Please help me explain this to DS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You don't need to explain the opposing point of view because it's nonsensical. All people should dress appropriately for their environment, and that's the purpose of a dress code. You're son is right. It's particularly foolish that the girls are protesting since the rule extends to males as well.

What is inappropriate for a high school environment about shorts that are shorter than finger-tip length but still cover the underwear, the crotch, and the rear end?

Are short shorts appropriate for work? Usually not, depending on the job.

But it's not a work dress code. It's a school dress code.

Isn't school the most important "job" these kids have?

I don't understand. Should high school students wear suits to work, because lawyers wear suits to work? Or hard hats and steel-toed boots, because construction workers wear hard hats and steel-toed boots? I have an office job, and I don't wear T-shirts with writing on them to work, or jeans, let alone jeans with holes in them. Does that mean that T-shirts with writing on them and jeans are inappropriate for the high school environment?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You don't need to explain the opposing point of view because it's nonsensical. All people should dress appropriately for their environment, and that's the purpose of a dress code. You're son is right. It's particularly foolish that the girls are protesting since the rule extends to males as well.

Right on. And anyone who thinks that girls are not wearing "booty shorts" to school should swing by a high school at dismissal time. I have seen many girls with shorts so short that their ass cheeks are hanging out.

Solution: a dress code that says that shorts must cover your rear end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There are articles he can read that make the point that dress codes police girls' bodies. Things like spaghetti straps and skirt length that don't affect boys. Bootie shorts would be in that category as well, unless I've missed out on a new male fashion trend.

http://jezebel.com/is-your-dress-code-sexist-a-guide-1586233366

http://jezebel.com/university-of-texas-says-womens-clothing-distracts-from-1585819117

http://jezebel.com/confusing-school-ban-over-distracting-leggings-ignite-1547616678

Jezebel? So you want girls to go around naked. That'll combat these sexist ideas!

Where has anybody advocated that anybody go around naked?

[Anonymous]

Fingertip length has been the norm for a long time -- I had it 20 years ago at my all-girls school.

The school should stick to equally applicable rules for the boys and girls. All shirts must complete cover shoulders and midriff. All shorts, skirts, pants must be finger tip length or longer. Easy enough, yes?

Even though the school said booty shorts are inappropriate for boys and girls, it's obvious they are targeting the girls. They shouldn't.

[Anonymous]

It's impressive that the girls are organizing a protest and recognize the sexism. It gives me hope for the future.
I am in favor of uniforms in school, because they are a great equalizer (economically and gender) school dress codes almost alway single out girls in practice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DS's high school is instituting a new dress code. Apparently one of new rules is "no booty shorts for males or females". DS thinks this is appropriate for both sexes.

But, apparently the girls are staging a protest against the dress code today, stating that it "sexualizes young women".

DS feels it doesn't sexualize them because it is ensuring they dress appropriately for the school environment and I have to say I agree!

What the heck am I missing in this, so I can try to explain the opposing point of view?

Why does your son get to determine what is appropriate for girls to wear?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You don't need to explain the opposing point of view because it's nonsensical. All people should dress appropriately for their environment, and that's the purpose of a dress code. You're son is right. It's particularly foolish that the girls are protesting since the rule extends to males as well.

What is inappropriate for a high school environment about shorts that are shorter than finger-tip length but still cover the underwear, the crotch, and the rear end?

Are short shorts appropriate for work? Usually not, depending on the job.

But it's not a work dress code. It's a school dress code.

Isn't school the most important "job" these kids have?

I don't understand. Should high school students wear suits to work, because lawyers wear suits to work? Or hard hats and steel-toed boots, because construction workers wear hard hats and steel-toed boots? I have an office job, and I don't wear T-shirts with writing on them to work, or jeans, let alone jeans with holes in them. Does that mean that T-shirts with writing on them and jeans are inappropriate for the high school environment?

It is closer to a work environment than not. Why is it liberating for young women to dress in revealing clothes at school? Do they want to be appreciated for their sexual attractiveness or their intellect?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fingertip length has been the norm for a long time -- I had it 20 years ago at my all-girls school.

The school should stick to equally applicable rules for the boys and girls. All shirts must complete cover shoulders and midriff. All shorts, skirts, pants must be finger tip length or longer. Easy enough, yes?

Even though the school said booty shorts are inappropriate for boys and girls, it's obvious they are targeting the girls. They shouldn't.

People evidently don't remember what people routinely wore in the 1970s. Finger-tip length isn't even short, for shorts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It is closer to a work environment than not. Why is it liberating for young women to dress in revealing clothes at school? Do they want to be appreciated for their sexual attractiveness or their intellect?

You're changing the subject. This is not about young women's clothing choices. This is about high school dress codes. What is inappropriate for a high school environment about shorts that are shorter than finger-tip length but still cover the underwear, the crotch, and the rear end?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, are there many boys who wear booty shorts in DS's high school?

Also, I don't suppose that the dress code defines "booty shorts"?

They can't be above finger tip length.

Anything shorter than finger-tip length is "booty shorts"? I'm laughing at this, and I haven't been a 15-year-old girl in 30 years.

I had to stand up to see where this actually falls on me (I'm also 34 so its been a while!) I'm tall so have really long arms and legs and I was surprised to find out that my fingertip length would be maybe a 2-3" inseam at most, basically ruling out the 1-2 inch inseam.

That said, I was shocked at a concert this weekend to see that booty shorts are even shorter than I remember (I have good legs so I like a shorter short ) but I don't ever remember the norm in HS being that the curvature of your bum was routinely visible below the shorts even when standing still.

That said, I don't think schools without uniform codes should nitpick on dress codes, it always gets messy and either you have a uniform dress code or you don't- don't get into murky waters that then force questions of clothing and morality which makes little sense in the real world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You don't need to explain the opposing point of view because it's nonsensical. All people should dress appropriately for their environment, and that's the purpose of a dress code. You're son is right. It's particularly foolish that the girls are protesting since the rule extends to males as well.

What is inappropriate for a high school environment about shorts that are shorter than finger-tip length but still cover the underwear, the crotch, and the rear end?

If the standard is only that it covers underwear and crotch, why not just let them wear bikinis to school if they want? Part of school is preparing for involvement in society. That means dressing appropriately when necessary. You don't wear inappropriate attire to an office, or court, or school, or the doctor, or church, or any place such as those. You dress decently. And I wear shorts, I like shorts, but shorts that merely "cover the crotch" do not count as decent and show a level of disrespect for the school environment and any other place where they are not appropriate to be worn. Let your teen daughters wear them at their house, out with friends, in their free time. School isn't the place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It is closer to a work environment than not. Why is it liberating for young women to dress in revealing clothes at school? Do they want to be appreciated for their sexual attractiveness or their intellect?

You're changing the subject. This is not about young women's clothing choices. This is about high school dress codes. What is inappropriate for a high school environment about shorts that are shorter than finger-tip length but still cover the underwear, the crotch, and the rear end?

So would wearing a bathing suit to school be okay, too?

For Chrissake, don't you people think feminists have more important things to worry about? I weep for the future of women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, are there many boys who wear booty shorts in DS's high school?

Also, I don't suppose that the dress code defines "booty shorts"?

They can't be above finger tip length.

Anything shorter than finger-tip length is "booty shorts"? I'm laughing at this, and I haven't been a 15-year-old girl in 30 years.

I had to stand up to see where this actually falls on me (I'm also 34 so its been a while!) I'm tall so have really long arms and legs and I was surprised to find out that my fingertip length would be maybe a 2-3" inseam at most, basically ruling out the 1-2 inch inseam.

That said, I was shocked at a concert this weekend to see that booty shorts are even shorter than I remember (I have good legs so I like a shorter short ) but I don't ever remember the norm in HS being that the curvature of your bum was routinely visible below the shorts even when standing still.

That said, I don't think schools without uniform codes should nitpick on dress codes, it always gets messy and either you have a uniform dress code or you don't- don't get into murky waters that then force questions of clothing and morality which makes little sense in the real world.

I totally disagree

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, are there many boys who wear booty shorts in DS's high school?

Also, I don't suppose that the dress code defines "booty shorts"?

They can't be above finger tip length.

Anything shorter than finger-tip length is "booty shorts"? I'm laughing at this, and I haven't been a 15-year-old girl in 30 years.

I had to stand up to see where this actually falls on me (I'm also 34 so its been a while!) I'm tall so have really long arms and legs and I was surprised to find out that my fingertip length would be maybe a 2-3" inseam at most, basically ruling out the 1-2 inch inseam.

That said, I was shocked at a concert this weekend to see that booty shorts are even shorter than I remember (I have good legs so I like a shorter short ) but I don't ever remember the norm in HS being that the curvature of your bum was routinely visible below the shorts even when standing still.

That said, I don't think schools without uniform codes should nitpick on dress codes, it always gets messy and either you have a uniform dress code or you don't- don't get into murky waters that then force questions of clothing and morality which makes little sense in the real world.

I totally disagree

^^Sorry, hit return too quickly.

I totally disagree that schools shouldn't have dress codes. It is entirely appropriate for boys and girls to be required to wear shorts/skirts that not shorter than a certain length, to wear shoes of some sort, to cover the midriff, to not wear tank tops/spaghetti straps/muscle shirts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You don't need to explain the opposing point of view because it's nonsensical. All people should dress appropriately for their environment, and that's the purpose of a dress code. You're son is right. It's particularly foolish that the girls are protesting since the rule extends to males as well.

What is inappropriate for a high school environment about shorts that are shorter than finger-tip length but still cover the underwear, the crotch, and the rear end?

If the standard is only that it covers underwear and crotch, why not just let them wear bikinis to school if they want? Part of school is preparing for involvement in society. That means dressing appropriately when necessary. You don't wear inappropriate attire to an office, or court, or school, or the doctor, or church, or any place such as those. You dress decently. And I wear shorts, I like shorts, but shorts that merely "cover the crotch" do not count as decent and show a level of disrespect for the school environment and any other place where they are not appropriate to be worn. Let your teen daughters wear them at their house, out with friends, in their free time. School isn't the place.

Do bikinis these days cover the underwear, the crotch, and the rear end? The ones I see don't.

Again, shat is inappropriate for a high school environment about shorts that are shorter than finger-tip length but still cover the underwear, the crotch, and the rear end?