School dress codes reinforce the message that women’s bodies are dangerous

[niyad]

(so, the clothing of these young females is "distracting" to the male teachers????? quite frankly, instead of looking at the females, I would be having serious questions about those male teachers)

School dress codes reinforce the message that women’s bodies are dangerous


There are far more rules about girls’ clothing than boys’. When teenagers are denied classroom time it privileges their sexualisation over their right to learn.

?w=620&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&s=db88c036474e93a4c4cb176a606b2b9a
Some schools say female pupils’ knees, shoulders and upper arms should be covered. Photograph: Indeed/Getty Images


As pupils go back to school this month, one institution has hit the headlines for sending up to 150 girls home for wearing skirts that were deemed “too short”. Pupils at Tring School in Hertfordshire were either placed in seclusion or had to be picked up by their parents, reported ITV news. A statement from Tring School’s headteacher, Sue Collings, said: “We believe that students looking smart and professional is an important element of being a successful school. We also believe that, if students are consistently dressed in the correct uniform, it enables us to focus on teaching and learning. As such, we have a school uniform policy that has been in place for some time that is adhered to by the large majority of the students. The most contentious issue, though, is the style and length of the skirt worn by the girls.” It also stressed that parents and pupils had been warned in advance that uniform regulations would be tightened after a decision by school leadership in the summer.

But parents commenting below the statement on the school’s Facebook page expressed frustration at their struggle to find skirts that would fit their daughters’ waists while fulfilling the length requirement some said their daughters’ heights or body shapes simply made the skirt sit higher. One parent commented: “My daughter wore ‘regular’, not skinny, trousers from a school uniform shop, they had no external pockets as per guidance and [she] was told they showed every bone in her body and was put in internal for four lessons today.” On another post a parent said her daughter had been forced to wear a skirt several sizes too big safety-pinned round her waist in order to obey the length requirement.

Tring wasn’t the only school to take such measures – other reports have described children being sent home from various schools in the past week for wearing the wrong footwear, or even the wrong kind of socks. But while boys have been punished for some dress code violations too, it is clear that the majority of cases involve girls’ appearance being policed. A number of pupils at South Shields Community College were made to change because their trousers were deemed “too tight”. And these cases follow hot on the heels of two schools that have banned female pupils from wearing skirts altogether. In May, Bridlington School in East Yorkshire, reportedly banned skirts after a male staff member was made to feel “uncomfortable” when implementing rules over their length. And in July it was reported that Trentham High School in Stoke-on-Trent was banning skirts, with the head teacher saying: “It’s not pleasant for male members of staff and students either, the girls have to walk up stairs and sit down and it’s a complete distraction.” This week the same school is reported to have sent home 10 girls whose trousers were deemed too tight because they would prove a “distraction” to male teachers.

. . . . .


While the principle of asking students to attend school smartly dressed sounds reasonable, the problem comes when wider sexist attitudes towards women and their bodies are projected on to young women by schools in their attempt to define what constitutes smartness. It’s no coincidence that many school dress codes contain far more rules pertaining to girls’ clothing than to boys’, as we live in a world where women’s bodies are policed and fought over to a far greater extent than men’s. When girls are denied time in the classroom because their knees, shoulders or upper arms are considered inappropriate and in need of covering up, it privileges the societal sexualisation of their adolescent bodies over their own right to learn. We don’t have the same qualms about seeing those parts of their male peers’ anatomy.

. . . .

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/sep/10/school-dress-codes-reinforce-the-message-that-womens-bodies-are-dangerous

[Warpy]

1. And that males have no responsibility to control their behavior.

it's a total double whammy.

[Igel]

5. Yup.

It's why most referrals to school administrators for bad behavior involve boys. Because they're given passes for their behavior. (Well, passes to the principal's office.)

There's a difference between "behavior" and "being distracted." Teens are bad at mental discipline.


It's also the case that a lot of dress isn't for the opposite sex, but (a) to impress members of the same sex or (b) show how you can push the limits and show how daring you are.

Of the three reasons for some kinds of dress, none of them have much of a place in a serious learning environment. Then again, I am talking about primarily level classes in US public schools, so what does "serious learning environment" have to do with anything?

[niyad]

8. it is amazing to me to see how many people fail to see, or have no problem with, indicating

that the men are completely incapable of controlling their own behaviours.

[KT2000]

2. what is appropriate?

Maybe things have gone too far with the punishment and what is deemed wrong for school but there should be standards.

At younger and younger ages girls are learning the power of sexual attraction. They see it everywhere - advertising and music videos. Some take it to that extreme and something should be in place to say that is not appropriate and needs to be changed.
Not every child has a parent interested enough to set standards so they are on their own.
Walking outside our high school was a student who was wearing a skirt that barely covered her underwear, below that was a visible black garter that was holding up torn stockings. I felt sorry for her.

It is immaterial that the fault rests with men if they can't control themselves when they see a young woman in skimpy clothes. The guy or guys who cannot control themselves could inflict life-changing, life threatening damage to the young woman. That is a fact of life - sexual assaults happen.

And yes - some of these young women go on to show up for work in offices wearing tube tops, short-shorts and worse. Now supervisors have to explain appropriate dress in the workplace. This is not because anyone is afraid that men will attack them but to present oneself well for themselves and their employers.

Everyone is free to dress as they please at home.

[Paka]

3. Great comments.

[bemildred]

4. School is supposed to be a disciplined place, but in a way that promotes learning, not just "order".

Learning gets quite disorderly at times.

And sex is very distracting, so you don't want porn in learning situations unless you are learning about the porn. Much the same argument can be made against other distractive things like cellphones in school.

[niyad]

6. are you saying that females should have to dress not to draw the attention of these sick men?

once again, the onus is being placed on the women. nice going, there.

[KT2000]

9. I am saying that

there is an appropriate way to dress for school.
You may not have noticed but young people are exposed to very sexualized messages through advertising, media and especially things like music videos. That is where some young girls take their cues on how to dress, which is not appropriate for school. Please check out what some of the kids are wearing these days.

The fact is - there are sick guys - in the schools, on the street etc. who have not been reading feminist literature. They take their cues where they see them. They are a reality.
We do send messages with our clothing and young girls are not always mature enough to realize that - they want to wear what is in. But I guarantee that sick guys ARE attracted to girls who dress provocatively. The onus is on the parents to teach sons and daughters how to live in a world of all kinds of people - and be safe as much as possible. Its called street smarts.

Also - I would not like to see male teachers dressed in shorts and tank tops nor would I like to see female teachers wearing leggings with a crop top.

[niyad]

11. so the girls are responsible for the sexualizing messages they get, and responsible for the men

who cannot control their sick, twisted urges. no matter how you try to rationalize it, THAT is exactly what you are saying.

[KT2000]

13. no - you are reading

that into it.
Guys are responsible for their behavior - period.
There should be standards for school attire - period.

Girls who wear revealing clothing will attract the attention of the sicko guys. That is the real world - we do not live in the abstract perfect world.

this is my last comment on this thread.

[niyad]

14. and how do you explain the rape of a young women who was dressed iin sweats

and running shoes? what was provocative about HER attire? and yet, the judge said that SHE was responsible, because of what she was wearing.

so, saying that females have to dress to take into account the sickos of this world is really no different from the burka-demanding men who claim that women must be covered to prevent lustful thoughts in men.

[niyad]

7. . . .

[Bill USA]

10. on the other hand, parents like them because they can save a lot of money on clothes for their kids.

[niyad]

15. depends on the cost of the uniforms.

[niyad]

16. . . .