Toplumsal Cinsiyet Yansımalarıyla İş Yerinde Kadın Çalışanların Giyim Tercihleri

Öz

Toplumsal cinsiyet rollerinin ve beklentilerinin çalışan kadınlar üzerinde etkisini gösterdiği alanlardan birisi de giyim tercihleridir. Kadınların giyim ve görünümlerini düzenlerken dikkat ettikleri unsurların neler olduğunu araştırmayı amaçlayan bu çalışmada nitel araştırma yöntemi kullanılmış ve 16 beyaz yakalı kadın çalışandan derinlemesine görüşmeler aracılığıyla veri toplanmıştır. Çalışmada elde edilen sonuçlar kadının iş yeri giyimine dair toplumsal ve örgütsel beklentiler; iş yeri giyimi üzerinden cinsiyet ayrımcılığı ve iş yeri giyiminin kadın üzerindeki etkileri şeklinde gruplandırılmıştır. Sonuçlar genel olarak iş yerinde kadın çalışanların giysi tercihlerinin toplumsal cinsiyet rollerine dair beklentilerle şekillendiğini veya şekillendirildiğini, kadınların iş yerlerinde giyimleri söz konusu olduğunda çoklu dengeleri gözetmek durumunda kaldığını ve giyimleriyle sürekli denetim altında hissettiklerini göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Toplumsal Cinsiyet
• İş yeri Giyimi
• Kadın Çalışan
• Tokenizm
• Yengeç Sepeti

Workplace Dress Choices of Women and the Role of Gender Expectations

Öz

Workplace attire choice is one of the contexts where gender roles and expectations influence working women. The current study aimed to explore the factors that working women take into consideration when deciding what to wear to work. A qualitative research design is used due to the exploratory nature of the study, and in-depth interviews with 16 white collar women were conducted. Findings can be grouped under three main themes: social and organizational expectations about women’s workplace attire, gender discrimination in the workplace based on attire, and the influence of workplace attire on women. The results verify that women’s workplace dress preferences are shaped by gender expectations; women have to keep a multiple-faceted balance about their workplace attire, and they feel themselves under constant control in terms of what they wear in the workplace.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Gender
• Workplace Attire
• Female Employees
• Tokenism
• Crabs in a Bucket

Kaynakça

1. Abbey, A., Cozzarelli, C., McLaughlin, K., ve Harnish, R. J. (1987). The Effects of Clothing and dyad sex composition on perceptions of sexual intent: Do women and men evaluate these cues differently. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17(2), 108-126.
2. Alsop, G. (2021). The effect of work-attire on perceptions of competency of women in the workplace. Masters Thesis, University of Canterbury.
3. Bartky, S. (1997). Foucault, femininity, and the modernization of patriarchal power. K. Conboy, N. Medina ve S. Stanbury (Ed.), Writing on the Body: Female Embodiment and Feminist Theory içinde. New York: Columbia University Press.
4. Bartky, S. (1988). Foucault, Femininity and the Modernisation of Patriarchal Power. I. Diamond ve L. Quinby (ed) Feminism and Foucault: Reflections on Resistance içinde. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.
5. Bartlett, K. T. (1993). Only girls wear barrettes: Dress and appearance standards, community norms, and workplace equality. Mich. L. Rev., 92, 2541.
6. Başkale, H. (2016). Nitel araştırmalarda geçerlik, güvenirlik ve örneklem büyüklüğünün belirlenmesi. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Fakültesi Elektronik Dergisi, 9(1), 23-28.
7. Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 6(1), 1- 62.
8. Bordo, S. R. (2020). The body and the reproduction of femininity: A feminist appropriation of Foucault. The New Social Theory Reader içinde (pp. 207-218). Routledge.

9. Bradley, P. H. (1980). Sex, competence and opinion deviation: An expectation states approach. Communications Monographs, 47(2), 101-110.
10. Bulloch, H. C. (2013). Concerning Constructions of Self and Other: Auto-racism and Imagining Amerika in the Christian Philippines. Anthropological Forum, 23(3) 221-241.
11. Butler, J. (1990) Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. London: Routledge.
12. Butler, J. (1993) Bodies that Matter: On the Discursive Limits of “sex.” London: Routledge.
13. Butler, J. (2004) Undoing Gender. London: Routledge.
14. Curtisa, S., Geslerb, W., Smitha, G. ve Washburnb, S. (2000). Approaches to Sampling and Case Selection in Qualitative Research: Examples in The Geography of Health, Social Science ve Medicine, (50), 1002.
15. Dellinger, K. (2002). Wearing gender and sexuality “on your sleeve”: Dress norms and the importance of occupational and organizational culture at work. Gender issues, 20(1), 3-25.
16. Eagly, A. H., Makhijani, M. G., ve Klonsky, B. G. (1992). Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin, 111(1), 3.
17. Ericksen, M. K. ve Sirgy, M. J. (1992). Employed females' clothing preference, self‐image congruence, and career anchorage. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(5), 408-422.
18. Eryazıcı, E. ve Çoruh, E. (2015). Dress preferences of working women according to body shape. Tekstil ve Mühendis, 22(98), 42-55.
19. Frith, H. ve Gleeson, K. (2004). Clothing and embodiment: Men managing body image and appearance. Psychology of men ve masculinity, 5(1), 40.
20. Garber, M. (1992). Vested interests: Cross dressing and cultural anxiety. New York: Routledge.
21. Gherardi, S. ve Poggio, B. (2001) Creating and recreating gender order in organizations. Journal of World Business 36(3): 245–259.
22. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City: NY, Doubleday.
23. Gole, N. (1997). The quest for Islamic self within the context of modernity. C. Bozdoğan ve R. Kasaba (Ed.) Rethinking modernity and national identity in Turkey içinde (pp. 81-95). Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.
24. Guba, E. G., ve Lincoln, Y. S. (1982). Epistemological and methodological bases of naturalistic inquiry. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 30 (4), 233-252.
25. Haccoun, R. R., ve Sallay, G. (1978). Sex differences in the appropriateness of supervisory styles: A nonmanagement view. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63(1), 124-127.
26. Holloway, I., ve Wheeler, S. (1996). Qualitative research for nurses. Oxford: Blackwell Science Ltd.
27. Johnson, K. K., Schofield, N. A., ve Yurchisin, J. (2002). Appearance and dress as a source of information: A qualitative approach to data collection. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 20(3), 125-137.
28. Kanter, R. M. (1977). Some effects of proportions on group life: Skewed sex ratios and responses to token women. American journal of Sociology, 82(5), 965-990.
29. Karaçizmeli, A., Dedeoğlu, A. Ö., ve Erten, E. Ü. (2017). Giyim Tüketimi ve Mahremin Eril İnşası: İş Yaşamında Eril Giyim Kodları Üzerine Bir Araştırma. Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari İncelemeler Dergisi, 425-442.
30. Karasar, N., (2011). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemi, Nobel Yayın Dağıtım, Ankara.
31. Kaiser, S. B. (1983). Toward a contextual social psychology of clothing: A synthesis of symbolic interactionist and cognitive theoretical perspectives. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 2(1), 1-9.
32. Karl, K.A., Hall, L. M. ve Peluchette, J. V. (2013). City employee perceptions of the impact of dress and appearance: You are what you wear. Public personnel management, 42(3), 452-470.
33. Karl, K., Peluchette, J. V. E., ve Collins, A. (2017). Employee self-perceptions regarding workplace attire in Turkey. Journal of Organizational Psychology, 17(6), 112-125.
34. Kelly, K. (2019). Wearing yourself or dressing the part: Navigating workplace dress codes as queer, androgynous women. (Yayımlanmamış master tezi) Master of Social Justice and Equity Studies Faculty of Social Sciences, Brock University.
35. Kılınçarslan, S. (2011). İş hayatındaki kadının giysi seçiminde renk tercihi: Giresun Üniversitesi örneği. (Yayımlanmamış master tezi). Giresun Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
36. Koca, E., ve Koç, F. (2008). Çalişan kadinlarin giysi seçimleri ve renk tercihleri. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 7(24), 171-200.
37. Krefting, L. (1991). Rigor in qualitative research: the assessment of trustworthiness. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 45 (3), 214-222.
38. Kwon, Y.-H. (1994). The influence of appropriateness of dress and gender on the self-perception of occupational attributes. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 12(3), 33-39.
39. Kwon, Y.-H., ve Johnson-Hillery, J. (1998). College students' perceptions of occupational attributes based on formality of business attire. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 87(3), 987- 994.
40. Lincoln, S. Y., ve Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Elo, S., Kääriäinen, M., Kanste, O., Pölkki, T., Utriainen, K. ve Kyngäs, H. (Ed.) (2014), Qualitative content analysis: a focus on trustworthiness içinde (1-10), SAGE Open.
41. Liston, H. C. (2008). Looking Good: Dressing For Success-The dress-for-success trend has come and gone; casual dress at the office is losing its appeal. What's next, and what's best for your business? OfficeSolutions, 25(1), 16.
42. Lowhorn, G. L. (2007). Qualitative and quantitative research: How to choose the best design. Academic Business World International Conference. Nashville, Tennessee proceedings içinde.
43. McPhail, M. L. (2010). Dark menexenus: Black opportunism in an age of racial anxiety. Southern Communication Journal, 75, 160-170.
44. O’Neil, M. (2010). You are what you wear: Clothing-appearance laws and construction of the public citizen in Turkey. Fashion Theory, 14(1). 65-82.
45. Rafaeli, A.; Dutton, J.; Harquail, C. V.; ve Mackie-Lewis, S. (1997). Navigating by attire: The use of dress by female administrative employees. Academy of Management Journal. 40(1), 9-45.
46. Peluchette, J. V., ve Karl, K., Rust, K. (2006). Dressing to impress: Beliefs and attitudes regarding workplace attire. Journal of Business and Psychology. 21(1).
47. Peluchette, J. V., ve Karl, K. (2007). The impact of workplace attire on employee self‐perceptions. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 18(3), 345-360.
48. Reuters/Ipsos@dvisory Workplace Attire Poll (2010). http://www.ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=9809
49. Piacentini, M., ve Mailer, G. (2004). Symbolic consumption in teenagers' clothing choices. Journal of Consumer Behaviour: An International Research Review, 3(3), 251- 262.
50. Pine, K. J. (2014). Mind what you wear: The psychology of fashion (Kindle edition).
51. Skidmore, P. L. (1999). Dress to impress: Employer regulation of gay and lesbian appearance. Social and Legal Studies, 8(4), 509-529.
52. Solomon, M., ve Schopler, J. (1982). Self-consciousness and clothing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8(3), 508–514.
53. Soubhari, T. ve Kumar, Y. (2014). The Crab-Bucket Effect and Its Impact on Job Stress an Exploratory Study With Reference to Autonomous Colleges. International Journal on Recent and Innovation Trends in Computing and Communication, 2(10), 3022-3027.
54. Tarvis, C. (1992). The mismeasure of women. New York: Simon and Schuster.
55. Trethewey, A. (1999). Disciplined bodies: Women's embodied identities at work. Organization studies, 20(3), 423-450.
56. Warhurst, C. ve Nickson, D. (2007). Employee Experience of Aesthetic Labour in Retail and Hospitality, Work, Employment and Society, 21 (1), 103–120.
57. Warhurst, C., Nickson, D., Witz, A., and Marie Cullen, A. (2000). Aesthetic labour in interactive service work: some case study evidence from the ‘new’Glasgow. Service Industries Journal, 20(3), 1-18.
58. Young, I. M. (1990). Throwing like a girl and other essays in feminist philosophy and social theory. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.