How Shaming’ Has Been Written Into School Dress Codes Across The Country

[BainsBane]

Last month, a New Jersey middle school banned girls from wearing strapless dresses to prom. Administrators claimed that the dresses were “distracting” — though they refused to specify exactly how or why. Parents reacted strongly to the rule; some supported the dress code while others deemed it “slut-shaming.” On Friday, the school compromised by allowing girls to wear single-strap or see-through-strap dresses.

This is no isolated incident in the United States. Across the country, young girls are being told what not to wear because it might be a “distraction” for boys, or because adults decide it makes them look “inappropriate.” At its core, every incident has a common thread: Putting the onus on young women to prevent from being ogled or objectified, instead of teaching those responsible to learn to respect a woman’s body. Here are five other recent examples:

1. A middle school in California banned tight pants. At the beginning of last month, a middle school in Northern California began telling girls to avoid wearing pants that are “too tight” because it “distracts the boys.” At a mandatory assembly for just the female students, the middle school girls were told that they’re no longer allowed to wear leggings or yoga pants. “We didn’t think it was fair how we have all these restrictions on our clothing while boys didn’t have to sit through [the assembly] at all,” one student told local press. Some parents also complained, leading the school’s assistant principal to record a voicemail explaining the new policy. “The guiding principle in all dress codes is that the manner in which students dress does not become a distraction in the learning environment,” the message said. . .

When most Americans think about “rape culture,” they may think about the Steubenville boys’ defense arguing that an unconscious girl consented to her sexual assault because she “didn’t say no,” the school administrators who choose to protect their star athletes over those boys’ rape victims, or the bullying that led multiple victims of sexual assault to take their own lives. While those incidences of victim-blaming are certainly symptoms of a deeply-rooted rape culture in this country, they’re not the only examples of this dynamic at play. Rape culture is also evident in the attitudes that lead school administrators to treat young girls’ bodies as inherently “distracting” to the boys who simply can’t control themselves. That approach to gender roles simply encourages our youth to assume that sexual crimes must have something to do with women’s “suggestive” clothes or behavior, rather than teaching them that every individual is responsible for respecting others’ bodily autonomy.”

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/05/06/1969001/slut-shaming-dress-codes/

[GeoWilliam750]

1. Who is teaching our children

Both boys and girls

That young women must make themselves less than young men - despite a typically much better academic results these days?

Parents cannot simply abdicate responsibility for the education of their children to teachers, friends and the media. Each parent is to a large degree responsible for the education and ethics of their child.

WHO teaches boys that girls are lesser human beings?

[YarnAddict]

2. Middle school kids

Fashion is arbitrarily imposed on us by designers and retailers, etc. There is no reason why middle school girls should want to wear strapless dresses, except that that is what "fashion" dictates, and I have no problem with a middle school administration overruling "fashion" in setting standards for acceptable apparel.

You can bet that there probably are restrictions on what boys wear, also, in terms of slogans on t-shirts, or whatever. And if boys were wearing leggings and yoga pants, they would probably also have an assembly to tell them to stop doing so.

School dress codes have nothing to do with "slut-shaming," and everything to do with establishing standards that promote a learning environment.

JMHO.

[thucythucy]

4. Since when is a prom a "learning environment"?

Personally, I wonder what purpose a junior high school prom serves at all, in terms of education. Just another social add-on, having more to do with status, peer pressure, and tradition than anything to do with education.

And why a "girls only assembly" but not a similar assembly for boys? And why no focus on teaching boys not to be distracted? That would seem to be a much more useful lesson. In effect the school is telling boys, "We know you can't control yourselves, we know basically you're just a bunch of dumb animals, so our solution is to restrict what the girls can do, so as not to be an inconvenience to you." Way to teach males how women and girls need to amend their behaviors so as to solve male problems!

And would you be all right with boys being prohibited from wearing tight pants? You know, to keep girls from being distracted?

[redqueen]

7. Exactly - the message is so clear.

And why a "girls only assembly" but not a similar assembly for boys?

I doubt anyone who frequents this forum is in any doubt about why. (Not counting the stalkers, of course.)

[Squinch]

3. I'm a little torn on this.

I don't think the dress code should be imposed because "it's distracting to the boys." I think there are better reasons that should be the ones driving policy. But I do think the policy of dress codes is correct.

First, I have worked in inner city middle schools since before dress codes and uniforms became commonplace. The girls would need to take public transportation to and from school, and often in middle school they are 12, but they look like they are 25, so they attract adult attention that they are not yet equipped to deal with. We DO have a rape culture. At 12 years old, a girl still needs to be protected from it.

Second, There is a look that in my youth was described as "the girl at her first disco." (That's how old I am!) It is an over the top, very flashy look, complete with bad experimental makeup and clothing that shows off all those new body parts that just appeared. Today it's got nothing to do with disco, but it is still the look that some 12 year olds will adopt if they have no one at home guiding the way they dress. That look really IS distracting, and not just to the boys, and not really for sexual reasons. Imagine if Dame Edna walked into your 9th grade Algebra class. It's like that.

And last, in middle schools, there is a lot more sex going on than I think most adults know. And it just isn't appropriate among 11 and 12 year olds. They are too young. I have worked with the babies of pre-teen mothers, and it's a bad situation. I think it is appropriate to discourage any sexual activities and behaviors among both sexes at that age in school. The imposition of uniforms and dress codes has helped with this. I have noted fewer pre-teen and early teen pregnancies since the uniforms came in. Just anecdotal, but it is my experience.

[thucythucy]

5. Maybe all this needs to be addressed in a direct way,

rather than simply gathering all the girls together and announcing prohibitions on what they (and only they) can wear.

Maybe an open discussion on sex, and rape culture, and personal responsibility (as in, boys, it's not HER problem if you're distracted, it's YOUR problem, so learn how to deal with it). It's not as if these kids won't ever have to handle these issues outside of school.

Personally, I have no problem with dress codes and uniforms. One thing I like about uniforms is they get rid of the whole social status peer pressure dynamic around clothes. When I was going to school, kids from poorer families who couldn't afford the newest fashions were teased mercilessly. Uniforms certainly get rid of that problem.

[Squinch]

9. I agree, and where I have seen it done, it's just a list of what they are expected to

wear, and what they are forbidden to wear. So, on the forbidden list for example, they will list baseball caps for girls and boys, and sleeveless shirts for girls and boys.

[ismnotwasm]

6. What a mess.

'Distracting boys' is the least of the concerns. This is a difficult time for teenagers, I think concentrating on teaching kids not to bully, not to be exclusionary to other children, WHY kids dress as they do would be more informative, whether male or female.

I was at my grandsons track meet yesterday, and I was watching the interaction between boys and girls. My grandson, along with his friend, are tall, very attractive 14 year olds. There was a small group of girls around them quite often, between events. These girls are in track clothes, and while not sexualized to be overly revealing are, well track clothes. What was happening was cute in the timeless fashion of early teenagers; they were talking. The boys and girls body language bespoke of slight awkwardness, but not distraction. The friendships that form at this point are crucial, here is where we can teach boys not to objectify, girls to not feel as though they are group of body parts instead of a whole person.


My oldest grandson is going to be a very handsome man. I've been talking 'feminist' with him ever since he started asking certain questions. My daughter told me yesterday that 'he tries so hard to not objectify women' its an honor to me he even knows he knows what the word means. He knows how damaging it is. We've talked about it for years. I have two more grandsons, little guys. I plan on doing the same thing with them.

[redqueen]

8. "... teach boys not to objectify, girls to not feel as though they are group of body parts ..."

I wonder how many people are unwilling to even admit objectification is actually a real thing (rape culture, either).

[redqueen]

10. This is why I love tumblr

http://jacklullaby.tumblr.com/post/50137028033

[ismnotwasm]

11. LOL

That rocks the house!!

[Sheldon Cooper]

12. That's great! I just Followed them.

[gollygee]

13. I just got the dress code for the middle school my daughter will start going to in the fall

And I guess I understand them wanting to have standards of dress, and they have standards for boys too (no pants falling down was the main one I think), but I do wish they wouldn't say for the girls' rules that it's because boys find it distracting. And they did. To want kids to not look like they came in from the beach is fine, but to claim it's because boys can't control themselves around girls with short shorts is unfair to both the boys and the girls. I'm feeling inspired to put together a letter asking them to change the wording.

[mzteris]

14. Young Male Dancers

seem to have no problem with "distracting" clothing. (Like the track kids also mentioned in this thread).

The girls are certainly dressed in rather skimpy and "revealing" clothing - and there is a tremendous amount of "up close and personal" interaction - both in space and in body-to-body contact. Some of it quite "intimate". Yet, male dancers don't have that "distraction" nor "reaction". They see the girls as partners, as equals, as friends, as "coworkers" so to speak. The female body holds no "mystery" of OMG - BOOB. So what, they shrug.

This doesn't mean they're not attracted to girls nor that they don't find some more attractive than others. That they don't appreciate a female's form as any other male would. Just that they're not salivating nor "distracted" from the task at hand because of the way the girls are dressed.

My son finds it tacky and unattractive when a girl dresses "trashy" at school just to attract male attention. (And yes, girls should be able to wear whatever they want - if they're wearing it for themselves and not to get that "male reaction" that is all to often negative for both of them in the long run.)

BTW - if anyone here believes that male dancers are predominately "gay" - I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. (& if you don't know that there is a very large percentage of gay male athletes, I'll throw in some prime beachfront property in the Everglades!)