On a related note, there are semi-frequent incidents in the US regarding boys wearing Scottish kilts. Boy wears kilt, school administration short-circuits as they try to reconcile written rules, social rules, and reality. Since Scottish kilts aren’t considered “female clothes” despite being skirts, any sort of reference to gender norms fails. Because they are considered “ethnic” attire to some extent, the boy or his parents can play the ethnic card and ask why other kids can wear ethnic garb but he can’t. Instant discrimination suit.
Yes, but it is circular: failure to wear a tie caused others to react negatively, because you were failing to follow a norm, as the norm required tie-wearing.
This is really no different from simply stating that the norm required tie-wearing. The notion of something being a norm has within it the implication that the norm is policed by social disapproval for not following it.
I take it what is objectionable in the above story is not the fact that there are social norms for dress, but that they are (allegedly) based entirely on the allegation of sexual distraction of boys by girls, and that the norms for boys are not enforced. That is, the norms are not arbitrary, but are targeted, and people are objecting to the motivation for the targeting.
I guess I’m a bit confused as to where you’re going with this, Bricker. The very idea of clothes is itself a social convention designed, in part, to reduce peoples reactions to us being nekkid. The fact that types of clothes can be held as falling on one side or the other is logically a natural consequence of this.
Another reason for choosing one style over another is safety, though I doubt that’s the issue in high school. An obvious example is the requirement to wear hard shoes when working in restaurants (I assume this requirement still exists in many establishments?).
Yep, and their ability to be enforced is directly tied into two things - what is the downside of ignoring the norms, and how “normal” are the norms.
In my daughter’s school there are a couple of Muslim girls who wear habibs. I’m sure that even the full coverage of jeans and sweaters that is the middle school girl “uniform” for a Minnesota Winter is shocking to those girls - and their brothers and parents. But the norm here does not include a floor length skirt and a headscarf.
To the first - ignore the dress code at work, and the downside is that you aren’t terribly likely to get promoted - you could - depending on the company - even find yourself fired. Target store associates MUST wear khaki pants and a red shirt. (Target has a business formal dress code in their corporate offices - including ties for men!) Ignore it at a wedding and old people like me might whisper “raised in a barn” or “what a tramp” (I keep my whispering internal), but you aren’t likely to get bounced by the ushers.
School is an interesting case. I feel that as my daughter’s parent, if I’m ok with her wearing it out of the house and to school, other adults acting in a position of authority over her should also be ok with her wearing it - and you need to have a better reason than some students find it distracting - or we should put her in a habib so she doesn’t distract the Muslim boys in class. Respect? I’m not sure how a skirt half an inch below the fingertips is respectful, but a skirt half an inch above isn’t. Spaghetti straps? When did shoulders suddenly become disrespectful? Women’s fashions have been showing off shoulders in front of heads of state for 400 years.
I’ve seen men threatened with the sack for having long hair, there’s a sign in the jobcentre saying men have to wear tops in there and at school I never remember a girl being reprimanded for clothing, whereas boys frequently were, for having an ear-ring, for wearing trainers, for not wearing ties, and so on. Girls were, at my school, allowed to wear anything the boys were, or to wear skirts, less formal shoes, blouses, jewellery, and so on, and weren’t obliged to wear ties. Frankly, I’m astonished to see any dress code on girls being enforced. The only time I’ve ever heard of that was a girl at a muslim school who wanted to be able to wear a burqa, while the school required a salwar kameez.
I think you mean hijab. Wearing Habib would be decidedly against the dress code.
Note that many Muslims understand the hijab not as male-distraction-preventer, but as a female-modesty-protector–like a nun’s habit. That might seem like a subtle difference, but it is marginally more feminist.
“vice versa”? Yeah. good luck getting girls forbidden from wearing men’s clothing.
This story, recounts a band of school-boys forced to wear trousers, with shorts being banned, who wore skirts as a protest before being forced back into excessively hot trousers (hot enough to be causing illness) by the head-teacher. It also mentions train drivers embarking on a similar, but more successful, protest by wearing skirts to work.
One of my girlfriends has a son who took a few week spin as a girl - he is exploring his sexuality. And the school had a FIT. Foaming at the mouth fit when he showed up in dress code appropriate girl clothes. (As it turned out, being female wasn’t more comfortable for him - at least not at this point).
However, Minnesota protects transgendered students - so its one of those “point to the law and the administration isn’t HAPPY, but has to stop putting up a fuss” deals.
I used to wear a tie every day.Then along came “casual Fridays” and that was good. Gradually I wore a tie less and less often. A few years ago I took my three suits and a bushel of ties to Goodwill.
I think I’m good enough at what I do to get away with it, and do not miss the types that take their business elsewhere based on my dress. My jeans and Hawaiian shirts are clean.
If I ever have to attend my son or daughter’s wedding I’ll deal with my pledge never to wear a suit again.
Good point. I have done some work with Amish people in the US and the head covering that women and girls wear is not intended to hide anything. They aren’t afraid that some guy is going to get a raging boner from seeing some lady’s hair. The real “point” is that it is a symbol of gender roles that they feel that the Bible teaches.
New Jersey isn’t Utah and a Yearbook isn’t official school policy, but here’s an example of one school that photoshopped girls to look more modest and at the same time extolled the virtues of “Stud Life” for boys, complete with bare chests, exposed underwear and tatoos.
I am 47 years old. I am far past the age and level of fitness where my legs look good and in fact take some pains to make sure my ass doesn’t hang out of my clothes, my boobs are wrangled, and that I dress age appropriately. Today, I am wearing a tank top that would not pass muster with my daughter’s dress code (the straps are only TWO AND A HALF fingers wide if I use my fingers - although the scoop neckline is quite modest and I don’t even glimpse cleavage looking straight down and my bra straps do not peek out) and walking shorts that do not QUITE reach my fingertips that are hand me downs from my 70 year old mother (they didn’t quite fit her) whose legs are also nothing to write home about any longer. My mother is an era before me - if I bemoan black at weddings, she is still enamored of gloves and hats. I’d wear this to anywhere that jeans and a t-shirt were appropriate dress - as would my mother (if the shorts fit her). So, why are shorts that are length appropriate on a conservative dressing 70 year old woman be inappropriate on a 14 year old girl? Other than my daughter has very nice legs (and will for another 25 years)
(I wouldn’t wear this to work, but I wouldn’t wear jeans and a t-shirt to work. The kids wear jeans and t-shirts to work all the time. That’s the level of casualness.)
The author’s rationale was, “In rejecting an outfit, I have never, ever communicated to my child that her dress was a ‘distraction’ to others or that she bore responsibility if someone reacted in any way—favorably, rudely, distracted, or otherwise—to her body.”
Where I’m going: that rationale is not correct. Instead, she’s saying, “My idea of appropriate norms – which is up for discussion – is the one we will follow, not the schools’.”
I agree with Richard Parker that one can consistently be against going topless and yet still favor short shorts. But I disagree with the article’s author that she is communicating that her daughter bears no responsibility if someone reacts in any way—favorably, rudely, distracted, or otherwise—to her daughter’s body. She may be saying those words, but her willingness to enforce other social norms belies their truth. She’s just saying that she, and not the school, is a better judge of what social norms to follow with respect to clothing.
And the authors assertion that “I have never, ever communicated to my child that her dress was a ‘distraction’ to others or that she bore responsibility if someone reacted in any way—favorably, rudely, distracted, or otherwise—to her body” I call complete and utter BS. I have no doubt that this is a principle of hers, but I call BS on the use of the word “never.”
Teenagers’ brains have not developed all of the self control that adult brains have. At the same time they are being assaulted with raging hormones. Men are very visually oriented when it comes to sexual arousal. This means that teenage males find scantily dressed teenage girls very distracting. In order to fight this schools could either find a way to counteract 10 million years of evolution so that males no longer find scantily clad young women distracting or tell young women to wear more modest clothing. It may seem unfair that the burden of this lies disproportionately on the girls but part of being in a society means learning that your choices impact other people and so a good person considers that impact.
The line between modest and immodest clothing is always going to be arbitrary but that does not mean there should not be a line. As long as it is well known and enforced evenly such a line is fair.
I am sure you know what adolescence is, but it’s hard to emphasize enough how confusing and distressing it can be to young women.
Here you have your body-- which has likely been this kind of neutral, functional thing that holds your bones in and gets you from one place to another. And then, in the span of what may be a few months, that body suddenly becomes something else entirely. Men start reacting to your body in strange ways that range from exciting to terrifying. People start ascribing all kinds of their own baggage on to your body. You suddenly get all these deep and difficult messages about your body that are wrapped up in fat and sex and sin and commerce and race.
And much of this has little or nothing to do with YOU, as a person. It’s like your body becomes a lightening rod for whatever messed up bullshit people feel like projecting on you.
And eventually most women regain some balance with their relationship with their body (though many never do), but especially in this time of change it’s hard to desperate out the BS and stay balanced.
So I would greatly appreciate it schools could excuse themselves as one of the many entities projecting some agenda on my daughter’s body. Focus on clothes, focus on professionalism and norms, whatever. But leave sex and morality and boners out of it.
I’ve been talking about this for about three years now - ever since my daughter hit middle school - and I’ve talked to several middle school age young men who are downright OFFENDED by this reasoning. THEY have no problems not being distracted because a girls shorts are a little short - or because she is wearing a tank top. They should get to enjoy the view - after all, their grades remain fine even if Amber comes to school is a short skirt. Or the other reaction I’ve gotten is a friend of mine has a fourteen year old son who said “Mom, I’m a fourteen year old boy. Algebra makes me think about sex!” They are distracted already.
A bikini is, objectively, very little clothing. If I showed up to school or a work meeting in a bikini, not only would it be inappropriate- it might earn me a psych eval. But if I show up to swim day at gym class or the hotel pool on work travel in a bikini, that’s absolutely normal behavior and not even worthy of comment. Same people, same outfit, same body…different context. It’s matching the clothing to the context that matters, not some male-boner-potential to skin ratio.