Suggestion Box

[newname0]

---

---

@CoG wrote:

As in military active duty, it is the perception of impropriety that constitutes the infraction. 

Maybe you sent this to the wrong forum.  Perhaps even to the wrong website.  I don't think this applies to QVC.

---

---

[Moonchilde]

IF any standards were mentioned for "QVC employee" workplace attire, I'm sure therey are meant for the Behind-the-Scenes personnel in the offices, in production, the warehouse, reception etc and not for their on-air personnel - whom I am sure QVC is happy to have wear *whatever* sells an item, period.

I'm pretty sure that if 1,000 people (an impossibly high number) contacted QVC about an "inappropriate" outfit worn during a presentation in which, say, 5,000+ of an item or items were sold while the host was on-air (not an unusual or outrageous figure for QVC sales volume), QVC would completely ignore "customer concerns." You can imagine how easily ignored 50-100 such comments would be regarded in light of number of items sold.

"You" are not "we and/or "our." You are only you, one person.  

I seriously doubt that QVC is anticipating customers from cloistered nunneries, Amish, Mennonite or Mormon households and other cloistered communities, or from those who would seem to be happiest living and conducting daily activities in such communities.  Most such groups would either forbid or severely restrict television, so QVC would not only not "have" to be watched, doing so would be forbidden or discouraged as opposed to hours of prayer and physical labor.

What parents allow their children to see on television (or read, or do for that matter) in their own homes is entirely up to them. We do not yet live in a total police state where parents must tow a Federal government line of what their children may or may not do, see or hear. "Parents are seen as hypocrites" by whom? By you? I don't think that will bother them, honestly. By their kids? Parochial schools have been ultra conservative for hundreds of years, and for those hundreds of years those educated in these institutions have gone on to live conspicuously consuming (and often promiscuous) adult lives just as their parents did, and their parents before them well before television and the internet.

[Ms X]

I don't see why OP got so much snark.  Everyone has a right to her opinion.  I respect that she has high standards and am glad that some uphold those standards.  They add to our society even if they are no longer the norm.  I certainly would rather live in OP's world than with those marauding parents at the Easter egg hunt that was in the news and posted here.

[CoG]

Tonight's IS host just confirmed there is a code that disallows torn tattered jeans on air.   Listen to what they tell us and you'll hear interesting things.

[Caaareful Shopper]

With all due respect, OP, if tattered jeans were all you were implying in your original post where you referenced parochial modesty and parental responsibility, I think you would have stated that specifically.  Yes, a while ago I heard Amy mention that corporate asked them to not wear torn jeans.  That was last Fall sometime.  Since then, I believe the two or three hosts that used to wear those have stopped, including Amy, until she showed her torn jeans yesterday.  I know hosts sometimes wear strapless dresses and gowns and most have gone sleeveless (dare I bring up open-toe shoes) -- I don't see anything wrong with any of that.  Their style may not be my style at all times, but I certainly don't see the need for a dress code refresher on a shopping channel. 

[SharkE]

We're waiting for Shawn to come out in a pink thong.

[Lipstickdiva]

I remember hosts back in the day talking about dress codes but nothing recently. Whatever the IS host said, I don't believe.  Because I've seen with my very own eyes hosts wearing distressed, i.e. torn and tattered jeans on air.

I remember back in the day hosts used to talk about having to wear neutral nail colors and absolutely no red polish.  I even remember a host wearing red polish and commenting she was going to get a memo about it.  I think things are far more relaxed now.  Hosts on HSN have mentioned that they aren't allowed to wear false eyelashes.

There have been a few times that I personally thought something a couple of the female hosts wore was inappropriate for work.  One was a dress with a tube top and another host used to wear very, very short dresses. 

There are plenty of places of business that have dress codes and will send employees home if they don't follow that dress code.  I'm not sure where a few posters get the idea that no one has them anymore.   

[Plaid Pants2]

I get the feeling that the o/p wouldn't be happy unless the hosts are wearing burkas.

[skuggles]

I think you're talking about propriety in dress. Seems to have been thrown out the window from what to wear to a White House dinner to how to dress for a funeral, if you can believe what you see. There are some who just "understand" that there are proper ways to dress, and many more who don't and/or don't care.

For those who do understand it, flagrant disregard is easily spotted. If you say anything about it you are promptly shown the PC door, and told to myob.

[Venezia]

---

@Ms X wrote:

I don't see why OP got so much snark.  Everyone has a right to her opinion.  I respect that she has high standards and am glad that some uphold those standards.  They add to our society even if they are no longer the norm.  I certainly would rather live in OP's world than with those marauding parents at the Easter egg hunt that was in the news and posted here.

---

I'm fine with anyone having high standards, but I don't expect someone else to impose her idea of "high standards" on me or anyone else.

And I certainly don't see what all the religious references in the original post have to do with what the hosts on a shopping channel wear. 

As for the "marauding parents" - two wrongs don't make a right.  The OP sounds very intolerant to me of anyone else's "standards".  I wouldn't want to live in either of those worlds.