Dress code


A dress code is a set of rules, often written, with regard to what clothing groups of people must wear. Dress codes are created out of social perceptions and norms, and vary based on purpose, circumstances, and occasions. Different societies and cultures are likely to have different dress codes, Western dress codes being a prominent example.
Dress codes are symbolic indications of different social ideas, including social class, cultural identity, attitude towards comfort, tradition, and political or religious affiliations. Dress code also allows individuals to read others' behavior as good, or bad by the way they express themselves with their choice of apparel.

History

Europe

From the seventh through the ninth centuries, the European royalty and nobility used a dress code to differentiate themselves from other people. All classes generally wore the same clothing, although distinctions among the social hierarchy began to become more noticeable through ornamented garments. Common pieces of clothing worn by peasants and the working class included plain tunics, cloaks, jackets, pants, and shoes. According to rank, embellishments adorned the collar of the tunic, waist or border. Examples of these decorations included, as James Planché states, "gold and silver chains and crosses, bracelets of gold, silver or ivory, golden and jeweled belts, strings of amber and other beads, rings, brooches, buckles". The nobility tended to wear longer tunics than the lower social classes.
While dress codes of modern-day Europeans are less strict, there are some exceptions. It is possible to ban certain types of clothing in the workplace, as exemplified by the European Court of Justice’s verdict that "a ban on Islamic headscarves at work can be lawful."

The Americas

The indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast had a complex social hierarchy that consisted of slaves, commoners, and nobles, with dress codes indicating these social distinctions. John R. Jewitt, an Englishman who wrote a memoir about his years as a captive of the Nuu-chah-nulth people in 1802-1805, describes how, after some time living there, Maquinna and the chiefs decided that he must now be "considered one of them, and conform to their customs". Jewitt resented the imposition of this dress code, finding the loose untailored garments very cold, and attributed to them a subsequent illness of which he almost died. He was not allowed to cut his hair and had to paint his face and body as a Nootka would.
In the early 20th century, informal wear was the norm across many social settings, including workplaces, restaurants, travel, and movie theaters. In the 1950s, casual wear became prominent in many of these settings, but informal wear remained dominant in workplaces and churches. Beginning in the 1980s, technology companies in Silicon Valley developed the business casual dress code, which was part of a broader organizational culture of emphasizing efficiency over propriety. Today, casual wear is the norm in the tech industry, exemplified by tech executives such as Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg.
In North American high schools, fashion for girls began to be more revealing in the late twentieth century, including clothing such as low-rise jeans, revealing tops, miniskirts, and spaghetti straps. With these new styles appearing in schools, dress codes have in some cases become more rigorous as a result.
The dress codes in North American high schools typically resulted in tests that would determine if skirts or shorts were long enough. A common test would be used to measure the appropriate length of students' shorts/skirts. If a student's fingers extended past their clothing, then the clothing was considered a violation of the school dress code.

Muslim world

, founded in the seventh century CE, laid out rules regarding the attire of both men and women in public. Gold adornments and silk clothes are prohibited for men to wear, as they are luxurious, but they are permissible for women. Men are also required to wear the ihram clothing while on Hajj, or annual pilgrimage to Mecca.
Hijab generally refers to various head coverings conventionally worn by some Muslim women, most often a headscarf wrapped around the head, covering the hair, neck and ears, but leaving the face visible. The use of the hijab has been on the rise worldwide since the 1970s and is viewed by many Muslims as expressing modesty and faith. There is a consensus among Islamic religious scholars that covering the head is either required or preferred, though some Muslim scholars and activists argue that it is not mandated.

Indian subcontinent

, which was founded in the Indian subcontinent around the end of the fifteenth century, also requires a dress code.
Male Sikhs, who are members of the Khalsa are required to wear a turban at all times. Some, but not all, male Sikhs in North America wear a turban; they will instead tie their hair in a knot or ponytail.

Laws and social norms

Cultural values, norms, and laws regarding clothing can vary by location.
For example, the degree of nudity that is acceptable changes depending on location. In New Guinea and Vanuatu, there are areas where it is customary for men to wear nothing but penis sheaths in public, while women wear string skirts. In remote areas of Bali, women may go topless, which is less common in more Western countries.
Most Western countries have generally no rules regarding specific clothing in most public scenarios, but only have private rules.
Islamic clothing codes vary by country, especially Islamic veiling practices by country. In Dubai, it is less strict outside of mosques, but for both men and women, shoulders and knees must be covered in public. Nudity is illegal in Dubai for both sexes, cross-dressing is prohibited, and toplessness or cleavage is essentially illegal for women. In Afghanistan, the hijab is compulsory for all women and everywhere, including in schools, while the burqa is not mandatory but is customary. On the other hand, in the People's Republic of China, the burqa is banned in the Islamic area of Xinjiang.

Indigenous costumes

Indigenous national costumes are often preferred for certain occasions, even among communities that also incorporate more widespread dress customs from the West. The barong tagalog for men and baro't saya for women are formal wear in the Philippines. Other examples include chut thai in Thailand, kilts in Scotland, and kente in Ghana. Bhutan's code of etiquette, driglam namzha, specifies indigenous clothing that should be worn in public, both formally and informally; adherence to this code in certain settings has been legally mandated since 1989.

Private dress codes

Many places have their own private dress code; these organizations may insist on particular dress codes or standards in particular situations, such as for weddings, funerals, religious gatherings, etc.

Workplace

Employees are sometimes required to wear a uniform or certain standards of dress, such as a business suit and tie. This may depend on particular situations, for example if they are expected to interact with customers.
In Western countries, these policies vary depending on the industry. Lawyers, bankers, and executives often wear a suit and tie, with black shoes and belt, while casual wear is more common in the technology industry. Some businesses observe that anti-discrimination laws restricts their determining what is appropriate and inappropriate workplace clothing. Requiring men and women to dress differently at the workplace can be challenged because the gender-specific dress codes would be based on one sex and could be considered stereotypical. Most businesses have authority in determining and establishing what workplace clothes they can require of their workers. Generally, a carefully drafted dress code applied consistently does not violate anti-discrimination laws. So long as the dress code does not favor one gender over the other it is usually acceptable by law for employers to have a private dress code.
In the United States, it is legal for employers to require women to wear makeup and ban men from wearing it. It has been argued that such a distinction in a dress code is not discriminatory because both sexes have rules about their appearance. An important court case that occurred in the U.S was the Jespersen v. Harrah's Operating Co., which allowed for a workplace to require that female employees wear makeup while their male counterparts were banned from doing so. Darlene Jespersen worked at Harrah's Casino for more than 20 years and found that the makeup and dress code was not only unattainable but degrading. Jespersen found that the 'Personal Best' policy was not true to her natural appearance as it required a full face of makeup including foundation, powder, blush, mascara, and lipstick. Jespersen stated that this policy "forced her to be... 'dolled up' like a sexual object, and... took away her credibility as an individual and as a person." In opposition men who worked at Harrah's Casino were banned from wearing makeup, nail polish, and other traditionally female attires. Judge Kozinski argued that hyperfemininity was a burden that only women employees suffered. Kozinski stated that the time, effort and expense was more of a hindrance than just being banned from wearing makeup. However despite these efforts, in the ruling, it was decided that women did not have a larger burden in the requirements of the dress code but two judges disagreed and argued that makeup takes more time and money and that sex stereotyping occurred because women's bare faces were seen as less desirable.

New Jersey BorgataBabes case

In New Jersey, twenty-one women sued the Borgata Casino Hotel & Spa for requiring them to lose weight and stay under a certain size to maintain their jobs. The women argued that the management would ridicule them over weight gain even if they were pregnant. The case was dismissed in New Jersey because the BorgataBabes program required that both men and women maintain certain body shapes and sizes. The "BorgataBabes contractually agreed to adhere to these strict personal appearance and conduct standards". In 2016, Superior Court Judge Nelson Johnson dismissed the claims because the appearance standards were lawful. He also determined that the women could return to court for their claims of a hostile environment created by the management.