Male Subs Who Wear Nail Polish

Manners are important. Make-up is not important. Manners affect others around you. Make-up does not (should not) affect others around you.

 

Why are our manners important when other societies get along just fine without using American manners? Why couldn't we use the manners used in another country? Are they wrong since ours are right and some of theirs are the exact opposite of ours? The clothes for the fat people are over there is perfectly acceptable in some countries.

Make-up is a form of social construct also. It is seen, by a part of our culture, as a person who cares about how they present themselves to others.

 

I very strongly disagree with this point.

 

You may strongly disagree that fixing yourself up is seen as a person who cares about themselves, but there are parts of the country in which that is very true.

 

One person I know who is overly concerned with how others view her never wears makeup. I have no one to impress, but I wear makeup every day.

 

To understand that, you have to look at the function of manners. Manners are based on a society's values. Different societies have different values, even within the same broad culture, and manners reflect that. Take greeting/smiling at strangers for example. In some regions, that's what you do because having at least a perception of friendliness is important to them. In other places, that'd be weird. Even shared values can be expressed differently. Here, we respect our elders by addressing them with titles (Mr./Mrs.X, m'am/sir) until given permission not to. In Korea, that thought is taken further to where people want to know your age immediately in order to know how to address you because even a year makes a difference. Here, we'd find it rude to be asked our age by a new acquaintance.

In Klingon, there are no greetings that would be considered polite in English; there's only one, "what do you want?" Klingon culture values efficiency over formality. Even in fictitious societies, manners reflect values.

 

Heres the thing. Schools tend to lean towards conservative dress. At the same time subs are sometimes the warm body that can fill in for the day. In which case nail polish doesnt matter. I do think there will be whispers however.

 

.

 

Know your audience. Where you are subbing is going to matter greatly. Or, heck, ask the building principal. The worst they'll say is "no".

 

Ooops mistake on my part. Not being rude just an oversight. What's your excuse?

Going back and looking, I was talking about Caesar753. I don't think I've ever been made aware if Caesar is male or female. It would have been rude to refer to Caesar as an "IT" in order to prevent a gender faux pas. But I'm so lucky to have you around to correct me. What would I do without your wonderful insight on things?

 

I don't know, but in the politically correct society you adore, pronouns are a BIG deal.

 

You assume wrong. I don't adore PC. It's gone overboard to where it is obnoxiously annoying.

 

I would ERR on the side of caution. Maybe see what the climate of the school is first. I've been teaching for nearly 20 years and have never seen a male teacher/sub/para wear nail polish. They could have been wearing it on the weekends. Just not in schools I've worked in.

 

Honestly I'm tired of people complaining about "PC" because what it really amounts to to them is an unrealistic caricature of what THEY think PC is and use this straw man (that doesn't exist in 99% of people they would describe as "PC") to justify dismissing all attempts to make our society a more welcoming and respectful place.

Are there a few outliers that take things too far? Yes there are... in everything. Get over it.

 

Nitpicking terminology is an attempt to make society a more welcoming and respectful place?

 

Thanks for this. It made me laugh!

 

Well, we’re tired of the perpetually offended trying to police everyone’s speech.

 

Honestly yes. There's a reason we don't call black folks n*gg*rs anymore, or it's frowned upon to call LGBT people f*gg*ts or d*kes, or why it's not appropriate to refer to women as hussies or b**ches or wenches.

As I said, some people take some things too far, but really the people who should have the ultimate word are the people it affects the most.

 

Except for the n-word is unacceptable, until it is not. It is used heavily by those who claim to be offended by it. So it isn't the word it is who uses the word. That is a problem. The word doesn't even have to be said in the "offensive" way to be wrong.

 

I can't explain the nuances of this as well as a black person but their "ownership" of this word is a method of empowerment that comes no where close to the empowerment felt by slave owners who had ownership of their ancestors. I simply see it as one of the few reparations made to blacks and their descendants. Not saying the n-word if you're not black is an incredibly small gesture when you understand the scale and scope of slavery and how this word was used to refer to property or chattel but was used for human beings.

Taking it and making it their own helps them to own their history and feel a small measure of control in this world where they are not in control of much.

 

I know all of that. I think it is ridiculous and an excuse. It is a power play. There is nothing like trying to show you are equal by trying to show you have more power. By taking "ownership" of words is showing you have more power.

If women don't want to be called b****es and wh*r*s, they shouldn't call one another those things. It isn't a term of endearment no matter how much they want to make it seem it is.

The way to encourage the elimination of certain word use is not to use the word to show you have power but to not use the word at all. To show you are equal is to act in a manner you are equal.

Now, if people really want to be in power, then they should just come out and say that rather than pretending they want to be equal and utilizing methods that show they have more power in certain things.

 

I understand where you're coming from but I think in reality it's generally very difficult to just "eliminate" a word. It's actually easier to just change the social rules around using that word to apply to different people.

And when you think about it, if you've "eliminated" a word like the n word and a black person hears two people utter this word, one white and one black, it's only natural he would be more offended by the white person saying it as in our country's history whites were the ones who owned slaves. Not blacks.

Just like a woman would be more offended if a man called her a b word because historically men held more power and generally exercised that power over women, whereas another woman saying might be offensive, but not AS offensive.

So these divisions of power over these words arise rather naturally in my opinion, because of the history of the word's use.

Another argument is you can't just ignore centuries of history and state: "okay starting now, we're all equal." Partially because that is just a gross shifting of responsibility for those who enjoyed power in the past, and because history helps us identify the causes of imbalances in power in today's society. Especially those imbalances that are hard to see even for those at the lower end of it. ("The frog doesn't notice you're boiling him if you very gradually turn up the heat", and all.)

 

So you are comparing equality for all with being boiled? Or are you saying you can't prove your are equal unless you show you have more power than others? Or are you saying paybacks (reversing the balance of power) are the only way to gain equality?

Just because something is the easier way to do something doesn't mean it is right or just.

Just as in a relationship where one had more power, you can't fix it by the weaker one rising up and showing they now have more power.

 

No. I'm saying that in the world before women's suffrage for instance, most women did not really think they needed or wanted the right to vote because of how things were historically. It's something that was always the case so they probably didn't think it needed changing. By remembering the history we prevent that from happening again.

 

But what does that have to do with flipping the power imbalance by allowing one group of people to be allowed to use a word when another group cannot (which is what I was talking about and you were responding to)? How is that helpful to bringing about a sense of equality for all?

 

How did we get from nail polish to the n-word?

 

Post # 61

 

Its about the fact that these groups were not equal before this point, and that one of the ways to remedy is by giving ownership of a word that was previously used to harm a people to that people.

And that by pretending things were always equal you run the risk of repeating history and power imbalance becoming the status quo.

 

Put another way, you cannot "eliminate" words from the English language especially not in this country and especially not in today's society. The only options are to make it okay for anyone to say this word or to make it a social faux pas for some people to say this word. Do you think it should be socially acceptable for white people to call black people the n-word after the historical usage of the word?

 

No one is pretending they were equal in the past.

So the remedy to the past injustices is to allow the other group to have injustice against those that were in power in the past? Nothing says equality like inequality.

 

I've given you my opinion already. It is not right for anyone to say that word. My point was it should be a social faux pas for anyone to say it because that is equal.

See, my point was that a white person can't use the term even in the same manner as someone is black is using it. It is out of bounds. Yes, you explained why. I don't agree with that being an acceptable reason. I even gave the same example for women. My opinion applies not only to issues of race. It applies across the board.

The truth is if people wanted to work on everyone seeing one another as equals, they would stop being so divisive and work on being equal. The methods wouldn't be by creating a power situation to hold over others because that is not equality.

 

This one certainly derailed, didn't it?

The OP hasn't been online since the original posting, so I'm thinking that he won't even care how off track this has become.

 

Your statement is inaccurate. There were Black slave owners in the pre-Civil War era. Also, African kings sold their own people to European settlers in the Americas.

 

Exactly. Enter Black reparations and other such nonsense. And this is coming from someone who is very multicultural.

I’m so sick of there being double standards for different people-groups.