So ankles will still be uncovered? Harlots.
Some of the older girls were beginning to wear extremely short
skirts,” said Mr [School headmaster David] Doubtfire.
A man named "Doubtfire" who seems obsessed with women's' clothing. Hmm.
If the head teacher was a woman, would this still be the same issue, or same evaluation on this problem?
So every case of a school enforcing a dress code instantly means the staff are perverts? Really? And the only reasonable alternative is an "anything goes" policy? Really?
id think an asexual pants and t-shirt dress code would be something boing boing would get behind, i guess not
Of course. It's never one person's decision, anyway, and the general creepiness doesn't need to be focused on a single decisionmaker.
That said, it is different when men and women use terms like "ladylike" as a standard to be applied to others' behavior.
Asexual dress codes are fine. Forcing girls to cover up because they're "unladylike" is creepy.
To be fair, I think the issue here is that the guy in charge is saying things like "it became difficult" about the girls short skirts. It's hard for me to see any interpretation other than "it became difficult for me not to imagine their girl bits" which is creeeeeeeeepy.
Nothin gratuitous about the use of that Megan Fox photo, no way.
that is the creepy part
Wait, so if girls are wearing something that's blatantly revealing and not really appropriate for school, it's less creepy to make them wear something less revealing?
That's like saying those freaky Halloween costume companies that make "sexy nurse" costumes specifically in children's sizes, marketed to children, are NOT creepy, and people who question the decency of it ARE creepy.
Is it Opposite Day, and nobody told me?
I actually find it creepier to assume that the teachers are perverts with their minds on young girls' bodies, than the idea that the school admins feel they might have to enforce some dress standards in an academic setting.
If covering up is creepy, what's a prepubescent panty show?
Aaaand I'm out the thread.
So if I don't let my 11year old daughter dress like a Bratz doll, it's because I a thinking about her vagina? You are the one with the imagination here, heading off into creeeepy territory.
I don't see anything in the article suggesting that some girls will be allowed to wear skirts while some "unladylike" girls will not. I see nothing controversial about this, sorry... maybe if it were specific to some students and not to others. I went to public school in the US and there were no short skirts allowed there, either... and it probably helped me to learn a little bit more.
Changing the uniform makes more sense than forcing employees who are supposed to be educating kids to be dress code police.
You are the one who broached the general subject, and you are out. Hmmm. You got basically two choices as a school administrator: leave things as they are, with predictable results, i.e. girls wearing skirts short enough that you can see their underwear; or you can change the rules and be called creepy by you. I guess if the tube top and g-string match, it's all we can ask.
You can't just pretend that boys and girls have the exact same bodies. Some girls are going to be more comfortable (physically and psychologically) in trousers, and might appreciate this, but some girls will have developed early and boy's trousers will not fit their hips. So that adds tailoring as an expense, only for girls. It would be better to require girl's pants, not the same trousers boys wear. If they want to impose some weird modesty ideology because they're afraid of girls expressing sexuality, they don't even have to impose pants. They can change the skirts to skorts, and then there's no up-skirt action to be had. The truth is, though, starting at this age some girls are going to express their sexuality no matter if you put them in a burlap sack with arm and leg holes cut out of it. There is nothing wrong with that - they're just becoming teenagers and wanting to learn about what the adult world is like. Suppressing teens and tweens isn't going to do anything but give them more pressure at a rough time.
(And what harm does a short skirt do to the girl? If the reply is that it gives her undue attention, then it's the undue attention that needs to be addressed, not the girl's appearance.)
Then we have the boy's shirt requirement replacing blouses. Girls develop breasts, and a lot of them develop them around this age range. Breasts are these things on their chests that make boy's button-up shirts not fit anymore. When a girl with breasts tries to wear a boy's shirt, you're going to notice the breasts a lot more than if she were wearing a blouse that fits her. It's hard to tailor a boy's shirt to fit a girl with breasts. By the time you're done with that, you've essentially got a blouse.
This "only boys uniforms are allowed" policy imposes a boys-are-the-default ideology that implies girls are just a bunch of special needs that are too much trouble and expense to care for. In this arrangement boys get to be comfortable with their masculinity and have everything made for them by default, but girls get to have their femininity treated as a threat that has to be erased by turning them into boys. If some girls want to wear trousers and boy's shirts then that should be their choice, not a decision imposed on them without their consent or their parents' consent.
If you read the article, you should understand that "it became difficult" is in reference to enforcing a dress code. In fact, the very next line of the article is, “We would ask them to make their skirts longer, but they would just roll them up again when we turned away.” Banning skirts eliminates the difficulty of confronting uncooperative students about clothing which may be distracting to other students.