Do school dress codes unfairly target girls?

[davidn3600]

Haven Middle School in Evanston, Ill., is experiencing a burgeoning student protest and an onslaught of media attention in response to reports that it has banned leggings or yoga pants for female students. The new rule about leggings has actually been in place since the beginning of the 2013-2014 school year, but only recently has it been garnering so much criticism and attention.

"Rumors that the school banned leggings and skinny jeans are not the truth," Melissa Burda, spokesperson for Haven's School District 65, told Cosmopolitan. "Students at the school are allowed to wear leggings, yoga pants, and skinny jeans. However, if leggings are worn, we ask that the shirt, short skirt, or whatever they have on top must be fingertip length."

But some Haven students and parents feel that this policy unfairly targets female students and holds them accountable for the behavior of their male classmates.

"I see dress codes as a messy attempt at controlling kids' (mostly girls) bodies rather than educating them on issues around sexuality and sexualization," Juliet Bond, whose daughter is in the seventh grade at Haven, said in an email. "And this is important because the minute we begin to tell girls that they have to cover their bodies up, or that their bodies are 'distracting,' we send a dangerous message to boys and girls."

---

In an interview with the Evanston Record, seventh-grader Lucy Shapiro shared her firsthand experience of being chastised for her dress code but not her friend, who was wearing a similar pair of athletic shorts. "I asked, 'Why just me?' and she said it was because I had a different body type than my friend."

https://shine.yahoo.com/fashion/leggings-too-distracting-middle-school-144400243.html

[Tansy_Gold]

1. Is water wet? n/t

[Walk away]

130. ^^^^^^This! Buckets full^^^^^

[Warpy]

2. I agree.

Teenage years should be when young males learn to control themselves. Instead, they body shame teenage girls because "boys will be boys."

We're sick of it, people. Knock it off!

[TDale313]

4. Well put. n/t

[pipoman]

3. It seems their dress code is reasonable

Imho...As long as boys aren't allowed to wear speedos and such. ..

[whatthehey]

5. not if applied equally

which they frequently are not, but more often in favor of more flexibility for girls than the reverse. Schools are unlikely to offer boys the choice of skirts, make up, jewelry or hair length afforded girls for example. If neither boys nor girls can wear leggings etc without a covering garment, where can the unfaiir targetting be?

[mainstreetonce]

6. The only answer

Is uniforms.

[HockeyMom]

8. Had those in Public School in Florida

Majority of girls, and boys, wore Bermuda shorts year round. Oh, no, not FEMININE enough for girls. The few girls who wore the uniform skirts STILL wore shorts under the skirts. Go to phys ed, run around a playground in a skirt with just panties under it? I don't think so.

[mainstreetonce]

14. Pants should be the choice

For both sexes

[Niceguy1]

7. fingertip

Length is pretty common...I dont have an issue with it.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

9. I froze my ass off for years.

Because girls couldn't wear slacks to school back in my day. Pissed me off and pissed my mom off that I couldn't be WARM in winter. The administration tried to ban LONG skirts when some girls started wearing long dresses in winter.

[CrispyQ]

11. I remember that.

I wore pants under my dresses while I waited at the school bus & at school I had to take them off in the girls room.

[Nevernose]

26. Ironically, I had the opposite problem when I lived in a swamp

Boys weren't allowed to wear shorts, but girls were. Which wasn't so bad until it was 102 degrees with 99% humidity.

Fortunately I moved to a big city in the Mojave desert, where school administrators were too busy sorting crips from bloods to care about exposed calves.

[belcffub]

44. had the same issue

when I was in Catholic school... boys had to wear long pants year round while girls could wear slacks in the winter and skirts/jumpers in the summer... No AC in the school made for hot sweaty beginning and ending of the school year...

[amandabeech]

27. I remember no pants for girls.

It is hard to forget a Michigan winter blowing up under your skirt every year.

I also remember female teachers going into the girls' restroom with a measuring stick in their hands. They'd make the girls kneel down on the floor and then measure the distance between floor and skirt. The max was two inches.

I think that the only reason that we were allowed to wear pants, then jeans, eventually, was that the skirt length problem was deemed to be so bad!

[csziggy]

51. Yeah and in our school when they allowed girls to wear slacks

They had to be store bought, not home made, and girls were not allowed to wear jeans even though boys were.

My mother hit the roof - we often made our own clothes and Mom thought that was the only justification for requiring Home Economics for girls. (She didn't like that her college bound daughters would automatically have one less credit for college than college bound boys because of Home Ec.) Mom made them change the rules so we could at least wear the clothes we had made.

In honor of Mom's victory, I made a tie dyed pants suit and wore it to school. It was pretty cool in 1966.

[madmom]

109. When I was a sophomore in high school, they first started

letting us wear pants, but they couldn't be jeans. When asked why no jeans their excuse was the rivets on the back tore up the desks. I, being the smart ass I was, come back with I wear boys jeans (which at the time I did), if they can wear them, so can I. I was suspended for 2 weeks, still could not wear jeans.

[pipi_k]

10. I think there's a whole lot of stupidity

involved in expecting middle school boys NOT to be distracted by girls' clothing.

I've never been a teen-aged boy, but I do realize that it's a difficult age...middle school especially...for them as they try to deal with the burgeoning hormonal onslaught.

For them, at their age, just about everything involving the opposite sex is distracting!!!

FGS! Does anyone seriously believe that some 13 or 14 year old boy actually wants to have an erection in the middle of giving a book report in English class because he's facing some little cutie in the front row with her midriff showing?

Males are visual beings. They generally can't help it.

As they get older, they probably can work out some methods of self control.

But to expect that from kids???

Good god...how about a little common sense here?

[pipoman]

16. Thread winner...

[gollygee]

18. It also isn't fair

to expect middle school girls to take on that responsibility. It isn't their fault boys get aroused easily.

[pipi_k]

38. I just knew

that eventually there would be a reply just like this one.

Nobody is suggesting that it's the girls' fault that boys get aroused that easily.

But what the hell is wrong with having a little bit of common sense and compassion for the boys?

Again, I ask...does anyone here actually believe that boys just entering puberty....flooded with testosterone and god knows what else...actually ENJOY getting erections in a public place?

It's bad enough it can happen if they even think of girls.

Why put them under even MORE pressure to maintain some semblance of dignity? Is that so hard?

Why make it even MORE difficult?

It's nobody's fault. It just happens. Let's just try to not make things more difficult for everyone involved.

[seabeyond]

54. have you ever been around middle school boys. lordy, what you are making it out to be, IT IS NOT.

this is absolutely fuckin ridiculous.

[pipoman]

107. The dress code at the school

Sounds completely reasonable. Surely you don't believe that there should be no dress code for school kids?

[gollygee]

138. My opinion

is in post #17

[pipoman]

141. We don't disagree on post 17...

Post 18 sounds a little more dismissive of girls using the ability to wear anything and choosing sexually revealing as a tool...sometimes even to bully other girls.

Boundaries of decency in society move left and right of center, but there will always be boundaries. .it seems from your post 17 that we probably agree on this.

[gollygee]

147. No

Post 18 was specifically in response to the statement that it isn't fair to expect middle school bosy to not respond to middle school girls' clothing (which no one ever stated was an expectation in the first place.) I said that it also isn't fair to expect middle school girls to be responsible for whether or not boys get aroused. That responsibility is not reasonably placed on them. They're just kids and can't be in charge of other people's bodies.

[pipoman]

149. I read the post as justification for the dress code which is developed

By adults so that isn't on the girls. Arousal is what is behind the term 'distracted' most of the time. The policy is in place with the distraction of others in mind.

[gollygee]

150. The dress code in many schools

including my daughter's school specifically states that girls have to dress the way the school wants so they aren't distracting to the boys. That is what I have a problem with. It should be stated neutrally, and that responsibility of distracting the boys should not be put on the girls. If it's stated in the dress code, then it is.

[pipoman]

151. No argument here. .

[newcriminal]

19. that little cutie in the front row could be clothed from head to toe and that

middle school boy would still get an erection. Should she not be allowed to go to school? Or maybe she should wear a bag over her head as well as a long sleeved oversized shirt and long oversized pants and steel toed boots. My girls have gorgeous long blonde hair, maybe they should have to cover it or cut it off, I'm sure it could be a distraction for some boy.

[pipi_k]

39. Exactly...

which is what I'm saying.


It's difficult enough as it is.

Why would people want to make it even worse??

[seabeyond]

58. my sons had no hardship at all going thru middle school with the cuties, nor did their friends.

but then, it was just assumed they took responsibility for themselves instead of the girls having to protect them from themselves.

actually. all this is beyond stupid. in all those years, with the boys and friends, this simply was not an issue.

your girl does not accommodate. the boys are totally capable.

if this is not fuckin selling boys short.

[gollygee]

90. And the little cutie could be just as distracted by the boys

I remember sitting behind some boy and staring at his shoulders and back of his neck and paying no attention to school. It isn't just boys who deal with this stuff, but we seem much more concerned about them.

[seabeyond]

108. this is what pisses me off. and this is where it starts. and continues forever. wtf, ....

that it is all about the boys, police the girls for the boys, the incapable boys up against the all empowering erection.

not even an iota of interest about a girl going thru puberty and her sexual arousal. totally insignificant. never a part of the conversation. non existent. cause.... it is all about the boys.

and that is how we begin creating our rape culture. when the only focus, all focus is on the boy

as i said in a post below. lets ask the men if they are so helpless in their early erections that they need the schools to "police" the girls to help the boys out....

[Scootaloo]

131. I think you're overstating some posters' positions, Seabeyond

I'm certainly not seeing anyone saying girls ought to be policed to protect boys from themselves or some shit like that. Pipi's point is simply that it's 100% natural that teenagers are going to be distracted by whoever they're attracted to. it's a call for schools to realize that, rather than making it a stupid moral problem where the boys are wrong for looking and the girls are responsible for discouraging looks (and as noted by gollygee, boys aren't the only ones looking - coed gym led to all sorts of nicknames...

It's that perspective - that attraction to the opposite gender (pr the same, of course) is a "moral failure" that is the damned problem here.

[seabeyond]

133. first, yes, police. i chose the word pipi used below. school police girls for the po boys.

second. you will not see one person mention a girls sexuality and her own issues she has to deal with, until i started bringing it up.

and no.

i am not overstating. this was a fluid conversation. you chose one of the last posts that brought me to this, after a subthread developed.

now... we have not even started talking about my feelings with this issue. i am very pragmatic, and also tend to conservative on the expectation of both gender, for the respect part... self respect, when it comes to dress. but, that is not what i was addressing in this subthread.

[Gravitycollapse]

22. Ironic given this is what you actually said on December 16, 2013. And I quote:

"But yeah...keeping to the subject matter here, men should be ashamed of the implication here that they're all nothing but uncontrollable, brainless beasts"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4187297


Did you forget that you wrote that? Or were you just hoping no one would notice?

[Liberal_in_LA]

33. good catch

[Earth_First]

35. I find it equally disturbing that you can pull up comments from six months ago...

Just saying.

[Gravitycollapse]

37. It took me about 30 seconds to google the poster's name at the top of this site.

[Earth_First]

40. Magic?

Okay bub.

Stalk away...

[Gravitycollapse]

41. Yep, in the same way that knowing you like Grateful Dead means I'm stalking you.

[HangOnKids]

128. Accessing easily found information is stalking?

You might need to put away your cell phone and computer. And drop the stalking comment bub.

[pipi_k]

137. It's not the

"accessing easily found information" that's stalking.

It's that someone actually recalled, months later, what someone wrote and went looking for it based on some keyword.

And I don't believe for a second that it was a mere 30 second effort.

It's also an ad hominem attack which, although it's not listed as a TOS violation, is probably still against the TOS, and is, in any case, a terribly shitty discussion technique.

I was doing nothing other than replying in a thread to a specific issue.

That person came roaring in...not to reply to the issue, but to post a link to something he was clearly hoping would insult my integrity.

As I said, shitty discussion technique.

There are hundreds of posts each day by hundreds of people.

I can't even remember four days later what someone posted.

But that person remembered something I posted nearly four months ago.

I'd call that creepy. And I call it stalking.

[HangOnKids]

152. I'd call it brilliant pippi

Some people have eidetic memories. I have one and I remember shit you said years ago. Deal with it.

[pipi_k]

155. Wow I feel so special now...

Out of hundreds of posters here at DU, you "recall shit" I said years ago?

OK...go for it.

What have I said about President Obama? Where do I stand on him?

And don't paraphrase. Because eidetic memory is, after all, photographic, is it not? I want word for word. From memory.

[pipi_k]

50. Me too

and that someone would actually WANT to.

[pipi_k]

42. Don't know what you're

trying to imply, but I think you miss the point AND you took my words out of context

The first part of that goes:

That also

Applies to just about any situation where someone is blaming his or her bad behavior on someone else's words, deeds, or appearance

In this case, nobody is blaming girls for boys' bad behavior


Because unless the boys are acting out their teenaged sexual fantasies on the girls, there IS no bad behavior. Unless you want to claim that sexual arousal in the presence of sexually arousing stimuli is "bad behavior".

AND...I was referring to MEN in that post.

Not 13 or 14 year old boys. No more than children, from where I stand.


You know, I honestly don't understand how people here can keep track of so much of what others post longer than a few days prior, let alone from months ago.

I'm torn between feeling honored that my words are that important to you, and feeling slightly creeped out.

[Gravitycollapse]

47. It took me literally 30 seconds to google your name with "rape culture" to find that.

Maybe you should be less worried about the fact that I found that quote and more worried about how your hypocrisy is so prolific on this website that it took me less than a minute to find that post with minimal effort.

[pipi_k]

52. You call mine "hypocrisy"

I call yours "black and white rigid thinking".


Life isn't black and white, in case you haven't noticed. It's not either/or unless you're talking about where the sun rises or sets each day.


So what you see as "hypocrisy", I see as gray areas and nuance.

I'm honestly sorry you can't understand that concept.


Oh, and PS...I often confuse even myself as I try to make sense of the world.

Mainly because the world is confusing. And, unlike some here, I don't know it all. When I was young and stupid, I sure did think I knew it all. Now that I'm older, I'm sure I don't. So keep on with your bad self, and maybe when you're older you too will realize that there's a lot more to the world than just picking one side and sticking to it because seeing both sides of something is just too disturbing.

[Comrade Grumpy]

115. Some posters are not only creepy, but obnoxious. Sorry.

[Dorian Gray]

81. I'd go with creeped out

[Demo_Chris]

102. Creeped out is the correct response. Note, I don't agree with you on this issue however...

I believe the better response is to treat all human sexuality as normal, wonderful, and not in the least shameful.

[pipi_k]

106. Actually, we don't disagree

on that point.

A better response would indeed be to treat all human sexuality as normal and wonderful, etc.

But it's probably not going to happen because it would need to start, first of all, with the family.

So by the time a kid gets to school, at the age of 5, his or her basic attitudes about a lot of things have already been formed, for the most part.

And even if the schools are doing what they can to counter what a kid learns at home, the kid still has to go home at the end of the day.

IMO, it's a losing proposition...

[KittyWampus]

68. in this case, the poster is referring to pubescent teenage boys. Not grown men with more fully

matured brains, tempered hormones.

I am not getting into this bickering.

Just pointing out your chosen "gotcha" quote is not really relevant.

[Gravitycollapse]

69. Ah, so only young men are uncontrollable, brainless beasts.

A bullshit point, regardless, but a point nonetheless.

Now we are witnessing the jockeying to explain away the relevance of the post to which I linked. Sacrifice the actual intelligence of young men so we can all stay in good conscience.

You aren't getting into this bickering? I believe you already have.

[Dorian Gray]

83. Does

having an erection make a young boy a brainless beast?

It's not like they're raping the legging clad girls because they can't control themselves. You're equating something she said to be much worse than what she (he?) actually said. (And no, I don't feel the need to google to see what gender pipi is... That would be... creepy.)

[mythology]

95. Men aren't the same as boys

I can take a lot more personal responsibility as somebody who's 32 than I could at 13.

[A HERETIC I AM]

25. Trust me, speaking as a former 14 year old boy.....

the little cutie in the front row doesn't even have to have her midriff showing.


:::Hat drops somewhere on the planet:::


SPROING!!!

[Gravitycollapse]

28. You realize this forum isn't for you to wax poetic about your 14 year old hard-ons, right?

[A HERETIC I AM]

32. Is that considered waxing poetic?

I thought I was "Remembering fondly"




Cut fuckin' diamonds with that sumbitch back then, dammit.


Which forum is the right one then?


I'm looking for an argument.

"Oh! This is abuse! You want 12 A, next door. Stupid Git"

[cherokeeprogressive]

34. You are The Man, my man. n/t

[Throd]

46. No, that would be "dolphin waxing"

[pipi_k]

49. Well...

You may not like it, but it's at least one male who actually remembers what it was like to be a young man dealing with the onset of puberty/adulthood and all the confusing things that go with it.

Like sexual feelings.


Again...nobody is blaming boys, nobody is blaming girls.

But why, in the name of God, would someone want to make life even more miserable for the boys who, because of their inexperience, don't know how to deal with what happens to them in the presence of girls, no matter HOW they're dressed?

Would you put a drink in front of a newly recovered alcoholic who's trying to deal with a whole new life?

Then why would anyone do the equivalent of that to a teenaged boy?

[Gravitycollapse]

55. "...boys who, because of their inexperience, don't know how to deal with what happens..."

I know this is crazy but, maybe, adults could take some time to discuss the issue with young men to help them deal with pseudo-spontaneous erections.

Discussing difficult things with teenagers to help them better understand? HERESY. Instead we must craft the very nature of female clothing in such a way to help quell the raging fury that is the totally uncontrollable, brainless adolescent erection.

[seabeyond]

56. both boys and girls have dealt with this from beginning of time. nipple, penis.

put a book in front until there is not an issue anymore. parents do not even need to discuss it with the kids. they figure it out on their own. i remember when, my son was joking about the carrying of a book.

[Gravitycollapse]

59. We need to discuss it because people like the poster we're responding to exist.

Who really truly believe that the penis of a 14 year old is so totally out of control that it is comparable to a recovering alcoholic. And if you tell enough young men that, they'll probably start to believe it.

Thus, the foretold prophecy becomes true not because it was true in the first place but because a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth.

[seabeyond]

62. and THAT... is the whole issue i swear we are dealing with today. i was a competitive swimmer

there were erections and hard nipples more than there wasnt. wasnt even a look twice at kinda situation. we were all as close to be naked most of our day, as a bunch of kids could get. this screwing with something so natural, that should just be is the oddest thing i have seen.

[CFLDem]

74. Oh no

I can attest it's quite true in its own right, even until one's early 20's.

It gets much more manageable with age but until then, it's quite the wild ride.

[pipi_k]

99. Are you serious?

I know this is crazy but, maybe, adults could take some time to discuss the issue with young men to help them deal with pseudo-spontaneous erections.

Just what the fuck is any adult going to say to a kid getting spontaneous erections because of his hormones??

You do understand, don't you, that it's totally involuntary?

And to call them "pseudo" spontaneous erections? Wow...really, it's been a long time since I've read something that ignorant.

[Arcanetrance]

111. As a male who went through those lovely teenage years of inconvenient erections

Trust me having a male role model around to discuss these things does help especially since puberty hit me summer between 4th and 5th grade. My father helped me understand that this is a normal issue but also taught me how to control my hormones and not let these things get the best of me. But that's my two cents.

[pipi_k]

114. And I won't disagree with you, but...

sexual arousal isn't voluntary.

yes, I would imagine there are ways to "talk yourself down" from it, and you were very fortunate to have a male role model around to help you deal with sexual feelings and such.

But some kids don't have that.

and there will be times when no amount of talking down or attempts at diversion are going to work fast enough, even when there aren't any overt visual stimuli floating around.

My main problem with the attitude some people have whereby they believe girls should be allowed to dress in a manner that only further adds to boys' hormonal misery is that it's cruel.


Girls that age won't realize (or some won't care) what boys are going through.

That's why it should be up to adults to make the early years of puberty as easy as possible for everyone.

[Gravitycollapse]

136. You are arguing that girls should have to dress a certain way for boys...

Last edited Wed Apr 2, 2014, 07:31 PM - Edit history (1)

Which isn't even a belief that should be allowed on this website. It is both anti-woman in its need to control their attire and anti-man in its assumption that boys are so overrun by animal sexuality that they can't bear to see the female form.

You manage to be totally, utterly wrong on both accounts. Men and mothers of men are coming out of the woodwork to tell you you're wrong, and you ignore it.

[seabeyond]

139. yes. all of it. it is offensive to all of us, one way or another. except those men that need to

believe their sexuality is all that cause that is how they define themselves and their masculinity. and the women that have to believe.... because that is how the men in their lives behave.

[pipi_k]

143. Again....

You are mixing men and boys together in the same discussion.

Also....I'm not saying that girls should HAVE to dress any way for anybody.

What I AM saying is that it's hard enough for young boys to suffer through the confusion of puberty and hormones without having to deal with even more stimulation.

And, finally, you are wrong. Men and mothers of men are NOT coming out of the woodwork to tell me I'm wrong.

What they ARE doing is wrongly equating my request for consideration for the pubescent difficulties of boys with calls for total body coverings, or that I'm blaming girls somehow. Neither of which I am doing, but you are ignoring THAT.

In fact, a couple of men have come forward to admit how near torturous it was when they were 13 or 14 to just sit in back of a girl in school.

And so, knowing that, I ask again...why would any reasonable adult want to subject a boy to something that would make it worse???

Especially in school.

After school, fuck it. Go wild. Walk around in plastic wrap if that's what makes them happy.

But it's school.

You know...where they're supposed to be learning stuff.

good lord.

[Gravitycollapse]

116. They are pseudo-spontaneous.

Actual spontaneous erections are not nearly as big a problem as you seem to think. In fact, outside the age of 10 or 11, I cannot remember ever having such an issue in public. I did however have pseudo-sportntaneous erections while in school because I was looking at my classmates. Because they were the product of arousal, they were no longer spontaneous. And I could have avoided them by simply not devoting my attention to the attractiveness of others.

The problem is that we teach boys their erections are completely beyond their control rather than admitting they are almost entirely always in their control. There are many reasons for this but the major one is that we as a society idolize the male erection and we explain away any protest to this by saying its power is beyond the control of men. It's just biology, amiright? No, you're wrong. Social influence plays a major role in this issue.

[pipi_k]

124. So you do realize that

"Pseudo" means...

pseu·do
ˈso͞odō/
adjective
adjective: pseudo

1.
not genuine; sham.
"we are talking about real journalists and not the pseudo kind"
synonyms: bogus, sham, phony, artificial, mock, ersatz, quasi-, fake, false, spurious, deceptive, misleading, assumed, contrived, affected, insincere; More

Fake. Bogus. Sham. Artificial. etc.

right?

So are you saying that the only real erections would be those brought on by....thoughts?

and really, that any bodily reaction...like sweating and heart palpitations from fear...nausea from viewing something gross...tears from grief...those are only REAL when the thing causing them is not directly in front of a person?

If someone is viewing something scary, his bodily reactions in the face of fear are...a sham? Insincere? Contrived?

Fake erections. Sham erections. Insincere, contrived erections.

Because the only "real" erections are the ones a male conjures up in his own mind.

Right.

[Gravitycollapse]

126. Pseudo spontaneous would be something which appears to be spontaneous...

But in actuality is not. In other words, a pseudo spontaneous erection would be one that might appear to be randomly produced as a product of a purely physiological phenomena. But it in actuality is the product of psychic stimulation.

Spontaneous erections occur most often in very young children and also for all men while sleeping. But a teenager at school is probably having an erection because he saw or thought of something sexually stimulating.

[pipi_k]

134. Actually, the more I think of this....

Actual spontaneous erections are not nearly as big a problem as you seem to think. In fact, outside the age of 10 or 11, I cannot remember ever having such an issue in public. I did however have pseudo-sportntaneous erections while in school because I was looking at my classmates. Because they were the product of arousal, they were no longer spontaneous. And I could have avoided them by simply not devoting my attention to the attractiveness of others.

The funnier it gets as I imagine this scenario involving a newlywed couple on their honeymoon...


Bride comes out of the bathroom dressed in beautiful negligee'.

Groom gets instant erection, but...realizing that it's just a "pseudo-erection" because he read it here on DU, is horrified and says, "Pardon me, my dear (with a British accent...hey, it's my imaginary movie), but I don't want to inflict my fake erection on you. Please excuse me while I step out onto the patio to think of Ancient Greek History so I can get a real one. Thanks ever so much, my love!"


hahahahaha!!!!!

[Gravitycollapse]

135. Serious question: Is English your second language?

You don't seem to know how to use pseudo in context. And you are making fun of something I didn't actually say because you don't seem to know how to use the word.

When a pseudo is a prefix, it means that the word to which it is attached appears to be true but is not actually. It is illusory.

Hence, a pseudo-spontaneous erection has the pseudo attached to spontaneous, not erection, and is thus altering the meaning of spontaneous, not erection. I'm not now nor was I ever saying the erections were fake.

[pipi_k]

140. Tis not I

who has the problem with the English language.

Perhaps the term you are looking for is "non-spontaneous" erection.

There IS no such thing as "pseudo-spontaneous" erection. There are other conditions where "pseudo-spontaneous" is used, but in my Google search, I did not find one instance of it being associated with erections.

So.

There are two types of erections:

Spontaneous and NON-spontaneous.

The "non" here meaning that it's not spontaneous.

Whereas calling it a "pseudo-spontaneous" erection would imply that it's contrived. Bogus spontaneous. Fake spontaneous. Phony spontaneous.

So really...if you're going to attack someone, at least get your terms straight.

[Gravitycollapse]

142. You needed google to understand what "pseudo-spontaneous" means?

This isn't a medical term I'm referring to. It is a term I constructed because I'm proficient in English and know how to use "pseudo" correctly.

I'm countering the premise that these types of erections are spontaneous by saying they are pseudo-spontaneous. In other words, they might appear to be spontaneous, especially to people like you who have a vested interest in maintaining the false narrative that they are, but they are actually the product of psychic stimulation. To put that another way, since it's become apparent I need to hold your hand and walk you through this, the boy has become sexually aroused after seeing someone or something and that has caused an erection.

Your argument that boys are just persistently afflicted by uncontrollable erections is a false reality. It simply isn't true. They can and do control how and when they become sexually aroused because they aren't stupid animals like you seem to want to believe.

[pipi_k]

144. Yeah, well...

You didn't use it correctly this time, sweetie.


And yes, I googled it.

Looks like I had to, didn't I? Because you made it up.

I don't make up words and then try to pretend that they're technical terms.

So you made it up.

Yay for you.

Don't expect other people to understand your made up language.

[Gravitycollapse]

146. Saying I made it up is saying that pseudo and spontaneous were not words before I wrote them.

Which is obviously not true. And sticking them together shouldn't be world shattering. Pseudo is a common prefix for many things and it can be applied to otherwise stand-alone words without needing to be run by Merriam-Webster for approval.

Expand your linguistic horizons.

[pipi_k]

154. As I said...

they go together to describe some conditions, but NOT

I repeat....NOT erections.


The PROPER term for what you're trying to describe is "non spontaneous".

Which, as I said before, means that they are not spontaneous.


As opposed to them being "pseudo spontaneous"...i.e. fake, insincere, contrived, pretend, bogus, sham, etc., in their spontaneity.


As far as "expanding my linguistic horizons" goes, I prefer words that mean what they're supposed to mean. Not words that someone has made up and then gotten all foamy-mouthed over when someone points out incorrect usage in a specific situation. Anybody can make up words. My three year old granddaughter makes up words, FGS.

At some point I imagine she'll learn to speak more effective English and not make up words and then think up excuses for not knowing the proper terms.

And let me tell you something...if you were to mention the term "pseudo-spontaneous erection" to a medical doctor, I'll bet s/he would say WTF??? and then laugh in your face.

Non-spontaneous.

Remember it.

[Gravitycollapse]

156. "Non-spontaneous" and "pseudo-spontaneous" describe two different conditions.

And when I say condition, I don't mean medical condition. I mean the state of something. It's insane and hilarious that I have to walk you through this like you're a first day ESL student but I get the feeling this isn't about your inability to understand what it is I'm saying. You're just pissed off because I posted a quote of you being a massive hypocrite and the last bastion of criticism you possess is to throw stones at my use of the English language. That last part was a metaphor, by the way, just so you don't accuse me of actually thinking you're literally throwing stones at me.

By the way, the actual primary definition of pseudo is listed below without your embellishment.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pseudo

pseu·do adjective \ˈsü-(ˌ dō\
: not real or genuine

Something which is pseudo-spontaneous is something which is not genuinely spontaneous. I know you already get that. But I figured why not explain it to you for the umpteenth time.

[pipi_k]

157. WTF?

Something which is pseudo-spontaneous is something which is not genuinely spontaneous. I know you already get that. But I figured why not explain it to you for the umpteenth time.

WTF do you think I have been saying over and over again????


Non-spontaneous and pseudo spontaneous are two different things. I have said that repeatedly. Like four or five times already.


Some conditions are pseudo spontaneous, but. not. one. of. them. I. looked. up. refers. to. erections!

Is that clear enough?


Non spontaneous refers to erections.

Use the proper terminology, FGS!!


So if you know I already get it, why the fuck are you explaining it to me?

[pipi_k]

158. Actually, you know what....

I'm pretty dense at times.

It didn't occur to me until just now that, given how this whole thing started, you must have the hots for me.


I mean, there I was, minding my own business, opining away on the topic, when you barged in with some nonsense about men in a topic that was referring to boys, but see, what I didn't know was, it was merely a diversionary tactic meant to throw me off the track.

You clearly cared enough to search for whatever little shred of evidence you could present to impress me with your superhuman ability to track down information, albeit playing it very cool..."Aw shucks...it was nothin'," said in your best shy cowboy voice.

And then...then you actually invented a word for me! Oh be still my trembling heart! Nobody has ever invented a word for me! My own special pseudo-psycho-nonstick-erectionless-erection thing word!!! Yes, I can now see the desperation as you tried mightily to impress me with your vastly superior intellect.

Because, after all, what am I but a vapid, stupid little female...probably twice your age, but no matter. You Tarzan, me Jane, and as Jane, I'd damn well better know my place!

I haven't felt this awesomely special since sixth grade when Michael S. borrowed my inkpen and gave it back to me with a snot on it. Proof of his true love!


but now...you love me...you really love me!

[Gravitycollapse]

159. Neither age nor gender are essential indicators of intellect or ability.

Some of the dumbest people I know are three times my age. Some of the most powerful people I've ever met are women. And some of the weakest individuals I've ever had the misfortune of encountering were men.

Stupidity, power and weakness are traits which can be isolated and fostered or found and stomped out. We learn how to act in society. This is called socialization. We aren't uncontrollable, brainless beasts unless we are taught to be uncontrollable, brainless beasts. One part of the schema in which people are taught to be uncontrollable, brainless beasts is through apology and excuse making.

For instance, your insistence on arguing that young men are slaves to their erections is an apologia for misogyny and it serves only to reinforce falsehoods about women and men, girls and boys, regardless of their age.

Now, I realize that regardless of this fact you will continue to sidestep the truth and it won't matter what I say further. So this is my last response to you on the subject. I am sure many others are tired of reading perpetual arguing about the nature of "pseudo-spontaneity" and I myself have grown weary of explaining anything to you.

Goodnight.

[pipi_k]

167. Alas!!!

Our affaire de cœur is over?


Tell me what's wrong and I'll fix it!

Does my cooking suck? Am I a terrible housekeeper? Do my jeans make me look fat?


OMG....You've always hated my mom, haven't you? That's IT!!! It's my mom!


Well, I suppose it's better in the long run...for you, anyway...as I was going to ask you to further prove your love for me by having a with my other stalker...


Sayonara...parting is such sweet sorrow!

[seabeyond]

168. wow

[gollygee]

85. Teenage girls are dealing with new hormones too

This is not something specific to boys. And it isn't the job of girls to police themselves or be so carefully policed to save the boys from something so natural and unavoidable.

[pipi_k]

98. Of course they are

and nobody is suggesting that it's the job of girls to police themselves, because, quite frankly, they don't have the maturity to do that even if it were their job.

Which is why the school must do it for them.

[seabeyond]

104. "Which is why the school must do it for them." the school MUST police the girls to protect the boys

because the boys are unable to take care of themselves.

wow

lets open the door to ... biology made me do it. wow

[pipi_k]

45. Exactly!!

It's something they can't help.

And for people to suggest, or outright state, that it's somehow the boys' fault for having that reaction, is idiotic in the extreme.

Might as well scare the fuck out of someone and then tell the person they have to control their heart rate or breathing.

Some things are not under a person's control, and sexual arousal in the presence of arousing visuals is one of them.

And it's cruel beyond measure, IMO, to force boys of that age to have to deal with things they may not be able to handle.

[seabeyond]

48. first... you suggesting rules for girls to not distract boys? and ya, i have two sons

they were actually able to make it thru middle school, not only dealing with "the burgeoning hormonal onslaught" but not allowing " everything involving the opposite sex is distracting!!! "

they actually focused on school work, friendships, sports, even girls that were friends, along with their "burgeoning hormonal onslaught"

your post really sells boys out and i cannot believe that men actually appreciate you painting boys in this manner. ya, some think it cute. all of us with sons know they were actually able to walk thru that period managing to accomplish and focus on all kinds of things, including the beginning of their sexual journey.

[LeftyMom]

61. Isn't that a better argument for changing the boys' dress code?

[pipi_k]

100. Why?

[LeftyMom]

110. You're saying 'boys' bodies are a problem so girls need to change clothes'.

If erections are a problem then maybe boys need to wear clothes that hide them. Because they get them when they see girls, boys, inanimate objects, nothing and the back of their eyelids. Teenagers are hormonal.

Girls are not responsible for boys and their tent pitching. Suggesting otherwise is to start on the long road of making girls and women arrange their lives around men and the care and feeding of their dicks, and this is not Saudi Arabia.

[pipi_k]

112. Sigh...

I'm not saying boys' bodies are the problem, specifically, although that can be a part of it.

It's the whole sexual response thing, and even if the boys are wearing circus tents to school, they still have to deal with the sexual arousal part of it, which, in case people don't know, or remember, can be very distracting.

How the bloody hell can a 14 year old kid be expected to concentrate on schoolwork when he's being assaulted multiple times a day with hormones he didn't ask for?


AGAIN...nobody is placing the blame, nobody is placing the responsibility, on girls. And nobody is suggesting that girls wear burqas or some other all-encompassing cover.

However...

Boys are having a difficult enough time as it is.

Why the hell would any rational adult think it's an awesome idea to add to their misery by allowing the girls to show parts of themselves that would add more fuel to that fire?

when I was in school, we didn't dress the way kids today do, yet we managed to live through the horror of dressing in a manner that showed respect for everyone.

Yes, we lived through that horror.

[seabeyond]

117. how the bloody hell can a GIRL concentrate when she is assaulted multiple times a day by hormones.

listen to you pipi.

this is puberty. plain and simple.

i do not see you all up in arms about girls feeling that humiliation, embarrassment when their nipples pucker. oh the horrors.

well fuck that, just girls, so what.

boys are not "having a difficult enough time". where do you get this garbage?

misery? boys love their erections.... it means they are well on their way to grown up. just as girls love their boobs... same thing.

you really are escalating this teen age boy crap to a whole new level

[LeftyMom]

123. I suppose they manage the same way girls do.

Wearing clothes that are comfortable or fashionable or simply pleasing to one's self is not disrespecting anybody. Demanding that girls hide themselves from view is disrespecting them. The implication that boys have no self-control is also disrespectful to them, but that's coming from you.

[pipi_k]

125. There's a big difference

between wearing comfortable clothing and wearing clothing that will cause a distraction, and I think most reasonable adults know where that line is, give or take a few inches.

It might be "fashionable" for young girls to wear very low hip hugging jeans with the tops of thong underwear sticking out the top, but it's disrespectful. AND it can be distracting.

And yes...young boys...13, 14, and sometimes even older...have little self control.

Especially when it comes to hormones.

Just like girls have a real hard time with their new set of hormones.

Dressing respectfully and conservatively...by both sexes...at least in school, is no big damned deal.

Kids are there to LEARN. Take away the unnecessary distractions and LET them learn.

Not a difficult concept, really...

[TreasonousBastard]

65. And you'll never guess what this subthread started...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125541334

[MadrasT]

91. This is painfully heterosexist.

Maybe we need to let boys be in charge of dealing with their erections and not try to shield them from everything that might cause them.

It is a bad message to send to boys that they can't be expected to manage themsleves around girls.

What is your proposal to protect gay boys from their own erections?

[pipi_k]

103. Here's the deal...

they already have to deal with their own erections, and some don't seem to understand what I'm saying, which is, that it's difficult enough already on a daily basis for them to do that, so why in God's name would anyone want to compound the problem for them by allowing girls to dress in a manner that would fire up the hormones even more??


So the boys are trying to figure out a way NOT to have erections during class anyway while still trying to concentrate on schoolwork, and it's not a good idea for the schools to help them out a little by requiring the girls to dress a bit more conservatively?

As far as gay boys go, the OP isn't about them. It's about heterosexual boys

[seabeyond]

105. you might ask all the men here if they needed school to help them with their erections

by policing the girls dress, cause the boys were unable to address the issue themselves. slaves to that erection that they were.

[LittleBlue]

113. Well said. Two things drove me mad at that age

The shirts that weren't long enough. They didn't cover the girls' lower backs, so it was 53 minutes of getting peeks at their skin and underwear without being able to do anything about it. Probably more arousing at that age than pornography is to an adult male. That hour became an ordeal.

And also the girls who developed large breasts early and wore low cut tops. That was hypnotic. There wasn't a damned thing we could do about it, it was like being under a spell.

[seabeyond]

118. without being able to do anything about it.... fuck. just fuck.

[LittleBlue]

120. You can't walk away and you can't wank in class

Does talking about this stuff bother you?

[seabeyond]

122. And you know dude.... We were ALL there. Big fug gin' deal. Oh wait.... We have SOME men

And a culture that have to have it be that big of a deal cause that is their identity.

[Whiskeytide]

12. I have both a son and a daughter...

... so I'm not sure I can form an opinion on this without selling out to one side or the other!!!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

13. Is a better question "how often do school dress codes unfairly target girls"?

There are tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of schools in America.

I'm sure that at least one has a dress code that unfairly targets girls, and and at least one doesn't.

[Tikki]

15. When I was in HS in the late 60's girls couldn't wear pants of any kind, guys could wear shorts...

but only if they wore socks to their knees and bermuda length shorts.

So a couple girls came to school in knee socks and bermuda shorts the last couple days of school
and instead of suspending them the principal let them finish out those days in their shorts.

But the principal, also, announced during those last days of my Senior year in HS that next year
the dress code would allow pants and shorts for girls and cut-off length shorts for guys.

Always a day too late…


Tikki

[gollygee]

17. I don't mind dress codes depending on how they're worded

If they just say shorts for both boys and girls must be this length, skirts this length, no bare midriffs, that's fine. But a lot of dress codes, including at my middle school daughter's school, specifically word it in a way that makes it girls' responsibility to not arouse boys, and that's not a fair responsibility to place on them. It certainly shouldn't be worded like that, to make them constantly evaluate themselves on those terms. It's fine to expect them to conform to a neutrally worded dress code.

[Nevernose]

30. Our school has a dress regulations

Although not an official uniform. They handle it just like you suggest: something to the effect of "All clothing will fit properly, neither too baggy nor too loose." Totally gender neutral, and appropriate for both sexes. I don't want to be looking at anyone's junk, male or female.

We also have a very large homeless population, so the teachers spend quite a bit of time and money providing clothing for kids.

[dsc]

20. some do but many don't

In many cases it is boys who are subject to a dress code (keeping shirts tucked in, wearing belts) while girls are often not required to do either of those. Yes, girls are forbidden from wearing extremely low cut shirts and from wearing extremely short and or tight skirts or shorts in many cases but so are boys in those cases they often don't wish to wear tight clothes.

[Blue_In_AK]

21. This reminds me of when I was a teenager.

We couldn't wear ANY kind of pants to school, jeans or whatever, and our skirts had to be knee length ... i.e., if they thought your skirt was too short, you had to kneel on the floor, and if it didn't touch the floor, they sent you home to change. This was early '60s. There's always been a different dress code for girls.

[amandabeech]

31. Floor kneel and two inches.

Same deal in Michigan until 9th grade in the beginning of 1969. See my post #27, above.

The whole thing was pretty wretched.

[LadyHawkAZ]

71. I remember doing the same in the early 80s

Got sent home a time or two for "skirt too short".

We could wear pants but not jeans.

I doubt there has been a boy sent home ever in history for "pants cuffs too high". Just sayin'.

[blueamy66]

78. The boys at my Catholic HS were scrutnized as well as we were.

Last edited Wed Apr 2, 2014, 08:56 AM - Edit history (1)

The were given hair cuts by the coach if their hair touched their collar. They were sent home if they hadn't shaved.

I loved wearing a uniform. It meant that I went to a great school. To this day, I can pick out a kid that's going to that school...used to see them every day at Starbuck's or Jack in the Box or the grocery store....always said Hi.

[Chan790]

23. Usually the opposite.

Typically there is more permissible variance in the dress code for acceptable wear for female students than male students; it was worse still in prep school.

The following was my HS dress code circa 1998.

Boys: All boys must wear a white long-sleeved Oxford dress shirt, shirts must be buttoned to the top button, button-down collars not acceptable. All boys must wear a uniform patterned school tie. All boys must wear a school blazer with embroidered uniform crest. All boys must wear blue or khaki slacks. Jean-cut and Dockers-style casual slacks not permissible. Boys must wear black lace-up business-appropriate dress shoes; any other color will be considered a dress-code violation. Loafers are not permissible. Boys must wear uniform pattered dress socks. No other socks are permissible. Boys must wear a business-appropriate black leather or faux-leather belt. No other belt permissible. Tie bars, tie tacks and watches may be worn provided they are suitably business appropriate and gold or silver in color. No other jewelry may be worn.

Girls: All girls must wear a button-front dress shirt or blouse with sleeves extending at least 4" down the arm from the shoulder. Shirts must be buttoned sufficiently to conceal cleavage. Girls may wear blue or khaki slacks. Jean-cut and Dockers-style casual slacks not permissible. Girls may wear blue, khaki or uniform pattern skirts provided the skirts extend to the bottom of the knee and do not rise past the middle of the back of the thigh when bent over. Pleated skirts not permissible. Girls may not wear neck ties, kerchiefs or other fashion neck-wear. Girls must wear knee-height socks, leggings or hose. Bare legs not permissible. Girls must wear closed-toe black shoes, no heels taller than 4" permissible. Jewelry may be worn provided it is unobtrusive and simple in design, suitably business appropriate and gold or silver in color.

Every step of the way, greater variance in dress code permissible for female students than male students. Basically they can wear whatever they want within loose bounds where male students had a totality of one appropriate outfit.

[gollygee]

24. Most schools don't have uniforms like that

So I'd say it's unusual to have a dress code like that.

For my daughter's school, the boys' rules are that they can't have any underwear showing over their jeans (jeans pulled up all the way) and that they can't wear "muscle shirts" or tank tops. I think that's it. For girls, they can't wear yoga pants, leggings unless they're wearing something over it that completely covers their butts, no tank tops, no bare midriffs, shorts must be fingertip length, skirts must be fingertip length. Neither boys nor girls can wear shirts with inappropriate words/images.

And the way it's worded is horrible. The boy rules are listed with no explanation of why. The girls rules are listed as existing so the girls don't become a distraction to the learning process. Girls and women are taught to self-evaluate how they look and are presenting themselves constantly. I mean literally constantly - like every minute or so all the time. This feeds into that and it's not a healthy thing.

I think her school is very average.

[blueamy66]

79. That sounds fair to me.

Hey, boys and girls are different.

Boys don't wear "short shorts". They don't wear shirts that show their stomachs. They don't wear skirts.

They wear jeans/pants/shorts...which must be pulled up all the way. And they wear shirts.

[gollygee]

84. Some of it is fair

This part isn't:

And the way it's worded is horrible. The boy rules are listed with no explanation of why. The girls rules are listed as existing so the girls don't become a distraction to the learning process. Girls and women are taught to self-evaluate how they look and are presenting themselves constantly. I mean literally constantly - like every minute or so all the time. This feeds into that and it's not a healthy thing.

But the point was that I think in most schools, the girls' clothing is policed more than the boys'.

[blueamy66]

86. But don't you think that girls dress more provocatively than boys, as a rule?

nt

[gollygee]

88. Yes, because that's how society is set up

which also isn't their fault. They're told on one hand to dress in a way that is attractive to boys, but on the other hand that they have to cover themselves because boys are so terribly distraught if they get an erection, and that's the girls' fault. (Look at some of the posts on this thread.)

It creates a really unhealthy situation for girls where they are constantly watching themselves to make sure they're attractive to boys, and at the same time to make sure they're not TOO attractive to boys. Boys don't self-police like this. It takes enough mental energy to take away from the things they should be concentrating on at school, and it's all on the girls. The girls take their mental energy away from school and on clothing so the boys' mental energy is saved for school.

[DebJ]

89. Or, they could have parents who are capable of teaching them some common sense.

My Dad, and my school, made it really easy to ignore all this nonsense.

It was quite simple, really: don't spend your life worried about what other people think about you.
Comporting yourself with dignity and self-respect is healthy, normal behavior ... and sensible, strong behavior.
Being 'attractive' wasn't defined as being sexually attractive at all, but by being a really good person who cared
about others.

I feel incredibly sad for children who aren't raised with this perspective, who grow up thinking they must constantly
worry about what others think of their choices. No wonder this country is so screwed up.

Because of the perspective I was given, my entire life has been much easier than other people, who instead of looking inward to make choices, look outward. That is really a pathetic way to live. If sexuality brings this issue to critical mass, well, SOMETHING should.

One thing I'm not seeing in this thread is mention of the extremes in dress many young girls...I am speaking like 7th grade...choose. I was a 7th grade teacher for a year in 2009-2010, and saw so much cleavage it was well, revolting, to me. I would have had the same reaction to an adult female dressing in this fashion. What I end up concluding is how tragic, to feel so unloved, that you have to almost have your nipples showing on your very large breasts to feel like you are a person who matters in this world. It was really gross. Yes, school policy required the students be sent home to actually get dressed, and no, males were not subjected to this same dress code, that would be ridiculous. HOWEVER, because of pressure from some of their parents, some girls were NOT sent home and came to school regularly looking like they were ready to pole dance. School administration so often takes the easy way out of any conflict. Anything that will shut up Mom and Dad is the guiding 'principle' for the principal. The crazier Mom and Dad are, the more noise they make, and the more quickly the administration will cave.

[gollygee]

92. I'm talking about how the dress code is worded

Not that a dress code exists.

To state in the dress code, as my daughter's school does, that she must police her clothing so she isn't a distraction to the boys, creates an unhealthy situation for her.

[DebJ]

93. I agree. As I said above, the focus should be on learning to value yourself as a whole person,

rather than yourself as an image you project. The focus is completely askew, I agree.
But the skewing is worse than just what is stated....leaving out the part about valuing
and respecting yourself is just as bad, if not worse, IMHO.

[blueamy66]

97. I agree totally.

That is why I like the idea of uniforms.

There shouldn't be a need for any wording. Just state the rules.

[alarimer]

29. Burqas all around because clearly its the girls' fault boys can't control themselves.

[rrneck]

36. I wonder if the dress code requires the boys to pull thier pants up.

Maybe they should be expected to "dress professionally", which is to say rather more conservatively than for a night out or a day in the garden. School is, after all, a job for kids. Maybe they should be expected to dress for work.

[DebJ]

94. That was exactly the thinking back in the 1960s.

The purpose of an education was to teach one to function in society after school.
Part of that education was understanding how to dress for a job, and in public.
Just like part of it was learning how to speak and write English properly.
Didn't seem like such a horrible torment to me.

[MNBrewer]

43. In my unairconditioned high school in Georgia

Girls were allowed to wear shorts, but not boys.

But I guess that's fair.

[Nye Bevan]

53. If boys, but not girls, are allowed to wear leggings with nothing on top, then yes, that is unfair.

But it is not clear to me that this is the case.

[Maedhros]

57. I think girls today face a Catch-22:

On the one hand, pop culture bombards them with over-sexualized pop star role models and advertising, so that dressing age-inappropriately is presented as normal. (Check out the costumes for girls at the Halloween stores sometime.)

On the other, they are being branded with a scarlet letter by the schools for dressing the way they've been shown to.

They can't win.

[Gravitycollapse]

60. Women are subject to an endless bombardment of double binds.

Whore vs. prude happens to be one of the most prominent.

[Orrex]

132. "fragile victim" vs "indestructible warrior" is another. (nt)

[DebJ]

96. And fascinating that this typical view completely leaves out parental intervention.

It seems that society has accepted that parents just drop their children into the world like a robin hatches an egg, and
that's about all the parents' influence their is. I certainly see this in our schools, where it is the teacher's fault that Johnny did poorly on the test (because he plays computer games until 3 am most nights). It is the teacher's fault Suzy is texting in class, because the teacher is not 'entertaining' enough. Etc.

One of the reasons I loved Obama was because he was the ONLY politician with the balls to state the obvious: parents input matters. It REALLY matters. No other politician will say that because they worry about votes, not about what is right or even just freakin' common sense.

The girls can win, when parents begin at an early age to teach their daughters, and their sons, that character is what matters, and self-respect is what matters, and that culture is just a series of fads designed to sell clothing...ie, get you to pay $35 for a t-shirt that isn't even all cotton.... pop culture makes a dupe out of you. Parents should talk to their children...TO, not AT, and get them to analyze culture while they are still too young to feel overly influenced by it. It really isn't all that difficult.

[seabeyond]

119. you are so right on. so obvious. a given. and you are so right on. none of this stuff

was challenging when i was young, cause i had parents. none of this stuff is challenging for my boys... cause we talk all that in our house and the issues simply are not there.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

63. yes. duh. derp and the end.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

64. I think everyone at school (boys and girls) should be fully covered up

At my workplace, we are required to be covered up and not flashing body parts, and that includes both, men and women.

[Ghost in the Machine]

66. Speaking from personal experience, it unfairly targets the poor families the most...

Our little town, in the 4th smallest County in the State, has a dress code for Middle School and High School, but not for Elementary School. We don't have any gang related problems or anything like that. The reasoning behind the decision was "due to the income disparity in the County" according to the School Board. They thought some students wouldn't feel like they "fit in" because the kids whose families had money could wear Tommy Hilfiger, Aeropostle or whatever the newest fad was, while the poorer students might wear the same pants and/or shirt 2 days in a row, or twice in one week.

They started a code that required Khaki pants and either a polo shirt or button up dress shirt. The shirts had to be one solid color and couldn't have any kind of logos on them at all. They couldn't even have a tiny stripe on the color or the edge of the sleeve. This caused a lot of problems for the poor families because they are now face with having to buy TWO sets of clothes for their kids... school clothes and everyday wear clothes. This is a small farming town where most people wear jeans & T-shirts (flannel shirts in the winter over a thermal shirt).

I never understood it, as everyone knows everyone anyways, and the income gap is still on display in the school parking lot where some kids drive Corvettes, Hummers or any number of brand new cars, while others are driving 20 year old cars, rust buckets or riding the bus.

We have some families living in McMansions, while other families are still living on the old family homestead, passed down through generations, with over 100 year old houses (some still with no electricity or indoor plumbing) and others living in 30-40 year old mobile homes, some of which have been cobbled together to make a double-wide or have rooms and extensions built on here and there. Give me a break! The kids aren't stupid. They know what the score is.

It's the poor *parents* who have to make the sacrifices. Do they buy new clothes for 3 or 4 kids, or do they buy groceries and try to keep gas in the vehicle to get to work and back. A lot of the groceries are bought with food stamps, but they don't cover everything.... even less now with the cutbacks from the republicons (who are still wanting to cut more). I feel kind of bad for some of them, but I find it hard to feel for the staunch republicons who vote against their own best interests because "Democrats want to make us gay, get abortions 'n take away our bibles and guns!!!"

Empathy?? I can't feel it for them because I don't know HOW THE HELL a poor person, drawing food stamps, welfare and getting Tenn-Care could *EVER* vote for a republicon, but I DO feel *SYMPATHY* for their children, who are being raised by ignorant, brainwashed parents who are going to turn out the same way. Ignorance breeding ignorance for generations right here in living color.

When I was canvasing several years ago, I actually had a young man tell me "my grandpappy would come up out of his grave and get me if I EVER voted for a Democrat, 'cuz they wanna take away our guns!"

I've learned to just shake my head in disbelief around here, and keep mostly to myself....

Peace,

Ghost

[seabeyond]

67. Exactly. I ran into the same thing in a school for boys.

I now had to buy two sets of clothes. The collar shirts twice as much as what I spend on kids tshirts. And different shoes. I could afford, but I was also with the voice of those that could not afford. It lasted one school yr.

[Ghost in the Machine]

70. "but I was also with the voice of those that could not afford." Same thing here...

at the time, I *could* afford it, but it was still just a waste of money. My kids have been out of there since my daughter graduated in 2010, but I STILL speak up with the ones who bring this up every year, trying to get them to drop the dress code.

Looking at all those kids dressed alike makes me think they're just trying to raise a generation of lock-stepping robots!

Peace,

Ghost

[blueamy66]

73. Why would you have to buy 2 sets of clothes?

Last edited Wed Apr 2, 2014, 07:07 AM - Edit history (1)

My Mom just bought the uniform clothes every 1 or 2 years (skirts last) and filled in with jeans and shorts and dresses, etc. throughout the year.

[blueamy66]

72. I find it to be the total opposite.

Last edited Wed Apr 2, 2014, 09:48 AM - Edit history (3)

So a parent has to buy 2 or 3 pair of slacks and 2 or 3 polo shirts at Target or JCPenney or WalMart. That's got to be a lot cheaper than a full school wardrobe for a kid.

I know that my Mom LOVED the fact that I was in a uniform...and this was before uniform clothing could be bought at Target. Buying uniforms now is definitely cheaper than it was when I was in school.

on edit: I just found boys Docker's solid uniform shirts at Sears for $4.99 each. I found girls long sleeve uniform blouses at Target for $6.50 and boys uniform pants for $7.50. I found girls uniform skirts for $8 at Lands End and $9 at WalMart and $7 at JCPenney.

Doesn't look to be very expensive to me. Actually, it is MUCH cheaper than name brand, designer jeans and shorts and t-shirts.

[Ilsa]

101. Got here before me! Yes, I have found the same thing

to be true. I purchase polo-style shirts for less than "stylish" clothes. Huge savings not having to outfit my kids in pop-culture junk for school. I can buy Men's Small shirts for $9-10 at Academy for my high schooler. Holds up well.

The other thing schools regulate is tshirt content. Some schools specify no skull & bones, drug & alcohol content, or sexual content on the tshirt design.

[Ghost in the Machine]

176. "So a parent has to buy 2 or 3 pair of slacks and 2 or 3 polo shirts at Target, JCPenney or WalMart"

Did you read the part where I live in the 4th smallest County in the State?? We don't have either of those stores in our town. I live right near the county line to the next town over, and it's still a 25 mile round trip to WalMart. Target?? Try about a 60 mile round trip. That take gas, which costs money, which takes away from the money the poor already have for the clothes. It's like a no-win situation here. I know several families who do get together and carpool when they go shopping. Hell, I try to wait to go anywhere until I can get several tasks done at once.. like get groceries, pay bills and run a few other errands. Disability checks only go so far, you know.

Even when I was working and making good money, I used to hit flea markets, yard sales and thrift stores to buy clothes for my kids, who were not in school, or just starting school. I used to find them Tommy Hilfiger, Old Navy and other name brand clothes for $1 and don't remember paying more than $3 for a pair of jeans or shirts for my son, or dresses for my daughter (or jeans and shirts for her, too). I have Tommy Hilfiger, Ralph Lauren Polo and Craftsman jeans that were bought at Goodwill for less than $5/pair. I have a pair of $80 "Margaritaville" (a brand/line by Jimmy Buffet) deck shoes that I bought at a yard sale for $5. I always lived below my means, even when I was making $15 - $18/hr. I used to like being able to spend my money doing fun things with my kids, and they never heard the words "we can't afford that" until they were 13 & 14 years old, after I got hurt in a work accident. Workers Comp pays 2/3rds of your original pay, but here in our State they had a cap of $325/week. I was drawing the cap, but it didn't compare to what I was used to making.

The bottom line though, is yes, it's the poor and working poor that the dress code puts the burden on, especially in small rural areas. Not everyone has a WalMart, Target or JC Penny nearby. We don't even have public transportation or a taxi service in our town. I'm originally from Miami, Florida, and I know about public transportation. I used to be able to hop a bus to the Metro-Rail station, Take Metro-Rail to the Tri-Rail station and take the Tri-Rail all the way to West Palm Beach. I could also ride a bicycle to about anywhere I wanted to go, but drove when I needed to. It's hard to carry a bunch of groceries on a bicycle or a bus.

Hope that clears things up for you a little bit....

Peace,

Ghost

[blueamy66]

180. Thank you, but I don't need to "have things cleared up".

Um, I lived in a very, very small town in Ohio for about a month. Thank God it was only a month. They had a library with computers. I found all of the items I stated in my other post online. So, even if the people that you know can't afford a computer, they can always go to the library. Are you telling me that there isn't a library anywhere in your county?

I also shop at thrift stores. I know what they sell and how much things are. I also know that the last time I was in one, there were a lot of uniform items there. I also saw many uniform items on ebay....used and cheap.

IMO, it seems like you are just making excuses.

[Ghost in the Machine]

181. Wow, a whole MONTH!! I guess that makes you an expert on small town, rural living, huh?

Yes we have a library. It's a small building, and has 3 or 4 computers total (one of which is usually not working for one reason or another). There aren't very many people who use it. It was even closed down for a while due to lack of funds, then they got some sort of grant to re-open, and some of the "staff" are volunteers. Most of its use comes on court days, as it is right across from the court house, and people sometimes run over there to make copies of documents or look something up right quick. It used to cost money to use the computers, but I think that changed when they re-opened with the grant, but they also have time limits and a lot of sites blocked.

People still have to *drive* there, as there are very few houses in "Down Town", and the kids in school today know how to use a computer better than their parents do. Our whole County is about 210 square miles in area. 7 miles wide at its widest point, and close to 40 miles long, with a total population (as of the 2010 census) of 11,753 people. The City limits is 2.6 square miles, with a population of 1,598 (sane census). Some people would have to make a 25 - 30 mile round trip just to go to the library... then hope the computers are working.

I don't have to make excuses for anyone, nor would I. Until you know ALL the facts, you're in no position to make judgement calls concerning people here. We have kids being raised by their grandparents because their parents are in jail, dead, or the kids were removed from the parental home due to the parents' drug use, having meth labs in the house or they were being neglected or abused. *MY* kids always had access to computers, so I never had to worry about the library, except to run across from the court house one day to make a copy of a document in a lawsuit case.

My kids are grown now, so I have no dog in this hunt other than the fact that I expressed my *opinion* on a poll on a discussion board, an opinion based on what I've seen and heard. Why do you think it's a huge topic of discussion at the school board meetings every year before school starts?

Ghost

[blueamy66]

182. I could only stomach the place for a month. It was a huge Republican town.

But, it only took me a day to find the library....that was my point.

I doubt that JCPenney and Ebay and WalMart.com are blocked sites.

I'm not making a judgment call. I am in favor of uniforms, especially in towns like yours. You stated that you can buy designer clothing at thrift stores and garage sales. Why the need to buy designer clothes? Another point...if the kids are in uniforms, NOBODY is wearing designer clothes.

I don't know anything about where you live.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Peace.

Amy

[Ghost in the Machine]

184. Yes it's tough being a Liberal in a republicon town, but I do know a few others...

BTW, the designer clothes I found for myself, I got from thrift stores in some of the "ritzier" neighborhoods around Knoxville. I used to stop in some when I had doctors appointments in Knoxville, so I was already in the area. The Goodwill in the next town over wants $5 for a pair of Faded Glory, when you can buy them brand new for $8.88 or $9.99 at K-Mart or WalMart.

I have no problem agreeing to disagree, though. We're both entitled to our opinions.

Peace to you too,

Ghost

[gollygee]

177. You'd be surprised by how many people

by ALL their kids' clothes at thrift stores. It's very common where I live.

[seabeyond]

178. Hand me downs. My boys had four older nephews. I didn't even buy boys a coat until

They were high school.

I would buy a couple jeans and five shirts or so, under ten bucks, for there school year. Shorts, tshirts, coats, gloves, boots, were given to us.

[rudolph the red]

121. Agree

[My Good Babushka]

75. We have a dress code at our school and I think it's the boys that are treated unfairly

It's supposed to be black or khaki pants, with a shirt in red, black, gray or white. Girls get away with bending the rules everyday, sleeveless, two tone dresses, polka dot leggings, sparkle trim on their shirts, anything that they can vaguely shoehorn into the color requirements. I think everyone should follow the dress code, or they should just get rid of the dress code. In stores, the section for boys' clothes is already 1/4 the size of the girls' clothes section. I am lucky if I can find just enough dress code approved clothes to get through the year!

[aquart]

76. YES!

[WinkyDink]

77. Leggings (used to be called "tights") aren't meant as stand-alone attire.

[gollygee]

87. Leggings and tights aren't the same thing

And it's a question of how far down the top goes, not whether it stands alone or not. Girls wear leggings with a very long top, but maybe not as long as the school would like.

[WinkyDink]

161. I'm showing my age, heh, (though I'm from the mini-skirt era!). Just don't call them "jeggings"!

[Dorian Gray]

80. I wear leggings all the time!

But when I do, I wear a long, flowy shirt or sweater that covers the butt.

I also wear yoga pants all the time. (I work from home and I like to take my breaks to go for a run or do a quick workout.) Again, I try not to wear pants that show all my "goods" or ones that are see-through.

I choose to wear clothing that way, and when I see people wearing leggings and crop tops that show off all their contours.... I don't htink it looks good. Should schools make dress codes about it? I haven't thought about it much. As my daughter grows older (she's three and a half now), I think it'll be more of a hot button issue for me.

[B Calm]

82. 63 years old and I can still remember 7th grade English with Nancy E. sitting in a mini skirt

in the front row while I was standing in front of the class giving a speech. Embarrassing for me, you bet, but I love that memory.

[Mike Nelson]

127. Make school dress codes the same for each gender...

...would be my expectation.

[pipi_k]

165. Hmmm...

I guess that would work.

I really had no desire to see the boys' hairy-assed legs in mini skirts anyway

[smokey nj]

129. "Underwear must not be worn as outerwear."

This was my favorite rule from my high school's dress code.

[Ken Burch]

145. School dress codes unfairly target everyone, actually.

The point of most of them is to crush nonconformity, spontaneity, and creativity, and get people used to regimentation, empty, meaningless routine, and obedience for the sake of obedience...that, and to get as many of us as possible accustomed to wearing uniforms.

I seriously doubt that many of those who are made to obey those codes grow up to be poets, artists, or original thinkers of any sort. If you're restricted on the outside, you can't be free on the inside.

You can grow up to be a soldier or a corporate drone, however. Or simply a person without much of a spirit. And that's generally what the educational-industrial complex wants.

[blueamy66]

163. I respectfully disagree, big time

Crush nonconformity, spontaneity and creativity?

So, all of the thousands of kids who have to wear uniforms have no hope of ever being a poet, artist or original thinker?

Let me tell you about some of the kids in my graduating class. One is a concert pianist. One is an astronaut. One is a cop. One owns an interior design group. One is a nurse. One owns a restaurant. One is a juvenile court judge. One works for the USPS. Oh shit, she has to wear a uniform everyday. One is a language arts teacher. Quite a wide variety.

And damn the beautiful Fine Arts building that was just built at my alma mater. Why bother? The poor kids have to wear uniforms, so why waste time and effort with plays and musicals and concerts.

[pipi_k]

164. That's pretty much

what I was thinking too, earlier this AM

What about the generations of artists, writers, musicians, etc., who dressed in the (conforming) mode of their days...

Would Beethoven have been more creative if he had dressed like a circus clown?


How about Georgia O'Keeffe...was her artwork affected by the fact that she didn't dye her hair five different colors and wear a ring through her nose?


Not to mention hordes of other creative people.

[ProfessorGAC]

170. Yikes. That's Quite A Reach

In the private (parochial) grade school i went to, uniforms were a fashion equalizer. Sure there was some element of conformity, but the family with 4 kids who had dad working the line at Catepillar had kids who dressed just the same as the sons and daughters of doctors and big lawyers and bank VP's. My dad was a truck driver, and my two best buds had dad's that were an accountant and a lawyer. But, we all looked the same on school days.

No competition for who had cooler or nicer or newer clothes. Just what we all wore to school.

Nothing soul crushing about that.

[Hippo_Tron]

148. The fact that it may distract boys is a stupid rationale, but...

There probably ought to be some degree of modesty enforced in the dress code.

[Jamastiene]

153. Often, they do.

It wasn't until 2005, that Richmond Community College in Hamlet, NC had to change their policy (thank you ACLU) about women being required to wear dresses to graduate. Formal attire is not too much to ask, but specifically saying women had to wear dresses and not pant suits was against the law. They did not also require any such specific dress code for men to graduate.

They knew they had to change the policy when I quoted Title IX to them, would not STFU and go away like they wanted, and then the ACLU sent them a nice letter for me. Out of all of it, I say props to the ACLU, because I think that is really what made them change the policy. Someone had to bring it up and alert the ACLU though, first. Every woman in graduation rehearsal gave a standing ovation when the announcement was made, btw.

I am glad when girls and women stand up for ourselves and especially glad when legal organizations like the ACLU stand up to help.

[Violet_Crumble]

160. #firstworldproblems

There's nothing sexist in the dress code I found when I googled it. Here's a link to it:

http://haven.district65.net/Dress_Code

[seabeyond]

166. ya. this one. i am tired of this little meme also. a woman raped from childhood on and accused

of whiney about first world problems cause other countries they are so much more torturous toward women.

a child hungry. yet, we dismiss with first world problems

womens issue in the u.s. and a whine about first world problems.

that little saying can just be put away. my niece that has moved in, uses it often.

which has nothing to do with this OP topic

[Violet_Crumble]

175. WTF? I've never said rape or hunger is a first world problem

On the other hand I do think whining about a dress code that isn't sexist falls into the first world problem category.

When I went to school there was a dress code. In every job I've had since I left school there's been a dress code. None of them have been sexist either. They've never been about policing one gender to protect the other but about common sense and with work to keep the reputation of the 'brand' tidy I guess. I'd tell any school kids who are being precious and don't want a dress code to suck it up get used to the real world and enjoy wearing what they want after school and at weekends.

Me and my first world problem hashtag must go now and find a thread where someone's bemoaning the fact that it's impossible to buy a single serve of fried rice from the local Chinese take away. Tell yr niece we may need backup.

[tammywammy]

173. That dress code doesn't seem very restrictive.

[Jeneral2885]

162. They are lucky

they aren't in the UK. School uniforms only.

[Arugula Latte]

171. I actually wish we had school uniforms here.

It would get rid of so much worry, expense, stress, distraction, one upsmanship, class conflict, insecurity, bullying, etc. etc. if kids just wore uniforms -- as long as the girls could wear pants and weren't required to wear skirts only, which is ridiculous during cold winter months in the north.

[pipi_k]

172. As a kid...

I also had to deal with the clothing issue.

Not so much in the lower grades, but after junior high, it got bad.

Parents divorced...mom working trying to support me and two sisters at the time.

It was very painful having to go to school in crap clothing. It wasn't that I was a clothes horse or anything. Even now when I can afford nice things, I'm pretty unconcerned with fashion.

It was the being looked down on...being teased and belittled.

Uniforms would have made us all equals, as far as clothing went, anyway.

[Arugula Latte]

174. Yes. I went to high school in a very affluent school

My family was middle class and I was definitely not one of the fashion plates who got new outfits from Nordstrom every week. There was an outrageous amount of pressure to keep up with styles, have the correct name brands, etc., and many of the rich kids were downright nasty to people who couldn't or wouldn't keep up. I can only imagine what kids go through who get their clothes from thrift stores, Kmart, homeless shelters, etc.

[idendoit]

179. I remember how hard we fought in high school...

...to finally get rid of our dress code. It was the first Earth Day and a group of us showed up in nothing but bib overalls for the guys and sack cloth dresses for the gals. We all got suspended but stuck with it and, with a little help from the ACLU, got most of it overturned.

[KamaAina]

183. And boys!

And trans students.