The Wall Street Journal on Tuesday published an article titled "What to Wear to Work—When You Work at Home."
The author of the article — published in the newspaper's online fashion section — talks through how their busy life switching between working remotely, meetings, and everyday tasks poses a problem when it comes to picking an outfit, "To stay focused and on task for the professional parts, I often err on the dressy side."
The piece goes on to suggest outfits for Skype, coffee, and client meetings.
These suggestions include $4,000 earrings for a Skype call, $600 shoes to meet someone for coffee, and a $200 shirt to meet clients. Throughout, the author regularly names other pricey designers she wears, and includes input from other women who prefer to dress up when working from home.
But then the article's Twitter tag line took a dig at sweatpants — and that's when people had had enough.
i'm wearing sweatpants right now FUCKING FIGHT ME https://t.co/rJOdeS1bwe
@WSJ ::deliberately puts on sweatpants, slowly, while glaring at the WSJ::
lmao how I'm imagining the person who wrote that WSJ article about not wearing sweat pants to work
Many felt that the pressure the article put on people to always look made up was sexist or ableist.
@WSJ if a woman goes to work and nobody sees her, will her clothing choices still be shamed in a major newspaper?
LOL I have Crohn's Disease and chronic pain. You'll be lucky if I get out of pajamas. https://t.co/9tZVmPXLBx
People shared what they wear when they work from home, which mostly was very little.
I am naked and sitting my whole butt on a copy of The Road to Serfdom right now @WSJ
I didn't come this far in my career to wear a bra & pants in my house. I love me too much for this nonsense https://t.co/kwZgl78tPh
Joke's on you; I don't wear pants at home. https://t.co/RZ5Kn9NKGq
One person pointed out that the publication doesn't have the best track record when it comes to understanding how ~normal people~ live.
Remember when WSJ thought this is how much money normal people made?
Others wondered whether the article was designed to cause outrage.
well done, WSJ:
Not tweeting a link to that ridiculous fashion piece from the WSJ advising people who work at home not to wear sweatpants and instead to buy a load of expensive crap to wear in your own home including $4k earrings and a $3k bag, because it’s obvious clickbait, but COME ON.
Real footage of all remote workers inspired by the article going to the store to get milk:
