School dress codes are sexist?

[Phoenix84]

Those crazy Canadians are at it again.

shine.yahoo.com/parenting/lindsey-stocker-dress-code-shorts-beaconsfield-high-school-quebec-canada-153056456.html

Basically, this girl was wearing denim short shorts and they made her put her hands to her side and judged she violated the school dress code.  She then went around the school putting up posters that read:

"Don't humiliate her because she is wearing shorts.  It's h ot outside.  Instead of shaming girls for their bodies, teach boys that girls are not sexual objects."

The administration took the signs down and suspended her for a day.

So what do you think?  Are school dress codes sexist and meant to "body shame" girls?

[Chocolate Lover]

The tips of the fingers rule was in effect when common sense was the only dress code way back when I was in school. If they were shorter, you couldn't wear them. It's a simple thing to figure out and I don't really see any shaming in it, unless of course the adult made a huge, public deal out of it. They didn't say she was too fat to wear short shorts did they?

[Phoenix84]

I think this girl is dead wrong.  Schools have had dress codes since time immemorial and she's not some crusader for women's rights, she just wants to wear short shorts and not follow the rules because they don't suit her.  Frankly, I think she's dumb.  "Sexist" means different and adverse treatment based on gender.  Requiring shorts to be a certain length is a rule that applies to both genders.  A sexist dress code would state that boys can wear short shorts but not girls.

I don't know what her problem is.  It's like some people these days can't stand to have bounderies or follow any rules, and make it out to be some holy crusade if they can't do whatever they want, when they want.  It's honestly quite insulting to real feminists out there.

Teaching boys to not view women as sexual objects has nothing to do with the dress code.  The reason it exists is because it's distracting to boys and not appropriate for a learning enviornment.

All in all, she has a lot to learn.

[billisonboard]

Sexist?  I don't see where there is a different standard for the length of shorts worn by male or female students.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

From what I remember the length of your shorts applied to both genders because you can get a pretty good "visual" from men in short shorts too.

Reading the article I can see how they can claim it was sexist. Only the girls were asked to stand up for an inspection. .. during class no less. I didn't see where they said the boys had to be checked in the middle of class to make sure they conformed to the code.

I know when I was in HS you had to wear your pants around your waist, not your thighs. It would have technically been sexist to make the guys in class stand up and hold their T-shirts up to make sure their pants were where they were supposed to be while the girls remained sitting.  I knew girls who wore pants just as baggy but since it was a "guy" thing nobody noticed.

The dress code itself isn't sexist, how her school chose to enforce it was sexist.  If they're doing an "inspection" then everyone should be inspected to make sure they conform, not just a few classmates of one particular gender.

[shanendoah]

Teaching boys to not view women as sexual objects has nothing to do with the dress code. The reason it exists is because it's distracting to boys...

Phoenix84 - you just contradicted yourself there. What about shorts makes them not appropriate to a learning environment? Does the length of the shorts someone is wearing have any impact on their intelligence or on their ability to learn?
Or is your argument that the length of her shorts has an impact on the BOYS' ability to learn?
By claiming that she has to dress a certain way in order for boys to behave appropriately, you are making the girl responsible for their behavior. That is EXACTLY what rape culture and victim blaming are about. It is NOT a far stretch from "Well of course the boys couldn't concentrate on the lecture, did you see the short shorts she was wearing" to "Well of course the boy thought that no meant yes, did you see the short shorts she was wearing."

And the process is NOT just damaging to girls. It is damaging to boys as well. At the same time we are telling girls they have to be responsible for how boys act, we are telling boys that they are not capable of controlling their own behavior.

[justme]

I don't know about sexist (that depends more on the manner and reasoning for the rules) but it sure is heightist! I couldn't wear shorts in high school because of that rule. My long arms hit all of around 2" above my knees. You couldn't find junior shorts that long! 

Ok, truthfully on some days when I wanted to wear shorts I magically had beyond good posture (even raised the shoulders up a bit higher than good posture) and bent my elbows slightly. Wearing a jacket, as I often did, helped even more when I was cold.

[Wisconsin Beth]

Ok, I just stood up and put my hands at my side to see what the "line" was.  It's pretty high.  I'm 5 foot 6 inches and have been this height since I was around 14-15.  The girl is in 11th grade, which means she's about 16, give or take. 

So, if I went shopping at the teen stores, would I actually FIND short or skirts that fit these requirements?  Weren't we talking about this last week on the thread about feeding a growing girl?  That finding clothing is not always easy? 

And there was a story fairly recently (April maybe?) about a protest for girls wearing leggings to school - because the school at one point was claiming that the girls wearing leggings were a distraction to the boys learning.  I think the school's restated their stance since then. 

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

We had to wear tank tops with certain types of straps because bare shoulders were considered "distracting".

Several girls argued that the boys wearing sports jerseys and cut off T-shirts were just as distracting because we could see their hairy armpits and sometimes man boobs. Why aren't they being told to cover up?

They changed it after that to the boys had to wear T-shirts with sleeves and under the sports jerseys.

I don't mind dress codes at all as long as they are fairly equal. Why are my shoulders distracting but that guy's giant hairy armpits are considered perfectly acceptable for public viewing?

[Miss Tequila]

Jun 2, 2014 15:27:18 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

From what I remember the length of your shorts applied to both genders because you can get a pretty good "visual" from men in short shorts too.

Reading the article I can see how they can claim it was sexist. Only the girls were asked to stand up for an inspection. .. during class no less. I didn't see where they said the boys had to be checked in the middle of class to make sure they conformed to the code.

I know when I was in HS you had to wear your pants around your waist, not your thighs. It would have technically been sexist to make the guys in class stand up and hold their T-shirts up to make sure their pants were where they were supposed to be while the girls remained sitting.  I knew girls who wore pants just as baggy but since it was a "guy" thing nobody noticed.

The dress code itself isn't sexist, how her school chose to enforce it was sexist.  If they're doing an "inspection" then everyone should be inspected to make sure they conform, not just a few classmates of one particular gender.

Long shorts are in for the boys. Is it really sexist to take a look around the room and realize there is no way any of the boys would be in violation therefore it is stupid to test them? I see the kids going to school each morning and I have yet to see a big that didn't have in long cargo type shorts. I would find it crazy to make them stand up and be tested just for the hell of it

[Chocolate Lover]

Aeropostale sells Bermuda shorts that are knee length or close to it. I see "Bermuda" shorts everywhere, so it shouldn't be that big an issue. Leg length may be though. Or, in this case, arm length

 

[Miss Tequila]

Jun 2, 2014 15:40:53 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

We had to wear tank tops with certain types of straps because bare shoulders were considered "distracting".

Several girls argued that the boys wearing sports jerseys and cut off T-shirts were just as distracting because we could see their hairy armpits and sometimes man boobs. Why aren't they being told to cover up?

They changed it after that to the boys had to wear T-shirts with sleeves and under the sports jerseys.

I don't mind dress codes at all as long as they are fairly equal. Why are my shoulders distracting but that guy's giant hairy armpits are considered perfectly acceptable for public viewing?

None of what you described is allowed at my daughters school. All shirts need sleeves and collars, shorts or skirts must be a certain length, etc

[Chocolate Lover]

Jun 2, 2014 15:40:53 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

We had to wear tank tops with certain types of straps because bare shoulders were considered "distracting".

Several girls argued that the boys wearing sports jerseys and cut off T-shirts were just as distracting because we could see their hairy armpits and sometimes man boobs. Why aren't they being told to cover up?

They changed it after that to the boys had to wear T-shirts with sleeves and under the sports jerseys.

I don't mind dress codes at all as long as they are fairly equal. Why are my shoulders distracting but that guy's giant hairy armpits are considered perfectly acceptable for public viewing?

I think those stupid tank tops were addressed in our dress code (now there's a more stringent one, so I'm not worrying about current).  Spaghetti type straps still aren't allowed on out of uniform days for my kids.  We also had something about no distracting hair styles/colors.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

I went to school in the 90's/2000's when they were just rolling out new dress codes. I see nothing wrong with female students having pointed out when creating the policy that the guys wore some pretty distracting stuff that should be addressed as well. I didn't want to see side boob on anyone of any gender.

I think those stupid tank tops were addressed in our dress code

We had to wear straps that were two inches at the seam. You could wear a shell and still not conform because the "seam" wasn't long enough. I gave up and just wore a white button down over everything and took it off after class.    I'll probably encourage  a jean jacket or something with Gwen.  It's way easier than having to take a ruler to ever top to check the sleeve seams.

You'd think by now they'd just change it to all shirts have to have sleeves but I guess nobody's bothered to actually update the dress code since 2001.

[Wisconsin Beth]

I had uniforms from 1st grade to HS graduation (from an all girls school.)  And we didn't get a lot of choices like the same schools have now.  I think "spiritwear" is a great fundraiser. 

[justme]

They're probably not too short on the guys - but there's a decent chance they're not wearing a belt or the shorts aren't fitted around the hip. 

I was going to school the same time frame as DQ and everyone was made to stand up - arms by your side - to check for length. Then, if your shirt wasn't tucked in (or if there was a lot over flowing) you had to lift it up to make sure you were wearing a belt and your bottoms were up on your hips. I forget whether tank tops had to be 2 or 3 fingers width.

[justme]

I'll probably encourage a jean jacket or something with Gwen. It's way easier than having to take a ruler to ever top to check the sleeve seams.

I always had a jacket with me and wore it during dresscode check and when I was in the halls between class. Though I was apparently on the teachers good side because I only ever got popped for it in class with a sub or when an admin came in and I didn't get my jacket on in time. 

[Virgil Showlion]

Dear Employer,

Don't humiliate me because I am wearing a Speedo. It's hot outside. Instead of shaming men* for their bodies, teach women that men are not sexual objects.

Sincerely,

Virgil


Now I get to wear a Speedo to work.   At last we have achieved cultural enlightenment!

*as in: all men everywhere, not just me; see what I did there?

[Virgil Showlion]

At the same time we are telling girls they have to be responsible for how boys act, we are telling boys that they are not capable of controlling their own behavior.

You're telling the boys not to sexualize the girls at the same time you're giving them a direct line of sight to the girls' curvaceous legs.

It may come as a surprise to you that teenage boys cannot "switch off" sexual attractions to teenage girls.

[Chocolate Lover]

Jun 2, 2014 15:54:55 GMT -5 @tbird said:

Thankfully - we are done with this! Graduation is tomorrow night!




I hadn't really thought about these things in detail before DD went to HS.

First off - I agree 100% with shanendoahs post.

Second - what I've heard from the girls (DD and Co.) is how haphazardly these are enforced.  It is based on gut reactions from whoever is doing the "checking". Girls with curves and shapely legs are routinely "checked", reprimanded, and made to change/sent home whereas an extremely thin girl with no curves and legs like pencils will wear the exact same clothes and nothing is ever said - they breeze through the day without teachers or guards calling them on it.

And - in fact - the shapely girls are frequently "checked" for compliance when their clothes are in compliance - because they are deemed to be "wrong" somehow for having curvy figures.

the other issue is the temps - as stated in the OP article. These schools should get aircon - or cancel classes if the temps are 85 or above.

It was haphazardly enforced when I was in school too. The cheerleaders always got away with what the rest of the population couldn't. I never got in trouble b/c I was wearing baggy stuff anyway. 


ETA: baggy as in oversized, not as in falling off/not fitting. 

[Tiny]

Jun 2, 2014 16:18:52 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

At the same time we are telling girls they have to be responsible for how boys act, we are telling boys that they are not capable of controlling their own behavior.

You're telling the boys not to sexualize the girls at the same time you're giving them a direct line of sight to the girls' curvaceous legs.

It may come as a surprise to you that teenage boys cannot "switch off" sexual attractions to teenage girls.

Hmmm, the boys and men are uncontrollable 'animals' - be careful that never goes any where good (unless it involves cages, whips, and chains.....  

The real answer to this is that they need to learn how to  sublimate.    It's easy... guys get angry and they manage to NOT kill who ever made them angry (even though they could) how did they learn to control that 'emotion' or 'response'?    Men and women use sublimation all the time to get thru life.   Teenage boys should be working on these skills. 

[achelois]

Jun 2, 2014 16:18:52 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

At the same time we are telling girls they have to be responsible for how boys act, we are telling boys that they are not capable of controlling their own behavior.

You're telling the boys not to sexualize the girls at the same time you're giving them a direct line of sight to the girls' curvaceous legs.

It may come as a surprise to you that teenage boys cannot "switch off" sexual attractions to teenage girls.

Yay, Burqas for every girl. No line of sight for anything. 


I would like like to bring back uniforms, though. 

[Wisconsin Beth]

Jun 2, 2014 16:18:52 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

At the same time we are telling girls they have to be responsible for how boys act, we are telling boys that they are not capable of controlling their own behavior.

You're telling the boys not to sexualize the girls at the same time you're giving them a direct line of sight to the girls' curvaceous legs.

It may come as a surprise to you that teenage boys cannot "switch off" sexual attractions to teenage girls.

And they have to learn to handle sexual attraction and their own bodies.  Girls shouldn't wear sweatpants so boys never get a hint of curvaceous leg.  That doesn't help anyone - it just reaffirms that males are lust-ridden idiots who can't control themselves and females are responsible for how males act around them; with DNA crosses to bear because some curves are just genetic - I'm not saying you can't exercise your way to different shapes but DNA determines basic body size/hair/eye color/etc. 

And I've got to go, I'll see you all tomorrow. 

[hoops902]

So is the reason that boys can't wear speedos around the halls because girls can't control themselves?  It's not sexist if it applies to both sexes. 

[justme]

Jun 2, 2014 16:18:52 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

At the same time we are telling girls they have to be responsible for how boys act, we are telling boys that they are not capable of controlling their own behavior.

You're telling the boys not to sexualize the girls at the same time you're giving them a direct line of sight to the girls' curvaceous legs.

It may come as a surprise to you that teenage boys cannot "switch off" sexual attractions to teenage girls.

Oh please, that's a load of bull and you know it. 

[Spellbound454]

I agree with Virgil.....boys are a bubbling pot of hormones. They don't really need distracting. 

Anyway its a School not a fashion parade.

Over here our kids wear uniforms but girls will still find ways of un-buttoning the shirt or wearing jewellery to get attention.

...and the boys think its trendy to have their bums hanging out the back of their trousers.

[whoisjohngalt]

I am from the land of VERY restricted dress code.

Uniforms.  Not very short.  No nail polish, no hair "down".  No earrings or any other kind of jewelry.  No make up.  Short haircuts for boys.

The bottom line - you are all suppose to look the same.

I know those words sounds like they try to take away your freedom of expression and don't allow you to be who you are and blah blah blah - but in school?  I think that's a good thing. 

I know many people express themselves through their looks.  I don't get that.  I would prefer my kids expressed themselves through their actions. 

[justme]

boys are a bubbling pot of hormones

And girls are hormone-less?

I recall being quite distracted when the guys wore their game uniforms to school on the days of games. Apparently skin tight shirts are necessary to play football*, soccer, and baseball. I mean, it's not like the guys would wear things like that to get the girls to stare at them all day.  No siree. And all those skits where the guys always took off their shirts - purely integral to the skit.


*Magically the football jerseys were skin tight even though they weren't wearing their pads as they were walking the halls.

[whoisjohngalt]

Jun 2, 2014 17:00:25 GMT -5 justme said:

Jun 2, 2014 16:18:52 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

You're telling the boys not to sexualize the girls at the same time you're giving them a direct line of sight to the girls' curvaceous legs.

It may come as a surprise to you that teenage boys cannot "switch off" sexual attractions to teenage girls.

Oh please, that's a load of bull and you know it. 

Except it's not.

Our brain is very much programmed to look at things that interest us.

[justme]

Jun 2, 2014 17:05:07 GMT -5 whoisjohngalt said:

Jun 2, 2014 17:00:25 GMT -5 justme said:

Oh please, that's a load of bull and you know it. 

Except it's not.

Our brain is very much programmed to look at things that interest us.

My point is that it's not specific to just the boys. Girls are programmed just like guys. Actually almost worse - pep rallies were deafening when the guys took their shirts off...way louder than when the girls came out out of dress code.


Well, I have two points, in that people are perfectly capable of turning it off. Yes, even hormone fueled teenagers. Can they not always? Is it a learning process? Do they sometimes forget/choose not to turn it off? Yup. But if they could NEVER turn it off, no one would every graduate during high school.