683
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2023
683 points (97.6% liked)
News
23659 readers
3567 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I'm sorry to inform you, it used to be worse. Women rape victims used to not come forward because one of the main things that would be shoved in their faces was "how they dressed" and "were they asking for it."
That bullshit has been a throughline in US culture for fucking decades. I'm in my forties and when I was in high school, girls had ridiculous dress codes that were clearly sexist and clearly icky as fuck. Why would male authority figures be so obsessed with young women not being "too revealing" unless they're the creepy fucks who are staring?
Not to mention all the rules about men's pants sagging in the 90's. A rule that seemed aimed at young black and latino men in particular.
Believe it or not, it's better than it was in the 90's. It's still bad, it's still bullshit, but it's not new.
It still happens.
And that's why it's the job of people like you and me to raise a hellish stink about it whenever it happens so that one day, maybe it will finally stop.
The dress codes even in the district my kid is in (and we're definitely bright blue territory) is still sexist af. It's absolutely insane.
Racial targeting aside, I think there's a big difference between visible underwear and a hairstyle. It's not the same conversation
yes it is. Both categories are arbitrary, enforced selectively and originate on discrimination
No. Seeing undergarments could very obviously be construde as indecent. I don't see how a hairstyle could qualify as the same.
Someone could style his hair to resemble a Nazi cross for instance.
But seeing undergarments is arbitrary, because someone making an effort to see them, will be able to see them for many "decent" clothing options. E.g. if a women wears a skirt someone lingering by the staircase could see their underewear, where the voyeuristic behaviour is the problem rather than the clothes.
Again, No. There is a monumental difference between somebody attempting to view undergarments vs. EVERYONE being able to see them without choice.
Plus, shaving or braiding a nazi cross isn't a "hairstyle". That's just creating or imprinting a hate sign into your head. You could literally do that with ANY article of clothing. Or any partof your body.
One is not arbitrary. It isn't unreasonable to not want minors exposing their underwear in public and I shouldn't have to tell you this. I understand that nudity(and states of undress) is more common in other parts of the world, and isn't inherently sexual, but it is not appropriate in a school environment, especially where minors are within a system where a power dynamic exists.
Again I separate this issue from hairstyles, and I also clarify any evidence of racial targeting should be decried. Policy should be applied evenly and targeting investigated by those with ability to make corrective action.
Exceptions should be made for folks with particular features that cannot be changed. Such as those who naturally grow an afro, or cannot shave without irritation/infection. But pants are not the same, as they can be changed. If someone cannot afford a belt, schools could easily supply cordage.
So girls should not wear skirts or dresses? Because there it is relatively easy for underwear to become visible if someone is seeking to see it. In the same wake more loose pants or shirts could make some of the underwear visible briefly. That is why i consider it arbitrary. Whether underwear is visible or not is highly dependant on how pervy the teachers are staring at the girls.
Dude really? Underwear should not be showing when the person is just standing/existing.
Of course if you manipulate almost any wardrobe into the right shape you'll be able to see underwear.
Put more bluntly, under normal conditions, you should never see underwear.
But what are "normal conditions"? We ran around and played on the school yard. If girls were wearing dresses or skirts of course it was possible that underwear was visible briefly. The same would go for boys roughing around. But it wasnt and shouldnt be an issue because the issue are the people who sexualize minors.
I've made it clear that running around or whatever is different.
I'm all done arguing for not having minor's underwear visible at-rest or just walking around. This is simple stuff. A skirt covers underwear. Sagging pants does not.
A dress code that requires people to be fully dressed isn't weird or prudish, it's just the bare minimum appropriate for public.
And your definition of that is arbirtrary. A jewish person might deem the bare minimim to be long legs and sleeves. A muslim person might deem the bare minimum to cover the hair too. Some people find pants need to cover the knees, others find crop tops problematic. It all remains arbitrary. Is a boy wearing a skirt okay? what about wearing net stockings until under the skirt? Knee high leather boots? In our cultures these tend to be sexualized, even if they perfectly adhere to your underwear rule, theyd probably cause more concern than saggy pants.
Is wearing a hat or cap indoors disrespectful? in elementary school we had to take our hats off in class. In high school my jewish arts teacher always covered his hat.
Is it okay for men to be topless in Summer? ask around and you'll probably get quite a few different opinions in your community.
None of these are right or wrong by principle. They are just the result of different cultural norms, hence arbitrary.
EDIT: Also in Kindergarden we were roaming around naked, playing with water and slising on water slides, which was perfectly acceptable in my state in my country. Two states over it would probably have caused a lot of discussions. Still i'm very happy that our bare minimum was to play around with water in hot summers as opposed to sweating like crazy.
Again, the minimum viable is no exposed underwear, inside a classroom, why is this hard for you?
I already made clear the point about nudity being inherently non sexual, in general, but the classroom is not the place for that due to the power dynamic, supervision, and objectives of the space.
Why are you describing wardrobe choices of adults, or people outside a classroom? Why bring that up? You are ambiguating the topic.
Because your minimum is not more or less valid than a minimum demanding full length clothes. Or some rule that is targeting outfits specifically identified with black hip hop culture, like it is quite popular among american schools. And demanding that no underwear is visible in a classroom is weird in so far, that this seems not to be an issue in general, because that is already a thought of students and their parents, without any formal rule. So the example, while culturally and morally totally understandable, i also agree with the statement of you, is not so much relevant to the situation in schools. And there these rules are arbitrary.
Just to give on example, one could also argue for hairstyles, that they shouldn't be so long, that it represents a tripping hazard. Noone sane would disagree with it, but it doesnt need to be formalized in an explicit rule, because it is obvious and not a relevant issue.