Re: Dress Code

[Ad absurdum per aspera <JTCHEW -at- LBL -dot- GOV>]

> Is the point here that people aren't listening to someone because of
> what they wear?  or because of what they do (tech communicator)?

Well... people can find all sorts of reasons not to listen
to you, especially if what you're saying doesn't jibe with
what they've been thinking.  The point is to give them one
less reason.  The exact manner of dress that accomplishes
this goal will vary from place to place, and sometimes the
"audience" for this "communication" is as hopelessly hetero-
geneous as anything you'll ever see in your readership survey.
Clothes make people judge you and place you in an identity
group.  Sorry -- that's how it is.  Keep your chin up and
make it work for you.

Here, if I wore a banker-lawyer suit without a good excuse
(e.g., a review by DOE headquarters, a meeting with businessmen,
etc.), the scientists I work with would look at me with great
suspicion -- uh oh, here comes One of Them!  (We've got one
researcher who yells "Bureaucrat in the lab" when I come to
visit, regardless.)  Rockports and Dockers, with an ever-so-
slightly go-to-hell tweed jacket when the situation requires,
is the local protective coloration.  In other jobs I've held,
it's been jeans and sneakers and the product team's official
T-shirt. Or overalls.  Or pinstripes.

The thing to do with de facto "dress codes" is to analyze and
understand them and either conform or deviate for a purpose,
with a good idea of what the result will be -- a concept that
ought to be familiar to the writer and editor.

But then again, my wife is convinced that I think GQ means
"General Quarters," and her hobby is throwing away perfectly
good clothes that not only fit me but were in style when I
bought them at the Sears Surplus Store in 1981, so take my
advice with a grain of salt. :)

Joe
"The pallid pimp of the dead-line/The enervate of the pen" -Robert Service