And the ability to detect and override these irrational reactions is a much greater indicator of a good prospective employee (IMO) that the ability to ape "respectability".
This is stupid, most people will tell you it doesn't matter but it really does.
Some people will tell you it matters but it really doesn't.
For a lot of people, it does matter. The fallacy is that it matters because it is important -- that wearing khakis and a button down is a meaningful expression of adultness and professionalism, and being judged as such is a meaningful assessment of a person's worth as an employee, colleague and representative of a company.
In fact, it only matters because it is a handy way to identify that a cog meets the spec. for the machine.
Don't wear black socks with anything other than black, grey or navy pants. Never wear white pants to work (unless it is a uniform).
Speaking of uniforms, the reality is that anyone from convenience store attendent to CEO may be found in slacks and a button down these days. It has become a universal convention for "professional looking", and thus completely useless for the purpose of discerning anyone's status or attention to their attire.
Successful people wear what they want. The easiest way to spot a peon is by their cheaply made, ill-fitting conventional corporate attire.
Or their attempts to appeal to a broader, less hip demographic is annoying the traditional recipients of their cheesy appeals, who didn't mind it as long as it was stroking their different thinking egos.
At least I can get some low-brow entertainment out of such tactics. Apple's appeal to the preciousness and wisdom of consumer product purchasers (whoopty-friggin-do, its a computer/phone) do nothing for me.
One time I caught part of a sitcom where the dad was the smart one (having no income due to a strike, opted not to buy a new TV set) and the wife did the stupid move (bought the expensive new TV set after they agreed not to). I thought it was refreshing until a news program suddenly came on in the sitcom explaining that the strike was over and everyone had their job back. Suddenly, the wife was shown as the smart one (despite having made the wrong decision based on the information they had at the time) and the husband apologized to her. So even when the wives do stupid things and husbands do smart things in sitcoms, the wives are still right and the husbands are still wrong.
The ultimate message of this scenario is not men are dumb and women are smart, it is that that consumption is good and women can be suckered into consuming by presenting them with patronizing hat-tips to their innate wisdom. Given that, is it men or women who are getting the short shrift?
With the notable, rare exception of Matthew Mcconaughey, a white male with a southern drawl is invariably portrayed in the movies as either a wife beater, a racist, a child abuser, a drunk, or as simply stupid. More often it's a combination of all five.
Except on CMT. Oh, and on Fox News.
Matthew Mcconaughey is frequently cast as a simpleton (albeit with a heart of gold).
On the other hand, how soon we forget the "two modern day Robin Hoods"
This has been a pattern in sit-coms for a while -- doofus husband, whip-smart wife.
And to be more specific, it is an overweight, white guy that is the doofus.
You don't see this with Asians, Hispanics or Blacks....at least not with a mixed set of actors, if it is mixed the white guy is the dumb one. If an all Black show for instance, you will sometimes seen the doofus male...
Disagree. It is still not (or rather, no longer) open season on ethnic and racial stereotypes, but in most family oriented sit-coms, the husband is usually hapless and husky, regardless of skin color.
Again, this has to do with snaring eyeballs for advertisers by presenting images that appeal to the most potentially lucrative demographics. PC-types might make the loudest fuss, but I see no evidence that TV writers are listening. Which makes sense, because uptight liberals a) don't watch TV and b) don't by Hamburger Helper, much less at Walmart).
Dress like an adult. This generally means khakis and a button down shirt or polo shirt.
So, dress like a retail sales lackey?
In general, I agree with "dress for the role you want next". I don't want to be anyone who is a paper hat away from being mistaken as a Taco Bell server. I want to be in a role that respects ability and performance, not appearances and conformity.
And don't shope at J. Crew or BR. Again, go for performance, not appearances.
It's insulting, as a male, to see a husband portrayed as a complete ditz; if they'd done it with a woman, there would have been hell to pay, or people wouldn't have thought it was funny. Look at the idiot man, everyone!
This has been a pattern in sit-coms for a while -- doofus husband, whip-smart wife.
I think that men who object to this will certainly get less attention than women who object to bimbo-esque female characters. That said, I also think that the ultimate arbiter is the audience, not political correctness. This content is directed at women, who represent a large consumer demographic which was ignored for a long time. There are still plenty of ditzy women characters in male-oriented entertainment.
I'm sorry, but the cost of living there is just outrageous compared to more-reasonable places that are also full of hackers and startups.
If those places become the next SV in terms of startup activity, they will become the next SV in terms of cost of living.
The only hope is that the "geniuses" of the tech industry will figure out how to use their own innovations to free themselves of the idiotic proposition of concentrating themselves into tiny geographic areas.
Things like Tent City suck, and we like when our criminals get sent there. We like that he deputizes people to track down deadbeat dads or keep gangbangers out of mall parking lots. We like that he's a mean son of a bitch. We want our stupid kids locked up and put in a chain-gang for the week when they get a drunk driving charge.
That someone would present these as the appealing, non-right-wing facets of Joe Arpaio says a lot.
As long as they don't fail ongoing legal/constitutional scrutiny, it is the right of Joe's constituents to support these kinds of policies. Nevertheless, they are indeed why many people would not want to move to AZ.
It draws attention to the fact that their value as a company is not as high as advertised, which can have a negative influence on their future opportunities.
What is Zuckerberg to do? He has a popular product and legions of people with more money than sense who think that any internet sensation must be a goldmine beating down his door for a piece of the (imaginary) action.
Facebook's only value is not in user numbers or user data, it is the minds of people willing to buy Facebook stock.
Zuckerberg's chief problem is the same as everyone else's -- the lost ability to come up with innovations that are actually worthwhile, as opposed to internet baubles and gadgets for yuppies.
. ..what type of culture is going to engender more respect amongst the team: The offended person saying "hey, that's too far" or heading off to file an official complaint?
The culture that will engender the most mutual respect will be the team that is guided by a conservative, well-defined policy that applies to, and protects, everyone equally. Even the seemingly reasonable "hey, please stop" situation leaves a lot of wiggle room for peer-pressure and strong personalities to perpetuate a dysfunctional and potentially hostile environment.
There are plenty of ways to maintain banter and camaraderie without resorting to jabbing and innuendo.
Your point is not relevant to the reality of harassment policies. There are well defined rules for what is permissible, and no reasonable, mature person would ever find them an undue imposition on their personality or ability to work effectively.
At the same time, there are plenty of things that a person could, theoretically, be offended by, and their employer could tell them to go pound rocks.
I suggested below your comment that he invite his employees out to some local social gathering places (like a bowling alley or pool hall, not a bar). I realize some people are just going to be jackasses...but maybe some of them wont be if they have some where to socialize outside of work?
If someone was sexually harassing you at work, would you really want to interact with them in an expressly social context?
Slashdot Mirror
Notice they didn't have much of an accent.
No, but they did have a giant Confederate flag painted on the roof of their car!
Please, if you are female, wear something that doesn't show cleavage or mini skirt. This is work place, not your family / friends get together.
Then you should keep your eyes and mind on your work rather than dictating how other people dress.
You mean our "think different" egos.
Shhh! You want to get sued!?
Real people also suffer from subconscious cues.
And the ability to detect and override these irrational reactions is a much greater indicator of a good prospective employee (IMO) that the ability to ape "respectability".
This is stupid, most people will tell you it doesn't matter but it really does.
Some people will tell you it matters but it really doesn't.
For a lot of people, it does matter. The fallacy is that it matters because it is important -- that wearing khakis and a button down is a meaningful expression of adultness and professionalism, and being judged as such is a meaningful assessment of a person's worth as an employee, colleague and representative of a company.
In fact, it only matters because it is a handy way to identify that a cog meets the spec. for the machine.
You make the self-righteous mistake of assuming they were talking to you.
Which "they"?
I think you make the mistake WRT what Apple is selling. Though, ironically, "self-righteousness" is a large component.
Dont wear black socks with white pants.
Don't wear black socks with anything other than black, grey or navy pants. Never wear white pants to work (unless it is a uniform).
Speaking of uniforms, the reality is that anyone from convenience store attendent to CEO may be found in slacks and a button down these days. It has become a universal convention for "professional looking", and thus completely useless for the purpose of discerning anyone's status or attention to their attire.
Successful people wear what they want. The easiest way to spot a peon is by their cheaply made, ill-fitting conventional corporate attire.
Or their attempts to appeal to a broader, less hip demographic is annoying the traditional recipients of their cheesy appeals, who didn't mind it as long as it was stroking their different thinking egos.
- There are no god-awful sex appeal tactics
At least I can get some low-brow entertainment out of such tactics. Apple's appeal to the preciousness and wisdom of consumer product purchasers (whoopty-friggin-do, its a computer/phone) do nothing for me.
One time I caught part of a sitcom where the dad was the smart one (having no income due to a strike, opted not to buy a new TV set) and the wife did the stupid move (bought the expensive new TV set after they agreed not to). I thought it was refreshing until a news program suddenly came on in the sitcom explaining that the strike was over and everyone had their job back. Suddenly, the wife was shown as the smart one (despite having made the wrong decision based on the information they had at the time) and the husband apologized to her. So even when the wives do stupid things and husbands do smart things in sitcoms, the wives are still right and the husbands are still wrong.
The ultimate message of this scenario is not men are dumb and women are smart, it is that that consumption is good and women can be suckered into consuming by presenting them with patronizing hat-tips to their innate wisdom. Given that, is it men or women who are getting the short shrift?
With the notable, rare exception of Matthew Mcconaughey, a white male with a southern drawl is invariably portrayed in the movies as either a wife beater, a racist, a child abuser, a drunk, or as simply stupid. More often it's a combination of all five.
Except on CMT. Oh, and on Fox News.
Matthew Mcconaughey is frequently cast as a simpleton (albeit with a heart of gold).
On the other hand, how soon we forget the "two modern day Robin Hoods"
And to be more specific, it is an overweight, white guy that is the doofus.
You don't see this with Asians, Hispanics or Blacks....at least not with a mixed set of actors, if it is mixed the white guy is the dumb one. If an all Black show for instance, you will sometimes seen the doofus male...
Disagree. It is still not (or rather, no longer) open season on ethnic and racial stereotypes, but in most family oriented sit-coms, the husband is usually hapless and husky, regardless of skin color.
Again, this has to do with snaring eyeballs for advertisers by presenting images that appeal to the most potentially lucrative demographics. PC-types might make the loudest fuss, but I see no evidence that TV writers are listening. Which makes sense, because uptight liberals a) don't watch TV and b) don't by Hamburger Helper, much less at Walmart).
Dress like an adult. This generally means khakis and a button down shirt or polo shirt.
So, dress like a retail sales lackey?
In general, I agree with "dress for the role you want next". I don't want to be anyone who is a paper hat away from being mistaken as a Taco Bell server. I want to be in a role that respects ability and performance, not appearances and conformity.
And don't shope at J. Crew or BR. Again, go for performance, not appearances.
It's insulting, as a male, to see a husband portrayed as a complete ditz; if they'd done it with a woman, there would have been hell to pay, or people wouldn't have thought it was funny. Look at the idiot man, everyone!
This has been a pattern in sit-coms for a while -- doofus husband, whip-smart wife.
I think that men who object to this will certainly get less attention than women who object to bimbo-esque female characters. That said, I also think that the ultimate arbiter is the audience, not political correctness. This content is directed at women, who represent a large consumer demographic which was ignored for a long time. There are still plenty of ditzy women characters in male-oriented entertainment.
http://www.automotiveworkwear.com/RedKap/CP40/coveralls.html
Done.
I'm sorry, but the cost of living there is just outrageous compared to more-reasonable places that are also full of hackers and startups.
If those places become the next SV in terms of startup activity, they will become the next SV in terms of cost of living.
The only hope is that the "geniuses" of the tech industry will figure out how to use their own innovations to free themselves of the idiotic proposition of concentrating themselves into tiny geographic areas.
Things like Tent City suck, and we like when our criminals get sent there. We like that he deputizes people to track down deadbeat dads or keep gangbangers out of mall parking lots. We like that he's a mean son of a bitch. We want our stupid kids locked up and put in a chain-gang for the week when they get a drunk driving charge.
That someone would present these as the appealing, non-right-wing facets of Joe Arpaio says a lot.
As long as they don't fail ongoing legal/constitutional scrutiny, it is the right of Joe's constituents to support these kinds of policies. Nevertheless, they are indeed why many people would not want to move to AZ.
. . .for the 9 feature-length part film adaptation of the epic tale of Peter Jackson's Tolkien film projects.
Ok. Your point? OSX is not for the poor?
Not for people who care about any definition of "free".
How does the share price falling hurt Facebook?
It draws attention to the fact that their value as a company is not as high as advertised, which can have a negative influence on their future opportunities.
What is Zuckerberg to do? He has a popular product and legions of people with more money than sense who think that any internet sensation must be a goldmine beating down his door for a piece of the (imaginary) action.
Facebook's only value is not in user numbers or user data, it is the minds of people willing to buy Facebook stock.
Zuckerberg's chief problem is the same as everyone else's -- the lost ability to come up with innovations that are actually worthwhile, as opposed to internet baubles and gadgets for yuppies.
. . .what type of culture is going to engender more respect amongst the team: The offended person saying "hey, that's too far" or heading off to file an official complaint?
The culture that will engender the most mutual respect will be the team that is guided by a conservative, well-defined policy that applies to, and protects, everyone equally. Even the seemingly reasonable "hey, please stop" situation leaves a lot of wiggle room for peer-pressure and strong personalities to perpetuate a dysfunctional and potentially hostile environment.
There are plenty of ways to maintain banter and camaraderie without resorting to jabbing and innuendo.
Your point is not relevant to the reality of harassment policies. There are well defined rules for what is permissible, and no reasonable, mature person would ever find them an undue imposition on their personality or ability to work effectively.
At the same time, there are plenty of things that a person could, theoretically, be offended by, and their employer could tell them to go pound rocks.
I suggested below your comment that he invite his employees out to some local social gathering places (like a bowling alley or pool hall, not a bar). I realize some people are just going to be jackasses...but maybe some of them wont be if they have some where to socialize outside of work?
If someone was sexually harassing you at work, would you really want to interact with them in an expressly social context?
In practice, yes you can. Anyone who complains will be called a homophobe and sent for re-education.
Unless they murder the guy, in which case they can claim "gay panic": http://www.change.org/petitions/eliminate-the-gay-panic-defence-from-queensland-law-gaypanic