Are School Dress Codes too Restrictive?

[Kowani]

Men need to shut up about the female body and we need to help them do it.
Men have no purview over the female body. Or others bodies period.

This thread is about dress codes in schools, all of which apply equally to girls and boys. Don't try and make this about men's purview over the female body, it has nothing to do with that. I'm sure in many schools the dress codes are set by women - does that mean they shouldn't be allowed to set a dress code for boys?

Let’s not pretend that dress codes treat boys and girls equally, ‘cause they don’t.

[Kragholm Free States]

You should call these "females" what they are: minor children. You're not in school to make fashion statements, you're there to learn. I'm all for comfort in what children where to school but I'm against extending the sexualization of kids to what should be a place of learning.

>Implying adults at those schools aren't already responsible for that kind of stuff, even in areas with mandatory dress codes

If there are adults in schools who are sexualising the children they have a duty of care towards, surely the solution is to remove the adults who are doing that from the schools rather than just double down on the sexualisation because "hey it happens anyway might as well encourage it".

[New haven america]

>Implying adults at those schools aren't already responsible for that kind of stuff, even in areas with mandatory dress codes

If there are adults in schools who are sexualising the children they have a duty of care towards, surely the solution is to remove the adults who are doing that from the schools rather than just double down on the sexualisation because "hey it happens anyway might as well encourage it".

The problem is that shit like this runs all the way up to administration. Take cheerleader uniforms for example, some of them can be conservative, but most of the time they range from "Just a peak" to "They might as well be wearing nothing." Or Japanese school uniforms, which on females tends to be synonymous with sex, especially since school uniforms have their own porn category.

I'm not showing support for either side of this, just pointing out the fact that stuff like stamping out sex appeal in schools is really difficult to do because even the adults who are making the rules are getting involved in it.

[Kragholm Free States]

This thread is about dress codes in schools, all of which apply equally to girls and boys. Don't try and make this about men's purview over the female body, it has nothing to do with that. I'm sure in many schools the dress codes are set by women - does that mean they shouldn't be allowed to set a dress code for boys?

Let’s not pretend that dress codes treat boys and girls equally, ‘cause they don’t.

Dress codes being equal and dress codes treating people equally are two different things, really. Most dress codes are objectively equal - if a girl is not allowed to wear a certain thing, a boy is not allowed to wear that thing either, and vice versa (indeed, often girls have more options than boys). If dress codes are not treating people equally, e.g. girls are being punished for violating the dress code more than boys, it's probably just because they're choosing to wear things that the dress code does not allow more often. That doesn't mean the dress code itself is discriminatory.

The law says murder is a crime. It does not set different standards for murder committed by a man or a woman. It is equal. Yet more men are imprisoned for murder than women. Why is this? The law, clearly, is not treating people equally. Is it wrong to have laws against murder?

[Kragholm Free States]

If there are adults in schools who are sexualising the children they have a duty of care towards, surely the solution is to remove the adults who are doing that from the schools rather than just double down on the sexualisation because "hey it happens anyway might as well encourage it".

The problem is that shit like this runs all the way up to administration. Take cheerleader uniforms for example, some of them can be conservative, but most of the time they range from "Just a peak" to "They might as well be wearing nothing." Or Japanese school uniforms, which on females tends to be synonymous with sex, especially since school uniforms have their own porn category.

I'm not showing support for either side of this, just pointing out the fact that stuff like stamping out sex appeal in schools is really difficult to because even the adults who are making the rules are getting involved in it.

I agree, it's a very tricky problem to effectively tackle. I don't think that means it's not worth trying, nor do I think we should exacerbate it by introducing other contributing factors into the mix.

[Kowani]

Let’s not pretend that dress codes treat boys and girls equally, ‘cause they don’t.

Dress codes being equal and dress codes treating people equally are two different things, really. Most dress codes are objectively equal - if a girl is not allowed to wear a certain thing, a boy is not allowed to wear that thing either, and vice versa (indeed, often girls have more options than boys). If dress codes are not treating people equally, e.g. girls are being punished for violating the dress code more than boys, it's probably just because they're choosing to wear things that the dress code does not allow more often. That doesn't mean the dress code itself is discriminatory.

The law says murder is a crime. It does not set different standards for murder committed by a man or a woman. It is equal. Yet more men are imprisoned for murder than women. Why is this? The law, clearly, is not treating people equally. Is it wrong to have laws against murder?

Not what I meant. Rather, the majority of dress codes set out to regulate the female body much more than they do so the male body.

[Kragholm Free States]

Dress codes being equal and dress codes treating people equally are two different things, really. Most dress codes are objectively equal - if a girl is not allowed to wear a certain thing, a boy is not allowed to wear that thing either, and vice versa (indeed, often girls have more options than boys). If dress codes are not treating people equally, e.g. girls are being punished for violating the dress code more than boys, it's probably just because they're choosing to wear things that the dress code does not allow more often. That doesn't mean the dress code itself is discriminatory.

The law says murder is a crime. It does not set different standards for murder committed by a man or a woman. It is equal. Yet more men are imprisoned for murder than women. Why is this? The law, clearly, is not treating people equally. Is it wrong to have laws against murder?

Not what I meant. Rather, the majority of dress codes set out to regulate the female body much more than they do so the male body.

I wonder though, is that actually the intent behind them, even those written and enforced by women? Do they set out to do so, or do they merely end up doing so? Is it simply a result of there being a far greater availability and variety of revealing clothes for women than there are for men? I'd think that's probably at least part of the case, and that's an entirely different issue - one that only market forces can really change (and will probably do so in the not-so-distant future by marketing mens' crop tops and booty shorts).

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

My respect for the "loosen the dress codes movement" fell to zero when its advocates started accusing principals who enforced dress codes of being pedophiles. I will never side with them again.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

In a lot of cases here, dress codes are cooked up by parents and their committees.

So if they're restrictive, you have to go after the parents not the school.

[Des-Bal]

Not what I meant. Rather, the majority of dress codes set out to regulate the female body much more than they do so the male body.

Isn't that because male clothing choices are pretty thoroughly self regulated? Girls are more likely to run afoul of the rules because girls outside the classroom feel more broadly free to wear whatever they want.

[Novus America]

Probably not restrictive enough in most cases.
Uniforms were great. I loved wearing uniforms in school.
Keeping up with what was fashionable was too expensive and time consuming.
Having to worry about what you were wearing and being judged on it (I actually disliked the occasion no uniform days because it was annoying getting critiqued on what I was wearing).

Clothing is used as a divisive status symbol in schools and as such uniforms are beneficial in building a sense of unity and reducing social pressure and distractions of spending too much time and money on clothing.

Plus there are health and safety aspects as previously pointed out.
Besides things like chemistry and gym class, students wearing uniforms makes it easier for staff to identify non students and students leaving when they are not supposed to.

As for those who wanted to “express themselves” (if superficiality like clothing is how you need to express yourself well maybe we are not teaching critical thought, speaking and writing well enough) well you are not in school most of the time anyways. Wear what you want after school, on weekends, on holidays etc.

[Salus Maior]

Back in the distant past when I was attending school we had a uniform. The dress code was pretty much just "Wear your uniform".

Tbh I don't know why that can't still be the case.

[Ifreann]

Back in the distant past when I was attending school we had a uniform. The dress code was pretty much just "Wear your uniform".

Tbh I don't know why that can't still be the case.

As far as I know those schools do still have the same uniforms.

[Forsher]

Not all clothing is appropriate in all circumstances. For example, there is sun safe clothing and then there is "come on, where's my melanoma" clothing. Similarly, there are places where you wear steel capped boots and places where you could but most people do not.

In schools there's a distinct tendency to claim that clothing is either distracting or non-distracting. Indeed, the whole issue is usually hijacked by gender politics when it's really a case of (a) presentation and (b) health and safety. But the problem starts the very moment you accept that there is appropriate and inappropriate clothing. It doesn't matter why you're making those calls because you're still making them. There will always be clothing that is "in" and clothing that is "out". And therefore for people who want to wear something that's "out" you're always exposed to the real reasons for decisions being made being left behind.

Dress codes are fundamentally unworkable. But they are also fundamentally necessary. The health and safety concerns don't just go away because they're inconvenient. Indeed, there's a good argument to be made that they're perceived in far too restrictive a sense to be made.

Uniforms don't eliminate all the decisions. People do buy clothes that are the wrong size. Maybe that's to show a bit more leg. Maybe it's too grow into them. But overly loose clothing with too much skin showing is still a health and safety matter in a chemistry experiment or a woodwork lesson. With a uniform situation you can force the design to conform to whatever health and safety principles you want. And you can allow yourself the conceit that people will wear the right clothes to the extent that as long as it's not egregious you can just leave it for the end of term report... Uniform: acceptable... completely unexplained.

As a dude I know once put it when asked how he felt about getting to wear mufti in year thirteen, "It's just clothes". If your identity is married to what you're wearing, I feel nothing but pity for you.

[Katganistan]

Yes, and they shouldn't be a thing. Schools should let students wear what the fuck they want unless it's exposes a student too much. (Think crop tops or shirtless guys walking around the school)

That's pretty much what it restricts.

It's school, not the beach and not what to wear when you're an exotic dancer of either gender.

[Socialist Workers Combine]

As a dude I know once put it when asked how he felt about getting to wear mufti in year thirteen, "It's just clothes". If your identity is married to what you're wearing, I feel nothing but pity for you.

I am not a “dude” though.
I wouldn’t say married, but I feel better wearing earrings as conforming to myself.
If I had explored this when a I was younger might have better gotten to know myself.

(if superficiality like clothing is how you need to express yourself well maybe we are not teaching critical thought, speaking and writing well enough)

I consider this ultimately misogynistic of the feminine.
Do women need to be “taught critical thinking” so they do not wear anything feminine?

[Inkopolitia]

Yes, and they shouldn't be a thing. Schools should let students wear what the fuck they want unless it's exposes a student too much. (Think crop tops or shirtless guys walking around the school)

That's pretty much what it restricts.

It's school, not the beach and not what to wear when you're an exotic dancer of either gender.

I don't see private schools letting students wear what they want. Granted these schools shouldn't allow girls wearing crop tops or guys walking around shirtless, but the dress code needs to be changed.

[Katganistan]

That's pretty much what it restricts.

It's school, not the beach and not what to wear when you're an exotic dancer of either gender.

I don't see private schools letting students wear what they want. Granted these schools shouldn't allow girls wearing crop tops or guys walking around shirtless, but the dress code needs to be changed.

Then tell your parents to take you out of private school.
Presumably, the uniform is one of the selling points along with the activities and exclusiveness, however.

[Grosscobra Reich]

To me, school dress codes is vital to discipline the students. That's all of my opinion.

[Forsher]

As a dude I know once put it when asked how he felt about getting to wear mufti in year thirteen, "It's just clothes". If your identity is married to what you're wearing, I feel nothing but pity for you.

I am not a “dude” though.
I wouldn’t say married, but I feel better wearing earrings as conforming to myself.
If I had explored this when a I was younger might have better gotten to know myself.

I consider this ultimately misogynistic of the feminine.
Do women need to be “taught critical thinking” so they do not wear anything feminine?

What?

Wear what you like. It doesn't mean anything beyond any meaning you attribute to it. Your wearing ear-rings is incapable of communicating anything to anyone else. Even sticking gloves on in cold weather doesn't actually consistently convey the message of "you're cold" because it cannot.

Wrapping your identity up in your clothes... or indeed your accessories... is just that... wrapping. You create and constitute any and all meanings... not the clothes. A cigar is always just a cigar... i.e. an object upon which subjective observers impose subjective interpretations in unpredictable fashions.

How on earth you get "Do women need to be “taught critical thinking” so they do not wear anything feminine?" from that post completely escapes me.

[Socialist Workers Combine]

Your wearing ear-rings is incapable of communicating anything to anyone else.

It’s not for them, it’s for me, that’s the point.
The same is true to some extent for women.
Men even believe women wear makeup to be deceptive.

You wish to say, “well women, you don’t get to develop the “superficial” aspect of yourself, do it an initio through critical thinking.”

Wrapping your identity up in your clothes... or indeed your accessories... is just that... wrapping. You create and constitute any and all meanings... not the clothes. A cigar is always just a cigar... i.e. an object upon which subjective observers impose subjective interpretations in unpredictable fashions.

Fascinating. Well, I like to “create and constitute meaning”, and I injunct you not to interfere in the process. “Critical thinking” hasn’t much to do with it, and if I’m “superficial” for it that’s fine.

[Forsher]

Your wearing ear-rings is incapable of communicating anything to anyone else.

It’s not for them, it’s for me, that’s the point.
The same is true to some extent for women.
Men even believe women wear makeup to be deceptive.

Yes, and you don't seem to grasp the meaning of this. If you're the entity that's creating the meaning then your clothes have nothing to do with it. To marry your identity to your clothes is to deny yourself.

Wrapping your identity up in your clothes... or indeed your accessories... is just that... wrapping. You create and constitute any and all meanings... not the clothes. A cigar is always just a cigar... i.e. an object upon which subjective observers impose subjective interpretations in unpredictable fashions.

Fascinating. Well, I like to “create and constitute meaning”, and I injunct you not to interfere in the process. “Critical thinking” hasn’t much to do with it, and if I’m “superficial” for it that’s fine.

Again wtf

[Socialist Workers Combine]

Yes, and you don't seem to grasp the meaning of this. If you're the entity that's creating the meaning then your clothes have nothing to do with it. To marry your identity to your clothes is to deny yourself.

I do not marry them, that does not mean I do not express myself through them.
Do you want to tell women they are “denying themselves” by dressing up? Because that’s what you’re doing.

Perhaps women should just wear hijabs?

[Forsher]

Yes, and you don't seem to grasp the meaning of this. If you're the entity that's creating the meaning then your clothes have nothing to do with it. To marry your identity to your clothes is to deny yourself.

I do not marry them, that does not mean I do not express myself through them.
Do you want to tell women they are “denying themselves” by dressing up? Because that’s what you’re doing.

It's really not.

You're sitting here trying to convince me wood can conduct electricity. No matter how much you protest otherwise, the central mechanism your position relies on just isn't true.

You're also completely misreading what I'm saying. "Marrying your identity to clothing" is what denies the self, not "dressing up". How you confuse these ideas is really quite impossible. Similarly, nothing I have said resembles, in any way, this:

I do not marry them, that does not mean I do not express myself through them

Maybe you could argue I've been saying that "marrying your identity to clothing = trying to express yourself through clothing" but the reasons why expressing yourself through clothing is impossible rests on entirely different statements. For example:

an object upon which subjective observers impose subjective interpretations in unpredictable fashions

The only meaning any clothing decision has, is the meaning imposed on it by the observer. If you decide to wear, I don't know, some stereotypical "Goth" get up because it makes you feel a million bucks, then those feelings are created by you... not the clothing. No-one else can get this meaning from your decision to wear the Goth get-up except via accidental equivalence of subjective meaning. You know, exactly how you can look at a stopped clock and know the right time for that specific moment. It's a fluke and has no meaning.

Perhaps women should just wear hijabs?

wtf

[Socialist Workers Combine]

You're also completely misreading what I'm saying. "Marrying your identity to clothing" is what denies the self, not "dressing up". How you confuse these ideas is really quite impossible. Similarly, nothing I have said resembles, in any way, this:

They’re not the same, but the result is the same: you don’t want me to dress up.

The only meaning any clothing decision has, is the meaning imposed on it by the observer. If you decide to wear, I don't know, some stereotypical "Goth" get up because it makes you feel a million bucks, then those feelings are created by you... not the clothing.

Fascinating. I still feel better wearing them as conforming with myself, and I explore part of myself thereby (perhaps a “superficial” part).
(Not stereotypical goth clothing, but I would try it)