Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Employer Partnering With Spanx
Replies
-
Charlene____ wrote: »My company has no business relationship with Spanx; I do not work for Spanx or any clothing retailer but I do work in a customer facing position. The company has said that Spanx was a way to promote confidence in our uniform.
I once wore some sort of torture hosiery once before and it was an awful experience. I wear normal control-top pantyhose which is acceptable (all women must wear hosiery that matches their skin tone). I just personally felt that the promotion of Spanx which markets its brand on flattening the tummy and lifting the butt to be a little in the gray area.
This doesn't sit well with me still. That's like saying women shouldn't feel confident in how they look without keeping their stomach pooch tucked away. I don't necessarily think the company crossed that "line" or was too terribly offensive but it seems like a slippery slope to me and I can see how some women might be offended.7 -
I have a question - this will be subjective on your part, but I'm interested. In your opinion, putting aside the spanx recommendation. Do you find it the case that there is less focus on your male coworker's appearance than your women coworkers (for instance, women are required to wear pantyhose, wear makeup, have as smooth a line as possible under the uniform while men are required to tuck in their shirts and wear dress shoes)? Is there a preceptable difference between how an overweight male coworker might be treated vs. an overweight woman? And are women themselves treated differently at different weights (you mentioned your company is inclusive, so this also came up in my mind).
I think that unless your company gets a kickback from employees purchasing spanx (and I didn't get that from your responses) it's odd and kind of creepy for them to encourage a specific type of undergarment for just the women.
5 -
I feel like they would make flight attendants do this. It depends on what they require I guess. Is It to help preventt varicose veins or help posture? Or is it purely to look better?0
-
I think it is fine if it is part of a specific uniform because that is what a uniform is- an expected manner of appearing in a work place. Lucky for me, my employer has no such requirement because i could never force myself to wear spanx...it is hit or miss if i even wear a bra to work.3
-
CatchMom13 wrote: »Charlene____ wrote: »The company has said that Spanx was a way to promote confidence in our uniform.
Hmmmm, no. Spanx are marketed as making you look thinner, that's where you're supposed to get your "confidence" boost from (blegh). Why do you need to look thinner for your job? For customers? Are you being used as decoration as well as functional employees?
For me it falls under the same scope as making women wear heels to work. They lengthen the legs, supposedly make you look slimmer and are generally seen as "sexier" than flats. They're also uncomfortable and can be expensive. And women have no obligation to look sexy as part of their job unless that is actually explicitly their job. There have been court cases where making women wear heels is ruled discriminatory.
I have to disagree. I don't think Spanx are marketed to make you look thinner - Sarah Blake doesn't need that. They're marketed to give you cleaner lines in clothing that isn't always forgiving (dress slacks, linens, etc.) Spanx have nothing to do with looking sexy. It simply about cleaner lines. There's also no requirement per the OP.
Yeah, I have a pair that I wear on special occasions. It has nothing to do with looking slimmer, I just want my closer fitting dresses to have a smooth line. I think they have a variety of strengths though.
I have a sister who weighs about 100 pounds soaking wet and I think she wore Spanx under her wedding dress this summer. She just wanted to ensure she looked put together for the pictures.2 -
When I was in the military, the dress code included requirements for undergarments.
These days, I work from home in my pajamas until lunchtime, at which point I change into exercise clothes. Bra-less, spanx-less.8 -
If my job required these then they had better never, ever complain about the sheer number of times I remove myself to the restroom in a shift. Solely for the purpose of rearranging said spanx. Horrible things. I have been fitted twice for undergarments by the request of a bride who wanted her bridesmaids to have “clean lines” sales pitch if I ever heard one.... the things bind, roll, bunch, etc. They are horrible! I took my measurements both on and off. With both(different sizes for the different body shapes I was), they adjusted my shape by less than 1/2” here and there. Garbage. And that is where I put them. I went from registered massage therapist in my athletic pants(not yoga tights) and tops, to currently a school bus driver/hobby farmer in jeans and hiking boots. I dress up for date night but my husband hates spanx as much as I do. Preying on women’s insecurities. My only form of praise for them was that they kept me warmer. I am always cold.9
-
I like Spanx or similar product from other slightly cheaper companies, simply because when I'm wearing dressy clothes I like to have a smoother line. I am not overweight at the moment although a few lbs above my happy weight, but I am in my mid 50's and after a lifetime of working out still my jiggly bits are hanging lower/more jiggly than I like. The only thing I might ask about this is if the males in your workplace have had special underwear with internal support pouch to keep their jiggly bits in place 'suggested'.... for instance SAXX or Sheath? 'What's sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander.'7
-
I'm not sure it is body shaming - but i think it is crossing the line of what is acceptable.
and would border on discrimination unless in a very specific workplace where people's appearance needs to be very specific - ie not just generally neat and well groomed, with or without an actual (outer) uniform.
Cannot imagine my employer specifying underwear requirements - I have worked in places with uniforms and places with just dress codes.
Admittedly jobs where my function is more important than my appearance - although basic neatness and appropriateness of clothing is required in almost every job with any public face at all.
This would not include Spanx.2 -
I've worked quite a few jobs where my appearance was the job. Wearing Spanx wouldn't have been an odd request for these jobs at all. I interviewed just last month for a job where my sole purpose of being there would've been to look cute and smile. Offering Spanx would've been normal there.
There's really no way to say whether this was odd or not without more information and context.5 -
There's not enough information for me to give an opinion on the OP.
The only time in my life that I've ever worn a Spanx-like garment was under a body-con dress because I didn't want bra and panty lines to show. I bought a full slip to do this, and it worked perfectly. It was quite comfortable and didn't roll.3 -
Tough one.
For me a marketing thing targeted to only the female employees would be a major red flag. They in fact nudge their their female employees to wear undergarments that are the modern form of corsets, but not men. What does this day about their professionalism and there stance on equality?
Maybe it is not so much body shaming but the fact that they provide an image incentive (because that is what it would be) just to the female staff would state something on how they view women in customer facing situations vs men in customer situations.6 -
Lolinloggen wrote: »Tough one.
For me a marketing thing targeted to only the female employees would be a major red flag. They in fact nudge their their female employees to wear undergarments that are the modern form of corsets, but not men. What does this day about their professionalism and there stance on equality?
Maybe it is not so much body shaming but the fact that they provide an image incentive (because that is what it would be) just to the female staff would state something on how they view women in customer facing situations vs men in customer situations.
I've been hoping the thread would go this direction...
How do you balance pragmatic and/or financial reasons with social issues? Most business will see at least some benefit from employing healthy, fit, attractive people in customer-facing positions. Some businesses will benefit greatly from it. Now, what you consider "healthy, fit, attractive" can vary, but most people won't describe it as over weight and/or unkempt, right? Having a dress code certainly isn't unusual... would it be a big leap to go from a generally accepted "professional" dress code to something more along the lines of fitted clothing and/or discouraging bulky sweaters or sloppy sport coats. Heck, you could even require "appropriate make-up and grooming of facial hair" (or however you'd want to word it.
Companies hire for positions based on skills needed by that position. No one squawks if 1 candidate is passed over for another because of differences in data analysis or foreign language skills... why shouldn't appearance play a role in certain positions as well? Just like language skills, one's appearance can be largely controlled/changed.7 -
I've been hoping the thread would go this direction...
How do you balance pragmatic and/or financial reasons with social issues? Most business will see at least some benefit from employing healthy, fit, attractive people in customer-facing positions. Some businesses will benefit greatly from it. Now, what you consider "healthy, fit, attractive" can vary, but most people won't describe it as over weight and/or unkempt, right? Having a dress code certainly isn't unusual... would it be a big leap to go from a generally accepted "professional" dress code to something more along the lines of fitted clothing and/or discouraging bulky sweaters or sloppy sport coats. Heck, you could even require "appropriate make-up and grooming of facial hair" (or however you'd want to word it.
Companies hire for positions based on skills needed by that position. No one squawks if 1 candidate is passed over for another because of differences in data analysis or foreign language skills... why shouldn't appearance play a role in certain positions as well? Just like language skills, one's appearance can be largely controlled/changed.
My issues with this are a) will the business actually see a benefit or is the idea that fit, conventionally attractive people are smarter/ more capable/ more trustworthy etc just so deeply embedded in our social consciousness that nobody even thinks to question it? I think it's the latter. And b) this standard is almost never applied equally to both binary genders.
Long hair on men is generally not allowed, it's seen as "unkempt" even if it is well cared for and tidy. A woman is seen as being "more professional" in heels even though they add absolutely nothing to her capability and in fact if they're uncomfortable are a distraction from her actual job. If the female uniform is form fitting with clean lines are the men in skinny trousers and tight shirts? Make-up is another one; men are not expected to paint their faces to adhere to a professional standard.
Maybe I can see shops/ businesses who sell these products (high end shoes, makeup brands, clothing stores) having some benefit from an aesthetically driven dress code but I don't need my accountant in heels, or my waitress in a skin tight dress or my flight attendant with full glam makeup on. Tbh I don't even need my bank manager in a suit either but at least nobody is trying to sell me the attractiveness of the man in the suit as part of my purchase.6 -
I've been hoping the thread would go this direction...
How do you balance pragmatic and/or financial reasons with social issues? Most business will see at least some benefit from employing healthy, fit, attractive people in customer-facing positions. Some businesses will benefit greatly from it. Now, what you consider "healthy, fit, attractive" can vary, but most people won't describe it as over weight and/or unkempt, right? Having a dress code certainly isn't unusual... would it be a big leap to go from a generally accepted "professional" dress code to something more along the lines of fitted clothing and/or discouraging bulky sweaters or sloppy sport coats. Heck, you could even require "appropriate make-up and grooming of facial hair" (or however you'd want to word it.
Companies hire for positions based on skills needed by that position. No one squawks if 1 candidate is passed over for another because of differences in data analysis or foreign language skills... why shouldn't appearance play a role in certain positions as well? Just like language skills, one's appearance can be largely controlled/changed.
My issues with this are a) will the business actually see a benefit or is the idea that fit, conventionally attractive people are smarter/ more capable/ more trustworthy etc just so deeply embedded in our social consciousness that nobody even thinks to question it? I think it's the latter. And b) this standard is almost never applied equally to both binary genders.
Long hair on men is generally not allowed, it's seen as "unkempt" even if it is well cared for and tidy. A woman is seen as being "more professional" in heels even though they add absolutely nothing to her capability and in fact if they're uncomfortable are a distraction from her actual job. If the female uniform is form fitting with clean lines are the men in skinny trousers and tight shirts? Make-up is another one; men are not expected to paint their faces to adhere to a professional standard.
Maybe I can see shops/ businesses who sell these products (high end shoes, makeup brands, clothing stores) having some benefit from an aesthetically driven dress code but I don't need my accountant in heels, or my waitress in a skin tight dress or my flight attendant with full glam makeup on. Tbh I don't even need my bank manager in a suit either but at least nobody is trying to sell me the attractiveness of the man in the suit as part of my purchase.
I don't think it has anything do with ability or competence. Its not sexual either... women don't need to have their boobs hanging out and men don't need to have the buttons popping on their shirts or socks stuffed down the front of their pants. It has to do a natural, primitive draw to healthy, attractive people. People who present themselves as healthy, happy and confident will be received better than those who don't, all other things being equal. I can't speak to other countries/cultures, but the US is a pretty vain place... appearance is, for many, a significant factor in the happy and confident part, and can play a pretty direct role in healthy, too.9 -
I don't think it has anything do with ability or competence. Its not sexual either... women don't need to have their boobs hanging out and men don't need to have the buttons popping on their shirts or socks stuffed down the front of their pants. It has to do a natural, primitive draw to healthy, attractive people. People who present themselves as healthy, happy and confident will be received better than those who don't, all other things being equal. I can't speak to other countries/cultures, but the US is a pretty vain place... appearance is, for many, a significant factor in the happy and confident part, and can play a pretty direct role in healthy, too.
Well I would argue that it is often sexual. Or pseudo-sexual anyway. But that's another issue really and like I said, these things are never applied equally between male and female presenting people.
My point is that I want jobs to be about ability and competence. Conventionally attractive people aren't actually smarter or more trustworthy or more capable but we see those presumptions all the time. And just because it is everywhere, doesn't mean that it is natural. It feels natural because society (yours and mine, UK, fairly similar) are so saturated in it but how do we know? Even if it was natural, that doesn't mean it's good. If a business is going to hire or set guidelines based on these criteria I would want some proof that prioritising "healthy fit attractive" people was actually good for business.7 -
I've been hoping the thread would go this direction...
How do you balance pragmatic and/or financial reasons with social issues? Most business will see at least some benefit from employing healthy, fit, attractive people in customer-facing positions. Some businesses will benefit greatly from it. Now, what you consider "healthy, fit, attractive" can vary, but most people won't describe it as over weight and/or unkempt, right? Having a dress code certainly isn't unusual... would it be a big leap to go from a generally accepted "professional" dress code to something more along the lines of fitted clothing and/or discouraging bulky sweaters or sloppy sport coats. Heck, you could even require "appropriate make-up and grooming of facial hair" (or however you'd want to word it.
Companies hire for positions based on skills needed by that position. No one squawks if 1 candidate is passed over for another because of differences in data analysis or foreign language skills... why shouldn't appearance play a role in certain positions as well? Just like language skills, one's appearance can be largely controlled/changed.
My issues with this are a) will the business actually see a benefit or is the idea that fit, conventionally attractive people are smarter/ more capable/ more trustworthy etc just so deeply embedded in our social consciousness that nobody even thinks to question it? I think it's the latter. And b) this standard is almost never applied equally to both binary genders.
Long hair on men is generally not allowed, it's seen as "unkempt" even if it is well cared for and tidy. A woman is seen as being "more professional" in heels even though they add absolutely nothing to her capability and in fact if they're uncomfortable are a distraction from her actual job. If the female uniform is form fitting with clean lines are the men in skinny trousers and tight shirts? Make-up is another one; men are not expected to paint their faces to adhere to a professional standard.
Maybe I can see shops/ businesses who sell these products (high end shoes, makeup brands, clothing stores) having some benefit from an aesthetically driven dress code but I don't need my accountant in heels, or my waitress in a skin tight dress or my flight attendant with full glam makeup on. Tbh I don't even need my bank manager in a suit either but at least nobody is trying to sell me the attractiveness of the man in the suit as part of my purchase.
This thread brings to mind the Mythbusters episode where they "experiment" (I use the term loosely because there is no repeated data gathering to see if the premise holds) where they put Kari in a coffee shop with different sized breasts.
To no body's surprise, the larger breasted Kari got the biggest tips. However, the surprise was that women's tips increased even more than men's.
I would like to see if they could get similar results with multiple tests, but I could see where a young, healthy appearing (really or cultural norms) could pry more money from a patron's wallet.7 -
I dont think anyone is arguing against dress code standards in general - I am fine with appropriate clothing requirements, or uniform - gender neutral options ( ie NOT women must wear skirts or high heels) well groomed in hair and general presentation.
Even though the functions of the job dont generally require that - l accept a professional or neatly presented image is still relevant.
Requiring Spanx in all but a very very few very specific jobs would be crossing the line to me - both in how far an employer can make demands on employees and in gender discrimination5 -
One would wonder what they would do to verify compliance? A skivvy check?2
-
3
-
OP said it was optional, not required. So if you don't want to wear it, don't. It seems like an inappropriate suggestion and I would probably not be working in such a job.2
-
I count Spanx as a kind of undergarment, which is between you and your skin. My instinct is that this is crossing some kind of line for an employer.3
-
I wonder if this is one of those things where if you've not been counseled on your appearance it's not a problem for you (the OP) personally. But others may be on the edge when it comes to the image the company wants to present, so an option has been presented.
But they have to transmit it to all to CYA per HR.3 -
tbright1965 wrote: »I wonder if this is one of those things where if you've not been counseled on your appearance it's not a problem for you (the OP) personally. But others may be on the edge when it comes to the image the company wants to present, so an option has been presented.
But they have to transmit it to all to CYA per HR.
Even if this is the case, if they aren't saying the same to the male employees, they are potentially facing a gender based discrimination lawsuit.7 -
tbright1965 wrote: »I wonder if this is one of those things where if you've not been counseled on your appearance it's not a problem for you (the OP) personally. But others may be on the edge when it comes to the image the company wants to present, so an option has been presented.
But they have to transmit it to all to CYA per HR.
Even if this is the case, if they aren't saying the same to the male employees, they are potentially facing a gender based discrimination lawsuit.
As long as it stays optional, as the OP has described, I don't think there would be grounds for a lawsuit.4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »I wonder if this is one of those things where if you've not been counseled on your appearance it's not a problem for you (the OP) personally. But others may be on the edge when it comes to the image the company wants to present, so an option has been presented.
But they have to transmit it to all to CYA per HR.
Even if this is the case, if they aren't saying the same to the male employees, they are potentially facing a gender based discrimination lawsuit.
As long as it stays optional, as the OP has described, I don't think there would be grounds for a lawsuit.
If anything, the guys could claim discrimination for not being offered a similar discount on appropriate undergarments
edited for grammar6 -
Again, thank you for your responses. My company, like most has a strict social media policy which is why I don’t want to identify which field I’m in though I understand it would help this conversation.
I personally have no problem with making oneself look as nice as possible; I have a problem with being RECOMMENDED to wear a specific undergarment brand by my employer. I have never worn Spanx to work and have never been disciplined for appearance. Until recently, women who chose not to wear pants were required to wear at least 1.5” heel; now the requirement is at least 1/2” which is in essence MOST flats if one wears a dress or skirt.
My job is in no way related to sales or anything appearance-wise. I am not an on-stage performer. I don’t sell make-up, clothes, etc nor does my position promote anything to do with health and fitness. However I can personally interact and speak in front of 400 people at once. Though I am a fit and athletic woman and wear the smallest uniform available for purchase (I’m not short so I don’t wear a Petite) I still was rubbed the wrong way. My thoughts were along the lines of “I don’t need to wear Spanx to look nice/presentable/pretty/etc.”
My personal opinion is I always want to look presentable. Whether I am running errands, working, or attending a social event. That’s just my personal preference. I stay fit because I like and feel confident in being athletic, both in looks and in running achievements. However, I don’t want my employer implying to me that in order to be confident, I should wear this brand of smoothing or slimming pantyhose. I feel confident in gym shorts and a running tank when I’m all sweaty and nasty after a run as well as when I’m dressed up with nice hair and make-up and regular pantyhose for work or a social event. Maybe I just was overly sensitive and took it as “you can’t possibly feel good about yourself if you don’t wear these Spanx”.
11 -
Employer is walking on a legal tightrope which could end up being dragged into bitter legal action.
8 -
paperpudding wrote: »I dont think anyone is arguing against dress code standards in general - I am fine with appropriate clothing requirements, or uniform - gender neutral options ( ie NOT women must wear skirts or high heels) well groomed in hair and general presentation.
Even though the functions of the job dont generally require that - l accept a professional or neatly presented image is still relevant.
Requiring Spanx in all but a very very few very specific jobs would be crossing the line to me - both in how far an employer can make demands on employees and in gender discrimination
Which jobs do you feel Spanx being required would be acceptable to you? I’m curious if my line of work will be one of them.
0 -
I guess jobs that are solely about ones appearance - modelling and suchlike.2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions