If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#581
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#582
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#583
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#584
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#585
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#586
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#587
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#588
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#589
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#590
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Review: Disney's Teacher's Pet (**) | Steve Rhodes | General | 0 | January 17th 04 11:46 PM |
Get to Know YOUR Children's Teachers! | Mother Henrietta Hickey | General | 16 | September 30th 03 03:53 PM |
Get to Know YOUR Children's Teachers! | Mother Henrietta Hickey | Solutions | 16 | September 30th 03 03:53 PM |
50 Conditions That Mimic "ADHD" | Theta | Kids Health | 80 | September 25th 03 11:35 PM |
Requesting teachers, was Starting Kindergarten | Ericka Kammerer | General | 7 | August 11th 03 02:16 AM |