Conference 7.286::digital

    Well .... putting aside the discussion of whether or not Digital
    should pay for this .... I think you are over reacting. Frankly,
    I would like to see something like this for men too. We do NOT
    think we are "just fine". Otherwise books like "Dress for Success"
    would not sell. Men, in a business climate, are forced to adhere
    to a rather strict set of 'fashion rules', while women are free to
    pick from a wide range of choices. That doesn't bother me ... it's 
    just the way it is.
    
    

    
    
    Don't find it offensive at all.  I see it as an offering of a
    beneficial service if you want to attend.  
    
    
    
    Mike

    I'm offended that the same MKO SUBSCRIBER people would not send out a
    notice about our Digital Commuter Vanpool that runs from West Acton,
    LKG and Westford to ZKO/MKO.  
    
    They said it was not an appropriate use of the MKO SUBSCRIBER list.
    
    At least the vanpools are work related.
    
    How is a seminar on skin care and glamour [sic] work related?
    

    I agree with the base note, I find it offensive also.  This kind of
    subject has been dealt with in fashion magazines and we don't need it
    at work.  
    
    This is a prime example of those "subtle messages" that women come
    up against all the time:  If you want a chance at success you have to
    look perfect.  It doesn't matter if you are intelligent or talented, if
    your make up is not just right or your dress not perfect you are a 
    failure.  

         Ref.0,1,2,and 3.
         What's "appropriate/inappropriate"....depends on whether you are
    'us' or 'them'. N'est pas?
    
                                                 -RAM-

Seems pretty ridiculous to me.

Someone pointed out that some men buy "Dress for Success"
books.  This doesn't seem to be the same thing - the above title
is fairly neutral in tone, whereas the word "glamour" has all sorts
of inappropriate connotations.

So maybe part 1 ("Image and Wardrobe") is acceptable and 
part 2 ("Skin Care and Glamour") is not.  :-)

Although I do wonder why anyone would need to be told how to
"identify personal preferences".  What, you're too stupid to
know whether you like something?

    Appearances are *very* important; anyone who doesn't understand this
    and believe it are denying basic human behavior and tons of empirical
    and statistical evidence.
    
    On one level, I'm willing to support any educational effort directed
    towards self-improvement, even improving our appearance. I think both
    men and women could benefit from this type of course, and I would like
    to see something offered for men.  I don't think it's any secret that
    more attractive people tend to go farther in life; whether any of us
    believe it's fair is irrelevant.
    
    On another level, the memo does seem to reinforce the idea that women
    in particular have to get ahead on their looks rather than their talents.  
    
    Geoff

    
    Now, I agree that it is not really appropriate for the workplace.  I
    have been schooled (at work) on dress at work.  I though it was silly,
    but I was offended.
    
    
    Mike

    	I heard that this course started Michael Jackson on the road to
    success and riches. I know I could use a little help getting dolled up
    in the morning before work. I've been having a heck of a time lately
    picking out just the right T-shirt to wear...And my hair! I just can't
    do a thing with it anymore!

I can't believe, after all this, that Digital is still wasting its time and
money on stupid seminars like this.  Appearance is important for those in
contact with customers, but "glamour"?  "Skin care"?  Give me a break.  Pick up
a copy of GQ or Cosmopolitan and don't waste the company's money on this crap.

Paul

re .-1

It's not obvious to me that any of DEC's time and money is
being wasted on this (apart from the time spent in here!).
It's a lunchtime seminar, conducted by "the Lifestyle
Connection", whatever that is.  For all I know, that
could be a bunch of concerned DEC employees who plan 
seminars on their own time, or a local retailer who wants
to sell clothes and cosmetics, or ...

So, I refained from criticizing it on those grounds; there
are plenty of other angles of attack!

    Let's see...
    
    I remember vividly that fine day back in 83 where I was sitting behind
    my computer happily typing away and providing Sales Support to one of
    the finest salemen I've ever worked with.
    
    I was dressed for the occasion in my worn and tatter "Born to Code"
    Sweatshirt, faded jeans,and tennis shoes.
    
    This was after a month of dressing like this (if I didn't have a 
    sales call of course) and the sales man cracked:
    
    He came to me and passed along the most important lesson I've ever
    learned in this business, a lession that I live by to this day:
    
    Chester said: I can't take you out on a Sales Call dressed like that,
    I can't bring a customer into the office with you dressed like that,
    by not being ready to meet a customer you are costing me and the 
    company money by not being presentable to a customer during business 
    hours and if you come in dressed like that again I'll see that you 
    are fired...
    
    He got my attention and my understanding in that simple threat
    and it was more of a threat as I had hired him;-)
    
    The axiom is dress half a step above your customer (a full step 
    above insults them, a step below and your not credible)
    
    In my industry (our industry) this means Business Suits for men and 
    women, but every job class has it's Dressed up version... strive
    for that look and alway be ready to present the best First Impression
    to your customers.  
    
    I was 26 when that salesman explained the facts of life to me, 
    I wish that I had learned it much much earlier.  If this class for
    women touches 1 person with that understanding it's worth it today.
    
    And all you engineers and support folks lurking -- Dress Better, 
    it's not an idealized world and First impressions are the most 
    lastings.  Men or Women Learn how to dress... it's been my single 
    best business assett for my career (yes even better than hardwork, 
    techical prowess and my personal network).  
    
    If you don't know how to dress (I mean really dress for work... 
    invest in a class or read Dress for Success)
    

That's as may be, but what relevance does it have to
a topic on whether a glamour seminar is appropriate?

    I think having glamorous women in the work-place is good for morale.;)

    Jim

                      <<< Note 2656.9 by STAR::DIPIRRO >>>
                 -< Follow my lead, and the $$$ will roll in! >-

 >   	I heard that this course started Michael Jackson on the road to
 >   success and riches. I know I could use a little help getting dolled up
 >   in the morning before work. I've been having a heck of a time lately
 >   picking out just the right T-shirt to wear...And my hair! I just can't
 >   do a thing with it anymore!
    
    Perhaps you can skip the seminar and these simple rules will make life
    easier for you.
    
    1. White t-shirt, top-siders(no sneakers), no-hole jeans for 'dress-up
    days'.
    
    2. Any color t-shirt, sneakers OK, jeans with holes OK (but we don't 
    want to see your underwear through the holes) for 'casual days'.
    
    3. As for the hair---Michael Jordan cut, very simple, very chic.
    
    
    Hope this helps,
    bill

    
    I don't know, any sales rep or anyone else told me that, I'd laugh in
    their face.
    
    
    Some people cannot afford to dress to the T.  
    
    
    
    Mike

    
    I have three comments on this:
    
    1. If I was a woman, I would be insulted that this seminar
       was being offered.  Intellect and performance are what
       matters (or are what should matter).
    
    2. Fortune Magazine had an article on the mens' apparel industry
       in which they claimed that there is a major "dressing-down"
       trend in America.  Suits are out (or are on the way out), 
       according to them.  They interviewed the president of a successful
       software company and quoted him as saying (I'm paraphrasing):
       "If you have nothing to say, wear a suit."
    
    3. I am having a bad hair day.
       :-)
    
    Glenn

    
    is the glamour term only applies to the females or can it apply
    to males too?

    i mean can one like say : "this dude sure looks glamorous?"

    i really think it only applies to women, but wanted to be sure before
    i open my mouth on this sensitive topic.

    but speaking of skin care part, some men also do skin care and NOT 
    only women!
    
    plus i don't see anything wrong with a DECeee taking care of 
    his or her skin !! but that is my personal openion.

    i'll add more thoughts to this exciting topic as the day rolls by.

    \bye
    \nasser

    RE:18
    Nasser men ain't glamorous, they're handsome...like me.

    Hope this helps! 
    Jim

    I recall reading in another notes conference a comment about the
    apparel worn on the job by women in France, ummm, emphasizing physical
    attributes that clearly denote gender differences. 
    
    I imagine that one's culture very much determines the acceptability of
    employing 'glamour' as a means of getting ahead.  Compared to Europe,
    North American work places may be restrained in this regard.

    In business, the shell is all that counts... As long as that shell is
    Handsome, goodlooking, glamorous... etc. it's all that counts....
    
    The business shell is hollow, with no soul.. Cold, uncaring and
    impersonal...! Remember, there isn't a person beneath that shell, it's
    merely business..!?
    
    So, a seminar on Skin care, glitze, glamor and dress is very
    appropriate..!
    
    It has been said that 1st impressions are important.. If this is so,
    why not just have a fashion show before each sales meeting, with a
    customer.... After that, talk a few minutes about what they really came
    for.... See how impressed they are then...!!!???
    
    If "women in the workplace" don't want to be treated with disrespect,
    why then would they want to impress people with Glamorous appearance,
    rather than their knowledge and experience..?
    
    Talk about mixing signals...! When do men get equal treatment, with a
    manly type of "lunchtime seminar."???
    

    >>In business, the shell is all that counts... As long as that shell is
        Handsome, goodlooking, glamorous... etc. it's all that counts....<<
    
    YES!   And look at where it's got us!

        .21

    i think you make a good point, i mean it depends on whom this
    seminar is targeted?

    if it is for sale persons who are in contact with customers all
    day long, then it is ok IMNSHO, but if it targeted
    to engineers and managers and the likes who don't see customers all
    their lives, then it don't make sense to me.

    i say this because for customers appearance is very important, i mean
    who wants to buy a car from a sale person who have a bad hair or have
    cloths that dont match in colors or have not had a shower for 5 years?
    
    like, when i go to buy my socks at the mall, i like to buy them from a 
    glamours sales lady person, like many would, i find i buy more socks
    that way, and it is ok, because i can use more socks any way, but
    if i go to say see a doctor for a back pain or whatever, qualifications 
    is more important, and only if all is equals then looks becomes an issue.

    i'll add more thoughts on this as times permit.
    
    \nasser

    re: .7 and others
    
    I'll take substance over fluff anytime...

>I recall reading in another notes conference a comment about the
>    apparel worn on the job by women in France, ummm, emphasizing physical
>    attributes that clearly denote gender differences. 

Besides the point, methinks.  One may well voluntarily choose to wear
"glamourous" attire.  That's not the same thing as having a DEC-sponsored
seminar suggesting that you need to be glamourous to be successful in DEC.

    
   

    .25  by MU::PORTER
    
    i think Dave makes a good point.  I agree with Dave.
    
    \nasser
    

    	Well, I think engineering might need a few prerequisite courses
    before we're ready for a course on glamour (although I appreciate the
    advice a few replies back, Bill!). A while back, management at OSF sent
    a memo to engineering asking them to stop picking their toes in the
    cafeteria...and in front of customers. This memo "leaked out." Of
    course, every person who knows me quickly sent me a copy...not that I
    pick my toes in public. Some things you only do in your office.
    	Anyway, the point is that if you have to tell engineers to not pick
    their toes in public, they're obviously not quite ready for glamour and
    high fashion. Courses on basic hygiene and etiquette might be more
    appropriate (you have to learn to walk before you can run). Personally,
    I'd sign up for Showering 101 in a second. I especially need it after
    eating with a friend of mine (whose wife reads this conference and is
    just now figuring out who I'm talking about) who could use a course in
    eating without spraying your food over everyone in a 5-foot radius.
    You'd have to register early for Deodorant 201. I'm sure there would be
    a long waiting list.

re: .23

    >if it is for sale persons who are in contact with customers all
    >day long, then it is ok IMNSHO, but if it targeted
    >to engineers and managers and the likes who don't see customers all
    >their lives, then it don't make sense to me.

I disagree!  Glamour means "An air of compelling, charm, romance, and 
excitement."  It is usually applied to women or events - but seldom to men.
I don't think it's okay for anyone, since it's pertaining to the workplace.

   > i say this because for customers appearance is very important, i mean
   > who wants to buy a car from a sale person who have a bad hair or have
   > cloths that dont match in colors or have not had a shower for 5 years?
    
I agree with you that appearances are very important to customers.  But there
is a big difference between dressing professionally and being glamourous!

    >like, when i go to buy my socks at the mall, i like to buy them from a 
    >glamours sales lady person, like many would, i find i buy more socks
    >that way, and it is ok, because i can use more socks any way, but
    >if i go to say see a doctor for a back pain or whatever, qualifications 
    >is more important, and only if all is equals then looks becomes an issue.

Personally, I can't equate buying socks to buying a complex computer system.
How seriously do you think a customer (male or female) would take a woman
salesperson if she walked in in sequins, dramatic makeup, and three-inch 
spiked heels?  Those are some of the images associated with glamour!  I knew
a woman who demonstrated equipment at trade shows and she was told to tone 
it down, because glamour has no place in the computer industry.  (I felt bad
for her, though, because it wasn't anything she was actually doing to look
glamourous; just her natural beauty.)

I am offended by the "glamour" section of this seminar and the implications.
I hope no one shows up for it - or that all men show up for it!


Susan

    
    
    >I especially need it after eating with a friend of mine (whose wife
    >reads this conference and  is just now figuring out who I'm talking about) 
    >who could use a course in eating without spraying your food over 
    >everyone in a 5-foot radius. You'd have to register early for Deodorant 
    >201. I'm sure there would be a long waiting list.

    .27  by STAR::DIPIRRO 

    Please !!!  it is dinner time !!

    like fer sure, did you have to mention this while most DECeees are
    just ready to go home and most are hungry and thinking of having that
    nice hot meal when they get home !!

    now i am not hungry any more :(

    thanks a lot , buddy !

    \nasser

    
    
    		The only thing we get set up in our cafeteria is
    	enrollments for various colleges and/or health "Fairs" by
    	local hospitals. I wonder who said it was company sponsored
    	or why "anyone" would be compelled to attend for reasons other
    	than personal.....not professional. Seems to me that the 
    	message was broadcast to all who had an account ...or did
    	I miss an implication there somewhere.?.
    
    		I personally would settle for the hour at lunch....
    
    
    			Pablo
    

    
    I got the message in .0 also and just shook my head.  But it was
    nothing compared to my favorite from this sender:
    
    
    
From:	EPS::MKOTS1::SUBSCRIBER "Please respond to the person(s) mentioned 
    in the message  13-Apr-1993 1226" 13-APR-1993 13:44:17.50
To:	@[.data]distlist_216049491993041312234930.dis
CC:	
Subj:	LUNCHTIME SEMINAR

	***Please do NOT reply to this message, contact XCUSME::BONE***


        LIFESTYLE CONNECTION presentation:

                "SPORTS CARS AND FINDING YOURSELF"
                    Crisis in Mid-life

        People often begin to behave strangely when they hit
        mid-life.  Men are prone to buying red sports cars and
        having affairs with younger women.  Women want to "find
        themselves", and completely redefine the roles they have
        been living.  Are these just stereotypic descriptions of
        mid-life transition?  Is there truth to the mid-life crisis
        myth?

                        April 23 - Friday
                           12 - 1:00
                        Customer Dining Room
                           MKO1-2/J22
                Speaker: Dr. Bruce Cedar, Stoney Brook EAP


        To register send mail to XCUSME::BONE
    
    
    
    >	"Women want to "find themselves", and completely redefine the 
    >	 roles they have been living."
    
    		How noble!  Truly philosophical.
    
    >    "Men are prone to buying red sports cars and having affairs 
    >     with younger women."
    
    		YEOW!  Is this really in mail I'm receiving at work??!!
    		But it sure does explain that hankering for a Corvette 
    		I've been lately... ;-)
    
    
    And will the writer of the SHOWER 101, DEODORANT 101 and toe-(censored)
    replies please refrain from further noting.  My side is killing me!
    

    
    
    Glamours no, Professional yes.  And be glad that I'm not running 
    the engineering organizations (yes I was an engineer) because 
    you folks would either be in a dress shirt and tie or a professional
    uniform.
    
    In other companies Engineering is a showplace what Sales and Marketing
    can use to hightlight the company... 
    
    My first traning trip back to Nashau for this company made me think I was 
    back in the dorms on a friday night party;-)
    
    It was said that it's what's inside that counts... True but the first 
    5-15 seconds with someone gives an impression you can either live up
    to or down to... I prefer to start on a high note because if you're 
    Dressed like a ... you send a message that you don't care about the
    "Little Things..."  Not a good message to send.
    
    (and folks have been predicting the demise of the buisness suit since
    the 1900s... Hasn't happened yet.. Won't happen ever...)
    
    

    Note 2656.32 by DPDMAI::WISNIEWSKI "ADEPT of the Virtual Space." >>>
    
    >Glamours no, Professional yes.  And be glad that I'm not running
    >    the engineering organizations (yes I was an engineer) because
    >    you folks would either be in a dress shirt and tie or a
    >    professional uniform.
    >

    iam sorry, but i would not want work for you if you force me to wear
    a tie around my nick if i can find a different office where no ties
    are needed.

    ties cut air supply to the brain, and engineers without plenty
    of air supply produce bad design.

    would you rather see pretty engineers with pretty ties and dresses
    and bad software and hardware or ones with T-shirts and long hair
    and long bears and old trousers but with brilliant designs?

    the choice is clear to me, and iam sure many DECeees will agree with
    me on this issue.

    \nasser

    	I was at an amusement park recently where they have evening parades
    near season's end. Certain rides are closed as the parade nears the
    area. We were about to head for an operating ride with a short line
    when we spotted the clue. The guy wearing the tie was there. No more
    riders, the parade was nigh.
    
    	Point is, IMHO, the level of dress goes up inversely with the
    amount of productivity. Case in point- I was called on standby years
    ago in the midst of sawing wood in my shop while wearing overalls.
    I told the customer "be there in an hour as I am. 2 hours if you want
    me "dressed"". They wanted my services, not my wardrobe. Pity our
    society is so hung up on all show & no go.
    
    Phil

	This seminar is not compulsory.


	Go if you think you'd like to attend.

	Don't go of you don't want to.


	Heather

.33>    ties cut air supply to the brain, and engineers without plenty
.33>    of air supply produce bad design.
    
    ...and after long-term constriction, they start thinking like managers.
    

	So, the SLT is thinking about disallowing use of DEC facilities by
	clubs and leagues, but we're seeing "glamour seminars" using
	conference rooms and being promoted over official distribution
	lists. Nice, consistent message here.

	Roy

    engineers as defined in dec wear tee shirts and dont see customers
    which comes first???
    
    When I joined engineering I doffed my jacket and tie and black shoes
    for t-shirt jeans and sneakers cos that what the next two levels above
    were wearing and I looked really out of place.
    
    However, for american software engineers to be treated with sufficient
    respect to be allowed routinely  to deal with customers, the engineers
    are going to have conform to outside world.  But then I would redefine
    the engineer to be someone who was in contact with the  outside
    commercial  world. But hey thats a different cultural perspective and
    possibly offensive.
    
    		what really gets me is the 
    
    jacket must be grey or blue
    trousers must match
    and your only individuality is your tie!!!( except if you come from a
    recognised school or regiment) or your braces
    
    

    I sincerely hope no one goes to this seminar. It's highly offensive to
    women. THe point is NOT that professionals should or should not dress
    up for work everyday.  The point is that MEN are NOT mentioned in this
    note. The seminar is aimed at WOMEN, specifically improving "a woman's
    image". THis implies that WOMEN (and only women are mentioned here)
    should dress up and wear makeup to get ahead in the workplace. 
    
    The words "woman's image", "makeup application" and "glamour" sound 
    extremely sexist and exploitive. 
    
    Karen

>    I sincerely hope no one goes to this seminar. It's highly offensive to
>    women.


	I sincerely hope that women who want to go to this will, and those
	who don't, won't.

	It is highly offensive to women to have their minds made up for them.


	Heather

    Re. .40
    
    Heather, the "Beef" is that we should be trying to close down negative
    messages about women, not perpetuate the goodness of the fashion model
    image.  I have nothing against dressing for success, but this series
    is highly offensive to many women who are trying to be taken seriously 
    in a sexist world. 
    
    I have read remarks in other notes conferences about the newly
    appointed Supreme Court Judge Ginsberg, judging her on her looks or 
    rather the lack of them.  It didn't matter that she was competent and 
    educated, only that she was not good looking.  That's the mindset we 
    are taking aim at. 

Has anyone forwarded the message in .0 to Ron Glover?  It would be interesting
to know how the Valuing Diversity Manager would view this.  Just a thought.

    I have to ask.... Is this seminar a message of what's to come in
    Digital. Is there to be a "dress code" implimented at Digital, sometime
    soon..?
    
    Is this another "out with the old, in with the new" situation..?
    
    If this is such a move.., I'd like to see my first raise in 4.5 years,
    so I can afford the clothing upgrade..!
    
    I haven't "dressed up" since coming to Colorado 4 years ago... So the
    dress-up clothing is non existent...
    
    

    When I started with Engineering many years ago we had a saying, "If you
    can't do a good job, at least dress well."  ...maybe it still
    applies...
    
    					

    
    
    	Two things:
    
    	1. As a woman trying to work for a living in a technical
    	capacity, the LAST thing I want to see sponsored by my
    	company and targeted to women in my workplace is a seminar
    	that focuses on glamor...sheesh! I have worked very hard
    	for years to be competent both technically and professionally
    	and would like to think this was what was valued. NOT the
    	way I fix my hair or the way I dress. I dress appropriate
    	to whatever time, place, occasion. I don't want someone 
    	judging me on whether I have my eyelashes glued on long enough
    	or straight enough ("er, is that a caterpillar on your cheek?).
    
    	2. Nasser, I totally agree with your note in .33. Before I
    	came to work here almost 10 years ago, one of my colleagues
    	was a contractor. He was an M.S.E.E. and did excellent design
    	work. He was in high demand due to his technical abilities.
    	He was chosen more often than not over others who wore suits
    	and had all the social graces. If he could remember to put
    	on socks, chances are they did not match. He used to sprinkle
    	cheetos all over my engineering drawings (drafting hated that).
    	We subsisted for days on Coca cola and twinkies and his beard
    	got scruffy and the pants were wrinkled but the results were
    	dynamite! Good products. That was the value. Not his social
    	graces.
    							kim
                                                     

    
>    Heather, the "Beef" is that we should be trying to close down negative
>    messages about women, not perpetuate the goodness of the fashion model
>    image.  I have nothing against dressing for success, but this series
>    is highly offensive to many women who are trying to be taken seriously 
>    in a sexist world. 
 
	I see nothing negative about fashion modles who earn millions a year.

	I see nothing negative in women who are taken seriously.

	I see nothing negative in women who may, or may not, want to take
	advantage of these seminars.

	I see everything negative when any of these choices is taken away by 
	others, as it doesn't fit with what they think is a "right" message
	or image.

	Women have their own brains, women can make up their minds whether
	they want to participate in different things, women do not need
	a censor.

	Heather

    Perhaps all Digital employees should be required to wear uniforms. 
    Yeah, that's it ! Everyone would feel equal and think of the free 
    advertisement the company would get everytime people see a Digital 
    employee with a snappy digital uniform. ;)

    Jim

    
    
    		re-.46  De je vu      I wish I'd said that...
    		re-.39 Sorry , Karen . If the shoe fits..wear it.
    				If not , try another...
    
      I'm pro choice too and I didn't need a Supreme Court to tell me...
    
    			Pablo
    
    

Kudo's Heather...  You've got the right attitude.

FWIW, Every new employee in this Sales Office was given a copy of "Dress for
Success" on our first day at work.   There's still a box of them around the
office somewhere, for when we start hiring again.

You distinguish yourself in a crowd of vendors by demonstrating capability,
understanding, and good judgement.  Part of that good judgement includes
dressing appropriatly for your intended audience.   Sometimes it jeans and
steel toed shoes, but most of the time it s business suit.

Bob

    MCI moved their Software Engineering from Washington DC to Colorado
    Springs and for the first 6 months they were all dressed up in ties and
    blue suits.  They realized that the prevailing attitude in the West is
    dress down and now have a casual attire at the workplace.  I found it
    difficult to sit out on site and write code while I was being strangled
    by a tie.  And the funny thing is, they didn't care what I looked like
    or dressed like.  But, they were really hung up on some trivial stuff
    delivering quality software on time.  Imagine that!
    
    Personally, if I see a woman all dolled up at work, I know that she
    spends a good portion of her time and energy getting all dolled up
    every day.  And, she spends a good portion of her income and time on
    shopping so she can get all dolled up.  Time she could have spend
    reading the linker manual or adding a new transfer vector to fix.mar.
    So, if your all dolled up(and this goes for the guys in the starch and
    braces, etc), I am much less likely to take you seriously and much more
    likely to be critical of your performance if I think it suffers because
    you are to busy polishing your Bostonians all the time.
    
    If you wear a suit out West, you tend to look like a clown.  That is a
    fashion statement that will not get you ahead or impress the critical
    eye of customers that need their applications to work correctly,
    yesterday.
    
    bill

Re: .50

Basically, Bill, I think people are at their best performance wise when they are
comfortable with themselves.

For some, this is "looking good" in a business suit.  For others, its "looking
good" in casual wear.   For others, its putting on whatever's at the top of
the pile on the floor.  And a lot of people like to get "dolled up."

As long as you're coding away in the "never-to-be-seen-by-customers" bowels of
the corporation, I don't care what you wear, as long as you're comfortable, and
not affecting the performance of those who share your space.  (i.e. bathe, use
deodorant, cover your genitals, etc.)

But, if you're going out to talk to one of MY customers, you'll dress correctly,
just as I have to, with "correctness" defined by the customer's expectations.

Blowing the "dress code" makes customers uneasy, and its part of the job to 
understand what's expected.   Making customer's uneasy is not acceptable.

Understanding the customer's expectation can work to your benefit.  For example,
Friday's are casual days at most of my accounts.   I wouldn't necessarily be 
out of place in a suit, but if I show up in casual attire it demonstrates that 
I understand THEIR business customs, and respect THEIR "dress code."   

It's all part of being customer focused.

Bob

    
    Re: .7
    
    > Appearances are *very* important; anyone who doesn't understand this
    > and believe it are denying basic human behavior and tons of empirical
    > and statistical evidence.
    
    Baloney.  Any job or aspiration for which I would have to portray a
    certain image to be successful is not my idea of success.
    
    Steve
    

    re: .51
    
    Fair enough. I just don't think my success is tied to dress.  And if
    the customer is wearing blue suits and white shirts and I'm on site, I
    bite the bullet and put on a blue suit and white shirt.  That may make
    them more comfortable that I respect their code of behavior when I'm on
    their turf.  But, they are still looking at the bottom line.  And if I
    don't deliver, I can get out, and take my blue suit with me.
    
    bill
    

re .52
>    Re: .7
>    
>    > Appearances are *very* important; anyone who doesn't understand this
>    > and believe it are denying basic human behavior and tons of empirical
>    > and statistical evidence.
    
>    Baloney.  Any job or aspiration for which I would have to portray a
>    certain image to be successful is not my idea of success.

Your idea of success is not what is important unless you are the customer.  
I sense that if you met with a brilliant engineer that happened to be 
comfortable in a $800 suite you wouldn't trust him when he walked in the 
door.  It is a fact that people make snap judgements.  It may not be nice, 
but that doesn't make it untrue. 

I know I expect engineers to be dressed neatly but not necessarily in a 
suit.  I doubt engineers that wear dirty clothes and those in pressed 
shirts and expensive suits.  They have work harder to get my confidence.  
I have tried to remove this prejuidice from my behavior, but I hvaae only 
gotten tot the point where I acknowledge it and conciously work to avoid it 
when I meet people.  I know others who believe that people who spell poorly 
are less intelligent without ever meeting the person.

Matt

    >I know others who believe that people who spell poorly are less 
    >intelligent without ever meeting the person.

    good point \Matt! as a matter of fact, some of the worst spellers i know 
    are also the most smart people around ! 

    sorry about the rats hole, but i thought i should say something at this
    conjecture.

    \nasser

    
    Re: .54
    
    > Your idea of success is not what is important unless you are the customer.  
    > I sense that if you met with a brilliant engineer that happened to be 
    > comfortable in a $800 suite you wouldn't trust him when he walked in the 
    > door.  It is a fact that people make snap judgements.  It may not be nice, 
    > but that doesn't make it untrue. 
    
    I understand that there are persons who have a definition of success
    of which what you wear is one of the metrics.  It is not THE definition
    of success, however, since there are loads of people, myself among
    them, who don't buy into that and who are doing just fine.
    
    Steve
    
    
    
    

    
>Does anyone else find it offensive that Digital is sponsoring a seminar
>that implies that women are not going to succeed in this company unless
>they wear makeup and the latest, "glamorous" fashions, while men are just
>fine the way they are.  

    I see no such implication in that announcement. Neither did my wife.
    She did indicate that if Digital has a lot of people who over react
    as much as .0 she's glad she doesn't work here.

    			Alfred

   The last I heard, the folks that are doing well in the high-tech businesses
   do not even come in contact with the customer; a la Microsoft and Intel.
   The last I heard these are pretty informal companies with everyone
   from the head honcho downwards not caring too much for dressing up
   and caring too much about *EXACTLY* what customers want. 

   The Japanese management techniques, TQM, Six Sigma, process re-engineering,
   value-chain re-engineering, formal Vs informal clothes, theory Z of
   management, Trancendental meditation, tai chi and every other buzzword
   of the day is tried for size, except some simple fundamental self-evident
   truths; Do I treat my employees well and did I point them in the right
   direction? Are we producing something that customers want badly? If 
   somebody wanted what I produce very badly, their first impression of
   me really doesn't matter to me, does it?.

   At one point in time, customers didn't hesitate to buy from a big bald
   guy in ill-fitting clothes from Maynard. Did they?

   Nari

	re Note 2656.54  by   AMCUCS::HALEY "become a wasp and hornet"
          
>                            -< dress and spelling >-
>I sense that if you met with a brilliant engineer that happened to be 
>comfortable in a $800 suite you wouldn't trust him when he walked in the 
>door. 


	I don't think that engineers are any different than other people
	in this respect. After all, I'd probably feel more comfortable 
	in an $800 suite than a $29.95 special from Motel 6; the showers
	are probably cleaner, and the AC probably works well. So I would
    	probably be more relaxed, and thus more inclined to trust someone. 

>	  I know others who believe that people who spell poorly 
>are less intelligent without ever meeting the person.

	Personally, I think that people who regularly trash spelling or
	grammar are just mentally lazy. Some people equate it with lower
	intelligence. Your mileage may vary.
                                                                          
	John

    A great example of a company that can sell with enthusiasm and
    confidence (my theme of this quarter) is Mary Kay cosmetics.  This is
    serious understanding of the psychology of buying and selling and
    self-esteem.
    
    In the current issue of Fortune magazine.
    
    Pat Sweeney

re .58

I can't speak for Microsoft, but at Intel you dress for who you are going 
to meet.  With first level engineers I wore shirt, tie and Docker style 
slacks.  After working with them for quite a while the tie might die, but 
that was the rough dress code.  For head-banger technical meetings jeans 
were O.K., but the Intel managers wore suits or nice dresses.  Since 
they are very technical and often joined meetings we tried to dress at 
least as well as their engineers.  Any meeting with first level managers 
meant wearing a suit.

This is was an engineering building in Santa Clara, other sites may well be 
different.  I got the impression the Israel office was more laid back.

Matt

    Some of you folks don't get it... But then again some of you folks
    say you haven't had raises, promotions, or other career successes
    in quite some time.
    
    Go ahead fight the FREEDOM killers who oppress the folks who dress
    down... it won't change a thing.
    
    
    You dress 1/2 a step above your customer and exactly like the next
    position you aspire to... 
    
    
    Most teams don't want the "Too Brilliant" engineer who forgets to 
    tie his shoes in the morning and drools over his lunch or while 
    talking to people -- no matter how good they are they don't fit in.
    
    Hire them as a contractor?  In a second, for an offsite assignment...
    
    The absent minded engineer stereotype is overdone anyways... 
    
    Overdressing could be construed as a character flaw too, but you 
    can always take off your jacket, loosen your tie, roll up your
    sleeves and look "READY" much easier than someone in jeans an
    a Tshirt can dress up. 
    
    I worked for an engineering organization where loose ties were the
    norm... You always had one on... just didn't bind the neck unless 
    you needed to talk to the boss or a customer;-)
    
    
    The smart money isn't always with the smart, or the fast or the
    best dressed (for the part) but that's the way to bet...
    
    John Wisniewski

    Re: .0
    
    I would take a message like this and assume that there is going to be
    an outside organisation coming on-site to try and sell some cosmetics
    and they've called it a seminar. Nothing sinister or offensive, just a
    good sales ploy.
    
    As to using the network to promote it and not allow funding of clubs,
    this seems like two seperate things. It costs very little to send a
    message out (as discussed in other notes strings), but funding aclub
    takes real dollars.

    As far as I know Digital doesn't have a dress code.  Plain and
    simple...  I decide how I dress, not my Boss, UNLESS it was made known
    prior to my accepting the job, and part of the Policy and Procedures. 
    Anything else can be considered harassment.

    I feel the same not only in my professional life, but also in my
    personal life.  As an example:  I am the song leader in my Church.  Yet
    I don't wear a tie, I do wear tennis shoes.  If my church wants to
    replace me they have the opportunity.  The clothes don't make me sing
    any better or worse.  I wear the same to work.  They don't affect my
    performance.

    Now if someone came up to me and told me what to wear, I'd tell them
    off.

    For those who wouldn't hire me.  Fine, I don't want to work for you
    anyway.  Plenty of jobs and people who care about performance, not what
    I wear.

    To answer the original question.  I feel insulted for both the men and
    women over that article.  This company needs to fix that which is in a
    person, not that which is without.  Bring back productivity not
    appearance.

    Jim Morton

    re: .-2
    
    Ah... There may be a quid pro quo here.  By letting a cosmetics firm
    sell their merchandise in our lunchroom, we may have a reciprocal offer
    to sell computers in their lunchroom.
    
    re: .-1
    
    Capitalizing "Boss", eh? Is that an example of the post-Sweeney
    Digital?  A disagreement between you and your manager over appropriate
    attire and hygene is not automatically harassment, on the other hand it
    may  not be a good business tactic either.

    Pat,
    	A disagreement isn't a problem.  When I'm told I'll be fired for
    not wearing what they want, then I have a problem, or should I say my
    BOSS will have a problem.

    	Actually, I don't have a BOSS, I have a manager, and I consider him
    good.  A BOSS dictates.  A manager lets me do my job, and enourages it,
    a BOSS tells me what to do.

    	Pat, I don't know if BOSS is an example of post Sweeney or not, but
    I've seen the BOSS attitude from Management  a lot since the late 80's.

    Jim Morton

    re .62 et al. (DPDMAI::WISNIEWSKI)

    While I have trouble understanding why any customer would feel
    uncomfortable meeting with anyone who is neatly dressed but not wearing
    a suit, there's no denying that such attitudes are very common. 

    On the other hand, your notes seem to suggest that you see everybody's
    role as equivalent to yours in the amount of customer contact that's
    involved: you keep bringing up "dress 1/2 step above your customer" as
    though we all see customers on a regular basis. This is quite definitely
    not the case. Are you addressing "everybody", or are you primarily
    addressing sales and customer support people who can expect to see and
    be seen by customers on a daily basis?

    When representing Digital at a customer site, there's no question but
    that I'd wear business attire (jacket or suit and tie). But wearing such
    attire for work in a site not normally frequented by customers would be
    very hard to justify in any terms.  Because, at least at sites like ZKO
    and LKG, where managers up to and including vice presidents normally
    dress casually, choice of attire is quite definitely not a career
    impediment (assuming reasonable taste).

>                 <<< Note 2656.67 by 56547::BECK "Paul Beck" >>>
>                         -< I sense a disconnect here >-

>    re .62 et al. (DPDMAI::WISNIEWSKI)

>    While I have trouble understanding why any customer would feel
>    uncomfortable meeting with anyone who is neatly dressed but not wearing
>    a suit, there's no denying that such attitudes are very common. 

    I would argue universal for most technical professionals in our
    business outside of CLUB GMA;-)
    
    Few people will enjoy paying $180.00/hour for a network consultant 
    dressed in a "Have a nice Day Butthead" T-shirt...At least a couple
    will get perverse statifaction from paying for a guy in a suit;-)
    
>    On the other hand, your notes seem to suggest that you see everybody's
>    role as equivalent to yours in the amount of customer contact that's
<    involved: you keep bringing up "dress 1/2 step above your customer" as
>    though we all see customers on a regular basis. This is quite definitely
>    not the case. Are you addressing "everybody", or are you primarily
>    addressing sales and customer support people who can expect to see and
>    be seen by customers on a daily basis?

    Everyone has customers.  Some are internal, Some are External, Some 
    Pay us money Some affect our careers and positions.
    
    Bosses/Managers are Customers, Other Companies are Customers, anyone
    who consumes or gains from your career and services are your customers.
    
    No disconnect here.
    
>    When representing Digital at a customer site, there's no question but
>    that I'd wear business attire (jacket or suit and tie). But wearing such
>    attire for work in a site not normally frequented by customers would be
>    very hard to justify in any terms.  Because, at least at sites like ZKO
>    and LKG, where managers up to and including vice presidents normally
>    dress casually, choice of attire is quite definitely not a career
>    impediment (assuming reasonable taste).
    
     In the South and West Dressing Down is almost in vogue too.  Outside of
     GMA shirts and Ties are the norm, for business and engineering.
    
    You dress 1/2 step above your customer so you can command some 
    authority.  Similar to your current manager's level and slightly 
    below his manager's wardrobe.  
    
    You can believe it or not, the high priced business "Finishing" seminars 
    discuss these concepts in detail.  To some folks it comes easy and 
    natural, some have to learn it, others won't believe that a simple thing 
    like a "I Drank with the Band" T-shirt and dayglow tennies could limit 
    the career of a hot coder like me...  I once worked with a hot young
    code slinger who bought very expensive Blue Jean Business Suits to 
    show his individuality, the sales people cringed to bring him out 
    to a customer until he didn't get taken out to customers anymore, 
    then he was let go...Until he was gone, he actually thought he was 
    "Looking Good" despite the snickers...
    
    You want a perfect world... Play the game, make the money, get to the
    top... Then change the rules.  You don't change the rules from two
    or 10 rungs over entry level but only near the top...

    JMHO
    
    John Wisniewski

    There's still a wide gulf between dressed-for-a-wedding and the
    torn-T-shirt look that you're so fond of citing as inappropriate.

    Based on your description of customers (and I agree with the
    generalization of the term to "consumers of our services"), it should be
    quite acceptable for most engineers in GMA sites like ZKO to adopt
    non-suit attire, since their customers (most managers in the same sites)
    dress that way. Which was my point.

    Where it gets tricky is in working out the commutative properties of
    customer contact. If I should dress like my manager, by the same rule my
    manager should dress like his manager, and before you know it we all
    look like Bob Palmer (or a half step above, if that's possible).

    Anything can be overdone. That includes dressing down, and it includes
    taking a general principal and raising it to dogma status.

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                                                 -----------  

|d|i|g|i|t|a|l|                   10-Sep-93                      LIVE WIRE

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                  INDUSTRY NEWS                  -----------



                                                                      

    ALL CHANGE                                                        

                                                                      

    IBM is suspected of adopting a more trendy image.  When a task force of

    Apple engineers recently arrived at IBM's New York headquarters to

    start a joint venture, the IBM team turned up in casual Apple style and

    the engineers from Apple were dressed in suits, white shirts and ties.


    The Times, London.  10th September 1993








                         Digital Internal Communication                 5 More->
    

RE: .68:

    You dress 1/2 step above your customer so you can command some 
    authority.  
    ^^^^^^^^^^

I hope you meant 'credibility', 'trust', or something like that.  

'Authority' seems to imply that you try to gain power over your 
customers.

Bryan

>'Authority' seems to imply that you try to gain power over your 
>customers.

	authority, n. 

	[other defs deleted]

	Person whose opinion is accepted, esp. expert in a subject.

RE: .72:

I understand that 'authority' has multiple meanings.
However, the first definition in my dictionary is:

	authority:
	1. a. The right and power to command, enforce laws,
	      determine, influence, or judge.

and this may well be the definition that is raised
as 'gut reaction' to the word.

I was mainly pointing out that you have to be careful 
with words, as we all know.  I am sure that .68 does indeed
treat his customers well...

Bryan

    	Amazing...Seventy some odd replies to the "glamour" note and
    counting. No matter how hard I try, I just can't get myself too worked
    up about this hot topic. I say we all just strip down to our birthday
    suits and get back to work. On the other hand, I work in ZKO - Forget I
    said that!

Couple of weeks ago we had fitness ads posted around our site. The basic 
theme was that exercise will make you healthier, feel better about yourself 
and work better.

At first such simple message looked simple, however my gut feeling told me 
there is an underlying hidden theme. Sure enough i typed the ad in my 
computer and not long after applying straightforward decoding using stochastic 
sampling in Hilbert space it was clear to me this was a company wide 
discriminatory policy. 

The evidence was staring me in the face : how would an out of shape couch 
potato smoker who loves BBQed chunks of pure lamb fat going to survive 
in this company.

    If I had ment just crediblity and trust I would have said credibilty
    and trust;-)
    
    I said Authority in the full definition of the word.
    
    To my customers:    I am an Authority on Digital 
    
                        I am authorized to render judgements and 
                        enforce Digital's technical precepts and
                        solutions.
    
                        I influence customers with my authority
                        everyday regarding Digital technology.
                          
    
    If I'm 50 miles from home and carrying a briefcase I'm called 
    a Consultant instead of an Authority;-)
    
     

    .74
    
    If your name is STEVE, then I can understand how you might not get all
    worked over this topic.  A STEVE may not have had to cope with trying
    to be taken seriously in a staff meeting with other STEVES.  Having 
    twice the education and having to work twice as hard as the STEVES 
    in a group to be considered just adequate.  Women have to endure 
    things that STEVES do not just because they are women.  If we're pretty 
    we are air heads, if we are not we are dogs.  We are all to often 
    judged by how we look and not what we are, which is why a lot of women 
    may be offended by the seminar topic in the base note, and certain 
    STEVES may not.
    
    No offense STEVE, but you don't have the same experiences that certain
    UN-STEVES have.

    Re .77
    
    
    Thank you.  Your note about says it all.

>>If your name is STEVE, then I can understand how you might not get all
>>worked over this topic.  A STEVE may not have had to cope with trying
>>to be taken seriously in a staff meeting with other STEVES.
I work for this guy (really!) and I can assure you that no one takes him
seriously around here.
  
>>Having twice the education and having to work twice as hard as the STEVES 
>>in a group to be considered just adequate.
Does this apply to the DONS, TOMS, etc or just the STEVES. If just the STEVES
it sounds like a classic case of discrimination.
 
>>Women have to endure things that STEVES do not just because they are women.
I wouldn't be so sure.

>>If we're pretty we are air heads, if we are not we are dogs.  
Your words...no one else said this or implied it.

>>We are all to often 
>>judged by how we look and not what we are,
I would say this is a more universal problem not just relagated
to the treatment of women.

					;^) x 10**9

    
    
    	re .77
    
    	So, ROSEMARY, what are you going to do about protesting the
    	seminar?
    
    	John  ;)

    re .77
    
      Us MARVINs have had to put up with being judged by our (lack of)
    political connections, our (lack of) self-promotional skills and our 
    (lack of) a willingness to kiss butt.
    
      Being a MARVIN offers no inherent advantages.  Doing twice as much,
    twice as well as some other, better connected folks, just to slow the rate
    by which the connected passes us by is no bargain either.
    
      Women have received the short shift for way too long.  But don't be
    under the impression that a MARVIN has it made just because of what's
    between his legs.  
    
      The truth is, I am always clean and well groomed.  My clothes are
    always pressed and my teeth don't have an excessive amount of stuff
    stuck between them.  Nonetheless, I have been chastised more than once
    about not wearing the same type of clothes as the rest of the suit and
    tie crowd.  Being neat and fit can't match being a fat slob in wrinkled
    clothes as long as those clothes are suits.
    
      If you are offended by the seminar you should complain about the
    institutions that perpetrate these bogus standards and not focus on the
    gender question.  This dress code bit spares no one.
    
    Marv
    
        

    Out here in the real world (the field), where we're in front of
    customers day in and day out, us DAVES wear what suits the situation
    (pun intended, tee heee) - If I'm going on a call to a paper-mill, 
    I don't wear a suit, having personally seen a salesrep ruin a $500.00
    Hart Schaffner & Marx suit when a glop of liquid paper-pulp landed on
    his shoulder during a tour (this  pulp, which would eventually become
    copier paper was chock-full of bleach....).  However, if I'm going on
    a call to the executive committee of a local college, I wear a suit & 
    tie (and when we get to the really technical stuff, I unbutton the 
    top shirt button, loosen my tie, roll up my sleeves and do the
    white-board stuff - so much more impressive than 'canned overhead
    presentations...)
    
    
    Anybody planning to attend the seminar and post the low-down details
    here????

    
    i must be missing something, is there hidden message to one being
    called MARVIN ? like do MARVINS supposed to certain way or something
    like that?

    this discussion is really exciting.

    \nasser

    What is really amusing about all this is that the "Glamour" show
    in .0 was probably conceived by a woman, promoted by a woman, and
    presented by women. Has anyone who is offended bothered to check?
    
    Almost everyone has something to overcome (except the Bronze Gods
    and Goddesses in the Sears catalog, I guess). Even though I am a
    male WASP, all is not always roses. When I have to go to Mass for
    training I have to deal with the less enlightened locals who are
    convinced that everyone who speaks with a southern dialect is an
    idiot.

        .84

    good point!

    actually men nowadays also suffer from what women did for years,
    many now adays expect men to be all muscles and big biceps and have
    that athletics build to them , and what about BALD men? now that
    is a can full of worms case by itself, even thought i am not Balde
    thanks God, BALD men have been discriminated against for many years, can 
    some one show a BALD CEO or BALD chairman of the board? this is only
    one case, men also are required to shave their bears if they want to
    make to the top, i dont think i even seen a CEO or chairman who has
    big bear or big mostach, this mean men are also asked to look a 
    'certain' way to make it !

    every one wants men to be like Hercules or Arnold zwagerschilled
    just like every one want the women to look like Bridget Bardoo or
    Marylen morno, but THAT IS NOT RIGHT !!

    this is offcourse is all wrong, and we men and women should unit
    to stop these things done to both us, and enough is enough!
    
    we should all love each other for what we are, and not try to
    change each others to please others !

    every one of us is special person for what they are, and please
    remember, you are the most important person in your life !

    thank you,

    \nasser

re .85:

Now I know why KO was canned -- he was bald.  He probably never shaved a bear
either.

    .86  I'm roooolling !!!  That was good timing.  Just what I needed at 
    4:15 Friday.
    
    
    Just to add to the conversation;  in my 15 year career I have ALSO been 
    passed over for the promotion, not because of qualifications, but
    because of, let's say being the wrong gender.  AM I bitter ? when I then
    have to train my NEW boss? You bet.  So, I pull my self together and 
    find a better opportunity.
    
    But I have never shaved a bear -)                            
    
    mp

    re .84
    
    Duh! Y'all mean we ain't??? (idjits, thayut is....)   ;-|)#

    Reminds me of last year, the local office here in Detroit wanted to run
    a fashion show during the lunch hour, and sent out a memo looking for
    models, and asking  for dress sizes.  They didn't appreciate me
    replying that I'd love to model, but since I don't normally wear
    dresses, I didn't know my dress size.
    
    2  hours later, they sent out  another memo looking for models  for the
    male fashion show.
    
    A week later, they canceled the whole thing.
    
    	Stu

    	Jim's right. NOBODY takes me seriously, including Jim...although
    Jim may take me seriously after his next review (just kidding, Jim! -
    heh heh heh). And it's a real problem. Every once in a while, I
    actually do some work. I'll write a design spec and send it out. I'll
    get responses back like, "I read the whole thing, and it wasn't funny
    at all." So I think it's fair to say that STEVE knows what women are
    going through. I mean, how do you know that I'm not a woman trapped in
    a man's body afterall...Oops...wrong conference.

    
    	re .77
    
    		Right on brother!

    			

	Re: 77

	All I can see is massive chips on your shoulders.

	Noone said life was fair for ANYONE, however beefing about seminars 
	that are set up for women, that some women would like to attend, isn't 
	going to help your career diddly squat.

	If you want to be seen as a professional, then I suggest a different 
	course of action to the one you are taking.

	Heather

    RE: -1
    
    	Ditto, I couldn't have said it better.
    
    Joe

Re:         <<< Note 2656.3 by TOPDOC::AHERN "Dennis the Menace" >>>

>    How is a seminar on skin care and glamour [sic] work related?
    
Just for the record "glamour" with a "u" is the preferred spelling according to 
my American Heritage disctionary.  However "glamorize" and "glamorous" (without 
the "u") are the preferred spellings of those derivatives.

-  David

    RE: .92  Heather
    
    > Noone said life was fair for ANYONE, however beefing about seminars... 
    > ...isn't going to help your career diddly squat.
    
    Did you write this when folks were beefing about the so-called 'touchy
    feely' seminars/training as well, by the way?
    
    Do you write this in all the many, many, many topics in this file
    where people beef about almost every aspect of life at Digital?
    
    I guess I'm wondering why you would make such harsh comments to
    someone about "beefing" when it seems (to me, at least) that "beefing
    about Digital" seems to be one of the most common activities in this
    file.  Is there some unwritten rule about what is ok to "beef" about
    when it comes to this company and what is not?

>    > Noone said life was fair for ANYONE, however beefing about seminars... 
>    > ...isn't going to help your career diddly squat.
    
>    Did you write this when folks were beefing about the so-called 'touchy
>    feely' seminars/training as well, by the way?
 
	No
   
	I believe they help some people, don't help others, and actually harm 
	some people.

	Forcing people to attend these types of courses with the added pressure
 	of your career depending on the outcome is just too much for some 
	people, especially if they are under other pressure at the time.
	
	Personally, I was in the - "didn't do me any good, but it didn't do me 
	any harm either" category. However, I did not appreciate being taken 
	away from my home, friends, family, and having to put my cats in 
	kennels.
	Unfortunately for one of our group who had a mental breakdown, not all 
	people were so lucky.

>    Do you write this in all the many, many, many topics in this file
>    where people beef about almost every aspect of life at Digital?
 
	No.
   
>    I guess I'm wondering why you would make such harsh comments to
>    someone about "beefing" when it seems (to me, at least) that "beefing
>    about Digital" seems to be one of the most common activities in this
>    file.  Is there some unwritten rule about what is ok to "beef" about
>    when it comes to this company and what is not?

	This person wasn't beefing about Digital, but trying to stop others
	going to a seminar in their lunch break, under the guise of the
	fact that if they went, it would harm their career.

	And diddly squat is not a harsh comment.

	Heather

RE: .96 

Okay, Heather, I'm lost.

In reply .96, you are answering reply .95. 
Reply .95 is discussing what you wrote in reply .92. 
Reply .92 refers to reply .77. 

When reply .95 asked why you (in reply .92) would ". . . make such
harsh comments to someone about 'beefing' . . ." , your answer was: 

	> This person wasn't beefing about Digital, but trying to 
	> stop others going to a seminar in their lunch break, under 
	> the guise of the fact that if they went, it would harm their 
	> career. 
                                                                      
I don't see anything in reply .77 about anyone harming their career by
going to the seminar. 

Am I misunderstanding something here?

Marleen

	.4 and .41

    RE: .98  Heather
    
    Where in .4 or .41 does the author say *anything* about people
    harming their careers by going to the seminar?
    
    Sounds like you owe her an apology.
    

    .99 You might want to re-read .41, and then read .96, last lines. 
    I believe you will see the correlation. 
    
    IMO

    RE: .100
    
    Well, I've looked (more than once) at both notes and I don't see
    the correlation.
    
    Nowhere in .41 does the author say anything whatsoever about a
    person's career being harmed by attending the seminar in question.
    
    The notion simply isn't there.

    RE: 100, 101:
    
    I still can't see it either. Please tell me where it says, or even
    implies, that a person's career could be harmed by attending the
    seminar.
    
    Marleen

    
    	RE: last few
    
    		I think if you look, you'll find that .41 is only restating
    what .32 was saying (only more succinctly) and that .32 is in direct
    rebuttal of .15, .72, .81 AND .9. But these, in no way, have any bearing
    on .66 which is just an extension to .71 (which of course continues
    .80) I believe you'll find that .103 pretty much sums up the situation,
    but really doesn't refute .54 

    
    RE: -.1
    
    Cute.  :>
    

    I simply can't believe that anyone would use up their valuable
    coffee-break time to re-read these notes.
    
    Mark

    I agree with .77.  
    
    I think that the seminar mentioned in .0 is sexist.
    
    If there are going to be seminars on glamour (or dress/hair/etc), then
    they should be offered to *both* men and women, or they should not be
    offered at all.  To only offer a seminar such as this to women is
    sexist because, as others have said previously, it suggests that only
    women need to worry about their looks in the workplace, and that it is
    important for women to be glamorous or pretty in order to succeed,
    whereas men can expect to succeed simply on the quality of their work
    alone, regardless of their appearance.   
    
    Lorna
    

    
    I disagree with .106, a woman having a bad hair day is tough on all of us.
    
    
    Gary

    i myself do like women any way they look, bad hair day or not !

    \nasser

    Re: .107 by SNELL::ROBERTS
    
    >...a woman having a bad hair day is tough on all of us.
    
    Speak for yourself.  As an adult male in Girl Scouts, I go on weekend
    outings with lots of women. I contend that this focus on 'bad hair' is
    a grossly overrated and passing fad. I hope the phrase "bad hair day"
    dies a quick death.    It has ceased to be funny (I never really found
    it to be funny or clever in the first place).
    
    This focus on so-called 'glamour' is just manifestation of an age-old
    ploy for men to dominate women. It's all about power and control and
    does nothing to appreciate people (of either gender) for what they
    contribute to the workplace or society.   

    I believe there is an implication in .4 and .41 that women who choose
    to attend the so-called glamour seminar may, through their attendance
    or general attitude or whatever, perpetuate the stereotype of women as
    glamour-conscious airheads and thus hurt their own careers as well as
    those of women who aspire to success through excellence.
    
    Perhaps objections to the seminar should be directed to the appropriate
    site activities committee, which is always on the lookout for things of
    potential interest to employees and decided to make space available to
    a company or store whose true aim is to sell cosmetics and/or treatments.
    
    Mac

    >Speak for yourself.  As an adult male in Girl Scouts, I go on weekend
    >outings with lots of women. I contend that this focus on 'bad hair' is
    >a grossly overrated and passing fad. I hope the phrase "bad hair day"
    >dies a quick death.    It has ceased to be funny (I never really found
    >it to be funny or clever in the first place).
    
    I was.   

    >This focus on so-called 'glamour' is just manifestation of an age-old
    >ploy for men to dominate women. It's all about power and control and
    >does nothing to appreciate people (of either gender) for what they
    >contribute to the workplace or society.   
	
  
    Bull Feces.  You can screem this all you want, it doesn't make it true.

    	re .106

>    whereas men can expect to succeed simply on the quality of their work
>    alone, regardless of their appearance.   
    
    	I disagree with this entriely, as you are obviously attempting to
    	downplay the importance of the 'good old boy network' in the advancement
    	of some people's careers! 
    
    	John ;)

    re .109
    
    While "bad hair day" might pass, women have been concerned about their
    hair for thousands of years.

    I think Nasser has it right. DEC has only VMS solutions for glamour
    at this time. More Open System solution systems are coming however.
    
    
    Why am I even commenting here??!!?

                    .-1

    >I think Nasser has it right. 

    thanks \Herb , it is not always that people come to see the truth of
    what i say, but when they finally do, it still makes me feel good all over.

    now, back to the subject of glamour and women in the work place, i think 
    women have had made tremendous advances over the years and i hope
    that they will continue to do so in the foreseeable and not so
    foreseeable future, we must not take take that personally ( especially
    to the male species among us) but instead we need to use these images 
    as a mirror to look withen for a brighter future where men  and women 
    can stand side by side on equal and loving basis to work hand by hand 
    to the advancement of science, technology, medicine, the arts, social 
    affairs and many more, all to the benefits of all of humans regardless of 
    sex, gender, color, basis of origin, religion, sexual orientation and 
    national afflation.

    in many countries outside America women still have to achieve what women
    in America and to some certain extent in western Europe and Australia
    and New Zeland have achieved in these above mentioned endeavors, but i 
    think that a closer cooperations between the 2 sexes can only lead to 
    a shiner future, not just for women but even for men alike. i look 
    forward to the day where we understand each others more, work with 
    each others closer, all with more understanding and comprehension of each 
    others.
    
    i have tried to reflect some of my thoughts on this subject by saying
    all of this, this is not an easy subject to talk about since many people 
    are emotional about it as can already be seen in the last proceedings 
    notes, but we MUST open up and talk about it in fair, honest, 
    uncompromising and considerate manner for the good of all of us.

    i'll try to add more thoughts on this in the coming days i hope.

    \nasser
           

      Elegantly written.  What more needs to be said?

      Terry

Would life be easier if when a person wished to be treated as fulfilling a role
they dressed as per that role?

If a person wishes to be treated as physically strong and mechanically adept
they wore overalls?

If they wished to be acknowledged as a person of power they dressed in a pin
stripe suit.

It might be stereotyping but its certainly easy to spot how someone wants to be 
regarded.

So when you wish to be treated as an adult when taking your car in to be fixed
wear a boiler suit and be made up with the correct grade of grease on the face
and hands. ( I've tried it and it works! )

	Firstly, as a man I'm not qualified to say what will be offensive
	to women (although I can at least try and imagine what would be).

	Secondly, for dress; it really depends on the situation.  If I'm
	in the office and hacking away then I wear jeans and (as you
	Americans would say) sneakers.  However, when I visit customers, or
	they visit me, I wear either a suit, or trousers, shirt and a tie.
	You should note that I normally wear trousers, just wrinkled ones.

	Thirdly, women are culturally conditioned to care more about
	their appearance than men are [I don't want to get into a nature
	nurture debate here].  So, if this course were to give some of
	the attendees more confidence in themselves then why not?

	Finally, did anyone go?

	Dave

    RE: .110  Mac
    
    > I believe there is an implication in .4 and .41 that women who choose
    > to attend the so-called glamour seminar may, through their attendance
    > or general attitude or whatever,...
    
    You can infer (and believe) anything you like, but the fact is that
    the author of .4 and .41 did not *state* the things claimed in your
    note (and a couple of others.)

    Re. .113 by BMT::WALKER:
    
    >re .109
    >
    >While "bad hair day" might pass, women have been concerned about their
    >hair for thousands of years.
    
    Exactly.  But should a woman's self-confidence in the workplace depend
    on how her hair looks?  Thousands of years ago, she was primarily
    trying to attract a mate; her primary duties were child bearing and
    child rearing.  Why should Digital invest in a seminar designed to make
    a woman more successful in a domestic setting?  As I see it, this
    'glamour' seminar smacks of reluctance to accept women as fit to persue
    interests that do not depend on male approval.  

    re Dressing for Customers rathole:
    
    Before I worked for Digital I worked in a smaller company (around 70
    people).  This company provided applications and computer resources to
    serve the oil and gas industry (this was before the "oil bust" of the
    mid 80s).  I normally came to work in jeans, sneakers, and t-shirt or golf
    shirt, because my group was to care of the 5 mainframe system's
    hardware performance and operating system needs.  There were 4 others
    in my group, we stayed in our offices when we wanted to pick our toes
    (or whatever); we knew the Paying Customers were kept away from our
    area, known as "The Cave".  There were around 6 applications
    programmers, and the rest of the folks were in Sales, Customer
    Services, or management.
    
    I had been on customer visits, and I was instructed to "dress up", and
    I learned to ask "how much".  (Not that I had many options, since I
    only had one suit, and two jackets.)
    
    One day the sales manager came into my office and wanted to take me
    with him on a visit to a customer having various technical problems.  I
    On this occasion I was told "Don't forget: wear jeans and a clean
    T-shirt.  The customer wants to talk to someone who KNOWS THINGS."
    
    When we got to the customer's impressive office in a high rise
    building, I walked into a conference room with a number of people who
    were all wearing suits. Their faces all brightned when I came into the
    room, they asked me a bunch of questions (most of which I knew the
    answers to), and the account was saved. 

    Re: 121
    
    Interesting story. However, 20+ years in customer service have
    led me to believe that most customers see it as lack of respect
    when someone insists on engaging in a professional relationship,
    such as attending a business meeting where everyone else is
    wearing business suits, while wearing casual attire. Some are
    impressed with the "know it all computo-geek" routine. Most are not.
    If the work is of high quality, it does no harm to present a
    professional appearance. In the majority of cases customers have
    more than one quality service provider to choose from. If you think
    appearance cannot make a difference in the choice, you're wrong. If
    company "A" needs a service both DEC and a competitor can provide,
    and they feel the quality of work will be the same from either, they
    will choose the competitor if the last time DEC showed up we looked
    like arrogant computer nerds while the competition looked like pros. 

Re .122: Broad statements like that are bull. It all boils down to knowing 
your customer, knowing when to dress up and when to dress down. I've been 
working with a division of the corporate account I support. I have traveled to 
over 20 of their locations across the U.S. and at each I wear an Alpha or
Digital golf shirt, casual pants and sneakers. At the HQ for this division
they dress casually every friday. This morning we delivered a Pathworks PID
dressed casually. I was even wearing a baseball hat. No problem.

Ours is one of the most successful accounts in the company and our recently
reparted AGM fully supported casual dress in the office if no customer
activities were scheduled. It didn't go over too well with stuffy management
types in the rest of the building, but now I see those in other groups adopting
the same approach. 

Its a simple philosophy, really: Don't offend! Be comfortable! Be productive!

Regards,

Jim
Casual and Productive in Rochester

    on this wearing cloths rat hole, when i worked for EDS i had to wear
    very neat cloths, a tie and white shirt and the whole thing, i 
    rememeber when i first interviewed with them for the job , i could not 
    even wear a shoe that had the little flipper on front of it, even the 
    shoe had to be a straight shoe with no fancy things hanging of it, or
    of the side, they were this rigid, they were more stuck up on cloth than 
    IBM i heard later.

    but i think dressing up for the customer is a good idea, but it also
    depends who you are going to see, if you are going to see big managers
    at customer site, then you must dress up nice, if you are going to
    see fellow engineers in the back rooms and in the lab, then dress
    in t-shirts and snickers i'd say.  the bottom line is, be flexible,
    adjust to the circumstances and the condition of the working
    environment.

    and btw, ref .117, dear \Mitchdelld, IAM NOT A WIND UP, PLEASE !!

    ok, thank you very much,
    \nasser

    
    
    Why not have uniforms.  Golf type shirt with logo on it and neat, clean
    work pants.  I think our technicians should wear this.  I'd hate to see
    a tie get caught in a printer of something.
    
    
    Mike

>    at customer site, then you must dress up nice, if you are going to
>    see fellow engineers in the back rooms and in the lab, then dress
>    in t-shirts and snickers i'd say. 

That's a great idea. Fellow engineers always like it when you have a few
Snickers bars to hand out.

    Well, at one time there was a move afoot to have the Field Service
    people wear Blazers with the Digital logo on them. I tried one ...
    made me feel like a Century 21 agent.
    
    Re: .123 
    
    I agree with your philosophy 100%. However, thought it may sound like
    bull to some, I stand by my statements. The people in DEC who visit
    the most customers, and the most varied customers, can't go home
    between each call and change to fit the situation. I have carried
    a change with me, on occasion, when the place was just too nasty,
    but there isn't usually time for the Clark Kent/Superman routine ....
    and the phone booths here are too small!
    
    I really wish the business dress code in the Western World would
    change to a less rigid one, and I know that it is beginning to
    in some quarters (there's something perverted about a society that
    makes it's business class run about with ropes around their necks -
    in this I envy the women). However, until that happens I will "dress
    for success" (and that is not always a suit!), and not jeprodise (sp)
    the success of my company to make some personal statement.
    

	Well, I have been up to my eyes in a bid recently, so just
	catching up.

	As the first seminar was 14th, and the next is tomorrow.....

	Does anyone know how well the first one went, or heard any reports.
	or how many have booked for tomorrow ?

	Heather