Are dress codes sexist?

[slackermom]

Ya know, I always wondered why some people who are very into "females should only wear skirts" believed that.  I thought...couldn't people see up your skirt?  How is that all prim and proper!?  Until someone explained it masks the legs and the female form.  Oh.  Well alrighty then.

 

It kinda cracks me up when I take my kid to his choir practice.  Mostly teen girls in the choir and they often dress to kill (for what I'm not sure because they all just sit there and sing).  Meanwhile there are the parents in their yoga pants or whatever else is comfortable.  :laugh:

 

 

I remember wearing a skirt one day as a fairly new high school transfer student, and a boy I did not know approached me to tell me, as discreety as possible, that when i was standing with the light behind me, he could see the outline of my body. I remember rolling my eyes and saying "you found out my secret, I have legs."  We became friends.

[shawthorne44]

That link is messed up (in that the topic is messed up) article was fine.  
You have discomfort because she shave there and things rub.   So the solution is to make the parts rubbing much smaller.   Yeah,makes perfect sense (sarcasm)

 

[FaithManor]

This is a touchy subject in my little community at the moment because we just had a big kerfuffle about prom dress codes. The local school was going to require that each girl (and ONLY the girls, because of course) turn in a picture of herself in her prom dress to some random adult the school board appointed who would then judge the appropriateness of the dress. :cursing:  Thankfully, the town positively freaked out and the school quickly rescinded their rule. I live in a very conservative town, but I was impressed with how quickly almost everyone (rightfully) lost their collective minds over this.

 

Apparently the school principal also runs around with duct tape and if a kid has a hole anywhere in their clothing, he slaps duct tape on it. Even the little little kids. :blink:  Because apparently the sight of a kindergartner's knee is a distraction in the learning environment? The poor kids who come out of that school are going to have some major body issues. After reading this stuff, I made dh promise that if I ever die and he has to enroll the kids in PS he'll send them to one of the schools in the next town eleven miles away.

 

ETA: Oh, and the prom dress code also said that girls were required to wear formal footwear, and if anyone showed up to prom in pretty sneakers or anything like that they'd be turned away. Yup, nothing sexist there at all. I guess if you have back problems or just plain hate formal shoes, you're SOL here.

Me thinks the principal has a foot fetish! Gotsta have him all those blingy high heels!

[SKL]

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. 

 

When I feel embarrassed due to accidental overexposure, it has nothing to do with anyone's possible erection.  I don't expect minor girls to even realize that is a likelihood.  (I didn't until I was way older.) 

 

My point was that people were talking like a boy who has a natural biological reaction is a creep.  As I said, it's not the boy's fault or the girl's fault that they are both developing and going through an awkward learning stage.  They can both benefit from guidance.

[FaithManor]

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.

That's quite a narcissistic little power trip she's got going on there! WOW

[Lady Florida.]

Ya know, I always wondered why some people who are very into "females should only wear skirts" believed that.  I thought...couldn't people see up your skirt?  How is that all prim and proper!?  Until someone explained it masks the legs and the female form.  Oh.  Well alrighty then.

 

 

In my 1960s Catholic school upbringing, patent leather shoes were banned. Yes, it's a hilarious play, but it's based on reality. 

 

Do Patent Leather Shoes Really Reflect Up?

[SKL]

 

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/ .

 

Or they could wear looser clothes, like men do, which is why we aren't constantly treated to the minute anatomical details of every guy's crotch.  :)

[FaithManor]

I also call bull on the notion that men don't dress for sex appeal. They absolutely do dress to attract women. That it is different than how women might dress to appeal to men doesn't mean it doesn't happen all the time. The difference just means that men and women are different. I flatly refuse to accept the notion that women can't be equal to men unless they become the same as men. It's no secret that women and men are different sexually, so let's not pretend otherwise.

To be honest from the way many local women talk, if one were to ban male things over "sex appeal", tuxedos, suits, and British Accents would all have to be banned!

 

:lol:

[FaithManor]

For the record, dh left for work today in a pair of very nice black, pleated front dress pants, a cream colored, long sleeve dress shirt, sporting a green and cream colored tie, leather jacket, and his new haircut which is very "Harrison Ford" looking. His walk is very similar to HF's, his smile similar was well.

 

Sex appeal. It was there.

 

All those ladies at work can just get over it. Same goes for the boys at school who think a girl looks sexy.

 

Grow up. Get over it. Stick your nose in your math book which is FAR better for you than worrying about what the person next to you is wearing. Learn something instead of being a daydreaming dingleberry.

 

That's my message. I used to say similar things quite often when working with the middle school boys at the Lutheran K-8 wear I taught. Instead of mollycoddling poor character, encourage good character and ways of thinking. Be counter cultural.

 

The local parochial school - an A.C.E. establishment with a crazy, uniform dress code and ridiculously misogynistic rules - decided a few years ago to have a "prom" or as they put it, "Spring Fling" so that the high schoolers could have a chance to dress up, get their photos, all that jazz...no dancing, but they had some truly awful garage band, gospel group wannabes perform and a formal, sit down dinner...any way I digress. So they had this event with a crazy dress code for the girls which made it practically impossible for the moms to find gowns for their daughters which meant that most of them showed up in long, black skirts and blouses from a formal performance wear company, or with something their mothers made. (Not that there is anything wrong with the performance wear or homemade, not at all.)

 

The outcome was that two mothers still complained that some of the homemade dresses weren't modest enough...ie...the gowns were tea length, not floor length and the girls went either bare legged or in hose so the complaint was that their legs were distracting. (For school, the girls have to wear knee length socks with their skirts.) Or that their sleeves weren't long enough, or....you get the drift. And, wait for it, some of the boys complained that the girls weren't "pretty enough". Not kidding. The performance wear according to these little misogynists were too plain so the girls didn't look like "prom girls".

 

The principal said they would never have the event again unless all the girls agreed to floor length with elbow length sleeves and high necks but also lots of sparkle and bling on their gowns and with their jewelry and hair so they looked "prommy". They never held another spring fling.

 

Yes, he invented the adjective "prommy".

 

Do not ask me what I think of him!

Edited March 2, 2017 by FaithManor

[Bootsie]

DD attended an all-girls Catholic high school with a fairly strict uniform/dress code.  Interestingly, the school changed the acceptable pants and skirts to eliminate pockets--this was done to reduce cheating and reduce the carrying of cell phones.  In her senior year DD attended morning classes at the university across the street and then went to the high school.  As most of the univ students attended in leggings and sweats, DD wore her plaid skirt and saddle oxfords every day.  She was amazed at how few of her fellow students realized she was a high school student.  She even had a couple of professors who didn't realize that she was from the high school from the way she was dressed

[Ravin]

When I feel embarrassed due to accidental overexposure, it has nothing to do with anyone's possible erection.  I don't expect minor girls to even realize that is a likelihood.  (I didn't until I was way older.) 

 

My point was that people were talking like a boy who has a natural biological reaction is a creep.  As I said, it's not the boy's fault or the girl's fault that they are both developing and going through an awkward learning stage.  They can both benefit from guidance.

 

When you feel embarrassed due to accidental overexposure, it is a learned reaction. Not overtly learned, but learned nonetheless, and what is learned can be unlearned.

 

No one was talking like a boy with a natural biological reaction is a creep. Boys laughing, pointing, and staring are creeps. That is the behavior that was described, not erections. Laughing, pointing, and staring is also learned behavior. Probably learned from peers.

 

I realize I am counter-culture in this argument about "modesty" being ridiculous. It's okay to agree to disagree. My own self ten years ago would have disagreed (though my own self twenty years ago would have agreed with my current views). I was a little depressed and a lot repressed in my "modest" phase for reasons that had nothing to do with anyone but me. However, people imposing their religious beliefs on others is a pet peeve of mine and always has been. At the end of the day, that's what dress codes are about when they aren't about safety--imposing one person's idea of "appropriate" on others. 

 

It's necessary in society as it is to live with such strictures. They are incorporated into social norms. That doesn't mean one need like them or that one shouldn't push back against them in constructive ways when the opportunity arises.

 

There is NO reason that anyone should stare, point, and laugh at someone who isn't deliberately soliciting such a reaction (i.e., putting on a comedy act for the entertainment of others). Nor should people be shamed into changing their appearance based on the shape of their body. Kids will be mean. They should be taught to knock it off. The objects of bullying and shaming should not be made to feel it is their fault. If it wasn't how they look in leggings, it'd be glasses or hairstyle or something else.

[SKL]

OK here's another memory from my 8th grade days.  I was very new to the school, and we were sitting in history class.  A boy pulled out his penis and said "hey look."  I heard the words and looked.  I was so shocked, I got big eyes and my jaw dropped before I had the presence of mind to look away.  Then the other kids in the class jeered at me because I had "taken a good look."  (Believe me, the very last thing I wanted to see was anybody's penis.  I was just shocked at his gall.)

 

So ... was I a creep for "staring"?  I guess so ....

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

"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.

 

 

Huh. I must be behind the times. Is this a relatively new thing? I don't think I've ever heard it used that way before. So there's an actual anatomical part called the vulva, but yet the whole shebang is also called the vulva? That makes as much sense to me as calling it all a vagina. Why wouldn't we refer to the parts as what they are? Sorry, that's a tangent, but I don't get it. 

 

I'm with you on the female genital acceptance part, but as for genitals protruding beyond clothes, I think this is kind of where society as a whole--even on the more progressive side--has kind of drawn the line, no? I think that's for both men and women. And the line has to be somewhere or we're all just walking around naked (which I really don't want, for so many reasons). In the circles we run in, there's really no issue with breasts generally, but I think boys or girls (or men or women) walking around with protruding lower bits under clothing would cause talk or discomfort. 

 

And this has nothing at all to do with religion, because I am about the least religious person you'll ever meet. I just wonder where we draw the line eventually? I don't have an answer. I'm just thinking out loud, although frankly, it's not helping my splitting headache.

Edited March 1, 2017 by ILiveInFlipFlops

[Heathermomster]

Our cover hosts a spring event where the girl's wear dresses that require prior approval. Leading up to the event, contra dancing is taught and only cover students may attend. DS refuses to go, and I'm ......thankful.

[Ravin]

OK here's another memory from my 8th grade days.  I was very new to the school, and we were sitting in history class.  A boy pulled out his penis and said "hey look."  I heard the words and looked.  I was so shocked, I got big eyes and my jaw dropped before I had the presence of mind to look away.  Then the other kids in the class jeered at me because I had "taken a good look."  (Believe me, the very last thing I wanted to see was anybody's penis.  I was just shocked at his gall.)

 

So ... was I a creep for "staring"?  I guess so ....

 

No, he was a creep for taking his penis out of his pants in class when the rules are to wear pants.

 

If nobody wore pants, he wouldn't have been able to do that.

[Ravin]

Huh. I must be behind the times. Is this a relatively new thing? I don't think I've ever heard it used that way before. So there's an actual anatomical part called the vulva, but yet the whole shebang is also called the vulva? That makes as much sense to me as calling it all a vagina. Why wouldn't we refer to the parts as what they are? Sorry, that's a tangent, but I don't get it. 

 

I'm with you on the female genital acceptance part, but as for genitals protruding beyond clothes, I think this is kind of where society as a whole--even on the more progressive side--has kind of drawn the line, no? I think that's for both men and women. And the line has to be somewhere or we're all just walking around naked (which I really don't want, for so many reasons). In the circles we run in, there's really no issue with breasts generally, but I think boys or girls (or men or women) walking around with protruding lower bits under clothing would cause talk or discomfort. 

 

And this has nothing at all to do with religion, because I am about the least religious person you'll ever meet. I just wonder where we draw the line eventually? I don't have an answer. I'm just thinking out loud, although frankly, it's not helping my splitting headache.

 

There is not a separate anatomical part called the vulva. The vulva is the external genitalia, including labia majora, labia minora, and clitoris.

 

We could re-introduce codpieces. Then there wouldn't be a worry about protruding anything.

 

I'm in the "why don't we just walk around naked?" camp myself. Except, you know, sun protection, and frostbite protection and so on.

[Mergath]

Huh. I must be behind the times. Is this a relatively new thing? I don't think I've ever heard it used that way before. So there's an actual anatomical part called the vulva, but yet the whole shebang is also called the vulva? That makes as much sense to me as calling it all a vagina. Why wouldn't we refer to the parts as what they are? Sorry, that's a tangent, but I don't get it. 

 

I'm with you on the female genital acceptance part, but as for genitals protruding beyond clothes, I think this is kind of where society as a whole--even on the more progressive side--has kind of drawn the line, no? I think that's for both men and women. And the line has to be somewhere or we're all just walking around naked (which I really don't want, for so many reasons). In the circles we run in, there's really no issue with breasts generally, but I think boys or girls (or men or women) walking around with protruding lower bits under clothing would cause talk or discomfort. 

 

And this has nothing at all to do with religion, because I am about the least religious person you'll ever meet. I just wonder where we draw the line eventually? I don't have an answer. I'm just thinking out loud, although frankly, it's not helping my splitting headache.

 

I think we should just get rid of the lines and stop freaking out about the human body all together. Let people wear as much or as little as they want. If you aren't raised with these kinds of taboos, a penis is no more outrageous than an elbow.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

There is not a separate anatomical part called the vulva. The vulva is the external genitalia, including labia majora, labia minora, and clitoris.

 

We could re-introduce codpieces. Then there wouldn't be a worry about protruding anything.

 

I'm in the "why don't we just walk around naked?" camp myself. Except, you know, sun protection, and frostbite protection and so on.

 

 

Wow. I would have put good money on the fact that I literally just looked at pictures that labeled it, but of course you're right. I've been thinking that my increased thyroid medicine has been messing with my head these last few weeks or so, and now I'm sure of it. That's kind of scary :( Sorry about that.

 

As for the rest, I don't agree, and I think that mindset is in the vanishing minority of society, but that's why this discussion will never end. No one can agree where the line should be, or apparently whether there should even be one. So it's a moot point.

 

Thanks for straightening out my terminology! 

[FaithManor]

The one reason I can think of for more covering of lower bits is hygiene and health due to having decent openings to one's internals. Body fluids...that sort of thing. There could be a practical reason to draw a line there, but not because of modesty just because health precautions. Some people already have a pretty hard time with public restrooms so thinking about taxi and bus seats with many naked lower parts having been on them, restaurant seats,...I think it could be anxiety causing for many people thus practical to say "underwear and shorts please" or bathing suit bottom or whatever.

 

But I am mostly for people not worrying about everyone else's clothing choices. Living in Michigan in the winter, I can tell you that for part of the year climate dictates no one is running around naked!

[Catwoman]

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.

 

Same here. I don't think of it as derogatory, rude, or obnoxious and like you, I have only heard the term being used by women. It's just a common way for people to say that the center seam of the crotch is too tight and ill-fitting. Honestly, I don't know how people stand walking around like that -- not only for the appearance, but for the discomfort. Ouch!!!

 

It would be derogatory, rude, and obnoxious if someone used it as part of an overtly sexual comment about the woman, but I have only heard it as a "those pants don't fit properly" type of remark.

 

But seriously, it just looks so uncomfortable! :ack2:

[MercyA]

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.

 

Garga, you are my soul sister when it comes to shoes. I agree wholeheartedly that flip-flops hurt, sandals lead to dirty feet, and socks are essential. I wear skirts every day and it is hard to find comfortable shoes that don't look dorky with them.

 

I have found that cute Keds look okay with some skirts. I wear these socks with them, and the socks don't show. They have little grippy lines of silicone on the heels to help keep them from slipping down the ankle. They feel more like real, cottony socks than other liners. I also like that they come in different sizes, because I have big feet. :)

 

With ballet flats, these liners work pretty well. They also have the non-slip ankles and are mostly cotton. The product title is misleading, though--you don't get four pairs, you get four socks. 

[Kassia]

Garga, you are my soul sister when it comes to shoes. I agree wholeheartedly that flip-flops hurt, sandals lead to dirty feet, and socks are essential. I wear skirts every day and it is hard to find comfortable shoes that don't look dorky with them.

 

 

 

This is me, too!  

[Ravin]

The one reason I can think of for more covering of lower bits is hygiene and health due to having decent openings to one's internals. Body fluids...that sort of thing. There could be a practical reason to draw a line there, but not because of modesty just because health precautions. Some people already have a pretty hard time with public restrooms so thinking about taxi and bus seats with many naked lower parts having been on them, restaurant seats,...I think it could be anxiety causing for many people thus practical to say "underwear and shorts please" or bathing suit bottom or whatever.

 

But I am mostly for people not worrying about everyone else's clothing choices. Living in Michigan in the winter, I can tell you that for part of the year climate dictates no one is running around naked!

 

This is why in nudist/naturist retreats it is customary for one to carry a towel to lay down on a seat before sitting.