I want to know more about this “gown-like” drape. Sounds like a gownless evening strap.
I wouldn’t be comfortable putting that on, either, much less posing for a portrait in it. I am surprised that nobody has complained about it before.
You know, every time I think you’ve said the stupidest fucking thing ever you pop off something new and raise the goddamn bar.
And she wore the clothes provided. Just the wrong ones. :rolleyes: Since there was no stated policy there was no way for her to know that this wouldn’t be acceptible.
So, can someone state, clearly and succintly, who exactly, aside from the principal, who sounds as if he has all the intellectual maturity of a three year old, was damaged, diminished, or otherwise emotionally devistated by this girl wearing a tuxedo? No harm, no foul?
And the school providing the clothes; that’s just wierd. So, everybody is wearing the exact same, “gender-appropriate” attire? Do they also break the student body down into Alphas, Betas, Gammas, Deltas, and Epsilons? It’s a brave new world, I tell ya! :dubious:
Stranger
Um, no. She specifically said it wasn’t about her sexual orientation, and how you can possibly construe the picture as “anti-straight” and “anti-female” is beyond me. Hell, it’s beyond Pluto.
Or, are you saying it would be acceptible for a straight female student to wear a tuxedo? Or what about a transvestite (but heterosexual) male student wearing a drape?
Stranger
Well, matt and Otto seem to have covered pretty well already but…I can’t help myself…What the hell are you talking about?
As noted, she is not claiming to make any statement whatsoever. But she certainly didn’t make any claim that she should be allowed to where a tux because she’s a lesbian. She just showed up in what she was comfortable wearing…and what she wanted to remember herself in in the pictures she paid for.
And while I still contend her being a lsbian made a difference to the way the school reacted to it, guess what, not wanting to wear a dress has nothing to do with sexuality. I wore pants to my graduation…and I’m even more evil that she is because I knew there was a dress code that required girls to wear skirts. But I don’t do skirts. So I guess I was inappropriatly flaunting my sexuality…except that I’m hetrosexual.
And given that it’s her graduation as much as anyone elses, how is what she has on her own boby not her forum?
My lord…I can’t imagine how tired homosexuals must be of the phrase “special priveledges” :rolleyes:
lowers the bar.
I think he knocked the bar clean off with that one.
Stranger
We’re forgetting that this if Florida. We should be complimenting them on at least having learned to to dress themselves (albeit with no understanding of formal attire), rather than worrying about the niceties of gender politics and blatantly obvious bigotry. Give them a few more decades and they’ll either catch up or devolve back in to something that does note require clothing.
Since Senior pictures seem not to have changed any in several decades, the ladies of my school had the option of wearing a pink feather boa type thing, off the shoulders showing just a hint of cleavage and a small amount of the top of the breasts or a drape in the colors of school, this had a vee shaped neckline, draping from the shoulder points down and showing about as much cleavage and breasts, no pearls were provided. We also had a cap and gown that we posed in, Males with a shirt and tie showing at the neck and women bare. These were pictures purchased by the student or their family at a prearranged photagraphy studio. You had to purchase a whole series of photos, 8x10’s, 4x5’s and wallet size. Youwere not included in the yearbook if you didn’t purchase through that studio and at least in my day and time, it was a big deal to be in the senior yearbook. We ahd major controvery over who could be included and who couldn’t. Graduating Juniors and such.
I really liked the Senior pictures my grandmother had. I don’t know if it was just in her small town in the 20’s but she had a framed series of photos on paper like a nice wedding invitation comes on, of several of her friends, all dressed similarly but not identcally. The photos were printed so they were cameo style, very nice all mounted together, unlike the more recent ones. I also have the group picture with all of the girls in their hats and the boys in their suits looking serious.
:dubious:
You obviously don’t know much about Florida – for instance, the fact that metro Jacksonville (where this happened) has about as much in common with central and south Florida as NoCal does with SoCal. Florida is not a state about which you can easily make generalizations (except this one ).
The only thing you’re probably correct about here is that the policy is not specifically anti-lesbian. If you read the link i provided previously, you would see that even the girl herself concedes that the issue here is not particularly her sexual orientation.
She is not demanding “special privileges for lesbians,” as you so ridiculously assert. She is demanding equal privileges for males and females. The clothing she chose to wear conforms entirely to the level of formality required for a yearbook picture, and that should be the end of it.
And your assertion that she is being “anti-straight” and “anti-female” is the height of absurdity. In fact, her position is specifically “pro-female,” in that she’s arguing that women should have the right to wear the same clothing as men, and that the clothing should only have to confom to the level of appropriate formality, rather than outdated gender segregation. If she is being “anti” anything, she is being “anti-ridiculous-antiquated-notions-of-what-constitutes-appropriate-gender-specific-clothing.”
To all those suggesting that she should conform to the school’s notions of gender-appropriate dress, would you also support a ban on women wearing pants or pant-suits in the workplace? Should we make them come to work in frilly blouses and ankle-length skirts? And what about more general casual clothing? I mean, there was a time when women wearing jeans would have caused a scandal. And, presumably, for the traditionalists, we ought also to stop women appearing almost naked on beaches.
And, on preview, what Otto said.
The school is a government entity. The government can’t use its resources to arbitrarily discriminate against people. So no, it’s doesn’t have “every right” to use our tax dollars to create a “no lesbians allowed” yearbook.
I’d like to know something…
If there were clear guidelines established, even verbally, why did the photographer or associated administrator not say anything when the picture itself was taken? It sounds like this was done all in one fell swoop for the entire class, rather than graduating seniors bringing in their own shots, so I’ve got to assume a faculty member was involved at least in oversight.
Why was nothing said until so far after the shots were taken and developed? If it clearly violated yearbook tradition, why was the principal the only one along the way who saw it so “clearly”?
I didn’t say it could. But it could require males and females to dress a certain way if that policy were implemented fairly across the board.
Trust me, I work in a government office with a dress code. The fact that there are gay and lesbian employees there doesn’t change that code one little bit. Those people there who are active duty military have even less latitude in their dress.
Again, you’re reading sexual politics into an area where they simply might not be present. The decision might well be flawed, but perhaps not for the reasons you named.
You’re one letter off, but given the circumstance, I’m not sure which one. 
you didn’t go to Cordova High, by any chance, did you?
Travis, is that you? Heheheh…
Try again.
In what way is “a dress code requiring formal wear appropriate for your gender” either part of the educational process or a legitimate exercise of police power for the maintaining of discipline among younger U.S. citizens?
You were not compelled to work in a government office. At present, no one is compelled to serve in the armed forces.
And while we’re on the subject, what about freedom of contract? She paid money to a yearbook photographer for pictures, on the understanding that one such picture would appear in the yearbook. Her parents, it can be inferred from the story, approved of her selection. In what way is the principal’s taste in yearbook attire applicable to the situation?
I did complain. My high school had the exact same thing. Boys wore the tux, girls had this big black velvet “drape” thing you had to put on (it didn’t show any cleavage though, it sat pretty high up on the chest), that looked like a dress or shirt of some sort in the litttle headshot after it was taken, and a string of pearls. I think there may have been an option to wear a little gold cross on a chain, but for anyone not Christian that didn’t leave much choice.
I didn’t want to wear it, mostly because I looked like something I’d never wear in a bajillion zillion years, and looked stupid to boot, but I when I asked the photographer if I could wear something else I was told no. Knowing me, I probably asked if there was some way I could wear the boys’ tux instead (I’m sure I got shot down for that too.) I was already somewhat annoyed that if you wanted your picture in the yearbook at all your senior year, you had to go in the summer before and make an appointment with this specific photographer and pay to have it done. I understand they want the Senior pics to look nice, but the 9-11 graders are still in the yearbook with pics in street clothes, and I see no reason why they can’t just make it formal without having to make everyone look exactly alike, like some kind of pearl-wearing army.
Maybe I can clear up what, exactly, she was ‘supposed’ to wear - I have a feeling it’s practically identical to what I had to wear for my senior pic.
The girl’s thing isn’t a top, per se. It’s actual vaguely tube-top like, made (usually) out of black velvet - this looks pretty standard (note: I have no clue who that person is, I just googled senior yearbook picture). The photo company provides them, an usually tux jackets/shirts for the guys. You go into a seperate area and change. Girls generally need a hand, because the way the thing stays on you is a pull-cord in the back. It runs through the top, and when you pull it, it tightens so it (theoretically) doesn’t fall down to your waist. You don’t want to make any sudden movements wearing it, though, because secure it’s not. At my school, they also take pictures of you wearing whatever you want for your own pictures, but only the drape/tux ones can be put in the yearbook.
On one hand, I can understand the desire for a ‘uniform’ look in the yearbook pages. On the other hand, A) the girl in question didn’t break the uniformity, just the ‘feminine uniformity’, and B) I’m not entirely convinced that “Everyone must look the same!” is an attitude we really want to be pushing. :dubious:
Otto you know for you I’d do anything.
OK then why was this issue even mentioned?
OK but men and women are not equal, they are different and people view different people differently (welcome to humanity). If you don’t accept that men and women are different, I must conclude that you would accept either gender as a potential mate. If you will only accept a certain gender then you discriminate on the basis of sex, and you are a sexist. Is being a sexist a bad thing?
There are certain standards set for both genders, and if there is an objection that a person has, such as a low cut dress, they can opt out of the photo. Actually I would say that a more conservative dress outfit for women should be made available, but that’s not an issue her.
I feel she was pretty insulting to other women by not choosing to wear the standard dress for the photos.
There is another side issue that no one has touched upon. She may have gender misidentify and actually feel as if she is male and it would be betraying herself to have such a official photo.