Steve Kudlak wrote:
> P.S>. It is a geek issue we dress unlik others. Why do I have to make people in
> personell happy, and why should I care...other than just raw power, and what is
> difference between she got hired for her looks and he for his clothese. OTher
> than one is easier to change...Please someone kindly explain....
<leans back, takes a deep breath>
The issues of appearance and objectification are rather complex. I'll address
them separately - because they are separate. (Which might be what you're
missing).
Neither of these issues are quite the one discussed in the recent
conversations,
however. That will be yet ANOTHER section.
Professional appearance:
* The clothes you choose to wear to a job interview give the interviewer
a quick idea of how professional your attitude is, how much attention
to detail you pay, how reliable you might be. If your clothing is missing
a button or your shoes are unshined, they can (rightly or wrongly) conclude
that your attention to detail is sloppy and you might fail to initialise a
variable or let a program ship incompletely tested.
This is gender and appearance-irrelevent, it's a test of your ability to
_pay attention_ and complete a task well. It can also be a design test -
can you take the raw material (your body) and produce an appealing and
user friendly package (your final grooming).
If you've got a track record in the industry, you can skip this test. My
husband does - he's a known geek and he usually gets jobs through other geeks.
But if you're young and new and unknown, approach the job interview clothing
test as a design thing.
* If you're going to be in a front-office environment, where 'suits' or
other customers will walk in and will see you regularly, they will judge
the entire company on your grooming. It's unfair, it's wrong, but it
HAPPENS. And your prospective boss knows it. So your prospective boss won't
hire you (if you're a front office person) unless your grooming screams
'professional'. Again, this is gender irrelevent.
* If you're directly interacting with 'suits' or customers, your
mannerisms, speech patterns and written communication must also scream
'professional' - or the company will suffer for it. Yet again, gender
irrelevent.
* Everyone knows it's not fair for a company to be judged on an individual
person, but since a company can't exactly take its customers to the Equal
Opportunity Commission, companies will continue to hire staff for customer-
interaction roles who they judge won't freak customers out and send them
running to rival companies.
And can you really blame them? And would you expect to get a long-term job
with a company that didn't?
If you want to dress as-you-feel-comfortable, train for a back-office
position and build a reputation for being incredibly good at it. THEN the
company won't give a damn what you wear as long as you don't scare the
horses.
(Well. Some won't. Some still will.)
Objectification/nudie-pics/hired-for-looks:
First, note that BOTH genders do get objectified, both genders have nudie-pics
taken of them, and both genders get hired for looks. It seems to be more
frequent for women, but it happens to both.
* Objectification is the term for the situation where a person's /self/
is ignored. This is commonly in favour of their body, as in the classic
'nudie pic' - a picture for people to fantasise over and dream about
having that body in bed with them.
* Objectification also happens in other circumstances - sweatshop workshops
are (arguably) objectifying their workers. (This is open for debate, of
course).
* There is, somewhere, a distinction between a 'nudie pic' and artistic
erotica. This is important to note - and it sits somewhere around where
the person in the image is seen as a /person/ and where he (she) is seen
as a /body/.
* When someone is hired solely for their looks, and not for their ability,
it is also objectification.
(When two people of equal ability are available and the _better groomed_
one is hired, it is usually for the reasons stated in the section above -
and not because the hirer is interested in meeting up with the person for
drinks and dinner.)
Recent discussions hinged around:
1. whether it is appropriate to have objectifying and/or erotic images in
places where a person might come across them unaware and/or unwilling.
2. whether objectifying and/or erotic images imply that a community is
unwelcoming of categories of people (minors, women...)
3. whether the people posting these images are aware that there are people
who feel unwelcome where these images are posted.
4. a question someone asked, wanting to know what the problems would be
if he wrote a card-game thing for linux and made it available for
pornographic images to be on the cards.
5. a number of other issues which came up around the topics of
objectification, erotica, and whether and how the linux community is
welcoming to women.
Jenn V.
--
Humans are the only species to feed and house entirely separate species
for no reason other than the pleasure of their company. Why?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Jenn Vesperman http://www.simegen.com/~jenn/
************
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
