Appearance is everything in some jobs—especially jobs that are customer facing.  Employers occasionally make demands about appearance.

At every place that I’ve worked professionally, the dress has been business casual—basically, a polo shirt or button down shirt and slacks for guys, dress pants and a professional shirt, dress or skirt set for girls.  Not to casual—mostly modest.

So, what should a woman do when new management takes over a job and decides to institute a new dress code?

Shenoa Vild decided that when the new management required her to wear makeup, she drew the line in the sand.

She changed her dress code, but couldn’t see why she should wear something on her face—especially when she liked her complexion.

Now, I’m not like the author of the source article.  I believe that a business has the right to institute policy for the kind of customer they are looking to attract, and you have the right to find a different job.

However, what would you do—if the place that you were employed suddenly changed the dress code and it was less modest than you were accustomed to?  Even if you could still be modest, would the change in policy effect whether you stayed in your position or not?

© MInTheGap for Is This Modest?, 2009. | Permalink | 7 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags:

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

I was sitting in Subway with my family, getting a quick dinner before heading off to their latest T-Ball game.  We had just got our order and were sitting down to start eating when they walked in—two young ladies wearing what could be considered boxer shorts and tight shirts.  They were innocent looking—not trying to be trashy, but one of them was wearing a sweatshirt with “Pink” written on it—I assume that it’s the same “Pink” that is a fashion line of Victoria’s-not-so-Secrets.

We (I speak of the culture here) have taught our young ladies that they are sexual.  We have taught them that fashionable equals provocative.  We have taught innocents that wearing underwear to the beach is something neat and special, and that showing a lot of leg is something cool.

We have introduced sexual education into our classrooms, causing kids to lose their innocence at younger ages—they now know when the government wants them to instead of when their family wants them to.  We’ve told them that they cannot help it, that they’re going to need outlets, and we’re reaping what we’ve sown.

It Doesn’t Matter—Female or Male Teacher

Our culture has taken away restraint.  In the common refrain of “we’re made that way, we can’t help it”, our culture has sought to demystify what was once taboo.  It has sought to normalize all sorts of perversion, instead of seeking to encourage men and women to seek higher ground.

You may say, but a lot of the cases I read about is young women teachers preying on young men.  You’d be right that these are the most glamorized cases—and perplexing to some.  That is, until you realize that those 20-30 year old women are the first to come through the sexual education of the 90s.

Yes, I believe that we can accurately place a lot of the blame of our current sex saturated society and sexual-predators-as-teachers at the feet of the sexual education model of the 1990s.  Up until that point in time, comprehensive sex education was not taught in schools.  Yes, the 60’s brought free love, but it wasn’t something that was preached from the school’s pulpit.

From High School to College

Sex now booms on college campuses, with many coed dorms simply being places for couples to be able to get something they couldn’t get at home.  Whole industries have been made on sexual perversion and immodesty on display on spring break and in college dorms.

And it goes hand in hand.  A virtuous woman will not seek to be exposed.  She does not flaunt her body, and will not do things that objectify herself.

We’re pushing immodesty and sexuality younger and younger, and then wondering why the kids that we’ve pushed it on are engaging in it at younger ages, and with their slightly older peers.

I can still remember a Brady Bunch when Marsha was all ga-ga over the fact that a “college guy” asked her out on a date instead of a “high school guy.”  And I remember that there was a girl in my high school class that was smitten with a male teacher that was doing his internship at my school.  Think how easy it is to take advantage of this situation, and  then think about what the school is teaching.

No restraint, just be safe, and have fun—because everyone is doing it.

It’s true today, but it doesn’t have to be true tomorrow.  We need to show a better way.

© MInTheGap for Is This Modest?, 2009. | Permalink | 12 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags:

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

I don’t believe a year passes without some incident with the beauty pageants, and I’m not all convinced that some of it is contrived for the purpose of trying to gain some sort of attention.  A competition based mostly on appearance (the way that a woman looks in a formal, a swimsuit, etc.), a couple of softball questions, and winning multiple rounds seems like a previous generations’ way of finding a moral way to look at women without a stigma or guilt.

That being said, the Internet has made things more difficult for any that seek the public limelight.

A Sick and Twisted Path

Why is it that any woman that wants to be an actress must have photographs taken in various stages of undress in order to get the top roles?  Why is it that a woman is said to have broadened her horizons and done something positive for her career when she bares her top?

For some time it was assumed that the path to fame and fortune lied in front of the photographer’s lens.  And many young ladies with good figures have bought into this trap.

Miss California—Carrie Prejean—believed this lie.  She posed for a photographer on at least two different occasions wearing (or not wearing) clothing that would be unsuitable to display on this site.  While one set of photos does show images that were “between shots”—the shots that were planned would not make it into our Quick Review process.

She thought she was doing something for her career, and yet she was actually feeding the dehumanization and objectification of women everywhere.

She Keeps the Crown

She was able to keep her title as Miss California, after Donald Trump ruled that the photos were “not that bad” and that her views were in line with the President of the United States, the Secretary of State, etc.

But what does that say about the photos?

One of the comments I thought was interesting was made from another site, where the site author made the comment that the first photo of Prejean was comparable to what she wore in the swimsuit competition.  To me, this makes my point entirely.

What was she doing in that situation?  How can she say that dressing like that for men to see her and look on her like that is fine, but those other photos are wrong.  How can she draw the line at posing in her underwear (effectively), but then say that just a little less is grossly immoral.

Why We Encourage Modesty

It’s not just Biblical—it starts there, but it doesn’t end there.  You are more than your body, young ladies.  You are more than a pretty face, more than your curves, or how well or poorly you’ve developed.  You are a unique individual, created special by God for a purpose.  You have more power covered than you will ever have mostly-nude like these contestants.  They seek a fame that will perish.

Your message is important.  Miss Prejean’s message is good—marriage is for one man and one woman—but what is the character of the speaker?  Why should I listen to a woman in a beauty contest that says that she’s a Christian and believes one thing, while at the same time she’s parading around in her underwear causing men to stumble?

Our lives are a picture—what does your life, your actions, and your attire say about who you are—and more importantly, who you serve?

© MInTheGap for Is This Modest?, 2009. | Permalink | 21 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags:

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh