Inappropriate Teacher's Dress

"Penny Gaines" wrote in message
...
Donna wrote:

The concept of "smart tie dye" is entirely new to
me.
waves to Penny Gaines Pretty isn't it?

Oh yes, some of them are really lovely. I'm old enough to be aware of the
hippy connection, but young enough to have missed out on hippy culture.

Same here.

Donna

On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 22:18:50 GMT, Clisby
wrote:

My children have never been at schools that had
parent-teachers conferences in the evening, but I'm getting the
impression that's more common.

Generally, the schools in my area in Illinois had one daytime
and one evening set of conferences on a Thursday and
Friday so that parents could sign up for an evening if they
could not get off work and other parents who were at home
or worked part time and had flexible schedules could sign
up for the daytime conferences.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

Stephanie wrote:

I'm not L, but I will answer this one. No, it is not kind. Nor is it kind to
make judgements about people who may not agree with or clued in to what *I*
think is kind.

Personally, I think the system that works the best is for everyone to
try to give everyone else the benefit of the doubt, and also for
everyone to try as hard as is practical not to need the benefit of the
doubt. Everyone makes mistakes and it's a friendlier world if an
occasional mistake doesn't result in social catastrophe. OTOH, for
someone to count on the fact that the system has some slack in it to
constantly make 'mistakes' and get tolerated kind of bugs me.

I mean, if L showed up to an event I was giving dressed
inappropriately, I *wouldn't* be getting the wrong impression if I
concluded that it was because L doesn't give a rat's posterior about me
or my feelings about clothes or the feelings of the other people there.


Beth

"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
...
P. Tierney wrote:

"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
...

P. Tierney wrote:

I wasn't arguing the last point, but I do agree with it.
Whether they are right or wrong -- capitalism will sort
it all out.

So only folks who have money to hand out in the
form of salaries have any right to expectations,

Private businesses (which preschools are, of course)
have the right to set their own standard, assuming that there
is no bias in them. I've never stated otherwise, despite some
clearly lame attempts (by others, not you) to try to attach that
notion to my posts.

There are expectations in general society as well, but
they are obviously a bit looser.

That sounds contradictory to me. Can you clarify your
argumentation? Basically, it seems to me that whenever I
try to pin you down, you seem to slither

I'm not "slithering" at all. I've been honest and up
front, as best as possible, throughout this thread.

around to a position
of admitting that there *are* expectations, but they vary
regionally and by specific context, with some expectations
in some situations being looser than others. That sounds to
me like you're arguing more about *where* the line should be
drawn, rather than when there *is* a line. But then, when
that proposition is put to you, you slither around to a
position where you seem to be denying that there *should*
be a line at all. So, I'm a bit confused by your argumentation
and am unsure where you really stand on this.

I already clarified this below. Slither down and find it.

and accept whatever attire others choose, regardless of how offensive or
inappropriate they might find it?

It depends on what you mean by "accept". Happily live
with it, no. Deal with the fact that others choose to live
with it, yes.

I know *I* have never suggested that anyone doesn't
have to live in the real, messy world where they don't
necessarily like what others have to say. I don't always
like what others say verbally, and I don't always like what
they have to say non-verbally either. Where did anyone get
the notion that they get to live in a world where everything
is to their liking?

I don't know. I don't have that notion either.

And when society as a whole finds such "messages" inappropriate,
like nudity, or music at a certain volume, or advertisements in certain
places, then they can (and do) make them illegal.

Are you arguing that the only restraints on one's behavior
that one needs to observe are those that are formally codified into
law?

No, I stated that in the private sphere, that is a different story.
In the public sphere, law is what people *must* recognize.



P.
Tierney

wrote in message
oups.com...


I'm not Ericka, but yes, I think it's kind (and an essential part of
living in a society) to take minor pains to keep people from feeling
offended/deeply uncomfortable.

I agree in some instances. But I also think that people
need to take minor pains from *being* easily offended/deeply
uncomfortable. If I heard that from the other side, with a slew
of "but's" following it, I'd feel a bit better about this conversation.


P. Tierney

"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
...
P. Tierney wrote:

"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
...

P. Tierney wrote:

That is significant. The receiver can choose to not
make any conclusions at all. It is a choice, as I see it.
You disagree.

Correct. I would say that the receiver can
choose not to *act* on his or her interpretation, but
the receiver cannot choose not to *perceive* a message.


And as has come up several times on my end: the
perceiver can *choose* not to take such their reactions,
which are grounded in their own preconceptions, as truth.

I don't think I have touched on the issue of
truth, either. "Truth" is a challenging subject when it
comes to communication. What does "true" mean in this
context? Are you asserting that there is objective truth
which may be ascertained through communication, verbal or
otherwise?

I suppose "truth" in this case might be true with regards
to accuracy of the wearer's intent. True with regards to
whatever the dress is saying about his/her meaning,
or conclusions that one would draw about the person.

And you might state that if the perceiver(s) percept a
certain message, then that is what matters and that the
wearer should change if they do not wish to convey
such a message. And round and round we go again!


P. Tierney

"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
...
P. Tierney wrote:

"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
...

P. Tierney wrote:



One group on this thread is asking for a restraint of dress
choices, at least in certain situations.

Another group on this thread is asking for a restraint from
judging and/or making conclusions based upon those dress choices.

We all want restraint, but want it from different directions.
And those two directions are not likely to ever meet.

Whatever makes you think that? In my experience,
they meet every day in a thousand different areas. In fact,
nothing works well without *both* of them operating.

The "we" in this case was the two (though there might be
more) approaches to this issue in this thread.

I got that part.

There isn't any reconciling them.

I disagree with that.

My view isn't changing, and I'm surely not alone.

I think it is perfectly possible
and sensible to say that every individual has responsibility
*both* for his or her presentation of self (in word and deed,
including choice of clothing) *and* for how he or she chooses
to act based on information. Those responsibilities exist
with verbal communication *and* nonverbal communication.
People deal with those responsibilities every day, most
with a reasonable degree of success.

To me, the responsibilities lay in refraining from any
judgment or meaningful interpretation with regards to
dress, with a few possible exceptions. We think
differently on the matter, and will surely continue
to do so.


P. Tierney

Ericka Kammerer wrote in news:1M-
:

enigma wrote:

Ericka Kammerer wrote in
:

enigma wrote:

out of curiousity, have you ever dealt with autistic
people?

How is this relevant? (I have, for whatever it's
worth.)

because there are too many arbitrary social rules, with
equally many exceptions...

When you say "arbitrary" you're implying that they
exist for no reason. They do, in fact, exist for a reason.
Sure, they're complicated. Life is complicated.

i don't think you want to try explaining social constructs
to me... you'd just end up beating your head against a wall.
i don't get them. so i avoid social situations *or* i just do
whatever i normally do & wade through the fallout. shrug
life doesn't need to be so complicated.
lee


--
war is peace
freedom is slavery
ignorance is strength
1984-George Orwell

P. Tierney wrote:
SNIP
Are you arguing that the only restraints on one's behavior
that one needs to observe are those that are formally codified into
law?

No, I stated that in the private sphere, that is a different story.
In the public sphere, law is what people *must* recognize.

I'm trying to understand, since this is obviously quite foreign to me.

Is what you're saying that in the *private* sphere, you recognize that
people may impose limitations -- eg, you would respect an employer's
dress code, or even an invitation to a private party that included a
suggested level of attire?

Would you also, eg, abide by a sign in the window of a restaurant that
said *no shirt, no shoes, no service*?

If there wasn't such a sign in the restaurant window(for example),
would you recognize a norm in our society that other than at the beach
or a pool, restaurant patrons are generally expected to wear shirts and
shoes? Or would you say that's in the public sphere, and that the
patrons should be free to wear what they want?

The whole public and private thing is making my head spin since other
than my home, most things are pretty well mixed for me. Is school
public or private sphere? For example, let's say a parent worked as a
stripper. Do you think it be incumbent upon a teacher who would be
offended if that parent attended the 3d grade play in a g-string and
pasties (assuming its legal to wear those in public; or let's say a
very brief bikini, since that's more certain to be legal) to send a
note home to all parents announcing that fact, since there's no law
against it?

Barbara

P. Tierney wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...


I'm not Ericka, but yes, I think it's kind (and an essential part of
living in a society) to take minor pains to keep people from feeling
offended/deeply uncomfortable.

I agree in some instances.

In what instances do you think its not appropriate for people to take
minor pains to avoid offending others, or making others feel deeply
uncomfortable?

But I also think that people
need to take minor pains from *being* easily offended/deeply
uncomfortable. If I heard that from the other side, with a slew
of "but's" following it, I'd feel a bit better about this conversation.

No *buts* about it; I agree wholeheartedly, and I don't offend easily
with regard to matters of dress. But I still people that the primary
onus is on the communicator.

Barbara