Dress Codes for Girls: Are Teachers the New Objectifiers?

[niyad]

Dress Codes for Girls: Are Teachers the New Objectifiers?


SHAME SUIT



tWhen I was in seventh grade, a teacher at my very small Quaker school once sent the boys out of the room and started talking to us girls about how we dressed. It wasn’t too far from “The Talk,” but it focused on our clothing. This teacher told us that we had to be more mindful with the way we would sit and that we had to be careful not to move our legs the wrong way because, well, you know, the boys. “They’re at that age when they’re just waiting for you to move your legs the wrong way,” she said, laughing a little, but clearly warning us.

Most of us giggled at that idea, although I thought the image she had painted was disturbing: The boys were predatory, and because of that we were the ones tasked with the responsibility to self-consciously keep ourselves covered and folded up from their prying eyes while they allegedly scanned under the desks for the girl in the skirt with her legs apart.
. . . . .

While the dress code policing at my high school was present, it was never over the top. It was leagues away from the middle-school girls now getting punished for wearing leggings, girls forced to wear “shame suits” and the superintendent in Oklahoma who is currently taking heat for allegedly having a “bend over” dress code check for girls wearing skirts, and refers to some of the girls as “skanks.” The policing of women’s bodies, especially the policing and punishing of middle-school and high-school age girls, has always been absurd. But now the policing has become downright obscene.

School officials have become so fixated on girls’ clothing at school and whether or not they are “distractions” to boys (which is insulting and dehumanizing on its own), that they have created an environment of exacerbated self-consciousness, humiliation, sexualization and dehumanization for those students. Instead of focusing on school, they are being forced and conditioned to obsess over their appearances and objectify themselves by constantly worrying about how other people are looking at their bodies.

. . . .

http://msmagazine.com/blog/2014/09/29/dress-codes-for-girls-are-teachers-the-new-objectifiers/

[left-of-center2012]

1. School kids on TV news

When I see stories about the local schools on my local TV news I'm "flabbergasted" at how kids today dress for class.
Lots of short shorts, short skirts, t-shirts, sagging baggy pants, etc.
Maybe I am "an old fogie" at 68 but I'd favor some dress code or uniforms.

[Igel]

2. Indeed.

There's a line--not always all that fine--between progressivism and libertarianism. It's all about where the restrictions fall.

Once had a roommate who said any woman should be perfectly safe walking down the street, blind drunk and buck naked, at 11 pm on a Friday night along frat row.

My response was that anybody should have absolute confidence their car would still be there if they scattered $1 million in small bills on the front seat of their Porsche, with the keys in the ignition and all the windows down, parked in a mall parking lot. And in both cases, the responsibility for any "problem" rests entirely with the perp. It would be judgmental to blame the owner if any money were stolen or the car taken.

After all, nobody has any responsibility for taking preventive measures against those few psychopaths who would dare break the law. It's only reasonable to assume that 99.9999% of the population subscribes perfectly under all circumstances to our version of morality, and furthermore never succumbs to temptation.

(In this, case, though, dress codes have a few purposes. Not only do they avoid distracting boys whose inhibition centers really won't mature for years, but they avoid competition with other girls for either expensive/outrageous dress. In some cases the rules are over-restrictive, but the problem is in how to write the rules to be restrictive in just the right situations and not become so complicated and cumbersome or so ambiguous and vague that they can't be reasonably enforced.)

[F4lconF16]

3. Uh-huh...

My response was that anybody should have absolute confidence their car would still be there if they scattered $1 million in small bills on the front seat of their Porsche, with the keys in the ignition and all the windows down, parked in a mall parking lot. And in both cases, the responsibility for any "problem" rests entirely with the perp. It would be judgmental to blame the owner if any money were stolen or the car taken

"I'm totally not blaming you...but yeah, you shouldn't have left your car there."

That's called victim-blaming, buddy. As is this:

After all, nobody has any responsibility for taking preventive measures against those few psychopaths who would dare break the law. It's only reasonable to assume that 99.9999% of the population subscribes perfectly under all circumstances to our version of morality, and furthermore never succumbs to temptation.