A satirical clip lampooning the persistent gender bias in office gown codes is viral on-line. Here’s what’s behind the joke.

Creative agency Donut Digital (@donutdigital) posted the TikTok on Nov. 11. Through satirical, malicious compliance and function play, the creator exposes how directives to “dress more professionally” can carry implicit gendered expectations. Then she flips the idea on its head when the “boss” primarily says, “No, not like that.”

As the clip begins, she gives the context, writing within the overlay, “My boss told me I need to start dressing ‘more professionally,’ and this is how she reacted.”

Why Is Her Boss Threatening to Report Her to HR?

“I’ve been receiving some complaints from people today about your on-call etiquette,” the boss says. “Do you mind going on cam?”

The worker activates the digicam, sporting a swimsuit and a pretend mustache.

“OK. Wow. It kinda seems like you just Googled ‘professional’ and then put on what you saw,” the boss voices in disappointment. “Like, do you mind just taking off the mustache while we have this call? It’s just kind of—Yeah. Just peel it off.”

Then, apparently taking the entire slot in, the boss says, “Wow, so that also has got to go. OK. Say it with me. ‘I will not wear a mustache to meetings anymore.’”

The creator responds, “I will wear mustaches to meetings.” The boss is clearly at her wits’ finish: “HR needs it—just you saying it out loud. So say it with me. ‘I will not wear mustaches to meetings.’” But once more, the “employee” doesn’t repeat the requested phrases.

Viewers React to the Satirical Workplace Sketch

In the feedback part of the video, viewers riffed on the joke.

“I’m a manager and this is so funny to me, I’m Gen X,” mentioned one particular person. “She has no right to tell you that you can’t wear a mustache. That’s discrimination.”

One particular person joked, “I NEVER SKIP A MALICIOUS COMPLIANCE VIDEO.”

“Do men also have to not wear mustaches to meetings?” requested one other viewer.

If This Video Wasn’t a Joke, Would the Boss’s Behavior Be Legal?

The broad challenge with the “boss” and her disappointment is legally iffy. For one, the 1989 Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins case (itself based mostly on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) says that gender stereotyping is discrimination. An employer asking somebody to take away a mustache, then questioning a masculine outfit, is technically unlawful.

Title VII’s prohibition in opposition to sex discrimination extends to sexual orientation and gender identification, and was additional fortified by Bostock v. Clayton County. The case confirmed that employers can’t require transgender workers to comply with a gown code for his or her assigned sex at delivery, and that no gown code can power workers to decorate opposite to their gender identification.

Also, Donut Digital relies in Manhattan Beach, California. Had the clip been an actual state of affairs, the boss would have been in authorized hazard. The state of California explicitly states that it’s unlawful to ban feminine workers from sporting pants or to require ladies to put on skirts. The state additionally protects in opposition to discrimination based mostly on gender expression. Even an intimation of gender normativity could be problematic.

In this state of affairs, Human Resources would reprimand or fireplace the supervisor for putting an unequal burden on the employee. As one commenter famous, the boss was “restricting your gender identity. HR should be taking YOUR side.”

All hip hop reached out to Donut Digital for extra data.

@donutdigital Replying to @Spookybootyagain 🧞‍♀️ what could possibly be extra skilled than this? #gettingintrouble #workfail #workprank #workhumor #gettingfired music/Chopin-Nocturne-Op-9-No-2-7377856630338013235?refer=embed”>♬ Chopin Nocturne Op 9 No 2 – ChrisTune

Related