[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 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
This has been a personal issue for me for ages. I tend to think that it is turning be
into an object, close to a slave to be forced to wear cetain clothese non-volunarity.
I feel opressed. It is not as bad as saying: "Well your tits are too small shoot them
up amd rich guys will hang around and drop money here..." I know my friends who like
to sneak into hotel pools like like the idea couple on the hotels brouchure. Biker
Steve would seldom be welcome, and thogught as either fat or thereatening.
As a geek I experienced a world much freer of this. Yeah people looked, and the old
hot tub ritual was subtle check out time, and low grad dating and mating, but it was
subtle and polite in my eperience. And then one got to talk to the other people, and
one learned about the person in addittion to their body.And since everyone was
invited, pone saw all sorts of body styles. It wasn't playboy/girlie/guysie picked
beauty.So the big thing was variety.
This relates to my art expeerience.. I once discussed with a special effects artists,
that the solarization and other things. I mentioned thought she and her companion
thought the nude body as presented wasn''t as timeless as stated, the painting on
it.and background screamed mid1-1960s or early 1970s.
A buy at a company held a nude-semi-nude blacklight party. He found nontoxic
flourescent pigments which could be mixed with appplesauce and applied to the body.
It came off rather well and one did not have the 10 guys leering at the girl with the
"big ones". In fact the variability of the human body was common. We don't look like
the Hollywood movies, busty young madiden with hunk with rippling muscles. ANd we got
to talk about what this all meant. It was quite enlightening..
As far as front office appearance I still think it is a false judgement and jumping
to the island of conclusions. To me looser appearance, means I get to talk to people
who know what they are doing, they don't have to hide it. s Still it is done and I
accept it as a sad fact of life. Loose buttons don't make bad code, or incomptence. A
drunken outfit might drop some hints,.
Even the day the receptionist had to run off for the afternoon, and I borrowed her
high heeled shoes. It provoked more interesting questions that yuck. If asked I
explained: "Well why does these women wear these things...." . So people are more
tolearable than thought. It had to be explained it was small informal company.
But I still see dress codes as invasive and degrading. Maybe it is just me. It
reduces me to a set of clothes. As a guy, not closen by me. Any attempt to vary it,
eben with nice Hawaiian Dinner jacket and red pants were objects of ridicule. I FEEL
it is is only a little bit below "why don't you go get your brest englargerd for
women." That is how I feel. I feel there should be a full scale dress code rebellion
day.
I feel there should be a dress code rebellion day, from school children in uniforms
on up. We should paint them, hack them up. Appiquie stickers to them etc. To me it is
a form of opression plain and simple especially when applied to children, who have
little control over things them wear in some cases. I am sorry I just feel very
stongly about this.
As a geek I want to be comfortable and I want people to get out of the way. I try not
be too ourgrageous but I dislike visual fascism in all its forms. But I know Kitty
cat shirts work, suddenly biker Steve is nice person who likes cats.
As far as eroticisa versus pornography well that is a difficult issue, we that could
be discuss later if anyione wants in relation to geekdom. If I ever get the French
journal on aesthetics I will essay a translation on the article the "The difference
between pornoography and erotica is lighting." (pun in fFench: lighting from
lightning ecalair, ie enclairage).
Somethings are not are not what they seem. I saw a Polish Rock Album in it was front
and certer, was a 6 year old girl, amidst all this industrial like equipoment
belching steam, but she was smiling, it was like" Well they built all this stuff, and
put up these fog machines and strange stuff so I could stand in the middle of
it....This is fun..." I'd like to see themse shots like that. As multimedia roars
on, I can see art images if all types becoming more important in all aspects of
computer usgae.
I personally wouldn't but up an image, that I could only show to guys. And I still
don't see what I am missing and I am not trying to argue, flame or be mean. I like
all sorts of images, and I know what female genitalia looks like, so it is silly to
show them at the end of computer shows when almost all the womena are gone it seems
silly.
Have Fun,
Sends Steve
************
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
