It's no secret that the clothes on TV tend to be aspirational: we get that. We, after all, know first-hand that a freelance writer who peacocks like Carrie Bradshaw is mere fantasy, and don't begrudge the dame her Manolos. But it also strikes us as a little curious that the spate of prime-time shows whose avowed goal is to portray powerful women (Lipstick Jungle, Cashmere Mafia, Dirty Sexy Money, anything set in a hospital or law-firm) then feel they need to glamorize and sexualize these careers in order to make them interesting.

On a basic level, it's misleading. Says one female exec in a Financial Times piece, “You’ve got to be able to run up stairs and chase down taxis...I see programs like Lipstick Jungle, where the women walk around in 5in heels, with outrageous jewellery and low necklines. That isn’t practical.” Or professional: whenever we see Whitney Port swanning around Manhattan in a 3" skirt we worry uncomfortably how many young women are going to appear for an interview for some summer internship dressed in just as "aspirational" a getup.

While "real-world" ladies are toning down their work wardrobes in keeping with somber times and a shaky job market, the high-powered execs of prime-time corporate America hover ever higher and their clothes shout ever-louder. Says Lipstick's stylist, Amanda Ross, to the FT: “I dressed the characters on the show to look polished and impeccably groomed,” adding that it “goes to extremes with layering and accessorising” but otherwise stays the straight and narrow. While a viewing of the show leads us to respectfully disagree (and by the by, costumes are the least of its problems), no costume designer should have to apologize for upping the ante. Perhaps what seems problematic is the wrinkle as old as Ally McBeal: it's one thing to glamorize for entertainment, but at what point does that veer into disrespect for actual dames?

This is a relatively new issue: professional women have rarely, historically, been the focus of shows and as such didn't require much sexing up. But it does seem like even when professional women were portrayed, it wasn't in a sexualized way: when Melanie Griffith's Working Girl goes corporate, she becomes less sexy, more professional: her clothes are impeccably tailored, but serious. In prior eras, a working gal might be glam, but that was very different from sexy. Mary Richards hardly showed cleavage; acting and writing added the character's allure. Is it good that a character can be both a sexy woman and a career pro? Sure. But why does that require a "sexy" outfit to prove it? A little less showing, more telling, plz.

The Wardrobes Of TV’s Career Women [FT]

As people spend more and more time at the office, workplace relationships have grown closer and more fraught - in short, more family-like. An increasing number of companies are actively analyzing family dynamics to help manage office interactions. says one shrink,

Work is nothing more than an entirely complex set of relationships. You have partners that are your equals, subordinates, superiors...It’s parents and siblings. All of these dynamics that are exactly the same in the workplace, just the titles are different.”

As is so often the case, things come down to birth order:

Firstborns...tend to be fearful of losing their position and rank, so they may be extremely anxious at a time of layoffs and downsizing. Second-born children tend to be most adventurous and open to change, he said. In fact, [psychologist] Dr. Dattner said that companies he had worked with found that when sending employees overseas, second-born children tended to fare better than older ones. As the older of two daughters, Ms. Frankel said she sometimes feels competitive with Ms. Delio, which reminds her of competing with her sister for their parents’ attention.

Of course, as a composition teacher might say, where's the "so what?" To a degree, all interaction can probably be reduced to familial dynamics - which in turn can likely be explained by some biological imperative. At its worst, can overanalysis of this kind of pre-determining absolve us of adult responsibility? And to a certain degree, isn't what they're describing, at the end of the day, just your "personality?" For the most part, it seems moot: I'm scared of losing my job not because I'm the elder of two, but because we're in a recession; probably any responsible employee craves a boss's approval. What's more interesting is the degree to which an office life can allow someone to break out of his or her assigned roles, building new relationships and dynamics that in a sense give you a chance to do it better. To be crassly pop cultural, Don Draper may be a philanderer in the suburbs, but his commitment to his job is unstinting; where the character of Peggy may be one of a large crowd at home, her experience with dealing with a lot of people allows her to navigate the work "family" and promote herself. To the extent awareness of your proclivities makes you better able to harness them, I suppose this kind of knowledge is useful. But to the extent the formality of an office setting imposes structure and a certain professional courtesy, it seems like that, conversely, can inform home life. Those of us who work from home can just morph into spoiled only children and throw tantrums...with no one to hear.

Family and Office Roles Mix [New York Times]