>people testifying before committees ought to present themselves in a professional way but she was put off by the lack of consistency for men and women.
If there is a dress code all participants need to follow defined as professional and some people are dressing up in what is considered sexual then there needs to be specific guidelines. If the men were dressing up in clothing that was sexual and the code of conduct stated that witnesses need present themselves as professional, I see no reason to deny prohibiting said clothing. All said, the code should be consistent if it is to be enforced.
Clothes, or lack thereof, can easily be used to manipulate your appearance and the first impression you present. If your concern is the issue you should be able to stand on your testimony and not the clothes you wear.
>>18873 they really screwed for not seeing this coming and banning men from appearing in court in sungas.
But anyone with a dick knows eyecandy can be very distracting. And if it doesn't happen to you (be it because you are gay, an asceti monk or a woman) then fucking trust us when we say it is distracting. It either earns the person the undeserved sympathy from members of the jury, or it makes her look bad in the eyes of other women or robots
what really makes me mad about this is that is one of those opinions that is very easy to attack with empty arguments that sound that sound like big responses, like: >what century is this? >no one should impose gender-specific demands >I am more interested in what they have to say [...] than what they're wearing that day >a committee that "should be more concerned about violations of campus finance law than what women wear." >it's important that women are supported in the choices that they make for themselves All these are cheap shots hailed as ultimate truths, but are based on previously held ideologies and do nothing to adress the problem at hand, and yet are effective to make the opposition look bad.
Far right Christians and far right Muslims find common ground in their fight against the female body in pulblic. Both explaining that the female body (well all bodies really, but especially the female body) are sinful, dangerous, and should be covered in order not to distract or inspire impure thoughts. Together they wage wage on moderates and liberals.
The companies that make the head gear that nuns wear see in an explosion in sales in the Bible Belt. Women who once wore normal clothes have decided to adopt the cathoc nun outfit in order to fit to the religious values of the community leaders. Nunwear.com stock prices increases by 400%
KY is now illegal and the Dr. Bishop has declared masturbation and sex extreme health and MORAL risks. All those caught masturating or having sex will be sent to retraing to ensure they that understand sex is wicked. There is no difference between having conensual sex (outside of marraige) and raping the Virgin Mary.
>>18968 For me, that would be clothing that has exposed arms, exposed thighs, tight pants, tight shirts, no clothing... exposed chest(if it's nice and not hairy). I find woman who dress this way, sexy as well. Especially the no clothes part.
I don't exactly understand all of the anti-dress code shit that women are all about. I don't see the problem in wanting people to dress professionally, without showing half of their tits or thighs. I've noticed in professional environments, men wear suits, ties, slacks and nice shoes. Women apparently can wear whatever clothing they want in these environments. To me, cleavage is unprofessional. Loud colors and low cut skirts look unprofessional. These women need to stop thinking that it's an attack on their sex or personal freedom.
>>19081 I don't think it's a problem with the dress code inherently, so much as that is applies exclusively to women. It makes sense, seeing as men and women wear different clothing, but at the same time imposing regulations on one and not the other, especially when it's as poorly written as described in the article, it's incredibly easy to misconstrue it as something less about professionalism than it should be. I agree with you on a broader scale, though.
>>18886 >>18873 There have been other cases like this. IDK about witnesses but there have been times judges said female lawyers weren't dressing professionally enough. And it's fucking true. Every male attorney you see in court wears a suit and tie, but some of the women get pretty casual. Male witnesses might not always dress up but they at least wear jeans and a decent shirt or something. Meanwhile some of the trashier female witnesses will wear pretty absurd outfits.
They single out women for this stuff because men already get it. But women are raised to never be criticized and to view dress codes as part of the Patriarchal oppression of women, so when they get into the real world they need to be told to dress up
I agree with the intent of the dress code, that is to reduce distractions and sex appeal which may lead jurors to base their decision not on the testimony itself but rather on the person giving the testimony, but directing it specifically at women is out of line. If there are to be specific dress codes, they should apply equally to everyone and should focus on the garment itself and not the sex of the person wearing it.
>>19087 I definitely agree with you here. While it's understandable that women are the focus of this subject, I'm sure he who drafted this code would have done better by not specifying gender at all. The point would still have gotten across, without accusations of sexism. There's a middle ground that isn't being found.
>>19217 >jobs are the only things that exist in the real world Sorry no. Being on the stand in a court room is part of the real world. If you think dressing like a hooker while giving official testimony on a court case is appropriate then you need to grow up
It is a legislature's prerogative to set the dress code of its members and guests, up to and including the prohibition of sexually provocative outfits. Of course, the burden of dressing professionally as a legislator or as a witness to a legislative committee falls upon both sexes, which this change to the rules ignores. Thankfully, poor taste in professional dress is easily corrected with a frank conversation about what exactly is wrong. The only reason I could think of for escalating the matter beyond that conversation is if a majority no longer dresses professionally.
There is a minor error in OP's filename as this rule change most clearly applies to the legislature and not to the courts. In a court, it's the judge who decides the dress code. And judges don't think twice before letting anybody know that he is out of line! That goes for witnesses and attorneys.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.