Student Suspended for wearing a dress.

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Gender roles are sexism we have seen this come up in the MLPFIM argument.

In some ways they are and can be, but not in all ways. The fact is that men and women are different. People should never be discriminated against because of their gender but it is an incontrovertible and scientifically verifiable fact that men and women are different.

Its okay for grown men to like thundercats and transformers but if they like a girls show about ponies it's degrading why? becuase society has taught that 'feminine things' are 'lesser' then 'masculine things.'

Perhaps you can think it the other way around. Society teaches these things *because* those things are valid. Societies are shaped by the people who make them up. Our laws and morals are made by a people to reflect their values. The reason society teaches that feminine things are "lesser" for a man (though I don't think that way of putting it is particularly accurate) is because it reflects the views of the majority in that society. Most people who see a man in a dress would think it very odd, it is that simple (not including fancy dress or pantomime for example). It is not normal. It may be acceptable, it may be protected legally and it may be fine with many, but it is not the norm and is considered odd behaviour by the majority.

I pretty much despise any sort of uniform it's a horrible squash of individuality for kids.

That's a different argument entirely and views for and against are just as valid. But the point is not about freedom of expression, expression of individuality or whether uniforms are right or wrong, but about a boy who was sent home. Schools are well within their rights to enforce acceptable behaviour and dress (within reason. Physical discipline is absolutely not acceptable for example). Students may have an opinion on the matter but they have no say whatsoever on the rule about it. The rules are made and it's the students'/parents' choices whether to abide by them or go to a different school.

At my old school any boy with hair below ear level was sent to the barber (not even home, to the barber). I now work at a school where 6th form (16-18) female students (and staff for that matter) may not wear trousers, nor may they wear skirts above the knee or revealing tops. Lower school students wear uniform. They have to. There is no choice in the matter. If they don't, they get sent home. They also have to attend their lessons and be punctual. If they don't do those things repeatedly, they get expelled. Whether or not I or anyone agrees with any particular rule is irrelevant. Those are the rules and schools (and workplaces) can and do enforce them and that is just how it should be.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

Perhaps you can think it the other way around. Society teaches these things *because* those things are valid.

No they aren't valid they are forced on us by society. There are men who like my little pony, the colour pink and wearing drag but instead of just being allowed to get on with it they are ridiculed. But I as a women am not ridiculed for liking thundercats or wearing trousers. Why? Becuase masculine things are seen as cool while feminine things are seen as degrading. This is something we need to change because it's wrong and sexist.

Interestingly my 3 year old neices favourite toy is a Batman action figure this wasn't given to her she picked it out of my nephews toys and decided that it was her favourite thing she also loves robots and Buzz Lightyear. This is with no pressure from my sister who is the most feminine person I know. How can you say gender roles are valid when everyone can be different.

Those are the rules and schools (and workplaces) can and do enforce them and that is just how it should be.

Just because something is a rule doesn't mean it's right. While I can understand that schools and the workplace want people to look smart there is no reason why they can't wear their own choice of clothes and still look smart.

 

[Dags90]

Students may have an opinion on the matter but they have no say whatsoever on the rule about it. The rules are made and it's the students'/parents' choices whether to abide by them or go to a different school.

There may be some cultural confusion or completely justified cultural ignorance at play here(Your profile and spelling says British). In the U.S., if you go to a taxpayer funded school, you usually don't have a choice about which school you go to. Because school budgets are commonly funded by local (town, municipality, etc) taxes, it's usually illegal to go to a taxpayer school outside that district. He can't simply choose another taxpayer funded school nearby (or he would have to pay tuition to that taxpayer funded school).

 

[RaNDM G]

It looks like most people are outraged simply over whether or not guys can wear dresses, but no one seems to be bringing up the fact that Saurs is a repeat offender at his school. He's been suspended at least three times for breaking the dress code, so why should this case be an exception?

If the school has a dress code students should follow it, plain and simple.

 

[The Random One]

Boy tells his mom wearing high heels is easy, mom challenges him to do so. Veredict: mom is awesome. (Have you ever seen high heel shoes?)

Boy gets banned for crossdressing, decides to do more crazy stuff in the future. Veredict: boy is also awesome.

This story is sad, but I feel the long term good outweights the short term bad. At any rate I wouldn't expect any better from a place that bans hats.

 

[CheckD3]

This...well I was about to say makes me lose faith in the US school systems but after the problems with my school district and the fact that they're fucking the bus drivers (which my dad is one) over and are actually getting really punished for it, so I guess I'm just...slightly surprised?

But regardless of whether he is or isn't a crossdresser, whether or not he's homosexual or heterosexual, it doesn't matter, it's still just wrongfully immoral. There's not much else to say to that since I'm sure everyone else already said it, but this does show the line in the sand. You can do this, but you can't do that is the basic statement, and at a public school, that's just wrong, especially not allowing him to go to a dance or on a class trip because he wore a dress? Unless he was flashing the other students I'd be more than just a "whatever" attitude with the school

 

[Jakub324]

Fucking homophobes. I know the guy wasn't gay, btw.

 

[Hectix777]

I'm not one for wearing a dress, but the kilt is the exception(the man skirt). Plus there's kimonos and ceremonial Islamic and maybe Hindi robes. So if a person just does something different that makes him a target? Isn't it funny how we're taught to be yourself when growing up but those who continue to be themselves are weird and the sell outs are excepted? This is why I believe the world would be a better place if nobody was "normal" because normalcy is bull*&^%. "Normal" is a pop culture term dubbed on those who become slaves to the newest trends and music, eventually the image of what our pop culture means. So if you choose to be a tool your normal, but defiance makes you a target? God bless humanity, and it's stupidity...

 

[fulano]

To conform is to make the same. Sexism then is an enemy of conformity, thus the school is against conforming.

Gender roles =/= sexism. Blokes shouldn't wear dresses.

Actually gender roles are the highest form of sexism.

Misogyny? Come on. I personally don't have any misgivings with gender roles at all, until they become compulsory. Unfortunately, that's very very often. Kill your own damned spiders!

Not mysogyny. I find nowadays gender roles hurt men more than women. Its weirder for men to wear skirts than women to wear pants, which 50 or so years ago would be crossdressing.

But that would be asuming that gender roles are hundred percent culturally based and not have some biological component.

Using the "born ghey" retort? I suppose people are the way they are raised. I don't think it has anything to do with biology. Except for the fact that I do believe that some of the experiences that we have are passed onto the next generation, perhaps an explanation as to how animals have intuition, or the notion that the younger generations are born knowing to text or have some tech savy. If your dad did it, maybe you might? But moresoe, if dad is OKAY with it, than you have all your ambition to do what you want to do! And what kid doesn't want to do what ever they want? If kids got to do what they wanted, everyone would be a firefighter, astronaut, and president from birth. I mean it is like the parents that were kewl with their kids tapping it. If you are okay with it, and the outcome of said situations, than fine! Just don't be surprised at the outcomes is all I am saying.

Your supposition is so wrong in so many places that I don't know where to begin to correct you (Being born knowing how to text? Ugh). Have a good day.

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

Well unless the dress was quite revealing (which I doubt) or the school had a rule against dresses or high heels in general (which I also doubt), I don't see why he should be punished. And suspended? Who the fuck is running that place. I know I'm just some random person on the internet, but still. That school's administration can go fuck themselves they're so backwards. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a boy wearing a dress.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

No they aren't valid they are forced on us by society. There are men who like my little pony, the colour pink and wearing drag but instead of just being allowed to get on with it they are ridiculed. But I as a women am not ridiculed for liking thundercats or wearing trousers. Why? Becuase masculine things are seen as cool while feminine things are seen as degrading.

They're only seen as degrading if it is a man who enjoys them. (Not the pink thing though. It may be "more feminine" but there's no stigma attached to a man liking or wearing pink).

And my point, perhaps poorly made, is that society is shaped by the views of the people that it encompasses. Society teaches something because that is how most people think and create/shape a society where that thinking is then taught and shared. I see your point about double-standards and you're absolutely right about that. But a man dressing as a woman is odd, just as a woman in a harsh power-suit dressing as a masculine man (not simply wearing clothing that is traditionally associated with men) is also odd. And if a girl likes boy-ish things they're usually described as tomboys, which in itself *is* different from the norm (though there is no stigma associated with it).

Just because something is a rule doesn't mean it's right. While I can understand that schools and the workplace want people to look smart there is no reason why they can't wear their own choice of clothes and still look smart.

I absolutely agree with you. Many rules aren't right, fair or even justifiable but they still exist. We've gotten rid of most of the social ones but that doesn't alter a school's ability to make and enforce them. In a similar way to an employer not hiring someone who has a swear word tattooed on their forehead regardless of their ability to do the job.

It doesn't matter if the person has the right to tattoo themselves (which they do), the employer has standards for their staff and that person is not up to them. In this instance the boy was dressed as a girl which, irrespective of society's or our own views (though I would consider it odd it wouldn't bother me in the least and I would absolutely defend his right to dress that way outside of school), is against the school rules which they are entitled to make and enforce.

There may be some cultural confusion or completely justified cultural ignorance at play here(Your profile and spelling says British). In the U.S., if you go to a taxpayer funded school, you usually don't have a choice about which school you go to. Because school budgets are commonly funded by local (town, municipality, etc) taxes, it's usually illegal to go to a taxpayer school outside that district. He can't simply choose another taxpayer funded school nearby (or he would have to pay tuition to that taxpayer funded school).

You're absolutely right and that is also a very good point. I did know that about the US education system (and off-topic, personally I think it's not a great admissions system. People should have choice) but it didn't occur to me about it. What happens then if a student is expelled from the school they're meant to go to? Surely there's a system to allow them to attend elsewhere under those circumstances?

And I see your point how it isn't so simple a choice when there isn't an easy alternative available. But irrespective of that, even if the school were the only one within a 100 mile radius he still contravened what is a reasonable rule to attend it. Unreasonable or illegal rules I would absolutely fight for the student's rights, and also in this specific case if the punishment were harsher with the existing reasonable rules.

But there's nothing wrong with a school enforcing reasonable rules to encourage the greater majority of their students to grow academically and personally to be the best they can, to experience the most they can offer them and prepare them for university and/or the real world. The real world where, rightly or wrongly, most employers will not have a man in a dress or with swear words tattooed on their foreheads in a customer facing role like behind the bar or a till.

 

[Jegsimmons]

Well, that's kinda... bullshit. And in Washington? If it was the conservative south, I'd understand a bit better, but still...

nah, we do that for those weird sporting events where the girls play football instead.

this is stupid...on both sides to say the least.

 

[Dark Prophet]

First thing that comes to mind is...
[youtube
=hNgi4l515NM]

But anyways one of my friends lost a bet once and wore a dress, high heels and fishnet stockings the whole day in the school. It was a bit wierd at first but fucking funny how he tried and failed miserabely to walk with the high heels. No one asked him to leave or suspended him and if I remember correctly then it was our English techer who laughed so hard at him that she had to leavel the classroom.

 

[ms_sunlight]

EDIT: A fact I didn't initially consider for my first post either was that he could very well have been a disturbance in class. If a guy wearing a dress in class makes other people in that class talk about it or makes the teacher address it for any length of time he is disturbing the classroom just by being there in a dress. Lots of people brought this up already, one I particularly liked was the one about the burrito

This is always used as an argument of oppression though. Historically it was used as an argument against admitting women to schools and universities. It would disturb the male students who need to concentrate seriously.

It's now used as an argument against gay kids coming out in school, or having gay relationships in school, and now here it is used as an argument against kids being allowed to exhibit genderqueer behaviours.

Frankly, I don't buy it. Any teacher worth their salt can handle this sort of thing quickly and move on. People who are different shouldn't be persecuted - illegally persecuted, in my opinion - for being themselves.

 

[BanthaFodder]

I disagree with the school (even if I don't personally agree with the boy wearing a dress and heels, I respect his right to do so), but I don't buy the mother's bs for a second. he wasn't trying to "be himself", it was a BET. she said it herself.

the school was KINDA in the wrong, I mean, there has to be SOME sort of dress code, even if it IS a public school.
but let's just say they're both in the wrong, the school for making a big deal out of this, and the mother for trying to bullshit everyone into giving up sympathy.

 

[thiosk]

I think everyone under 18 should be in rigid unisex uniforms with chastity belts, and should be tased for speaking out of turn.

That would solve this issue quite cleanly.

 

[Plurralbles]

Was he disrupting the classroom wearing this? Can they prove that it did?

No?

Then fuck that school and I really wish it would get sued into oblivion.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

Oh, come on. There are plenty of things wrong with this article unrelated to the school's actions.

1) Mother decides the best way to teach her son how hard it is to walk in heels is to have him wear them in public. And the kid's 15. Now he gets to go through highschool being "that tranny kid."

2) Kid decides, on his own volition, to wear a dress to school. Well, why not? If you're going to make a scene in public, you might as well go for the gusto.

3) Kid has already been in trouble for breaking school dress code rules, including...makeup? Good Christ. Ban this troll.

4) The mother was upset for the school "not letting him be him." He wasn't being 'him.' He was creating a spectacle based on a bet that you made with him.

i just dont see anything wrong with what he did. if he wants to wear a dress and high heels does it really affect anyone? i just dont see why they even tried to suspend him.

I think the main issue is that it's distracting.

Ohhhh yay, masculinity. Women are congratulated for wearing pants while men are vilified for wearing dresses. I think it's screwed up and fundamentally flawed.

On the contrary: if you live in a place where women are congratulated for being able to put on a pair of pants, you've got lower standards for the intelligence of women than Borat did.

 

[NightHawk21]

EDIT: A fact I didn't initially consider for my first post either was that he could very well have been a disturbance in class. If a guy wearing a dress in class makes other people in that class talk about it or makes the teacher address it for any length of time he is disturbing the classroom just by being there in a dress. Lots of people brought this up already, one I particularly liked was the one about the burrito

This is always used as an argument of oppression though. Historically it was used as an argument against admitting women to schools and universities. It would disturb the male students who need to concentrate seriously.

It's now used as an argument against gay kids coming out in school, or having gay relationships in school, and now here it is used as an argument against kids being allowed to exhibit genderqueer behaviours.

Frankly, I don't buy it. Any teacher worth their salt can handle this sort of thing quickly and move on. People who are different shouldn't be persecuted - illegally persecuted, in my opinion - for being themselves.

Good point. I could understand how this could be used against women entering school or the workforce or whatnot; I have a little trouble seeing the relationship of gay relationships in the class. The thing is most teacher in high school aren't worth their salt unfortunately and cant keep a class quiet. That being said as for the argument of "being themselves":
1) I don't think this has any place in a school. You're not in high school to express yourself. University and college are for finding yourself.
2) The kid shot himself in the foot by saying it was apparently for a bet. So this obviously isn't him and how he normally acts.

 

[funguy2121]

To conform is to make the same. Sexism then is an enemy of conformity, thus the school is against conforming.

Gender roles =/= sexism. Blokes shouldn't wear dresses.

Actually gender roles are the highest form of sexism.

Misogyny? Come on. I personally don't have any misgivings with gender roles at all, until they become compulsory. Unfortunately, that's very very often. Kill your own damned spiders!

Not mysogyny. I find nowadays gender roles hurt men more than women. Its weirder for men to wear skirts than women to wear pants, which 50 or so years ago would be crossdressing.

They don't really help any. Damned shame most of us are scared shitless of feminists.

Im not quite sure exactly your view on this. Im getting mixed messeges.

Sorry. Too much caffeine of late translates to sleep deprivation, so I'm not surprised if I sound a little incoherent.

I mentioned misogyny because I view it as a "higher" (more severe) form of sexism than gender roles (chauvinism). I'm definitely not on board with the fuck gender! crowd; I rather like quite a bit about being a member of my gender and some of the interactions I have with persons of the opposite gender, without regard for whether these fall under a "traditional" heading or not. Obligatory gender roles, however, disgust me. Not killing spiders for women was a joke, but I'm not interested in giving a woman my money unless I'm truly impressed. I like women who work and I can't stand a lot of the bullshit that both genders put up with on a regular basis because of relationship-killing expectations. Most men are more intimidated by feminism than just about anything else (not me), and don't want to hear it when you tell them that gender roles are bad for everyone, dudes included.

My brother's soon to be ex-wife slightly scares me. I heard stories from him that she abused him, but I had NO idea how far it went. She is very TALL and a bit hefty, a broad girl, still atttractive mind you but in that I will kick your-arse sort of way, probably double my weight in girth. And my brother is a beanpole and very lean, so she has quite a bit more mass when it comes to a combat situation. That being said, my brother refused to offer an attack back any time she hit him due to old time chivelry. He just accepted the beatings knowing that if he did ANYTHING back, it would instantly be a domestic abuse charge, and he would be the one being hauled off, even though he was likely the one with the black eye defending himself

Yes gender roles hurt everyone. By the way, I wasn't trying to connect crazy abusive women with the feminism intimidating many men.