You seem to be well adjusted too. I appreciate your insight.
How We Used to Dress - Page 4
Her homophobic bigotry is disgusting, but does anyone see the irony in using her post as support for policies requiring women to wear skirts or dresses? The entire post is about her CHOICE of how to dress. She wants to wear skirts, so she does. How can this support prohibiting women from wearing pants?
I do love the old clothes, but I do not lose a wink of sleep over how other people dress. In fact, the low popylarity of my favorite clothes makes them available dirt cheap at thrifts and on ebay. I hope I remain in the minority.
I agree that the men in that photo are well dressed, but I have my doubt's that it represents a random selection of New Yorkers. First, appropos the discussion of dress codes, note that they are all men. No women, skirt-wearing or otherwise. Not likely to have happened by chance. They were clearly posed for the picture. They were selected to be all men,I suppose for some reason that would have made sense back then. I see no reason to assume it was the first 60 men to come along.
One can make a "choice" to do things and also argue that a particular choice is the better one. It's pretty clear that this is what she is doing. While she may be understanding towards those who disagree with her views, nothing in the article suggests that she thinks they are right. I think you are just a bit too eager to find "irony" here.
Some of you guys are pretty funny. Dress codes are just another company policy, and if any employees don't agree with the dress code, they don't have to work there. But it is quite legal to define what "professional" indicates in the view of the company. The argument regarding Hooters illustrates this perfectly. They set a dress code, and the employees have to adhere to it or be their employment will be terminated. Same goes with Trump's dress code. There is literally, zero difference. So, your personal views of what is a sexist dress code and what isn't doesn't mean anything, other than you just disagree with the company's policy.
Fox News Bill O'Riley agrees in large part when he told his audience last Monday to stop whining about various diseases of attitude in language and home-spun culture. Kids, teenagers, young and older adults will face the music when they take their relaxed attitudes to many of the major work places and expect a democracy.
Funny how many here chastise me for posting one (1) simply opinion link . . . yet no one else has gone to the effort of espousing a series of counter links supporting their views.
Hey folks, it's not just the USA. Take a look outside the bubble bath at how the "BILLIONS" of people on the earth teach and practice their theme of women hiding their butts under modest shirts and dresses. The USA amounts to a fraction of the world population. England amounts to the size of Oregon.
The title of this topic is "How we used to dress". Feel free to post links, pictures, and historical evidence during the last 7,000 years of recorded time to support your view. If not, then opinions are just shallow ideas.
People in general probably don't dress properly or appropriately as much as in the past, but I think part of that is because at least up to a point, what was available then was a lot less varied. The options may have been limited to dress clothes/ formal wear, workwear type clothes, and not much in between. In other words, in 1929, there weren't Croc Sandals, or Big Dog T shirts.
Well, sans the implications towards homosexuals, I agree. As I said, surprisingly well adjusted.
I think it is because they argued that it was essential for their business. Part of what they sell is scantily clad women serving you beer and wings. I don't think Bank of America could make that same case.
If that is true, then how do you explain George Steinbrenners policy of only clean shaven men with haircuts can play on his team?