Note from Steve: I thought this was a good column overall and made sevral great points on why people should dress better. I do not, however, endore Mr. Stein's equation of the War on Terror with World War II or the Korean War. My opinion is no reflection on our brave soldiers; it is a reflection on the ass-backward leadership they serve.
By BEN STEIN
TODAY'S business workplace is not a pretty sight. No, I'm not referring to wildly overinflated C.E.O. pay, although I could be. Nor am I referring to the empty desks caused by outsourcing, although I could be referring to that, too. I am not even referring to modern cubicles and their pitiful fiberboard walls. I am referring to the men (not the women) in those cubicles.
To put it as boldly as it needs to be put, men at work these days all too often dress like total slobs, and it hurts the eyes, the spirit and, I suspect, the bottom line.
Sometimes, I get a clue of this when I go to see my lawyer and am shocked to find that men who should be wearing suits - to keep up their propriety and their sense of dignity - are wearing casual jeans and short-sleeved shirts instead. I get a whiff of it when I appear on television and see employees of major networks dressed in casual slacks and sport shirts with no ties.
But the most stunning blow came a few weeks ago when I did an industrial film on a super-advanced videoconferencing system made by a very large, very successful high-tech company. The men who worked at the company's campus in Oregon were uniformly smart and uniformly courteous, but they dressed like children at summer camp - cut-off jeans, shorts, T-shirts and sandals without socks. I asked if this was some special dress-down day and they all looked at me as if I were insane. "No," they said. "This is how we dress."
I see it in airports and on airplanes. I see it when young people come to me for interviews for a summer job dressed in baggies - gangsta-style long shorts with some of their butts showing - and have no idea that they are doing anything wrong.
I see it even at some brokerage firms, although one of the saving graces of investment banks is that the men who work at them do dress like grown-ups, and even dress beautifully in many cases.
Even the resort wear of yesteryear was far more elegant than what is now worn at work. Clothing that grown men used to wear to clean the garage is now what they wear to write briefs and prepare for oral arguments or research possible fraud claims.
How did this happen? How did the style of the occasional casual Friday become so far above the way that men, even men with advanced degrees, now dress for work? Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. Maybe it has to do with the general coarsening of society. (But then how to explain that women in the workplace still dress nicely and appropriately by my standards?) Maybe it has to do with the observed fact that men flee from mature behavior in every way and want to imitate children, especially ghetto boyz; dressing like them is a way to feel that they have avoided responsibility.
However it happens, it's not good. When a man wears a nice suit of clothes, he feels like a grown-up. He is dressed like Gregory Peck or Clark Gable or Gary Cooper, so, naturally he'll want to behave like a grown-up. (What is that stage play in which the young man feels like his father when he wears his father's trousers? It's something like that.) When children are children, they are expected to think like children, act like children and dress like children, but when they are grown-ups, they are expected to put aside childish things, like sandals and shorts at work.
Besides, men at work in casual clothes simply lack authority. We clients really do not trust a man wearing J. Crew casual wear as much as we trust a man wearing a suit from J. Press or the venerable and much-adored Brooks Brothers. Or, to put it the way my fashion-and-image consultant pal Lisa Monet Agustsson put it, "Men who dress like children at work just don't come across as terribly smart."
In addition, if everyone is dressed for a game of dodgeball instead of a game of "let's draw up a will," how will we tell the bosses from the associates? How will we possibly feel as much confidence in a man who picks an exchange-traded fund if he appears at lunch in shorts instead of a suit?
A suit says discipline, maturity, style, respect for yourself and respect for the people you are meeting. Casual clothes say - well, the word "contempt" comes to mind, although maybe it's too harsh. Maybe just "too cool for school" is what I mean.
Take a look at a Brooks Brothers catalog. Walk around the suit floors at Brooks Brothers on Madison Avenue and 44th Street in Midtown Manhattan. That is what a man at work is supposed to look like. (But a warning to Brooks Brothers: last week, I went into your store on Connecticut Avenue in Washington, looking for a lightweight suit. I was waited on by a pleasant salesman wearing casual trousers, an open-necked sport shirt and no jacket. What the heck kind of message is that for Brooks Brothers to send? "Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savor, wherewith shall it be salted?" So said someone much wiser than I, and Brooks Brothers had better listen up.)
OR, I can put all of this another way. This has been a dismal summer for me, for many reasons I need not bore you with. But the two high points were at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Md., visiting marines wounded in Iraq, and a few days later in Kansas City, Mo., speaking at the reunion of the First Marine Division - the heroes of Falluja in Iraq, the Chosin Reservoir in Korea; Peleliu, Okinawa and Guadalcanal in World War II; the I Corps tactical area in Vietnam; and many other dangerous places.
Part of the reason these events were so uplifting was that it is always uplifting to be in the presence of heroes. But another reason was that all around me were men in uniform: trim, perfectly dressed, standing straight and tall and proud with their stripes and their ribbons and their medals. They looked as if they meant business and were proud of themselves. Two of the men could still fit into their dress uniforms from Korea. They looked like kings.
There is a lesson here. Men look better if they dress for work in a uniform of a suit and a shirt and tie. They feel better about themselves, if I can judge from the moods of those marines at the hospital and at the reunion. Certainly, as a citizen, I felt better about the marines being dressed as if they honored their country and their mission. I can certainly recall that when I worked in a law firm and on Wall Street, I felt a lot better about myself and took myself and my work a lot more seriously when I dressed up like a mensch.
Maybe this is old-fashioned, but there is a lot of good sense in those old fashions.
Where has Ben Stein been doing business? All the men I've dealt with in business-land from various companies have been dressed very professionally...it's the women that have problems.
ReplyDeleteWith the ladies, I've seen everything from tank tops to flip flops to mini skirts, bare midriffs, visible tattoos, multi-piercings, Manic-Panic dyed hair, overdrawn black eyeliner and full denim suits. Of course, there is the occasional ass-crack (crack is whack!) and exposed fat roll as well.
I actually feel bad for the men (of whom I have yet to even see ONE wear shorts) because in the sweltering summer heat they wear slacks, shoes, socks, and collared shirts every day while many of the women are dressed like they're about to attend a meet-market happy hour on the patio at a tiki bar and pick up some random dude for a night of free drinks.
When Ben Stein says "But then how to explain that women in the workplace still dress nicely and appropriately by my standards?" what exactly are his criteria for a woman to dress *nicely*? During company meetings, I sometimes feel like the men are the ones doing the business and the women are just a bunch of beach bums who dropped by on their way to the lake. While I work in a "business casual" environment, I do believe the women (not all, but quite a few) have stretched that definition an extreme measure further than the men. While doing business in other venues, my conclusions have been the same...it appears that in business, it is OK for a woman to show skin, but not for a man. I think that is crap. I think women and men should equally not show skin/fat rolls/ass crack/cleavage. In essence, it appears that Ben Stein here has put a stricter standard on the men, holding the woman to much lower expectations for looking "professional."
Despite the fact I am a feminist (come on, if you know me you could've figured), I take many men that I work with more seriously and give them more intellectual credit than the ladies solely because they carry a more professional appearance and demeanor. Naturally, once they prove or disprove their intelligence or lack thereof, my opinion of them quickly follows suit (no pun intended).
I cannot draw any general conclusions about any mass of men or women being that I am only exposed to some random yet sporadically localized samplings. However, it appears that Ben Stein hasn't taken into account that he, as well, has only been exposed to a random sampling of business-oriented-humanity. As we mathematicians would say, "a single data point a trend line does not make...."
Ben Stein, I thought you were smarter than that. What simple random sample size is necessary to draw a 99% confident conclusion? Come on Ben, you're the one with the high IQ right?
(I apologize for the rant...this article agitated me)
I don't take off points for ranting; that's why I put this stuff here! LOL
ReplyDeleteHe made a couple of good points, and admittedly I will look like him in thrity years (LOL), but Ben Stein's a bit of a douchebag.
Anyway...
I work around mostly men and the office I used to be in was below "business casual." It was "anything goes." The women there all dressed casually but modestly (not much skin), but the men dressed like children or perverts most of the time.
The company president had the worst wardobe known to man. He wore shorts mostly, and old t-shirts, and occasionaly would show up with no underwear on. How would we know? When he would stop by our cubicles and talk, he would put a leg up on the desk or chair and his "meat and two vegs" would tumble out.
The other principal wasn't that bad, but he would wear these horrible outfits that could be descibed as "Adult Garanimals." Truly tasteless striped tops combined with brightly colored pants to match. Picked by Mommy, er, his wife.
Then there was "Tommy Guy." this guy insisted on dressing head to toe Hilfiger every day, without fail. He was the "snazzy dresser" of the group. :-(
I could go on, unfortuantely.
While I hadn't seen as many girls dressed like slobs in my area. I can feel your pain.
I find myself very sympathetic to Carrie's rant. In my work environment, the government bureaucracy, men seem bound to a higher standard of "professional dress" than women.
ReplyDeleteEarly in my career, my boss criticized me for wearing dress slacks and a nice sweater without a collared shirt underneath by admonishing me that I wasn't "a college kid anymore." To the present day, she always goes out of her way to complement me when I wear a tie in addition to my usual (dry cleaned and pressed) long-sleved collared shirt and dress pants. Why does a tie make all the difference?
Working "in the field" complicates things further. I find it preferrable to conduct morning inspections in working-class communities wearing jeans and a casual short-sleeved shirt for many reasons, but if I come into the office that afternoon, I get stares as I walk up and down the halls. The worst was when our Director encountered me in such garb, pointed to my jeans, and said "oh, look at those fancy pants!"
The women in the office, though, seem to be allowed to wear whatever they want, even if they don't work "in the field." Like Carrie, I've seen the women in our office dressed as if they're on their way to the beach, showing more skin than I think is appropriate. I have to admit that their revealing attire can be distracting to any straight male. The point is that they get away with being far more casual in their appearance than any man in the office could.
On a tangental note, I agree with Carrie that "crack is whack." Sorry ladies, but ass cleavage just doesn't appeal to me. Do some guys find that sexy?
Ben Stein bases his opinions on the "tech" industry, which is notorious for lax regulations on every aspect of corporate culture. Your comments seem to demonstrate that perhaps architecture is similar. I'm all for creativity and art, but guys, if you wear shorts, you better wear underwear.
Having a double standard for office attire is not fair. If the men of the office have to wear ties and dress pants all the time, I think it's important that the women have similar standards.
ReplyDeleteThe office I worked at with "No Drawers," "Garanimal" and "Hilfiger" was primarily an engineering and surveying firm. Architecture was the "third wheel," as it were, and my well-chosen khakis and sportshirts were bordering on overdressed.
Where I work now is an architecture firm primarily, and the professional dress standards are much higher.
When I worked at the other place we had this blonde summer architecture intern with very large breasts. She was largely incompetent (coincidence, by the way) but she had all the men in the office facinated with her cleavage, and she used it to get whatever she wanted, usually out of doing work.
If we had had stronger appearance standards, she would have been forced to cover up and she probably would have gained more out of being in the office than she did, because we would have been more focused on helping her advance in her career than hoping to see more of "the twins."
I also agree with you guys about ass crack. I like ladies that show a little skin (outside the office), but hell, crack is just not where it's at.
Mitch--I feel your pain as I, too, was reprimanded for my attire my first month on the job with a similar comment of "this is not college anymore." My internal team is held to a higher (at least that's what they say) dress code standard than other areas of the company. However, I was wearing black slacks, a striped button-down shirt, and a Polo sweater over it. I am still boggled as to why I was pulled aside and given a talking to, being that some of the other women on my team tout capri pants, flip flops, and skimpy tank tops. And they look modest compared to many of the other ladies walking around the company! I just don't get it....apparently each individual person gets held to a different standard, and I was being picked on at that particular moment. I considered walking down to HR and asking them what was wrong with my dress, but I didn't want to make a stink. I never ever will figure out why I was reprimanded that day...nor will never ever know why everyone else gets to dress in less. Corporate America what do you have against me???
ReplyDeleteCarrie, It's unfair to single you out for what sounds to me like a nice oufit, considering.
ReplyDelete- chiming in late here, in response to the 'shorts at chuch' post -
ReplyDeleteI tossed a theory out to a coworker of mine about four months ago that 'crack will be the new cleavage.' We work in a restaurant, so we pretty much see everyone in the world go by....
I was either so daftly behind the times with my so-called 'revelation', or said four months have completely ushered in a new standard of exposure.
Consider, however, that super-tight, low-riding jeans, which are all the rage right now, will facilitate crack on a whim. I had to tell my 13-year old neice she was 'sportin' some crack, dude' one evening when she was too tired to 'adjust' herself to stave off the inevitable fallout. lol
As a gargantuan feminist, I too loathe any double standard, and I think it begs some weird old-boy ethic to allow the women to dress like hotties. You know the old adage: "maybe if you show a little leg; loosen up a bit..."
It also doesn't surprise me that Mitch and Carrie were singled out almost instantaneously and told to tow the conservative line. Quality people are absolute magnets for criticism. I also think office superiors single out natural leaders and subject them to a consistent dress and behavior standard, and in so doing, are sowing the seeds of future leadership in their respective professions.
oh, and p.s.: my coworker's response was "Eeeeeeeewww!! That is Not O.K. Crack is NOT O.K.!!!"
true dat, yo
There's definately a double standard. It's a sad one at that. People (especially women) are being convinced that dressing like hoochies and gigolos is fashionable when all it's doing is makeing a case for people to objectify one another.
ReplyDeleteI'm no stranger to style, but this particular trend is getting old.
I think you may be right about Mitch and Carrie. They show a tremendous amount of potential and if they stay on the straight and narrow, they could really make a difference in this world. I'd like to think that's why my boss stays on my ass as well, but you never know.
As Whitney said "Crack is wack"