A timely article about girls and dress codes....

[Veritaserum]

"Right now schools seem to be doing a really good job of teaching girls being female in public means their bodies are on display for scrutiny. And schools are doing a really bad job of teaching boys that staring is rude (to put it lightly).

 

"Until this changes in schools, I highly doubt the more mature, serious variations of unwanted sexualization -- street harassment, sexual assault, and victim-blaming -- will ever fully disappear."

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sophia-herbst/dress-coded-an-education-_b_5342040.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000046

[msrift]

Thank you for posting. I'm trying to figure out how much of a ruckus it will cause once I repost this on fb. 

[SKL]

Girls at the age of puberty / adolescence already think their bodies in public are on display for scrutiny and judgment, regardless of dress code.  Their peer groups see to that.

 

I think dress codes can take off some of the pressure if they are formulated sensibly.  But the idea that dress codes are at the root of girls' insecurities?  Not buying it.

[Ravin]

SKL, I agree the dress codes aren't at the root. But double standard dress codes based on "distracting boys" contribute to the problem.

[Kathryn]

Girls at the age of puberty / adolescence already think their bodies in public are on display for scrutiny and judgment, regardless of dress code. Their peer groups see to that.

 

I think dress codes can take off some of the pressure if they are formulated sensibly. But the idea that dress codes are at the root of girls' insecurities? Not buying it.

I agree. And I find the assertion disingenuous that girls' choices for pants are skin-tight jeans, yoga pants, or unstylish "baggy" pants.

 

Now that said, I also agree that the whole "distracting boys" argument needs to be shut down.

[SKL]

SKL, I agree the dress codes aren't at the root. But double standard dress codes based on "distracting boys" contribute to the problem.

 

I don't like the "distracting boys" angle either, but I've also never actually seen or heard that argument in real life.  Even in my kids' conservative Christian school they do not couch the dress code limits / rationales that way.

 

[Catwoman]

I was out for coffee the other day and there was a group of high school girls at the next table. They spent most of their time discussing different boys they knew, and let's just suffice it to say that boys aren't the only ones sexualizing the opposite sex. :eek:

 

Those girls should pursue careers with the FBI, because their powers of observation were amazing. I'm talking DETAILS here, people! :D

 

And when a couple of nice looking young men walked past them, the comments they made to each other (not when the boys could hear them) were not exactly pure and innocent. Not even close!

 

Basically, I think teenagers are often "distracted" by the opposite sex for the simple reason that they're teenagers and they are developing an interest in each other. I'm not sure it would matter all that much what they were wearing.

[SKL]

It's funny that the article says jeans are a lousy option because they are so uncomfortable.  I was over the moon when (in 8th grade) I was finally allowed to wear jeans to school.  I haven't stopped wearing them almost every time I go out the front door.  The only more comfortable thing I own is pajamas.

 

I do kind of wonder why parents don't advise their kids to dress a little better for school.  But maybe they do and kids just ignore them.  Or maybe at that age it's a "pick your battles" kind of thing.  Or maybe they would be bullied in school if they didn't follow the latest grunge trend.

[TeacherZee]

I have not read the article, but on the part OP quoted.... That really isn't the SCHOOL'S job. That's a parenting issue/failure. (I know I will get flamed for that--but it's ridiculous when we collectively don't expect parents to PARENT and pass on any values of any sort to their children.)

 

I know that once it is a problem, schools have to grapple with it. So I suppose I am taking issue with the semantics.

 

No need to put your flame retardant clothes on for me, I couldn't agree more. I am a high school teacher. I break out in a rash every time I hear someone say that something is the schools job to teach. It is our job to teach the kids to read and write etc. manners are left to those who are their PARENTS!!! It isn't my job to tell a teenage boy that he can't stay up playing computer games until 3am. That's his PARENTS job. I don't friggin CARE if you don't want to come into conflict with your speschul snowflake. It is YOUR job (true story from my school) /soapbox

 

I was out for coffee the other day and there was a group of high school girls at the next table. They spend most of their time discussing different boys they knew, and let's just suffice it to say that boys aren't the only ones sexualizing the opposite sex. :eek:

Those girls should pursue careers with the FBI, because their powers of observation were amazing. I'm talking DETAILS here, people! :D

And when a couple of nice looking young men walked past them, the comments they made to each other (not when the boys could hear them) were not exactly pure and innocent. Not even close!

Basically, I think teenagers are often "distracted" by the opposite sex for the simple reason that they're teenagers and they are developing an interest in each other. I'm not sure it would matter all that much what they were wearing.

ETA can't get the link to add from the iPad search for Mary Marsh meeting on YouTube. You want the six minute clip

 

Look at the two minute mark :D

 

Teenage girls are just as bad as boys. It is one of those pesky evolutionary characteristics built into us to get lots of babies. The emotional energy and sexual tension in the average high school can leave the unaccustomed drained. :D

[Catwoman]

No need to put your flame retardant clothes on for me, I couldn't agree more. I am a high school teacher. I break out in a rash every time I hear someone say that something is the schools job to teach. It is our job to teach the kids to read and write etc. manners are left to those who are their PARENTS!!! It isn't my job to tell a teenage boy that he can't stay up playing computer games until 3am. That's his PARENTS job. I don't friggin CARE if you don't want to come into conflict with your speschul snowflake. It is YOUR job (true story from my school) /soapbox

 

 

ETA can't get the link to add from the iPad search for Mary Marsh meeting on YouTube. You want the six minute clip

 

Look at the two minute mark :D

 

Teenage girls are just as bad as boys. It is one of those pesky evolutionary characteristics built into us to get lots of babies. The emotional energy and sexual tension in the average high school can leave the unaccustomed drained. :D

I wanted to like your post, but I'm out of likes for the day! :)

[Guest]

I remember reading an article about a girls' basketball coach who got new uniforms for the team; longer legs, and capped sleeves (instead of tank-top).  The girls started playing better.  Same coach, etc.  The upshot of the story (from the newspaper, reporting that they had taken districts or state or something) was that the girls said they felt less self-conscious stretching up to shoot or get rebounds, and more like basketball players than they did before, because the uniforms were made to serve the sport, not to make them look good. 

 

I remember thinking at the time that maybe the point is to dress appropriately for what you are doing.  Maybe it helps you feel more comfortable and even better at your job.

 

I planted a bunch of petunias this week; one day I looked really pretty doing it, as I had put on a long skirt in prep for going out with friends.  But those petunias are not as well planted as the ones I planted in my grubbies, with gloves on--I could get right into that dirt, mix it up, fertilize it, and so on.  

 

It's not that one outfit was "bad" and the other "good"--it just served its purpose better.

 

The schools my son was at had uniforms.  It wasn't at all about the "temptation" issue--it was to help them learn how to dress appropriately for the job at hand.  The job at hand at school was learning, working together.  It was kind of cool, because they also "grew up" the uniform as the kids aged.  The seniors got to wear ties and blazers (oooooh, cool!) as opposed to ties and sweaters.  It was a sort of a passing of the torch, and a clue that they were the SENIORS--the almost grown-ups.  But those kids ALSO dressed GREAT for the four dances a year.  Very pretty/handsome.  Because THOSE clothes were appropriate for THAT activity (u,mmm, dancing).  The thing that made me crack up on THAT is that the first year, the girls would get a strapless dress.  The NEXT year, they wouldn't.  They didn't like dancing with the constant motion of pulling up the top!  LOL.  

 

As for its being the school's job--I have to say the school did help us out with a uniform policy that made sense.  (One of the school's did--the other school was fascist adn a PITB).  But the moral teaching about how we treat one another and so on, that came mostly from home--but the school helped, too.  

 

It's not either/or, or at least it doesn't have to be.  At least at a private school, where the group is a little more self-selecting.  

 

 

[TeacherZee]

I wanted to like your post, but I'm out of likes for the day! :)

Whore ;) :D

 

  

I remember reading an article about a girls' basketball coach who got new uniforms for the team; longer legs, and capped sleeves (instead of tank-top).  The girls started playing better.  Same coach, etc.  The upshot of the story (from the newspaper, reporting that they had taken districts or state or something) was that the girls said they felt less self-conscious stretching up to shoot or get rebounds, and more like basketball players than they did before, because the uniforms were made to serve the sport, not to make them look good. 

 

I remember thinking at the time that maybe the point is to dress appropriately for what you are doing.  Maybe it helps you feel more comfortable and even better at your job.

 

I planted a bunch of petunias this week; one day I looked really pretty doing it, as I had put on a long skirt in prep for going out with friends.  But those petunias are not as well planted as the ones I planted in my grubbies, with gloves on--I could get right into that dirt, mix it up, fertilize it, and so on.  

 

It's not that one outfit was "bad" and the other "good"--it just served its purpose better.

 

The schools my son was at had uniforms.  It wasn't at all about the "temptation" issue--it was to help them learn how to dress appropriately for the job at hand.  The job at hand at school was learning, working together.  It was kind of cool, because they also "grew up" the uniform as the kids aged.  The seniors got to wear ties and blazers (oooooh, cool!) as opposed to ties and sweaters.  It was a sort of a passing of the torch, and a clue that they were the SENIORS--the almost grown-ups.  But those kids ALSO dressed GREAT for the four dances a year.  Very pretty/handsome.  Because THOSE clothes were appropriate for THAT activity (u,mmm, dancing).  The thing that made me crack up on THAT is that the first year, the girls would get a strapless dress.  The NEXT year, they wouldn't.  They didn't like dancing with the constant motion of pulling up the top!  LOL.  

 

As for its being the school's job--I have to say the school did help us out with a uniform policy that made sense.  (One of the school's did--the other school was fascist adn a PITB).  But the moral teaching about how we treat one another and so on, that came mostly from home--but the school helped, too.  

 

It's not either/or, or at least it doesn't have to be.  At least at a private school, where the group is a little more self-selecting.

 

Oh I agree that we should work with the parents. Although I could wear my grungy painting clothes to work (we don't really do dress codes in my country ;) ) I don't because the school is my workplace and I believe in modeling behavior. I also believe that if the students see me "dress up" for them they will understand that I take them seriously and they will take me seriously. I often get compliments for my work clothes so I think it is working :)

[MFG]

Although things have improved somewhat. I remember my mother telling me that when she was in school girls were only allowed to wear skirts and dresses. I have no clue what the reasoning is behind that, but frankly, making a girl wear a dress and walk to school in the snow isn't particularly nice. My mother would wear pants under the dress on those days and remove them at school, but really?

That was the case when I was in elementary school. And I grew up in a cold, snowy region of the country. When we were allowed to start wearing pants in jr. high it was a Big Deal.

[Guest]

That was the case when I was in elementary school. And I grew up in a cold, snowy region of the country. When we were allowed to start wearing pants in jr. high it was a Big Deal.

Same here.

[Ellie]

"Right now schools seem to be doing a really good job of teaching girls being female in public means their bodies are on display for scrutiny. And schools are doing a really bad job of teaching boys that staring is rude (to put it lightly).

 

"Until this changes in schools, I highly doubt the more mature, serious variations of unwanted sexualization -- street harassment, sexual assault, and victim-blaming -- will ever fully disappear."

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sophia-herbst/dress-coded-an-education-_b_5342040.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000046

 

Except "unwanted sexualization" happens to women of all ages, not just young girls who dress like skanks. Goodness.

[*Lulu*]

I totally agree with Cat that girls can objectify boys just as much as boys objectify girls.

 

The article is addressing the institutions we vest with power in our children's lives contributing to the objectification.

 

And since when does leggings or yoga pants equal skank?

[reign]

Dress codes can be used for good and bad reasons. Kinda like most things.

[Catwoman]

I totally agree with Cat that girls can objectify boys just as much as boys objectify girls.

 

The article is addressing the institutions we vest with power in our children's lives contributing to the objectification.

 

And since when does leggings or yoga pants equal skank?

:iagree:

 

Leggings and yoga pants cover a lot more skin than a lot of the other outfits I've seen teenaged girls wearing!

[kroe1]

All one needs to do is listen to popular music and watch the music videos to know skanky clothed girls and howling boys are not going away anytime soon. Parents who discuss issues for 15 minutes every few weeks cannot compete with rappers who are blaring in kiddos' ears for hours a day.

 

And, honestly, I wish schools would teach more academics and quit trying to be life coaches. But that is an entirely different thread.

[kiwik]

Although things have improved somewhat. I remember my mother telling me that when she was in school girls were only allowed to wear skirts and dresses. I have no clue what the reasoning is behind that, but frankly, making a girl wear a dress and walk to school in the snow isn't particularly nice. My mother would wear pants under the dress on those days and remove them at school, but really?

When I was at school girls were only allowed to wear skirts, dresses or shorts and boys only shorts. No long trousers of any kind were allowed whatever the weather. Girls were actually better of in skirts/dresses because we could wear woolen tights wheras even the longest socks left the boys with cold knees. That was primary. At high school boys wore grey shorts until about 16 then trousers and girls wore uniform dresses. this was from 1974 to the 80's not exactly in the dark ages.

 

Eta. It only snowed twice during my childhood but the frosts were pretty heavy.

 

And I agree teachers aren't there to teach morals etc. If they would just teach academics I would be very happy.

[justasque]

Although things have improved somewhat.  I remember my mother telling me that when she was in school girls were only allowed to wear skirts and dresses.  I have no clue what the reasoning is behind that, but frankly, making a girl wear a dress and walk to school in the snow isn't particularly nice.  My mother would wear pants under the dress on those days and remove them at school, but really?

That was the case when I was in elementary school. And I grew up in a cold, snowy region of the country. When we were allowed to start wearing pants in jr. high it was a Big Deal.

 

When I was in lower elementary, in public school, we had a no-pants-for-girls rule.  We did all wear pants under the dresses on very cold days because we walked to school in all weather.  No maxi skirts either; at the time they were all above the knee.  (Hemlines were pretty standard in those days - you could really only find the currently fashionable hemline in the stores, not the mix of mini through maxi that you find today.)  This was back in the day when women couldn't go into certain places, like many restaurants, if they were wearing pants.  Pants on women was a hugely controversial issue at the time - the subject of newspaper editorials and so on, as part of the women's lib movement.  (And let me tell you - the experience of wearing short skirts in the snow made many a girl into a die-hard feminist!)

 

The year I was in about third grade, they allowed us to wear pants to school on Mondays only - referred to as "pants Mondays".  Once we had that, the next year was a very quick slippery slope to allowing pants all the time.  (Because if they were fine on Monday, what was wrong with them on Tuesday?!)

 

Girls were also required to wear swim caps in the pool whereas men were not, on the theory that long hair could clog the filter. Boys were presumed to have short hair, and girls had to wear the cap whether their hair was long or short.  Then hairstyles changed, and for a year or two men with long hair (who were, at that point, rebels) also had to wear the caps (something of a badge of shame for their hair length), which begged the question as to why the cap rule for women/girls wasn't based on hair length instead of gender, like it was for the men/boys.  As more men sported longer hair, and it became a mainstream look, the cap rule was eliminated altogether, rather than requiring your normal suburban dad, who likely was a vet who had spent time in Viet Nam, to sport a girly flower-covered bathing cap.  The story was that the pool filters were now just fine with long hair.  

 

Nowadays, one local Catholic girls' school only allows pants from November through March, with skirts required the rest of the time.  The boys' school has them in shirt and tie all year, with a sports jacket in winter months.  Both schools have an occasional dress-down day, often in exchange for a donation to charity or in celebration of something-or-other, when the girls can wear sweats and a t-shirt and the boys can wear a t-shirt and jeans.

 

[Veritaserum]

The point of the article is not that schools should add another item to the long list of skills they should teach. The point is that dress codes that are enforced in a way that unfairly stigmatize and publicly shame girls (especially taller or bustier girls even when they are following the rules) promote rape culture. That is what is wrong. That is what the school should change. If they do not change, they teach girls that it's perfectly normal and fine for people to scrutinize their appearance and publicly shame them for looking "skanky" while at the same time teaching the boys to go ahead and keep leering.

[Ellie]

And since when does leggings or yoga pants equal skank?

 

Are you referring to my comment? Because if so, I didn't mention any particular kind of clothing. :-)

[SKL]

The point of the article is not that schools should add another item to the long list of skills they should teach. The point is that dress codes that are enforced in a way that unfairly stigmatize and publicly shame girls (especially taller or bustier girls even when they are following the rules) promote rape culture. That is what is wrong. That is what the school should change. If they do not change, they teach girls that it's perfectly normal and fine for people to scrutinize their appearance and publicly shame them for looking "skanky" while at the same time teaching the boys to go ahead and keep leering.

 

I have not seen this in "real life."  I have only seen a few articles where someone has taken either their dress or their reaction to an extreme.  There will always be people who take things to an extreme.  That is not a reason to change rules which are in themselves reasonable.

[SKL]

Also, I don't know how you "teach boys" (or girls) to stop "leering."  People are going to look at what is in front of them.

 

A big-busted girl is going to be noticed in almost any clothing.  So should the teacher get up on the first day and say "now boys, you be polite and don't say anything about girls' physical endowments and look away if you accidently notice any"?  I'm sure that would go a long way toward making those girls feel comfortable....

[*Lulu*]

Are you referring to my comment? Because if so, I didn't mention any particular kind of clothing. :-)

Since the article specifically discussed yoga pants, leggings and the uneven inforcement of already existing standards I assumed that was what you were referencing.

[Ellie]

Since the article specifically discussed yoga pants, leggings and the uneven inforcement of already existing standards I assumed that was what you were referencing.

 

OIC. No, *I* don't think those things are necessarily skanky. I could only bear to read a little bit of the stupid article so I missed those comments.

[*Lulu*]

Also, I don't know how you "teach boys" (or girls) to stop "leering." People are going to look at what is in front of them.

 

A big-busted girl is going to be noticed in almost any clothing. So should the teacher get up on the first day and say "now boys, you be polite and don't say anything about girls' physical endowments and look away if you accidently notice any"? I'm sure that would go a long way toward making those girls feel comfortable....

First, looking and leering are not the same:

 

Looking-

direct one's gaze toward someone or something or in a specified direction.

 

Leering-

look or gaze in an unpleasant, malicious, or lascivious way.

 

Second, what in blazes is so hard about telling ALL the students that it is rude to make any person uncomfortable about his or her appearance?

[Word Nerd]

OIC. No, *I* don't think those things are necessarily skanky. I could only bear to read a little bit of the stupid article so I missed those comments.

 

You didn't miss much. I'm still scratching my head over the photos that apparently illustrate the blogger's point that unless girls are allowed to wear stretch pants and yoga pants to school, they will be forced to wear tight jeans, which is akin to torture. 

 

[*Lulu*]

You didn't miss much. I'm still scratching my head over the photos that apparently illustrate the blogger's point that unless girls are allowed to wear stretch pants and yoga pants to school, they will be forced to wear tight jeans, which is akin to torture.

I thought the article was good, but I have to admit they lost me a bit with the jeans pics.

[SKL]

First, looking and leering are not the same:

 

Looking-

direct one's gaze toward someone or something or in a specified direction.

 

Leering-

look or gaze in an unpleasant, malicious, or lascivious way.

 

Second, what in blazes is so hard about telling ALL the students that it is rude to make any person uncomfortable about his or her appearance?

 

First - OK then, I have to say I have never seen anyone ever "leer" in school at the opposite sex.  I must have blinders on.  I mean, yeah, I've seen it in movies, but in real life young people have some sense of decency.

 

Second - nothing is hard about it, and I'm sure this has been told to every child.  For all the good it doesn't do.

 

It is usually not the boys who make the girls feel uncomfortable.  It's the other girls, who skip the "leering" and go straight to the verbal insults and tittering "behind the back" of the person who isn't perfectly in style.

 

Those of you with teen sons, would you agree that your sons don't live to torture teen girls?  I mean, sure, they will notice an eye-catching outfit and take mental note, but unless they are delinquents, they are not going to physically act on it in a nasty way.

 

[SKL]

You didn't miss much. I'm still scratching my head over the photos that apparently illustrate the blogger's point that unless girls are allowed to wear stretch pants and yoga pants to school, they will be forced to wear tight jeans, which is akin to torture. 

 

I know - total loss of credibility right there IMO.  :)

 

[maize]

Girls at the age of puberty / adolescence already think their bodies in public are on display for scrutiny and judgment, regardless of dress code.  Their peer groups see to that.

 

I think dress codes can take off some of the pressure if they are formulated sensibly.  But the idea that dress codes are at the root of girls' insecurities?  Not buying it.

 

 

SKL, I agree the dress codes aren't at the root. But double standard dress codes based on "distracting boys" contribute to the problem.

 

 

I agree with both of these--I attended a high school with no dress code and, well, every possible body image and other psychological problem teenage girls face was in full force. The fact that some groups thought it was cool to wear their bras on top of their shirts and short slips as skirts really wasn't helping anything  :ack2: but no one was complaining about them distracting boys, that just wasn't a discussion issue (different cultural setting).

 

I believe in dress codes, I especially like uniforms for school, but standards should be the same for boys and girls--i.e., if girls are supposed to have their shoulders and midriffs covered, so are boys, and the issue should best be framed as dressing in a way that is appropriate to a serious, somewhat formal setting (which in my mind school should be) and being modest in the old-fashioned sense of not seeking to draw attention to one's appearance. I teach both my boys and my girls to be aware that how they dress projects and image that will affect the way people think of and interact with them.

 

In that sense I think it may make sense to particularly caution girls that intentionally dressing to emphasize their sexiness does in fact encourage the people around them to view them as sexual objects, and while that doesn't excuse in any way misbehavior on the part of someone else it should be a conscious decision on the part of a girl if that is the way she wants to come across. It's not something I would encourage nor allow as long as my children are under my jurisdiction, and I do scrutinize fashions when buying clothes for my girls to avoid those that seem to scream "look at me I am eye candy". That is icky to me--just as icky as wearing your underwear over your clothes, in fact. This is less an issue for boys simply because male fashions do not as frequently emphasize sexiness, if that became more popular in boys' fashions I would offer them the same caution. Boys do sometimes have their own fashion issues that I would speak out against just as vigorously though. 

[maize]

Actually, the article lost me with this paragraph:

 

"The leggings ban irked me immediately for two reasons. The first being that these girls are in middle school, which means they are 11-14. Stop making them out to be devilish little nymphets, you creepy Humbert Humberts. These girls are not wearing yoga pants/leggings to show off the prepubescent shapeliness of their backsides."

 

I'm fine with leggings, but when she started making a big deal about 11-14 year old girls being prepubescent she lost a lot of credibility in my mind. I was not prepubescent at 11, and by 14 I can't remember a single classmate who would have fit that category. Just weird.

 

Nothing to do with modesty, just a weird thing that stood out to me in the article and made me lose interest in reading the rest.

 

 

[*Lulu*]

Some girls started before we got to high school, but they were definitely in the minority in my class.

 

My sister, five years later, had a very similar experience within her class.

 

(FTR- I started at age 15, my sister at age 10)

[SKL]

I think the reason for the leggings ban is that some people are wearing skin-tight leggings with tops that don't cover their butts.  For those with ample backsides, it looks ... distracting and it's inappropriate for school.  Better to ban them outright than to ban them only if you have a big butt and your leggings are this tight and your shirt is this short ....

 

It's a bummer for us because my kids can't wear pants or jeans because their butts are too skinny.  So they have to wear dresses at school, even on "dress down day."  But I do understand the ban.

[SKL]

I think by 7th-8th grade a large % of girls have started menstruating.  Especially now as the average age of kids in each grade has increased, and as the average age of menarche is decreasing.

[maize]

From Wikipedia:

 

"On average, girls begin puberty at ages 10–11; boys at ages 11–12.^[1][2] Girls usually complete puberty by ages 15–17,^[2][3][4] while boys usually complete puberty by ages 16–17.^[2][3][5] The major landmark of puberty for females ismenarche, the onset of menstruation, which occurs on average between ages 12–13;" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puberty

[*Lulu*]

I think the reason for the leggings ban is that some people are wearing skin-tight leggings with tops that don't cover their butts. For those with ample backsides, it looks ... distracting and it's inappropriate for school. Better to ban them outright than to ban them only if you have a big butt and your leggings are this tight and your shirt is this short ....

 

It's a bummer for us because my kids can't wear pants or jeans because their butts are too skinny. So they have to wear dresses at school, even on "dress down day." But I do understand the ban.

Leggings are form fitting. So are most of the current stylish cuts of jeans, many types of shorts, skirts, dresses, and dress pants.

 

Those with "ample backsides" have the potential to be distracting no matter what the dress code. If buttocks girth is so distracting maybe we should put chunky butts in a class by themselves. Ridiculous you say?

 

Why yes, the entire thing is ridiculous. Sadly, we live in a ridiculous culture that objectifies women, and spends more time focusing on teaching women the "rules" for not becoming a victim of that objectification than it does on working to reduce the objectification.

[Haiku]

I think the author was over the top in her alarmism.

 

My thoughts:

 

1. My underwear leaves marks on my skin. It's not painful. Her remark that marks on the skin left by clothing are painful is ridiculous.

 

2. Many, many 11-14 year old girls are not "pre-pubescent." Many of them are squarely in the middle of puberty, and, let's face it, there are girls of that age who dress to show off their rears. To pretend they don't is silly.

 

3. There's a ton of cute clothing available for girls that does not show off their rears or (worse) their "front-butts."

 

4. While girls are not responsible for boys' thoughts, we don't have to make it harder for boys. 11-14 is a prime age for boys, with their raging hormones, to be ultra-sensitive to visual stimulation and unable to control the reactions of their bodies. Why do we keep blaming boys for being boys? Call me hopelessly sexist and old-fashioned, but when my son started showing an interest in sex and girls, I told my dd it was time to stop going around in underwear and shirtless. I didn't tell her why, but I felt the need to do what I could to help my boy. And for those who just had a heart attack over this, I have talked to my husband extensively about this, and he says that visual stimulation is visual stimulation and it doesn't mean that a boy is a pervert if he sees his sister and then starts thinking about sex. It doesn't mean he's thinking about sex with HER.

 

5. "You will graduate (or exit with grace), and enter the real world where nobody cares if leggings show the shape of your butt, because everybody wears leggings and everybody has butts."

 

Malarky. People in the real world care very much about seeing people's outlined butts (and front-butts), and many, many people (not all of them male!) think that yoga pants and leggings are inappropriate public attire.

 

6. Telling women to dress in ways that shows their parts and then complain when those parts get noticed is just a way to keep women as victims.

 

[SKL]

No, I think some people are looking at dress codes with the assumption that they are based primarily on sex considerations, when they are not.

 

It is really an open question which side of the argument is more obsessed with a girl's sexuality.

[SKL]

I guess all-girls schools don't have dress codes, right?  After all, there are no boys to lead astray there....

[*Lulu*]

I guess all-girls schools don't have dress codes, right? After all, there are no boys to lead astray there....

The all girl schools I have lived near IRL have all had a set uniform that every girl was expected to wear no matter the size of her posterior region, endowment of her bosom, or length of her legs.

[Word Nerd]

No, I think some people are looking at dress codes with the assumption that they are based primarily on sex considerations, when they are not.

 

It is really an open question which side of the argument is more obsessed with a girl's sexuality.

 

I agree. I think our school dress codes in both of my daughters' schools are reasonable, applicable to all students, not just girls, and not that different from my personal standards of dress for them. I don't personally consider leggings to be pants and require my DD to wear them with a shirt or skirt/shorts over them. I'm not sexualizing her. I simply think it looks tacky and is not appropriate. I don't think men should wear leggings or bike shorts with nothing covering them either. 

[maize]

So what are they based on? Girls in skirts. Boys in pants? Why the difference? Why not everyone in pants? Why not everyone in skirts? KWIM? I know not all schools with dress codes do that, but some certainly still do. And if you live in certain climates, skirts are beyond stupid in winter.

Traditional formality. Skirts are considered dressier for girls than pants. Pants are normal formal or business attire for boys. Private schools (the only ones I know of that occasionally still mandate skirts for girls) often have uniform traditions that go back many decades.

[unsinkable]

I wore a skirt to school for 13 years and so did all my female classmates. We all lived to tell the tale. No one got frostbite. We were smart enough to wear pants or heavy tights and boots outside when the weather was bad. Sometimes little girls wore snow suits. They were ready to play as soon as school got out! :lol:

[SadieMarie]

My thoughts, for your reading pleasure and contemplation:

 

1. Teenage girls like to be admired by teenage boys.

 

2. Teenage boys like to be admired by teenage girls.

 

3. Both teenage girls and boys have, hmmm, let's just call them "sexual feelings". ( Let us please NOT call them "impure thoughts" because that is just stupid. )

 

4. Teens, both boys and girls, are sorting out all these new and intense feelings and yet are still able to appreciate friendships, family, sports, books, movies and lots and lots of other stuff.

 

5. Points 1, 2, and 3 are perfectly normal and healthy. I will even go out on a limb here and call them exciting and wonderful ;). They can also be confusing and difficult and that is where parents need to be helpful in sorting it out.

 

6. Teenage boys, the ones I remember and the ones I know now, are not a bunch of leering, creepy potential rapists unable to control themselves at the sight of a teenage girl in leggings or a mini skirt or whatever. And treating them as though they are is a huge disservice. And boys who do behave in such a manner (and sadly, I do know they are out there too) are not going to be stopped by being surrounded with "modestly" dressed girls because the problem is in their own attitudes and beliefs about girls and women and that too is a parenting problem not to be solved by a school or a dress code, though I wish it could be.

 

7. Teenage girls who notice and admire teenage boys and want to be noticed back and dress accordingly are not skanky or trampy or bad.

 

8. Some teenagers decide to have sex (this is not a new thing that came about because of leggings lol). Some are responsible about it (yes, teenagers can be responsible even when they are choosing sex) and some are not.

 

9. Some teenagers decide not to have sex. This is the choice that parents like best and while they have influence they do not get to make the decision. OK, maybe if you spend every single minute with them until their weddings, but that would be really yucky.

 

10. Dress codes that are based girls not distracting boys and are enforced with shaming and fall disproportionately on girls with curves are about adults not being comfortable with most of my preceding points.

 

11. Dress codes can be good because teenagers often have very poor taste in clothing. This is also not new and someday today's teens will laugh at old pictures of themselves as they moan about the poor taste of their own teenage offspring.