Thursday, January 18, 2007

Trendy

This article weirded me out a little. I'm not going to talk about the whole GET OVER IT A WOMAN CAN BE IN CHARGE AND SHE CAN WEAR WHATEVER SHE WANTS business because that's been done before. Instead we can talk about scientists and their outfits.

Why do some scientists dress so poorly? Why is it expected that we will wear ugly clothes? Has anyone remarked that you are well put together for a scientist? Do we only think that Johannes Walter is sexy by comparison to his frumpier colleagues?

I think the big question is: which came first, the scientist or the dweeb? Are people who are socially awkward and badly dressed naturally drawn to the sciences, where ideas are at least superficially (hehe) more improtant than appearance, or are people who are drawn to science eventually turned into dweebs to fit in with the public's notion of what a scientist looks like?

Discuss.

6 comments:

Dave said...

I've heard an unfortunately high number of people say things akin to "I went into science because I don't like to interact with people." (Sometimes it's actually that blunt...some of you may have been at the rotation club to which I'm referring.) I think dressing poorly is a characteristic of socially awkward people, since knowing what's hip to wear requires one to be aware of the social and clothing trends. I DON'T think that people think to themselves "Damn, I dress like my Grandpa...I guess science is my only refuge. *SIGH*"

I'm sure that the workplace environment in the lab has some influence on how people dress, and in labs where everybody dresses frumpily, it might happen that a person might adapt to that 'style' (can you call it that?). But that would be dumb, and I don't think that person would be my friend anymore. In any case, I think the dweeb definitely came first, and I personally plan to continue dressing smashingly all of my scientist days.


In unrelated news, the "time-posted" function is messed up on our blog.

Shana said...

Hi Agapaka! You have a new blog! I will comment on teh blog.

I don't know anything about scientists except that they think talking about yeast is fun, but I do know my awkwardly-dressed self. I never cared much about what I wore, but now as a teacher I think about it all the friggin' time! Whereas menfolk teachers can wear a white shirt and black shoes and khakis every day and get away with it, the womanly teacher must think very carefully about her clothes.

First, one must consider the culture and location of the school. My last school was quite conservative, but the school I work in now is significantly more laid back. My last school was also in the Bronx, so I looked better than my students without even trying, but these new kids are upper middle class wannabe hipsters; I must destroy them with my sense of style. I have to show them that while I'm merely five years older than they are, I am better than them because I know how to look like I know what I'm doing.

Which brings me to the most important point in teacher dressing. You gotta play the part. Do I want to be matronly teacher? No. Disheveled doesn't care teacher? No. Slutty teacher? Only on my off hours. No, I want to be young and cool but still knows what she's doing better than you kids teacher. Which involves a long and arduous search for shoes (especially since you have to stand all day and especially since my feet are very small--you must know my pain, Christina!).

To conclude. My guess is, scientists don't dress as well because there is no reason for them to do so. They aren't being judged by entitled punk kids every day, and their job does not depend on whether they make a good impression on their yeasts. (Although maybe I'm misjudging the yeast here, you tell me.) As this Dave chap said (nice to meet you, Dave chap), fellow scientists aren't probably going to judge you either, 'cause they don't know any better themselves. And also scientists aren't paid the big bucks to dress exorbitantly, either.

The! end!

Christina said...

Hi shana! That is a very good point. It is rare that my yeast comment on what I wear, and the fact that they don't show me any respect is unrelated to my appearance. Also I totally hear you on the shoes. Right now I wear converse that I got from gapkids. I am going to start buying shoes off of the internet because the internet has size 5!

Erin said...

I often hesitate to wear nice clothing to work because I don't want to get bleach, loading die etc… on myself. However, I think that leaves a sort of vacuum that I attempt to fulfill when not in the lab. I enjoy wearing nice clothes that fit my personality and I actually feel suppressed a little during the week because I'm afraid to wear them. I suppose that is what lab coats are for, but personal protective gear is for sissies. As for everyone else, I sometimes wonder if scientists think how poorly they dress is a reflection of their dedication or their ability to not just be another member of the flock. I suppose that could be sufficient pressure to drive fledgling scientists to dress like they don’t care in order to fit in and appear as dedicated and/or free-thinking as their peers. In reality the two have little or nothing to do with one another. Would I wear my pajamas to work if it meant meeting a deadline? You bet. Do I have to look like crap to do good science? Hell no.
I think the question of which came first the scientist or the dweeb is interesting because underlying it is the issue of how isolated we can become in our careers. My previous PI and I had a great conversation about aging scientists. She had dinner with some colleges and retirement came up in conversation. Many of them confessed that they dreaded retirement because they had no idea what else they would do. And these are the people teaching and influencing the coming generations of scientists. So, she cautioned me not to let science be the only thing in my life. I think dressing like you don’t care is a symptom of this hyperdevotion. Almost like a badge of honor. That is what I love about our group of friends. We’re not like that. When I retire I want to join the Peace Corps, live in a foreign country and help impoverished children get an education. I just don’t know what I will do with all my shoes.

Scott said...

I thought I would wait to reply to this post until this most important of days: Dress-Up Friday. Properly dressed in my causal business outfit with a flair of insouciance, I feel as if I can speak of style and dress in the right state of mind. Er body.

When I pondered this bizarrely complex situation, what I found most striking is that over the past few months I am more often surprised at how well-dressed some of our colleagues are. Some students, post-docs, techs come to work in dress that I find almost too nice for a lab setting. On the other hand, the frequency with which I spot the fashion blind is much lower. Is it an observation effect rather than a true reflection of the population? I'm not sure.

But when I turn my gaze to other fields, targeting my critical eye to the clothing choices of artists, musicians, business tycoons, fast food workers, pilots, teachers, etc., I find that their ratio of style-stupid : Fashion divas is likely similar. What makes the difference for scientists is that we don't have a uniform. We are not required to wear anything specific. People in business have a dress code. As do teachers. And most other fields. Musicians don't, but they are performers by nature and are selling their image as much as their talent. Likewise for artists, who have an eye for style as an inherent part of their overall vision of the world. Scientists are left to their own devices. And we are not selling our image as much as other people do. Although, I would argue that we should be more concious of that. It can only help.

Some teachers have no idea how to tie a tie or match their socks and trousers. It is rare to find an i-banker with the correct dimple in his tie. Or some who haven't realized that their bangs make them look like they are 12. Fashion ignorance exists everywhere.

I would argue then that this prevalence of poorly dressed scientists may not actually exist, but rather be a selection effect enhanced by stereotypes. Given the chance to come to work dressed however they like, I imagine any group of people would dress as badly as scientists. We just have the freedom to do so. Except on Fridays.

Erin said...

Scott's comment got me thinking about something. Why don't we as scientists have some sort of dress code? I don't think it has to do with the fact that we don't deal with customers or anything like that. There are plenty of office type jobs where you sit at a computer, answer phones, never seeing a customer face to face and yet are still expected to dress a certain way. I wonder if the unique structure of the scientific community is responsible. In few, if any other areas of employment can someone's boss also be considered their peer. We have department chairs and such, but these people are also still on our level when it comes down to science. Maybe this atmosphere of respect and equality somehow translates into a more loosely regulated group with fewer codes of conduct. It makes sense that Scott sees a lack of fashion sense everywhere; perhaps it’s just easier to spot in our field because the codes regulating other fields help to subdue and homogenize the employees somewhat.

OK, I'm done now. Feel free to poke holes in my hypothesis.