David Copeland
Senior Member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2013
- Messages
- 905
- Reaction score
- 76
You seem to be well adjusted too. I appreciate your insight.As I said, surprisingly well adjusted.
STYLE. COMMUNITY. GREAT CLOTHING.
Bored of counting likes on social networks? At Styleforum, you’ll find rousing discussions that go beyond strings of emojis.
Click Here to join Styleforum's thousands of style enthusiasts today!
Styleforum is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.
You seem to be well adjusted too. I appreciate your insight.As I said, surprisingly well adjusted.
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?
He's not suggesting that there is irony in the post itself but that there is irony in Copeland's use of the post.
He's not suggesting that there is irony in the post itself but that there is irony in Copeland's use of the post.
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.
The majority of women on the planet are Muslims.I am pretty sure that the majority of women who wear skirts are not Christians.
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.Yes, I believe David thought this article would somehow convince us that the skirts-only policy at his office is ok, or at least give us a better understanding of why someone might have this policy. For me, it did the opposite.
If that is true, then how do you explain George Steinbrenners policy of only clean shaven men with haircuts can play on his team?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.