policy with pop

The Torkelsons: Dress Matters

One of the most endearing shows in history is The Torkelsons. You’ve probably never heard of the show as it only lasted one season. The Torkelsons follows an Oklahoma family that has little money but a lot of heart and quirkiness. The most relatable character on the show is Dorothy Jane.

Dorothy Jane is a dreamer’s dreamer. She’s the smart, responsible girl, who’s an outsider. She wishes to be part of the in-crowd. She dreams of escaping her small town life for one of metropolitan sophistication and romance. She pines for the older, boy-next-door Riley Roberts. Essentially Dorothy Jane wants what she cannot have (don’t we all?), and it’s really touching and funny. 

The second episode, The Cotillion, is one of my favorites. Dorothy Jane has a school dance to attend. With no money for a new dress and with hopes of going with Riley, will she have the dance of her dreams? Or will it be a hilarious disaster? Watch:

When Riley steps in and tells Dreama that no one would look better in Dreama’s donated dress than Dorothy Jane, CLASSIC. And when Dorthy Jane declares it her “reincarnated” fall cotillion gown, that was… too cheesy.

This episode made me think of a high school incident I had. But my incident has nothing to do with a dance or any crush. In fact, by recounting this (ancient) story, I will be confirming that I am a bit of a… nerd (shock!), but here goes.

One of my best high school friends – let’s call her “Allie” – loved to shop and dress in trendy clothes. I believe she shopped at Macy’s and Forever 21. One day I wondered if she would be willing to wear clothes from a thrift store or from K-Mart or Sears. So I asked her.

Allie immediately responded, “Hellz no!”  I tried to sweeten the deal. I told her I would pay for an outfit from K-Mart, if she would wear it to school. The answer was still “no.” I then told her I would buy her whatever outfit she wanted from K-Mart and she could tell our schoolmates it was from Macy’s. Yeah… that didn’t work either. She refused to be associated in any way with any thrift store, K-Mart or Sears clothes (apparently she hadn’t seen the softer side of Sears).

This incident and The Torkelsons episode got me thinking. By wearing “cheap” clothes, do we signal to others that we are “poor?” Does it matter?

Apparently it mattered to Dorothy Jane and my friend, Allie, who were both high school girls and came from working class families. Would it be different if they were older? Younger? Male? Richer? Out of school? Working?

Do clothes make a statement about the person wearing them? Should it? Is it superficial to judge people by their clothes? Or is it an important method to analyze people?

Abercrombie & Fitch: A Hot Mess?

Looks matter. But should it be the be-all, end-all?

Apparently it is at Abercrombie & Fitch. The clothing store has a policy of rating its employees’ hotness weekly. The scale is from a 0 to 5 scale. 0 means the employee is… not hot enough to help customers and is banished to the stockroom, away from customer eyes. And, a score of 5 means the employee is hot enough to be a “model” (known as “sales rep” at normal stores) on the retail floor. Oh, and there’s no in between score. You’re either hot or not.

If you recall, in 2005 Abercrombie was sued and later settled a lawsuit that claimed that the store racially discriminated against minorities in the hiring and promotion process. In the settlement, Abercrombie paid $40 million to the class action lawsuit participants, hired a diversity recruitment coordinator, and implemented specific policies to attract minority employees and have fair workplace practices.

Despite these steps, Abercrombie apparently still has questions about its treatment of minority. A court-appointed monitor recently noted that Asian Americans and Latinos were “entirely absent” in the store’s marketing campaign.

Minorities are legally protected by anti-discrimination laws. Being discriminated because of one’s appearance is not illegal, unless it is being used as a guise for racial discrimination or discrimination to any other protected group under the law.

Assuming that Abercrombie is not using the hotness test as a guise for racial discrimination, is it okay that the store dismisses an employee as sales representative because of his/her look, regardless of skill and ability? What message does this send to its youthful buyers? Should appearance-based discrimination be illegal?

The Shorts Suit: A Project Runway Hit?

One of the readers at PolicyWithPop.com (Emily) asked me to write something up about Project Runway. I love that show and the suggestion. So, here it goes.

In the current 5th season of Project Runway, one designer caught my eye. Unfortunately, it was not what he was making for the competition. What caught my eye was what he was wearing.

Wesley, who was eliminated on the second challenge, regularly wore a shorts suit - a normal suit top but, instead of pants, shorts. Honestly, I wasn't sure how I felt about his shorts suit. It definitely has a point of view, and it could be argued that it is fashion forward.

Apparently the shorts suit is making its way into the workplace. The New York Times recently did a story explaining that the shorts suit is gaining credibility at some firms and offices. In the article, those that wear the shorts to work argue that the short suit makes perfect sense stylistically and especially for the hot summer days. Plus, they admit it allows them to show off their calves, which women are already allowed to do in the workplace.

Despite the manly-leg revolution, many top firms have kept their ban on the shorts suit. They do not believe the shorts suit is professional enough for the office.

As Heidi says, "One day you're in. The next day you're out." You be the judge.

So should the shorts suits be acceptable workplace attire? Or is this just a new fad that will eventually fade?