|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: A leg to stand on
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Gwai, that was actually directed at Croesos, not yourself; sorry!
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The underlying premise of your system is that young men have insufficient control of their actions due to hormone imbalances, so the burden of maintaining their good behavior should fall on their female age-peers.
Well, since what I actually write isn't going to get read or responded to, have it your way.
Meanwhile if anybody wants to actually discuss what I'm saying here and not what they want me to be saying, I'll be happy to continue the discussion.
[ 31. March 2014, 20:25: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
There are plenty of schools where the teachers are in charge which are living hell for the students.
True but entirely irrelevant.
It was addressing your comment;
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm wondering how this is a bad thing. The teachers ARE in charge, and schools where they're not are living hell for both the teachers and the students.
I was pointing out that the absence of hell isn't correlated to "in charge" enforcement of dress codes.
Your original post may have been mean as an irrelevant aside and not a justification of strict dress codes. If so, I'm sorry for continuing the irrelevant tangent that you introduced. If it's intended as a justification for its importance in preventing hell, pointing out that hell is not prevented seems a useful counterargument.
quote:
When I was in High School, the rules were changed so students could wear long hair and sideburns if they wanted to. The school did not collapse even if there were minor rebellions.
This also would appear to have nothing to do with the topic.
Those in charge of the dress codes that forbid students to wear long hair were making the same noises about the end of civilization as those who can't stand a red Mohawk are doing in this thread. It seems relevant to point out that past predictions of the end of Life as We Know It due to changes in hair fashion turned out to be incorrect. Since the topic is the control of youth fashion, it seem relevant to point out the failure to forbid prior fashions did no harm.
quote:
Part of the difference here is a difference in goals. If it's to produce bullies who know how to be subservient to larger bullies, then petty rules arbitrarily enforced are helpful. If you want to produce citizens of a democracy, that takes a different attitude.
Who said anything about either petty or arbitrary? Did you post to the wrong thread?
Proposing to suspending a student because the poster doesn't like the student's haircut appears to me and others on this thread to be petty and arbitrary. That proposal was made in this thread.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
If it's intended as a justification for its importance in preventing hell, pointing out that hell is not prevented seems a useful counterargument.
The problem is, no one thing will prevent all hell. From this it does not follow that some things don't go partway to toning it down. "Doing X won't solve the entire problem so there's no point in doing it" is the same argument as "Giving that guy a sandwich will still leave 3 billion hungry people. Might as well not bother." It's not the most convincing argument.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Uniform helps with discipline. It helps there to be less clothing competition and peer pressure. It helps to stop extreme or deliberately provocative dress. It helps the teacher to be in charge (which they need to be if they are going to teach children!)
It doesn't do any of these of itself of course - but it does help with them.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
This just in: boy made to quit track team because he dyed his mohawk pink in solidarity with his mum, who is fighting breast cancer.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
Personally I have never had a problem with the idea of school uniform. Taken that my parents couldn’t possibly have afforded to keep up with the Joneses’ expensive branded clothing, I’m fairly sure that my uniform saved me a lot of unnecessary misery. (Incidentally, my boyfriend, who is a teacher, has a plan to one day open his own school, as a way of addressing what he sees as the major inadequacies of the National Education. School uniforms aren’t common in France, but he says that one of his rules is going to be that no branded clothing, bags or footwear will be allowed.)
Sure, it squashes a bit of individuality, but I don’t think schools exist to allow unlimited individual expression. You are not allowed to behave any old way you like in school. You have to conform by turning up at the right time, doing your homework and shutting up in class. The question is where you draw the line on how much conformity you expect.
AFAIC, asking students to conform by wearing a uniform is not unreasonable. Personally the reason I would disallow yoga pants and leggings is not because they are sexy; it is because they are too scruffy. Dressing in a smarter way gives the message that school is about the serious business of learning something. (Anecdata: the local comp, to which I was not sent because it was a DIVE, got a new headmistress. One of her first changes, made with the intention of improving discipline and seriousness, was to change the uniform: sweatshirts out, blazers in. The school is considerably improved in recent years, although obviously the uniform change isn’t the only reason.) Asking for smart clothing at school, just as in the office, ties in with the question of the broader question of the messages that we send with our clothing choices.
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Phantom Flan Flinger
Shipmate
# 8891
|
Posted
Our office abandoned “formal” dress codes a couple of years back – most of us now wear a t-shirt & jeans.
The place hasn’t gone to hell, in fact many processes are more efficient, because of the work we have put in to improve things.
Because of the dress code, despite it, or did it make no difference?
--------------------
http://www.faith-hope-and-confusion.com/
Posts: 1020 | From: Leicester, England | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
Our office abandoned “formal” dress codes a couple of years back – most of us now wear a t-shirt & jeans.
The place hasn’t gone to hell, in fact many processes are more efficient, because of the work we have put in to improve things.
Because of the dress code, despite it, or did it make no difference?
There is a huge difference between adults and adolescents.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Phantom Flan Flinger
Shipmate
# 8891
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
[There is a huge difference between adults and adolescents.
Moo
Agreed, but I thought it worth mentioning since the comparison between school and office dress codes has been made several times.
[ 01. April 2014, 12:53: Message edited by: The Phantom Flan Flinger ]
--------------------
http://www.faith-hope-and-confusion.com/
Posts: 1020 | From: Leicester, England | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This just in: boy made to quit track team because he dyed his mohawk pink in solidarity with his mum, who is fighting breast cancer.
Be more White is evidently also a dress code.
--------------------
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
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
Personally I have never had a problem with the idea of school uniform...
AFAIC, asking students to conform by wearing a uniform is not unreasonable. Personally the reason I would disallow yoga pants and leggings is not because they are sexy; it is because they are too scruffy.
Agree. (Notice the OP is about an arbitrary and dubious one-sided dress code, rather than a uniform). A uniform solves a heck of a lot of problems-- distractions, the ambiguity of a dress code, competition, financial inequities*, etc. It also just makes getting an adolescent ready and out the door in the a.m.
signficantly easier when there's no waffling over what to wear-- which is a HUGE benefit/time-saver.
*my one quibble is the uniform should be reasonably priced & available, and provisions made for families who can't afford it. We've had good experience with a school that had a very basic uniform available at Target and similar budget stores, but also collected used uniforms which were resold them for bargain-basement prices (good school fund-raiser). We had a less lovely experience with a school that required a very similar uniform but with a tiny school monogram on every item of clothing that was available only thru the school, and basically tripled the price.
--------------------
"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
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
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.
Even more bullshit there JC. Looking at a pretty girl - with sex on the mind - isn't rape. Tough.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Jade Constable and deano
Enough nesting of quotes! If you want to continue these exchanges, provide a link to the post on which you are commenting, or use "@ Jade Constable" or "@ deano".
Nesting to this degree makes the exchanges very difficult to read.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
This doesn't seem like a very complicated issue to me.
Dress codes either explicit or implied are part of society. Even fast food restaurants have dress codes. Schools have every right to mandate a dress code. If they decide to have one and strictly enforce it, the code should be clearly spelled out and even forced without regards to gender or body type.
How a girl dresses does not justify physical or verbal harassment and certainly not physical assault. On the other hand, how a person dresses can be a distraction. The purpose of school is education. Anything distracting from that purpose is harmful. Tight and revealing clothing distracts from that purpose. Arguing that boys should just ignore girls dressed in tight or revealing clothing is foolish. Trying to avoid noticing can be just as distracting as staring. Apparently, the same might be true for boys dressed in a way that distracts girl. Not being female, I don't know what that is. Still, I'd assume a modest dress code would limit those distractions as well.
--------------------
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
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This just in: boy made to quit track team because he dyed his mohawk pink in solidarity with his mum, who is fighting breast cancer.
Well, as has been pronounced on this thread, he doesn't have much personality to express. If he would stop assuming he has freedom to wear what he wants, the school could go work on other distractions, like making sure teachers don't wear beards.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Only if you over think things and make them more complicated than they have to be. No harm will come from teenagers not being allowed to wear yoga pants to school. School is 10 hours tops. Those teenagers can wear yoga pants the remaining 14 hours of the day, every weekend, and 24/7 during the summer.
--------------------
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
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
Deano: "Even more bullshit there JC. Looking at a pretty girl - with sex on the mind - isn't rape. Tough."
I can't speak for JC but I don't think that's the point here. I don't think anyone realistically expects people to prevent themselves from looking at other people with sex on the mind (when do adults look at nonrelative adults without sex on the mind?). It may be a sin for us Catholics but good luck finding anyone other than Christ and His mother who haven't done it constantly. The issue is about certain clothes causing a distraction that prevents class from being taught effectively - and whether certain clothes encourage behavior above and beyond looking that is harmful. I agree that the former is very possible and that dress codes or uniforms - as long as they are completely neutral with respect to gender, culture, etc. - are a good way to try to address it. The latter is what worries me more. That idea is that if a girl wears tight clothing that trouble is unavoidable so she should just not wear that kind of clothing.
A good example would be dress codes not for class where learning is supposed to take place, but for a school dance. I am not suggesting that students should be able to show up naked to a school dance. But should girls be banned from wearing tight dresses to a school dance because of "what might happen"? This is more at the heart of the issue of blaming the victim.
The word "rape culture" is often used to refer to situations where rape does not occur. Part of that reason is that the criminal defense in almost any rape trial (where convictions are very hard to get) is that the victim was dressing or comporting herself/himself in a way that implied consent. The "what might happen" at a high school dance may not be rape at all - parents are also worried about any teenage sex (along with pregnancy and STDs), as well as drugs, alcohol, fast driving, etc. There are some clothes (pasties and a g-string on a boy or girl, perhaps?) that are inappropriate for a school dance - not because something bad might happen but because even adult nightclubs have enough sense of formality that they generally don't allow patrons to wear them. But clothes that reveal the shape of someone's body should not be banned just because of fear of someone else taking advantage of the clothes-wearer.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This just in: boy made to quit track team because he dyed his mohawk pink in solidarity with his mum, who is fighting breast cancer.
If you follow the details from that link, he was allowed to wear his Mohawk dyed blue during football season because that was the team color. The coach objected to him having it dyed pink.
So when people on here talk about a sensible dress code uniformly enforced without respect to gender or body type; that's often not the case. Social order will collapse if you have a boy in gender deviant pink. It's just too distracting to the teacher. This comes with the assumption that arbitrary rules can be enforced because of petty authority.
The boy is an athlete and popular. It's much harder for kids who are gender deviant or a racial minority if there's a tradition that punishes the different.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This just in: boy made to quit track team because he dyed his mohawk pink in solidarity with his mum, who is fighting breast cancer.
Well, as has been pronounced on this thread, he doesn't have much personality to express. If he would stop assuming he has freedom to wear what he wants, the school could go work on other distractions, like making sure teachers don't wear beards.
Surely his mother is to blame, having the audacity to have cancer, and allowing her son to engage in all this needless "supportive" and "raising awareness" nonsense that so distracts from real education. If only parents would do their job, teachers wouldn't have to put up with all this c**p.
--------------------
"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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The boy is an athlete and popular. It's much harder for kids who are gender deviant or a racial minority if there's a tradition that punishes the different.
Very true. Which is why codes of any sort must be clearly written and enforced evenly.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
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.
Interesting point. The Headmaster of a private boys school here in Sydney says that by enforcing a uniform you are forcing boys to be creative and more energetic in how they stand out from the crowd and express their individuality. It is easy to wear weird clothes to say "look at me" but when you're forced to all dress in exactly the same way, including short back and sides haircuts then your individuality needs to come from within. I like that idea but I'm a big fan of uniforms also for their levelling of the social classes and their practicality and insisting on a standard of dress that says what you do here is important and how you present yourself matters.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Very true. Which is why codes of any sort must be clearly written and enforced evenly.
That would be nice...
Black boys suspended from school three times more than white boys says study
Sad but true. But the way to stop uneven enforcement of rules is not to get rid of rules, especially if the rules make a difference in the quality of the school experience.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
If it's intended as a justification for its importance in preventing hell, pointing out that hell is not prevented seems a useful counterargument.
The problem is, no one thing will prevent all hell. From this it does not follow that some things don't go partway to toning it down. "Doing X won't solve the entire problem so there's no point in doing it" is the same argument as "Giving that guy a sandwich will still leave 3 billion hungry people. Might as well not bother." It's not the most convincing argument.
Crickets.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Sad but true. But the way to stop uneven enforcement of rules is not to get rid of rules, especially if the rules make a difference in the quality of the school experience.
While we wait for this new utopia of even enforcement of fair rules to magically appear, another way to minimize the damage is to minimize the scope of unessential rules. While you may think that strict dress codes are essential to prevent schools going to hell, they're only one of a number of possible ways to make school non-hellish. Given the long history of arbitrary definition and enforcement as shown in the study I linked to earlier.
Besides the unequal application of these rules to racial minorities, there's going to be no shortage of "common sense" rules that girls shouldn't be too masculine and boys shouldn't be too feminine in the clothes they wear.
[ 02. April 2014, 02:48: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
Our office abandoned “formal” dress codes a couple of years back – most of us now wear a t-shirt & jeans.
The place hasn’t gone to hell, in fact many processes are more efficient, because of the work we have put in to improve things.
Because of the dress code, despite it, or did it make no difference?
You've just substituted one dress code for another. How many choose/dare to wear something other than jeans and a t-shirt.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
Where I have worked in High Tech, if you wear a suit you may be mistaken for someone in sales or marketing. But there isn't the pressure to wear jeans instead of a suit that is anything comparable to the pressure to wear suit (and that sad little dance called informal Friday) rather than jeans.
My last job was doing high tech for lawyers. Most dressed casually, but people would show up in a suit. It was assumed they had a court appearance or a client to visit. But the clothing was much more comfortable and less effort than suits or boiled collars.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
While we wait for this new utopia of even enforcement of fair rules to magically appear, another way to minimize the damage is to minimize the scope of unessential rules.
And who gets the god-like power of determining which rules are essential and which are unessential? You?
quote:
While you may think that strict dress codes are essential to prevent schools going to hell,
I don't remember saying that, but hey, I don't recognize myself in a lot of what you've posted about me.
quote:
they're only one of a number of possible ways to make school non-hellish. Given the long history of arbitrary definition and enforcement as shown in the study I linked to earlier.
So, all we have to do is get rid of arbitrary rules, and all of a sudden racism and sexism will magically disappear from our schools? Now who's being unrealistic?
quote:
Besides the unequal application of these rules to racial minorities, there's going to be no shortage of "common sense" rules that girls shouldn't be too masculine and boys shouldn't be too feminine in the clothes they wear.
And? What do we do about that? You've got a lot of complaints here but not a lot of thoughts for how to move forward except "fewer rules." Yeah. Fine. Yawn.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The problem is, no one thing will prevent all hell. From this it does not follow that some things don't go partway to toning it down.
Except your proposed solution doesn't even go partway to solving what you identify as the "problem" by your own admission. Your analysis, as near as I can track it, is something along the lines of:
So if your proposed restrictions on girls are ineffective in curing the plague of boner-itis you say is a is a huge problem for young men, what exactly are the restrictions on teenaged girls supposed to accomplish? If the problem persists even if girls completely obscure themselves in a bag with eye slits, and you openly acknowledge this fact, I have to conclude that your motives for controlling young women are something besides providing relief to their male peers from the afflictions of attraction.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Twist, twist, twist.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Twist, twist, twist.
I'll take that as a refusal to engage my analysis (and the rough equivalent of crickets chirping).
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Twist, twist, twist.
I'll take that as a refusal to engage my analysis (and the rough equivalent of crickets chirping).
Fine. Your problem is that you take me to be saying that young adolescent males cannot be affected by scantily clad young ladies -- they are going to have boners, and they have exactly one arousal level. Which is not what I said. But that has to be what I said for your analysis to be on target. Ergo your analysis is off target.
Next.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Phantom Flan Flinger
Shipmate
# 8891
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
You've just substituted one dress code for another. How many choose/dare to wear something other than jeans and a t-shirt.
John
It varies. Some do – the crntre manager still wears a smart skirt, top & jacket – in addition to my full time job I am also a local councillor, and when I’m going straight from the office to a council meeting, I wear a shirt & smart trousers. Nothing is said.
Interestingly, it’s mostly the men who have switched sometimes to jeans & t-shirt – many of the women still wear similar clothes to what they wore before the dress code was abandoned.
--------------------
http://www.faith-hope-and-confusion.com/
Posts: 1020 | From: Leicester, England | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
While we wait for this new utopia of even enforcement of fair rules to magically appear, another way to minimize the damage is to minimize the scope of unessential rules. While you may think that strict dress codes are essential to prevent schools going to hell, they're only one of a number of possible ways to make school non-hellish. Given the long history of arbitrary definition and enforcement as shown in the study I linked to earlier.
Nope.
In our schools uniform is applied equally to boys and girls. Muslims are allowed to wear black headscarves and Sikhs are allowed to wear black hair covers/turbans.
Some primary schools have ties, some don't. Most high schools have ties and blazers.
Here are some examples of primary school uniform, typical throughout the uk.
Here is an example of high school uniform. The only thing which really varies is the colour.
[ 02. April 2014, 07:55: Message edited by: Boogie ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Palimpsest wrote: quote:
Besides the unequal application of these rules to racial minorities, there's going to be no shortage of "common sense" rules that girls shouldn't be too masculine and boys shouldn't be too feminine in the clothes they wear.
Why is this inevitable?
My daughters went to the local school. The dress code appears not to have changed since they were there. I'm not aware there was any pressure within the dress code to stop them being "too masculine". Their uniform involved a choice of either trousers or a skirt. In winter, the great majority of the girls choose to wear trousers, and when they did their uniform was identical to the boys'. In summer they chose skirts - their choice. The boys could have chosen skirts technically but never did. Likewise their choice.
You can, of course, draw all sorts of other interesting conclusions about this, but I don't see why what you say is inevitable.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
As a matter of curiosity, in which countries do most schools have uniforms, as is the case here, even if the styles of dress in other cultures may be different, and in which countries is it less usual or unknown?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lily pad
Shipmate
# 11456
|
Posted
Enoch, in Canada, almost no one wears a uniform to a regular school. In Ontario, the Catholic schools have uniforms at the high school level. There are a handful of private schools, mostly in the cities, and those students wear uniforms.
I wore a uniform for my last two years of high school. The real advantage was that it cut the amount of time it took me to get ready in the morning to almost nothing. Visitors to our school thought we looked great but we didn't really care. Also, rebellion in our dress was much less of a challenge than our friends in neighbouring schools - just trying to get away with wearing sneakers or not buttoning the top button on our blouses was all it took.
--------------------
Sloppiness is not caring. Fussiness is caring about the wrong things. With thanks to Adeodatus!
Posts: 2468 | From: Truly Canadian | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Fine. Your problem is that you take me to be saying that young adolescent males cannot be affected by scantily clad young ladies -- they are going to have boners, and they have exactly one arousal level. Which is not what I said. But that has to be what I said for your analysis to be on target. Ergo your analysis is off target.
Which begs the question of why not burquas*? That's not rhetorical. If your position is that the female body must be hidden from male view (at least in an academic context), and that the more of it is hidden the better the result you claim can be achieved, why not mandate some form of maximal cover? Wouldn't that achieve a maximal result? You reject this position, but it seems to be the most logical endpoint of your assertion that the less the female body is seen the better the academic performance of (presumptively straight) teenaged boys will be.
--------------------
*Feel free to substitute in some other form of baggy, whole body covering (prison jumpsuit?) if you feel the specific example of the burqa is too distractingly Muslimish.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Aaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrgggggggghhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!
Your augment leans to the absurd Crœsos. Taking your reasoning, girls should go to class naked, twirling condoms on their fingers.
Having a reasonable dress code for teens, male and female, is not rape culture, not onerous and not unreasonable.
--------------------
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
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Only if you over think things and make them more complicated than they have to be. No harm will come from teenagers not being allowed to wear yoga pants to school. School is 10 hours tops. Those teenagers can wear yoga pants the remaining 14 hours of the day, every weekend, and 24/7 during the summer.
Have you worked with teenagers? en masse?
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Your augment leans to the absurd Crœsos. Taking your reasoning, girls should go to class naked, twirling condoms on their fingers.
Having a reasonable dress code for teens, male and female, is not rape culture, not onerous and not unreasonable.
I'm not suggesting anything of the sort, just trying to quantify MT's argument. If a skirt that goes to the knees is too distracting, but one that goes two inches lower is sufficient to raise grades and reduce discipline problems (or whatever positive effect MT thinks will be achieved), why wouldn't a whole body covering do even more? That seems to be what he's getting at with his comment about more than one arousal level, but elsewhere he rejects that reasoning.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Taking arguments to their extreme and insisting that is the only way to take them leads to very silly arguments, I think. Obvious reasons not to take the dress code further include the idea that perhaps the school balances the value of covering with other values like not enraging their students or ensuring them moderate comfort. One hears burqas suck to wear.
There's a technical name for this -
It's a logical fallacy of course.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jenn.
Shipmate
# 5239
|
Posted
Schools in diverse areas here will have options in the dress code to fit that - so head covering in school colours, sometimes tunics etc rather than blouse/skirt - again in school colours. Some schools limit the style of trousers (on girls) and length of skirt, others do not, depending on the headteacher. In a school photo (for example) everyone looks pretty much the same below the neck.
Posts: 2282 | From: England | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Taking arguments to their extreme and insisting that is the only way to take them leads to very silly arguments, I think.
Except it's not so much an "extreme" as a logical conclusion drawn from the position presented. Covering female students achieves some positive academic outcome for their male peers, this outcome is on a sliding scale, not pass/fail, so more covering means more positive results, and that teenaged girls owe it to teenaged boys as a matter of "courtesy" to help them by covering as much of their bodies as possible.
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Obvious reasons not to take the dress code further include the idea that perhaps the school balances the value of covering with other values like not enraging their students or ensuring them moderate comfort. One hears burqas suck to wear.
Interesting thought. How do you determine the appropriate boundary of "moderate comfort"? How uncomfortable can a school demand its female students make themselves? Obviously to some degree, under MT's standard, since that standard is predicated on not letting teenaged girls dress in a way they find comfortable. And on a related subject, what message is being sent to those female students when they're informed that their personal comfort is less important than preventing their male peers from finding them attractive?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Taking arguments to their extreme and insisting that is the only way to take them leads to very silly arguments, I think.
Except it's not so much an "extreme" as a logical conclusion drawn from the position presented. Covering female students achieves some positive academic outcome for their male peers, this outcome is on a sliding scale, not pass/fail, so more covering means more positive results, and that teenaged girls owe it to teenaged boys as a matter of "courtesy" to help them by covering as much of their bodies as possible.
I put italics on the part that I think you are taking to a silly extreme. I don't think anyone is arguing that more coverage will lead always to better results. Clearly there is a point where more coverage will lead to better results--I don't think even you are advocating lilbuddha's naked twirlers--so if you think that should be forbidden, doesn't that mean you are also on the road to burqas?
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Obvious reasons not to take the dress code further include the idea that perhaps the school balances the value of covering with other values like not enraging their students or ensuring them moderate comfort. One hears burqas suck to wear.
Interesting thought. How do you determine the appropriate boundary of "moderate comfort"? How uncomfortable can a school demand its female students make themselves? Obviously to some degree, under MT's standard, since that standard is predicated on not letting teenaged girls dress in a way they find comfortable. And on a related subject, what message is being sent to those female students when they're informed that their personal comfort is less important than preventing their male peers from finding them attractive?
Moderate comfort is obviously going to be an opinion, but it will also depend on climate and circumstances. Children in classrooms in northern England, classrooms in southern Texas, and gym class in the two regions will probably have four different sets of needs re comfort. For one thing, I doubt handling the heat is nearly as necessary for school children in northern England as it is in Texas though perhaps appropriate for both in certain seasons.
Re not seducing other students in school, I don't see why we need boys or girls--you seem very into worrying that we are preventing the girls' rights to wear very little, aren't you interested in protecting boys' rights to get seduce other people, or only the girls'?--to go about in states of extreme undress in school. Football players might look great in a tank top and relatively short exercise shorts, but I would scarcely think they need to go to class like that. I would say that learning to tell what they can get away with in which situation is a very useful part of teenage life. For instance, at least where I went to high school, we knew that we could get away with too short shorts, but probably couldn't get away with the wife-beater* or with showing bra straps. Doesn't mean people couldn't be risque, but it meant that school wasn't a place where anything goes. Nor should it be.
*Is there a less offensive name for these? I truly don't know one.
--------------------
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
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Except it's not so much an "extreme" as a logical conclusion drawn from the position presented.
Yes - except that most things taken to their logical conclusion end up with ideas involving extreme silliness.
Back in the real world, school uniform works on many levels - including that of not being unnecessarily provocative (sexually, aggressively,distraction-producing, whatever is provocative)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Except it's not so much an "extreme" as a logical conclusion drawn from the position presented. Covering female students achieves some positive academic outcome for their male peers, this outcome is on a sliding scale, not pass/fail, so more covering means more positive results, and that teenaged girls owe it to teenaged boys as a matter of "courtesy" to help them by covering as much of their bodies as possible.
I put italics on the part that I think you are taking to a silly extreme. I don't think anyone is arguing that more coverage will lead always to better results.
Mousethief seems to be arguing this. Or, more accurately, trying to have it both ways by first arguing that teenaged boys will be attracted to their female age peers regardless of what they're wearing and then arguing that the degree of attraction/impairment is a function of how much gets covered.
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Re not seducing other students in school, I don't see why we need boys or girls--you seem very into worrying that we are preventing the girls' rights to wear very little, aren't you interested in protecting boys' rights to get seduce other people, or only the girls'?--to go about in states of extreme undress in school.
First off, I find it dubious that the only possible reason anyone would want to be able to pick their own clothes is for purposes of seduction. Secondly, the male-centeredness of the argument comes from the argument advanced by Mousethief, which is premised not on deliberate seduction but the idea that teenaged boys (but not girls) are academically impaired when they're attracted to their age peers and that the burden of correcting this deficiency is rightfully borne by teenaged girls.
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
For instance, at least where I went to high school, we knew that we could get away with too short shorts, but probably couldn't get away with the wife-beater* or with showing bra straps.
*Is there a less offensive name for these? I truly don't know one.
"A-shirt" or "athletic shirt" seem to be acceptable terms.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
