Please help me explain this to DS

[Anonymous]

*and curves (not "and girls")

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm not tall, and I don't have long arms or legs, and my fingertip length is a 4" inseam.

I'm actually in a pair of shorts right now. I'm about to wear them to a Dr appt and I guarantee no one who saw me in them would think they were 'sexy' or 'short'. In fact your teenagers wouldn't be caught dead in them because they are Mom shorts. I would (and have) worn these shorts to my kid's school that has a dress uniform and felt completely appropriate in them. I wouldn't wear them to an office job (they're jean shorts), but would wear dresses this length and would certainly wear them to work if I were a preschool teacher.

They have a 4.5" inseam and come to my knuckles. Fingertip length only if my hands are cupped.

I'm the original tall poster and this kind of proves my point that middle ground, murky dress codes are just kind of stupid and open to too much interpretation. Finger tip length is kind of BS. (Guess I am even leggier than "armier" than I thought too!) It means different things on different people. I have shorts that are 2-3 inch inseams that are definitely NOT booty shorts and definitely no one would think so, but I also couldn't wear a dress that length because it would be way too short. So its all just kind of grey area crap that is 100% aimed at policing women's bodies more than men's.

I'm not anti- dress code. I just think it should be really narrow (more like uniform guidelines) or not because otherwise you get into these ridiculous grey areas!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Only because girls choose to wear them and because society has set up the expectation that women show off their legs and girls in as skimpy clothing as possible. You're calling the rule sexist while applying heteronormative reasoning to justify the protest. We all have to start somewhere to change things. The school didn't use that language that targets girls. And that is important.

I think schools have the right to establish a dress code in order to emphasize a certain focus in the school environment.

What heteronormative reasoning? I'm sincerely curious. If you're referring to the idea that girls can't wear short shorts because otherwise boys will ogle, that's not my heteronormative reasoning; that's the schools' heteronormative reasoning.

And again, nobody is saying that schools have no right to establish any dress code of any sort.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's not even about people not wanting to see it. I have daughters and I don't care how long legged and cute they are; they are NEVER wearing tiny shorts to school on my watch. Things like that are the difference between kids with a good upbringing and kids who weren't brought up well. Do I want my adult daughters showing up to work in a skimpy sundress or attending a black tie event in casual clothing? No. That kind of education begins when they are young; it's teaching them how to properly present themselves in social situations. They can wear a bikini to the pool and play clothes when they're playing but they will know how to dress appropriately when it is required- and yes, it is required for school, which is an environment that deserves respect. If you don't instill in your kids things like this, you really do them a disservice. And it does reflect poorly on you as a parent.

+1,000,000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Only because girls choose to wear them and because society has set up the expectation that women show off their legs and girls in as skimpy clothing as possible. You're calling the rule sexist while applying heteronormative reasoning to justify the protest. We all have to start somewhere to change things. The school didn't use that language that targets girls. And that is important.

I think schools have the right to establish a dress code in order to emphasize a certain focus in the school environment.

What heteronormative reasoning? I'm sincerely curious. If you're referring to the idea that girls can't wear short shorts because otherwise boys will ogle, that's not my heteronormative reasoning; that's the schools' heteronormative reasoning.

And again, nobody is saying that schools have no right to establish any dress code of any sort.

The reason that the rule only applies to girls because they are the only ones that wear booty shorts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The reason that the rule only applies to girls because they are the only ones that wear booty shorts.

I am glad that you agree that the "no booty shorts" rule applies only to girls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The reason that the rule only applies to girls because they are the only ones that wear booty shorts.

I am glad that you agree that the "no booty shorts" rule applies only to girls.

I don't agree. I'm referring to your assumption that it does being the basis for the "protest."

[Anonymous]

Here is my middle schooler's school dress code:

Trousers and shorts are to be worn at an appropriate waist level without exposing the undergarments
Shorts and skirts are to be a modest length
Halter-tops, crop tops or other shirts that expose the abdomen or undergarments are prohibited
Clothing should be clean and in good repair. Torn, ripped or “raggedy” clothing is not permitted
Clothing depicting drugs, alcohol, tobacco, stereotyping, violence, obscene language of any kind or having sexual connotations in design or words is strictly prohibited
Hats, coats, scarves, bandanas, and heavy jackets are not to be worn inside the school building during regular operating hours
Appropriate footwear is required at all times
Jewelry with spikes or pointed ends is not permitted
Backpacks are to be stored in lockers during the school day

Some of these are really silly. What is a "modest" length, and who gets to define it? How come my daughter's well-developed friend got dress-coded for a shirt that had a cut-out at the back? How come my skinny daughter doesn't get dress-coded for her jeans that have a hole at the knee, or her jacket with a stain on it, or her T-back bra that shows at the neckline? How come my daughter's long-legged friend got dress-coded for a skirt that would have gone down to my daughter's knees? What is "appropriate" footwear, and who gets to define it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The reason that the rule only applies to girls because they are the only ones that wear booty shorts.

I am glad that you agree that the "no booty shorts" rule applies only to girls.

I don't agree. I'm referring to your assumption that it does being the basis for the "protest."

So the "no booty shorts" rule also applies to boys, who don't wear booty shorts to school?

This is like saying that the "no panhandling" rule applies to rich people as well as poor people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The reason that the rule only applies to girls because they are the only ones that wear booty shorts.

I am glad that you agree that the "no booty shorts" rule applies only to girls.

I don't agree. I'm referring to your assumption that it does being the basis for the "protest."

So the "no booty shorts" rule also applies to boys, who don't wear booty shorts to school?

This is like saying that the "no panhandling" rule applies to rich people as well as poor people.

Sure. NO ONE can wear booty shorts. Again, why are you fighting for the right to booty shorts??! Our girls have plenty of real issues to wake up to. Protesting the right to wear booty shorts is just a distraction. It makes them seem silly and frivolous. It reinforces the notion that what they wear matters more than what they think/feel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
This is like saying that the "no panhandling" rule applies to rich people as well as poor people.

Sure. NO ONE can wear booty shorts. Again, why are you fighting for the right to booty shorts??! Our girls have plenty of real issues to wake up to. Protesting the right to wear booty shorts is just a distraction. It makes them seem silly and frivolous. It reinforces the notion that what they wear matters more than what they think/feel.

Nobody is fighting for the right to booty shorts. People are fighting against sexism in dress codes. As you imply, sexism remains a real issue. If you don't think that sexism in dress codes is worth fighting against, but sexism in [issue X] is, then you should go ahead and fight against sexism in [issue X] and let the people who want to fight against sexism in dress codes fight against sexism in dress codes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This is like saying that the "no panhandling" rule applies to rich people as well as poor people.

Sure. NO ONE can wear booty shorts. Again, why are you fighting for the right to booty shorts??! Our girls have plenty of real issues to wake up to. Protesting the right to wear booty shorts is just a distraction. It makes them seem silly and frivolous. It reinforces the notion that what they wear matters more than what they think/feel.

Nobody is fighting for the right to booty shorts. People are fighting against sexism in dress codes. As you imply, sexism remains a real issue. If you don't think that sexism in dress codes is worth fighting against, but sexism in [issue X] is, then you should go ahead and fight against sexism in [issue X] and let the people who want to fight against sexism in dress codes fight against sexism in dress codes.

That's why in my original OP said I wouldn't engage further in the discussion unless OP's son asked her to. But again, i don't see sexism in this dress code.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The argument is that focusing on clothing items like that highlights that there are certain ways that young ladies should dress in order not to get unwanted attention. E.g. ...

Or, in simpler form, it makes the girls responsible for the boys' behavior. Like this:

Problem: boys misbehaving. Solution: make (and enforce) rules about girls' clothing.

Whereas it should be like this:

Problem: boys misbehaving. Solution: make (and enforce) rules about boys' misbehavior.

This. Spot on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those who are all offended, why would you want/allow your daughters to dress like that at school anyway?

It's not all about the boys' reaction, either. I'm a married, heterosexual, 40-year old woman, and I don't want to be subjected to teenagers dressed like that, either. Save it for the beach.

I don't think that "I don't want to see it" is a rational basis for a school dress code.

Actually, it is.

There's no real logic behind a dress code. Requiring students to dress according to ADULT societal norms has no actual logic behind it. "We just don't dress that way" is the reason and frankly, "because it is a distraction to students for various reasons" *IS* the only reason behind why we dress a certain way.

Requiring students to dress at school according to what adults do and don't want to see is a good lesson for the students, in my opinion, that they do not yet run the world, or their own lives.

Teachers have enough to deal with. They don't need to also be dealing with thinking about your son and daughter's clothing, and whether it covers their crotches and ass cheeks.

Let the schools set a short length low enough that they can be talking about inches from the knee and now discussing whether the pants cover your children's crotches.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Actually, it is.

There's no real logic behind a dress code. Requiring students to dress according to ADULT societal norms has no actual logic behind it. "We just don't dress that way" is the reason and frankly, "because it is a distraction to students for various reasons" *IS* the only reason behind why we dress a certain way.

Requiring students to dress at school according to what adults do and don't want to see is a good lesson for the students, in my opinion, that they do not yet run the world, or their own lives.

Teachers have enough to deal with. They don't need to also be dealing with thinking about your son and daughter's clothing, and whether it covers their crotches and ass cheeks.

Let the schools set a short length low enough that they can be talking about inches from the knee and now discussing whether the pants cover your children's crotches.

But obviously we do dress that way.

Also, I doubt that the girls at the OP's school would be protesting a dress code that said, "Shorts must cover the crotch and buttocks." Not to mention that this dress code would be much easier for the school to enforce. A standard of inches from the knee is not only absurdly arbitrary, since different people have different leg lengths, but also requires the school dress-code enforcer to get a ruler out for measuring, and I doubt that it's so easy to maintain your authority while you're measuring the length of somebody's shorts from the knee with a ruler.