4 ms·

Let's pause on the details, look at the language. "Distracting" clothing? This is the definition of victim blaming. "I can't work because she is making me stare

Let's pause on the details, look at the language. "Distracting" clothing? This is the definition of victim blaming. "I can't work because she is making me stare at her butt, and it is her choice to wear that outfit." "She was asking for it." If you're a dude or a bro, before you down-vote this, ask yourself whether you would applaud or criticize the same person for wearing that outfit to Wholefoods. The tech industry is perpetually patting itself on the back for have such innovative workplace policies. Many actions or dispositions condoned or encouraged by these policies would get you fired at a Wall Street bank. So, one can not claim that one should know better than to wear these outfits. The entire point of this "new workplace", which is by definition and design not well defined, is to not dictate the individual in so far a his or her personal choices, but simply to create an atmosphere where each individual is productive. You ever tried working in an office with a full bar on tap, twenty feet away? How about in an office that has two ping pong tables nearby in the open space floor plan? That is distracting. That is also stereotypical Silicon Valley. But hey, I put on headphones, ignored my strong desire to get bent, and was productive. If you're a woman, please chime in here. This is, to my ears, victim blaming. And this comment will no doubt instantly begin garnering many, many down-votes. So, please, risk a few karma. But, I'm a guy, so what do I know? I know that tomorrow I can go into work in shorts small enough to show a bit of butt and people will think it's funny, and we'll all sit down at our screens and get back to work. Because, in our culture, I'm not objectified sexually, I am the patriarch, and I control all thing, except that thing in my drawers.

dingaling 10y ago
> ask yourself whether you would applaud or criticize the same person for wearing that outfit to Wholefoods. My criticism would persist because presumably the same person wears that outfit to Wholefoods for the same reason: garnering attention. Wearing baggy cotton trousers and a grubby, loose t-shirt looks scruffy in the workplace or Wholefoods but has a purpose: comfort. Wearing Daisy Duke shorts to the workplace or Wholefoods has a purpose: garnering attention. Anything that is designed or intended to attract attention is by definition a distraction. That's where the differentiation arises. It's irrelevant whether that attention is inappropriate due to objectification, the point is that the mental effort to overcome the context-shift is distractive.
- sp332 10y ago
  I think you're overestimating how much women are doing for other people (especially men) and what they are doing just because they like it.
id122015 10y ago
For those who can't understand "distracting clothing", I suggest them to visit a restaurant where waitresses are naked, on a day when you are hungry, and you don't have a female partner. The theory says that its impossible to fulfill both needs in the same time. (Maslow hierarchy) And to really do the test, you need the name of the restaurant, so we don't just talk none sense: http://www.timeout.com/london/blog/exclusive-this-is-what-its-like-to-eat-at-the-naked-restaurant-060616 http://www.timeout.com/london/blog/exclusive-this-is-what-it... Some will understand why the owners will make a lot of money. So don't blame the naked females, blame yourself: you couldn't eat what you ordered because your hormones took over your appetite. Or you were able to eat, but you only focused on your plate, in which case we can ask why didn't you choose a different restaurant.

dingaling 10y ago

> ask yourself whether you would applaud or criticize the same person for wearing that outfit to Wholefoods. My criticism would persist because presumably the same person wears that outfit to Wholefoods for the same reason: garnering attention. Wearing baggy cotton trousers and a grubby, loose t-shirt looks scruffy in the workplace or Wholefoods but has a purpose: comfort. Wearing Daisy Duke shorts to the workplace or Wholefoods has a purpose: garnering attention. Anything that is designed or intended to attract attention is by definition a distraction. That's where the differentiation arises. It's irrelevant whether that attention is inappropriate due to objectification, the point is that the mental effort to overcome the context-shift is distractive.

sp332 10y ago
I think you're overestimating how much women are doing for other people (especially men) and what they are doing just because they like it.

id122015 10y ago

For those who can't understand "distracting clothing", I suggest them to visit a restaurant where waitresses are naked, on a day when you are hungry, and you don't have a female partner. The theory says that its impossible to fulfill both needs in the same time. (Maslow hierarchy) And to really do the test, you need the name of the restaurant, so we don't just talk none sense: http://www.timeout.com/london/blog/exclusive-this-is-what-its-like-to-eat-at-the-naked-restaurant-060616 http://www.timeout.com/london/blog/exclusive-this-is-what-it... Some will understand why the owners will make a lot of money. So don't blame the naked females, blame yourself: you couldn't eat what you ordered because your hormones took over your appetite. Or you were able to eat, but you only focused on your plate, in which case we can ask why didn't you choose a different restaurant.