Inappropriate Teacher's Dress

P. Tierney wrote:

"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
...

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.

Sorry, I didn't mean "slithering" as in dishonest.
I meant "slithering" as in logically slippery, or sliding
away just as I thought I was getting a bead on the situation.

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.

Sorry, I reread all your posts I could find, and am
still unclear, unless it's a new post that I haven't received
yet.

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.

Okay, let me ask again. In the public sphere, the only
restraints on my behavior that I have any need to acknowledge
are those codified into law? If it's not illegal, there's no
problem with my doing it, and no one should infer anything from
my doing it?

Best wishes,
Ericka

P. Tierney wrote:

"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!

Well, of course. How could it be otherwise with
any system that requires the cooperation of multiple
people to work? Can a marriage work if only the wife
has the responsibility to make it work? Can a child
get an education if it's only the teacher's responsibility
to teach and not the student's responsibility to learn?
No more can social interaction and communication happen
without the sending taking responsibility for the sending
and the recipient taking responsibility for the receiving.
When on partner in the system denies his or her part, it
can't function.

Best wishes,
Ericka

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. 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.

Well, again, I'm not Ericka, but just before I read this post I'd
pre-emptively posted my doctrine of 'give slack as much as possible,
ask for slack as little as possible'. I'm kind of pathological about
seeing both sides of every question if possible, so I really do mean it
from a 'give slack' point of view, and I'm not particularly socially
clued-in so I'm always grateful for slack when it's offered. Somewhat
paradoxically, I actually think clothing is relatively easy in this
regard, because it's much easier to get explicit opinions from others
about exactly what you should wear to an event than it is to get help
in how you should act.

However, even the most tolerant of us isn't completely immune from
thinking, "For Pete's sake, don't you know any better?" when they see
someone show up to a funeral in a miniskirt and fishnet stockings
(really happened). I didn't assume this person was *evil*, of course,
but either she didn't know that wasn't appropriate funeral wear, or she
didn't care. Whatever it said about her, it wasn't particularly
flattering now matter how you cut it. It's not so much that I was
offended or annoyed, but yes, I noticed.

Beth

"Barbara" wrote in message
oups.com...


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?

I'm not sure -- I'm in a rush, and maybe I don't agree with that,
*generally*. I have my own personal set of rules, if you will, but
I'm not sure when they *must* apply to all other people. So
maybe not.

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.

That's the kind of "but" that I was thinking of. It seems to
provide a built-in excuse for anyone who "misunderstands".


P. Tierney

"Barbara" wrote in message
oups.com...


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?

Yes.

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

Yes.

If there wasn't such a sign in the restaurant window(for example),

FYI, that there isn't a sign doesn't mean that it isn't a rule.

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?

A restaurant is a private business.

The whole public and private thing is making my head spin since other
than my home, most things are pretty well mixed for me.

Both have come up on this thread, so I tried to distinguish,
perhaps ineffectively. There is public/private such as walking
down the street versus being in a club.

But there is also, I guess, the *overall* society expectations of
businesses as a group. Back to the OP, one cannot expect all PSs
to adapt certain dress codes. It is well within the right individual ones,
however, to define things as they wish.

Is school public or private sphere?

Private in that each has their own internal set of rules.

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?

If that *ever* happens in this world, then the school can
deal with it internally however they wish.


P. Tierney

Stephanie wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...


-L. wrote:


If your definition of "being kind" includes the clothing one chooses to
wear, I feel really, really sorry for you. Seriously.

Do you think it'd be kind to show up at the funeral service for a
friend's father wearing a Hawaiian shirt and trunks? Or at an average
American wedding?

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.

Okaaaaay, so you accept the notion that some clothing is
inappropriate in some situations, and perhaps the argument is only
about where to draw the line. Now, what do you mean by "make
judgements"? I rather suspect it's something that I have never
suggested. One does not have to come to some sort of conclusion
that the inappropriately dressed person is somehow an evil or
morally lacking person. These "judgements" everyone seems so
afraid of are more likely to be things like, "Suzie can't be
relied upon to exercise discretion in dress, so perhaps I won't
invite her anywhere that that would be important," or "Bob
isn't interested in identifying with group X" or "Jane's
clothes are revealing enough that they, or the attention
they attract, make me uncomfortable or seem unsuitable for
the example I'd like set for my children," etc. And I don't
know why that would bother you, as it appears to me that,
as a matter of fact, you wouldn't want to go anywhere or
be with anyone who felt that your clothing mattered or
was embarrassing, and you aren't interested in subjugating
your right to choose clothing to the expectations of any
group, and if others find your clothing unacceptably
suggestive for themselves or their children you'd
be happy enough for them to take their "friendship"
or business elsewhere. I guess it appears to me that
the fact that your clothing might send a message that
you don't give a fig for social expectations for attire
is, in fact, an accurate message and one you are pretty
comfortable with sending. In fact, it seems pretty
effective as a screening tool for you to dispense with
those whose values you don't share.

Best wishes,
Ericka

P. Tierney wrote:

"Barbara" wrote in message
oups.com...

But there is also, I guess, the *overall* society expectations of
businesses as a group. Back to the OP, one cannot expect all PSs
to adapt certain dress codes. It is well within the right individual ones,
however, to define things as they wish.

Of course it is. Somewhere in the world, it wouldn't surprise
me to find that there's a preschool or daycare where nudity wouldn't
raise any eyebrows. But that doesn't mean that the overwhelming
majority of preschools won't fall into a fairly narrow range on
the spectrum from nudity to burka, and hence create an expectation
that that's the sort of attire one would encounter.

Is school public or private sphere?

Private in that each has their own internal set of rules.

By that definition, about the only thing that's "public"
is walking down the street. But even walking down the street,
I think it is unreasonable to think that no one will form any
impressions based on how you choose to present yourself.

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?

If that *ever* happens in this world, then the school can
deal with it internally however they wish.

...but, of course, no one should form any opinions
about the parent in that situation because it's not illegal
and she probably didn't mean to send any sort of message by
doing so...

Best wishes,
Ericka

P. Tierney wrote:

"Barbara" wrote in message
oups.com...

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.


That's the kind of "but" that I was thinking of. It seems to
provide a built-in excuse for anyone who "misunderstands".

No more than your position provides a built-in
excuse for anyone who simply doesn't give a rip whom he
or she offends.

Best wishes,
Ericka

"Barbara" wrote in message
oups.com...


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


Picuture us sitting having a chat at a coffee shop. Who is the communicator?

wrote in message
oups.com...


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. 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.

Well, again, I'm not Ericka, but just before I read this post I'd
pre-emptively posted my doctrine of 'give slack as much as possible,
ask for slack as little as possible'.

Ok, I officially hate you. I have been blathering on for a while now. And
you just said what I meant on one sentence.




I'm kind of pathological about
seeing both sides of every question if possible, so I really do mean it
from a 'give slack' point of view, and I'm not particularly socially
clued-in so I'm always grateful for slack when it's offered. Somewhat
paradoxically, I actually think clothing is relatively easy in this
regard, because it's much easier to get explicit opinions from others
about exactly what you should wear to an event than it is to get help
in how you should act.

However, even the most tolerant of us isn't completely immune from
thinking, "For Pete's sake, don't you know any better?" when they see
someone show up to a funeral in a miniskirt and fishnet stockings
(really happened). I didn't assume this person was *evil*, of course,
but either she didn't know that wasn't appropriate funeral wear, or she
didn't care. Whatever it said about her, it wasn't particularly
flattering now matter how you cut it. It's not so much that I was
offended or annoyed, but yes, I noticed.

Beth