Dress Code: A function of the patriarchy?
Basic dress code guidelines
Sep 10, 2013
DISCLAIMER: Articles published by guest writers do not necessarily reflect the views of the Oracle or adhere to the same journalistic standards.
What’s our school’s dress code, word for word?
To be honest, I don’t really know. But I do know the parts that are actually enforced – something about shorts length and spaghetti straps and midriff baring – and I do know they are all directed at women. I also know, that on my first day at Mountain View High two years ago, a teacher placed her hands on my body without my permission to move my bra strap beneath my shirt because it was “not respectable,” and then tried to pull my shorts down so they looked longer, in order to help enforce this aforementioned “dress code.” And I remember how I felt that day, like I was an object to be pushed around due to the clothes I decided to wear, and I remember looking to my sides and seeing dozens of other girls being put through the same humiliation. I also remember all the boys walking around campus without a care in the world because guys don’t really have a dress code. I remember, even now, because it was one of the many experiences in my life as a woman that questioned not only the rights I have to choose what to do with my body, but also my true nature as a human.
Depending on who you ask, the dress code is in place for different reasons, but usually the same one is quoted: so that the “other students” don’t get distracted by one’s dress. However, if the students in our school are so immature that a pair of legs that is attached to a body of a living, breathing, thinking human being is so distracting that they can’t finish their work, then we have more serious problems. Perhaps they need a very long time in an ethics class so they learn that women are more than bodies to be consumed.
School is an environment where we are supposed to learn to grow and guide ourselves into becoming the people we are supposed to be. The dress code doesn’t add to that goal, and may take away from it. In fact, all it’s really doing is preparing the hundreds of young women at our school for a life in a rape culture where they will be blamed for what others choose to do to them. Because really – when you think about it – what is the real purpose of a dress code? Why are we women supposed to change the way we dress so the “other students” (boys) can focus better? Why are we shaping hundreds of great young minds who should be worrying about bio labs and chem tests into spending their free time devising a route that will keep them from being forced to change into new clothes? And why are we humiliating young women in front of a room of their peers because they want to wear a cute pair of shorts? Us women live in a society that dehumanizes us – ads that sexualize our bodies, politicians that try to pass laws that ignore our autonomy over said bodies, men that feel that they have a right to these bodies with or without consent – and the fact is, instead of school being a safe haven from those images, the dress code is just another manifestation of it.
Simply put, the dress code is degrading and dehumanizing. It is literally turning us women into nothing more than hangers, valuing the clothes we wear as something more significant to others than our in-class achievements. It says our bodies are a communal property made to be consumed by the male population, and the choices we make on how to display them should be weighed in by a board of administrators. Why should we sexualize teenage girls like that?
Dress codes are a function of the patriarchy, and this school’s one has been in place for too long. Summer may be coming to an end, but it still is burning hot out today, and why should we be left to swelter in the classrooms while boys get to wear basketball shorts and paper thin t-shirts without having to worry about some teacher calling them out – in front of the class – about how inappropriate their dress is?
Last year, hundreds of students from Stuyvesant High School in Lower Manhattan rose up in mass protest of their unfair dress code that looked surprisingly similar to ours – and it worked, the dress code was repealed. Here’s what I say: wear whatever you want for the next few days. Let’s take a cue from our brothers and sisters at Stuyvesant, and let’s erase this unfair dress code that’s just a remnant of the patriarchy. And I mean everyone, not just ladies, but boys too: help us out, stand in solidarity with your female friends, and let’s help to create a campus that treats the women on it as people instead of just bodies.
KL • Jun 24, 2015 at 7:17 am
Everything is anti-women/misogynist it seems. Women wants to what they want and when they want but with none of the responsibility or the repercussions of their choices and so blame it on “patriarchy”.
A Person • May 27, 2015 at 5:07 pm
Wait a sex, I don’t see any rules saying that girls can’t wear “basketball shorts and paper thin t-shirts”. It’s just that they choose not to. The writer of this article is both stupid, and passing around false ideas.
If you take a look around, you will see that guys don’t have a lot of skin showing. As it should be. So they make a rule to enforce it. Then girls dress like sluts.
Is it the males fault, because he dresses to provability.
Think about it.
Jordan • Oct 21, 2014 at 12:46 am
Amazing! Its actually awesome piece of writing, I have got much clear
idea on the topic of from this article.
My page – site de rencontre plan q
Julia White • Nov 2, 2013 at 2:32 pm
I’m an Oracle alum and I am SO GLAD you wrote about this! Your understanding of the greater system is well beyond your years and I applaud your ability to express your opinions so articulately. Everyone is at a different level of understanding, so hopefully all the hate on this article won’t get you down. Keep it up!!
Apples to oranges. • Oct 29, 2013 at 7:43 pm
Basketball shorts and a t-shirt don’t reveal as much as some women’s clothing. That’s the long and short of it.
My two cents • Sep 12, 2013 at 12:58 am
I’m sorry. Is it at all appropriate to suggest if we can have a professional standard, have some class, show some modesty, and accept that one can express himself/herself while still abiding by the rules? This is not a radical idea. It’s just somewhere between forcing people to wear a certain amount of clothes and letting people have the option to wear clothes. Also, we need to remember that there is a time and place for everything, as cliche as it may sound. By the pool, we can wear bikinis and bathing trunks like its no one’s business. At a speech and debate competition we wear a suit. At school we keep it covered and classy. Skimpy clothing is totally appropriate for other venues, but not for the six and a half hours that you attend school. Plus, the dress code is not hunting after people wearing any kind of short shorts; it tries to keep people from wearing the shorts whee half your butt visible. It doesn’t say you can’t wear a v neck; it just doesn’t allow you to be practically flashing. Guys, pull up your pants. Again, there is an appropriate time and place to be revealing, and there is a time and place to be more covered. The high school setting calls for a little more professionalism, so that’s just what we need to honor.
Focus On This Instead • Sep 11, 2013 at 10:06 pm
The MVHS dress code has EQUAL rules for all students (males can’t wear short shorts either, males can’t show their midriff either, etc, etc). They are basically stating that there are appropriate and inappropriate ways for people to dress in different situations, and showing lots of skin is not appropriate at school – for males and females. Just like it is perfectly fine to wear a bathing suit at the beach or pool, but not at the mall or school – again, for males and females. So the rules are not sexist in any way – they are just rules you may not like (just like how no one can skip class, or no one can swim in the pool without permission). There are tons of rules in the world all around you. Deal with it. If you don’t like it, go to a different school.
If you want to talk sexist and “rape culture”, let’s talk about allowing freak dancing at school dances…where a boy (most are under 18) are allowed to walk up to a girl (most are under 18) on the dance floor and start rubbing their genitals against the girl. As if this isn’t disgusting enough, the girl isn’t even asked “hey, can I rub my junk on you?” – he just does it. Anywhere else (on the street, at work, in a classroom, etc.) this would be called sexual harassment, or possibly even sexual assault. But for some reason, turn on some music and it all becomes acceptable. Really!?!? THIS is the topic that should be discussed, not a dress code. Freak dancing is the topic that should be called sexist, disrespectful, and part of “rape culture”. Just because a girl is on a dance floor (or says yes to a dance) doesn’t mean she wants you to rub against her?! If a boy did this to a girl on a school campus, during the day, without her permission – she could probably have him arrested. At the very least, he would probably be suspended. Why is it OK at dances ON school campuses?! One of these days, a boy is going to get in a lot of trouble (and possibly even arrested) when a girl decides to take action (press charges) about this behavior at a school dance.
HEY MVHS ADMINISTRATION – Wake up and make some changes, or this may happen here.
HEY BOYS – Stop assuming that girls want you to rub up against them at dances. At the very least ASK them first, and how about considering not doing it at all.
HEY GIRLS – Stop letting boys “get off” at school dances by rubbing up against you, especially without your permission. Have some respect for yourself and the strength to say “no”.
glm320 • Sep 11, 2013 at 9:19 pm
While I think that mostly everyone on here is making valid points, I feel like everyone is missing the main idea of the article: that the dress code, while it does have some uses, is a rather misogynic display of the powerful patriarchy that we live in. Yes, the dress code is important when it comes to preventing clothing that publicize gangs, drugs, and violence. The dress code also prevents people from coming to school in bikinis or shirts that look like they are just hanging on to the wearer. However, the dress code does dehumanize and over-sexualize teen girls. In the society we live in nowadays, it is nearly impossible for a girl to buy shorts that fit into the dress code’s standards. Even at Target, a store that is considered a family store, the shorts provided for teen girls are, for lack of a better word, short-shorts. Thus, girls see these shorts in some of their favorite stores, buy them, then wear them to school. We see nothing wrong with this. If we still respect ourselves wearing shorts, or a top that maybe shows a bit of the skin of our back or a bra strap, then we do not think that people will think less of us for dressing as we choose. We also know when it isn’t appropriate to wear shorts, for example, when at a job interview or working. The current dress code is very restrictive and requires that girls wear shorts that are simply not sold. It’s not that we are trying to break the dress code per se, we just can’t find shorts (the largest offender of the dress code) that fit within the restrictions.
Now I’m going to get into the over-sexualizing part of the dress code. In the society we live in, women are seen as sex objects. There is no way around it, that’s just the way it is. This is evident whenever you even glance at social media campaigns. Burger King, to name an example, advertised its burgers by making an attractive model eat said burger while walking around in a bikini with burgers on it. That is an example of an over-sexualized female selling food and a perfect example of the society we’ve grown up in. The dress code mostly targets girls and treats them they way society tells them to treat us–as sexual objects whose skin and body parts are not simply that, but sexual objects. The reason I’ve come up with as to why only female teachers dress code is that is has been ingrained in the minds of male teachers that if they look at a young girl’s short length, it can be seen as sexual harassment and as an older male preying on a young girl. This is true in some situations and while I do not believe it to be true of teachers at MVHS, risking their job to dress code a student is not a risk most teachers are willing to make. This is all because, as the dress code exemplifies, young girls are seen as sex objects.
The last point I want to make is that the dress code is insulting to both male and female students. To the females, it judges you on how you dress and says that if you do not dress according to these rules, you are effectively a slut and vying for people to look at you as an object. This is not true, we’re wearing the clothes we wear because they are what’s sold and what we think is cute. The clothing we wear does not determine our worth or attitude towards life. It does not determine our intelligence or self-respect, as the dress code implies that it does. It’s also insulting to male students. It’s saying that the young men at MVHS are too immature to handle seeing the thigh of a female and will go into a furious, hormonal fit if they see too much of a young woman’s skin. Which, if I was a boy, I would find very insulting. It’s saying that boys have no control, thus girls must cover themselves more in order to keep the boys from going rampant.
At the end of the day, I believe that the point of the article is to say that while the dress code does have a point, it has gone to far in some respects and has not taken reality into its code. It has been decided by people far removed from the situation that girls must dress a certain way in order to be respectable and smart, and has assumed that girls must be covered for boys to be able to concentrate in school. It is just adding to the patriarchal society that we live in that classifies girls as sex objects and boys as slaves to their hormones. And that, is what I believe is the problem with the dress code and what the main point of the article is.
ES • Sep 11, 2013 at 10:46 am
I was dress coded by the principal in my first week of my freshman year of high school, while walking to the library with a class of my peers that I barely even knew yet, which was humiliating. Before my English class in sophomore year, I had to put on a pair of basketball shorts every day that I wore shorts. These two things, I’m sure, caused a lot more attention to my dress than simply wearing those shorts would have.
Let’s be real – everyone wants at least a little positive attention from their peers because it makes you feel good. If you don’t feel comfortable with the attention that your clothes may be bringing you, you can certainly change your clothes on your own. It should not be up to the administration to determine what an appropriate amount of attention exchanged between teenagers is, especially when we all know it’s going on in our heads in the classroom, and outside of the classroom.
I very much agree that the assumption that boys will not be able to focus in class because of a little extra skin is immature, and promotes the idea that boys and men are not at fault for their behavior and actions. This promotes rape culture. Although the administration’s intentions behind this are good, they are promoting exactly the opposite.
Dressing in short shorts and tank tops is also not necessarily a cry for attention, but simply the style today. Dressing differently than the majority of other girls may make some feel uncomfortable and left out, and forcing a girl to change her clothes will most definitely contribute to that feeling of being singled out. People are going to discover their own style eventually, and I think that following trends is part of the learning process for finding out what you like and what you are comfortable in.
Those who continue to wear what may be considered revealing for many years obviously know by now if their clothes makes them feel good, and are aware of the potential attention it will get them, and by all means they should be allowed to use their clothes as a form of self-expression or as a way to get what they want. Your body is YOUR BODY and you are allowed to do what you please with it. The administration is there to support your growth as a person and as an intellectual, and it is not their job to police your outfits.
Guest • Sep 11, 2013 at 7:40 am
So, I see some of your points here. However — when you get into the real world (working in any sort of office) you will find that short mini skirts, short shorts and spaghetti straps (and, for the guys, bare chests, sagging jeans and basketball shorts) are not acceptable attire. At the company picnic, sure. But not at work, it would be highly unprofessional. So I personally don’t see why it’s a bad thing to start practicing now for how you will need to dress in the future. Different situations call for different clothing.
Cool cat • Sep 10, 2013 at 11:30 pm
May I remind the author of this article that women get distracted by attractive men too… Your whole argument that it is only men who get distracted is in and of itself sexist as it implies that women are far above such things as sexual attraction. How foolish.
May I also mention that this is offensive to people with attention deficit disorder who DO get distracted by other people’s bodies and cannot focus because of them. Not because they are objects but because they get easily distracted. Your solution of putting us in a boarding school or special institution makes me absolutely sick.
That said, the dress code was designed by the district to prevent lawsuits. The restrictions on spaghetti straps and short length are not out of the misogyny of the district but out of the fear of getting sued.
Next time when you write a prejudicial tirade, please revise it not to unintentionally offend people.
MCSWAGGER • Sep 10, 2013 at 11:01 pm
My friend got dress coded today for wearing a shirt that said: “Terrorist hunting license” on it. I wonder if I’m allowed to wear my Ride the Lightning shirt, or is electricity too threatening?
metrine • Sep 10, 2013 at 10:23 pm
What a well written critique!! I appreciate your bravery! And, as a mom of two MVHS girls, I applaud your opinion.
I have the fab privilege of trying to shop with/for my girls…Not easy!! Yay dress code!!
But seriously, as a fitness trainer, I would never touch a client without asking first. No one has permission to do so, ever, including teachers.
A reality check is well overdue.
Any teachers/administrators want to go shopping with me?? Hit me up! Good luck finding clothes that fit the dress code…
Mr. T • Sep 10, 2013 at 9:52 pm
reposting this here for everyone to see…
some people are talking about rape in this context. if we want to talk rape, fine.
here’s the real problem: some people argue that the victim’s dress contributes to the perpetrator’s actions; revealing clothing is undoubtedly going to attract more attention than otherwise. others argue that a woman should be able to wear whatever she wants and not have to fear for her safety.
this second statement should be true in an ideal world; however, it is unrealistic and unwise to try to change it to that world so suddenly. it would be nice if the first statement weren’t true; however, there’s no denying that it is, and it is foolish to disregard it completely. To expect perpetrators to have a sudden change of heart regarding “rape culture” while they have held that mindset for quite some time is dangerous; this change takes time. the attitude is definitely changing for the better, but to insist that immediate change take place, while ideal, is unrealistic and creates an even more dangerous situation for women, as men like that are still out there and need to be weeded out.
i’ll tell you one thing, though: dealing in absolutes like “rape is never the victim’s fault” won’t work. while the action itself is 150% the perpetrator’s fault, the events that cause it are mixed.
really? • Sep 10, 2013 at 9:38 pm
If the dress code is a product of the “patriarchy”, why have I never seen a male teacher enforce the dress code? Why is it almost always female teachers who are dress coding female students? It’s because female teachers have learned from experiences in their own lives that people will take you more seriously if you dress appropriately for an academic environment.
The Dominator • Sep 10, 2013 at 10:18 pm
Yeah, I’d have to agree with that. Very nicely put, good sir or ma’am, you should be a writer for the Oracle yourself!
c'mon • Sep 10, 2013 at 10:57 pm
it’s called internalized misogyny. google it.
seriously? • Sep 10, 2013 at 11:06 pm
soooo… basically anyone who isn’t nice to a woman is a misogynist regardless of what gender they are or if they are trying to help.
You can't be serious • Sep 10, 2013 at 11:06 pm
It’s all crystal clear. If you disagree with women, it’s misogyny regardless of gender.
Jimmy Rustles • Sep 11, 2013 at 4:40 pm
So women too are now a major part of the patriarchy.
Gotta love feminists
asdfghjkl • Sep 10, 2013 at 9:31 pm
Despite all the controversy about this article right now, I think the point is that the administration just needs to enforce the dress code in a way that prevents anyone from wearing anything inappropriate or distracting but in a more respectful and less objectifying way. This article is extremely well written, and I completely agree. Great job!
DTTF • Sep 10, 2013 at 8:58 pm
What exactly is the argument? You claim that women shouldn’t be portrayed as sexual objects, but at the same time should be allowed to dress as them. You also claim that it is the fault of the immature students if they are distracted by lewd clothing, as opposed to the fault of the dresser.
This is not to say I agree with the current dress code, but I can’t support this article with a blatant lack of evidence and many generalizations.
Melika Panbehchi • Sep 10, 2013 at 9:00 pm
women showing their bodies as dressing as objects?? do you have any idea what you’re saying? its our BODY.
how is it our fault if people get distracted by our BODY. this is the rape culture mentality right here! and you say you need more evidence?
No. • Sep 10, 2013 at 9:01 pm
This is one step away from blaming the victim of a rape.
Jimmy Rustles • Sep 10, 2013 at 9:28 pm
Indeed, in some situations, both sides may be at some fault.
omg • Sep 10, 2013 at 9:36 pm
RAPE IS NEVER THE VICTIM’S FAULT.
Mr. T • Sep 10, 2013 at 9:51 pm
if we want to talk rape, fine.
here’s the real problem: some people argue that the victim’s dress contributes to the perpetrator’s actions; revealing clothing is undoubtedly going to attract more attention than otherwise. others argue that a woman should be able to wear whatever she wants and not have to fear for her safety.
this second statement should be true in an ideal world; however, it is unrealistic and unwise to try to change it to that world so suddenly. it would be nice if the first statement weren’t true; however, there’s no denying that it is, and it is foolish to disregard it completely. To expect perpetrators to have a sudden change of heart regarding “rape culture” while they have held that mindset for quite some time is dangerous; this change takes time. the attitude is definitely changing for the better, but to insist that immediate change take place, while ideal, is unrealistic and creates an even more dangerous situation for women, as men like that are still out there and need to be weeded out.
i’ll tell you one thing, though: dealing in absolutes like “rape is never the victim’s fault” won’t work. while the action itself is 150% the perpetrator’s fault, the events that cause it are mixed.
No. • Sep 10, 2013 at 9:28 pm
if you actually need me to summarize it for you: “it is the fault of the immature students if they are distracted by lewd clothing, as opposed to the fault of the dresser” that’s saying that it is the woman’s fault for wearing distracting clothing. Which is like saying a girl’s short skirt is what made the rapist rape her…
Oh Jeez • Sep 10, 2013 at 9:02 pm
showing your navel or wearing shorts doesn’t make you a sexual object! objectification means treating a person as a thing, without regard to their dignity. dignity is NOT defined by how much skin you show!
you’re literally blaming the victim and it makes me sick.
Actually... • Sep 10, 2013 at 9:08 pm
So you’re saying that if a woman dresses in shorts and a tank top, she’s automatically assuming the role of a sexual object?
Jimmy Rustles • Sep 10, 2013 at 9:27 pm
Why is the word “sex object” used by feminists in a bad way? “Sex object” usually denotes “fetish.” “Women” are not “fetishes” by definition of a fetish. Unless a man is gay, obviously woman are “objects of sexual desire” for men, just as vice versa is true. Perhaps that’s not the main goal of a woman’s life, but that is, evolutionary speaking, the roles they inevitably have to play for the survival of our species. The same idea applies the other way around, except for the fact that a woman’s sexual desire is significantly less intense. So whatever way a woman dresses up, the woman assumes the role of a sexual object (this is also true for men). This does not mean that she should be constantly raped and used for sex, but it does mean that everyone has to practice some deal of self-constraint at all times. By wearing revealing clothing, the opposite sex has to practice a good deal more self-restraint. Eventually, this comes to a breaking point and the person relaxes this self-restraint, leading to, perhaps, worse treatment of women or insensitivity.
Jimmy Rustles • Sep 11, 2013 at 4:13 pm
I take that you only read the first two sentences.
Mr. T • Sep 10, 2013 at 9:30 pm
@the second comment on this thread: you seem quick to accuse the original poster of being on the path of “blaming the victim of a rape”. this is absolutely ridiculous – the original poster was trying to prove a point. this is one thing i really dislike about our school – i love our liberal environment, but the ease with which *some* girls accuse guys of being misogynistic, rape-culture supportive, and basically anything that isn’t considered “feminist” by Mountain View High School is appalling. I am an ardent supporter of women’s rights, but every time I point out some sort of logical fallacy in an argument pertaining to this topic, I get accused of being something I am not. THAT sickens me, too.
c'mon • Sep 10, 2013 at 10:58 pm
“You also claim that it is the fault of the immature students if they are distracted by lewd clothing, as opposed to the fault of the dresser.”
your inability to focus because someone is showing skin is your fault, not the dressers. if you really have that much trouble with a girl showing her legs near you that you can’t finish a test then you should be placed in a charter school or something where you can learn to mature and view women as people with their own lives and goals than as legs who want to distract you. and yes you are immature if you are distracted, that’s just a fact.
Agreed • Sep 10, 2013 at 8:40 pm
I agree with this so much- I could never have put into words what you just did, but I and many of my female friends have been feeling the exact same way, as I’m sure a vast majority of the school has.
asdasd2 • Sep 10, 2013 at 8:50 pm
If you can’t put into words what you’re feeling- you obviously don’t feel strongly enough about it. Sorry, but that’s the truth.
KS • Sep 10, 2013 at 8:35 pm
You tell them!
dfsafasd • Sep 10, 2013 at 8:27 pm
“What’s our school’s dress code, word for word?
To be honest, I don’t really know.”
I understand your argument, but it’s hard to take an article seriously when it starts out like that. No where in the dress code does it divide guidelines between male and feminine clothing, meaning that the skin showing is applied to everyone, not just girls. If a guy showed up to class in way too short booty shorts and a crop top, I’m sure he would get in trouble. Is it messed up that girls are often objectified for materialistic things like clothing and appearance and amount of skin? Yes. Were the teacher’s actions uncalled for? They were undoubtley uncalled for. But as Thoreau stated, “Any fool can make a rule, and any fool will mind it.”
Mr. T • Sep 10, 2013 at 8:27 pm
Now Jimmy Rustles is going too far by saying girls would come to school in bikinis and talking about how dress codes are designed to control men… dasdasd has the right thought, not mr rustled jimmies
Confused spartan • Sep 10, 2013 at 8:19 pm
I think the author is being too critical of the dress code. It was wrong of the teacher to correct you, but lets be honest. If there were no dress code girls would come to schools in bikinis
Visit an ethics class, please • Sep 10, 2013 at 8:28 pm
No, actually, I don’t think they would. You obviously haven’t been around teenage girls enough to know that their self image and self esteem would prevent the vast majority from doing so. And besides, even if they did come to school in bikinis, what’s the big deal again? “However, if the students in our school are so immature that a pair of legs that is attached to a body of a living, breathing, thinking human being is so distracting that they can’t finish their work, then we have more serious problems.”
Confused Spartan • Sep 10, 2013 at 8:35 pm
so you are saying we should allow girls to wear whatever they want whenever they want? why not get ride of all the other rules while your at it?
no, really • Sep 10, 2013 at 8:46 pm
teach people to be mature and treat others with respect, no matter how much skin they are or aren’t showing.
Mr. T • Sep 10, 2013 at 9:37 pm
arguing in extremes never helps. @LOL, you are detracting from your own point… calm down a bit
op :o • Sep 10, 2013 at 9:22 pm
and is that such a bad thing?
c'mon • Sep 10, 2013 at 11:10 pm
Would they really? Nudity is legal in San Francisco, or at least it was – was everyone nude in San Francisco? No, of course not.
Jimmy Rustles • Sep 10, 2013 at 8:17 pm
Throughout the article, the author never really touches on the fact that the very clothes abolished by this so called “patriarchy” through the dress code were specifically designed and tailored to control men. Perhaps one might say that those clothes were the product of the “matriarchy.”
LOL • Sep 10, 2013 at 8:55 pm
yeah, because a girl wears a bra and her straps show for MEN. she wears a cute crop tops for MEN. she tries to look good for MEN. i guess this is news to you, but what a girl decides to wear is up to her and is not for the visual appeal for a guy.
sdasd • Sep 10, 2013 at 9:02 pm
It’s kind of sad that women don’t want to be objectified by guys, and yet part of the reason they choose to wear to wear is to appeal to guys. Say what you want, the aforementioned statement is true, and it applies from guys to girls.
adoijkg • Sep 10, 2013 at 9:25 pm
….okay even if what you’re saying is true (and it isn’t)… the only way a girl appeals to a guy is if she objectifies herself?
Jimmy Rustles • Sep 10, 2013 at 9:06 pm
The belief that the intrinsic motivations for the dress codes are the result of male oppressive tendencies is as crazy and as believable as the belief that the intrinsic motivations for sexually revealing clothes are the result of female oppressive tendencies. In fact, consider this: the harsher dress code at Blach was enforced last year mainly by female teachers. The principal was a female and the “police” consisted almost entirely of female teachers. So this is not necessarily the result of some unseen “patriarchal” force.
Mr. T • Sep 10, 2013 at 9:40 pm
I agree, blaming this on patriarchal society is definitely a stretch – it’s way too hard to categorize this issue into one category and one category only. blaming one side only is foolish and doesn’t make sense… that’s why there’s a debate about this in the first place.
but the fact that there are two people named “LOL” is really confusing, someone change their name to LMAO or something…
wow • Sep 10, 2013 at 10:39 pm
slut shaming is a direct result of patriarchy.
wow • Sep 10, 2013 at 10:39 pm
women can be misogynists too. its called internalized misogyny. perhaps you should educate yourself about the topic before you decide to bring up a “point”.
[email protected] • Sep 10, 2013 at 8:12 pm
I think you’re taking this a little too personally. Let’s start of with some things: the teacher shouldn’t have corrected your dress code the way she did. Period. It’s not acceptable. Understand that the dress code your argument throughout this article (intentional or not) was that this dress code objectifies women and degrades your status. “And [you] remember how [you] felt that day, like [you were] an object to be pushed around due to the clothes [you] decided to wear” Let’s understand this. You’re saying that by enforcing a school dress code, it promotes the idea of women being objects? The dress code exists so that everyone, women included, don’t get treated like objects. You think that by wearing more revealing clothing, that’ll objectify women less? Come on, that’s not likely. More skin means more attention, welcome or unwelcome, and in more chances than not, it’ll bring along trouble too. Let’s take this on a basis of potential harm- you think that if all the girls and boys decided to wear whatever they wanted, school would honestly be safer? I get that the dress code doesn’t treat girls and boys equally, but to say that the idea of the dress code is dehumanizing is taking it a bit too far.
Guest • Sep 10, 2013 at 8:22 pm
Punishing girls for wearing whatever they deem to be “revealing clothing” implies that 1. the female body is decorative, and has no place in an intellectual environment, and 2. that the male ability to focus is more important than the female sense of self/ self-expression.
a23asd • Sep 10, 2013 at 8:37 pm
It shouldn’t be that way, but it is, and the dress code deals with that issue. It sucks that can’t just take all the boys and put them in re-education camps, huh?
Passing by • Sep 12, 2013 at 12:51 am
Uhm in an intellectual environment neither the male body nor female body is relevant. The desire for females to show off skin is foolish. Self expression is great, but there’s a time and place.
I would hope that the school stops boys from running around topless or having their pants halfway down their ass too. Because that’s just as foolish as revealing female clothing.
However the idea that revealing clothing is bad because it distracts people is a load of shit. People just need better self control.
Hell the point is everyone needs self control. Don’t dress to expose your body at a school, and have enough willpower not to stare at exposed skin.
Finally stop trying to frame everything in the female-object, male-perv situation. Pretty sure feminists want equality so let’s start by treating everyone equal.
Alum • Sep 10, 2013 at 8:26 pm
Telling teenage girls that they can’t wear shorts or spaghetti strap tank tops because it will “distract” boys implies that boys’ comfort is more important than girls’ (“if your shorts are too short on a hot day, you have to change into sweatpants so no one will run the risk of being overwhelmed with sexual fantasies at the sight of a freaking LEG”) and that we shouldn’t bother teaching kids to have the basic self control not to completely tune out from a lesson because they can see someone’s shoulders or upper thigh. Dress codes should be used to prevent kids from wearing clothing that promotes violence, discrimination, or illegal activity, not to police the amount of skin teenage girls show.
adfdsc • Sep 10, 2013 at 8:30 pm
“Dress codes should be used to prevent kids from wearing clothing that promotes violence, discrimination, or illegal activity, not to police the amount of skin teenage girls show.” beautifully stated
asasdasd • Sep 10, 2013 at 8:39 pm
I’m not saying that we shouldn’t teach self-control. I’m saying that as it is, that’s the purpose of having the dress code.
It's society • Mar 12, 2014 at 1:01 pm
Well wearing more revealing clothing will objectify women. And that’s the problem! It shouldn’t be that way. People need to stop buying into the whole skin=sex thing that the media has put out there. However, by telling girls that they can wear whatever they want as long as they cover their skin, we are telling them “yes, you are an object and you will turn someone on if you show skin” Instead of trying to change the way that we see skin and body parts from something sexual to just human anatomy, we just go along with what the media has made of women. I weirded things kind of strangely so I hope you don’t misunderstand what in saying. Women should be free to wear what they want without losing respect or being sexually objectified, so they don’t to wear revealing clothing if they don’t want to, but if they do they shouldn’t be sexually objectified. We need to change our mindset so that women can wear what they want and we don’t have to tell them to cover up.
Emily Porat • Sep 10, 2013 at 7:20 pm
go Bebe! this article is fab and SO TRUE.