Monday, June 02, 2014

Dress Code

As Darth Vader might say about this girl, "The idiocy is strong with this one":
A teenage girl who was suspended from school recently for wearing denim short shorts has publicly challenged the school dress code, declaring it sexist.

Lindsey Stocker, an 11th-grader at Beaconsfield High School in Quebec, Canada, says that she and several female classmates were asked to stand up for an outfit inspection during class. The girls were instructed to put their arms by their sides so school officials could assess whether the bottom of their shorts or skirts lined up with their fingertips. If their fingers reached beyond their hemlines, the girls would be considered in violation of the school's dress code.

"When I started explaining why I didn’t understand that rule, they didn’t really want to hear anything I had to say, and it was in front of my entire class. I felt very attacked … and I wanted to tell them how I felt," Lindsey told Canadian news outlet CBC. "They should approach it in a way that doesn’t target girls at least — for starters — because that’s the first problem. They don’t really care what guys wear. They just kind of target the girls first."
If guys are wearing camel toes, I suspect (and hope!) they'll be busted, too.  When guys butts are hanging out the bottoms of their shorts, I suspect (and hope!) they'll be busted, too, just like they were when their butts hung out the tops of their shorts.

But let's continue:
Yahoo Shine could not reach Lindsey for comment; however, she told Canada's Global News, “There’s a huge rape culture that educational systems aren’t really paying attention to. They’re actually contributing to it without realizing it.”
I'm gonna say it.  So-called rape culture exists only in the minds of idiots--at least, here in the Western World.  Honey, what you are contributing to "without realizing it" is exactly what you whine about in your little tantrum-induced sign, and that is treating women as sexual objects.  I'm not saying you need to wear a hijab, far from it, but  If you're going to show off the entire length of your legs all the way up to your vaginal region and butt, you can't get upset if someone's checking out your legs and your vaginal region and butt.  You can say "don't look", I say "don't throw it in my face".

And then the article actually takes a grown-up tack:
The Lester B. Pearson School Board did not return Yahoo Shine’s calls for comments, however, a representative released a statement to BuzzFeed that read, “It needs to be clear that this is always an opportunity for the school to make it a learning situation for the students… To sensitize them about hypersexualization, which is often a topic that is discussed and the students are well aware of.”

According to Los Angeles-based child psychologist Fran Walfish, PsyD, prohibiting young girls from wearing especially short shorts is appropriate, especially if dress codes for boys are equally enforced.
Hear hear.


allen (in Michigan) said...

In the girl's defense, if it can called that, she does live in an age in which self-indulgence is seen as a basic, human right by the infantile recipients of the largesse of the age.

When everyone's rich, by historical and evolutionary standards, this is the sort of thing that can be expected.

allen (in Michigan) said...

I didn't look it up earlier but I'm not going to thank you for giving me a reason to look up the heretofore unheard of "camel toes". In the, possibly dated, vernacular, Ewwww!

Darren said...

Now that you know what it is, you know I'm right :-)

allen (in Michigan) said...

It's in the nature of kids to try to find the line then defiantly cross it in pursuit of what they view as an accomplishment they'll desperately hope no one remembers not that many years hence.

You're right but also warring against human nature and doing so with a frontal, so to write, attack. Maybe not the best way to pursue victory although I'll readily admit I can't think of a more subtle and hopefully more successful approach.

maxutils said...

As you know, I hate all dress codes. Save for ones that fit the actual parameter: clothing that is likely to disrupt instruction. So in this case? I've seen the photo of the young lady in question, and I can't imagine it inciting anything. maybe a tad short, but not so much. On top of that ... it's one thing to CLAIM that the policy is gender neutral, but if that's really the case, why make ALL the girls line up to be examined, some of whom were probably not wearing shorts or skirts, while ignoring the boys? Second, why would you even think that such a test would not be completely demeaning? Third, the standard makes no sense. The tall gangly girl with long arms might be able to wear stripper outfits, while someone shorter with long arms would have to dress with much longer skirts. The proper requirement would be measured from the knee. . . if at all.

Ellen K said...

This young woman is typical of the students we get in classes. There is no rule that can't be bent to appease them. They can not abide by deadlines, cannot be expected to keep track of important papers and are indulged by parental units who would rather throw money at their children and their problems than enforce any rules. I just got off an extended email debate with a host parent of a foreign exchange student who gave me NOTHING the last term. This is supposedly my fault. It's also my fault that he chose to go eat sushi rather than looking through the stacks of artwork left behind for some sacred picture his host father wanted. The absolute arrogance of the parents is echoed in how their children behave. They use trigger words like "this is unacceptable" that the student lost his work by being careless. It is never ever ever the student's fault. I have five years. I may not make it.