Student Suspended for wearing a dress.

[cobra_ky]

OT: Look, I just think its very important to try and work within a source as much as possible; 90% of pointless replies on forums come from people adding their own subconscious responses, so that the discussion becomes more linked to what their beliefs are about one thing or another than whats actually being discussed; so I try as much as I can to stay within the evidence given to me. You could read it with gender bending as an area of interest, but to me thats still drawing an assumption based on your own opinions, not what can be read in the article, which is just that he took the dare up a notch. Just how I see it, is all

The premise of the dare was that wearing women's clothing is more difficult than he thought it was. So "taking the dare up a notch" means taking "what it's like to wear women's clothing" further.

It got me the 10,000 views badge, and has bee my biggest thread by a large margin.

Pshhht. Link to a news story regarding to sexuality/gender + Off-topic = "On Fire" badge ezmode.

I nailed that one on the first thread i ever made. Thanks, "Virginity for Sale" girl!

 

[Dags90]

Pshhht. Link to a news story regarding to sexuality/gender + Off-topic = "On Fire" badge ezmode.

I nailed that one on the first thread i ever made. Thanks, "Virginity for Sale" girl!

I find that threads on gender roles tend to do the best, there's seems to be less agreement with them. It was either this or making a thread about "things you hate about your avatar" or something. Haters gonna hate.

It's a shame there's no 500 replies badge in between the 50 and 1,000 ones.

 

[Canid117]

"I looked pretty?" Smartass. Made me laugh though.

 

[Lythiaren]

Heck, his mother could have been talking about how physically uncomfortable it was for women to wear high heels and dresses all the time; we simply don't know anything more about it.

Actually that's about right. If you look into the other links on this story, they say it basically went down like this:

1. Mom complains about how much heels suck.
2. Son says it can't be that bad.
3. Mom bets son that he wouldn't last a day in the infernal things.
4. Son accepts and decides that since wearing heels is already quite silly, he might as well go the whole nine yards. Sans headwear, of course, because there's an explicit rule about hats.
5. Son goes to school in dress and heels.
6. Son is called into dean's office, is asked to go home, calls the dean sexist, is suspended for the rest of the school year (which is already almost over).
7. School reduces suspension to three days for undisclosed reason.
8. "I was pretty"

 

[Palademon]

I can't help but think "What if a Scot boy went to America and wore a Kilt(with clothes undernath)?"

 

[Labyrinth]

Oh, brilliant chain of thought. "Women are allowed to dress like men. Men dressing like women is considered 'unmanly' because men think women are inferior to men."

"Black kids are allowed to dress like white people. White kids dressing 'gangsta' is seen as degrading because white people think being black is degrading."

"Police are allowed to wear plainclothes. Civilians dressing as 'police' is frowned upon because most people think being a cop is degrading."

Here's the thing: "male" clothes are generally seen as "male" clothes because they were practical. There was a time when women weren't considered fit for the same duties as men, and thus their clothing didn't need to be suitable for anything men would do (read: everything except making babies and looking pretty). Women can dress like "men" because "male" clothes are actually functional. It's never a man whose workboots break a heel, or whose slacks are so restrictive that he can't run.

When was the last time that someone had some sort of activity that required them to wear traditionally "female" clothing?

The application of gender roles for clothing does not logically correspond to race or occupational roles. That's a rather silly strawman argument.

I'm not commenting on functionality of clothing, nor am I about to suggest that anyone should wear heels in industry. Another strawman argument, I might add. Would you like to address what I'm actually saying some time? People wear clothing to look good, because it's a certain style. Who's to say that men can't look damn fine in skirts and heels?

One of the issues that comes up in things like these is the concept of gaze. The heterosexual male gaze is very much catered for by women's fashion, what with revealing neck and hemlines, tightly fitted cuts and the like. I don't think it's unreasonable to hope that people who like looking at men might be offered something similar by clothing designs. I also think it could do a lot for men if they felt they had recourse and could be attractive. The focus on the heterosexual male gaze in culture results in many things aside from the stifling of non-heterosexual experience. Women are so often valued first on how attractive they are, while men are valued last upon it. Take the Pick-up Artist community. Personally, I'm not a fan, but I can understand why it has come about in a culture which tends to emphasise that the male body is non-sexual, so men don't have an understanding that they can be attractive.

You ask about requirements for female clothing. It's fair to say that it's not legislated and due to the development of gender equality policy within companies it's not likely to pop up there either. However, there are social sanctions which exist. Formal attire for women rarely includes anything with less than a two inch heel and women who deliberately decide not to wear dresses are often labelled as bulldyke femininazis who are just trying to make a statement, rather than being understood as people who may simply prefer pants. Much stricter social sanctions, even regulations exist for men wearing clothing coded to their gender. Schools here in Aus tend to disallow male students from wearing skirts while allowing female students to wear pants. Outside of such and we're back to the negative reactions people get. It's perceived to be "faggy", weird and the like. All I'm suggesting is that men should not be so constrained.

What, are you opposed to male freedom of expression or something? How could you! Etc etc. Hyperbole and drama abound.

 

[KiKiweaky]

If the colour is banned then its banned, dont like it? Go to a school with a more relaxed dress code. My old school is after banning anything that doesnt have the school crest on it (they even make jackets aswell). Why? They do it so everyone is dressed the same, its a public school so not every kid going there is loaded, so it stops this whole 'my shoes are shinier than yours' from taking place. Its one of the reasons you have to shave your head when you join the military, conformity.

That's not an option for people who can't afford private tuition or moving. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, unlike many other countries, in the U.S. you're only allowed to freely attend the public school(s) in your tax district. Often there is only one such school. To attend another school, even another public school, would require private tuition.

So a student's (disturbingly limited) right to education comes up every time public school rules come up, because an expulsion can mean the end of your access to free education.

What the F???? Are you serious? I live in Ireland and there are 10+ schools within a few miles of where I live, this is Ireland man we dont do anything right o.o Your right though that is a disturbing lack of education. If he's that limited in his options shouldnt he tow the line then?

Imagine you are the teacher, one of your students aged 14-15 whatever his age was, turns up to school in a dress and high heels, I take it you've been to public school? you know how easy it is to get distracted in a room with 30 other students. Now think you have to teach a class of students while one of the boys is dressed like a girl.... the sniggering and muttering could just about cause you to murder someone I reckon.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

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.

i cant see how this guy wearing a dress is any more distracting than the 100s of girls wearing skirts and tops that barely covered anything. or was high school different in america and allgirls wear burkas or something similar.

I could pose a similar question. Are Australian highschools strip clubs? Or are you simply so Puritan that the sight of a woman with bare ankles sends you into a blind rage?

ofcourse not. like i said that a guy wearing a dress shouldnt be any more distracting than anyone else wearing a dress.

Well, maybe things are different for you, but I'm not used to highschool males wearing dresses and high heels on an otherwise completely nondescript day. I'm a bit curious why you seem to think that it's as normal to see as a girl wearing a dress.

when i was at school some guys wore dresses for some lols. people have abit of a laugh and move on.

So...a personal anecdote. That's not much in the evidence department.

the only reason i can see that this has become an issue is cause the school came down hard on him. if they had ignored it im sure the students would have too or are american school so intolerant of non conformists?

Nice backdoor insult. Is there some sort of personal rule that you can't finish a post without insulting Americans?

 

[Dags90]

What the F???? Are you serious? I live in Ireland and there are 10+ schools within a few miles of where I live, this is Ireland man we dont do anything right o.o Your right though that is a disturbing lack of education. If he's that limited in his options shouldnt he tow the line then?

Imagine you are the teacher, one of your students aged 14-15 whatever his age was, turns up to school in a dress and high heels, I take it you've been to public school? you know how easy it is to get distracted in a room with 30 other students. Now think you have to teach a class of students while one of the boys is dressed like a girl.... the sniggering and muttering could just about cause you to murder someone I reckon.

There are probably half a dozen high schools within 10 miles of my house, but only two of them are in my tax district. Also, when you're expelled you're expelled by the Board of Education for that district, so other schools in that district will not be available to you. It isn't so much a matter of distance in most cases (like suburbs and urban areas) but law and payment.

It's a system that's great for wealthier people. Towns with high property values collect more tax, which they use to fund local public schools. Subsequently, you're bound to go to school where you live, or everyone else would just choose to go to the better schools while living in a cheaper town.

My public school had all manner of dress: goths, punks, etc.. I don't see how a dress is any less distracting than blue hair, or a dude with black nail polish other than those being more socially accepted. In which case you're making the dress code based on what students find acceptable, which is sorta assbackwards. What if someone being openly gay was causing the distraction? Do you kick them out, or tell the other students to grow the fuck up?

 

[BlackWidower]

Well, A. The dress code makes no mention of skirts or high heels. B. If the dress code said you can't wear green, would that be okay? C. If it did say no skirts or high heels, then that might mean it's an all boys school, which is highly unlikely in the public boards.

This is a school dress code dude not an elaborate directive from the government. Do you honestly expect them to go through every item of clothing on the planet and ban/allow them as they see fit? If you can argue its not specified then they are going to have to allow or deny everything.

If the colour is banned then its banned, dont like it? Go to a school with a more relaxed dress code. My old school is after banning anything that doesnt have the school crest on it (they even make jackets aswell). Why? They do it so everyone is dressed the same, its a public school so not every kid going there is loaded, so it stops this whole 'my shoes are shinier than yours' from taking place. Its one of the reasons you have to shave your head when you join the military, conformity.

Actually, it is a directive from the government. Schools are a government institution. They are funded by tax dollars. Also, this isn't Ireland, okay, we are talking the United States. There are no school crests, nor is there any damn monarchy. People get to where what they want, within reason. The point here is, if they don't allow skirts, what about for girls? I'll bet you they let girls wear skirts. But because he has a penis, it's not allowed. That's the problem. They are placing a double standard and are repressing his right of equal treatment. Discrimination is against the law in the United States, as it should be.

Now, while he could go to another school, oh, wait, he can't go to another school! Each school covers a district. You don't have a choice to go to a different school unless there are special circumstances. Like you are in a special program. Which I doubt is the case for this kid. They do this for transit reasons. You need to be transported there somehow.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

Gangsters commit crimes.

Damn. I was hoping to wear a nice pinstripped suit that my dad owned from when he was young, but I guess if I wear it, I'll be arrested for being in league with Al Capone. Because I'm totally as likely to pull a Thompson out of a guitar case as someone wearing baggy pants is to draw an Uzi.

Impersonating a police officer is a crime.

I never said declaring one's self to be a police officer, or even deviating in any other way save for clothing. I said dressing like one.

Being a woman isn't.

So we're talking about post-op transsexuals now? Because I thought this was about a dude (read: someone with testicles) wearing a dress and high heels. Female clothing does not make a woman.

<img src=http://blogs.jamaicans.com/cumbayah/files/2008/06/saggypants.jpg>

How fast do you think this guy could run? i bet he could run a whole lot faster if he was wearing a dress.

Beep! Strawman detected! Strawman detected! Exterminating!

In non-robot language, why is that pic relevant? All it proves is that with most male clothes, you have to deliberately fuck up wearing them for them to become liabilities. Of course you can't run if your belt is around your knees. But it's no fault of the pants: it's your own damn fault for not being able to put pants on properly.

 

[KiKiweaky]

My public school had all manner of dress, goths, punks, etc.. I don't see how a dress is any less distracting than blue hair, or a dude with black nail polish other than those being more socially accepted. In which case you're making the dress code based on what students find acceptable, which is sorta assbackwards.

Fuck it why not scrap the dress code and let everyone wear whatever the hell they want. Fancy dress everyday. Woooo \o/

snip

snip

snip

I'm not too botherred really and I'm a bit surprised at they way yere school system works I must say. Any place I could read about it? Oh and are you going to work tomorrow? Wear something interesting.

 

[Dags90]

I'm not too botherred really and I'm a bit surprised at they way yere school system works I must say. Any place I could read about it? Oh and are you going to work tomorrow? Wear something interesting.

There really aren't many good places to read about it because public education is so highly polticized in the U.S. So everything is pretty thick with rhetoric.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

When was the last time that someone had some sort of activity that required them to wear traditionally "female" clothing?

So only women are allowed to wear impractical clothing (dresses, girly clothes, ect.) and everybody can wear practical clothing?

*facepalm* I was shooting down the "Women can wear men's clothes, but men can't wear women's clothes = double standard" thing. The reason why women wearing traditionally 'male' clothes is generally accepted is because, for quite some time, traditionally 'female' clothes impair a person's ability to function.

Certain people aren't allowed to wear clothes because they aren't exactly practical? I mean, unless the clothing really gets in the way of things that need to be done (like a police officer wearing a dress and high heels), then I don't see why people shouldn't be able to wear or look like how they want. If someone has a problem with that, then that's their problem. Why should society cater to their intolerance of other people's appearance?

Schools don't have dress codes because they don't like students having choices. They have them because there are a lot of ways to dress that impair both your own ability and, more importantly, the ability of others to learn.

Any attempts to make crossdressing out to be anything other then harmless is pretty much sexist, you can't get around it. Believing people should behave and look a certain way only because of their gender is the exact definition of sexist.

Right...but crossdressing isn't an issue of race or orientation, or a higher calling like religion. It's a deliberate action, and one that's designed to be observed by others. I'm pretty sure people are allowed to judge based on public actions.

Yes, there were reasons that certain genders wore certain clothes, because there were gender roles, society expected people to look and act in certain ways. Girls had to look pretty, cook food and find a husband, boys had to do the more physical work, and thus everyone wore clothes accordingly, and the symbolism and gender-associations of those types of clothes emerged.

They were reasons, but they certainly weren't good reasons. Most of those gender norms don't exist anymore, and they shouldn't have existed in the first place.

...good, then you agree with me. You don't really emphasize that female clothes are designed for inaction and therefore not very suitable for most everyday activity, but meh.

 

[TheLaofKazi]

*facepalm* I was shooting down the "Women can wear men's clothes, but men can't wear women's clothes = double standard" thing. The reason why women wearing traditionally 'male' clothes is generally accepted is because, for quite some time, traditionally 'female' clothes impair a person's ability to function.

Just because clothes may be impractical (and not all girls clothes are) doesn't give justification for not letting someone wear them. I understand the reasons society has for this double standard, but they aren't good reasons. It's the individual's choice as to what he or she wears.

Schools don't have dress codes because they don't like students having choices. They have them because there are a lot of ways to dress that impair both your own ability and, more importantly, the ability of others to learn.

I know that, but the thing is, by doing so, you are catering to people that have petty issues with the way people dress. What kind of message is that sending? Our schools are raising a generation of people that think society should prohibit some people from appearing or behaving certain ways because they don't like it, or it bothers them. It should be the opposite, people should be taught to deal and tolerate other people who are different.

I know, for practicality's sake, we can't just let people wear whatever the hell they want in school for the sake of freedom of expression, but at the very least we should be pushing the boundaries a bit to allow for more freedom, because that's what you have do to create change. If that wasn't done back then, girls would still be expected to wear dresses. Change creates tension, but that change is needed. That's why it needs to be slow, you have to ease these new ideas into society.

Right...but crossdressing isn't an issue of race or orientation, or a higher calling like religion. It's a deliberate action, and one that's designed to be observed by others. I'm pretty sure people are allowed to judge based on public actions.

So people need a good reason to want to express themselves? Freedom of speech is the freedom to express yourself, you shouldn't need to have some official sanctioned reason to exercise that right.

And people can judge all they want, no one can stop people from doing that. But that doesn't mean people should be punished or prohibited from expressing themselves because some people might judge such expression in a negative way. The only reason expression should ever be controlled is for practical purposes. Yes, the school's actions here were arguably practical (although the article didn't detail how other students reacted and if the crossdressing was actually creating a distraction), but eventually that has to change, because if it didn't, we wouldn't make any of the important social progressions we have in the past.

...good, then you agree with me. You don't really emphasize that female clothes are designed for inaction and therefore not very suitable for most everyday activity, but meh.

Like I said, some girl's clothes may be impractical, but if someone wants to wear them, then they should have the freedom to do so, unless it would actually make the person unable to perform the tasks they have to do. Walking to your classes and sitting in a desk isn't that hard or impossible, even with high heels on.

 

[KiKiweaky]

There really aren't many good places to read about it because public education is so highly polticized in the U.S. So everything is pretty thick with rhetoric.

No independant sites or anything? How big are these tax districts, they seem pretty small if there can be numerous schools in your area but only one or two public ones that you can access.

 

[Dags90]

No independant sites or anything? How big are these tax districts, they seem pretty small if there can be numerous schools in your area but only one or two public ones that you can access.

Many towns in the suburbs will have their own school district, but in more rural places it's more common to see regional schools, with many small towns sharing the same district. As would also be suspected, large cities are often broken up into numerous districts.

Here's how NYC breaks down:

Edit: As with many things in the U.S., funding for schools does vary. Some states use mostly state funds, but this is the system with which I am familiar. Towns like to keep exclusive school districts because it gives them better control over the schools, which are are motivators for home buyers looking for a good school for their children.

Better schools = more home buyers = higher property values = higher tax revenue = better funded schools = better schools.

 

[cobra_ky]

Gangsters commit crimes.

Damn. I was hoping to wear a nice pinstripped suit that my dad owned from when he was young, but I guess if I wear it, I'll be arrested for being in league with Al Capone. Because I'm totally as likely to pull a Thompson out of a guitar case as someone wearing baggy pants is to draw an Uzi.

Impersonating a police officer is a crime.

I never said declaring one's self to be a police officer, or even deviating in any other way save for clothing. I said dressing like one.

Being a woman isn't.

So we're talking about post-op transsexuals now? Because I thought this was about a dude (read: someone with testicles) wearing a dress and high heels. Female clothing does not make a woman.

We're talking about why certain forms of dress are frowned upon. Dressing like a "Gangsta" is frowned upon because Gangstas are associated with criminal activity. dressing like a police officer is only frowned upon in the context of the crime of impersonating an officer: otherwise I don't think anyone particularly has a problem with it?

Men are frowned upon for dressing like women, and there's a reason why. It has nothing to do with "functionality".

<img src=http://blogs.jamaicans.com/cumbayah/files/2008/06/saggypants.jpg>

How fast do you think this guy could run? i bet he could run a whole lot faster if he was wearing a dress.

Beep! Strawman detected! Strawman detected! Exterminating!

In non-robot language, why is that pic relevant? All it proves is that with most male clothes, you have to deliberately fuck up wearing them for them to become liabilities. Of course you can't run if your belt is around your knees. But it's no fault of the pants: it's your own damn fault for not being able to put pants on properly.

It proves that men's clothing has shit all to do with functionality, as evidenced by a fashion trend that is deliberately non-functional. Although in retrospect, the traditional yet completely superfluous necktie is a much better example. Hell, i work a desk job: a dress isn't any more or less functional for my work than the shirt and pants i normally wear. It doesn't seem to hold back any of the women i work with, either. Like Labyrinth said, it's a ridiculous straw man argument, and i'm sorry i've pursued it this far.