The articles, “School Board Flip-Flops on Flip-Flops,” “Are flip-flops damaging your career?” and “What Not to Wear to Work: 15 Things,” all appeared on the internet the same day.  It makes one wonder about what some people wear.  A school board in Washington state adopted a dress code that includes a ban on wearing pajamas or slippers.  It is unlikely that those items would be included unless someone had worn them to school.  It is easy to imagine a student doing so on a dare or as a prank, but would someone simply wear pajamas as clothing?  If people need the suggestions in Kate Lorenz’s CareerBuilder.com article, “What Not to Wear to Work: 15 Things,” maybe so.  Common sense dictates the suggestions in the article.  Items to avoid included extreme hair colors, long grungy beards, tattoos, underwear as outerwear, overly revealing clothes, work-out clothes and soiled, stained or rumpled clothing.

A possible reason for some inappropriate clothing choices is confusion of price and propriety.  This is notable with flip-flops.  When the only flip-flop available was the basic rubber style, the shoes were only worn for leisure.  After leather, beaded and sequined styles became available; women began to wear flip-flops everywhere.  Last summer, some members of Northwestern University’s champion women’s lacrosse team wore them to meet President Bush at the White House.  They probably meant no disrespect and may have believed that “dressy” flip-flops qualified as dress shoes.  Many employers consider flip-flops to be beach attire, but, according to a survey performed for Gap and Old Navy more than 31% of high school and college aged women considered flip-flops to be a “must have” item to wear to work.
 

The correctness of an item of clothing is not based on its price or quality, but on its purpose.  Clothes that are appropriate for nightclubs or parties are not appropriate for work, religious services or other serious occasions.  The same is true of clothes designed for sports, beachwear and casual occasions.
 

While some are clueless about what clothes are proper for work, others just don’t care.  Dressing appropriately was once considered a sign of respect for others or for the occasion.  Now, many consider dress to be self-expression.  One woman wrote to an advice column asking if she had to wear black to a funeral because she preferred bright colors.  The writer’s reluctance to forego bright colors for one event and her failure to recognize that the funeral wasn’t about her demonstrates how self-centered some people are. 
 

Some go beyond being self-centered to the point at which they are contemptuous of others.  In her CareerBuilder.com article, Kate Lorenz gave the example of Olga.  On her first days at a new job, Olga wore low-cut shirts, fishnet stockings and stiletto heels that were so high that she could barely walk.  At the request of Olga’s boss, a female human resources director informed Olga that her clothing choices did not reflect the image the company wanted to project.  Olga responded by telling her that “she couldn’t help it if people felt threatened or turned on by her.  She was who she was and those people bothered by it were probably older, fatter and jealous.”  In the 1960s and ‘70s, the cultural attitude changed from one of trying to please others to “do your own thing” and “I’m ok. You’re ok.”  Since then, the attitude seems to have devolved to one of “I’m ok no matter what I do and, if you don’t think so, you’re intolerant.”
 

As our culture has become focused on self-esteem, personal fulfillment and self-expression, many are losing all inhibitions.  As a society, have we lost the concept of appropriateness, not only in clothing choices, but in behavior?  Many people loudly and publicly discuss private matters, including medical conditions, as they talk on their cell phones.  It is not uncommon to hear profanity, abusive language and heated spousal or family arguments public.  Some reveal every personal detail on the internet.  According to Alan Finder’s June 11, 2006 New York Times article, “For Some, Online Persona Undermines a Resume,” blogs on sites such as MySpace, Facebook, Xanga and Friendster include details about the bloggers’ drinking, drug use and sex lives.  Some post raunchy photos of themselves and a few even included videos of themselves performing criminal acts such as vandalism and physical assaults.
 

While those who act without inhibition feel no embarrassment, they are offended if others react to their behavior.  Many women who wear very revealing clothes are offended when men look at what is revealed.  Those who have loud public cell phone conversations become angry if they think bystanders are listening.  People who yell or curse in public say “What you lookin’ at?” to those who take notice of them.  Those who reveal their drug use and sex lives in their blogs become outraged when potential employers invade their “privacy” by reading their webpages.
 

Those who seek attention with their dress or behavior must accept that the attention will not always be desired or favorable.  There are situations when individuality is desirable and situations when it is best to “go along to get along.” Standing for one’s principles is an example of the former.  Choosing one’s work wardrobe is an example of the latter.  Could it be that those who don’t know the difference are so shallow that they can only express their personalities through dress or rude behavior?
 

Copyright Eva Ellsworth, 07/02/06, all rights reserved

Rate this post:

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...