Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When i was in school it was considered too short if you put your arms down and your shorts/skirt was shorter than your finger tips. They would tell you to change. They would also give you a belt to hold your pants up. No sleeveless tops either.
Kids still tried to get around it.
Im not for uniforms but I can see how they are beneficial.
So are you implying that had the vice-principles pulled her aside to explain to her that she was in violation of the dress code, rather than doing this in front of the class, she would not have had an issue? Perhaps the two vice-principals should have handled the situation differently. But I'm sure that she knew the particulars of the dress code and that there were consequences to deal with if she did not follow the code. In the article, her 15 year old friend explained what was acceptable and what was not. She stated that outfits are to be fingertip length. The young lady in question chose [for whatever reason] not abide by this rule. Then she proceeds to place the onus for her humiliation on the idea that 'rather than shaming girls for their bodies, boys should just be taught that women aren't sexual objects'.
Why does this young lady automatically assume that the school's policy is in some way "shaming girls for their bodies"? Why is she blaming this so called "shaming" on boys not being taught that women aren't sexual objects? Why does she absolve herself of any responsibility? When did we ever get to this place where every time there is a particular standard put in place, those who feel that they should not be held to this standard are being shamed in some way? Nobody said that she could not wear shorts. She just cannot wear shorts that are shorter than a particular length.
Also as I stated in my previous post, it seems rather odd that there is this lashing out at society for 'boys not being taught that women are not sexual objects' when women are their own worst enemy in this regard. It's hard for me to put the blame for this girl's perceived "shaming" when women are the very ones perpetuating everything that boys/men are accused of feeding into. The term "sex sells" is a truism that has been accepted since before most of us were born. It's kind of hard to blame the boys as the source of this young lady's shame when there are women getting rich based off the very idea that they can use their sexuality as an asset.
I will say that I agree with you that the two vice-principals should have handled this situation in a better way. But the girl also needs to assume the responsibility that she has in all of this as well. She wasn't singled out and "humiliated" because boys aren't being taught not to view women as sexual objects. She was singled out because her shorts were too short. Stop using terms like 'shaming' and 'victim blaming' every time someone feels that a particular standard shouldn't apply to them. At what point does a school get to draw the line and say that "these shorts are too short" without being accused of shaming somebody?
Yes. I do think it is likely that if the two vice-principals had handled the issue in private, as I have maintained they should have, then the student would not have gone on her campaign.
Why do I say that? Because the student would almost assuredly not then have felt that she had been shamed and humiliated in public. In turn, that means the first part of her argument (instead of shaming girls) would not have existed.
Now, you also said: "it seems rather odd that there is this lashing out at society for 'boys not being taught that women are not sexual objects' when women are their own worst enemy in this regard."
I totally reject your holding that "women are their own worst enemy in this regard".
By most anyone's measure, I'm an old codger. Now I'm not at all complaining about being old, because I know that it is a privilege denied to many. And I know too that if you listen well and watch closely, you will likely learn something with every passing day and a great deal with every passing year.
I'm grateful and fortunate to have learned a lot. And one thing I can say for certain is that men (inlcuding boys and young men) simply do not respect women in the way that we were taught to and did in my generation.
In my dating and courting days, the level of rapes and date rapes (the reported ones) simply did not come anywhere near what you hear about today -- to say nothing of the fact that rape was punishable by death in some states back then. But what I really believe is that men on average had much more self-control and self respect in my time. I would have felt incredible shame had I offended a woman in a sexual manner, and I know that was the culture and prevailing feeling back then.
Of course, times change and cultures change with time. Today sex is really prevalent everywhere, and what I think has driven this change more than anything is our media and the changes in our media and Hollywood in particular. Moreover, I think Hollywood and its movies are and have been the real leader, which includes both the big screen stuff, videos and today's porn fest and porn industry.
Am I supposed to believe that women have secretly been in control of Hollywood and the other media counterparts all along. I know better, and I think everyone does too. Because Hollywood is an old boys club that is incredibly dominated by one particular group and this always has been true and nothing really has changed.
So who do I truly believe have lead this tremendous change in our sexual culture and mores? My answer is absolutely: men. Not women. Men, particularly men in Hollywood.
If nothing else, this sort of thing was one reason some people advocate separating genders (which IMO, still not enough of a reason, although there was a study that girls do worse academically when mixed in with boys).
They didn't say that shorts were outlawed. They said that hers were tooshort. Big difference. Probably the same could be said for a hemline or neckline. It sounds like a private school but could be public. Maybe they shouldn't have singled her out in front of the class, yes her poor self-esteem (that seems to be all anyone is concerned with these days). But still, rules are rules. Worked in a town where the private school that the town used had tougher dress codes. For girls AND boys. She is deflecting when she says it is about boys behavior not about thelength of her shorts. Try going to work in the real world (yes I know, this is just school). Wife worked in a library where the director made a female employee to go home and change. Because her skirt hemline was too short (and it was). It doesn't just happen in school.
I finally saw a photograph of her shorts and they were very, very short perhaps the inseam length was an inch or so (it was hard to tell). If she was my height that would put her shorts at 12 or 13 inches above the top of her knees.
Now you couldn't see the back of her shorts in the picture, but with an inseam that small the shorts may or may not have covered her butt cheeks depending on her shape & how the shorts were cut (see post below).
Quote:
Originally Posted by veuvegirl
I never understood the rules of no short shorts until my niece, 15, came over and her butt was completely hanging out. They definitely handled it wrong, but I am sure the girl knew she was breaking the dress code.
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,164,711 times
Reputation: 8105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler
But the purpose of school is learning and provocative dress can be a distraction to learning.
Yes ...... the distraction is bad enough even when the girl is dressed in baggy unsexy clothes, there's no need to add fuel to the fire by showing off the goods. I'm sure most of us can remember our high school years, and what would happen when a cheerleader in short skirt sat down next to us in Algebra class.
There's no reason that girls can't be taught to dress modestly, AND teach boys that girls are not sexual objects...... or at least try to think of them as people first, and sexual objects second.
Everyone arguing that she should not have had attention called to her is enforcing what is wrong with schools today. SHE broke the rules, so, she should be told to change. It does not matter if she was told this in front of others. We worry so much about kids, their rights, and their self-esteem these days that many kids believe it is okay to break the rules. I have to dress a certain way for my job. I can't wear short cut-off jean shorts, but I don't think it has anything to do with how the guys at work may act. It is about dressing appropriately for the situation. School is not the place to be scantily dressed.
If a fully grown man finds a GIRL's (not a woman's) attire too sexy, perhaps he should consider that GIRLS are not sexual creatures. MEN and WOMEN are sexual creatures (not objects), but BOYS and GIRLS are not.
Yes. I do think it is likely that if the two vice-principals had handled the issue in private, as I have maintained they should have, then the student would not have gone on her campaign.
Why do I say that? Because the student would almost assuredly not then have felt that she had been shamed and humiliated in public. In turn, that means the first part of her argument (instead of shaming girls) would not have existed.
Again, I can agree with most of this, especially your point about how the two vice-principals should've handled this situation in another way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wudge
Now, you also said: "it seems rather odd that there is this lashing out at society for 'boys not being taught that women are not sexual objects' when women are their own worst enemy in this regard."
I totally reject your holding that "women are their own worst enemy in this regard".
This is something that we are going to have to agree to disagree on. Unlike yourself, I cannot absolve women of all responsibility for promoting the feminine form with erotic intent. There are so many examples of women perpetuating the idea of using sexual fantasy to gain male attention. A prime example is Victoria's Secret, (CEO's of both corporate divisions are women btw) and their practice of referring to their world famous models as "Angels". The models are primped and prepped in erotic designed accessories with the purpose of intensifying the viewing pleasure of men. Why? Men aren't even the company's intended market. Tell me how these models are doing all they can to promote the strength, intellect and influence that women want to embody. They don't, everything they embody is visually erotic. Are you going to tell me that the CEO's [women] and models [women] have nothing to do with this? Is it the patriarchy that compels a model to prance up and down the runway in nothing but lacy lingerie? Or did they choose to portray themselves in this way?
All that I'm trying to point out is that for this dynamic to exist there must be participation on both sides. It takes women models, some pop stars, some reality tv stars to agree to be exhibited in this manner in order for the cycle to continue. In many cases money doesn't even have to be a factor for this to happen. When young adult women are submitting page upon page of twerking videos, these acts do not reconcile with the notion that men are uncontrollable pigs and are to be blamed for having the audacity to look at women in a sexual light.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wudge
By most anyone's measure, I'm an old codger. Now I'm not at all complaining about being old, because I know that it is a privilege denied to many. And I know too that if you listen well and watch closely, you will likely learn something with every passing day and a great deal with every passing year.
I'm grateful and fortunate to have learned a lot. And one thing I can say for certain is that men (inlcuding boys and young men) simply do not respect women in the way that we were taught to and did in my generation.
In my dating and courting days, the level of rapes and date rapes (the reported ones) simply did not come anywhere near what you hear about today -- to say nothing of the fact that rape was punishable by death in some states back then. But what I really believe is that men on average had much more self-control and self respect in my time. I would have felt incredible shame had I offended a woman in a sexual manner, and I know that was the culture and prevailing feeling back then.
I hope my posts haven't led you to believe that I disagree with any of your thoughts here. No matter what women choose to wear or how women choose to portray themselves it doesn't give men the right to invade their personal space in any way. It certainly doesn't excuse men for date rape or any type of sexual assault for that matter. I consider these acts to be vile and disgusting.
I only take issue with the concept that anytime a woman is critiqued on the way that she is dressed or receives unwanted attention (not physical) for what would generally be considered revealing attire, the blame is entirely placed on the men. 'It is the man's fault that women can't walk around in a micro mini skirt without people swinging around for a second look'. As I have been saying, women can wear whatever they want to wear. At the same time it's unreasonable to expect the male population to discern when we're supposed to notice and when we're supposed to act like we don't see a thing. For men to be castigated by women as if they've done absolutely nothing to perpetuate this dynamic is something that is honestly, difficult for me to understand.
To bring this point back to the subject of the girl in high school. It has become so accepted that it is the man's fault [in this case high school boys] that the girl in question has managed to successfully shift the focus from her breaking a school wide rule to placing the blame squarely at the feet of the boys who had nothing to do with the school implementing this rule! I've never been to this high school, but I'd be willing to bet that whoever the boys that she's blaming in her poster are, they had absolutely nothing to do with (1) her not following the dress code and (2) the actual dress code itself. But yet she's managed to absolve herself of ALL RESPONSIBILITY of breaking said dress code. If she wants to stand up against the merits of the dress code and how it is being enforced by the school, then she should say that. I would actually respect that. She chose instead to print out a poster with the intention of shifting the blame off of herself. These days it's becoming more acceptable to shift blame rather than to be accountable for your own actions.
Well, a couple things; first, regarding the post by lurtsman 2 posts back from mine, teenage boys and girls ARE sexually appealing to each other, they are very sexual creatures (though personally, I think they are too young to be, but the reality is they are). And to very sick adults, of course, but to each other is the point. When I was in high school 15 years ago, nearly all of us students were dating other members of our high school and own age group. It was certainly a well known fact, and clearly evident by everyone with their dates to the proms and balls we had where almost no one had a date from outside our school. And I certainly doubt that's changed since back then. With their hormones racing, teenagers are thinking about the opposite sex all the time.
While I certainly think that high school is too early to be having sex, the fact of it is that a lot of high school kids are indeed having sex with each other, or at least engaging in sexual behavior. The amount of pregnant students in high schools is certainly proof of that, unfortunately. So to think that a high school girl can't be dressed to revealing or overly sexual is a little ridiculous, not only shouldn't they be advertising themselves in that way at such a young age, (though it's NEVER a girl or woman's fault if she is raped or sexually abused, NEVER, but it's just not appropriate for girls to be dressing like adult women in scandalous or trashy outfits, they don't need to grow up that fast in my opinion), it's just plain wrong to be showing so much skin as a male or a female when you're still a kid. There's nothing wrong with dressing up nicely in a pretty dress and doing makeup and hair and the whole 9 yards, but the classroom isn't the place for it.
Would an extremely skimpy outfit be appropriate for a teacher or worker in a high school? So why should it be ok for the students, either? Just not the place for it. While I disagree with allowing your child to dress in such skimpy outfits, they're too young to be advertising and showing off their "wares" like an adult at a bar looking for a date, it's up to each child's parents to decide what's appropriate or not. But in a school, it's not appropriate to be encouraging sexuality between the kids. THEY'RE KIDS. They grow up too fast these days anyway.
Yes, it was inappropriate of the vice principals to single her out in front of everyone else like that, but the administration is in charge of enforcing the rules. They should have informed her in private of the fact that showing so much leg is inappropriate and she needs to dress a little more conservatively. It's hot, shorts are fine, but there's a decency limit. It's a little different with boys, not because of unequal discriminatory reasons, but because boys don't wear tiny mini skirts and don't have breasts which make wearing very low cut tops too revealing.
In fact, I can point out an incident in my high school where a man was forced to wear less-revealing shorts! Our gym teacher always wore extremely skimpy gym shorts that were both so tight and had such wide legs that not only did his male parts make themselves extremely visible, bulging against the thin fabric, but also had a tendency to literally slip out of the leg for everyone to see. It was revolting. The girls complained frequently, and I guess the administration didn't believe he was really dressing that way during PE class because nothing happened for a while, until the principle came into a gym class and immediately took him aside and banned him from continuing class until he wore something that didn't qualify him for a charge of exposing himself to minors. Incredible. He never wore shorts like that again. So, while less common, men/boys can wear things that are too revealing as well.
So while I don't think uniforms are necessary, I don't think banning clothing that's scandalous enough that it's considered out of bounds of public decency for ADULTS in the workplace or other public venues (except the beach or a bar or disco or something like that), is going too far in a school setting.
The way they handled it: wrong. The policy of making students wear reasonably modest clothing to school: right. If a teenage student is wearing clothing so revealing that a teacher of the opposite sex would be afraid to be alone in a room with them for fear that the student could falsely claim the teacher was exhibiting inappropriate language or behavior and everyone would believe it and accuse the teacher of being a pedophile, then it's too revealing.
Believe it or not, sad but true, in my job as a paramedic, it's policy that if a young girl or woman is in a very revealing outfit, I have to have another person with me at all times (well, not just me, all males) to ensure that the patient can't falsely claim inappropriate behavior on my part. So I can appreciate the fear of being alone in a classroom with a student like that, this country loves lawsuits. And while certainly almost all females wouldn't do that, you never know which ones might and ruin your life forever.
Last edited by Heimdallen; 06-03-2014 at 11:34 AM..
If a fully grown man finds a GIRL's (not a woman's) attire too sexy, perhaps he should consider that GIRLS are not sexual creatures. MEN and WOMEN are sexual creatures (not objects), but BOYS and GIRLS are not.
Saying that a child is dressed inappropriately for school is not the same as saying she is dressed too sexy. Also, do you remember school? Girls as well as boys are sexual creatures. Why do we have so many girls and boys becoming parents?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
