Dressing to go to work

is "different" now - or is it?

A young columnist in our state newspaper was criticised heavily yesterday for saying people should dress up to go to work. He even advocated a collar and tie for men in the office  - and more. Shock! Horror! Fancy having to dress nicely to go to work!

I have said elsewhere in this blog that I went to school so long ago that it was an era when girls in the secondary school were expected to wear stockings, gloves and a hat. People laugh at the idea now but we did not laugh at the inspecting prefects at the school gate. Perhaps that school was a little more "old-fashioned" than most but we still did it.

There was a Premier of this state who shorts into parliament. That met with severe criticism - and it was justified. It was the wrong thing to do. Parliament is not a place for casual dress at any time.

The Senior Cat always wore a collar and tie to work. Our mother never wore slacks outside the house - and never owned a pair of jeans. 

When I was working with a group of severely and profoundly disabled students I did wear trousers to school. So did other members of the staff. It was a practical choice. I often sat on the floor nursing a child in the seizure position we had been taught to use. You don't want to wear trousers and try to do that. There were all sorts of hazards from wheelchairs and braces and other things. Stockings would have been ruined almost immediately. Still we all tried to look neat and tidy. There was no way we would have worn t-shirts or jeans with "air conditioning". 

It seems that is no longer the case. Even in a court of law women are wearing trouser suits but I have yet to see any member of the legal profession wearing jeans and t-shirts. Suits are still the most likely form of dress in the magistrate's court. There is still formal dress at higher levels - and so there should be.  People might be amused by wigs and gowns but would you take a judge in jeans and a t-shirt seriously? Would you want to be married by a celebrant who turned up in the clothes s/he was painting the bathroom in? 

The last time I went to court (as amicus curiae) I wore black trousers and a jacket. It was completely acceptable. If I had come in jeans and "sweatshirt" I simply would not have been taken seriously. I can remember going into court once. I never discovered what the case ahead of the one I had gone to assist with was about. The reason? The judge (it was the District Court) refused to hear the case because of the way the female barrister was dressed. That may sound appalling but he was right. She was quite obviously and deliberately provocatively dressed. It did her client no good at all. The barrister was fuming but a revealing and bright red dress was an obvious attempt to distract. It was reported in the media of the day and there were some letters - in support of being appropriately dressed.

I do not approve the idea of "morality police" such as you find in Iran but I do believe in being appropriately addressed for the occasion and the situation in which you find yourself. We once went to the Bar Mitzvah of a boy we were all very fond of and considered it a privilege to be invited. (I actually made B...'s yarmulke, knitting in blue and white and ten sections with a symbol for around it.) The Senior Cat wore a yarmulke too. I covered my arms and borrowed a longish skirt because there were elderly people in the congregation who expected that women would dress that way.  It was the right thing to do on that occasion. I have worn a sari to an Indian wedding, again the right thing to do - even when I was afraid the whole thing would come adrift!

Going to work in grubby jeans and a t-shirt might be fine if you work on a building site but not everyone works on a building site. I still say "dress for the occasion" - not yourself.