Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jun 3, 2014 14:38:20 GMT -5
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! I'm quite sure of that. Because what does it matter if it never will happen? What good is a failed theory? What good is a scientist who says marshmallows "should" grow on trees so that everyone can enjoy cheap and plentiful marshmallows? I'm an engineer and I care what will happen if I plant a marshmallow in the ground. If that makes me a callous sonofagun, so be it.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,720
|
Post by midjd on Jun 3, 2014 14:42:05 GMT -5
I thought you weren't going to be sucked back into this?
|
|
quince
Senior Member
Joined: Sept 23, 2011 17:51:12 GMT -5
Posts: 2,699
|
Post by quince on Jun 3, 2014 14:42:14 GMT -5
If someone is distracted by a girl/boy because of them just existing, regardless of what clothing they are busy existing IN, it is the problem of the distracted person to take action to manage, not the "distracting" person. If the "distracting" person is actually going up to the distracted person and getting in their face, literally shaking their butt/waving their arms/shouting, THEN it is a problem actually caused by the "distracting" person.
Bad reasons to have a school dress code: The sight of hairy male armpit is distracting Shoulders are distracting Midriff is distracting The area of the thigh beginning more than an inch above the knee is provocative Curves are distracting Muscles are distracting Boobs. BOOBS! BOOOOOBS!
Good reasons to have a school dress code: No flowing clothing or danging jewelry around machinery in shop class. Covered shoes in lab. Appropriate clothing and footwear and no jewelry for phys ed. School has uniformly applied and enforced standards of appropriate attire.
The idea that bare skin makes people lose control is ridiculous, unless they have an untreated mental illness.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Jun 3, 2014 14:44:04 GMT -5
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.
Fair enough, but let's more closely examine "appropriate for the setting." Who gets to decide what's appropriate for what setting and why is that set of standards used? It's a very subjective opinion on what's approrpiate and what's not, even if you don't bring the opposite gender into it at all. A dress code tries to turn very subjective opinions into very unsubjective rules. In other words, they gotta draw the line somewhere. So what do you think is appropriate, and more importantly, why is something NOT appropriate, if it's not a distraction?
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Jun 3, 2014 14:44:50 GMT -5
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! I'm quite sure of that. Those who ignore reality to focus on their fantasy will find they usually don't have good outcomes in either. We have to acknowledge the world we live in, ignoring it will not cause it to change to suite our desires.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,090
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Jun 3, 2014 14:48:49 GMT -5
So where do the small running shorts my elementary school Phys Ed teacher used to wear fall? Cause it sure was distracting when he'd forget and not keep his legs closed. Gotta love the 80's.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Jun 3, 2014 14:53:10 GMT -5
So what do you think is appropriate, and more importantly, why is something NOT appropriate, if it's not a distraction? Personally, I think schools should have the right to have dress codes that require safe, comfortable clothing that is appropriate. Those things will vary widely in different locations, so I could not come up with a single code that would be appropriate for all areas.
Whatever the determinations each area uses for making their code, one of the reasons for the code should not be that the clothing choices of one gender are too distracting to the other gender, or that the clothing choices of one gender are used to teach the other gender anything or that the clothing choices of one gender are used to prevent bad behavior on the part of the other gender.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Jun 3, 2014 15:01:34 GMT -5
Those who ignore reality to focus on their fantasy will find they usually don't have good outcomes in either. We have to acknowledge the world we live in, ignoring it will not cause it to change to suite our desires. And yet - medieval days are quite behind us..... So if a young woman in a conservative islamic state decides to go out unescorted wearing a halter top and daisy dukes she should not be at all surprised by what may happen? Bit of an extreme example but the say we should be oblivious to our surroundings only invites risk and exposure. Somehow I don't think you are advocating women increasing their risk, or are you to make your point at someone elses expense?
|
|
quince
Senior Member
Joined: Sept 23, 2011 17:51:12 GMT -5
Posts: 2,699
|
Post by quince on Jun 3, 2014 15:04:05 GMT -5
Also, the whole idea that wearing "revealing" clothing is always done to draw the attention of men... My husband and I go to nudist camps. Neither of us are going to draw the attention of men. (at least, I'm not. ) Sexualizing nudity is actually a big no-no at the places we go. When I train in Aikido, I just wear a sports bra under my gi. No shirt. How immodest! But cooler when training. Much cooler. I traded in a bathing suit with a skirt and top that covered my belly for a two piece that shows more skin- it dries off more quickly than one with extra cloth. Not everything is about men.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,090
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Jun 3, 2014 15:06:54 GMT -5
My husband and I go to nudist camps. The things I learn about people on public message boards!
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Jun 3, 2014 15:16:00 GMT -5
So if a young woman in a conservative islamic state decides to go out unescorted wearing a halter top and daisy dukes she should not be at all surprised by what may happen? Bit of an extreme example but the say we should be oblivious to our surroundings only invites risk and exposure. Somehow I don't think you are advocating women increasing their risk, or are you to make your point at someone elses expense? I don't know what this means? While I don't agree that it's right, the fact remains that certain situations and behaviors put people at a higher risk of becoming a victim. Notice I'm saying people, not just women. It's completely naive to claim that no one should ever be victimized and therefore, don't be aware of the world as it is, only as it should be. If enough people are brutalized for behavior that should not have drawn attention, then maybe the world will change and the pervs will have to find other behaviors because society will no longer condon blaming the victim. I agree with pushing for change, I do not agree with ignoring currents risks as they exist - which is what you implied two posts ago.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Jun 3, 2014 15:38:05 GMT -5
Those who ignore reality to focus on their fantasy will find they usually don't have good outcomes in either. We have to acknowledge the world we live in, ignoring it will not cause it to change to suite our desires. And yet - medieval days are quite behind us..... So then what exactly did you mean by this? I stated we have to acknowledge the world we live in (responding to your post about not focusing on the present) and you stated it was no longer like medieval days. I took that to mean that women were safe nowadays as they are no longer considered property (at least in the US) and were not objects as they were in medieval times and thus were totally "safe"...
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Jun 3, 2014 15:57:40 GMT -5
So then what exactly did you mean by this? I stated we have to acknowledge the world we live in (responding to your post about not focusing on the present) and you stated it was no longer like medieval days. I took that to mean that women were safe nowadays as they are no longer considered property (at least in the US) and were not objects as they were in medieval times and thus were totally "safe"... that the world can change. Peoples can change. The expectations of society change. please elaborate on how a notation that medieval days are behind us translates into: ignoring currents risks as they exist - which is what you implied two posts ago.In message #200 Virgil specifically said he was interested in what will happen as opposed to what should happen. You focused on that and said he was only concerned with the present, without any thought toward the future. He's given some very sound arguments as to why it's more important to focus on current risks as opposed to possible future changes in societies views, and I agree with him on this point as I've demonstrated in my posts. Yet you've ignored those points and compared the desire to change to the views of medieval times. You've constantly focused on the change aspect and have not addressed, or in some cases, have deliberately attempted to misdirect the agruments for also focusing on current risk. Either I'm giving you too much credit for attempting to mis-direct (which I doubt, I've seen your posting style before) or you are being deliberately obtuse. Or maybe I'm completely mis-reading and maybe it's something else. So then, tell me, do you think women and girls need to be aware of the current risks posed to them by the views of society or should they only focus on changing those views?
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jun 3, 2014 16:18:45 GMT -5
Come to think of it - the poor gay guy in the locker room throughout homophobic history shows just how much control a teen guy is capable of. In a situation where even the slightest revelation of his attraction to other teen guys could result in catastrophic consequences for him - that inclination was well controlled, desires hidden. They certainly weren't acting out and harassing or groping other males. So your supposition is that gay males in locker rooms weren't distracted by the naked men he was in the locker room with? What are you claiming he hid? You think the locker room wasn't exactly the place male teens figured out who was gay and who wasn't? It doesn't apply to EVERY instance, just like girls wearing skimpy clothing doesn't apply to every straight male. The locker room is actually a perfect situation to contradict what you're saying. Lots of guys have been "outed" because they got distracted by naked males in the locker room.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,912
|
Post by zibazinski on Jun 3, 2014 16:26:18 GMT -5
Yuk.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 9, 2024 18:23:52 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2014 16:29:19 GMT -5
It doesn't prevent it all. Virgil, I very much prefer to look at reality. I feel it is the only way to make constructive decisions. You have posted that concealing clothing helps stop distraction and ogling. I have posted that in several nations today, this attitude goes to the extreme where showing eyes or women concealed entirely by fabric is viewed as too distracting. The logical conclusion to me, looking at history and current situations, is that ogling is a constant factor. More conservative dress on average just means different perceptions of "luring," up to and including venturing outside without a male related by blood in emergencies. Dress changes over time and among nations. The constant factor seems to be an idea that men do not have control; instead women by their dress, by their actions, by smarts, by intense control of their words and actions can minimize danger, but boys will be boys, they're powerless to their hormones. Because of that, I do not find recommendations to dress more conservatively to be an effective long-term solution; current nationwide situations show stances on conservative dress to be extremely variable; in some cases, only absence from areas and situations are viewed as allowing men to function. I also like to address critical issues with a long view, rather than weakly patch them. To that end, rather than leave an issue as "cover up," I'd like to address the constant: in this case, the wide spread perception boys are hormonal lost-causes from birth. As a realist/cynic, I believe that issues never go away, they just are handled with varying degrees of success and time spans. Rape will exist, but primarily addressing the constant rather than a nebulous factor seems logically sound to me. Just my take.
|
|
Pants
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 19:26:44 GMT -5
Posts: 7,579
|
Post by Pants on Jun 4, 2014 8:51:02 GMT -5
I just want to back up what Rukh said about girls not always dressing to get guy's attention. When I was in high school, it was much more about dressing to fit in with the other girls. If anyone has seen mean girls, it's the whole "On Wednesdays, we wear pink." thing. It was much more about ingroup-outgroup identification (which I know I've talked about on these threads before) than it was about the guys. Some of the girls somewhere along the line were probably dressing to get guys attention, but most of the girls I knew wanted to look cute to other girls so they weren't horribly mean to you.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 9, 2024 18:23:52 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2014 9:00:45 GMT -5
We live around the Amish. They definitely have a different standard. Yes, I have been ogled at different times. I'll either ignore it, or roll my eyes. But look all you want, not my problem. I will choose to deal with your wife and not you if I'm going to buy something.
However, touch me MFcker, and you'll lose a hand. It is not my responsibility to dress the way you think is appropriate. I don't care what connotation about me you draw from my outfit... I don't know you, your opinion of me means nothing to me and I'm willing to live with it...
But my outfit, is NOT an invitation... If society taught you it was, society is way WRONG.
|
|
Pants
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 19:26:44 GMT -5
Posts: 7,579
|
Post by Pants on Jun 4, 2014 9:24:15 GMT -5
I want to like Rukh's post like a billion times.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jun 4, 2014 9:29:28 GMT -5
::Even in a uniform environment - there are girls who can pull off making the uniform look more fashionable. And they're the ones who are at the top of popularity.::
No they aren't. Lots of ugly, fat, loner girls are fashionable, it doesn't make them popular. If you think school popularity is derived from fashion sense you're out of touch with reality. What the good looking/popular girls wear becomes the fashion standard. Fashion is derived from popularity, not the other way around.
|
|
Formerly SK
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 27, 2011 14:23:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,255
|
Post by Formerly SK on Jun 4, 2014 9:32:11 GMT -5
I think everyone gets distracted from a main point on these threads. Meaning, the main point of a dress code is that the school is saying "here's the line for how we want everyone to appear while at school." It's about professionalism, and no different than any employer on this planet who requires a dress code. Kids should learn how to dress for school so they are prepared to enter a world where they will have to dress a certain way for work. The dress code can be corporate casual, or suits, or jeans and steel-toed boots. The point is the employer dictates the code, and if you want to work there you comply. School is no different IMO. If a school does not want students wearing beach attire to class, that doesn't mean tank tops and short shorts are bad/evil, just that they are not acceptable for that school. IMO school administrators have every right to determine the clothing culture of their students/staff and what is acceptable/unacceptable.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jun 4, 2014 9:39:06 GMT -5
::The point is the employer dictates the code, and if you want to work there you comply. School is no different IMO.::
Of course it's different. A school is not an employer of students.
::IMO school administrators have every right to determine the clothing culture of their students/staff and what is acceptable/unacceptable. ::
Here is exactly why a school is not the same as an employer. An employer could require that all their people wear tiny bikinis that show off their bodies. A school cannot. A school works for the community. It isn't up to the school to determine what is acceptable and unacceptable (because a school can't determine that dressing like a slut is the only acceptable standard with any sense of reality).
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,385
|
Post by movingforward on Jun 4, 2014 9:44:43 GMT -5
I think everyone on this board knows that what a woman wears does NOT give anyone the right to sexually assault her, and since sexual assault is more about power than anything else what a woman wears actually has no correlation in most instances. Most women are sexually assaulted by people they know, not from a random person (though it does happen). If a man chooses to stare a woman because he finds her attractive or she is showing a little skin then who cares. She can either tell him to put his eyes back in his head or feel good that he finds her attractive. I am not sure what any of this has to do with a school dress code...
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,385
|
Post by movingforward on Jun 4, 2014 9:48:49 GMT -5
::The point is the employer dictates the code, and if you want to work there you comply. School is no different IMO.:: Of course it's different. A school is not an employer of students. ::IMO school administrators have every right to determine the clothing culture of their students/staff and what is acceptable/unacceptable. :: Here is exactly why a school is not the same as an employer. An employer could require that all their people wear tiny bikinis that show off their bodies. A school cannot. A school works for the community. It isn't up to the school to determine what is acceptable and unacceptable (because a school can't determine that dressing like a slut is the only acceptable standard with any sense of reality).I agree with this highlighted statement; however, having a simplistic school dress code which states shorts have to be X inches long, etc. just sets the standards of what is and isn't appropriate in certain situations. I see nothing wrong with that since this is something kids will have to deal with once they become adults.
|
|
Formerly SK
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 27, 2011 14:23:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,255
|
Post by Formerly SK on Jun 4, 2014 10:34:30 GMT -5
::The point is the employer dictates the code, and if you want to work there you comply. School is no different IMO.:: Of course it's different. A school is not an employer of students. ::IMO school administrators have every right to determine the clothing culture of their students/staff and what is acceptable/unacceptable. :: Here is exactly why a school is not the same as an employer. An employer could require that all their people wear tiny bikinis that show off their bodies. A school cannot. A school works for the community. It isn't up to the school to determine what is acceptable and unacceptable (because a school can't determine that dressing like a slut is the only acceptable standard with any sense of reality). Funny, I tell my kids "school is your job" all the time. As to your other point, a community could have 15 schools in it. So no, a community can't dictate everything and frankly I don't know that they should. The concept is no different than a store saying "no shirts/no shoes/no service" or a restaurant requiring men wear coat/ties, or a church being casual vs formal. Society requires all sort of situational attire rules, and kids need to learn that.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 9, 2024 18:23:52 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2014 10:36:49 GMT -5
I think the compulsory nature of school is an issue though. I can choose where I shop, if I work in a certain environment, etc... School is compulsory.
|
|
Formerly SK
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 27, 2011 14:23:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,255
|
Post by Formerly SK on Jun 4, 2014 10:53:33 GMT -5
And if a parent doesn't like a certain dress code, or the fact a school does/does not require uniforms, they can always change schools. Notice I said the parent, because I honestly don't give a damn if my kids don't like the fact their school requires their shirts have sleeves (which it does).
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 9, 2024 18:23:52 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2014 10:57:28 GMT -5
Yeah, I don't tend to think individual rights start at age 18...
|
|
quince
Senior Member
Joined: Sept 23, 2011 17:51:12 GMT -5
Posts: 2,699
|
Post by quince on Jun 4, 2014 11:05:15 GMT -5
I think the compulsory nature of school is an issue though. I can choose where I shop, if I work in a certain environment, etc... School is compulsory. I keep thinking this and forgetting to post it. Oped posted it for me! I honestly hate the idea of uniforms. But I am so, so much more OK with it than gender specific dress code, either in enforcement or parameter. I do have issues with the cost of being forced to buy uniforms for public school, though.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,385
|
Post by movingforward on Jun 4, 2014 11:06:38 GMT -5
How do you define individual right? If your 5 yr old plays in the mud and you ask him to leave his shoes at the door because you don't want mud on the carpet is it his individual right to decide he wants to leave them on?
|
|