TexasCHLforum.com

snatchel wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:Other than the guy with prison tats getting a toe job, ther above picture pointed out another change in current life styles, values or whatever.

It wasn't all that long ago that women "in a family way wore so-called maternity tops when out in public. Ask your parents or grandparents what a maternity top looked like. Pregnant girls dadgum sure didn't get to stay in class in Jr. or Sr. HS either.

LoL. Prison tats...

Are my tattoo's prison tats? I planned on being a "lifer" in the military.. and in my job, tattoos were almost mandatory.. the more, the merrier. Then I got blown up, med sep'd, and it turns out that in the real world, tattoos aren't as accepted as they were in the military. I don't regret them, but I will be getting the tattoos on my forearms removed in the next year .. or starting the process anyway.

Yeah, I have no idea what a maternity top looks like. I can say that I don't blame my sis for wearing a tank top and shorts.. If I recall, this was taken in Yuma, AZ last year in August... and it was something like 115 degrees out. I would have been naked if I could have legally.

There you go....

Some days I feel like I must have been posting in Swazi......

sugar land dave wrote:Folks,

I could criticize and praise every generation from my birth forward to today. Humans are an evolving species which grows and wanes with the passage of time. How does any young person (or on a larger note, generation) grow if they are not taught. They do not learn much by just breathing the air, and left to their own devices, without guidance from those who have gone before them, they will seek to quench a thirst they may not recognize, a desire to be more than they now are. They do not fail themselves as much as they are denied knowledge by those who do not give them time or insight.

Most young want to do better, but they do not know how. That, in and of itself, is not their fault. When they say they are bored, it is an admission that they feel an emptiness which they do not know how to fill. That is an opportune time to teach, to fulfill a generational obligation to the future.

Today's generations are not failing us; we are failing them each time we do not have time to teach them something which we have learned. By failing them, we are failing ourselves.

In the end, mankind gets the civilization he chooses for himself. Man's energy or lack thereof, his choices or refusal to make choices, these things bring forth the future. As long as you are alive, you have the power to change other people, generations, and the future. Sharing knowledge makes that change happen.

Which is why I come here. We share.

Very well said! Based on the picture originally posted, I think I'm in "that" generation. I'm also 26.

When I was younger (16-20'ish) I looked all sorts of "crazy". I had a mohawk, and it was purple, yellow, orange, red, and PINK (Yes, PINK!) throughout the years. Regardless of color or shape, my hair never made me feel more or less "manly", though I'm sure that my appearance offended more than a few folks and got them thinking on the "Geee, Kids these days..." track. I looked all punk rock, studded coat, plaid pants... all that junk. At the time, I felt great about my appearance as I really felt like I was expressing my individuality the best I could. I was into playing music in my bands, and making the most out of what life had to offer me each day (not recklessly so, I thank god every day that I managed to avoid making most of the youthful indiscretions that most people make). I know for a fact I was judged on my appearance, but I really didn't let it bother me - most people who looked different back then automatically got angry that they were being judged based on their hair style or clothing. I didn't let it bother be because I knew that if someone truly was going to be a friend to me or was truly perceptive, they would get to know me, and would learn that though my outward appearance looked like that of the kind of kid that would smash in mail boxes with a baseball bat, riot, or urinate on a police car, that I was the farthest thing from. One such occasion where someone discovered that has always stuck in my head.

While taking my drivers ed class, I was out on a drive with an instructor and he was treating me as If I'd threatened to punch him or his mother in the kidneys. After the drive was complete, and we made it back to the school, I was waiting for my mother to come pick me up. When she pulled up, and I was moving to get into the car, the instructor came over to the car and started talking to my mother. "Ma'am, you have a good son here. When I first saw him I thought to myself, 'Oh no, one of THOSE!' and was bracing myself for having to deal with him. I came to learn he wasn't like that at all, and that he is an intelligent, bright, and respectful kid. I just wanted to let you know". I honestly don't think my mom had a chance to say anything to him other than "thank you" before he smiled and walked off. The guy was probably in his 50's at the time. I'll always remember that encounter, because It solidified the fact the even though as humans we base a whole lot on outward appearance, that there are still many folks who are capable of seeing past all of that should they choose. It was a big discovery for me at the time. At that stage of my life, even though my parents and friends were supportive of me, I still had to contend with the "Oh man, you look crazy!" behavior from most other folks. I also attended a private school, and they had problems with my appearance. I remember the Administrative Assistant for the school once told my mother "You need to be careful with him. It starts like just like this all the time... the next think you know He'll be boarding up the windows in his room!". We actually both had a really hearty laugh over this, because this woman seemed to think that I was on the road to becoming a satanist or something, despite the fact that I was a otherwise a goody-two-shoes.


When I hit 20'ish I think I learned what I needed to from looking "different" and started dressing "normal", and grew a "normal" hairstyle. I grew out of that phase of my life.

Enough reminiscing on my part - I guess the point I'm trying to make is that, while I KNOW appearances can give some insight to the person that they adorn, we never really can tell who someone is. Thusly, I can't fault people from my generation for anything any more-so than any other generation I've encountered simply because they look "odd" by normal definitions. As it was said, that girl could very well go on to cure cancer, or become a counselor for victims of violent crime or some other position that could contribute a lot of good towards society.

Just my observations.

sugar land dave wrote:Some days I feel like I must have been posting in Swazi......

Why don't you all fade away and don't try to dig what we all say.

Heartland Patriot wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:Marvelous posture on that girl. Very attractive.

When I was that age, I had loooong hair. I had, in the terms of the day, "tuned in, turned on, and dropped out." I'm sure I probably didn't smell too good. Later, after life's lessons had their way with me......and I needed a job....... I spent a lot of effort on tuning out, turning off, and dropping back in.

Snatchel, many many people in your generation have already proven that we have much to be grateful for because you represent the best that this nation has to offer......which is considerable. You should be proud of your generation. You more than make up for the rest who aren't carrying their weight yet. Eventually, the smarter slackers will figure it all out and take a bath. The ones that don't, well, every generation has that subset of people who are a net drain on everything around them for their entire lives. There isn't much you can do for them, except to try to overturn years and years of government policies which encourage their indolence.

You guys are doing fine. Be proud of it, and be encouraged.

TAM, I would DEARLY love to see the checks to the life-long indolents get turned off...now, some folks truly can't do for themselves, and I don't mind helping them...but if we actually kept it to those who TRULY can't do for themselves, instead of those who ACT like they can't, it really wouldn't cost much at all.

Perhaps you're being gracious, but I see it as a choice, not an act.

Regarding those whose appearance is unconventional or different from the norm.....

In the Christan recovery group of which it is my privilege to play a small part, there is a young man who has been attending for a few months now. He has gone from being alienated from the world and angry at everyone in it, to being on fire for and in love with Jesus. It's really quite a remarkable transition. This guy still dresses like a homeless person, but he isn't homeless. His clothes are always dirty. He wears his hair long, and it doesn't look like he washes it daily. One gets the sense from talking to him that he has access to the means of cleaning his clothes.....he just doesn't think to do it. He doesn't smell bad, at least not noticeably, but the way he looks, you would expect him to. He's the only guy like that in the whole group. Everyone else is more like me—older, further along in life, etc. He's a really sweet guy too. I suspect that his appearance is part of his old strategy for rejecting the world and everyone in it, and rejecting its Creator, but that he's been like that for so long that it has become second nature, and I don't think that he consciously realizes that his appearance is offputting to people who don't know him better, like I've been getting to know him better.

The thing is, I think that a lot of people would be made uncomfortable if they had to sit too close to him. I honestly don't think he's aware of that about himself. He is also new enough in his spiritual walk, that I think I'm going to not say anything to him about it. I would rather help him to focus on getting clean inside. The outside will take care of itself as he matures in his faith, and as he makes progress in trying to reintigrate himself with the world around him.

All of that said, people who consciously choose to dress and or groom themselves in a manner deliberately intended to challenge the aesthetic sensibilities of everyone around them ought not be surprised when everybody around them objects to the challenge. Because of this, choosing to carry one's self in such a manner is self-limiting and self-defeating. Here's an example of how this is so......

Let's say I own a gardening/landscaping business. My customers are going to be interacting with me, far more than they will be with my employees. So if one of my employees has a lot of tats or ear guages, it's not going to be a big deal to me. But, let's say that my business is blessed by God and grows to the point where I now have to have a storefront, customer service reps, and outside salesrep......now I have to be concerned with the appearance of those of my employees who will be representing my business face to face with potential customers. I can't afford to have a salesperson whose physical appearance might negatively effect the potential customer's perception of my business. They might choose to go with a company whose representatives are more "conventional" looking. Now that person's "individualism" is having an impact on my bottom line, and I can't have that. The end result? When I'm looking to either promote from within or hire from without someone to work in a customer-interface position, I'm not going to hire the one whose appearance would offend more of my customers than those it would not.

Previously, I mentioned my own long hair from many many years ago. Long hair on men may not be that uncommon anymore, and it might be perfectly acceptable today in most kinds of jobs........because long hair no longer pushes the bounds of conventions. It is will within those bounds. But 40 years ago, long hair would keep you from getting almost any kind of job. You wanted work, you cut your hair. it was that simple. So today, it's tats, piercings, guages, and "interesting" hair. Sooner or later, people who are too in your face about these things will come to the realization that, fairly or unfairly, their sartorial choices do have an impact on their earning power.

Of course there are exceptions to this. Software giants like Microsoft probably don't care about your tats as long as your programming skills help them to make billions of dollars. You can dress how you please as long as you turn out the work. On the other hand, I can pretty much guarantee that whenever Microsoft sends someone in to woo a client whose sales are potentially in the hundreds of millions of dollars, they're going to send someone in a three piece suit who looks like a freshly minted Harvard MBA. Now, he may have a dragon tatooed on his back, but nobody can see it......

....and that is the key.

“People nowadays blame everything on their parents - add that to the differences - but Pop lived in an era when character alone was expected to accomplish miracles, and so many times did.” - W.D. Wetherell, North of Now, A Celebration Of Country And The Soon To Be Gone. I think there will always be distinct fashion differences between generations but character, behavior and attitude are timeless.

The Annoyed Man wrote: ...All of that said, people who consciously choose to dress and or groom themselves in a manner deliberately intended to challenge the aesthetic sensibilities of everyone around them ought not be surprised when everybody around them objects to the challenge. Because of this, choosing to carry one's self in such a manner is self-limiting and self-defeating. Here's an example of how this is so......

Let's say I own a gardening/landscaping business. My customers are going to be interacting with me, far more than they will be with my employees. So if one of my employees has a lot of tats or ear guages, it's not going to be a big deal to me. But, let's say that my business is blessed by God and grows to the point where I now have to have a storefront, customer service reps, and outside salesrep......now I have to be concerned with the appearance of those of my employees who will be representing my business face to face with potential customers. I can't afford to have a salesperson whose physical appearance might negatively effect the potential customer's perception of my business. They might choose to go with a company whose representatives are more "conventional" looking. Now that person's "individualism" is having an impact on my bottom line, and I can't have that. The end result? When I'm looking to either promote from within or hire from without someone to work in a customer-interface position, I'm not going to hire the one whose appearance would offend more of my customers than those it would not.

Previously, I mentioned my own long hair from many many years ago. Long hair on men may not be that uncommon anymore, and it might be perfectly acceptable today in most kinds of jobs........because long hair no longer pushes the bounds of conventions. It is will within those bounds. But 40 years ago, long hair would keep you from getting almost any kind of job. You wanted work, you cut your hair. it was that simple. So today, it's tats, piercings, guages, and "interesting" hair. Sooner or later, people who are too in your face about these things will come to the realization that, fairly or unfairly, their sartorial choices do have an impact on their earning power.

Of course there are exceptions to this. Software giants like Microsoft probably don't care about your tats as long as your programming skills help them to make billions of dollars. You can dress how you please as long as you turn out the work. On the other hand, I can pretty much guarantee that whenever Microsoft sends someone in to woo a client whose sales are potentially in the hundreds of millions of dollars, they're going to send someone in a three piece suit who looks like a freshly minted Harvard MBA. Now, he may have a dragon tatooed on his back, but nobody can see it......

....and that is the key.

Well worded TAM. Just a few things I wanted to comment on:

All of that said, people who consciously choose to dress and or groom themselves in a manner deliberately intended to challenge the aesthetic sensibilities of everyone around them ought not be surprised when everybody around them objects to the challenge.

Definitely! When I was still all Mo-hawked out, I could never understand why some of the folks who dressed like me got so irritated over people giving them trouble over their looks. I personally think that many, many subcultures (especially anything remotely "punk") are based on the idea of challenging other folks sensibilities, often times for no real reason. The majority of the people who acted like that, I honestly couldn't stand because they embodied the whole "OMG the world hates me sooooo much" attitude. On the other hand, there were plenty of people I encountered that weren't intending to challenge aesthetic sensibilities, but were just happy looking they way they did (at the time, myself included). Kind of the "You wear your Cowboy hat/Prada/American Eagle/etc. and I'll wear my <choose odd/random fashion and insert here>, and we'll both be happy" attitude.

Previously, I mentioned my own long hair from many many years ago. Long hair on men may not be that uncommon anymore, and it might be perfectly acceptable today in most kinds of jobs........because long hair no longer pushes the bounds of conventions. It is will within those bounds. But 40 years ago, long hair would keep you from getting almost any kind of job. You wanted work, you cut your hair. it was that simple. So today, it's tats, piercings, guages, and "interesting" hair. Sooner or later, people who are too in your face about these things will come to the realization that, fairly or unfairly, their sartorial choices do have an impact on their earning power.

Yup. I still scratch my head when folks don't get that. I have to say that I'm curious as to why corporations with absolutely no physical public interaction halfway enforce silly dress codes. Fashion wise, times will always change... people and their attitudes won't. As an interesting anecdote, a hairdresser is one of those jobs that will let you get away with more "fun/colored" hair styles. The gal my wife and I have cut our hair these days has purple portions of her hair, and dresses in a tasteful 50's mixed with a hint of goth style of wardrobe. She rocks it well, and even though she is self employed, she still faces the challenges you mentioned. Luckily, her customers know that she does her job extraordinarily well and has no shortage of customers whom don't mind how she looks. I was actually in her shop when an older gentleman in his early 70's came into her shop trying to sell odd little-home made trinkets (this was right before Christmas), and he basically was tripping over himself to get out of the shop because of her appearance (and really, she doesn't look crazy at all, it's not like she's got spikes all over the place, pentagrams or crazy contact lenses, lol). He mumbled something softly to her and handed her an, ah shall we say, colorfully worded religious tract. We laughed about it, and appreciated that he only handed her one, and not me (as I was dressed casually and clean cut). We then had a discussion about appearances, much like the one we're having on the forum right now. It's nice to see that sometimes people can still have their own style and make a good living, though I'm certain the folks that can pull this off have way outgrown the 'I rebuke your normality and substitute my own' attitude, and are now well balanced adults.

As a point of musing it can be easy to spot those that have learned the aforementioned lessons, and those that haven't but it's always anyone's guess (not that it's any of my business or concern). I used to know many people who were in their mid 30's and still playing the subversive sub-culture game and still didn't have a clue.

Sport Coach wrote:...I think there will always be distinct fashion differences between generations but character, behavior and attitude are timeless.

Cheers to that!

CEOofEVIL wrote:Yup. I still scratch my head when folks don't get that. I have to say that I'm curious as to why corporations with absolutely no physical public interaction halfway enforce silly dress codes. Fashion wise, times will always change... people and their attitudes won't.

Define silly dress code. Unless you're a sole proprietor or a teleworker, you share an office with other people. Each of them has different views on what clothing is appropriate in a professional environment, what work hours are appropriate, etc. In more creative fields like programming and advertising, the dress code is generally looser. In more conservative professions like accounting, people put a lot of stock in following standards.

On the flip side, Starbucks employees have lots of customer contact and there's no shortage of body art.

boba wrote:On the flip side, Starbucks employees have lots of customer contact and there's no shortage of body art.

True, but I would add that a significant portion of Starbucks' customers have no shortage of body art themselves. Starbucks may be one of the few "neutral grounds" areas where the squares and the hipsters congregate and don't each worry about what the other is wearing.

bayouhazard wrote:

sugar land dave wrote:Some days I feel like I must have been posting in Swazi......

Why don't you all fade away and don't try to dig what we all say.

Kwa nini wewe si wote ataangamizwa na wala kujaribu kuchimba kile sisi wote kusema.

(ok, swahili. So sue me...)

I think I've lost faith in the generation that can't tell the younger generations what punks they are and how much better they have it!

We've all been the punks before... there's no problem with giving it back to the young guys though. I was called out and criticized to no end and I wasn't a bad kid... it makes you think. At least I think it does.

Be nice!

boba wrote:

CEOofEVIL wrote:Yup. I still scratch my head when folks don't get that. I have to say that I'm curious as to why corporations with absolutely no physical public interaction halfway enforce silly dress codes. Fashion wise, times will always change... people and their attitudes won't.

Define silly dress code. Unless you're a sole proprietor or a teleworker, you share an office with other people. Each of them has different views on what clothing is appropriate in a professional environment, what work hours are appropriate, etc. In more creative fields like programming and advertising, the dress code is generally looser. In more conservative professions like accounting, people put a lot of stock in following standards.

On the flip side, Starbucks employees have lots of customer contact and there's no shortage of body art.

I hear what your saying. For example, I worked for big company that had one physical facility and over 500 associates working in it spread through a multitude of different business units. Aside from being employed by the same parent company, most of the units didn't have anything to do with each other: IE Accounting, Payroll Services, Automotive Support, Website support, HR services, etc. About 98% of the staff worked to provide services to smaller client companies who paid the parent company for their service - Zero face to face interaction occured at this facility other than the business units "working" with each other. There was a "strict" facility wide dress code that stated you needed to be in slacks/dress pants, button down or polo shirts, and nice shoes. For women, it was basically the same with the addition of nothing that revealed too much skin: IE very low cut shirts, short skirts, and for safety reasons all shoes (male and female) needed to be closed toe'd and couldn't resemble sandals. Tie's and suits weren't required. Usually the only ones that dressed that much up were the facility GM and other few other higher ups.

So, in theory, everyone in this building needed to adhere to these rules. My particular department was pretty strict on it, even though our supervisor and director would often show up in sweat suits. I honestly don't think I ever saw our director dressed in anything other than a sweatsuit, lol. I should clearly state I totally support him wearing a sweatsuit if he's comfortable in it - I could care less. What I do care about is that even though our deparment was fairly uniform, the rest of the building had major issues following the dress code, and enforcing it. The department next to us would wear jeans and dress casually pretty much every day. That's awesome, and I'm totally for casual dress in a profession work environment - BUT this kind of dress wasn't permitted on regular basis as per the building/company rules. Supposedly other departments in the building that did this could do so because it was a reward for good metrics: Don't mess up your work, get it all done ASAP, be a super-stud employee etc. Offering casual dress as a reward is a great Idea, right? Sure, but in this case it was basically only a way for entire departments to get around the local rules and policies. There was a provision in the building that allowed employee's to wear jeans on Friday, which was cool and most people in the building took advantage of that (even the GM!) when they could, so it's not like we we're chained to our professional clothing. Still, I constantly viewed infractions on this policy on a daily basis: Ultra revealing clothing, complete casual dress, and otherwise prohibited clothing items were always being worn consistently, and by an alarmingly high percentage of supervisors. My department would specifically be singled out if we questioned these infractions of company rules, as my boss took this to the GM multiple times, and was basically told to pound sand. Why would this be an issue? It's hard to keep the morale of your own department up (and we had horribly low morale because of high hours, a ridiculous work load, and understaffing) when the department next to you is constantly breaking company policy and being ignored. IE: It's hard to say "Hey guys, you've been working your butts off, so you can dress casually this whole week!" when it's against company rules, EVEN though the departments surrounding always did it. Our supervisor said "OK, you know what if they want to play that game, we'll just do it too..." well, we we're singled out and told by the GM that we "couldn't" have casual dress like that.

Looking back, I think it was more company politics more than anything. The other supervisors pandered to the GM and were in the good ole' boys club, while our department was on the outside. I've since ceased working there, but keep hearing how utterly miserable everyone who works in that department is. It is for this reason, morale, that I think casual dress should be considered a serious employee dress code if it suits the business model. Seriously, folks are so much happier when they can just wear what they want (within reason - and yes, I know that "reason" is always debatable) and not have to worry about "Ohhh noes I stained my last clean button down with bleach!", which leaves them free to worry more about the quality of their work (which should be one of the highest priorities anyway). Another office of this company which is located in Austin, has a free dress code. Folks can pretty much wear what they want (again, within reason) all the time, and that facility was always heralded as one of the premier locations our company had. They waste less time losing morale and squabbling over the dress code there and focus more on getting stuff done. I can only guess as to why the Austin facility was treated to this perk, but perhaps the general atmosphere of Austin has something to do with it. Here in El Paso, good paying jobs are pretty much nil, where as Austin you have to be competitive to keep your employee's (or so I hear - I'm moving to Austin within the next month, so I guess I'll find out first hand!).

So, I suppose my point is two fold:

1. If it suits a business model, let employee's dress freely, albeit with some restrictions.
2. Enforce all rules regarding dress code in business equally, or don't enforce them at all.

CEOofEVIL wrote:2. Enforce all rules regarding dress code in business equally, or don't enforce them at all.

That should apply to all HR policies but I know where you're coming from. I worked for a company that had a business casual dress code. However, employees could buy a ticket to wear jeans on Friday. The money went to a charity. My feeling is jeans are either appropriate or they're not. It shouldn't matter if you support charities of your choice or support the management's pet charity.