Notice: All forums will be retired as of May 31st, 2016 and will not be archived. Thank you for your participation in this community, and we hope you continue to enjoy other content at

the Globe "Dress for Success" article

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sara999999. Show Sara999999's posts

    the Globe "Dress for Success" article

    I thought some of the rules were too military-like or nonsensical. You can wear a loud scarf, as you showed in a picture, but not a loud print? How about marimekko? Is that outlawed? Why the emphasis on neutral colors in the "drabber" shades? Would someone be looked at in shock if they wore purple, pink, or yellow, for instance. A yellow suit could be a good suit. Is wearing a jacket that important? It covers part of your physical attributes. Are we supposed to look like men who wear jackets? A good dress could gain as much respect, if not more. If a jacket is supposed to symbolize power, it seems like a crazy world to me. Recommending shoes that do not show too much foot seems a bit Puritanical, to my mind. Heavy wools and tweeds are to be avoided, we are told; however, in the coldest days of winter, heavy cloths such as these can help keep one from getting a cold, and can seem more comfortable. Why are we supposed to have bright colors just in accessories? That seems like an arbitrary rule, and that fashion could change next year, so if you want to be up to date, you might have to reinvest in buying items next year. Too much cleavage is not good, but being totally buttoned up seems, again, overly Puritanical. Having to have good arms to wear sleeveless clothing seems to indicate that you have to look like a model to go sleeveless. Shouldn't people be more accepting of human physical differences such as heavier or older-looking arms? A current style is to wear a mini with leggings, yet you outlaw short skirts. If one wears leggings, then one is not showing too much leg. Maybe the legging/short skirt style is not traditional, so you outlaw it? You advise having shades match closely; however, wouldn't a light and dark blue ensemble be appropriate? I do not understand your rule about this. Many clothing items combine more than one shade of a color. You attempt to define what is appropriate for work; however, styles always change. What happened to all the dresses and prints? I feel that I could dress like a sergeant and go to work and be considered more appropriate than if I wore a patterned dress with lace trim, under your standards.
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sara999999. Show Sara999999's posts

    Re: the Globe "Dress for Success" article

    To sum up about my forum post, the dress code your article advocates is too fussy!