Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: A leg to stand on
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
28 March, 2014 02:56
An Evanston, Illinois, middle school has banned shorts, leggings, and yoga pants, and progressives are going apeshit, according to an editorial in the L.A. Times.
Should schoolchildren dress modestly? Does this have anything to do with rape culture, or excusing harrassment with "boys will be boys"? Should we be worried at all about what kids wear to school? If there is such a thing as too far (naked is too far, I'm sure we'd all agree), where is the line between too far and acceptable? This is a middle school, so allowing the line to be vague isn't workable. It has to be clearly delineated. So, where should the line be, and who should decide that? [ 10. November 2014, 18:42: Message edited by: Belisarius ]
-------------------- This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
28 March, 2014 04:08
The mistake the school made was twofold: making the issue one of sexual modesty and focusing it on the girls. They should simply have enacted a dress-code appropriate for a "professional" and "work" environment, with "modesty" (for both sexes) as one of the elements. Immodest clothing is distracting for both sexes. But in our culture, which has objectified and commodified female bodies far more than male bodies, female clothing has become a bigger issue.
I think (some) "feminists" are barking up the wrong tree when they defend girls dressing like "sluts." All they're doing is giving ideological support to the culture's abuse of women. They're saying: "The culture wants you to be nothing but a collection of body parts, which exists for the pleasure of men. We support your right to be that collection of body parts! Go girl!"
If a person, male or female, wishes to flaunt his/her body and attract attention, that's fine, but in a setting that is appropriate for that, such as a dance club. A school is not an appropriate place.
This is an issue not just in middle and high schools, but in colleges and universities. The way some of the female students dress is distracting, for heterosexual male faculty and for heterosexual male students. It's crazy to argue that all of the responsibility rests with men! I recently found myself observing a VERY awkward situation as a male student ended up with an erection because he'd glanced at a female student who was wearing short-shorts and sitting in her seat with her legs up in such a way that the backs of her thighs were leaving almost nothing to the imagination. The young man couldn't pay attention to me as I was teaching, and I rather lost my own train of thought when I noticed what was happening, all because this young woman (who, believe it or not, comes from an Orthodox Jewish home!) couldn't find something more appropriate to wear to a college lecture!
-------------------- שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
28 March, 2014 11:50
Trust me, teenage boys will get erections all the time and have trouble paying attention in class no matter what girls wear and whether or not there are any girls in the room at all. I'm 29 and a university student and I have to sit in the front of class or else I will spend the whole time checking guys out. I also spend a decent amount of time checking the professor out if he is male and meets my very low standards for attractiveness. I find a pudgy pasty nerdy guy in tweed or an oversized t-shirt much hotter and more distracting than a naked muscular guy, so go figure. In university, though, so much of class is conducted by PowerPoint (until you get to small graduate level seminars, or unless you are lucky enough to go to a fancy elite school), so it's easier to pay less attention to the student body/ies.
Although I am generally in favor of free expression sometimes I think school uniforms (provided they are simple and comfortable enough and don't vary much if at all by gender) are a good idea because they allow us to avoid the while discussion about what dress is appropriate for school. However, experience from Japan (Harajuku girls, etc) shows that even with uniforms, kids will do whatever they can to the parts of their appearance they are allowed to vary in order to stand out as much as possible if they want to.
I think dress code standards are better when they emphasize what is visible and not instead of what styles of clothing are "bad" (yoga pants?). If clothes are right or transparent enough that you see nipples, gentalia, etc., that might be a problem in school. Often dress codes are just ways to ban whatever a current fashion trend is rather than a real attempt to encourage professionalism in school.
Also note that quite a few if not most girls dress the at that they do thinking about how other women will look at them rather (or more so) than boys.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Heavenly Anarchist
Shipmate
# 13313
|
Posted
28 March, 2014 12:10
In the UK it is normal for secondary schools (and often primary schools) to have a school uniform. My own experience as someone from a relatively poor background is that this promotes equality as poorer students don't have to compete in the fashion stakes, though parents might have to fork out for tops with school crests. But it also solves the issue of modesty. I can see a case for some arguing that this removes individuality but there is plenty of time for this outside school. Here's an Example of a local school's uniform policy.
-------------------- 'I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by.' Douglas Adams Dog Activity Monitor My shop
Posts: 2831 | From: Trumpington | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Antisocial Alto
Shipmate
# 13810
|
Posted
28 March, 2014 12:27
What caught my eye was the ban on *all* shorts (even strict Mormons will allow knee-length). An unusually warm spring or fall could make that really miserable for the girls.
Posts: 601 | From: United States | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
28 March, 2014 12:44
quote: Originally posted by Antisocial Alto: What caught my eye was the ban on *all* shorts (even strict Mormons will allow knee-length). An unusually warm spring or fall could make that really miserable for the girls.
Well, quite - and there's no mention of banning shorts for the boys.
I agree with those who have been saying that it (should) be about appropriate work attire. My workplace is informal - t-shirts and shorts or jeans are most often worn - but we don't expect sleeveless shirts, skintight pants or the like (for either men or women).
If you're wearing yoga pants and a tight shirt to do yoga or go running at lunchtime, that's fine. Wearing the same outfit the rest of the day? Not so fine.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Heavenly Anarchist
Shipmate
# 13313
|
Posted
28 March, 2014 12:49
Yes, there should be parity, if shorts are banned for girls then should be banned for boys too, there is no reason for ny difference.
-------------------- 'I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by.' Douglas Adams Dog Activity Monitor My shop
Posts: 2831 | From: Trumpington | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
28 March, 2014 13:45
quote: Originally posted by Heavenly Anarchist: Yes, there should be parity, if shorts are banned for girls then should be banned for boys too, there is no reason for any difference.
With all due respect, although there are plenty of good reasons for requiring all boys over about 12 to wear trousers rather than shorts, dogmatic 'parity' is not one of them. The logic of that would be to say that boys were entitled to wear skirts or bras if they wished to do so, or that girls could go topless in school swimming lessons.
I'd have thought it is impossible to disagree with the statement in the linked article:- quote: Of course schools should insist that boys be polite and should punish harassment of girls severely. But there’s nothing wrong with telling girls to tone it down on their end. For one thing, school is supposed to be a serious environment. Just as we deem shorts and leggings in lieu of pants — perfectly fine in some recreational settings — to be inappropriate wear for most offices, we’re entitled to deem them inappropriate for school, especially middle school.
So is there really any more to discuss?
-------------------- Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
28 March, 2014 13:47
quote: Originally posted by mousethief: This is a middle school, so allowing the line to be vague isn't workable. It has to be clearly delineated. So, where should the line be, and who should decide that?
The community where the kids live can figure it out.
-------------------- "Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward." Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
28 March, 2014 13:48
quote: Originally posted by mousethief: An Evanston, Illinois, middle school has banned shorts, leggings, and yoga pants, and progressives are going apeshit, according to an editorial in the L.A. Times.
Any ruling in Evanston that is pissing off progressives is dooooomed!
Re parity, I don't think very many middle schools need to ban skirts for boys. Peer pressure does that by itself. Certainly if I ran the show, I wouldn't. Might need to prevent bullying of any boy who took us up on it, but that would be worth doing. [ 28. March 2014, 12:50: Message edited by: Gwai ]
-------------------- A master of men was the Goodly Fere, A mate of the wind and sea. If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
28 March, 2014 13:51
Some years ago when we had a warm summer the children's school tried to uphold the ban on boys wearing shorts.
A group of boys were moaning in my kitchen until I lost patience and suggested they look at what they could wear, which would be skirts. I also pointed out that Te**o was having a sale and there seemed to be a large number of adjustable waist grey kilts on sale ...
It worked.
-------------------- Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
28 March, 2014 14:05
quote: Originally posted by Enoch: quote: Originally posted by Heavenly Anarchist: Yes, there should be parity, if shorts are banned for girls then should be banned for boys too, there is no reason for any difference.
With all due respect, although there are plenty of good reasons for requiring all boys over about 12 to wear trousers rather than shorts, dogmatic 'parity' is not one of them. The logic of that would be to say that boys were entitled to wear skirts or bras if they wished to do so, or that girls could go topless in school swimming lessons.
I'd have thought it is impossible to disagree with the statement in the linked article:- quote: Of course schools should insist that boys be polite and should punish harassment of girls severely. But there’s nothing wrong with telling girls to tone it down on their end. For one thing, school is supposed to be a serious environment. Just as we deem shorts and leggings in lieu of pants — perfectly fine in some recreational settings — to be inappropriate wear for most offices, we’re entitled to deem them inappropriate for school, especially middle school.
So is there really any more to discuss?
Well of course boys should be able to wear skirts or bras if they wish to do so. Clothes are just clothes and don't have any inherent gender - they are gendered because of the gender of the person wearing them.
-------------------- Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
28 March, 2014 14:05
It worked in that they stopped moaning, or it worked in that, by wearing kilts, they made a point to the school?
-------------------- It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
28 March, 2014 14:06
Things have changed. When I was in the 11-23 part of our school shorts were compulsory for boys.
OPf course the inevitable result was that as soon as we were allowed not to wear them, no-one ever did. And I never have since.
-------------------- Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
28 March, 2014 14:12
The rule at my school was shorts or skirts couldn't come any higher than two inches above the knee. Teachers used rulers to measure. Both boys and girls were sent home for violating the dress code. Oddly enough the rule didn't apply to cheerleaders on pep rally day. Also, the dress code said nothing about low cut shirts or blouses or the tightness of jeans. So, the dress code wasn't very effective at preventing wandering eyes.
-------------------- Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible. -Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
28 March, 2014 14:31
quote: Originally posted by Beeswax Altar: The rule at my school was shorts or skirts couldn't come any higher than two inches above the knee. Teachers used rulers to measure. Both boys and girls were sent home for violating the dress code. Oddly enough the rule didn't apply to cheerleaders on pep rally day. Also, the dress code said nothing about low cut shirts or blouses or the tightness of jeans. So, the dress code wasn't very effective at preventing wandering eyes.
We had exactly the same rule except that shirts were regulated too (with same apparent exception for cheerleaders.) It didn't stop wandering eyes either, because we were teenagers. Burkhas probably wouldn't have stopped wandering eyes, honestly.
-------------------- A master of men was the Goodly Fere, A mate of the wind and sea. If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
PaulBC
Shipmate
# 13712
|
Posted
28 March, 2014 14:44
When I was in school in the mid 1950's-early 1960's in Montreal, Quebec public schools had a dress code , boys shirts & sclacks , girls blue tunics & blouses . You didn't get the right to choose your dress style until high school. Of course I ended up at a boarding school, slacks, white shirts , blazers or nylon jacket & tie , girls skirts & blouses . And yes I am a fan of uniform codes . If I was a teacher and some of the students I see on the street were in my class , well maybe I'd look for a new job . fuddy duddy aren't I ?!!!!
-------------------- "He has told you O mortal,what is good;and what does the Lord require of youbut to do justice and to love kindness ,and to walk humbly with your God."Micah 6:8
Posts: 873 | From: Victoria B.C. Canada | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
28 March, 2014 14:57
Come to think of it, I can think of no valid reason why girls' or women's breasts need to be covered while swimming if men's breasts do not need to. If a woman wants to win a swimming race she may cover them to be more sleek in the water (indeed, some overweight men like me might want to do the same), but for recreational swimming or for just teaching swimming why should that be required? Covering breasts just because straight men in our culture tend to have a fetish for them is absurd and unfair. There are sanitary reasons for covering the genital region. Unless a woman (or man) is lactating, there is no such reason for covering the breasts. Of course, if a woman wants to, she should be able to.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
28 March, 2014 15:04
quote: Originally posted by stonespring: Come to think of it, I can think of no valid reason why girls' or women's breasts need to be covered while swimming if men's breasts do not need to. If a woman wants to win a swimming race she may cover them to be more sleek in the water (indeed, some overweight men like me might want to do the same), but for recreational swimming or for just teaching swimming why should that be required? Covering breasts just because straight men in our culture tend to have a fetish for them is absurd and unfair.
I greatly enjoy shocking (straight) men who defend the standard line and say that women's chests should be covered because they are very sexual by commenting that women find men's chests rather attractive. Seriously they stutter with bafflement sometimes. And it's not like it's news that women looked at men. (Never mind the gay men who surely look too, but said straight men clearly thought they were normative.) Not one man could accept that it was at least as fair for men to cover their chests to avoid distracting women as vis versa.
On the other hand for swimming or running, I don't think anyone with breasts could participate even halfway seriously without chest support, which basically means covering, so I think that argument is dead in the water. That and clearly bodies should be covered in school to avoid unnecessary distraction, IMO. [ 28. March 2014, 14:06: Message edited by: Gwai ]
-------------------- A master of men was the Goodly Fere, A mate of the wind and sea. If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
28 March, 2014 15:15
quote: Originally posted by mousethief: An Evanston, Illinois, middle school has banned shorts, leggings, and yoga pants, and progressives are going apeshit, according to an editorial in the L.A. Times.
Should schoolchildren dress modestly? Does this have anything to do with rape culture, or excusing harrassment with "boys will be boys"? Should we be worried at all about what kids wear to school? If there is such a thing as too far (naked is too far, I'm sure we'd all agree), where is the line between too far and acceptable? This is a middle school, so allowing the line to be vague isn't workable. It has to be clearly delineated. So, where should the line be, and who should decide that?
The thing is, if this is about modesty and not wearing clothing that is distracting, why are they focusing on pants, especially in such a blanket way. Many shorts are more modest than a short, tight skirt, and leggings & yoga pants are often worn under short skirts or dresses precisely to make them more modest, not less.
This particular ruling makes me think back to my childhood, when girls were not allowed to wear pants to school-- which mean that our recreation and sports options were severely limited. Things like the parallel bars (which I loved) and turning cartwheels (loved even more) were not possible w/o really being immodest. The end result being that girls were far less physically active (at least during school hours) than boys.
The ruling strikes me as more about trying to enforce a particular cultural norm that (whether intentionally or not) restricts women to a less active role than it does about encouraging modesty or limiting distractions. [ 28. March 2014, 14:16: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
-------------------- "Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
28 March, 2014 15:27
When I was in school, I could not walk out the front door unless my clothing passed muster by my parents. Where are the parents in this case?
-------------------- "I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
28 March, 2014 15:55
quote: Originally posted by Heavenly Anarchist: Yes, there should be parity, if shorts are banned for girls then should be banned for boys too, there is no reason for ny difference.
Definitely agree with this, and with the comment that it should be about professionalism (or the school equivalent) rather than titillation.
-------------------- This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
28 March, 2014 15:58
quote: Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe: When I was in school, I could not walk out the front door unless my clothing passed muster by my parents. Where are the parents in this case?
Wearing leggings, shorts and yoga pants, as is their right and their children's right. They are just normal clothes.
-------------------- Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
28 March, 2014 16:02
The problem with dress codes about modesty and arousing other children if not covered up enough is that it situates the problem in the object of the arousal, not properly where it belongs, in the person who is getting aroused. It is the mark of a civilised human being to have the capacity to control their basic urges, to learn to behave politely. Of course people should also have the awareness of their effects on others, but this is secondary for certain.
I am doubtless totally out of step with present day ethos of self centred satisfaction and expression of all personal urges and ideas.
-------------------- Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety. \_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
28 March, 2014 16:05
quote: Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe: When I was in school, I could not walk out the front door unless my clothing passed muster by my parents. Where are the parents in this case?
A sizable percentage of them have given up monitoring what their kids wear anywhere--either because they're too harried to notice, because they themselves have no sense of what's appropriate, or because they just can't handle another tangle with the teenager at this point. And then there are the kids who wait till Mom/Dad leaves for work and change into a different outfit--or do it on the way to school, at a friend's house or somewhere.
Since public schools must take all comers, there's going to be a large percentage of these families.
-------------------- Er, this is what I've been up to (book). Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
28 March, 2014 16:52
School uniform cures all this nonsense.
-------------------- Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
28 March, 2014 17:20
Provided both genders get to wear trousers.
-------------------- All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
28 March, 2014 17:53
quote: Originally posted by Boogie: School uniform cures all this nonsense.
Up to a point, your honour. We are talking about young people of an age that are discovering the extent of their autonomy, have just had a concentrated blast of sex hormones pumped into their blood streams, and are still growing. Boundaries will be pushed. Hemlines are frequently one of those boundaries. Plus the peer-group pressure thing as well - how could I forget that?
Honestly, there is something all very predictable about the OP. There's points about the extra difficulties involved in allowing the youngsters to choose their own clothing, and the absurdly lurid polarization of some of the commentary related in the OP. But frankly, with this age group, if it hadn't been this it would have been something else.
-------------------- Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
28 March, 2014 20:22
quote: Originally posted by Gwai: quote: Originally posted by stonespring: Come to think of it, I can think of no valid reason why girls' or women's breasts need to be covered while swimming if men's breasts do not need to. If a woman wants to win a swimming race she may cover them to be more sleek in the water (indeed, some overweight men like me might want to do the same), but for recreational swimming or for just teaching swimming why should that be required? Covering breasts just because straight men in our culture tend to have a fetish for them is absurd and unfair.
I greatly enjoy shocking (straight) men who defend the standard line and say that women's chests should be covered because they are very sexual by commenting that women find men's chests rather attractive. Seriously they stutter with bafflement sometimes. And it's not like it's news that women looked at men. (Never mind the gay men who surely look too, but said straight men clearly thought they were normative.) Not one man could accept that it was at least as fair for men to cover their chests to avoid distracting women as vis versa.
On the other hand for swimming or running, I don't think anyone with breasts could participate even halfway seriously without chest support, which basically means covering, so I think that argument is dead in the water. That and clearly bodies should be covered in school to avoid unnecessary distraction, IMO.
I'm fine with covering female students' breasts at the swimming pool if male students' breasts must be covered also. Male chests are just as potentially distracting, as you pointed out.
Do female breasts need to be supported for effective physical exercise? Is it painful or harmful to run or swim without breast support? I can see adding breast support as a way to give oneself an advantage in competition - which I have already said is fine. But how is it bad for the female body to do vigorous exercise without some kind of clothing that supports the breasts?
Note that I am gay and really do not like seeing female breasts. And women can wear whatever they want as far as I'm concerned. I'm talking about rules saying what women have to wear or not wear, especially when they are different than those for men for reasons that appear to be based solely on a culture's straight men's fetishization of a particular female body part.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
28 March, 2014 20:36
Yes it is. Read up on Sports Bras and why women should wear them, if you want to know more.
Jengie
-------------------- "To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
28 March, 2014 20:40
I note that the opinion piece is from a writer on the LA Times blog. In no way is she reflecting the position of the LA Times. She is expressing her rather conservative opinion.
Modesty is the best policy, but I don't know how you can define it so that it can be acceptable to all groups.
Among my liberal peers it is not yoga pants or leggings that is the problem, it is the effort from some "Christian" schools who are telling a young girl that happens to like autographed baseballs and hunting knives and dressing up in boy's clothes and having short hair that she is not feminine enough. It is forbidding a fourth grade girl from coming to school because she saved her head in solidarity with a friend who has lost her hair because of chemotherapy. It is sending a 7 year old boy home because he was wearing a rainbow sweater. It is telling another 7 year old he cannot bring his My Little Pony backpack to school again. An 11 year old boy is in a coma because he tried to hang himself after being bullied at school for wearing a My Little Pony backpack to school.
Yoga pants and leggings are small potatoes among my liberal friends.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
28 March, 2014 21:22
I can see the argument for a school uniform. It does solve some issues of clothing for poorer children not marking them. I'm dubious that it will work, it's often easy to tell when someone is from a family that has money. In the US this not only shows up in haircuts and dental work. Oddly enough it's often mitigated by the fashion for working class wear such as jeans, even as Fashion struggles to fight back with designer clothes and preppy clothing.
Most of the rest of the dress code arguments are archaic nonsense. In the U.S., relatively few adults wear uniforms; Police, Nurses, Soldiers, Fast Food severs and Bellhops. In Seattle, relatively few businessmen wear suits except in court. It's far better to require clothing suitable for work and let the students learn what that means for the local area.
I also think that the regulations should be gender neutral. I had a friend whose high school son wanted to play Field Hockey because the school didn't have a Hockey team. He was required to wear the team uniform which included a long skirt. So he did. If someone wants to wear long or short hair or a skirt or trousers, that's fine with me. I would have thought that the arguments by conservative preachers like the one that human race was going to die out because they couldn't tell the long haired boys from the girls would have died of embarrassment a long time ago.
The argument about restricting girls clothing to avoid arousing the boys sounds suspiciously like the arguments about why modest Muslim women must wear burkas. If it's really a problem for the boys, get them opaque glasses so they won't be aroused by the sight of a girl. Boys are going to have erections during puberty no matter what they wear.
The petty dress rules that require teachers to measure the length of shorts with rulers does nothing but lead to lack of respect for teachers. It's a weird dominance act that should be obsolete.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
28 March, 2014 22:07
quote: Originally posted by Jade Constable: quote: Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe: When I was in school, I could not walk out the front door unless my clothing passed muster by my parents. Where are the parents in this case?
Wearing leggings, shorts and yoga pants, as is their right and their children's right. They are just normal clothes.
Ever been to yoga? One can discern the level and method of personal grooming with what some wear. Leggings, the next best thing to naked. --------- I am nowhere near a prude, but teenagers need no further distractions. Yes, as Gwai noted, even Burqas will not completely contain the wandering gaze, but accentuating sexuality sharpens the interest and therefore the distraction.
Forgive me for attempting to be reasonable, but somewhere in between?
-------------------- I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
28 March, 2014 22:16
quote: Originally posted by no prophet: ...it situates the problem in the object of the arousal, not properly where it belongs, in the person who is getting aroused. It is the mark of a civilised human being to have the capacity to control their basic urges, to learn to behave politely.
Students in middle school are at the age when their hormones have recently kicked in. No one develops self-control overnight, especially when their body keeps changing.
Moo
-------------------- Kerygmania host --------------------- See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
28 March, 2014 22:27
quote: Originally posted by lilBuddha: quote: Originally posted by Jade Constable: quote: Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe: When I was in school, I could not walk out the front door unless my clothing passed muster by my parents. Where are the parents in this case?
Wearing leggings, shorts and yoga pants, as is their right and their children's right. They are just normal clothes.
Ever been to yoga? One can discern the level and method of personal grooming with what some wear. Leggings, the next best thing to naked. --------- I am nowhere near a prude, but teenagers need no further distractions. Yes, as Gwai noted, even Burqas will not completely contain the wandering gaze, but accentuating sexuality sharpens the interest and therefore the distraction.
Forgive me for attempting to be reasonable, but somewhere in between?
It is not the responsibility of those being objectified to prevent their objectification - that is the responsibility of those doing to objectification. Newsflash, but women wear clothes for themselves just like men do, and don't need to dress to make men's lives easier. Their bodies, their clothes, their decisions.
-------------------- Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
28 March, 2014 22:28
From the National Institute of Mental Health quote: The parts of the brain responsible for more "top-down" control, controlling impulses, and planning ahead—the hallmarks of adult behavior—are among the last to mature
This was meant as an addendum to Moo's post, but the x-post sits neatly as a refutation to your comment Jade.
Double ETA: My comment was irrespective of gender. Boys in tight trousers and shirts are just as distracting for those interested. [ 28. March 2014, 21:31: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
-------------------- I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
28 March, 2014 22:40
Maybe it's just me, but the really weird thing about the linked argumentation is that most of it fires up with a lot of posturing, then settles down to saying something like "the answer lies in respect and modesty*". Of course it bloody well does. So how about starting there instead of finishing there and wringing your hands all over the intertubes?
It's not for me to even suggest a solution - some things make little sense to me from over here. But I'm sure that infractions of dress codes go on all over the world for very similar reasons. What is different is that they get sorted out, for better or for worse. You are unlikely to hear about them.
(* modesty has nothing to do with body shame or covering up by default. It is about not shouting "look at me!")
-------------------- Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
29 March, 2014 03:34
quote: Originally posted by Jade Constable: Wearing leggings, shorts and yoga pants, as is their right and their children's right. They are just normal clothes.
No, they aren't. The reason "yoga pants" are called "yoga pants" and not "pants" is that they are entirely normal for doing yoga. They are not normal office attire, any more than hot pants or muscle shirts are.
There seems to be a trend amongst schoolgirls around here to wear yoga pants or leggings in place of tights under a dress or long shirt. Someone upthread pointed out the advantages this offers in terms of being able to do cartwheels, hang upside down from monkey bars or whatever without displaying your underwear to all comers. Wearing yoga pants as tights is rather different from wearing them as pants.
(For what it's worth, the dress code for schools around here is that shorts or skirts must be no shorter than mid-thigh, underwear and midriffs must not be visible, and shirts must have sleeves. Plus a load of stuff about no crude / offensive writing on clothing, no 2 foot tall red mohawks etc.) [ 29. March 2014, 02:35: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
29 March, 2014 04:07
quote: Originally posted by Doublethink: Provided both genders get to wear trousers.
When I was in junior high school (middle school wasn't invented yet), girls were forbidden to wear trousers. Skirts had to be of a length such that when the girls knelt, the fabric touched the floor(though by 1968 the school had given up checking). In the winter of 1968-69, there was an extreme cold snap, and girls who walked to school took to wearing jeans and changing into skirts once they got to school. After about a week of this, three friends of mine all came to school wearing ankle-length dresses ("granny dresses," which were newly fashionable, but had not caught on among Midwestern teens). There was never a more distracting fashion--they were the center of groups of enthralled girls, and the boys were kind of fascinated too (I caught a glimpse of her ankle...) The next day the principal issued a special dispensation allowing girls to wear trousers as long as the weather stayed cold. It was never rescinded, even when Spring came.
-------------------- When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion. - C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
29 March, 2014 06:50
quote: Originally posted by mousethief: (naked is too far, I'm sure we'd all agree)
Isn't this disrespectful toward Adamites, Doukhobors and Christian naturists?
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
29 March, 2014 07:31
quote: Originally posted by Kaplan Corday: quote: Originally posted by mousethief: (naked is too far, I'm sure we'd all agree)
Isn't this disrespectful toward Adamites, Doukhobors and Christian naturists?
There is the thread running in Kerygmania on the unpresentable parts of the body. Kaplan Corday is right and Mousethief's post represents a very clothesist approach, much to be deplored.
-------------------- Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
29 March, 2014 10:04
quote: Originally posted by Jade Constable: quote: Originally posted by lilBuddha: quote: Originally posted by Jade Constable: quote: Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe: When I was in school, I could not walk out the front door unless my clothing passed muster by my parents. Where are the parents in this case?
Wearing leggings, shorts and yoga pants, as is their right and their children's right. They are just normal clothes.
Ever been to yoga? One can discern the level and method of personal grooming with what some wear. Leggings, the next best thing to naked. --------- I am nowhere near a prude, but teenagers need no further distractions. Yes, as Gwai noted, even Burqas will not completely contain the wandering gaze, but accentuating sexuality sharpens the interest and therefore the distraction.
Forgive me for attempting to be reasonable, but somewhere in between?
It is not the responsibility of those being objectified to prevent their objectification - that is the responsibility of those doing to objectification. Newsflash, but women wear clothes for themselves just like men do, and don't need to dress to make men's lives easier. Their bodies, their clothes, their decisions.
Fair enough, but teenage men's - hell all straight men of all ages - will also have a good old letch. If our leering makes you feel uncomfortable, well that's just tough. It's our hormones and we have no control over them. Just like the ladies.
If you want to live in a civilised society where men control their baser instincts and act politely and with good manners, then women need to reciprocate.
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
29 March, 2014 10:55
Sorry for the delay - 'flu...
Boys wearing kilts worked in that the school had to admit (a) there was nothing in the rules to say that non-divided below-waist clothing was gender specific, so (b) skirts could be worn by boys.
They were asking for it really, bearing in mind that girls could wear trousers and in that summer a lot of those seemed to be more the length of Bermuda shorts...
-------------------- Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
29 March, 2014 11:05
quote: Originally posted by deano: quote: Originally posted by Jade Constable: quote: Originally posted by lilBuddha: quote: Originally posted by Jade Constable: quote: Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe: When I was in school, I could not walk out the front door unless my clothing passed muster by my parents. Where are the parents in this case?
Wearing leggings, shorts and yoga pants, as is their right and their children's right. They are just normal clothes.
Ever been to yoga? One can discern the level and method of personal grooming with what some wear. Leggings, the next best thing to naked. --------- I am nowhere near a prude, but teenagers need no further distractions. Yes, as Gwai noted, even Burqas will not completely contain the wandering gaze, but accentuating sexuality sharpens the interest and therefore the distraction.
Forgive me for attempting to be reasonable, but somewhere in between?
It is not the responsibility of those being objectified to prevent their objectification - that is the responsibility of those doing to objectification. Newsflash, but women wear clothes for themselves just like men do, and don't need to dress to make men's lives easier. Their bodies, their clothes, their decisions.
Fair enough, but teenage men's - hell all straight men of all ages - will also have a good old letch. If our leering makes you feel uncomfortable, well that's just tough. It's our hormones and we have no control over them. Just like the ladies.
If you want to live in a civilised society where men control their baser instincts and act politely and with good manners, then women need to reciprocate.
That's just bullshit. It's the responsibility of people attracted to women to act politely and with good manners because that's the right thing to do. If you are forced to use good manners because a woman is covered up, you don't actually understand what manners and respect are.
It's exactly the kind of thinking that leads to rape being normalised, that the women were asking for it by dressing provocatively and the poor men were only acting on instinct.
-------------------- Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
29 March, 2014 11:08
quote: Originally posted by Leorning Cniht: quote: Originally posted by Jade Constable: Wearing leggings, shorts and yoga pants, as is their right and their children's right. They are just normal clothes.
No, they aren't. The reason "yoga pants" are called "yoga pants" and not "pants" is that they are entirely normal for doing yoga. They are not normal office attire, any more than hot pants or muscle shirts are.
There seems to be a trend amongst schoolgirls around here to wear yoga pants or leggings in place of tights under a dress or long shirt. Someone upthread pointed out the advantages this offers in terms of being able to do cartwheels, hang upside down from monkey bars or whatever without displaying your underwear to all comers. Wearing yoga pants as tights is rather different from wearing them as pants.
(For what it's worth, the dress code for schools around here is that shorts or skirts must be no shorter than mid-thigh, underwear and midriffs must not be visible, and shirts must have sleeves. Plus a load of stuff about no crude / offensive writing on clothing, no 2 foot tall red mohawks etc.)
In case you haven't noticed, adult women regularly wear yoga pants and leggings when not doing yoga. They wear them as normal clothes. It's therefore not unreasonable for teenage girls to wear what their mothers wear. And a school isn't an office and it's ridiculous to impose office dress codes on them. I wish more teenagers had 2 foot tall red mohawks - schools should be encouraging originality, not stifling it.
-------------------- Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
29 March, 2014 11:13
quote: Originally posted by Jade Constable: It's therefore not unreasonable for teenage girls to wear what their mothers wear.
Do you not think there might be limits to this principle?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
29 March, 2014 13:56
quote: Originally posted by Anglican't: quote: Originally posted by Jade Constable: It's therefore not unreasonable for teenage girls to wear what their mothers wear.
Do you not think there might be limits to this principle?
I would be hard pressed to think of ANY principle that doesn't have limits.
-------------------- "Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Galilit
Shipmate
# 16470
|
Posted
29 March, 2014 14:14
Yes, yoga pants were designed for doing yoga. But they are sooooo comfortable and allow unrestricted movement. Also they are generally made of technical fabrics that are healthier than a lot of synthetics. The crop/Capri/three-quarter length suits most of us too. Also the waist is stretchy and more comfortable than button and zip-fly. C*nt-fortable in a word. More women should wear them instead of what is on the general women's clothes market.
The trick is to wear with a long-ish top. (Which admittedly many young women do not.)
-------------------- She who does Her Son's will in all things can rely on me to do Hers.
Posts: 624 | From: a Galilee far, far away | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
29 March, 2014 15:22
quote: Originally posted by Jade Constable: I wish more teenagers had 2 foot tall red mohawks - schools should be encouraging originality, not stifling it.
That would be nice. But schools, particularly in the teenage years are conformity factories, where when ass-pants were the style, the boys all wore them. When piercing your belly button and showing your midriff was the rage, all girls did it.
In the teen years encouraging originality is precisely about not encouraging originality, it is merely about narrow variation on what is considered cool, hot, neat, swell, sick the bomb. Copacetic by any other name. You just get to choose the colour of your thong, your shirt or iPhone cover.
-------------------- Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety. \_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|