generally I'm past the point where visually impressing someone would impact my upward mobility.
The office I work at right now is an old oil and gas company and up until a year ago women had to wear pantyhose. When they started the new internal development department they found out that they had to slightly relax the standards to hire people. We can now wear nice jeans, a shirt with buttons, and dress shoes. Yes, the manager still encourages everyone to wear tires, though it's no longer required.
This has something to do with organizations being flat.
In a monolithic top-down hierarchical organization, employees are expected to conform. So attire rules reflects the culture where management and top-down decision making is common.
In a flat organization, decentralized decision making happens more often. So the culture might shift towards encouraging individual differences and more freedom in work style, including casual attire.
At one company I interviewed the director of development was wearing bermuda shorts, flip flops and a worn out T shirt. As I looked around, most all employees were in shorts. All work in a common area.
When I started working I had my own private office and wore a shirt and tie at least. Fridays were "casual" - no tie. I liked it better like that.
I work in a 4 man software team in a small company where the dress code is as long as it doesn't get you arrested it's cool. I just wear jeans, t shirt and flipflops. A lot of people wear shorts and shirts with curse words. Anything goes.
It is a music company though so that probably has a lot to do with it.
This is an opinion that may trigger some people on HN. Don't take it personally, it's not an attack.
I like dressing up for work, because it shows you care about what you're doing. Nowadays, it seems every silicon valley company tests in production (Facebook, Google Docs, Even some parts of Android) because they just don't care about quality or user experience.
I miss the days of getting a release ready and patched, having very high confidence we worked the bugs out of everything before shipping it to the customer, with a list of features we added or things we fixed. It built up a lot of excitement too, customers would anticipate and ask for updates, eager to deploy them or test them out.
Maybe it's the background I worked in (it's been medical software or insurance claims processing)... so it actually matters if things work correctly the first time.
Is it about self-expression now? I think if people take that to heart its great.
Are actual colors coming back? Black seems to be as popular as ever. Most people don't want to stand out, at work or anywhere else, but fashion is generally so drab, I have always thought there would be a flower-like backlash of color that became popular eventually. Then you would only stand out if you were too dull.
My experience is that dressing in black does stand out. Most everyday people wear colors, even in New York, so it's much more striking to wear all black/monochrome - especially if you get interesting streetwear-y pieces. Or go full Rick Owens.
Is it about self-expression now? I think if people take that to heart its great.
Not really. In software we have a de facto range of attire from jeans and t-shirts to khakis and sport shirts. We're a pretty conformist bunch. I expect the range of choices is about as broad as our parents had a generation ago, through the center has moved way way casual-ward.
I've discovered in the past few years that I really like jewel-tone button-down shirts, long- or short-sleeve. It is really surprising how hard it is to find button-downs in colors that are neither drab nor pastel. I just want nice vivid reds, blues, purples.
Everything is relative I guess. Compared to Norwegian workplace Americans are usually very dressed up even in the tech industry. In our case it had nothing to do with tech industry norms or trying to be efficient. Actually I am highly sceptical to the premise of the article. I think it is wrong. The Bay Area was full of hippies. I'd rather say it was the political movement against conservatism which killed the company dresscode. That would be a more fitting description of what happened in Norway. It was political radicalism among the young in the early 70s. Silicon valley was full of young people heavily indpired by this movement. Just read Steve Jobs biography ;-)
I dress up for work. I am one of the better dressed people at my work. I wear a coloured shirt, smart jeans, brown dress shoes (brogues) and a sports jacket. Yes, for my workplace, this is "up". I wish I could wear a suit and white shirt to work, but a general rule of thumb is only to dress one notch higher than the median.
I used to wear the same as everyone else (shorts and t-shirt), but I really enjoy the separation between work and home that nice clothes bring. When I get home I remove my shirt and hang it up. I put my shoe trees in my shoes. On the weekend I dress casually. It feels good. If you always dress casually then you never dress casually.
On Sundays I polish my shoes to a mirror shine. When my shirts are dirty I wash and iron them carefully. It's a discipline that gives meaning to my life.
I agree, it's a similar effect for me. I like that my dress pants and dress shirts serve to separate work from home.
I view my morning routine, with the special clothes, special shoes, special bag, and even my "special" commuter car (that I don't drive on weekends) as a sort of liturgical practice. I wake up, I shower, I groom, I put the clothes on a certain way, I gather my things in the same order, I get one of only a handful of breakfast options, make coffee, and leave for work. I even kiss my wife and kids in the same order (youngest to oldest, oldest of course being my wife).
This seems boring and repetitive to a lot of people, but it's actually incredibly freeing for me. Because it is all so routine, I usually spend my mornings thinking about the book I was reading the night before, or the news, or some other topic. I don't have to pay attention to what I am doing because it just happens without "me" really being part of it. It allows me to focus on ideas that matter to me instead of menial activities.
For me, this liturgy would be interrupted without those special clothes and special shoes. I would likely find myself making choices and decisions I really don't have a desire to make.
In contrast to this, my mornings are a total chaos: kids. They obey rules if they arr funny. So I have to be funny, which means I just can't be that rigid.
So we just have fun every morning, which makes my work time also pleasant and light. An of course, very casual.
EDIT: I did not said that the person is autistic. Just the way it feels. There is a fine distinction. Of course there is nothing wrong with a structured life and such a person is perfectly healthy. Just to be fair, changed the word.
Based on your comments and edit, it sounds like you genuinely weren't trying to be offensive.
What I'd say is that we're all driven by habit more than we realize. It sounds like the parent poster has cultivated a habit that's healthy and productive for them. They actually enjoy it and it brings a positive structure to their life.
Someone who dresses down every day is also guided by a habit. It may be deliberate, or it may not be. I'm not being judgemental - I happen to mostly wear t shirts and jeans these days, though ones I really enjoy.
Finding a habit that makes your life better can be freeing. It automates something you have to do every day anyway, and the alternative of making a choice every day to do something unique could actually be a negative - it burns up valuable mental resources that culminate in decision making fatigue, which can really mess with your willpower by the end of the day.
In a sense we all rigidly follow habits, or a script. But mindfully shaping them can be a powerful tool.
Thanks for pointing me this out, I have a circle of people who regularly use this adjective to describe this kind of strange, never changing, routine type of activity.
I will very occasionally (every few months) wear a shirt and tie to work. Almost without fail, I get pulled into a manager's office after lunch asking me if I'm interviewing and looking to leave.
How about just wearing your normal work cloths to the interview? Places that will ping you for not wearing a suit probably haven't made the best hiring decisions in the past.
I am the polar opposite of you, apparently. I work from home, and there's no guarantee I'll even be wearing a shirt on any particular day (provided it's warm enough). I enjoy the bleed over of work and home life -- I work all the time anyway and enjoy my work, so being at home just allows me to create a work life balance that works for me.
When I'm not doing work for my job, I'm doing work for side projects, non-profits I volunteer for, local activism, or work in my garden or on the fixer upper next door my partner and I own. I dress much the same every day -- casually as appropriate for the weather. In the winter that means corduroys, flannel shirts, and several wool sweaters. In the summer it means as little as possible - no shirt and thai fisherman pants are not uncommon. I'll put on a shirt if I have to jump on video.
This life style works really well for me. I've been at it for 5 years now and I really love it. And I'm very productive. To each their own shrug.
Nope. I don't really own any formal wear and I've always kind of hated it. I don't think I would get a similar placebo effect to you, because I have very different associations with it. I think, for me, it would be uncomfortable, awkward, and distracting. That's how I felt about it the one job I did have to dress up for (and my coworkers gave me crap for just how barely dressed up I was... just barely inside the lines of the dress code).
Sometimes I'll go to a coworking space or a cafe when I need that sort of kick in the butt change of environment. But for the most part, I need as comfortable and familiar an environment as possible in order to get in the zone.
More than 5 minutes a day thought on clothing and what others wear show that one has idle time to spare- and can not use that for something really productive.
It might be different for sales, but for problem-solving, stability and familiarity in the environment (clothing) are most important.
I know what you mean by a 'notch' of dress level, but it's surprising that such a discretization exists. Why are there discrete, generally agreed notches for a multi-dimensional continuous quantity? Humans seem to do this for many things, like phonemes and colors and times of day. Do we avoid clothing halfway between notches, like jorts or terry-cloth tuxedos, for the same reason we avoid uttering phonemes on the boundary between two adjacent ones in our native language?
Another thing I noticed in when working in London in the early 2000's when a lot of people where still required to wear suits to work. A lot of people are perfectly capable of wearing a suit and tie and still look like a complete and utter slob.
This is the way I look at it too. I have recently lost a fair amount of weight, and I can now find clothes that fit with relative ease. I'll be the first to admit I clean up pretty well. It is honestly enjoyable now, and I am glad I have never had to dress up for work or I would hate it.
To be fair, back in the days when everyone wore a suit to work, the suit was not considered formalwear. (It is called a lounge suit, after all.) It was much more common to wear semi-formal attire like a tuxedo to a fancy event.
> but I really enjoy the separation between work and home that nice clothes bring.
Holy cow, I follow exactly that principle but never realized it until you put it into words. My office is super casual, but I'm always wearing at least neat jeans and usually a button-down shirt. It feels right even though it's not necessary -- and you finally put my finger on why, that dressing up for work creates separation and room to dress down when not at work.
I do the same sort of outfit. I used to wear a t-shirt everyday, but I prefer a nice, tucked in button up now. Paired with some nice leather shoes (usually loafers in my case), I like being a little more dressed up than down.
I go back to my casual look on the weekend, but I'm glad I started dressing up a bit more.
I'm just one of these people for whom clothes have no effect on my mood. Whether I'm wearing casual clothes or a beautiful dress, I don't feel much different. It seems, to me, a little dangerous to allow your dress to dictate your mood so much.
Dangerous? I wouldn't say it's dangerous. Fashion is like art or music. It's an expression of who you are. I would argue that vanity is such a large part of humanity that, to others, it IS who you are - or at least who you are perceived as.
If allowing fashion to be a reflection of yourself is dangerous then I would argue that the music you listen to while coding, the background on your desktop, and the decorations on your desk are also dangerous.
Of course, if you're Mr. Spock or Mark Zuckerberg, maybe these are all inefficiencies in your life and you've successfully minimal-ized your life into an exact replica of an IKEA catalog.
Even if you've 'minimal-ized' your life to that extent you have still made specific choices in your fashion/aesthetic that are reflective of yourself.
The specific types of sweatshirts/T-shirts you haven't removed from your closet. The specific keyboard and how you position it on your otherwise bare desk.
It may be minimal, but it's still just as much an expression of who the designer is regardless of their intentions.
i think that if someone makes you dress a certain way, it's going to be tough to enjoy it. if you do it on your own, as a passion or just to differentiate yourself from others, it can be fun and even relieve stress.
Intrinsic motivation, 100%. Basically the internal reward you get from dressing for the situation is the driver, rather than the external drivers, rewards, punishments, that drive extrinsically motivated types.
"Smart Jeans have sensors to monitor the movement of your legs to accurately detect steps, removing any chance of false positive burned calories, helping people loose weight. Join the fitness revolution today."
I agree, but let's say why we are doing it; we want to look better than the rest.
There's nothing wrong with it. These days it just might backfire though. "Hay--what's fancy boy trying to hide? Ability?"
I got used to dressing for work, and occasions. I still tuck my shirts in. I would never wear a hoodie to work, or even cringe saying hoodie.
I always refused to wear the noose for men--the Tie.
I wish that adornment was relegated to The Smithsonian.
Never saw the need. It was always in my way. Never liked the feeling of them around my neck. Plus--I'm color blind, so matching always enticed small talk, "That's a in--teresting
Tie?"
I am so glad the younger generation toned down the business garb. I got to hand it to Zuckerburg. Keep those tees, and jeans. I hope he's 80, and still dressing down.
I'm at the point now, where I question the ability of the fashion plate at work. And that goes for both genders.
I went to two different Catholic schools, and it sounds like getting off easy to me.
Amazing what it does for your grades to have a dorm prefect recognize that you're smart but lazy, and encourage improved diligence by combination of a razor strop, on the one hand, and access to his extremely well stocked personal PC/ham radio lab, on the other. I owe that man a great deal.
Holy smokes, I agree. Pain is unavoidable, but trauma (emotional suffering) is calibrated to cultural expectations.
Not to lionize enduring abuse as a badge of honor, but I grew up in the rural American South several decades ago. School paddlings were common in my religious school, as were mouth-washing with soap (for cursing), and forced prayer.
Aside from giving me a distaste for authority and organized religion, I wouldn't regard these things as traumatic.
My Polish friend grew up putting bread-bags in his disintegrating shoes, so that his feet wouldn't freeze. My Salvadoran friend's father was basically scalped alive by drug dealers because he wouldn't serve them in his restaurant.
The upper end of the trauma scale goes far beyond dog biscuits.
My kindergarten in Russia served us omelettes, once. Awful, horrendous omelettes. And they made me sit there until I finished it, or until the school day was over.
I sat there until the school day was over.
To this very day, despite having had some tasty ones, I still have an aversion to omelettes. Even the name makes me recall the gross taste.
So, that's some light trauma, I guess. But it's just a shitty-tasting omelette, same as a shitty-tasting dog biscuit. It's not fucking child abuse.
You've got a point. Whether or not it was appropriate to treat you that way (I'd say it wasn't), there are millions and millions of people who face the situation of eating something that tastes awful... or not eating at all.
A little bit of hardship builds character, but it can be a fine line between "good" hardship and abusive hardship.
Society has swung too far in the lenient direction and we have a generation (or two) of entitled snowflakes who often can't deal with the simplest aspects of life.
1) Humiliating a child is trauma. HN can disagree all they want, but HN is wrong. It is trauma. Trauma in children have physical effects. Their brains develop differently. This is proven. Emotional trauma is one of the most impactful forms of trauma, but also one of the least ... recognized (for lack of a better word).
2) Being overly lenient on your child or giving everyone a trophy or just not discussing with your child that sometimes you're gonna lose or fail is setting them up for a very hard life and this parental behavior is wrong. When they become adults they don't have the tools to understand how to handle failure. This can lead to all sorts of psychological issues.
> Society has swung too far in the lenient direction and we have a generation (or two) of entitled snowflakes who often can't deal with the simplest aspects of life.
I call bullshit.
You're generalizing a whole generation, a generation that's growing up during a time of rapid change and upheaval. I could easily counter that Baby Boomers are the snowflakes who grew up coddled, but I actually don't think this is the simple truth, either.
Just because it's easy to share stories online of people who need Safe Spaces from their professors giving them a B+ doesn't mean the whole generation is emotionally crippled because their parents didn't give them enough chores to do.
I mean, I grew up in Soviet Russia. My other fun childhood memories include dental work without anaesthesia, a dentist ripping two teeth out with a pair of pliers, my dad falling asleep drunk on the subway and my mom pretending not to know who he is, my friend almost getting crushed to death by a collapsing fence, etc.
But overall, being forced to eat something you don't want to eat is a normal part of growing up - kids are fickle and don't realize that some things gotta be done because they're good for you.
Being forced to eat dog biscuits is obviously all-punishment-and-no-broccoli, and serving me a shitty omelette was clearly memorable enough to turn me off of them for life, but if I were to make a things I'd work on to improve myself, dealing with the psychological trauma of poorly cooked eggs is waaay down on the list by any objective measure.
I hear what you're saying, and I appreciate the concern, but I seem to have come out of it okay, all things considered. I'm a happy, functioning adult with a job, a family, and two cats.
How far do we dig? You basically suggested I get therapy because I don't like omelettes. I later on admitted a lot of stuff that would probably adversely affect people, but I seem to be coping with it fine. Do we recommend that everyone undergo therapy because they had to eat broccoli? Because a dog bit them? Because they didn't get that pony for their birthday?
We're human beings with human being brains that can cope pretty decently with varying levels of unhappiness, and get through it.
If your dad beat you with an electrical cable, please get therapy. If your dad made you mow the lawn in 95 degree weather, then you might need therapy to cope for it - depending on your individual mental state - but it's not an absolute indicator that you're suffering and need medical assistance.
ConceptJunkie pointed out about society swinging in a lenient direction. I don't think I agree with him specifically, but I do agree that some people can overcorrect and see abuse where there isn't none, and think someone needs help when they might not.
I didn't mean to suggest you get therapy. I am not suggesting you are personally damaged in some way that you need help with.
I did suggest that you learn about developmental trauma because I think it's empowering to understand in a deeper way how we are affected by our experiences, and how others are by theirs.
Just because we are fine and don't need therapy doesn't mean we can't benefit from more understanding.
> We're human beings with human being brains that can cope pretty decently with varying levels of unhappiness, and get through it.
Children who are subjected to trauma, their brains develop differently! This isn't a coping mechanism of the brain! It just plain doesn't develop correctly.
Simply calling students out for bad behavior is not usually a problem (though it can be in multicultural settings). Bringing them to the front of the room to humiliate them is another matter entirely. It denigrates them in the eyes of their classmates and sets them up for bullying by their peers by modeling that behavior.
"Because of Tim here's behavior, none of you will get recess. Now I'm going to take a bathroom break, and you think about that, Tim."
Doubtlessly effective, but is a culture of collective punishment, where we all beat the shit out of Tim for the next 15 minutes, really something you want to inculcate?
Where did I advocate collective punishment? That is, as you say, terrible.
To be clear, I find nothing wrong with Tim himself not getting recess. Individual punishment doesn't necessarily entail humiliation (which I think is the inference you're making).
Humiliation isn't collective punishment, but it shares the same mechanism of action: Have the rest of the class gang up on this one miscreant, and it will be more effective than anything the teacher is allowed to do privately as punishment. Children are feeling out a malleable sense of ethics and a somewhat delicate sense of self-worth; Bullying is common enough without any kind of institutional support, and anything that directs them down this path, even gently, is pretty dark. We are biologically programmed by natural selection to see rejection by our peer-group as a life and death matter.
See my other comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14410788 There are many ways to punish children – taking away privileges is a good example – without denigrating them in front of their peers. (And even before reaching that point, talking with students who are acting out to understand what is causing them to do so often yields great results. But that's beside the point that humiliation is unnecessary.)
(Aside, consistently rewarding good behavior is not a great way to modify behavior either, as behavior reverts shortly after rewards stop. Inconsistent rewards are better; encouraging self-motivation is best.)
Some of those children acting out are doing so due to other trauma in their life. So, your suggestion of talking to them is a great one.
Offering up choices is good. "You cannot have another yogurt, but you can either read a book or go play outside." Children need to have some control over their lives and when they feel they don't have it, they act up.
Public humiliation by an authority figure is traumatic. It's a form of punishment specifically prohibited by most schools I've taught at.
Not to mention if I had a child and someone force fed him anything I'd be filing charges.
Privileged childhood? Nah, I was subjected to public humiliation a few times too. Though I was lucky to have a mother who both recognized the injustice in such and knew what strings to pull to get those responsible held accountable.
If this level of public humiliation is what's making you say you didn't have a privileged childhood, you had an incredibly privileged childhood. I can't imagine how traumatic it was for people to be gasp held accountable for their actions.
What weird world do you live in that "eating a dog biscuit" is "being held accountable" for one's actions?
Imagine you fucked up at your job; brought down the production server or something. And at the next team meeting, your boss brings out a dog bowl with moist dog food in it and tells you to get on the ground and eat it. And if you don't, you'll get demoted.
That's fucked up, right? No different than forcing a kid to eat a dog biscuit because he chatted too much.
Modern disciplinary theory promotes the idea of "natural consequences". If someone were chatty in my classroom, the natural consequence is to separate them from whomever they're chatting. It's both a punishment (can't sit near friends any longer) and solves the problem (not near those kid wants to chat to). Alternatively, if the kid just speaks out a lot and ignores material, start asking them to recap for the class what we just went over. Again, both a punishment (has to do extra work) and solves the problem (forces better attention, redirects attention-seeking behavior). No humiliation needed beyond simply getting called out by the teacher for the disruption – again, a natural consequence.
Public humiliation is especially insidious in multicultural classrooms. While western students may take public humiliation in stride (as me and my co-conspirators did), students from some backgrounds (e.g. east Asian) take public humiliation, especially from an authority figure, extremely harshly, making such disciplinary actions a very poor idea.
We live in a civilized society with lots of behavioral research. No need to resort to arbitrary public humiliation to enforce discipline.
Except that you intentionally changed a lot of details to make it seem even less pleasant? So yeah, it would seem that even in your mind it's different. I'm all for NOT doing this in a classroom. I'm not saying it's remotely a good idea, or appropriate. Although I'd also wager that the overwhlmling majority of the research you refer to has been published after the incident took place. I got physically beaten in school, and that also doesn't happen. But that and this are pretty low on the scale to be considered abuse and trauma. Another comment even said that the dog biscuit has nothing to do with it being abuse, but that it's the humiliation aspect. If being called to the front of the class for being too chatty is traumatic abuse, you are in for some serious problem in life and you need to get that settled sooner rather than later. If you consider this abuse, more serious abuse will be taken even less seriously by even more people. If you were made to eat a biscuit and are haunted by the horrific memory, you need to get over it and focus a lot more on what other people are going through.
But can't we separate between something being really stupid and - IMO - a fireable offense if repeated (like a teacher giving kids dog biscuits) and childhood trauma?
Or am I misunderstanding and there is some stronger word that I'm not aware of for getting beaten up, forgotten, abused etc?
Otherwise I feel we are mixing basically privileged kids like
1.) myself (poor parents, no tv, mostly didn't get to play football with the boys at my age until I was approaching teenage)
with kids who
2.) has been beaten or otherwise abused, suffered food deprivation either as punishment or because no food was available etc.
While I sometimes foolishly could wish I was accepted in childhood I really don't want to pretend I suffered a lot.
I think we're arguing over the definition of a broad term – "trauma". What's emotionally traumatic (causing psychological injury or great distress, per Wiktionary) to one student can be a chance for fun for another (as the OP pointed out, he had fun with the dog biscuits, good for him). It varies by culture too.
But I think everyone here can remember a time they were forced to do something humiliating by one's peers. That's a basic form of bullying, which studies have shown has lasting effects into adulthood. [1] Great distress + psychological injury = emotional trauma. ("Great" and "injury" are again broad terms so we could keep going here…)
Being forced to do something humiliating by an authority figure – even as a punishment – is not really much different from being forced by a peer. It's arguably worse, since the authority figure models to the child's peers that humiliating this child is OK. It's not really excusable when there are plenty of other disciplinary options available. (Certainly I've never taught at or attended a school that found it necessary to keep a supply of dog biscuits at hand.)
Yes, being beaten or denied food are much worse – the stronger word I would use there is "child abuse". Doesn't mean that denigration by an authority figure isn't traumatic.
The only not accountable person was that teacher. These disciplinary keeps are direct result of adult being able to do what he/she please without any supervision or control.
It is pretty awful role modelling too. I do not want my children to grow up and abuse power like that - no matter what job they will have.
As the greatest story of childhood ever shows us, the most important aspects of childhood are terror and humiliation.
In all seriousness, people who had a little hardship when young are much better equipped to handle real hardship when it comes along. And even if real hardship never comes along, they are better equipped to sacrifice to improve themselves. We've made a huge mistake in making it too easy on our kids, and I'm saying this as a parent who's done the same thing, to a large extent.
That is not entirely truth. Bullied kids often become bullies as they grow older and stronger. When people with authority abuse the authority, the kids are likely to mimic it once they grow. It does matter where the hardship comes from and whether kid understands it.
Also, generations that grew up during bad times (like war) had higher criminality rates then later happier generations. People from bad socioeconomic situation had worst results then spoiled middle class kids. While you are not serving your children well by spoiling them, too much hardship has worst statistically measurable consequences.
Yet also, I remember some humiliating experiences that ended with me not willing to try activity that lead to experience - ever. Or at least not when someone is looking.
After some Googling on the term "Adverse Childhood Experiences", I found this list: Physical abuse, Sexual abuse, Emotional abuse, Physical neglect, Emotional neglect, Mother treated violently, Substance misuse within household, Household mental illness, Parental separation or divorce, Incarcerated household member.
Still can't find much about how humiliating it is to be punished for disrupting class, though.
And we're back to the beginning. If you agree with another reply to my original comment that the problem is the humiliation aspect of this and not the force-feeding of a dog biscuit, that is a disappointing and pathetic threshold for abuse. And explains a lot about our current political climate.
I recall a chemistry class where any student caught not wearing their safety goggles would have to sing "the goggles song" in front of the entire class.
o/~
Goggles.
You love your goggles.
They will keep.
Your.
Eyes.
From.
Burning up!
So wear your goggles,
Upon your eyeballs.
If you don't,
You.
Must.
Sing! (+repeat ad nauseam) -OR- Stay out!
o/~
Sometimes the threat of humiliation works as intended.
An "honest question" wouldn't use a loaded phrase like "didn't bother". This is a nasty form of personal attack, and those are not allowed here. Since you followed it up with something even nastier, we've banned this account.
It has been very interesting watching the norms shift over the last almost 40 years. Women and minorities filling the ranks, casual attire, smoking prohibitions (all very good things in my view).
One, funny interesting side story, if you will indulge this old timer. When I was in high school, my father was a budding attorney and of course had to wear a suit, tie and white shirt. My mother was a struggling artist. My father wanted her to wash and iron his shirts to save money and only have to pay for the dry cleaning of the shirts. My mother refused (an early feminist perhaps). They had a huge fight over it. In the end, my Mother relented and agreed to endure the task. However, in classic passive aggressive style, she "accidentally" got a red sock in the wash with the shirts turning them a slight shade of pink. Of course that made them, for that time, unusable ! So he had to toss them. After that he simply had them laundered. Ever since then our family calls this ruse "red-socking-it", which basically means intentionally fucking up to get out of doing something you don't want to do. I think we can all think of times when someone at work "red-socked-it".