I already posted that both boys and girls at the school were required to have short garments hemmed to the knee. (Links above.) The student handbook says that if you don’t wear appropriate clothes you’ll be given clothing to wear that you’ll have to return or pay for.
I already wrote that I don’t approve of the school taking this action on a first transgression by a brand-new student, and that the shirt is questionable (because I haven’t read any school complaints about her shirt), but those pants fall squarely under the rules provided in the student handbook - for both sexes.
@daneel - I seriously wondered when anyone would notice that. Thanks.
I know what the article said. But we don’t know that the hives came only from stress, now do we? And we don’t know how clean the outfit is.
An easy, straight-forward example that doesn’t even require the clothes to be dirty:
Our family does not use fabric softener, or laundry detergent with fragrance. If we put on clothing that has been washed by other people who have used either of those two types of products, we often develop…wait for it…hives. So when another family very helpfully washes something that was accidentally left at their house before returning it, I always re-wash the item.
Having said that, my post was mostly in support of the family figuring out whatever legal argument works to successfully fight the school, as opposed to being committed to one specific idea.
in terms of sophistication, that’s right up there with drawing a toothbrush mustache on a Barack Obama poster. way to go, milliefink.
since the shrillest mras also descend into the same kind of nonsense almost-insults against me, i’ll chalk this up as another win for me, but you can believe whatever you’d like. congrats!
Sure, but not in terms of reasoning and implication. Telling both boys and girls to cover their legs stems from different reasoning. With different implications.
@milliefink - did you even read the dress code before making that statement? I really don’t think you did.
Here’s something you probably missed by not reading it:
Bermuda shorts (hemmed to the knee or below
All pants are to be securely in place above the top of the pelvis without undergarments (including boxers or gym shorts) visible at any time. If you have to physically hold up your pants, you are NOT in compliance with the dress code. Students trying to hide drooping pants by wearing long shirts will be asked to pull up shirts in order to prove compliance. The administration at OHS hopes everyone will comply with this rule. However, in the event that this becomes a big problem, the administration reserves the right to invoke a “tucked in shirts” rule.
Also not allowed:
a) Apparel with off-color remarks, pictures, or emblazoned with drug, alcohol, tobacco, or sexually related slogans or images
b) Apparel displaying violent imagery
c) Apparel with disparaging pictures or words which infringe on the ethnicity of others
that was another north/south thing for me. they didn’t have to ask the parent’s permission in my day. but it was opt out.
it broke down like this: you did something to warrant punishment. you could either write 5 pages of sentences pertaining to the violation (like Bart at the blackboard) AKA “write-offs” or you could “take the licks,” which meant all the kids who opted for that would meet in the lunch room at a designated time that week, grab a piece of wall, and Mr. Mills would swat you on the butt (twice, for more serious infractions) with the same type of paddle the football team wielded on the incoming freshmen in the film “Dazed and Confused.”
naturally, I was horrified and did the write-offs the first two times. The third time, my buddy was like “why do you keep doing the write-offs? take the licks, it’s over in a few seconds and the sting goes away after a minute or two.” and he was right, it was the preferable option, by far. so… yay for corporal punishment?
"Her mom told ABC News she feels her daughter was forced to wear what she calls a “shame suit,” which she feels is less about teaching or punishment than it is about humiliation. She says it upset her daughter so much, she broke out in hive"s.
No, we do not know they hives only came from stress like her mother said. We also have zero indication the getup was in any way unsanitary yet you chose to suggest that it was. That seemed unnecessarily inflammatory and misleading to me.
I remember one time we were given 50 lines, but not told what the line we were supposed to write was. One kid claimed he didn’t know what lines were and just drew lines on his piece of paper. Got away with it, too.
I went to school before the whole droopy pants style became a thing, but the rest of that was the same when I went to school. We never had too much drama over our dress code though, as it was not strictly enforced (girls wore skirts above their knees pretty regularly, although some guys did have to turn their shirts inside out from time to time–usually because they had an album cover with some drug reference or something).
It does seem like the school administrator thought up this dress code violation outfit idea over the summer and couldn’t wait to try it out. A skirt that touches the top of the knees instead of the bottom clearly deserves only a warning for first offense. She didn’t come to school in a C-String or something. If this were later in the year I’d think maybe she was a serial offender, but school just started this week, this is a punishment of opportunity.
I totally agree. I also believe that she may have been singled out, not because she was female, but because she was a new student. Fewer people would be expected to have befriended her and be willing stand up for her.
I really am bothered by the shirt - that smacks of demonstration.
any Dom/me could tell you that it’s easy to get someone to choose the more psychologically degrading punishment, simply by offering an alternative which is more tedious in the short-term…
of course, this kind of kink would have nothing at all to do with good, wholesome corporal punishment. nope.
He merely chose the lesser of the two punishments, doesn’t mean they weren’t punishments. As far as punishment not working to discourage behavior, that’s a talk for another day.
It’s hard to say whether the licks served to discourage anyone, although they were feared. They were also more often used as psychological punishment than actually used. I know I was told several times that I’d better keep in line because my parents had given the teachers permission to use “the paddle” on me. It wasn’t until some time later that I learned that my parents had done no such thing.
It was always the male Phys. Ed. teachers who were given the privilege of wielding “the paddle”. I have no doubt that one of them enjoyed it a little too much.
