Unrealistic beauty standards?

[tall73]

Even living in the Spirit, I think it'd be naive to then think none of this matters any more, or doesn't shape how people interact.

Living in the Spirit might shape how you use the tools at your disposal in terms of how you present yourselves, but short of all becoming nudists, I don't think it gets us to the point of ignoring those realities.

Does James think that the Spirit changes our perceptions of people?

According to the study if someone comes in showing signs of high status, such as a gold ring and nice clothes, we would tend to make concessions to them, defer to them, etc.

James says the Spirit changes our perception of the hierarchy:

2 My brethren, do not hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with partiality. 2 For if there should come into your assembly a man with gold rings, in fine apparel, and there should also come in a poor man in filthy clothes, 3 and you pay attention to the one wearing the fine clothes and say to him, “You sit here in a good place,” and say to the poor man, “You stand there,” or, “Sit here at my footstool,” 4 have you not shown partiality among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts?


5 Listen, my beloved brethren: Has God not chosen the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him? 6 But you have dishonored the poor man. Do not the rich oppress you and drag you into the courts? 7 Do they not blaspheme that noble name by which you are called?

8 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,”a]">[a] you do well; 9 but if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors.

 

[Paidiske]

Would the Spirit perceive well dressed women in the workplace as threats or as people God created and Christ died to save?

Of course the latter is fundamentally true; of every person. But that doesn't mean they're not a threat, either. Someone can be both at the same time (I think, for example, of David's interactions with Saul; who was both a threat and someone David wanted to honour because of God).

Part of what we need to get our heads around is What exactly is being threatened? Is it access to job opportunities, to development opportunities, and so forth? Is it having your work respected and well received? Is it being able to contribute, to have your thoughts, ideas and so forth heard? All of those things can make the difference between a happy and a miserable workplace experience, and while I have no doubt God sometimes calls us to endure miserable workplace experience for a higher reason, that shouldn't be something we accept uncritically as right, either.

Much of that may relate to how the church operates, too. It's long been observed that socially "higher" people in churches tend to gravitate to leadership positions, to dominate church decision making, and so forth. The reasons for that are mostly not good, and should be challenged, but again - we'd be naive to deny that it happens.

 

[tall73]

Didn't Jesus tell His disciples that they needed to change their thinking about dominance hierarchies?

John 13:
5 After that, He poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with the towel with which He was girded. 6 Then He came to Simon Peter. And Peter said to Him, “Lord, are You washing my feet?”

7 Jesus answered and said to him, “What I am doing you do not understand now, but you will know after this.”


8 Peter said to Him, “You shall never wash my feet!”

Jesus answered him, “If I do not wash you, you have no part with Me.”


9 Simon Peter said to Him, “Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head!”


10 Jesus said to him, “He who is bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean, but not all of you.” 11 For He knew who would betray Him; therefore He said, “You are not all clean.”


12 So when He had washed their feet, taken His garments, and sat down again, He said to them, “Do you know what I have done to you? 13 You call Me Teacher and Lord, and you say well, for so I am. 14 If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. 15 For I have given you an example, that you should do as I have done to you. 16 Most assuredly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master; nor is he who is sent greater than he who sent him. 17 If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them.


He was their master but took on the cultural signs of a servant willingly, and the actions of a servant.

How would it not make a difference?

 

[tall73]

Of course the latter is fundamentally true; of every person. But that doesn't mean they're not a threat, either. Someone can be both at the same time (I think, for example, of David's interactions with Saul; who was both a threat and someone David wanted to honour because of God).

Part of what we need to get our heads around is What exactly is being threatened? Is it access to job opportunities, to development opportunities, and so forth? Is it having your work respected and well received? Is it being able to contribute, to have your thoughts, ideas and so forth heard? All of those things can make the difference between a happy and a miserable workplace experience, and while I have no doubt God sometimes calls us to endure miserable workplace experience for a higher reason, that shouldn't be something we accept uncritically as right, either.

Much of that may relate to how the church operates, too. It's long been observed that socially "higher" people in churches tend to gravitate to leadership positions, to dominate church decision making, and so forth. The reasons for that are mostly not good, and should be challenged, but again - we'd be naive to deny that it happens.

Certainly sinful nature can play out even in the church.

But do you really think it was the Spirit leading you to perceive them as a threat because they dressed nice?

Saul was throwing a spear. They were wearing nice clothes.

And David refused to treat Saul as a threat, not killing him as the Lord's anointed, even when Saul hunted him.

 

[Paidiske]

Didn't Jesus tell His disciples that they needed to change their thinking about dominance hierarchies?

He was their master but took on the cultural signs of a servant willingly, and the actions of a servant.

How would it not make a difference?

In the navy - the Australian navy, at any rate, I don't know how it works in America - a chaplain is always assumed to hold the rank of the person they're speaking to. That means that chaplain can speak to everyone, from the lowest ranked seaman to an admiral, as an equal and on their terms. The removal of the power gradient is seen as necessary for appropriate pastoral care to be possible.

That's a really wise and helpful approach (imo). So it might lead me to - for example - reflect on the social status and likely dress sense of someone I'm going to see, and adjust my own presentation accordingly. That makes a difference. But it's not ignoring the reality of these hierarchies and how they play out altogether; it's attempting to use them wisely, for godly ends.

And if you're trying to claim that I was threatened by people who dressed nicely, you have utterly and spectacularly missed the point, which was that in the workplace, how you dressed mattered.

 

[tall73]

And if you're trying to claim that I was threatened by people who dressed nicely, you have utterly and spectacularly missed the point, which was that in the workplace, how you dressed mattered.

I thought I was referencing what you actually said on the matter:

Those who already approve of you are no threat. It's those who don't approve who might act against you in the petty world of office politics.


Here is the context:

And you know, when I worked in an office environment, sure, some of the women couldn't have cared. But there was definitely a group of women who were clothes-obsessed, always talking about clothes, what they wore, where they shopped, all of that; and it did make me, at least, very self-conscious about how I would appear next to them and be viewed by them.

The question is: Why has your self-image been focused on that particular group of women who were clothes-obsessed? Why worry about the ones that don't approve of you instead of focusing on the ones that do?

Those who already approve of you are no threat. It's those who don't approve who might act against you in the petty world of office politics.

 

[tall73]

Was it the Spirit that led to this feeling?

and it did make me, at least, very self-conscious about how I would appear next to them and be viewed by them

Again, please note, I am not saying I always walk in the Spirit. I wish I did. It would resolve a lot of my poor thinking that comes from the flesh.

But a lot of our reactions are not just our upbringing, but our sinful nature. Of course, those raising us are also subject to sinful nature, so it all works together as you said. But our response to it is completely informed by the Spirit when we are in step with Him.

But there was definitely a group of women who were clothes-obsessed, always talking about clothes, what they wore, where they shopped, all of that; and it did make me, at least, very self-conscious about how I would appear next to them and be viewed by them.

 

[Paidiske]

The point I was trying to get across was that in everyday contexts, not just weddings, how you dress can shape how people react to you.

It's not that people who dress nicely are a threat. It's that people who use dress as a reason to treat people badly might be a threat.

I don't think perceiving that has anything to do with walking in the Spirit or not. I think that's relevant when you're deciding what to do about it; how to shape your own behaviour in response.

 

[tall73]

We talked earlier about how in counseling we come to see that previously held beliefs were based on faulty information, and there is a long process of deconstruction of our world view, and reconstruction in light of new information.

I find that all the time in my Spiritual life. The Spirit is constantly correcting my sinful thinking.

Yesterday I took my son to play basketball with some folks we had not played with before, or in some cases, for some time. I shot much worse than usual, and for a bit was agitated by it, because I thought I made a bad impression.

Of course this is old thinking. The Spirit convicted me that it made not one bit of difference how well an old guy played in a basketball game, or what they thought of my abilities, and that I was there to get to know the people there better anyway.

I didn't need to feel uncomfortable. That was my sinful nature wanting to be at the top, and worried about appearance.

When you indicated you felt self-conscious next to the ladies who were focused on clothing, I can relate to that.

We tend to forget to think as Christ thinks. I am not sure you had to feel self-conscious around them. If we are not to show favoritism to others based on such things, are we to show disfavor to ourselves when we feel we don't measure up on some standard against others? Or do we see it in light of what matters?

 

[Paidiske]

We tend to forget to think as Christ thinks. I am not sure you had to feel self-conscious around them. If we are not to show favoritism to others based on such things, are we to show disfavor to ourselves when we feel we don't measure up on some standard against others? Or do we see it in light of what matters?

I think it's normal and not sinful for a young person who wants to succeed in their job to be aware of how others perceive and treat them in the workplace. That person might then examine those perceptions/actions by others and decide whether or not to modify their behaviour (spend more on clothes, or at the hairdresser, or whatever). If I had bent myself out of shape, constantly shopping for the perfect look, spending hours at the mirror in the morning, and so on, I agree that would be to buy into a sin-laden set of values. (Or if I had made it into a competition and wanted to out-dress the fashionistas, that would also have been a problem).

But the awareness itself I don't see as a problem; I just see it as being perceptive.

 

[tall73]

I think it's normal and not sinful for a young person who wants to succeed in their job to be aware of how others perceive and treat them in the workplace. That person might then examine those perceptions/actions by others and decide whether or not to modify their behaviour (spend more on clothes, or at the hairdresser, or whatever). If I had bent myself out of shape, constantly shopping for the perfect look, spending hours at the mirror in the morning, and so on, I agree that would be to buy into a sin-laden set of values. (Or if I had made it into a competition and wanted to out-dress the fashionistas, that would also have been a problem).

But the awareness itself I don't see as a problem; I just see it as being perceptive.

You never said that those women treated your poorly. And there were those who didn't care about clothes there you indicated.

So I guess I don't get your reaction to them, other than as a thought that you didn't measure up, and it made you self-conscious.

Was it their fault? Was it really societal pressure? They may have had zero knowledge of your reaction to it.

Did anything in your actual job description, or from your bosses indicate you had to change your pattern of dress?

 

[Paidiske]

You never said that those women treated your poorly. And there were those who didn't care about clothes there. Clearly not everyone dressed like these women.

So I guess I don't get your reaction to them, other than as a thought that you didn't measure up, and it made you self-conscious.

Looking back - this was my first office job, and it was one where I did a lot of learning about how the world works and growing as a person - I think part of what I was doing was trying to work out what the unwritten rules were. Before that I'd worked in places where the dress code was much more clear, here there was less clarity and more variation; so I did watch and notice what other people wore and how they talked about what they wore, because that was part of me learning how this workplace "worked."

And I realised that there was a group of people who were both more invested in their clothes, emotionally, and probably spent a lot more on their clothes than I would/could/did, and who judged other people on their clothes/looks, and I was very aware that I was never going to be part of their "group." I then had to decide how to respond to that; did I want or need to be? If not, at what level did I need to relate to those people? And so on. All of that noticing and thinking and reflecting made me conscious of the gap between me and them.

Was it their fault? Was it really societal pressure? They may have had zero knowledge of your reaction to it.

Did anything in your actual job description, or from your bosses indicate you had to change your pattern of dress?

I think, looking back at the gossipy/spiteful nature of some of the dynamics, and the relative seniority of some of the people I'm thinking of, I could fairly say there was some fault. We're not talking about living saints here. Not that it rose to the level of outright bullying, but it was an undercurrent that yes, did provide some pressure on those around them.

My bosses didn't seem to have any issue with my dress, but in a workplace - or at least this kind of workplace - it's not just your direct bosses whose reactions you have to navigate.

 

[tall73]

Looking back - this was my first office job, and it was one where I did a lot of learning about how the world works and growing as a person - I think part of what I was doing was trying to work out what the unwritten rules were. Before that I'd worked in places where the dress code was much more clear, here there was less clarity and more variation; so I did watch and notice what other people wore and how they talked about what they wore, because that was part of me learning how this workplace "worked."

And I realised that there was a group of people who were both more invested in their clothes, emotionally, and probably spent a lot more on their clothes than I would/could/did, and who judged other people on their clothes/looks, and I was very aware that I was never going to be part of their "group." I then had to decide how to respond to that; did I want or need to be? If not, at what level did I need to relate to those people? And so on. All of that noticing and thinking and reflecting made me conscious of the gap between me and them.



I think, looking back at the gossipy/spiteful nature of some of the dynamics, and the relative seniority of some of the people I'm thinking of, I could fairly say there was some fault. We're not talking about living saints here. Not that it rose to the level of outright bullying, but it was an undercurrent that yes, did provide some pressure on those around them.

My bosses didn't seem to have any issue with my dress, but in a workplace - or at least this kind of workplace - it's not just your direct bosses whose reactions you have to navigate.

I am trying to understand what you mean by undercurrent.

This was something that was notable to you years later as an example of societal pressure. And we have already established we approach things a bit differently. So I am trying to make the connection.

You said it was not bullying, but an undercurrent. How does that undercurrent function?

Did they ever say anything about your clothes that you are aware of?

 

[Paidiske]

I am trying to understand what you mean by undercurrent.

This was something that was notable to you years later as an example of societal pressure. And we have already established we approach things a bit differently. So I am trying to make the connection.

You said it was not bullying, but an undercurrent. How does that undercurrent function?

Did they ever say anything about your clothes that you are aware of?

I do remember that when I wore particularly high heels - higher than normal for me - that this was praised. (This is going back ten years now, so some of the details have faded a bit).

But even though there wasn't much comment directed at me personally, every day they'd talk about clothes; what they wore, what the quality of different pieces was, where they bought it, they'd critique clothes in advertising (they were merchandise buyers, so it was part of their job to look at advertising, but we didn't trade in clothes), they'd talk about the fashion sense in Australia vs. other places they'd travelled, and so on.

In that environment, they don't have to be talking directly about your clothes for you to be very aware that they're very aware of clothes, and always making judgements about what they notice. I do remember buying new things and mentally evaluating them against how they'd be viewed in the office. If there were no pressure, I'd have bought things I liked and worn them just because I liked them, not made them pass through the added filter of whether or not it would meet with approval from others.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

I used to love traipsing through the office in my jeans, boots and safety equipment. Seems some folks didn't realize that I was the boss and would treat me MUCH differently...right up until they got called into my office.

 

[Dave-W]

I’m just pointing out when you face what you perceive as negative judgment, you are the first to make sure your experience is validated, not questioned, and respected. When you structure a situation make somebody else face negative judgement, there’s all sorts of reasons why you won’t interfere or prevent it. It’s an interesting case study to see somebody say the behavior that they find to be abusive and painful and stressful to endure is a behavior they themselves display toward others for reasons they feel are justified.

It sheds some light on why some think that there’s pervasive and unrelenting judgement they have to endure outside of surviving abuse, social experiences, a degree of self-importance, etc etc... Because it’s trait they themselves exhibit to themselves and others. I honestly hadn’t considered that before, really. If one comes from a place unrelenting judgment internally and externally, I can see why they’d assume others do as well.

That seems to fall into the biblical definition of "iniquity," even if it is not from one's family. The Hebrew word means to be bent or twisted, like a tree distorted in growth from constant storms.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

I’m sorry, but there seems to be minor, normal actions that are blown up to be some sort of tell about the pressures of society to fit in.

Buying new things and evaluating if they were workplace appropriate is literally something every human being does when they shop for workplace clothes. “Where can I wear this?” is a highly basic, standard, common sense filter that has nothing at all to do with society.

People who are in a career field that requires keeping up with trends (merchandising) and then judging and remarking in it? That’s literally the whole of their job.

A group of individuals who’s interest is in fashion coming together with like-minded people (in a career field that would attract people of that interest, no less) pouring over their interest as a group is what every single group of people with a common interest who are friends do.

The idea any of these things equate to unrelenting social pressure to fit in for acceptance shows a disconnect exists that has nothing to do with basic society’s demands on a person.

 

[Paidiske]

No, I'm not talking about "Is this workplace appropriate?" I'm talking about something that goes beyond that. "Is this going to be perceived well by the fashion-obsessed?"

And as for trends, we were a pharmaceutical company! Yeah, we stocked things like hair dye and perfume but clothing; the closest we might have come might have been specialist hosiery. I mean really!

This is one example of how I've experienced basic society's demands. It may or may not reflect your experience. But this is what has been driving me mental in this thread; the gaslighting that says "Your experience wasn't really what you think it was." My experience was my experience, and it's really not okay to keep telling me how much I'm misunderstanding my own experience.

 

[RDKirk]

No, I'm not talking about "Is this workplace appropriate?" I'm talking about something that goes beyond that. "Is this going to be perceived well by the fashion-obsessed?"

And as for trends, we were a pharmaceutical company! Yeah, we stocked things like hair dye and perfume but clothing; the closest we might have come might have been specialist hosiery. I mean really!

This is one example of how I've experienced basic society's demands. It may or may not reflect your experience. But this is what has been driving me mental in this thread; the gaslighting that says "Your experience wasn't really what you think it was." My experience was my experience, and it's really not okay to keep telling me how much I'm misunderstanding my own experience.

People misunderstand experiences and misunderstand the significance of experiences every day. No reason to get upset when someone points that out.

 

[Paidiske]

People misunderstand experiences and misunderstand the significance of experiences every day. No reason to get upset when someone points that out.

Nobody here - who doesn't know me and didn't experience what I experienced - has the ability or the right to tell me that I've misunderstood my own experiences. They can offer their own experiences or a different perspective from their own point of view, but they simply can't know what they claim to know about me and my life. And to make the claim that they understand my life and experiences better than I do is pretty incredibly demeaning.