I have to say that social networking for teenage girls is a double edge sword, but some of it is awesome - my fourteen year old daughter has had her feminist awakening - and she is not alone.
The logic in these cases, that a young woman’s dress is “distracting” is the same logic that excuses rape because of how a woman was dressed. We’ve codified it, and are teaching it to our middle and high school boys. “She can’t dress like that because you misbehave” - putting the responsibility for the boy’s behavior on the girls leggings, tank top, or short skirt. It does no favors to our young women - and give no credit to our young men - most of who have far more self control than that (and the ones that don’t, it really is HIS problem, not hers).
I’m a fan of high tea, proper dress at funerals and weddings, no hats inside for men and a lack of tattoos. Hell, I don’t think you should wear white after Labor Day and bemoan the loss of hats and gloves. I find the way teens dress to be abhorrent - sagging pants, offensive t-shirts (I have a much bigger issue with young men than young girls who wear club wear). But more abhorrent is a dress code that restricts HER freedom of expression because she is a sexual object.
I think the word “inappropriate” is what pisses me off. Being an old fashioned girl, I’d like to go back to no jeans or athletic shoes in high school - but if you aren’t going to stick students in uniforms, then I’m not sure there is. Because my definition of inappropriate and yours are going to be very different. And if by inappropriate you mean objectifying and sexualizing a woman - then I have a problem.
You need to be more specific. What’s misbehaving? Innapropriate touching? Completely unacceptable. Staring? Saying “nice legs”? Tough break, that’s a normal part of living in society, deal with it somehow.
“Boys will be boys” is wrong. Dress codes aren’t. And your logic leap to rape is shrill.
Leggings on boys are not against any dress code I’ve seen.
I would be against a dress code that forbid bikinis because its distracting, yes. Someone elses’ dress being distracting is not a good reason - you need to have the self control to keep how someone else dresses from being distracting. ESPECIALLY given that the middle school my daughter goes to has issues keeping discipline in the classroom. Kids talking over the teacher is “distracting” - kids on IEPs who are allowed to wander the room is “distracting.” We aren’t sending them home.
But how a girl dresses isn’t distracting in the same way - someone walking by your desk while you try and finish your math is distracting regardless of gender to most people - its distracting because we’ve made her a sexual object. We aren’t worried about the other girls in the class being distracted - we are specifically worried about the boys. And we aren’t worried about the boys dress being distracting to girls - where we control boys dress, we do it because “hats are impolite indoors.”
What are the boys distracted by when we ban tank tops, midriffs, or leggings? The concern that has been expressed is that boobies and butts make teenage boys brains leak out of their heads. But to me, that seems to be a problem for the teenage boys, not the girls.
I don’t think staring or saying nice legs is misbehaving at all. Creepy maybe. But not an offense the school needs to worry about AND I think that if you are a sixteen year old girl wearing a short skirt and are offended because you get male attention from the short skirt, you need to grow up or change the way you dress. Just like if you get a tattoo or your eyebrow pierced, you shouldn’t be surprised when little old ladies stare at you in McDonalds. But male attention does not include uninvited touch or verbal threats or implied threats - that’s over the line.
Right, we agree then. There’s the issue of “slut shaming” and then there’s the issue of excusing innappropriate behavior because “boys”. They’re not the same.
Regarding the first, there’s got to be a line drawn somewhere. Some choices are going to draw wanted or unwanted attention. I’d like to go to work in my pajamas, but then I’d be mocked mercilessly, so I choose not to.
Waaaaaay later. Please don’t let’s continue this. I have had…experiences…that I care not to remember. :eek:
Nah, just saying that “tight top” or “low neckline” or even “short skirt” are not in any way equivalent to “leggings that advertise the religion of the wearer.” I mean, we’re not actually talking about camel toe here, right?
I don’t understand why leggings under a skirt would be offensive. Of course, when I started Jr High, micro mini skirts were popular. I think administrators would measure from the tips of a suspected offender’s fingertips to the hem to determine if they were too short. I dunno the specifics, I was a guy and didn’t have to worry about it; I just learned that really short skirts looked good on some girls and not that wonderful on others.
In a perfect world we wouldn’t have this conversation but alas this is not a perfect world. I would like my daughters to wear they want (well who I am kidding they do anyway) but there will always be boys and men who objectify women and girls.
Teenage boys are going through some serious hormone adjustments so education is critical for them and not outright condemnation, grown men on the other hand need to grow up and be a man not a horny teenage boy in long pants!
Bingo, you’d be mocked mercilessly. Its the communities job to enforce community norms - and the community norms for fifteen year old girls tend to (currently) include leggings and tank tops. Five years ago, they included bare midriffs. Fifty years ago, miniskirts. I don’t think its the school administrations job to enforce those standards. Maybe the parents don’t let their daughter out of the house looking like that, but if the parents don’t have an issue with it, I don’t think the school administration should.
And as a parent, I respect your right to control your daughter’s dress. And I respect your right to teach her that if she dresses like a slut, don’t be surprised when she gets treated like a slut. I won’t let my daughter out of the house in just leggings and a tank top, either - and we’ve had the same conversation. I just don’t think its the schools place - and I certainly don’t think the administration should let the boys learn that “she was dressed like a slut” is an excuse to treat a woman with anything other than respect.
Judging by the article, it doesn’t sound like they’re being worn under a skirt, but rather as pants. After all, the girl being interviewed is bitching about being made to wear gym shorts for the rest of the day when a teacher notices the leggings. If they were already wearing a skirt, the shorts would a) make no sense and b) not be visible and therefore not draw taunting from the boys.
Our school system handled it this way: Nobody, of any gender, could wear any sort of bottom that was shorter than the tip of your longest finger when holding your arms at your side. Shorts, skorts, skirts, kilts, whatever, it had to be at least fingertip length. This was, of course, back in the good old days when guys wore actual shorts instead of very baggy capri pants.