School dress codes are sexist?

[justme]

Sigh, I was not going to comment again because I felt like I was going around and around...

I never said there should be no dress code.

I have said there shouldn't be a dress code based on what females wear that could be distracting to the males. Male are not that fragile and dumb.

I personally think that dress codes should have clear, immovable guidelines. No finger tip length, nothing measured by the person's body. Shorts need to be at least 10" long. Shirts must have sleeves. All bottoms must be floor length. Clear, concrete guidelines. 

FWIW - none of my shorts come near finger tip length. And my ass is not hanging out of a single one of them.

[kent]

At my old place of employment my supervisor actually did this at a meeting . She wore a white shirt with a black bra. The first time she did this I thought maybe she was just in a rush and made a mistake (it can happen). The 2nd time she did it the staff was talking about how desperate she looked and since I was second in command I felt like I needed to say something to her. She told me she was trying to be sexy. I didn't know what to say to this... she was a 60 yr old woman. I am not saying that 60 yr old women can't be sexy but it was when it is so obvious that you are TRYING that hard it doesn't exactly come across as sexy but rather as desperate and/or seeking attention.

I was on the job at a new company for about 2 weeks when I got a call about an older woman (late 50's maybe) and her manner of dress - the CFO didn't know what to do about it (public sector PC place).

Anyway, I took a walk through the area to see for myself.  Holy cow!  She had on a full length "dress" (looked more like a full length tee shirt) that must have been stone washed about 1,000 times and, at best, was somewhat opaque and she had nothing on underneath - sigh.

I told him to send her home, without pay, and instruct her to never show up in anything even remotely like that.  I got a little bit of "Can we do that" routine but prevailed nonetheless.

About a week later I'm in traffic on the way home and stopped at a light.  The person in front of me is blowing soap bubbles out her window - guess who?  Got to love CA 

[achelois]

So what can we do about men's hormonal problems so they don't continue to objectify women? 

[Wisconsin Beth]

Virgil, women aren't chocolate cakes.  They aren't vices.  They're people - they have dreams, lusts and needs just like men do.  Comparing women this way is not valuing them and it's demeaning. 

And I'm off the boards for the rest of the day. 

ETA - I'm not being driven away, I'm choosing to remove myself from a distraction to focus on my work. 

[Cookies Galore]

Jun 3, 2014 12:59:35 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jun 3, 2014 12:39:57 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Seriously, you are comparing women's bodies to chocolate cake?

They say most women prefer chocolate to sex. Men, on the other hand, greatly prefer the sex.

The point of the analogy is that ogling girls is a temptation to boys. They know they're not supposed to do it. They know you've told them not to do it. But the temptation is there. In their faces. The heart wants what it wants.

I thought chocolate was innocuous enough an example, but if you don't like it use alcohol or gambling or any other vice that suits you.

WOMEN ARE NOT THINGS!!!!!!!!!!!

[The Captain]

Along with the women are not things line...

It's kinda hard to take that track when so many of us just treat ourselves like everything we've rallied against on this tread just to get ahead/publicity:


celebrity.yahoo.com/news/rihannas-sparkly-sheer-dress-more-stars-riskiest-looks-143000432-us-weekly.html

There are a significant number of women who use their bodies as sexual objects to get ahead, yet we don't slam them but instead get riled up against a school that asks girls to adhere to a dress code.

I think our focus is in the wrong area, personally.

[milee]

Jun 3, 2014 12:59:35 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jun 3, 2014 12:39:57 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Seriously, you are comparing women's bodies to chocolate cake?

They say most women prefer chocolate to sex. Men, on the other hand, greatly prefer the sex.

The point of the analogy is that ogling girls is a temptation to boys. They know they're not supposed to do it. They know you've told them not to do it. But the temptation is there. In their faces. The heart wants what it wants.

I thought chocolate was innocuous enough an example, but if you don't like it use alcohol or gambling or any other vice that suits you.

But Virgil, no matter if you use the other examples - from chocolate cake to alcohol to gambling - they all involve men and inanimate objects, objects with no feelings or desires or innate intelligence. There's a fundamental and very important difference.

You don't hurt the chocolate cake or alcohol or slot machine when you ban it, control it or get rid of it because it doesn't know or care.  When you attempt to control, ban or get rid of women, you are hurting an actual person.  A person.  Big, big difference. 

[justme]

Recently I saw something that really hit home for me. Ya know how, often, when guys are doing/saying bad things about a woman people chime in with a "imagine if she was your sister/mom/gf"  to try and get to relate to why what they're doing is a bad thing? 



I've never heard someone say to a female "imagine if he was your son" in similar instances.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jun 3, 2014 13:14:32 GMT -5 Wisconsin Beth said:

Virgil, women aren't chocolate cakes.  They aren't vices.  They're people - they have dreams, lusts and needs just like men do.  Comparing women this way is not valuing them and it's demeaning. 

Ogling women is a vice. I'm saying you can repeat "Women are not sexual objects; do not ogle them..." as a mantra in a high school classroom from dusk until dawn, you'll get a significant percentage of the class nodding their heads and then completely ignoring your advice, a significant percentage telling you they don't care what you believe and to shove your advice where the sun doesn't shine, and a significant percentage that won't have paid enough attention to even repeat what you've said.

The whole "let's forgo modesty to teach boys a lesson about not objectifying women" presumes these significant percentages don't exist. It's blind idealism and it's bad policy. A dress code means students don't have any incentive to ogle other students, and nobody needs to worry that the person behind them is checking out their can. You've created an environment where the students without the slightest interest in exercising willpower don't have to.

[milee]

Jun 3, 2014 11:09:16 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

So, to try and tie this back to my original post.

Milee, Shannendoah, Justme and others are arguing that school dress codes are sexist and girls should be able to wear whatever they please.  And that dress codes are a part of rape culture that makes girls responsible for boys actions.  And this girl in the original article is in the right and standing up against rape culture, and was justified in wearing short shorts?

Do I have that right?

What's the solution then, not have a dress code?

I didn't say that. I can see both sides of this debate and said so in post 115. 

[The Captain]

Jun 3, 2014 13:27:55 GMT -5 @tbird said:

Jun 3, 2014 13:22:18 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Along with the women are not things line...

It's kinda hard to take that track when so many of us just treat ourselves like everything we've rallied against on this tread just to get ahead/publicity:


celebrity.yahoo.com/news/rihannas-sparkly-sheer-dress-more-stars-riskiest-looks-143000432-us-weekly.html

There are a significant number of women who use their bodies as sexual objects to get ahead, yet we don't slam them but instead get riled up against a school that asks girls to adhere to a dress code.

I think our focus is in the wrong area, personally.

A lot of women do sell themselves - strippers, prostitutes, porn stars, trophy wives, gold diggers, whathaveyou. 

If that is what an individual chooses to do - then so what?


Still - they are free to negotiate their own price, determine with whom they will do business, etc. 

And no still means no.

Where has anyone implied otherwise in this thread, just name one? Or is that just an attempt to shut down the conversation?

[Chocolate Lover]

Jun 3, 2014 11:56:48 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Jun 3, 2014 11:33:02 GMT -5 Chocolate Lover said:

Sort of like we'll never get how much it hurts to get kicked in the balls?  I think it's hard for a guy to really REALLY understand the feeling you get when some guy invades your personal space, even if they are "ONLY" standing too close. As milee and others pointed out, whatever kind of physical shape I'm in, I will not win that fight IF he intends to start one. 

Yes, almost anyone will feel uncomfortable with someone in their space, but the difference is, YOU (the general male you) can do something about it. 

I don't know.  From personal experience, people who complain about getting too much attention from the opposite sex kinda seems like people complaining about making too much money.  I can see how random people coming up to you and telling you to smile would be annoying.  And I can see how awkward and uncomfortable it would be to have someone stand too close to you, or even touch you.

I get that, but still, personally I'd kill for a bit of notice from the opposite sex.

Attention is good. Creepy, standing too close, making insinuations at someone is not. Let alone them touching me. 

For the record, I don't and have never had "too much attention". I've had the wrong kind here and there... the whistling at from a passing car, the ass grab in line at the snack bar in HS, the above mentioned hovering dude. (who was also the boss, ick)...FIL thinking I'd cave if he only hit on me enough <<shudder>>.... I've probably forgotten more that I recall honestly because I've learned to dismiss it as someone being stupid. 

[zibazinski]

Seriously? Men/boys who dress inappropriate for the situation at hand are judged just as harshly as women/girls that do. 

[Spellbound454]

As I said, I really would like uniforms because it eliminates much of this problem. Everyone is dressed the same, so nothing to look at and therefore no distractions due to clothing, whether bizarre or immodest.

Parents like the School uniforms in Britain.
Once the kids is kitted out, there is no argument about what they are going to wear.
There is no pressure to buy the latest hugely expensive fad clothes.... just to keep up with the joneses.
Its not a competitive fashion parade which can be a distraction from what they are in School for.
They are never inappropriately dressed. 
The uniform goes in the wash at the end of the week..... and your kid is always smart and clean.

The better the structure is in a School...the better they learn.

I've got a class of polite and co-operative kids....They didn't arrive that way...

[milee]

Jun 3, 2014 13:29:32 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jun 3, 2014 13:14:32 GMT -5 Wisconsin Beth said:

The whole "let's forgo modesty to teach boys a lesson about not objectifying women" presumes these significant percentages don't exist. It's blind idealism and it's bad policy.

[bold and underline added by me to show what I'm responding to.]

I don't think the primary debate is about changing the dress code to teach the boys a lesson. It's about not putting the burden of the boys issues onto the girls.  Very different things.

Again, you keep looking at this solely from the point of the boys and what it means to them. The point is that the boys need to worry about their own behavior and issues without putting that on the girls. Talking about changing or examining school dress codes for girls isn't about punishing boys, or tempting boys or frankly anything to do with boys.  It's about the girls and if they're comfortable for the weather and appropriate for the setting.  That's what we should be talking about - if the girls' clothes are comfy for the weather and appropriate for the setting.  The impact of those clothes on the boys should be irrelevant and not part of the debate.

[The Captain]

Jun 3, 2014 13:41:48 GMT -5 milee said:

Jun 3, 2014 13:29:32 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

The whole "let's forgo modesty to teach boys a lesson about not objectifying women" presumes these significant percentages don't exist. It's blind idealism and it's bad policy.

[bold and underline added by me to show what I'm responding to.]

I don't think the primary debate is about changing the dress code to teach the boys a lesson. It's about not putting the burden of the boys issues onto the girls.  Very different things.

Again, you keep looking at this solely from the point of the boys and what it means to them. The point is that the boys need to worry about their own behavior and issues without putting that on the girls. Talking about changing or examining school dress codes for girls isn't about punishing boys, or tempting boys or frankly anything to do with boys.  It's about the girls and if they're comfortable for the weather and appropriate for the setting.  That's what we should be talking about - if the girls' clothes are comfy for the weather and appropriate for the setting.  The impact of those clothes on the boys should be irrelevant and not part of the debate.

I wish I could like this 1000X's. Problem is, what one person considers approrpriate...

[Spellbound454]

I tell my girls re: make-up.....one especially, whose definition of "discreet" was to put it on with a trowel

"This is a School not a night club....you are 14 not 18. The idea is to make yourself look sparkly and pretty....and not as rough as old houses".

They'll always try to push the boundaries.....but they are clueless......as kids often are.
They might see Rhianna walking around in a bra......or Miley waggling her arse in peoples faces....and think that its normal

Well what might be normal for a 23 year old pole dancer...... is not ok for kids.

[zibazinski]

I had to have the talk with DS. I sure didnt want my EX to handle anything because his attitudes are not what I wanted DS to learn.  Including the part where some girls dress provactively but don't mean the message they're sending. It's okay to look but don't touch. Try NOT to leer because it isn't nice or good manners. No means NO even if you're in the middle of anything. Get off, get dressed, go home and don't look back. DD got a talk as well.  I was an equal opportunity annoying parent. 

[Spellbound454]

Wish I had a penny for every time I said..."You are not going out in that"

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

Problem is, what one person considers approrpriate

I think that a lot of that could be solved by taking out things like "finger length" and replacing them with terms that aren't as up to interpretation.

It was (and probably still is) a huge mess to enforce the tank top dress code in our system because it's so up to interpretation as to what exactly "2 inch seam length" needs to mean. Some literally took it as the seam, then other teachers as long as your bra straps were covered didn't say a word. So you could be fine in English class and by Psych class be in the principal's office.

Changing to all shirts must have sleeves solves the problem. Then it doesn't matter what kind of straps your top has, it doesn't have sleeves so it's out, period.

Instead of saying "finger length" which is open for a lot of debate, make it "shorts must come down to the knee" instead. That's much easier to measure and a lot less open for interpretation.

The OSHA dress code I have to follow is simple for example.  My legs need to be completely covered, period. If I am wearing a knee length skirt I am in violation.   Very easy to inspect/enforce at a glance and it makes it easy for me to know how to dress.

Same with shoes, closed toed shoes.  Period.   I can't get away with peep toe while the guys get busted for sandals.  Closed toe means closed toe.  Very easy rule to follow because it's straight forward.

[hoops902]

Why do we assume this is about boys ogling girls?  Isn't the real issue attractivness?  Boys aren't ogling 400 lb chicks with cottage cheese thighs in daisy dukes, they're trying not to vomit.  Girls aren't ogling boys in speedos who are ugly and/or fat, but they do if he's a model.  Both genders will ogle those they find attractive.  ::It's about the girls and if they're comfortable for the weather and appropriate for the setting.::

Agree, but I'd argue that "appropriate for the setting" has a LOT to do with who you're in that setting with.  If the setting is "hotel room on a school trip" I see nothing wrong with only girls in the room being in their underwear.  That's probably not appropriate in the same "hotel room on a school trip" setting where it's a mix of boys and girls.

Boys in a locker room after the game...being naked is fine.  Boys in a locker room after their game with their female coach...being naked would be inappropriate.

It's not just setting, people in that setting matter.

[Deleted]

Jun 3, 2014 13:29:32 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

The whole "let's forgo modesty to teach boys a lesson about not objectifying women" presumes these significant percentages don't exist. It's blind idealism and it's bad policy. A dress code means students don't have any incentive to ogle other students, and nobody needs to worry that the person behind them is checking out their can. You've created an environment where the students without the slightest interest in exercising willpower don't have to.

Virgil, I'm just going to toss this out there:  DH does work in Saudi Arabia.  It was explained to him that women "lure men with their eyes" unless the women cover their eyes with cloth or mesh as well.

Hormones rage regardless. If men know that under a shapeless sack a woman exists, imagination fills in the blanks. It's part of the explanation for why women are segregated out in some countries; it's argued that even fully covered, their existence near men is too distracting.

Truthfully, I get the impression that it's blind idealism to believe that covering women enough will prevent lust; lust thresholds are nebulous and shifting.  I do also find it kind of bizarre that entire countries believe that their males have little to no control over their emotions and hormones, yet are explained to be the logical choice for major decisions.

Just my impressions, take them for what you will     

[hoops902]

::Instead of saying "finger length" which is open for a lot of debate, make it "shorts must come down to the knee" instead. That's much easier to measure and a lot less open for interpretation.::

No it's not, that's MUCH more open to inpretation than finger length.  Where do we measure on the knee?  Finger length is far more specific, just as "2 inch seam length" is very specific.  Your issue is with enforcement, not interpretation. 

::then other teachers as long as your bra straps were covered didn't say a word.::

Then other teachers are stupid.  2 inch seam is about as specific as you could possibly get.  But again, I think your issue is actually about enforcement.  I refuse to believe that teachers are simply unable to interpret what "2 inch seam" actually means in a consistent manner, it's just that they don't want to enforce the rule as written.

[Chocolate Lover]

Jun 3, 2014 14:06:33 GMT -5 @tbird said:

Jun 3, 2014 13:32:57 GMT -5 Chocolate Lover said:

Attention is good. Creepy, standing too close, making insinuations at someone is not. Let alone them touching me. 

For the record, I don't and have never had "too much attention". I've had the wrong kind here and there... the whistling at from a passing car, the ass grab in line at the snack bar in HS, the above mentioned hovering dude. (who was also the boss, ick)...FIL thinking I'd cave if he only hit on me enough <<shudder>>.... I've probably forgotten more that I recall honestly because I've learned to dismiss it as someone being stupid.  [img src="

huh?? ?? What?? ?? the hell?? ??

The man has no boundaries, never has. He'd never say anything way over the top with DH present and I've done what I can to forget specifics so I don't give DH too much grief for still liking his father. It was ugly for a while. I stopped spending time around him or letting my kids spend time with him a long time ago. 

[zibazinski]

Oh, boy, that opens up more worm cans, doesn't it? I never told my kids about defending themselves against unwanted same sex advances. Told them about everything else I could think of. Well, they're old enough now.

[hoops902]

Jun 3, 2014 14:12:43 GMT -5 @tbird said:

Jun 3, 2014 13:56:24 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

Why do we assume this is about boys ogling girls?  Isn't the real issue attractivness?  Boys aren't ogling 400 lb chicks with cottage cheese thighs in daisy dukes, they're trying not to vomit.  Girls aren't ogling boys in speedos who are ugly and/or fat, but they do if he's a model.  Both genders will ogle those they find attractive.  ::It's about the girls and if they're comfortable for the weather and appropriate for the setting.::

Agree, but I'd argue that "appropriate for the setting" has a LOT to do with who you're in that setting with.  If the setting is "hotel room on a school trip" I see nothing wrong with only girls in the room being in their underwear.  That's probably not appropriate in the same "hotel room on a school trip" setting where it's a mix of boys and girls.

Boys in a locker room after the game...being naked is fine.  Boys in a locker room after their game with their female coach...being naked would be inappropriate.

It's not just setting, people in that setting matter.

but the assumption is that everyone is heterosexual.

Who's assuming that?  You?

[Chocolate Lover]

Jun 3, 2014 14:14:57 GMT -5 @tbird said:

Jun 3, 2014 14:11:44 GMT -5 Chocolate Lover said:

The man has no boundaries, never has. He'd never say anything way over the top with DH present and I've done what I can to forget specifics so I don't give DH too much grief for still liking his father. It was ugly for a while. I stopped spending time around him or letting my kids spend time with him a long time ago. 

Thank god!

But - aside from you  - isn't this the biggest breach of trust that there is between a father and a son? aside from actually sexually violating the son himself?

Why would your DH continue a relationship with anyone who would try that with his wife?

It was "normal" to my DH. We've been together over a decade now and he's been around my actually normal family a lot more and has come to see what I was talking about but.... we talk all the time about how a kid loves their parents even when they shouldn't. 

His family is all sorts of dysfunctional. He has an aunt who thought nothing of giving her teenage nephews muscle relaxers and prescription pain meds for headaches. A couple of true sh!t stirring drama queens (both males of his parents generation) in the mix too. It really is crazy. I try to not take credit for his good points but I do wonder what would have happened if we hadn't met.  

[hoops902]

Jun 3, 2014 14:20:47 GMT -5 @tbird said:

Jun 3, 2014 14:19:04 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

Who's assuming that?  You?

your scenario is

Scenarios don't assume anything.  If you are making that assumption that's something different.  It's appropriate for straight or gay men to be naked together in a men's locker room.  It's not when there are women present, hence the term "men's locker room".  If there are boys and girls sharing the hotel room together at night, i'm ok with them all being in their underwear if they're sharing the same bedroom.  If any assumption is being made, it's that most schools don't allow that to happen on away trips.  The scenario is that you're in your underwear with people with whom you are sharing a bedroom.  I'm definitely assuming schools don't allow co-ed sleeping arrangements for the most part.

[Virgil Showlion]

The impact of those clothes on the boys should be irrelevant and not part of the debate.

And people should be able to buy a Happy Meal at McDonald's for $0.99.

I'm not interested in what should happen. I'm interested in what will happen. If you care about what will happen, the impact of the clothes on the boys and their behaviour towards girls is relevant.

This argument is going in a loop. We go from "girls should be able to wear short shorts" to "yes, but boys will ogle girls in short shorts" to "boys shouldn't ogle girls in short shorts" to "yes, but the reality is that boys still ogle girls in short shorts" to "so let's teach boys not to ogle girls in short shorts" to "many boys don't have the slightest inclination to follow that advice, even if they're paying attention; that's why dress codes exist" to "but dress codes mean that girls can't wear short shorts" to "yes, that's true; dress codes are not a panacea; they belie the notion that teenagers are bastions of willpower; but they are the lesser of two evils" all the way back to "but girls should be able to wear short shorts" ...

Hence before I'm facing down more claims that I think women are chocolate bars or that unattractive women can't be victimized or that moon bumblebees eat toast for breakfast, I will close the loop by referring interested readers back to my "yes, but boys will ogle girls in short shorts" Reply #34 and leave the debate in the capable hands of my anti-short-shorts-at-school brothers and sisters.

Fight on, good soldiers!

[Virgil Showlion]

Jun 3, 2014 13:59:22 GMT -5 @copperpouches said:

Jun 3, 2014 13:29:32 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

The whole "let's forgo modesty to teach boys a lesson about not objectifying women" presumes these significant percentages don't exist. It's blind idealism and it's bad policy. A dress code means students don't have any incentive to ogle other students, and nobody needs to worry that the person behind them is checking out their can. You've created an environment where the students without the slightest interest in exercising willpower don't have to.

Virgil, I'm just going to toss this out there:  DH does work in Saudi Arabia.  It was explained to him that women "lure men with their eyes" unless the women cover their eyes with cloth or mesh as well.

Hormones rage regardless. If men know that under a shapeless sack a woman exists, imagination fills in the blanks. It's part of the explanation for why women are segregated out in some countries; it's argued that even fully covered, their existence near men is too distracting.

Truthfully, I get the impression that it's blind idealism to believe that covering women enough will prevent lust; lust thresholds are nebulous and shifting.  I do also find it kind of bizarre that entire countries believe that their males have little to no control over their emotions and hormones, yet are explained to be the logical choice for major decisions.

Just my impressions, take them for what you will     

It doesn't prevent it all. But I provided milee with three studies a few pages back indicating dress is a factor. Anyway, you're not sucking me back into this. This thread is an endless loop that will kill us all.