Inappropriate Teacher's Dress

On 25 Jun 2005 08:03:05 -0700, "-L." wrote:

He is micromanaging my child by demanding he wear a certain color of
clothing. Clothing has nothing to do with baseball. It isn't the
coaches' concern what color my kid's pants are.

So at games your kid would not wear the team uniform?


--
Dorothy

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

The Outer Limits

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 17:31:17 GMT, "Donna"
wrote:


"Banty" wrote in message
...

OK, I'm still clueless. I've been clicking around the site, and havne't
seen
the gradated tie-die or whatever. Can someone do a link (or guide me a
few
clicks) as to where this stuff is on that site?

Ok, go to www.next.co.uk, click on Womens, then Smart Casual, then Pretty
Pinks, and you'll see an absolutely gorgeous dip dye (I just can't think of
it as tie dye -- it's obvious not enough beer has been spilled on it) tank
and v-neck shirt.

Or just search for tie-dye.

There is a classic t-shirt circle tie-dye in blue and pink
and a green tie-dyed shell as well as some I would classify
as dip-dyed.


HTH

Donna


--
Dorothy

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

The Outer Limits

Ericka Kammerer wrote:

Clisby wrote:

Ericka Kammerer wrote:


? I think there's room to hold one's self to a higher
standard than just skating by with something that won't get
you arrested. You won't get arrested for cussing in front of
schoolchildren either, but I don't think that's a very good idea.
I also cringe at the rather adversarial stance you seem to
imply with the teacher. I'm not the "customer." The teacher
and I are partners in my children's education. I'm not
interested in cracking the whip. I'm interested in a
productive, mutually respectful relationship for the benefit
of my children.


You consider "cracking the whip" to be appropriate customer behavior?
I don't.


I think saying, "You work for *ME*, so how *DARE* you
infer anything from my choice of clothing, even if I show up
grubby from working in the garden because it wasn't worth my
time to take an extra few minutes to clean up" *is* cracking
the whip. It's setting up an adversarial relationship, and
setting yourself up as the superior and the teacher as an
inferior who should just shut up and do what he's paid for.


Good heavens, the teacher can infer anything he/she likes from what I
wear. I'm concerned with what the teacher *does*, not with thoughts
about my clothes.

Do you think the teacher should worry that I might think, "Boy, she sure
looks uptight in that suit, hose and heels - is there any chance I'll
agree with anything she has to say?"

Is it really *that* hard to conceive of 2 adults meeting for a specific
purpose (discussing something about a child's education), and ignoring
things that just aren't relevant?

(I do think a teacher should refrain from commenting on parents'
clothing - if that's what you mean by "shut up"; and I think everyone
should do the job they're paid for.)

Clisby

Stephanie wrote:

That's funny. This thread, and it's causing me to continue to shake my head
about the state of humaninty, makes me want to read LESS.

Well, this is one reason I don't read m.k. often. I was sort of
being tongue-in-cheek.

-L.

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 12:20:07 +0000 (UTC), enigma
wrote:

"bizby40" wrote in
:


"Barbara" wrote in message
oups.com..
.
shorts and wifebeaters at the symphony. And while you may
see old men

What the heck are "wifebeaters"???

Inquiring minds want to know.

i think it's a New England term. it's a man's white vest
undershirt (like a tank top).
lee

Nuh, my ds calls them "wifebeaters" and we're in IN.

Nan

Rosalie B. wrote:


Your (Erika's) answer above begs the question when you say that a
teacher who follows school dress codes would make a difference in
whether they were perceived as sexy.

No, I didn't say that. My implication when I asked
the original question was that a teacher who was dressed
according to local custom who happened to be sexy would
not be perceived as inappropriate, but a sexy teacher
who dressed suggestively according to local custom
would be perceived as doing something *in*appropriate
(as would, for that matter, an un-sexy teacher who
dressed suggestively, though I rather hate using that
word "un-sexy" as it implies that those who are not
among the Beautiful People aren't sexy, at least to
their partners).

Where we disagree (or more perhaps Kim and me disagree) is that I
think some teachers can be and will be considered sexy WITHOUT wearing
plunging necklines etc. whereas others will not be considered sexy
even if they wear skirts that are a bit to small or short.

Can't speak for Kim, but I would certainly agree
with that.

Best wishes,
Ericka

Clisby wrote:


Do you think the teacher should worry that I might think, "Boy, she sure
looks uptight in that suit, hose and heels - is there any chance I'll
agree with anything she has to say?"

Yes, I think that the teacher should consider his or her
clothing and whether it is appropriate for the situation when
meeting with parents (or when coming in to teach the kids, for
that matter). I think the teacher should attempt to portray
a professional (as in "appropriate to the profession of teaching,"
not necessarily as in "suit and tie") image. Isn't that where
this conversation started? ;-)

Best wishes,
Ericka

bizby40 wrote:

"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
...

Barbara Bomberger wrote:



I may have forgotten, but I thought the general response was to the
effect that the question was were you willing to have your child die
on your sword so to speak. In other words, were you willing to make
him pay the price of your standareds.

On some occasions we need to do that. On some occasions, for the sake
of the child we need to go with the flow.

But that was a different discussion.

How so? I think she's correct in thinking that it's
quite parallel. It boiled down to perceptions regarding
someone's willingness to comply with expectations. The
general response was that she had a right to fall on that
sword, but that in doing so, she would give an impression
that might have repercussions for the child that weren't
worth the price. I don't see the distinction.


Well, I don't really think it's the same. You've been
arguing community standards, and I agree with you.
In this case though, it was one person with a rather
silly standard that he made up himself.

Yes, I agree that there is an issue of whether
what he was advocating for was really a community standard
or an individual bugaboo, and that makes a real difference.
The overarching issue, however, is that pesky issue of
where one draws the line between doing what one wants
to do and doing what others expect one to do. Part of
the answer is that determination of whether the
expectation is reasonable. Personally, my little
red flags go up when someone defines "reasonable"
as pretty much equivalent to "whatever I feel like
doing" or "whatever inconveniences me the least."

Best wishes,
Ericka

SNIP
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.
Similarly, if someone waves a sign in my face, I
can't help but perceive the message being sent, but
I can choose whether to act on that information or
not, depending on the circumstances.


Why should a person purposely ignore information that is being conveyed
to them? Why shouldn't they review it and act upon it when or if
appropriate no matter what the source -- written communication, oral
communication, body language, clothing, whatever form of communication
there is. Why shouldn't the onus be on the person making the
communication? In other words, shouldn't the individual be responsible
for his own actions, rather than relying upon the community to ignore
any messages sent by his actions?

Barbara

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

"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
...

No, I have never said that the receiver has no
responsibility. In fact, I don't think I've discused
the responsibilities of the receiver at all.


I'm fairly certain that you placed all of the responsibility
on the one dressing, thus removing all from the receiver.
I'll try to find it later.

Okay, lemme know when you find it.

Turns out that it came up on 6/22 but wasn't addressed
directly.

Receivers can choose how
to weigh that information, and frequently there is no
need for the receiver to take any action at all based
on the information, but it is the sender who has the
most ability (and therefore responsibility) to put the
information out there which conveys the message he or
she wishes to convey. The receiver has a responsibility
to "listen," to weigh all the evidence, to hold him-
or herself to high standards of moral and ethical
behavior in drawing any conclusions or acting on
them, but that's all the receiver can do.


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.

Some people see many messages in dress and consider
those messages to be truths. Others do not, and therefore
disregard a larger percentage of those messages.


P. Tierney