On Mon, 10 Apr 2000, srl wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2000, Deirdre Saoirse wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 10 Apr 2000, Susannah Rosenberg wrote:
> >
> > > Not everyone tries to make themselves desirable to those they're
> > > sexually interested in; at least, not consciously.
> >
> > Some of us have made a deliberate point of being OUTSIDE as much of the
> > norms as possible *because* we didn't like the sexist attention. Thus, I
> > don't even think the statement that we optimize for attractiveness is
> > true. (Unless, of course, you consider that I was deliberately trying to
> > alienate the one group....)
>
> *nod* i've found that being "one of the guys"--- wearing jeans or khakis,
> sport shirts (cotton, non-flannel), and boots--- gets me places with
> technical people that I wouldn't get if i dressed more "feminine".
> I've discussed this with my butch acquaintances and they've found the same
> thing.
>
> For some reason, there's a prevailing assumption that feminine =
> non-technical. Either that, or male geeks get along better with people
> like them....
>
I wonder how much of this comes from the "corporate atmosphere" ie. in
dance groups men who are more "feminine" seem to be more respected then
those that are not... perhaps the environment (perhaps shapped by xyz male
syndrom) leads to an expectation of a certian dress for a "techie"
Certain types of clothing bother other people depending on the
environment.. for instance... wearing jeans and t-shirt to a place where
suit and tie are expected.. is just odd.. and leads to less respect in
cases...
For those of you who work for companies with more then one "techie"
female.. do females also hold similar bias to females who dress "feminine"
random :)
JL
_______________________________________________
issues mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/issues
