babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Québec high schooler defies dress code: "Teach boys that girls are not sexual objects"
May 30, 2014 - 11:05am
*
Social media stirs pot after high schooler defies dress code
Good for her. The lesson she's learned in being so unjustly suspended is more valuable than anything she would have learned in class. Fuck these conformity factories that we pass off as schools.
Teenage girl starts revolution over short shorts
Yeah, sure, Ms. Stein Day. The "multiple infractions" included putting up a poster, and going home rather than going to detention. And it's good to know schools teach youth how to dress for future jobs. How about the military? Does everyone need a course in boot-polishing and licking?
Stocker seems to have learned quite a bit - that women must be very vigilant not to arouse, stimulate, provoke, and distract males - because males may then do things against their own better judgment.
And she's also learned not to suffer in silence. Very bad preparation for her future job as a housewife.
From the article:
I agree, and I think the best way for boys to learn that is to be around girls and to get used to seeing a girl's body, not by covering it up. Covering it up has the opposite effect, where attention is drawn to that body part. Look at how men in the Middle East report being aroused at the sight of a woman's ankle or elbow for example.
Again from the article:
Actually no, she's hiding behind the "dress code," not realizing that dress codes more often target what females wear. I remember at one of my jobs I received a package containing a dress code, so wanting to be acceptable, I took a look. I noticed that the vast majority of the code didn't apply to me because I'm a man.
Why don't they have a class on how to be a cog in the machine. Allow people to take it by correspondence. Then they wouldn't need to invent a rule, to enforce a rule, to teach people to obey rules.
The latest ... teenage girls' bra straps showing is too distracting for male teachers. So ... who got sent home ... the leering leches? Of course not:
She said the school told girls who were sent home that it was "because of our bra straps, and that it was inappropriate because some of the male teachers, and male students found it distracting for them."
http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/#!/content/1.2657903Stein Day should not be calling teenagers "children" either. Yes, they are minors until they are 18, but teenagers aren't "children" or adults, they are teenagers.That is contemptuous.
I remember when girls had no right to wear jeans or trousers. Although I've always been partial to skirts (comfy ones, not restricting "pencil skirts") I remember protesting for the right to wear jeans and other trousers. It gets damned cold here in wintertime.
That always annoys the hell out of me too. They also do it when speaking of sexual interference with minors as thought there is no difference between a ten year old and a seventeen year old.
She is awesome - listen to her - sounds just like our eldest daughter a few years ago, when she (successfully) defended her right to facial piercings in high school:
Lindsey Stocker says dress code targets girls
We desperately need to teach compliance to young people like these, before it's tooooo late!
I'd like to know how the dress code unfairly targets girls though. A rule against "short shorts" (defined by shorts that don't meet your fingertips) doesn't sound particularly onerous to me and, imo, is appropriate in a school setting, outside of gym, for both boys and girls. There are very few workplaces that allow shorts of any length, let alone short shorts, so why should such a rule at school be so offensive? If I saw a public service worker in short shorts at work, I might raise an objection as well.
Well, I think you'd be ridiculous to do so, but we can disagree on that without too much trouble. More important is the fact that school isn't a job. Kids are forced to be there. That's bad enough without forcing them to conform to a bunch of arbitrary rules on style and dress. I see short shorts everywhere when the weather is hot, because they are comfortable to wear in hot weather. If they aren't inappropriate on public streets, I can't imagine why they should be in schools. Unless the teachers are a bunch of perverts, that is.
I agree we can disagree amicably. I think there are lots of good reasons for people to be restricted from displaying too much of their bodies in public places and workplaces. I do agree on equality though, and the rules being applied the same to men and women. Which is why I support women's right to go topless, or the tops-on-in-public rule to be applied to men.
One example of how inappropriate attire can affect others in a way that doesn't assume male privilege, and one that came to my mind immediately would be the case of a guy, for instance, in short shorts working around others, women or men, who, depending on their particular personal histories, could experience it as oppressive or intimidating. Not to mention distracting. So it goes both ways, and I think it's important to acknowledge that. I think it's also important to acknowledge that, as human beings, we will be drawn to or distracted by common erotic visual cues, and that's not something to be condemned for.
Another example: if you want to abolish the short shorts rule in school, should teachers then be free to wear short shorts? If not, why not?
It wouldn't bother me, but the example is fundamentally different. For a teacher, the school is their place of employment, and they represent it as an authority figure. It would make sense that there would be certain restrictions on the way they present themselves that shouldn't extend to the students.
From the OP article, excerpts from the dress code:
No “short shorts.”
No “halter tops/tube tops/bikini tops.”
No “excessive cleavage.”
It doesn't "unfairly" target girls. It just targets girls, period. I listened carefully to Lindsey Stocker, and I believe her. I heard the same from my daughter. Let me paraphrase: "Boys can't leave their hormones at home, so next best thing is you dress modestly."
Stocker says we should teach boys not to view girls as sexual objects. That seems a far more important lesson than teaching young people that they'd better follow rules, now and all their lives, even if they seem irrational, because there are levels of power in society, and you'd better get used to that right now.
The short-shorts on men made me think "especially if he scratches his balls". Yes, of course most men don't do this in public (and most people of any gender do that or the equivalent in private). Like spitting. Do men really have so many more respiratory problems than women?
And we don't always have full control of how much cleavage we have...
I agree that some limits on dress for students is reasonable and these particular restrictions seem reasonable to me.
The problem is that girls are saying that the reasoning they were given was to not distract males and that reason was given in a studen assembly.
If that is true, then I have a big problem with the message that was sent to both men and women.
I wonder what they would say to a male student who was wearing short shorts. How do we know they wouldn't give him the exact same reason? Even if it's a dumb reason. "Your clothes are too provocative. It will distract others.. etc."
Applies to guys too.
Could apply to guys too, esp if you think of '80s fashion. Just sayin'. It may also apply to muscle shirts.
Could apply to guys too. I guess you could say "no necklines more than two inches below collarbone" to be more technical and egalitarian.
As you noted, these are excerpts from the dress code. We don't know that there aren't writtten restrictions that target male attire. There may well be. That's all I'm saying.
It doesn't matter. The girls were told directly that it was to avoid distracting males. That may have been said as a "joke" at the assembly or maybe one teacher said it but either way that needs to be dealt with. The board disclaimed it but that isn't good enough. Sexism and wardrobe are important topics.
At the high school level students should be able to dissect the reasons for the various rules within the dress code and the function of clothing as group identification socially and professionally. Adults might be surprised at the rules they would come up with if given the opportunity to think about it in depth beyond some shallow should we or shouldn't we have uniforms vote.
The policy is clearly sexist. It has an inordinate effect on women's clothing choices. The best way to oppose it is for all females in the school decide to openly defy the policy, day after day after day.
This is what got Lindsey Stocker suspended - not her shorts, her spirit:
Very pleased to see Lindsey's act of principled defiance being publicized around the world:
United Kingdom
Australia
Buzzfeed:
Medical Daily (U.S.):
Elle.com:
Very very good.
I admire her spirit too, but I think it's misapplied. Imo, this is not the issue on which to be trying to educate the mainstream about rape culture. One, because I think the issue doesn't adequately demonstrate it. Two, I worry it will serve to trivialize it.
I'd implement uniforms (or at least dress codes in all schools). You're there to learn. It's not a fashion show. Whether it's kids showing too much skin, dressing inappropriately or simply kids who feel left out if they can't afford the latest cool fashions, uniforms or strict dress codes would eliminate a lot of problems.
Yeah, especially that pesky problem of personal choice. It'll nip that right in the bud.
Sure you go to school to learn, but to learn what? To be a responsible creative individual or an obedient conformist drone? Issues like these draw a clear line between these two philosophies of teaching.
Wouldn't your logic work equally well in the workplace? Why shouldn't you be forced to wear a uniform to your job for the same reasons?
Interesting how the above post carefully uses the word "kids", but really, it only makes sense if you substitute "girls". Just try substituting "boys", and you get nonsense.
Lindsey Stocker is a lot wiser than some of us. She's got it. This coming generation will shake this world up!
I'm not sure I like the term "kids" to refer to both sexes let alone one. There is far too much conformity in our school system. I often wish students had a bit more of the spirit of the sixties and less of the fifties.
Plenty of jobs do require a uniform and plenty of others at least have a dress code. I'm sure if most people showed up at work in ripped jeans, sandals and dirty tank top, they wouldn't get away with it.
The best teacher I ever had was my high school history teacher, Mr. Miller. Really changed my life and I probably wouldn't be where I am today without his influence. I remember he ALWAYS wore a jacket and tie to teach. His rationale always impressed me. He said that he beleived that there was no higher calling than to be an educator and he should treat his job with the respect and dignity it entailed. After all, if he were a lawyer or worked at a bank, he'd be expected to wear a jacket and tie, so why shouldn't he when he's doing work he considers even more important? I think the same goes to students. Education is serious and important and you indicate that by how you dress and generally comport yourself when you're there. I have a friend who went to a school where all the students called teachers by their first names, which I really didn't like either.