Let’s be honest: rules for boys that prohibit certain kinds of jewelry or hoodies have nothing to do with their sexuality, whereas rules that seek to literally cover women’s bodies absolutely do.There's a link to the actual dress code, PDF, where you can see that the rules are written in a gender-neutral form. "No... hoodies" restricts males and females. "No... accessories with metal spikes" — which I take it is the jewelry rule referred to — applies to males are females. "No visible undergarments" is a rule that might aim more at males than females, and it's a matter of opinion whether low slung pants with undershorts showing has anything to do with male sexuality.
"No low-cut blouses, tube/halter tops, midriff tops" does very strongly imply restriction on females specifically, but it's a matter of opinion whether young women making a special display of their breasts has something to do with their sexuality. (I'm thinking of statements from "SlutWalk"-type protesters and advocates of public nursing.) "No short-shorts, mini-skirts" refers almost entirely to females, but I suspect that many girls would be upset to hear that these fashion choices were expressions of sexuality, rather than fashion and comfort choices. (I know I was upset when confronted with this theory by my junior high school principal, explaining my miniskirt to me in 1965).
But I do get the point that the relevant sexuality could be in the minds of the rule-makers, and the covering up of females is part of a long and continuing tradition of controlling sexual behavior. The girl might not think she's doing anything related to sex when she wears short shorts on a hot day, but the authorities may worry that she's stirring sexual feelings in other students. (That's what I learned from the vice principal in 1965.)
Valenti continues:
The rules are so disproportionate...An "if" would help that phrase.
... they could be a violation of Title IX, the federal law that ensures non-discrimination in educational environments. Alexandra Brodsky, co-founder of Know Your IX, ... explained that dress code violators could argue that they are being targeted precisely because of their sex: rules about short shorts or spaghetti strap tank tops are aimed directly at women’s attire.The rules actually don't mention "spaghetti straps." The rule is "No tank tops," and boys do wear tank tops. I had to ask the internet "do boys wear short shorts," and I got: "Who Wears Short Shorts? Guys Wear Short Shorts!"
Back to Valenti:
There is also an argument to be made, Brodsky said, that targeting, humiliating and disciplining of female students could constitute a hostile environment, “making young women feel that the school isn’t for them.”Interestingly, most school discipline seems to be aimed at boys and to make boys feel that school isn't for them. But maybe dress code rules, unlike rules about getting up out of your seat and pushing and shoving, has a greater impact on girls. It is important for authorities do need to set gender-neutral rules and to enforce them in a gender-neutral fashion. They should send the solid message that all the students are equally valued whether they are male or female.
But Valenti seems to be suggesting something more than that obvious proposition. She seems to say that formal gender neutrality is not enough and that demands for coverage of the flesh are aimed at females or that females have a special expressive interest in revealing their flesh. I don't reject that theory, but I would be more careful about applying it to the specific case of a high school principal demanding that students take reasonable rules seriously.
(And yes, yes, long ago — not as long ago as 1965, but long ago in 2006 — there was a big controversy about a blog post I wrote about the way Jessica Valenti posed in front of a very famous sexual harasser. I am not trying to rake up that old business, but I see the resonance here, and I'm mentioning it to free you from the need you might otherwise feel to remedy a seeming omission.)
पोस्ट्स
६९ टिप्पण्या:
Once again...women have rights and men have duties.
Girls have the right to dress anyway they want to. Boys have the duty to ignore the way the girls are dressed.
Except the girls deliberately dress in a manner to attract boys attention. But of course there is nothing wrong with that.
If it is sexist to ask that girls not dress in a provocative manner, it is tme to end co-ed education.
I might take issue with how they are enforcing the rules if they are targeting girls specifically. But no matter what you do, a dress code is going to have to use gender-specificity. At my last job, men were required to wear ties. That wasn't discrimination; that was fashion. IF this dress code only covers girls' clothing, they have a point. If, however, it bans baggy pants and shorts for boys, for example -- and those rules are enforced just as strictly as the rules on girls -- then it's fine.
She thinks young girls dressing as little sex pots and enticing boys at school is ok. There are other venues, like the local mall, where they can experiment with sexually provoking/enticing men and boys with their bodies. School should not be the venue.
The pretense that girls aren't being sexual when they dress sexually is the entire problem with Valenti's and other feminidiots assertions to the contrary.
The girl might not think she's doing anything related to sex when she wears short shorts on a hot day,
Of course she knows.
I love how Valenti keeps insisting it is *humiliating*.
Of course there should be dress codes- there are in almost every aspect of life. The focus should be on keeping from raising our girls to be such special snowflakes they are "humiliated" by being told about dress codes.
So there are rules that primarily pertain to girls, and rules that primarily pertain to boys. So what? How could it be otherwise?
I'd guess to convince the Valentis of the world, you'd have to go at this from the angle that skinny girls wearing short shorts are body-shaming fat girls.
The thing to understand about Valenti is she is an idiot. When you realize that, it all makes sense.
These are gender-neutral rules, pure and simple. It so happens that it is the current fashion for girls to wear clothes that show more skin than boys, so of course a "no shorts or skirts x inches above the knee" rule will affect them more. Is the purpose of such rules--perhaps to avoid distractions to other students, perhaps a puritanical holdover against showing skin--outdated and wrong? If so, then make that point--but Valenti is incapable of looking at any issue without the slant of male oppression. She's both predictable and pointless.
It's sad that people like her are held up as examples of "feminism". Feminism of this type--"fauxminism"--promotes irresponsibility, lack of agency, and hypocrisy (I'm sure Valenti will be front and center in supporting an enabler of a sex offender in the 2016 presidential election)--the very sort of things that turn off most people.
Of course she knows.
I love how Valenti keeps insisting it is *humiliating*.
Correcting girls inappropriate sexualized behavior at school SHOULD be humiliating. That's how you get them to alter the behavior.
What's with the feminist expectation that girls are never to have a bad feeling about their conduct?
MayBee,
Are you saying skinny girls in short-shorts are saying, "Hey, look at my amazing inner-thigh gap! When I wear these tiny shorts and walk down the hall it doesn't doesn't sound like someone pulling slices of deli ham off a stack."
Also, I'm guessing if men were allowed to walk around wearing short enough shorts that they dangled out of them, women like Valenti would find that agressive and threatening.
Me, personally, I draw the line at
*J*U*I*C*Y* stitched across the buttocks region.
I'm guessing if men were allowed to walk around wearing short enough shorts that they dangled out of them,
That would be my High School in the mid-70s.
On a related note, I worked in an office that had a "No Shorts" rule for men, while women were allowed to wear skirts that were at least 3 inches above the knee. The rules were written in a gender neutral way, however.
One of my enterprising male coworkers went out an bought some Field Hockey Skorts and wore those all summer. The HR director was gobstruck.
Also, apparently Ms. Valenti has never heard of a Utilikilt.
Valenti is a sexist female supremacist.
What's with the feminist expectation that girls are never to have a bad feeling about their conduct?
Honestly? I think they think white men never have a bad feeling about their conduct.
The same is true of a lot of what I read post-Ferguson. It seems a lot of minorities think white people don't have to proceed very cautiously with the police. The whole microagression thing is about assuming white people(especially men) never get annoying questions directed toward them.
Feminists have gotten to this point where they want to have no *feelings* of restrictions or judgement on them, because they think that's how white men get to live.
That would be my High School in the mid-70s.
Ha hahahaha! Yeah, I remember many a perilous basket ball game.
Kilts should absolutely come into fashion for men--better for sperm counts, prevents overheating the legs on hot days--and then we can finally achieve the skirt equality that so vexes the Valentis of the world.
Not that she won't find something else stupid to complain about.
"At The Guardian, Jessica Valenti..."
Category: Things Not Worth Reading
White people concerned about white school-girls in tube-tops and meanwhile black children can't even get a decent education no matter what they wear.
Thank goodness the schoolgirls are white: a black girl in a tube-top would probably be stopped by the police thinking she's a prostitute, and she better damned well have ID...
It is turtles all the way down...
And the funny thing is that, when it comes to swimwear, just the opposite is true. It takes a lot, or, I suppose a little (fabric, that is) for a woman's bikini to cross the line towards being considered inappropriate, but a man in a speedo?
But would Ms. Valenti be OK with fairly uniform requirements, even if not a literal uniform? -- Sleeved shirts, knee-length or lower legwear, etc? Or is she more "pro-slut-dressing" - "don't tell my princess she can't wear her favorite outfit"?
White girls in short-shorts giving each other more reasons to be anorexic. Keep going, white people, keep going...
It is turtles all the way down...
Boys fashion tends to be baggy and unkempt. It is unpleasant in its own way, but it's not like they tend to show much skin. At all.
I'm sure shorts that barely cover ass cheeks are really, really comfy. Yup. Just like girls wear bikinis because NO OTHER BATHING SUIT IS QUITE SO DARNED COMFY.
Honestly? I think they think white men never have a bad feeling about their conduct.
And it's doubly odd since their entire gameplan is to shame men into changing --- ignoring that men will change if asked but we tend to ignore irksome harpies.
I love the whole "Men shouldn't look at women's bodies" and then encouraging girls to show as much as possible. Because it is more reasonable to expect a man to override a biological imperative than for a girl to simply not dress like a skank.
As I told my niece, you want to dress like that? Don't be shocked when the boys who are drawn to you don't tend to be all that nice, good, or decent. The boys will think you're just easy and the sleazeballs will tee off on that anytime.
It's all so unfair. Did you know; ONLY FEMALE STUDENTS CAN GET PREGNANT? There oughtta be a law.
I do think some of these rules, like the skinny jeans type rules, were aimed specifically at the girls and what is in fashion...I see little difference between skinny jeans and regular jeans as far as appropriateness for school is concerned. Some of this stuff is just plain too vague, like 'low cut' tops. Are any of the boys in trouble for wearing vnecks?
That's not to say that I agree with Jessica's article, because she's overly dramatic. I am amused she has to go to the guardian to write about a random american high school's dress code.
As I said in the other thread, I think this is too specific to be enforced - if you are going to go this far in your dress codes just go to uniforms, or require a specific outfit and be done with it - skirts of a certain length, pants and a collared shirt, etc...
Re: "and it's a matter of opinion whether low slung pants with undershorts showing has anything to do with male sexuality..."
Everyone knows this is code for not dressing black. Can't put THAT in writing -- the racism needs to stay unwritten but still understood...
It is turtles all the way down...
"But Valenti seems to be suggesting something more that that obvious proposition."
Is the first "that" supposed to be a "than"?
"Kilts should absolutely come into fashion for men"
I think, first, we would want to consult Althouse. Are kilts "shorts"? I could see the ruling going either way.
Girls might school is not for them due to dress codes? Every stat i have seen shows girls outperform boys in school regularly. Perhaps boys should file Title IX suits over this.
On a related note, I worked in an office that had a "No Shorts" rule for men, while women were allowed to wear skirts that were at least 3 inches above the knee.
Skirts are different from shorts, but one of my old coworkers (female) got in trouble for wearing one of those shorts/suitish things to work when they were popular (90's?). She was apparently pretty irritated.
One of my enterprising male coworkers went out an bought some Field Hockey Skorts and wore those all summer. The HR director was gobstruck.
Ha!
I'm trying to take Valenti's argument seriously, but the internal contradictions are making it difficult.
Has anyone else noticed how awfully selective these folks are in applying a disparate impact standard/claiming selective application of a rule rises to the level of actionable discrimination? I mean, what are the stats by gender on who is referred to the school administrators for rule violations in general--who wants to bet it's overwhelmingly male students? Is Valenti looking at Title IX to remedy that? It's like when people squawk about pay disparities but ignore the huge on the job injury & death disparities between genders--turns out only SOME gaps are worth worrying about, I guess.
Ann Althouse said...She seems to say that formal gender neutrality is not enough and that demands for coverage of the flesh are aimed at females or that females have a special expressive interest in revealing their flesh. I don't reject that theory,
Would you mind fleshing out (sorry) the pratical impact that theory would have on the law generally? I've heard the argument that treating toplessness differently for men & women is unjust and presumably holding that women have a protected expressive interest in showing their bodies would bolster that case, but in practical terms what else would have to change? Would women be exempt from laws relating to public lewdness, or held to a different standard? Would statutes covering this area (sorry again) be subject to a heightened level of scrutiny, but only as they might relate to restricting women?
Both men and women have dress code expectations. I swear, Title IX is becoming the biggest make-work project for trial lawyers since the ADA.
And why do women insist on the nobility of being 'feminist?' Feminist means belief in female superiority. If it was a belief in equality, then it would be called 'equalism.'
Oh it is simple, really, to make a gender-neutral dress code.
Everyone must wear a button-down Oxford long-sleeved shirt with the school logo embroidered on the left upper chest, above the (obligatory) pocket.
Everyone must wear loosely-fitting but properly tailored at the waist dark blue cotton pressed slacks with a one-quarter break.
Everyone must wear a brown belt which must be buckled at all times.
Everyone must wear sensible brown shoes with sensible and comfortable dark grey socks.
Failure to meet the Dress Code requires dismissal until proper attire is worn. No humiliating school-supplied substitutes are permitted. Absences for failing to meet the Dress Code are not excused absences.
Done and Done.
This is one of many distractions which have ensured progressive failure of our education system. Just give male, female, and gender-fluid an over-sized potato bag, and return to the lessons.
Why have feminists shifted from criticizing objectification to encouraging it? Is this a consequence of reducing human life to a commodity from conception?
Ann Althouse said..."No short-shorts, mini-skirts" refers almost entirely to females
How very heteronormative of you, Prof. Aren't you and Valenti forgetting the Ts in LGBTQ*? In Sociology class we learn that it's wrong to think "men are generally taller than women" because there are some women who are much taller than some men. It should therefore be wrong to think that a rule about shorts and miniskirts applies mainly to women since some biological men wear shorst and miniskirts. But maybe Ts are considered women by Valenti? I dunno.
females or that females have a special expressive interest in revealing their flesh. I don't reject that theory
And how, may I ask, is one to square that idea with the other line pushed by people like Valenti that objectifying women is part of the patriarchal rape culture? I understand there are different brands of Feminism, but if on the one hand you blame men for the Male Gaze and sexualizing (young) women and on the other hand you blame men for any actions that might restrict women's special expresssive interest in showing off their bodies, I mean...people might start to think this whole thing is a scam and that the logical incoherence of Feminism as a movement is really just a thin cover for special pleading.
"I have a right to show my body in any way I please (to young men/boys no less) and I also have the right to be offended/claim to be harassed if anyone looks at me. Scantily-clad women used in media adults can choose to consume are bad because they send the wrong message and commodify the female body. Scantily-clad women in a school environment where boys are forced to see them are good because that's what those women choose to display and you're a prude & religious jerk if you object. Because men are wrong."
"Is the first "that" supposed to be a "than"?"
Yes, and thanks for pointing that out. I've fixed it.
A few years back I was in the local mall when I spied a family including a young lady of. Maybe 12. She was wearing shorts that left little to the imagination. Stenciled across her ... Ummm ... Rear was the word "Juicy". Point being Mom and Dad took her to the mall like that. You can't pass enough rules.
SGT Ted said...
What's with the feminist expectation that girls are never to have a bad feeling about their conduct?
It isn't just they they expect no bad feelings from their conduct. They expect no consequences. If they dress with a lot of skin showing and it attracts unwanted attention, it's not their fault. The boys should be browbeaten until they no longer look. If they get drunk and end up regretting hooking up with someone undesirable, then they were raped. If they want to step out on a busy street without looking, it's the driver's fault for hitting them. Nothing is ever their own fault.
" Are kilts "shorts"? I could see the ruling going either way."
I'm probably not the one to ask, as I'm also pro-shorts for the same reasons--but kilts allow even more freedom for circulation than shorts, and at least there's some cultural argument for them (for the Scots and Irish) and can be added to a formal setting in a way that shorts simply haven't.
I say, bring back togas for high school kids. They're formless so no "bulge" issues, they're hard to run around in so that reduces horseplay, and fraternities will have to come up with something different from toga parties.
A hoodie is not an emblem of male sexuality?
Think again.
I thought the silly season was supposed to end on Labor Day.
Students (and teachers!) ogling at girls' exposed flesh in the classroom=hostile environment; sued!
Administrators enforcing rules to prevent exposed flesh in the classroom=hostile environment; sued!
"whereas rules that seek to literally cover women’s bodies absolutely do."
Universities are subject to Title IX. We proudly and loudly demand that there be no untied long hair, shorts, exposed midriffs, or open-toed shoes...in our labs. We also openly state that people (but surely we really mean women only, right?) should dress in a way such that as little as possible of their skin is exposed.
That's just one of the ways we keep women out of STEM.
I wonder if there are any studies looking at how often the phrase "let's be honest" is followed by a load of BS.
The truth of the matter is if left to their own devices many women will dress like hoes. And so if there are restrictions on not dressing like hoes they will hit wen worse.
The same kind of clothes that would be as short for guys wod br stuff you'd see at a gay pride parade.most guys wouldn't wear that to school.
How many girls though dress as the slutty character at Halloween? Most of them?
No loose or baggy clothing because you might be using that to hide drugs. No tight clothes because someone might notice your body.
It's very hard to find skirts or dresses that meet dress code requirements of coming down to the knees. I think it should be, if you bend at the waist and people can't see your underwear, the dress is long enough. When it's hard to find cute dresses, it's easy to just give up on trying to dress nicely and wear jeans and t-shirts (that aren't low cut enough to show your collarbone) or sweats.
It's very hard to find skirts or dresses that meet dress code requirements of coming down to the knees.
With womens clothing, it all depends on what is in style at that moment. If mini's are in style, it is difficult. If maxi's are, it is easy. So you are basically at the mercy of the fashion industry, which is why I find this deliberate attempt to ward off the wearing of clothing that is currently available (like skinny jeans, leggings) concerning.
it's easy to just give up on trying to dress nicely and wear jeans and t-shirts (that aren't low cut enough to show your collarbone) or sweats.
And sweats aren't very dressy. So in an effort to get people not to dress slutty, you might drive them to be slobs :)
No need for female dress codes. When a girl dresses skimpily, it suggests somewhat that she might be more interested in sex than one would otherwise be led to believe. But selfish females quite generally tend to be more interested in getting caring (and money) than great sex, so I don't think there is any particular danger of allowing girls to dress skimpily. And a female dressing skimpily is taking the risk of encouraging bad males to assault her, so dressing skimpily is the more heroic thing to do. The cowardly thing to wear that might more need regulating is the burka. And artistic expression through clothes tends to be a non-snobby thing by nature since snobby people tend to limit their social sphere, and clothes are about making impressions, which people in exclusive social spheres less need to make because they have plenty of time for everyone in their small spheres.
Some choose to think that girls suggesting their sexuality is important are actually suggesting they want to have lots of indiscriminate sex. A girl who cares greatly about her own sexual pleasure, if she listens to her own natural feelings much at all, is going to be quite particular about having sex. If a girl is being sexual in the only possible natural sense, i.e., that she wants great sex a great deal, that doesn't mean she is about to become a wanton skank. Girls tend to not be sure of themselves--it is doubtful they can even have strong natural sexual feelings unless they are in love greatly. Unless a girl is greatly in love, she is likely not able to fantasize much about sex without dancing around a lot or just generally not imagining sex in any way she would want to presently have. But girls need to fantasize about sex, so there is nothing wrong with girls dancing, etc.
The worst thing about a dress code against female immodesty may be it encourages males to love particular girls more exclusively. If a male seems to care for a girl, the girl appropriately from coyness probably won't tend to dress as skimpily (even if she wants sex greatly with him) as a girl who wants sex greatly but doesn't think she will get much caring. At any rate, if a girl dresses skimpily, that may end up suggesting to a particular male she wants sex with that it is more likely he can have such sex with her. All this criticism of girls dressing provocatively may end up confusing people into thinking that girls who want sex so much they'll take just that are somehow unworthy of love.
Girls are not better at judging an opportunity to obtain great caring than they are at judging an opportunity to obtain great sex, but their youth gives them more capacity to obtain the latter. I think young female relationships with males tend to the girls (in play or reality) to more be about sex than male caring. What girls really need to know is that any male they might want presently to have sex with is probably by nature going to love about the same pretty much all the girls that might be inclined to have sex with him. Here I mean that love which when possessed by the male makes sex more sexually pleasant to girls. When girls want sex, they tend to want it with great males, who tend to realize their own greatness, which causes a kind of piety that makes them love most all girls who might want them, at least when the girls aren't being excessively conformist or recklessly indifferent to their own coolness (an indifference which a girl might remedy by delaying sex until she feels more at ease, by avoiding caffeine, or by being less or more rightly catty). Typical girls (and most males too, probably) just don't see the difference between loving emotions and (exclusive) caring emotions. In particular, there is much girl/girl hate, the worst of which in decent girls I think comes from girls fighting over love as if it were a caring feeling instead of encouraging better males to love naturally, which would cause them to love (in the sense girls most need) them all a similar great amount, which definitely implies loving provocative girls who dress skimpily.
A few truths have to be accepted here:
1) Kids at the age of puberty and above will always try and dress in a way that is appealing to the opposite sex. For girls, that's going to mean clothing as tight and revealing as is generally acceptable by their peers--and this standard changes over time. When I was in school (get off my lawn, kids!) this meant high-waisted jeans and generally longer skirts than we see now, and clunky shoes. For boys, being more revealing often isn't going to score you more points with girls (otherwise guys would wear Speedos whenever they had the chance) so they generally follow whatever trends they can.
2) Everyone in coed classes will be distracted by the opposite sex. This will happen even if they're all wearing potato sacks. A dress code won't do much about this.
3) If a school wants to impose a dress code to promote more professional, orderly attire among the students, try a school uniform--it's the best way to reduce pushing the edge of the envelope (though even with uniforms, kids will see what they can get away with). Keep it comfortable and gender-neutral though, otherwise you'll have girls complaining that they can't wear pants (like Prof. Althouse) or boys complaining that they can't wear kilts or shorts (like me in the summer).
4) Valenti could have made some good or interesting points on this issue, but then that wouldn't be very Valenti.
Should have quoted the last few sentences of Valenti's article:
back. Students in Tottenville continue to come to school dressed to break the discriminatory code, and not too far away in New Jersey, a group of young middle school activists are organizing using the hashtag #IAmMoreThanADistraction.
If those young women keep it up, before too long, it will be their principal singled out as the real distraction.
Yeah, deploy the hastag ladies, and collect that scalp. Break the rules, play the gender card, and get that principal f'n fired already, grrrl power!
I remember many a perilous basket ball game
I see what you did there.
Saw a guy in a tank top and short shorts at the library last week. I only saw him from the back, thank goodness, because I can't imagine how everything could have been situated up front without giving it all away.
So Valenti's wrong. THe dress code disproportionately affects women and gay males.
Still waiting for the Minoan fashion revival.
Uniforms... and it all goes away. School becomes a bit more like school. Oh, the bad finger to SCOTUS and free expression. Kids may not exercise every other right in school. Dress, when it has become an impediment to education needs to lose its protected status.
My kids wear uniforms.
Initially, I thought I would hate it, but I actually love it. Mornings go faster when kids already know what they're wearing. And this is just for elementary school; I know how much better it will be when we get to middle school.
"My kids wear uniforms.
Initially, I thought I would hate it, but I actually love it. Mornings go faster when kids already know what they're wearing. And this is just for elementary school; I know how much better it will be when we get to middle school."
We didn't wear them when I was in school, but I think it would have been a good idea. For us, there was a lot of judgment passed by other kids based on how someone was dressed--and if you were one of the poorer kids you couldn't afford to dress as trendy as the others, which presented extra problems at an age when kids are at their most insecure. I'm sure it was worse for girls--trying to find the line between dressing "slutty" or trendy, and I'm sure it isn't cheap to keep up.
Uniforms cut back on this--less wear and tear on their "street" clothes, one less thing to judge each other with, and the unconscious sense of order that comes from uniform dress--all are things a school ought to promote. It won't solve all these problems entirely, but would do some good at least.
Two things:
First, a question for Betamax3000: What does the guy in the white van living by the river say about this?
Second, an anecdote: When I was a junior in high school, one of the girls that ran in our group was a rather large-chested blonde who liked wearing tube tops. One day we were bantering (good-naturedly, we were all good friends) back and forth and she rared back and kicked at me. I grabbed her foot while it was in the air and within a milisecond, BLAM! The air and my eyes were filled with the glorious sight of a tremendous pair of Double D's that had popped out of her tube top.
::sniff:: It was the greatest day of my teenage life.
God Bless 'MURICA!
Let's adopt the Japanese system of uniforms in every school. Children are there to learn academics, not "express themselves". Express yourself after you graduate.
What about bras? Do both boys and girls have to wear them? Neither?
If girls and only girls have to wear them seems like gender discrimination to me.
How about if a kid wears nude colored underwear? (See Patterico's discussion of the racism of nude underwear) Would that be visible? If my nude colored briefs are only visible when you get up close, does that contravene the school rules?
Or no underwear at all. Can a kid just let their ass crack hang out? See principal, no visible underwear.
And what is visible?
Do panty lines constitute visible underwear? Translucent blouses?
I can see that this school must be a paradise for sea lawyers.
Why not just make all the kids show up naked. Then all these questions of dress code go away.
Here in the really deep southern US (Puerto Rico) all kids in public and private schools wear uniforms. Nothing fancy but all the same. Seems like a good idea to me.
Except for the rich, hoity-toitys at the really expensive schools. They get to dress like slobs.
John Henry
Posts like these is where your blog goes stupid. Of course dress codes focus more on girls, because they are the most likely to offend by wearing reveling clothes. Boys will dress sloppy, but I don't believe they come to school with their balls hanging out of their shorts. If they did, I suspect they would be sent home immediately.
What a bunch of prudes. Why are the old forcing young women to be forbidden to engage in attracting young men? Is everyone again determined to stop SIN among the youth?
At some point in life you have to learn how to dress.
When I was working in the Big DC Law Firm in the '90's, they expanded "casual Fridays" to "all-day casual summers", because the law students we were recruiting for summer clerkships didn't own a suit (or the female equivalent). Then we went to "business casual all the time", because we had these young dot-com clients who had millions to spend on legal services, but dressed like geeks, who would feel very uncomfortable if their prospective lawyers wore a tie that they (the dot-com millionaires) didn't know how to tie.
I still will not willingly go into court or an administrative hearing unless I'm wearing a white shirt with my suit.
Do you remember "Saturday Night Fever" and the scene where John Travolta is dressing for the disco the way a knight dressed for the tournament, or the priest dressed for the Eucharist? If we can't take our costume seriously, what hope do we have?
a famous "sexual harasser"? how about a famous "serial rapist".
The only thing worth noting about Miss Valenti's column is that she still has nothing to say about Rotherham.
It's the "Guardian", schizophrenic hypocrites per definition.
The Guardian has no problem at all with muslim dress codes.
"a famous "sexual harasser"? how about a famous "serial rapist"."
I've been told that women never lie about being raped. The exception being any woman who claims to have been raped by Bill Clinton.
It must be exhausting having to make excuses for that creep.
"The only thing worth noting about Miss Valenti's column is that she still has nothing to say about Rotherham."
That's because it would require criticizing people who are part of the "coalition of the oppressed". Never mind that the people that the "oppressed" are oppressing ought to have something to say about it. Remember, only western culture can be an enemy of fauxminism, we have to give a pass to any other culture regardless of the actual condition of women in said cultures.
I realize this seems circular and illogical, but you can best understand columns in the Guardian when you unburden yourself from rational thought.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा