Gender Neutral Dress Code

[SkirtsDad]

In theory, a positive article here, not based around LGBTQ for a change. However, I'm not sure how much it completely breaks the mould, despite highlighting that the new code 'supports equitable educational access and is written in a manner that does not reinforce stereotypes and that does not reinforce or increase marginalization or oppression of any group based on race, sex, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, cultural observance, household income or body type/size.' Whichever way, a step in the right direction I feel.

ETHS, Illinois
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... -code.html

The second article is not dissimilar but seems to be written for the freedom of expression for girls as in this quotation: “The absence of a detailed district-wide dress code is due in part to our respect for freedom of expression and our wish to avoid discriminatory dress regulations that are typically stricter for female students,” It doesn't appear to do anything much for to help boys express themselves clothing-wise (perhaps viewing that boys do't express themselves through clothing?), but again, in theory, neither should it prevent boys from wearing whatever they want. I'm not sure it is likely to get tested in the immediate future, but who knows.

San Jose School, California
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/07/17/s ... ess-codes/

[Grok]

The second article is not dissimilar but seems to be written for the freedom of expression for girls as in this quotation: “The absence of a detailed district-wide dress code is due in part to our respect for freedom of expression and our wish to avoid discriminatory dress regulations that are typically stricter for female students,” It doesn't appear to do anything much for to help boys express themselves clothing-wise (perhaps viewing that boys do't express themselves through clothing?)

Boys aren't supposed to be interested in expressing themselves through clothing, or, indeed, to be interested in clothing or expressing themselves.

[Gusto10]

I have double feelings. Yes, one should be able to have freedom to express him- or herselves. Freedom of speech. On the other hand if dress codes are in place where kids are learning the basics of live, like respect for regulations, is it to them to contest these regulations? Kids always try to test boundaries. They may as it's part of the learning curve. As parent I would not have said that I was proud of the achievement of my son or daughter, but have corrected the child stating that being a part of that community, you have to abide by rules set. E,g., becoming a cheergirl, dress like a cheergirl in a cheergirl uniform. Or in the Army, a soldier in a frilly dress? That won't work. And now in particular, the era of #metoo, it might be better not to want to wear spaghetti straps as such might be considered as an invitation. Another example, if you are member of a club with dresscode "coutume de ville" and for ladies the equivalent, how can you dare to enter in jeans? I do think that the political correctness is going to far, it reminds me a bit of the late 60's early 70's- the flower power era, the students at that time are the present (grand)parents still trying to tumble the society.

[Caultron]

I'm not a big fan of dress codes, but I guess you do have to draw the line somewhere. You probably don't want kids going to school in just underwear or swimsuits or naked. (Although even those could interestedly be contested.)

But to say a child can't attend school wearing the same sort of clothes everyone sees them in away from school does seem a bit silly.

[moonshadow]

They often say that allowing a boy to wear a skirt or dress is a distraction in the classroom and thus is prohibited.

But yet on the other hand, a girl wearing trousers just a few decades ago would have been the same distraction...

What changed?

[crfriend]

I'm not a big fan of dress codes, but I guess you do have to draw the line somewhere.

This applies in the "adult" world as well as the world of childhood now. There are times I desperately wish for companies to enforce some standard of appearance. "Professional" has certainly gone the way of the dodo in all together too many places, and even "smart" has mostly gone by the wayside.

But to say a child can't attend school wearing the same sort of clothes everyone sees them in away from school does seem a bit silly.

There is a difference between "casual" and "slovenly". It may be thin in places, but it is there nonetheless.

[moonshadow]

Classroom distraction or no?

To me, these photos below are perfectly acceptable for either plumbing...




Boys and girls mixed together...


Not quite a "uniform", but I don't find this jarring at all. Girls do it all the time!

* * * * * * *

Now the images below might be a bit much for school. Even girls don't go this far, more so because it's just a bit outdated and out of style even among females... but still acceptable looks IMO:


It's a bit "50's style" but that's really the only problem here... Nice for church though.. no?


Ditto the above comment here...

[Gusto10]

They often say that allowing a boy to wear a skirt or dress is a distraction in the classroom and thus is prohibited.

But yet on the other hand, a girl wearing trousers just a few decades ago would have been the same distraction...

What changed?

I do recall the early 70's. During the winter, in the snow belt of S-Ontario, the girls were allowed to come to school wearing trousers, but had to change into a skirt after arriving at school. Shortly after, the winter of '71/'72 the rule to change was abolished and they were allowed to wear trousers year around during classes. A small silent revolution.

[Gusto10]

Classroom distraction or no?

To me, these photos below are perfectly acceptable for either plumbing...


Boys and girls mixed together...
Not quite a "uniform", but I don't find this jarring at all. Girls do it all the time!

* * * * * * *
Now the images below might be a bit much for school. Even girls don't go this far, more so because it's just a bit outdated and out of style even among females... but still acceptable looks IMO:

...

I do think one should differentiate between schooltime and private time.

[Grok]

What changed?

Feminism. If I recall correctly, this had been more or less dormant since women got the vote.

Until a revival during the '60s.

[Bertino56]

Now, for the next step.
When will boys be allowed to wear the strap shoes
(a.k.a. Mary Janes) as shown in the school photo above?

[Grok]

I wouldn't be surprised if we see more of a tactic mentioned on another thread-a rule requiring all students (girls and boys) to wear trousers. A "gender neutral" uniform that prevents "distractions" in the class room. A uniform based on styles (including shoes) from our side of the aisle.

The Powers That Be could claim that such is non-discriminatory, because a uniform, undistinguished, blandness/dullness is imposed on all the students equally.

A good way for TPTB to pre-empt such issues.

[Grok]

BTW, if boys protest rules against shorts by wearing skirts, the obvious choice for The Powers That Be is to give in. Modify the rules so all students, including both girls and boys, are allowed shorts as an option.

Better to allow boys to wear shorts, than to see them in skirts.

[Stu]

I don't want to rain on any parades, but I offer some notes of caution.

The idea of "gender neutral" is very fashionable at the moment, but we have seen this before. It happened as far back as teh 1920s with women dressing in men's clothes. Again, in the 1960s with the first "unisex" fashions, and then again in the 1980s, with things like glam rock and punk. Nowadays, we are seeing schools saying their uniforms are "gender neutral, but what do they mean by that? Well, they mean it's fine for girls to wear trousers - and many will. They also mean that boys can wear skirts - BUT - they explain the motive for that as being to facilitate trans students. In other words, skirts are for girls, and for boys with gender "nonconformity" or whatever. That means any boy who does turn up in a skirt is making a statement that he is trans etc and, as a consequence, skirts are really for girls. I can't see how that is in any way encouraging for us as we want to break the automatic association of skirts with femininity. Well, I do at least. The same applies to initiatives like those at John Lewis and Selfridges, where they are taking away the "boys" and "girls" distinction in their stores. The result of that won't be that boys will be encouraged to consider skirts just because they aren't labeled as being for girls. To achieve that, they would have to show boys actuially wearing them in their marketing, and that's not going to happen any time soon. Just as with the 1920s, 1960s and 1980s ventures into unisex clothing, it is extremely likely that we are in the midst of a fad and it will pass.

One more thing. There are some interesting pictures shown above but please remember that, especially with older photographs, girls sometimes had very short hair and girls often looked remarkably like boys from the neck up. I suspect taht pictures purporting to be boys in skirts/dresses are actually girls with short hair.

[Grok]

According to the John Lewis web site, the new "unisex" clothing line (for children) will include "dinosaur print dresses" and "spaceship tops". In other words, females borrowing from our side of the aisle again-this time in the form of dinosaurs and spaceships. Even if the labels are removed, you won't see boys modeling these dresses or tops.

For practical purposes, "gender neutral" = "unisex" = females borrowing from our side of the aisle.

Or to put it another way, whatever the fashionable cause, skirts are still for girls.