Black silk with "missing bottoms", is it really a misdemeanor? The Double Standard Trap Exposed by Workplace Taboos
Recently, my friend Minnie told me that she wore a long jumper with black stockings to report for an internship, and was individually "reminded" by her supervisor to "pay more attention to her attire".
"She said that this kind of matching like not wearing pants kind of affects the professional image in the workplace..." Minnie's voice got lower and lower, "It's popular for interns to dress like this nowadays, is it wrong for me to want to look longer legged and more energetic?"
I was dumbfounded for a moment. Turning over the social platform, this is not at all an isolated case - on the one hand, countless fashion bloggers hot push "autumn black silk + missing underwear" light maturity collocation formula, on the other hand, it is the white-collar sisters spit out: "Today wearing black silk by the vice president more than a few glances", "receptionist said I wore like going to a nightclub" ........ I've been wearing black silk for a while now, and I'm particularly uncomfortable." "The receptionist said I was dressed like I was going to a nightclub."...
Has this style of dressing suddenly become some sort of original sin? What's the logic behind it?
Whose aesthetic freedom are we really afraid of?
An internal e-mail was circulated in a large Internet company - the executive was dissatisfied with the "excessive coolness of young female employees" and sent a special warning. But a closer look at the requirements is laughable: women "to avoid revealing the shoulders and waist" has become a hard target, while no one cares about the sloppy slippers and T-shirts of male colleagues. Such double standard rules are not uncommon.
What is even more absurd is that the subway operator in one city advised female passengers to avoid "over-exposure" after a harassment incident. As if not dressing "safely" enough should be held culpable?The balance of rules always quietly favors one gender while being extra harsh on the other.
The history of fashion is a history of power markers. The corset, the three-inch golden lotus ...... each era has its own "norms" for women. Today's accusations of "inappropriate dress" may be hiding a new form of discipline - an attempt to decide for women what is "appropriate" for their bodies in the world.
Consumerism has also contributed to the precise harvesting of the "purity of desire".Black silk was once labeled as a curiosity, but now businesses are cleverly linking it to "pure desire" and "light maturity" - with a long blouse that creates a sense of mystery. "Mystery". The "must-have for the chic woman" marketing line hits the right itch, blurring the boundaries between style and controversy.
The right to be seen shouldn't come with a price.
"What to wear is freedom? Then dare you go to the subway and test the black silk turnout?" This type of questioning exposes a heavier social malaise -The lack of security shouldn't be paid for by women by covering themselves up.The subtext of certain opinions is chilling. The subtext of some opinions is chilling: "protect yourself" presupposes a tacit acceptance that someone will unleash malice.
It's not the hemline length that really needs fixing, it's the ubiquitous scrutiny and scrutiny of our environment - both in terms of dress and demeanor. When we subconsciously pull down our skirts at the conference table, or huddle up to avoid touching in a crowded elevator, it's already a silent compromise.
A woman's body should not be born as a battleground. There's nothing wrong with wearing a confident posture, and an aesthetic that dares to show your personality in the workplace deserves equal respect.
Aesthetic diversity should not remain a slogan. Black silk is not a taboo symbol, and stockings and shorts can co-exist.The important thing is not to standardize, but to read the value of respect and tolerance in each other's eyes.
Dressing, like writing, is about leaving your mark on public space. Some have a strong brush, some have a soft handwriting - the world never judges a writer by the elegance or sharpness of his or her font.
True freedom is security without compromise: choosing stockings does not mean allowing yourself to be gawked at frivolously, and wearing suspenders should not diminish respect for your professionalism. Outward dress is not a seal of competence, much less a moral yardstick.
Please direct your discussion to how to build mechanisms for true equality, rather than getting bogged down in arguments about the length of skirts. Security shouldn't come from wrapping up the ego, but from learning to accept the world's discrepancies.
When every body is able to walk openly in the sunlight - not necessarily in perfect conformity to anyone's expectations, but in its own authenticity - that's a worthwhile struggle for all.
The boundaries of fashion are always shifting, but the standard of dignity is always constant: you have the right to be comfortable in your own skin without having to conform to the eyes of others.
