Inappropriate Teacher's Dress

"Stephanie" wrote in message
...

"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.

Barbara


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

Whoever is speaking at the moment? If two people are together, then
both are communicating something by what they wear.

Bizby

"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?

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?

I think the 3rd grader would deal with that all on their own-the humiliation
of having your classmates see your mommy's underwear (and resultant
comments) would take care of it pretty quick.


Barbara

Stephanie 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.

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

We all are, of course, just as we all are recipients.
But even though everyone assumes both roles, the actions associated
with each role are different. I mean, if you play basketball
you play both defense and offense whether you like it or not,
and which mode you're in depends on the current state of the
game. Similarly, you both send and receive communications
in a conversation, depending on the current state of the
conversation. I don't see that that invalidates any discussion
of the appropriate actions for the sending and receiving
functions.

Best wishes,
Ericka

"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
...
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.

Right, it's just a question as to what side one wishes to
err on, which is why there isn't anywhere else to go with this.


P. Tierney

"Stephanie" wrote in message
...

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.

Yeah, pretty much here too. I'm busting myself trying to keep
up explaining myself, and there it is, nice and succinct.


P. Tierney

"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
...
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.

Marriage is a 50/50 partnership. Repeatedly, some (maybe
not you) have stated that the onus is on the communicator.
That isn't 50/50.


P. Tierney

"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
...

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?

An individual can restraint her/him self as much as one wants.
We all do that. Those around one, however, do not have the
power or authority to restrain a person.

If it's not illegal, there's no problem with my doing it,

You can have as many problems with it as you wish.
That is your business. Your problem with it need not
matter to anyone else, however.

and no one should infer anything from my doing it?

You can infer all you like as well, but there isn't any
reason for anyone to take those inferences seriously,
or to make anything at all out of them.


P. Tierney

P. Tierney wrote:

"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
...

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?

An individual can restraint her/him self as much as one wants.
We all do that. Those around one, however, do not have the
power or authority to restrain a person.

You're still not answering the question. I'm not asking
you what right others have to force you to do things. I'm asking
you what *your* obligation is to those around you. To what standard
ought you to hold yourself? And do you really think that the
standards to which you hold yourself are irrelevant to others
and their opinions of you?
Whether I can be thrown in jail for murder is irrelevant
to me if I have a personal system of ethics that says murder
is wrong. Whether I can be be kicked out of an organization
for expressing certain views is irrelevant if I believe those
views to be unethical to begin with. The primary guide for
my behavior is not what sanctions others might impose. It's
my own sense of morality and ethics.

Best wishes,
Ericka

P. Tierney wrote:


Marriage is a 50/50 partnership. Repeatedly, some (maybe
not you) have stated that the onus is on the communicator.
That isn't 50/50.

I think you are misinterpreting those statements.
The sender is responsible for the sending. The receiver
is responsible for the receiving. Whatever responsibilities
the receiver has, they are irrelevant to my responsibilities
as a sender. No amount of tolerance on the part of the
receiver excuses me from taking responsibility for the
communications I put out into the world. Thus, I find your
arguments for receiver tolerance irrelevant to the issue
at hand (i.e., what people should wear in assorted situations).

Best wishes,
Ericka

P. Tierney wrote:

"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
...

P. Tierney wrote:


"Barbara" wrote in message
egroups.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.


Right, it's just a question as to what side one wishes to
err on, which is why there isn't anywhere else to go with this.

Why should one wish to err? Why should one not wish
to do the right thing? And if one admits to imperfect knowledge,
why shouldn't one wish to err on the side that inconveniences
others the least? If I'm going to make mistakes, shouldn't
I bear the consequences rather than sloughing them off onto
others?

Best wishes,
Ericka