Inappropriate Teacher's Dress

"bizby40" wrote in message
...

"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


My point was that communication is made up of a speaker and a listener, and
sender and a receiver. The benefit of the doubt that I was referring to
involves, as the receiver not making assumptions about what the person was
intending to send. The higher expectation that Ericka mentions in other
posts can be applied to what I am talking about. Each person is really only
responsible for their *own* behavior. If Joe shows up to a family affair in
International Male attire, well he probably should not have done so. On the
other hand, I am responsible for not misinterpretting is message that he has
wares he means to sell (or give away) when that is not his intended message.
When I am speaking about what one should do, I am assuming that each of us
takes responsibility for our own actions. I cannot change Joe. My
responsibility is to how I react to Joe.

Let's take Daisy Duke attire at a parent-teacher conference. I don't think
that there is anything in the essence of attire or at its base moralness
(how fun is it to make up words when you cannot think of one) that is
disrepectful. However, I think Daisy should be constrained by what other
people think. But if I am the teacher, I am not Daisy. My responsibility is
not to make conclusions about Daisy based on her clothing, and judge her
attitude or her messages. If she walks into the conference saying "Hurry up,
I have to get my toenails buffed" well, of course that is another matter.

With so many people chiming in about how this person should and should not
wear this or that, I spoke also to what people should and should not do. I
guess people took my meaning to mean that other's should cut *me* slack
because I am too lazy to dress appropriately. It was further aggrivated by
my statement that I am not motivated by propriety. A lot of what is
considered appropriate is based on things that are not important to me. That
does not change the fact that others view propriety as important. It's the
importance that the people I may encounter that is important to me, not
propriety itself.

I think a lot of harm is done by judging a book by its cover, from hurtful
watercooler nastiness to worse, depending on many factors. I am in the
minority in thinking that conformity is no more valuable than individuality.

People send and receive messages all the time, based on all sorts of things.
Banty, you are certainly right when you say that is the way it is. To me,
this means all of us have a responsibilty when sending *and receiving* and
that no special onus exists on the sender. In these discussions on what
people *should* do, I maintain that people *should* send and receive with
sensitivity to others. That means Daisy should not show up to Mrs. Smith's
classroom in her skivies. And Mrs. Smith should not make assumptions about
Daisy based soley on attire.

So back to the higher expectation that Ericka was talking about. For myself,
I expect to be considerate of others. In the workplace, it would be a hassle
for my boss and HR if I were to make an issue out of flip flops. I don't
give a fig, so to speak, about any determination of the rightness or
wrongness of flip flops in the workplace. No doubt making an issue of flip
flops would be a hassle for me as well. This is a no brainer. I higher
expectation I place on myself, and hope for my children is to be considerate
of other people's sensitivities and tolerant of other people's ...
difference of perception.

That's the way I see it.

Stephanie

In article , Stephanie says...




People send and receive messages all the time, based on all sorts of things.
Banty, you are certainly right when you say that is the way it is. To me,
this means all of us have a responsibilty when sending *and receiving* and
that no special onus exists on the sender. In these discussions on what
people *should* do, I maintain that people *should* send and receive with
sensitivity to others. That means Daisy should not show up to Mrs. Smith's
classroom in her skivies. And Mrs. Smith should not make assumptions about
Daisy based soley on attire.

I agree that people need to take responsibility for what they conclude and to
try not to let bad assumptions affect their work and their relationships with
other people. And not to rely *soley* on dress as information.

But what do you mean by "with sensitivity to others"? Certainly I think the
teacher should be sensitive to the parent who needs to come to the conference
directly from a job like a construction flag-person. But what do you mean by
"sensitive" if it's clear that Daisy Duke just couldn't be bothered, or in the
modern incarnation strolls in with flip-flops, bikini, covered only by those
loose-tank wife-beater-looking coverups I see around? How "sensitive" should
the teacher be to the sheer overriding picayune convenience factor that that mom
couldn't bring some kind of shorts or slacks and a real T-shirt to pull over the
beach stuff even for this conference? Indeed, if "sensitivity" should be used
in the meaning as a scientific instrument should be sensitive, it'd be downright
insensitive not to have that needle motion over to "doesn't care about this
meeting"!

Now, the mom in bikini or little lacey camisole with belly button in the middle
of a sea of skin might make up for all that in her demeanor and how earnestly
she works with the teacher regarding her child. But that's an impression of
taking the meeting seriously *in spite of* the dress factor. And if the matter
is one of behavior not acknowledging needs and expectations of others, just
about any amount of earnest demeanor on the mom will not erase that she's loudly
through her actions showing herself to have some of the same problems her child
has! Imagine a teacher trying not to make judgements about a mom dressed in
gang-gear, when the purpose of the conference is to come up with some way to
have the child not break the school dress codes agaisnt said gang gear. That
would be asking *in*-sensitivity on the teacher's part.

I was pretty amazed at the poster who said the teacher should be so grateful
that the parent *showed up* that the rest didn't matter. Talk about low
expectations!


So back to the higher expectation that Ericka was talking about. For myself,
I expect to be considerate of others. In the workplace, it would be a hassle
for my boss and HR if I were to make an issue out of flip flops. I don't
give a fig, so to speak, about any determination of the rightness or
wrongness of flip flops in the workplace. No doubt making an issue of flip
flops would be a hassle for me as well. This is a no brainer. I higher
expectation I place on myself, and hope for my children is to be considerate
of other people's sensitivities and tolerant of other people's ...
difference of perception.

But there has to be some meeting of all these sensitivities and tolerances.
Tolerance and consideration are but two sides of the same coin. Where the two
meet is often a matter of local practice and custom. But those require
knowledge of all parties as to what the *common* expectations are. Usually one
only needs to observe. In this kind of case, there's even a written dress code
for *children* which should be at least a bottom bound. One can't go through
life expecting heroic tolerance and self-aware, sensitive opinions on the part
of everyone around one.

Banty

Stephanie wrote:


People send and receive messages all the time, based on all sorts of things.
Banty, you are certainly right when you say that is the way it is. To me,
this means all of us have a responsibilty when sending *and receiving*

This I agree with.

and that no special onus exists on the sender.

This I do not agree with. Sending is the more active role,
and that typically has some special onus on it. For instance, if
I break a wine glass at someone's home (socially unsanctioned
behavior), it would be the responsibility of the host not to
fly off the handle, not ban me for life, and probably even tell me
it wasn't necessary when I offered to pay. The host might have
even had some responsibility (depending on the circumstances)
not to have used these wine glasses if she couldn't deal with them
being broken. *However*, as the one who had the active role,
*I* have the higher responsibility to have been more careful
in the first place and to make restitution afterwards. Even
if the host waves it off, I should attempt to replace the glass
or make amends some other way if I can't replace it. The
burden only shifts to the host (the passive partner in the
interaction) if the host is wigging out over something
unreasonable. How do we define "unreasonable?" It *has* to
be community standards, because that's the only thing we
both have access to, since neither of us can read minds.
It's the same with choosing attire. The passive party
has some obligations, but ultimately, it's the active party
who has the higher obligation, in some sense. That doesn't
relieve the receiver of *all* responsibilities, but the
receiver has much more limited options.

Best wishes,
Ericka

"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
...
Stephanie wrote:


People send and receive messages all the time, based on all sorts of
things. Banty, you are certainly right when you say that is the way it
is. To me, this means all of us have a responsibilty when sending *and
receiving*

This I agree with.

and that no special onus exists on the sender.

This I do not agree with. Sending is the more active role,

You're wrong.

Just kidding. I think we have given a good go at this. I think neither of
us is ever going to come to the other's way of thinking. You are still
invited to a ficticious invitation to my house. Will you come if Joe is
wearing his International Male shorts?

and that typically has some special onus on it. For instance, if
I break a wine glass at someone's home (socially unsanctioned
behavior), it would be the responsibility of the host not to
fly off the handle, not ban me for life, and probably even tell me
it wasn't necessary when I offered to pay. The host might have
even had some responsibility (depending on the circumstances)
not to have used these wine glasses if she couldn't deal with them
being broken. *However*, as the one who had the active role,
*I* have the higher responsibility to have been more careful
in the first place and to make restitution afterwards. Even
if the host waves it off, I should attempt to replace the glass
or make amends some other way if I can't replace it. The
burden only shifts to the host (the passive partner in the
interaction) if the host is wigging out over something
unreasonable. How do we define "unreasonable?" It *has* to
be community standards, because that's the only thing we
both have access to, since neither of us can read minds.
It's the same with choosing attire. The passive party
has some obligations, but ultimately, it's the active party
who has the higher obligation, in some sense. That doesn't
relieve the receiver of *all* responsibilities, but the
receiver has much more limited options.

Best wishes,
Ericka

Stephanie wrote:


You're wrong.

Just kidding.

;-)

I think we have given a good go at this. I think neither of
us is ever going to come to the other's way of thinking. You are still
invited to a ficticious invitation to my house. Will you come if Joe is
wearing his International Male shorts?

Sure...I just probably won't invite him to my next
black tie party ;-)

Best wishes,
Ericka

"Stephanie" wrote in message
...

"bizby40" wrote in message
...

"Stephanie" wrote in message
...
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


My point was that communication is made up of a speaker and a listener,
and sender and a receiver.

The thing is that I don't really think there is as much of a disconnect
as you guys all think. I think we all agree that we should try to
dress appropriately for the occasion, even if we may not agree
exactly on what "appropriately" might mean for any different
occasion. I think we also all agree that should try to be tolerant
of the clothing choices of others.

So why all the pages and pages of postings?

Bizby

In article , Stephanie says...


"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
...
Stephanie wrote:


People send and receive messages all the time, based on all sorts of
things. Banty, you are certainly right when you say that is the way it
is. To me, this means all of us have a responsibilty when sending *and
receiving*

This I agree with.

and that no special onus exists on the sender.

This I do not agree with. Sending is the more active role,

You're wrong.

Just kidding. I think we have given a good go at this. I think neither of
us is ever going to come to the other's way of thinking. You are still
invited to a ficticious invitation to my house. Will you come if Joe is
wearing his International Male shorts?

I'm not sure what "International Male" shorts are, but assuming it's something
beyond the pale, it would go something like this.

1. Yes I would go because you wouldn't be informing me of this - right?
2. If this is truly an awful thing to wear, I'd consider the guy a jerk and
avoid him or just be civil, and if it's acting jerky in other ways as well and I
can't avoid him I'd leave - UNLESS - -
3. - - he seems to display some very obvious redeeming qualities (very funny
and/or very interesting somehow) in which case I woudl re-categorize him as "a
character".

Now you're proposing one jerk/character. With one or two jerks, I'd attend
another party of yours, as long as the problems were easy to deal with. If I
found that the whole *tenor* of your party was dominated by the fact that quite
a few people did whatever, however, double-dipping in the food and trying to get
me to buy stuff or asking me my salary or something, I'd feel uncomfortable, and
I'd make some excuse to leave as soon as it was at all graceful, and not accept
any of your subsquent invitations.

If your parties are full of characters, well, depends on particulars, but it's
pretty easy to get "character-overload". Just for starters, *I'm* at that
party... :-)

Cheers,
Banty

SNIP
Just kidding. I think we have given a good go at this. I think neither of
us is ever going to come to the other's way of thinking. You are still
invited to a ficticious invitation to my house. Will you come if Joe is
wearing his International Male shorts?
SNIP

Gotta do it. What on earth are International Male shorts? I took a
brief look at their website. Their clothes, ummm, didn't appeal to my
sense of style. But I didn't see them as a specific genre. Are they
the male equivalent of Daisy Dukes?

Barbara

"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
...
Stephanie wrote:


You're wrong.

Just kidding.

;-)

I think we have given a good go at this. I think neither of us is ever
going to come to the other's way of thinking. You are still invited to a
ficticious invitation to my house. Will you come if Joe is wearing his
International Male shorts?

Sure...I just probably won't invite him to my next
black tie party ;-)

Best wishes,
Ericka


That sounds fair.

"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , Stephanie says...


"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
...
Stephanie wrote:


People send and receive messages all the time, based on all sorts of
things. Banty, you are certainly right when you say that is the way it
is. To me, this means all of us have a responsibilty when sending *and
receiving*

This I agree with.

and that no special onus exists on the sender.

This I do not agree with. Sending is the more active role,

You're wrong.

Just kidding. I think we have given a good go at this. I think neither
of
us is ever going to come to the other's way of thinking. You are still
invited to a ficticious invitation to my house. Will you come if Joe is
wearing his International Male shorts?

I'm not sure what "International Male" shorts are, but assuming it's
something
beyond the pale, it would go something like this.

1. Yes I would go because you wouldn't be informing me of this - right?


I just did! But if we were not already having this conversation, it would
never dawn on me to bring it up. It does not hit my radar. No offense would
be intended.

2. If this is truly an awful thing to wear, I'd consider the guy a jerk

That's too bad. He's a great guy.


and
avoid him or just be civil, and if it's acting jerky in other ways as well
and I
can't avoid him I'd leave - UNLESS - -
3. - - he seems to display some very obvious redeeming qualities (very
funny
and/or very interesting somehow) in which case I woudl re-categorize him
as "a
character".

Now you're proposing one jerk/character.


No I'm not. I'm proposing a guy who thinks having his butt cheeks hang out
looks good. You are the one who classified him as a jerk. (Which is the very
crux of my issue, I think.)

With one or two jerks, I'd attend
another party of yours, as long as the problems were easy to deal with.
If I
found that the whole *tenor* of your party was dominated by the fact that
quite
a few people did whatever, however, double-dipping in the food and trying
to get
me to buy stuff or asking me my salary or something, I'd feel
uncomfortable, and
I'd make some excuse to leave as soon as it was at all graceful, and not
accept
any of your subsquent invitations.

If your parties are full of characters, well, depends on particulars, but
it's
pretty easy to get "character-overload". Just for starters, *I'm* at that
party... :-)


He's not much of a character. He just has an exposed butt.

Cheers,
Banty