Are dress codes sexist?

[fairfarmhand]

I'm honestly just feeling so attacked right now  :toetap05:

 

 

 

 

Actually, this is true, they're not great for feet. The ones that are firmer and have more support and more shape around the foot are better for you, but my podiatrist gave me a friendly little lecture about it the last time I saw her (although she said they're moderately better than bare feet), and she has a poster in her office about it. It hasn't really changed my wearing habits, but I did buy some nice, supportive sandals. I don't love them, though. Frankly, if I could go barefoot everywhere, I would. I hate having shoes on!

 

I'm sorry.

 

My mom wouldn't let me wear those "jelly" shoes back from the 80s when I was a girl either for the same reason. "They're cheap, they're bad for your feet...blah blah blah." I guess I'm just following her tradition of being an old curmudgeon. I also have very bad knees  and feet partially due to wearing poorly fitting shoes as a teen.

[Greta]

 

 

Actually, this is true, they're not great for feet. The ones that are firmer and have more support and more shape around the foot are better for you, but my podiatrist gave me a friendly little lecture about it the last time I saw her (although she said they're moderately better than bare feet), and she has a poster in her office about it. It hasn't really changed my wearing habits, but I did buy some nice, supportive sandals. I don't love them, though. Frankly, if I could go barefoot everywhere, I would. I hate having shoes on!

 

 

My daughter is the same way - she hates wearing shoes and wears the bare minimum of shoes that will pass, and that's often flip flops!  To be honest, I'd completely forgotten about this until this conversation, but some time ago I had resolved to get her some healthier minimalist shoes:  like flip flops but with a strap around the back so that they won't slip.  Unshoes or Luna sandals, something like that.  But, wow, they have an awfully steep price tag for a minimal amount of shoe!!!

[Murphy101]

I'm honestly just feeling so attacked right now :toetap05:

 

 

 

Actually, this is true, they're not great for feet. The ones that are firmer and have more support and more shape around the foot are better for you, but my podiatrist gave me a friendly little lecture about it the last time I saw her (although she said they're moderately better than bare feet), and she has a poster in her office about it. It hasn't really changed my wearing habits, but I did buy some nice, supportive sandals. I don't love them, though. Frankly, if I could go barefoot everywhere, I would. I hate having shoes on!

Don't feel attacked! I'm with you on the pro barefoot campaign! I am always barefoot unless I am leaving to drive somewhere.

[Murphy101]

Shoes inside the house?? Oh my, that's as bad as not wearing flip flops.

 

Can you tell I'm a southerner?

Ha! I meant the people who live in my house. My dh is the only one who wakes up and puts shoes on even if he is sick and staying on the sofa all day. (Which happens about once a decade.) The rest of us are barefoot until we are ready to leave. And I do a significant amount of yelling at them to put their shoes on when outside. Edited February 28, 2017 by Murphy101

[Bluegoat]

I could see how leggings under a skirt could be viewed as too casual, especially considering the wide range of leggings available.

 

My kids wear plain dark blue or black leggings under their skirts, which are basically the same as tights, except that they are better for the playground.  Still, they do fade and can look a bit slovenly after a number of washes.

 

I think dress codes should take into account the need for skirt wearers to move freely at appropriate times.  When I was a kid, it was just underwear under there, and even walking down the hall, the boys would flip up our skirts and stuff.  I hated it.  My girls don't need to be bothered with such things.

 

I guess there are some tights (including "footless tights") that provide enough coverage for cartwheels etc.  I hope they are allowed everywhere, at least where it gets cold ....

 

I find the difference between some leggings and footless tights is pretty hard to spot, I'd wonder, under a skirt, someone could tell the difference.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

I'm sorry.

 

Don't feel attacked! I'm with you on the pro barefoot campaign! I am always barefoot unless I am leaving to drive somewhere.

 

 

Nah, I was just kidding :D I actually live in Birks these days, even in the winter here. I have embraced my hippy-dippyness and am no longer worried about what people think :lol: 

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

My daughter is the same way - she hates wearing shoes and wears the bare minimum of shoes that will pass, and that's often flip flops!  To be honest, I'd completely forgotten about this until this conversation, but some time ago I had resolved to get her some healthier minimalist shoes:  like flip flops but with a strap around the back so that they won't slip.  Unshoes or Luna sandals, something like that.  But, wow, they have an awfully steep price tag for a minimal amount of shoe!!!

 

I know, isn't it crazy! It's like the less shoe you want, the more you pay. 

[Lang Syne Boardie]

I was raised with strict dress codes. Mostly it all seemed to be about punishing me for being tall...and one-piece swimsuits do not provide more coverage, when the girl is a tall-tall. They just ride WAY up, or flap about the armholes when you try to buy one big enough to NOT ride up...either way, there's going to be more of a show (plus an uncomfortable girl) than if you'd just let her wear what fits!

 

If I had any daughters, I would not let them be part of any organization that insists upon girl-shaming dress codes. Since I have no daughters, I still have to do something for the girls of America, so I don't allow my sons to be part of such organizations, either. They have never been in anything where they learned that the girls were supposed to make themselves uglier, or at least more uncomfortable, for their benefit.

 

We even belong to a church wear girls where whatever they want, to Sunday morning worship, because the leadership also believes that it's wrong to shame girls. (Some people have visited, been aghast at the short shorts and spaghetti straps, and left...but this is the Bible belt, so I'm sure they found what they were looking for in some other church, probably on the very same day.)

[Dmmetler]

For schools, I would much prefer a gender-neutral uniform (something basic like relaxed-fit khakis and a polo shirt or Oxford shirt) to all the stupid nit-picky rules. It would eliminate the distraction factors of both overly skimpy outfits AND designer labels.

Which is fine, until you have a kid for whom a uniform feels like sandpaper. Seriously, school uniforms were one reason why we ended up homeschooling. Here, the only difference between public and private is that private schools usually also have a plaid jumper as an option.

[Greta]

Nah, I was just kidding :D I actually live in Birks these days, even in the winter here. I have embraced my hippy-dippyness and am no longer worried about what people think :lol:

 

 

I hope the OP will forgive me for this tangent, but I want to ask you about your Birks!  I had a pair ages and ages ago, and oddly enough I purchased them in Woodstock, NY so I guess it doesn't get any more hippy-dippy than that!  :D  They were the most comfortable pair of shoes I've ever owned in my entire life.  And they were so well made that they still looked good (well, as good as Birks can look!) ten years later.  They were really durable, but what finally did them in was that our new puppy chewed them up (that puppy is an old lady now, so that tells you how long ago this was).  I don't know why I've never replaced them since I loved them so much.  I bought some Kalso Earth Shoes since they were cuter and I wanted to try the "negative heel" thing.  They were comfy, but they didn't last any time at all!  They fell apart very quickly.  So, I guess my question is:  are Birks still as well-made and durable as they were years ago?  Do you feel like yours hold up well?

[Guest]

I ban flip flops in my home for my children. I hate them. The sound they make with every step. The stubbed toes and slipping out of them by accident that happens frequently. The way it changes how they walk and the inability to run properly. My children have never worn a pair.

I also hate the sound they make, although I have lightened up about it in my old age. I never wore them when I was a kid or less than 25.

[Guest]

I'm sorry.

 

My mom wouldn't let me wear those "jelly" shoes back from the 80s when I was a girl either for the same reason. "They're cheap, they're bad for your feet...blah blah blah." I guess I'm just following her tradition of being an old curmudgeon. I also have very bad knees and feet partially due to wearing poorly fitting shoes as a teen.

I always thought jelly shoes were horrible, which is ironic because it was one of the few trendy things my mother would have said was affordable. But the permanent band-aids on every girl's heel - I just couldn't see why anyone was willing to wear those all day, every day.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I remember jelly shoes.  Of course I HAD to have a pair.  But yeah they are horrible.

 

 

[SKL]

I can't wear flip-flops.  They hurt me between the toes.  I guess that is really weird, but it's true.  :/

[Garga]

I hate flip flops. They hurt soooo much. They hurt between my toes. And I can't walk right in them, so I sort of hobble around. And I slip out of them and twist my ankle.

 

I have never understood how everyone else seems to be able to wear them. What is wrong with my feet??

 

I also cannot wear shoes without socks. Like, ballet flats and such. I get sores where the rim of the shoe goes around my ankle area--front and back. Same thing with some sandals. If I'm not careful--sores. I wore some super soft sandals to Williamsburg last year. BIG mistake. I had 8 sores in a matter of two hours. The pain was pretty bad and they were all bleeding. We had one bag of luggage still in the car with my husband's big black knee high socks. And I put those man-sized black knee high socks on under my white sandals and kept going while wearing a skirt. I looked ridiculous, but at least I wasn't bleeding anymore.

 

I hate summer because of the fact that I can't wear any of the footwear. And I dislike being barefoot.

 

It's hard to look undorky in a summer dress with socks and sneakers. I have recently discovered those tiny little socks for inside ballet flats, but they pop off and don't always protect where the rim of the shoe rubs against the foot.

 

Summer is one long struggle with trying to figure out what shoes I can wear outside of the house that don't hurt my feet in some way. When fall hits and I can put on a thick pair of socks and something sturdy, it's such a relief.

 

Also, when I wear sandals and flipflops, my feet get dirty--dusty and gritty if I'm walking on anything other than pavement.

 

God knew what he was doing when he had me be born in the 1970s. I'd have never made it before the Industrial Revolution.

Edited February 28, 2017 by Garga

[LucyStoner]

There is a county-wide graduation for homeschoolers held in a city and state that shall remain nameless. The organizer, every year, has required *girls* to have their dresses approved. By her. Nothing is ever said to the boys. I believe she even critiques the mothers' dresses.

Well, isn't she special. 🙄

[regentrude]

I can't wear flip-flops.  They hurt me between the toes.  I guess that is really weird, but it's true.  :/

 

I can't wear flip flops either. I cannot walk well in shoes without arch support, and I cannot walk at all in shoes where I have to curl my toes to hold on to the shoe (i.e. anywith with an open back )

[MEmama]

This thread made me nervous since DS will be at the public high school next year and he doesn't wear anything but leggings, sweatpants, or running shorts. I just checked their dress code and thankfully there is none of the nonsense many of you have mentioned. A requirement to wear pants with pockets and belt loops would probably be a deal killer for him. Lol.

Edited February 28, 2017 by MEmama

[Rebel Yell]

Apologies for the long post, snipping, cutting/pasting is not easy in the iPad.

 

Unfortunately, when specific items of clothing banned, it is usually because someone violated the spirt of previous regulations.

I am sure than no one here would allow their child (male or female) out in public in leggings that are two sizes too small and a tshirt that maybe reaches the child's belly button, but there are kids who do try to wear such an outfit to school because the particular items of clothing were not listed in the ban

Not always, sometimes it says right in the dress code that certain items are distracting to boys. The "spirit" of even the original regulation was to make sure all female-shaped humans hide their form.

 

 

  

I've talked to the principal at ds's high school. They decided that the rule is that pants must have pockets or belt loops. They did that to avoid having to decide on an individual basis what pants were too tight.

AWESOME! My current pants are tight black jeggings, which have pockets and belt loops.

As if all pants without them are tight? Seriously.... I have seen so many pants with pockets and belt loops that are painfully tight.

 

  

I go back and forth.  I like what Bluegoat said above, "In our society in particular, women's clothing is often deliberately presenting women as a sex object - for the most part this isn't the case with men's clothes.  So you tend to see a lot more issues with this aspect of it with women - either deliberately trying to sexualize girls and women (like many waitresses face) or trying to exclude what would be unprofessional (in an office, say) or inappropriate (say, in a school).

 

Boys' clothing isn't meant to sexualize them unnecessarily, so they don't need rules against that.  

 

A lot of women's clothing is meant to sexualize them. (Not all, of course, but much is.)  Dress codes are trying to undo that in certain venues.  I don't think that some of women's clothing is really about women "wearing what they want."  I think some clothes are designed to make women look sexy and sometimes they don't even know it.  What about high heels?  Worn every day, they cause all sorts of foot and knee issues.  They're painful.  They're very impractical.  But why do women wear them?  Because they're sexy and a turn on for men.  Many women who wear them don't enjoy the pain and impracticality of them, but they wear them pretty much purely for sex appeal.  Because women look sexy in heels.  You ask a woman and she might not have thought it through that way exactly, by what other reason would cause someone to hurt all day long as they walk and have permanent foot and knee issues as they age?  It's just crazy to me.

 

Some venues aren't about everyone looking sexy.  I'm not so sure anymore that dress codes are about covering up woman.  Rather, they're more about having equal coverage for all.  Consider:  

 

Exposed shoulders--do the boys have exposed shoulders at the prom?  No?  So, neither do the girls.

Do the boys have slits in their tux pants up to their underwear?  No?  Neither do the girls.

Do the boys have their chests exposed?  No?  Neither do the girls.

Short shorts--do the boys wear short shorts?  No.  So, neither do the girls.

Midriffs showing on the boys?  How about when they're wearing swim wear?  Yes!  Then let the girls wear two pieces so their midriff can show.

Are the boys wearing skin tight clothing?  Yes, in their skinny jeans?  Then let the girls wear leggings.  No--skinny jeans not allowed on boys?  Then no leggings for girls.

 

Boys already follow the "dress code."  Dress codes are just bringing the girls up to what the boys are already doing.  If the boys showed up in speedos and went to school in wife-beater tanks and wore super tight shorts...I think there would be dress codes for them, too, because a bunch of buff young males strutting around with their broad shoulders showing and their tight shorts showing off their muscular legs would be pretty distracting to most young women.  

 

I don't know guys.  Don't yell at me.  I used to be very furious about dress codes for girls, but I'm starting to question it.  I've just recently been considering what I wrote above.  Go ahead and poke holes in my new theory if you want to.  I'm just getting resentful of how I'm expected to look "sexy" all the time as a woman, while men can wear comfortable shoes and be covered up in comfy, loose, soft pants all day, wearing warm suit coats to work, while the women wear little dresses with their legs exposed and heels and they freeze in the a/c and teeter around on their hurting feet in the office all day.  

 

 

 

 

When I was in school, girls would wear men's boxer shorts as regular shorts.  So...the girls did come to school in underwear.   :)  It was a silly fad and faded quickly.

 

 

Not yelling at you, but the prom example is just ridiculous. Girls are refused admittance to Prom for wearing Tuxes... even tuxedo dresses, which are even more formal than typical prom gowns!

 

 

 

 

For schools, I would much prefer a gender-neutral uniform (something basic like relaxed-fit khakis and a polo shirt or Oxford shirt) to all the stupid nit-picky rules. It would eliminate the distraction factors of both overly skimpy outfits AND designer labels.

  

 

I believe this has already been covered, but kids know the difference between a Walmart polo shirt and a designer oxford. I don't shop at those stores, so I can't even name a brand ;) But it's fairly easy to tell who is wearing the $50 outfit vs the $500+ outfit, even in "identical" uniforms even without j owing brand names.

 

I agree with the bolded. Good luck trying to find a pair of pants that don't appear tight if you have any kind of hips whatsoever. The problem with dress codes like that is that they aren't regulating the clothing, but the bodies underneath them. Two women could wear the exact same outfit and if one woman has hips and large breasts, someone is going to find it inappropriate. Women with curves should not be required to wear oversized sacks to meet the standards of some ridiculous dress code.

 

Oh dear goodness you have found my sore spot! I have been at homeschool events where the skinny stick figure girl and the bomshell-figure were wearing essentially the same outfit in terms of covereage, length, color, price... stick was complimented on her shining example, bombshell was asked to change.

One of my girls is a doubleAminus on a good day :D and she despised the dress code. It brought her great joy to wear a sports bra as a camisole under v-neck shirts or sweaters- the flat kind that can be used to fill in a neckline? No visible underwear was the rule, but her underwear looked like clothing so no one questioned it.

 

 

 

 

There is a county-wide graduation for homeschoolers held in a city and state that shall remain nameless. The organizer, every year, has required *girls* to have their dresses approved. By her. Nothing is ever said to the boys. I believe she even critiques the mothers' dresses.

This makes me unspeakable angry... not only at the organization, but at the families who go along with this.

[Ravin]

Well, in the example I gave above, I'm trying to figure out how the leggings ban would have anything to do with the female form?

 

The girls at school can wear skirts or khaki pants. When they wear skirts, they are not allowed to wear leggings underneath their skirts. They are allowed to wear bare legs with socks or pantyhose or tights. Wouldn't you agree that leggings would likely be the most conservative thing to wear underneath a skirt? They're thicker than any other option. I honestly can't see how the leggings-under-skirts ban in our school has anything at all to do with the female form.

 

Do they let boys wear skirts? Because I would argue that otherwise it's sexist.

 

Not to mention requires girls to freeze their legs if they want to wear a skirt in winter, which they might want to do for religious reasons. Are they allowed to wear khaki pants under the skirt?

[Ravin]

I could see how leggings under a skirt could be viewed as too casual, especially considering the wide range of leggings available.

 

My kids wear plain dark blue or black leggings under their skirts, which are basically the same as tights, except that they are better for the playground.  Still, they do fade and can look a bit slovenly after a number of washes.

 

I think dress codes should take into account the need for skirt wearers to move freely at appropriate times.  When I was a kid, it was just underwear under there, and even walking down the hall, the boys would flip up our skirts and stuff.  I hated it.  My girls don't need to be bothered with such things.

 

I guess there are some tights (including "footless tights") that provide enough coverage for cartwheels etc.  I hope they are allowed everywhere, at least where it gets cold ....

 

There are also cartwheel shorts as an option. 

[Ravin]

My Dh started a new job recently. He was told the dress code was no shorts or t-shirts. 

 

He is finding it difficult, because of the no t-shirts. His manager has worn a t-shirt a few times, so he thinks he might start wearing a nice solid color one. I do know he will find it strange in the summer with the no shorts rule. He also use to wear crocks, or flip flops at the office. So that is also a change for him. 

 

My recommendation is khakis or chinos or jeans, with Hawai'ian or guayabera shirts.

 

I rock the Hawai'an shirts on casual Friday.  :coolgleamA:

[Rebel Yell]

Sorry, Friends! I have a LOT to say on this subject. I get a little too fired up.

 

Re: leggings under skirts being banned....My niece went to a public school that had a uniform. Those that wanted to assert their individuality (like my niece) wore brightly colored, mis-matched socks and knee highs, because those weren't covered by the dress code! The girls would wear their polo shirts and khaki uniform skirts with a bright pink zebra knee-high on one leg and purple rainbow ankle sock on the other.  :lol: I suspect that could be why a school would ban leggings under a skirt, if they were going for a uniform look.

 

 

<3 this soooo much! I know of a young lady who was constantly getting beaten down over dress code nonsense... honestly, 90% of the time she was fully within dress code but they just didn't like her style. Anyway, she and all of her siblings started show up barefoot, even in snow. Shoes were not mentioned in the dress code, and there was nothing they could do.

 

 

I was raised with strict dress codes. Mostly it all seemed to be about punishing me for being tall...and one-piece swimsuits do not provide more coverage, when the girl is a tall-tall. They just ride WAY up, or flap about the armholes when you try to buy one big enough to NOT ride up...either way, there's going to be more of a show (plus an uncomfortable girl) than if you'd just let her wear what fits!

 

If I had any daughters, I would not let them be part of any organization that insists upon girl-shaming dress codes. Since I have no daughters, I still have to do something for the girls of America, so I don't allow my sons to be part of such organizations, either. They have never been in anything where they learned that the girls were supposed to make themselves uglier, or at least more uncomfortable, for their benefit.

 

We even belong to a church wear girls where whatever they want, to Sunday morning worship, because the leadership also believes that it's wrong to shame girls. (Some people have visited, been aghast at the short shorts and spaghetti straps, and left...but this is the Bible Belt, so I'm sure they found what they were looking for in some other church, probably on the very same day.)

:grouphug: Thank you.

 

Thank you so very very much.

[Ravin]

I'm honestly just feeling so attacked right now  :toetap05:

 

 

 

Actually, this is true, they're not great for feet. The ones that are firmer and have more support and more shape around the foot are better for you, but my podiatrist gave me a friendly little lecture about it the last time I saw her (although she said they're moderately better than bare feet), and she has a poster in her office about it. It hasn't really changed my wearing habits, but I did buy some nice, supportive sandals. I don't love them, though. Frankly, if I could go barefoot everywhere, I would. I hate having shoes on!

 

Have you tried flexible zero-drop shoes? I  :001_wub: my Lems.

[SKL]

There are also cartwheel shorts as an option. 

 

Right, but in the winter, you want something to cover the legs for extended outdoor play.  I guess they could wear shorts over tights over underwear, but that doesn't sound comfy to me.  :)

 

[Bootsie]

 

Yeah, this is the problem.  I'm all in favor of simple, common sense dress codes.  But then, no offense intended toward your cousin, there are people who don't have a good sense of what's appropriate, so the dress codes have to get more detailed and elaborate in response.  I had an acquaintance once who got a job at the office of a church, and was supposed to dress "business casual" because she would be representing the church to the public.  She was complaining to me that they had told her on her first day on the job that what she was wearing was not good enough, and she needed to dress nicer.  She thought this was totally ridiculous, that they were being far too picky.  Then the next time I saw her, she said that the outfit she was wearing that day was the same one she had worn on the first day of the job, and wasn't it crazy that they didn't approve?  She was wearing sweatpants, a t-shirt, and a hoodie!!!  Some people don't understand that "business casual" does not mean "lounging on your couch watching tv casual" apparently.

 

Several years ago I was leading study abroad programs for college students.  We were visiting corporations, some of which had dress codes of their own that we had to abide by to visit.  We were guests and representing the university, so it was important for students to dress appropriately for the situation.  For certain days of the visit, the students were told that they should dress as if they were going for an interview.  We realized we had to get more and more specific.  Students would think flip flops were appropriate or leggings were appropriate (especially if they were a designer brand).  We would also have students show up looking like they were getting ready to go to a nightclub.  I had male students show up with baseball caps sporting beer logos, pants riding thigh level, and untied tennis shoes.  I finally had to make a rule-if I knew what color your underwear was, something about your dress was inappropriate for the situation.

[DawnM]

Maybe they are, maybe they aren't.

 

I know if one of my male students shows anything the girls are grossed out.  If the female student shows anything, it is disgusting watching the boys gawk and stare.

 

I have a student right now who isn't violating dress code exactly, but has protruding camel toes (sorry, not sure how else to word it) and I am going to have to address it because the boys are talking, talking, talking.  The TA (a male) told me yesterday.  UGH!

[Mergath]

Maybe they are, maybe they aren't.

 

I know if one of my male students shows anything the girls are grossed out.  If the female student shows anything, it is disgusting watching the boys gawk and stare.

 

I have a student right now who isn't violating dress code exactly, but has protruding camel toes (sorry, not sure how else to word it) and I am going to have to address it because the boys are talking, talking, talking.  The TA (a male) told me yesterday.  UGH!

 

Instead of making the girl change how she dresses, why not tell the boys to grow the hell up? Why are girls always responsible for boys' behavior?

[Greta]

Several years ago I was leading study abroad programs for college students.  We were visiting corporations, some of which had dress codes of their own that we had to abide by to visit.  We were guests and representing the university, so it was important for students to dress appropriately for the situation.  For certain days of the visit, the students were told that they should dress as if they were going for an interview.  We realized we had to get more and more specific.  Students would think flip flops were appropriate or leggings were appropriate (especially if they were a designer brand).  We would also have students show up looking like they were getting ready to go to a nightclub.  I had male students show up with baseball caps sporting beer logos, pants riding thigh level, and untied tennis shoes.  I finally had to make a rule-if I knew what color your underwear was, something about your dress was inappropriate for the situation.

 

Perhaps if it had been made clear that the idea was a job interview where you actually want to get the job?  :lol:  Perhaps not.  

 

I certainly don't want to sound like the fashion police.  I'm not gifted with good fashion sense myself.  But I can generally figure out what's appropriate and what isn't.  I guess some people truly do have a harder time figuring that out.

[DawnM]

Instead of making the girl change how she dresses, why not tell the boys to grow the hell up? Why are girls always responsible for boys' behavior?

 

We have talked to the boys.

 

But even when she walks down the hall, boys stare point, and make comments.

 

This is PS, not in any way my house or my own children.

[Ravin]

Maybe they are, maybe they aren't.

 

I know if one of my male students shows anything the girls are grossed out.  If the female student shows anything, it is disgusting watching the boys gawk and stare.

 

I have a student right now who isn't violating dress code exactly, but has protruding camel toes (sorry, not sure how else to word it) and I am going to have to address it because the boys are talking, talking, talking.  The TA (a male) told me yesterday.  UGH!

 

I think the word you are looking for is "vulva." "Camel toes" is derogatory, rude, and obnoxious.

 

People gawk, stare, and get grossed out precisely because we have these arbitrary taboos. The appropriate way to address it is to tell the kids to knock it off. Maybe they need an anatomy lesson? Mostly they need some manners.

[SKL]

Instead of making the girl change how she dresses, why not tell the boys to grow the hell up? Why are girls always responsible for boys' behavior?

 

You can tell boys to "grow the hell up" all day, but boys are going to develop on their own timeline just like girls.  That includes going through an idiot phase.

 

Consider that a girl would rather be instructed discreetly than discover later that she was presenting in a way that inspired the boys to think thoughts or comment behind her back.

Edited March 1, 2017 by SKL

[SKL]

"Camel toes" is derogatory, rude, and obnoxious.

 

Not that I ever use this term, but that is news to me.  I've only seen it used by women (in reference to not wanting to display same), and this is the first time I've seen one chided for it.  Guess I live a sheltered existence.

 

[SKL]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've been taught that during puberty / adolescence, boys (or at least, some boys) automatically get physically aroused by things they see, whether they mean to be assholes or not.  If that is true, is it fair to demonize them for this biological phenomenon?  Granted, they don't need to take it to the extent of locker room talk (not like girls don't do locker room talk too) but it may be that they themselves are struggling physically, regardless of upbringing.  Telling them not to look in the direction of a developing female is not a logical response.

 

It's not the girls' fault or the boys' fault that they are developing and learning about all of this awkward stuff.  But we as adults have some ways to make it a little easier on everyone.  Why does everything have to be cast in the light of misogyny?

[SKL]

nm

 

Edited March 1, 2017 by SKL

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've been taught that during puberty / adolescence, boys (or at least, some boys) automatically get physically aroused by things they see, whether they mean to be assholes or not.  If that is true, is it fair to demonize them for this biological phenomenon?  Granted, they don't need to take it to the extent of locker room talk (not like girls don't do locker room talk too) but it may be that they themselves are struggling physically, regardless of upbringing.  Telling them not to look in the direction of a developing female is not a logical response.

 

It's not the girls' fault or the boys' fault that they are developing and learning about all of this awkward stuff.  But we as adults have some ways to make it a little easier on everyone.  Why does everything have to be cast in the light of misogyny?

 

"Don't stare" is indeed a logical response, and absolutely what boys must be taught! Of course!

 

I have four sons, three of whom have passed through puberty to the other side, and one who is still in the throes of it. I have yet to catch any of them staring at girls' vulvas (when the girls are perhaps unaware that their leggings or swimsuits are not providing a total block of the view)...at any age, from preschool (when they didn't care so wouldn't notice) onward. Not saying they never looked or never saw, just saying, quite emphatically, that nice boys don't gawk and laugh, or let themselves be caught staring.

 

I've also spent a lot of time at swimming pools and beaches and social groups with huge mobs of middle schoolers (we belong to a mega church with hundreds of kids), and can't remember seeing any boys staring at girls' crotches, pointing, laughing. Again, normal boys, not raised by wolves.

 

"Don't stare at other people's genital regions while you point and laugh" is pretty much humanity 101, and can be learned from a very, very early age.

[SKL]

"Don't stare" is indeed a logical response, and absolutely what boys must be taught! Of course!

 

I have four sons, three of whom have passed through puberty to the other side, and one who is still in the throes of it. I have yet to catch any of them staring at girls' vulvas (when the girls are perhaps unaware that their leggings or swimsuits are not providing a total block of the view)...at any age, from preschool (when they didn't care so wouldn't notice) onward. Not saying they never looked or never saw, just saying, quite emphatically, that nice boys don't gawk and laugh, or let themselves be caught staring.

 

I've also spent a lot of time at swimming pools and beaches and social groups with huge mobs of middle schoolers (we belong to a mega church with hundreds of kids), and can't remember seeing any boys staring at girls' crotches, pointing, laughing. Again, normal boys, not raised by wolves.

 

"Don't stare at other people's genital regions while you point and laugh" is pretty much humanity 101, and can be learned from a very, very early age.

 

Well of course nobody is going to do that in front of you.  That doesn't mean they don't ever think or do it.

 

It's wrong to point, laugh, and make comments (whether you're a boy or a girl).  Of course it is.  But that does not make it wrong to teach girls ways to avoid unintentionally drawing a kind of attention they don't want.

 

I remember when I was 13 and was taken with a co-ed group to swim.  I brought my only swimsuit, not realizing it no longer fit me appropriately.  I didn't realize it until after the event.  I can still remember how mortified I was when I realized what I had looked like in front of all those people.  I didn't wear a bathing suit again for many years.  Nobody said or did anything to make me feel funny, so this isn't about boys or men misbehaving.  But I knew they saw what I didn't want them to see.  I wish someone had given me some helpful advice to avoid embarrassing myself.

 

Saying girls should not feel embarrassed is ignoring reality.  If you realized you had been walking around all day in public with your pants zipper down, not only would you be embarrassed, but you would probably wonder why nobody was brave enough to tell you and save you continued embarrassment.  You wouldn't be thinking "well if this world wasn't run by asshole men, zipper down or up wouldn't matter."

[Bootsie]

Perhaps if it had been made clear that the idea was a job interview where you actually want to get the job?   :lol:  Perhaps not.  

 

I certainly don't want to sound like the fashion police.  I'm not gifted with good fashion sense myself.  But I can generally figure out what's appropriate and what isn't.  I guess some people truly do have a harder time figuring that out.

Unfortunately, I found that many of them didn't have an idea of what to where to a job interview, and didn't pay much attention to what they were told.  We showed pictures of "do" and "don't"  We brought in sample items.  I could say NOT to wear flip flops or backless shoes.  We could be going someplace that required closed toe shoes--but they would think if the paid $100 for flip flops at Neiman Marcus then they were interview appropriate.  Or, if a blazer (that looked as if it was three sizes too small) paired with leggings was in Banana Republic window with some slogan about being career clothes, they would think it was appropriate.  They would think that these things were "fancy" so they were appropriate.  I had to spend as much time explaining that high heels you can barely walk in are not appropriate when you are taking a tour of a business where you will be doing a lot of walking and extremely short skirts don't look professional when you are climbing stairs. 

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Well of course nobody is going to do that in front of you.  That doesn't mean they don't ever think or do it.

 

It's wrong to point, laugh, and make comments (whether you're a boy or a girl).  Of course it is.  But that does not make it wrong to teach girls ways to avoid unintentionally drawing a kind of attention they don't want.

 

I remember when I was 13 and was taken with a co-ed group to swim.  I brought my only swimsuit, not realizing it no longer fit me appropriately.  I didn't realize it until after the event.  I can still remember how mortified I was when I realized what I had looked like in front of all those people.  I didn't wear a bathing suit again for many years.  Nobody said or did anything to make me feel funny, so this isn't about boys or men misbehaving.  But I knew they saw what I didn't want them to see.  I wish someone had given me some helpful advice to avoid embarrassing myself.

 

Saying girls should not feel embarrassed is ignoring reality.  If you realized you had been walking around all day in public with your pants zipper down, not only would you be embarrassed, but you would probably wonder why nobody was brave enough to tell you and save you continued embarrassment.  You wouldn't be thinking "well if this world wasn't run by asshole men, zipper down or up wouldn't matter."

 

You are arguing against something I never said...I only addressed what you said about it being natural and not shame-worthy for the boys to notice and very obviously react.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

I hope the OP will forgive me for this tangent, but I want to ask you about your Birks!  I had a pair ages and ages ago, and oddly enough I purchased them in Woodstock, NY so I guess it doesn't get any more hippy-dippy than that!   :D  They were the most comfortable pair of shoes I've ever owned in my entire life.  And they were so well made that they still looked good (well, as good as Birks can look!) ten years later.  They were really durable, but what finally did them in was that our new puppy chewed them up (that puppy is an old lady now, so that tells you how long ago this was).  I don't know why I've never replaced them since I loved them so much.  I bought some Kalso Earth Shoes since they were cuter and I wanted to try the "negative heel" thing.  They were comfy, but they didn't last any time at all!  They fell apart very quickly.  So, I guess my question is:  are Birks still as well-made and durable as they were years ago?  Do you feel like yours hold up well?

 

Weeelllll... I don't love them, actually, for a bunch of reasons, but I think they are definitely as well-made as they used to be. That reputation seems to be deserved. I still wear them daily though!

 

(Edited to delete a bunch of unnecessary info)

Edited March 1, 2017 by ILiveInFlipFlops

[shawthorne44]

Or the stage where one pieces don't fit comfortable anymore due to a long torso. Or the stage where they would rather not have to fight with their suit to use the bathroom. Sometimes it has to do with comfort and functionality and nothing at all to do with dressing sexy. 

 

After the first two-piece that I bought for DD now 6, I swore off one-piece swimsuits unless she needs one for some reason or until she stops growing so fast.  Two pieces can be used for much longer because the torso length doesn't matter.  Nothing like early August finding that four suits are suddenly too small.  We don't do bikinis.   Well, we actually have one but we bought the swim shirt and the bikini came with.  She'll never wear it.  

 

 

But on the OP, are leggings considered sexy?  I always thought that they were practical.  I can understand the rule of shirt covering the butt, but not the ban.  

[SKL]

You are arguing against something I never said...I only addressed what you said about it being natural and not shame-worthy for the boys to notice and very obviously react.

 

Well I also wasn't talking about staring, pointing, and laughing.  I was talking about natural biological reactions that they have not yet learned to control.  So if staring, pointing, and laughing is what you mean by "very obviously react," you misunderstood me.

Edited March 1, 2017 by SKL

[SKL]

On the topic of legging fashion, in some cases it's to the point where what is now "fashion" is what used to be posted on those "Wal-Mart people" websites designed to make fun of the most obscene fashion fails.  :P

[Aura]

Maybe they are, maybe they aren't.

 

I know if one of my male students shows anything the girls are grossed out.  If the female student shows anything, it is disgusting watching the boys gawk and stare.

 

I have a student right now who isn't violating dress code exactly, but has protruding camel toes (sorry, not sure how else to word it) and I am going to have to address it because the boys are talking, talking, talking.  The TA (a male) told me yesterday.  UGH!

 

This isn't about dress code, IMO. Wardrobe malfunctions are not dress code issues, and with growing bodies, things like unintentionally showing intimate parts can happen without someone realizing it.

 

Most likely, the girl isn't aware of what she is showing. A compassionate female adult should gently and privately make her aware of it. (I think the pant zipper down is a good analogy.)

 

And a reminder to the boys about manners and respect toward others would be in order as soon as the first boy uttered a word.

 

But, and again IMO, this should have been done immediately. What's the point of waiting until it has become an issue? By the time boys are "talking, talking, talking," the girl will be thoroughly embarrassed and humiliated when she finds out.

[SKL]

Adolescent boys are going to get erections, no matter what the girls around them are wearing. Teaching girls that it's their responsibility to help boys not get erections is ridiculous.

 

Nobody said that though.

 

I don't think this can ever be an intelligent conversation because people keep rephrasing everything into a "blame the girls for boy choices" statement.

 

[fairfarmhand]

Seems like we're getting to the "Is Too!" "Is NOT!" part of the argument that we generally end up in on modesty-dress code conversations.

[DawnM]

I think the word you are looking for is "vulva." "Camel toes" is derogatory, rude, and obnoxious.

 

People gawk, stare, and get grossed out precisely because we have these arbitrary taboos. The appropriate way to address it is to tell the kids to knock it off. Maybe they need an anatomy lesson? Mostly they need some manners.

 

 

Pretty sure I learned that term on this forum, but whatever.

Edited March 1, 2017 by DawnM

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

*ahem*

 

If we're going to be really technical about it, isn't it the labia majora that are showing? I believe the vulva is a structure hidden within both sets of labia.

 

And while I'm extremely anti-dress code (and this thread has made me even more grateful for our secular annual prom than I already was!), I'd give a girl a heads up on that the same way I'd give a guy a heads up on that kind of overexposure as well. I'd expect girls to be giggling and talking if there was some Jon Hamm going on. I don't think either sex has the high ground on that, appropriate or not. 

 

 

Edited March 1, 2017 by ILiveInFlipFlops

[Ravin]

Well I also wasn't talking about staring, pointing, and laughing.  I was talking about natural biological reactions that they have not yet learned to control.  So if staring, pointing, and laughing is what you mean by "very obviously react," you misunderstood me.

If people are likewise not staring at boys' crotches, an erection is hardly an event worthy of requiring girls to modify their dress to avoid possibly causing one in a boy. 

[Ravin]

*ahem*

 

If we're going to be really technical about it, isn't it the labia majora that are showing? I believe the vulva is a structure hidden within both sets of labia.

 

And while I'm extremely anti-dress code (and this thread has made me even more grateful for our secular annual prom than I already was!), I'd give a girl a heads up on that the same way I'd give a guy a heads up on that kind of overexposure as well. I'd expect girls to be giggling and talking if there was some Jon Hamm going on. I don't think either sex has the high ground on that, appropriate or not. 

 

"Vulva" refers to female external genitals, including the labia and clitoris.

 

Part of my pet peeve about the camel toes thing is that there is this air of unacceptability of females having noticeably external genitals, such that altering them to look less noticeable is a growing in popularity sort of plastic surgery. https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/04/25/increase-in-teenage-genital-surgery-prompts-guidelines-for-doctors/ .

 

The implication is similar as for a double standard for girls and women with larger breasts: you can wear X if you are skinny and nothing protrudes, but if you have any shape other than one approximating neuter, your body is flawed and must be covered or altered so no one can see its shape.