Girls being banned from wearing skirts at school

[DrFishnets]

I came across the video on YouTube about a discussion about girls being banned from wearing skirts at school in an equality drive to get all girls wearing trousers. I was thinking if they want equality then they should respect pupils want for fashion freedom where boys can wear skirts too (if they want that) and vice versa and everyone will be happy.

One of the comments I found interesting was an austistic woman saying she cannot wear trousers due to sensory overload and she finds skirts much better.

Males were always ridiculed for looking feminine now it looks like the attack in now on females themselves getting ridiculed for looking feminine.

https://youtu.be/GavMEeqKbmc?si=yCFWiMxe87Arbpiv

[Stu]

There are different ways of looking at this. One the one hand, it could be argued that both girls and boys should be given a choice to maximise their comfort and afford a tiny degree of personal style. Some airlines have this for cabin crew. On the other hand, it could be argued that the point of uniform is uniformity. You wear whatever you please in your own time but, when at school, we want all kids identically attired. This is usual for the military and the fire service. It's not really a gender issue either way.

There are recurring problems with uniform skirts for schoolkids, though. Post-pubescent girls will always want to push the envelope when it comes to length and this is for most schools the most prevalent uniform issue and the bane of teachers' lives. To keep on top of this requires staff to be constantly checking skirt-lengths and sanctioning students for breaches which are always occurring. This detracts from learning as children end up being segregated or sent home. It distracts staff from their other responsibilities and can be especially embarrassing for male teachers with their eyes on girls' legs. If they neglect to keep a check on skirt lengths, the girls end up looking like, well, hookers and that's not a good look for the school - and it puts the girls at risk from predatory men.

In a totally rational society, the simple answer would be trousers for all in the colder months, and summer dresses for all from, say, 1st May onwards in the Northern Hemisphere. But that's not going to happen any time soon.

[phathack]

You would think that the skirt length would be at are below the knee and there would not problems with skirts being too short.

[timemeddler]

I came across the video on YouTube about a discussion about girls being banned from wearing skirts at school in an equality drive to get all girls wearing trousers. I was thinking if they want equality then they should respect pupils want for fashion freedom where boys can wear skirts too (if they want that) and vice versa and everyone will be happy.

One of the comments I found interesting was an austistic woman saying she cannot wear trousers due to sensory overload and she finds skirts much better.

Males were always ridiculed for looking feminine now it looks like the attack in now on females themselves getting ridiculed for looking feminine.

https://youtu.be/GavMEeqKbmc?si=yCFWiMxe87Arbpiv

Talk about autism, I gather that's common amongst young boys as well, been there. I wonder if the feminists will complain?

[Mouse]

You would think that the skirt length would be at are below the knee and there would not problems with skirts being too short.

When I was at school the girls were very inventive to shorten their skirts and inject their own style into things. Rolling up the waist band was the quick way to do it.

[Barleymower]

Honesty, it makes my blood boil.
They talked about boys wearing skirts and laughed it off - what's funny?
Second they said girls need room to grow. - boys need air around their bits.
Then said that telling boys they can wear skirts is trans ideology - this is another attack on the trans community. They call it ideology because it makes them sound like they are making it up.
They then talk about taking away women's rights to be feminine and it's always women who have to give up their clothes. - Oh my God! That is the biggest load of nonsense I have heard this year.

[FLbreezy]

One of the comments I found interesting was an autistic woman saying she cannot wear trousers due to sensory overload and she finds skirts much better.

I have a young relative that is profoundly autistic, and the parents have trouble keeping pants on him. I've often thought of suggesting (or gifting) a child's kilt or skirt to them to see if he handles it better. They don't mind me wearing skirts but I think the father would be rather against it.

[crfriend]

Then said that telling boys they can wear skirts is trans ideology - this is another attack on the trans community.

It's vastly worse than you assert -- it's an attack on anyone that is capable of thinking outside the box. It's an outright assault on anyone that happens to disagree with their closed-minded viewpoint. The next logical step in that progression is outright battery.

In this increasingly uncivilised world I find myself living in (through no choice of my own! [1]) I'm getting ready to simply say, "Bring it on!. If I best the aggressor I can claim self-defence, if it [2] bests me, then it faces charges of assault and battery; if it kills me, then it faces a homicide charge (although what jurisdiction (here) bothers to punish someone who offs a loner?).


[1] Skirting "politics" here, but I can absolutely name names and call out ideologies if I so desire (and would get cancelled for).
[2] Being "gender-neutral" there; one needs to be P.C. after all.

[Barleymower]

I have read that Roosevelt wanted to include the population in the decision making process and gain their opinion and base decisions on the greater good

There is a long standing elitist belief that the masses have animalistic behaviours brooding below the surface and must be controlled. Corporations have long since moved from manufacturing goods for the needs of the population to the desires of the population. They make the population docile by fulfilling their desires.

It doesn't take much observation to notice that "Woke" was crushed. Confusion betwen sex and gender identity became dangerous. And being transgender became an ideology.

Well I say try on as many genders as you want. It's your life, your body. Wear what you want, when you want. The need to conform comes from above - it's all about control.

[crfriend]

I have read that Roosevelt wanted to include the population in the decision making process and gain their opinion and base decisions on the greater good

Which one? The United States has had two, recall.

The first one was initially an "establishment man" who believed that the masses needed looking after (but later became an active reformist and defied much of the orthodoxy that his peers held dear). The second was the more "populist" one that mostly tried to engage the masses, and largely succeeded. Both did great things. The first took on Big Industry and founded what eventually became the Food and Drug Administration because of the horrific state of the meat-packing industry in the day, and along the way gave us our modern system of National Parks; the second used the "New Deal" (a play on the first's "Square Deal") to set up the Social Security system and Medicare (both of which are now being quietly phased out "retired").

As far as the "Greater Good", that's ensconced in the Prelude to the Constitution of the United States, but widely ignored in practise (as is most of the rest of their Constitution) -- and began being ignored after being declared "an inconvenient document" by the then President of the United States in the 1980s.

There is a long standing elitist belief that the masses have animalistic behaviours brooding below the surface and must be controlled.

That's still very much the case and gives rise to much of the idiocy we see today.

Corporations have long since moved from manufacturing goods for the needs of the population to the desires of the population. They make the population docile by fulfilling their desires.

That had nothing to do with the Common Good, that was greed, pure and simple. The Corporations moved the entire manufacturing infrastructure to China &c out of profit motivation. Corporations do not care one whit about nations; it's all about money.

On gender: Let's wind the clock back a few decades and take a look at the situation. If you have a good memory (and were around at the time) you'll recall that a much wider latitude of behaviour was tolerated then than is now. It may have been disparaged (and, in the case of outright homosexuality, criminalised), but largely tolerated. That cannot be said to be the case now. Inevitably, the forward-looking '60s were going to be rejected and neoconservatism was to replace it, and all that progress has now been lost (and then some). Things are as rigid now as they were in the 1950s; the only things that haven't reverted to "then" are the laws, but that's simply because those take time to change (unless one merely ignores the law).

Well I say try on as many genders as you want. It's your life, your body. Wear what you want, when you want. The need to conform comes from above - it's all about control.

"Woke" was crushed before it was even coined because when it was coined we'd already entered a regressive state. It simply wasn't necessary before; it was a backlash against a backlash. And a poorly-crafted one at that.

Most things come down to control, but as far as "control" goes, when does "control" become coercion and when does coercion become "force", and when does "force" become "lethal force"?

I'll stop now.

[Barleymower]

I was referring to Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Humans are not built to take on the woes of the world. We are engineered to know and understand around 120 people. The size of the average tribe.
So I'll do my best keep the woes in my peripheral vision and work together with the people around me.

[crfriend]

So I'll do my best keep the woes in my peripheral vision and work together with the people around me.

Which is precisely what the controllers want.

Keep the masses uninformed and stupid; that makes them easier to control.

This is nothing new. It's all been done before, and usually with horrible consequences. See above. Rinse, lather, repeat.

Sadly, we never seem to learn.

[Barleymower]

So I'll do my best keep the woes in my peripheral vision and work together with the people around me.

Which is precisely what the controllers want.

Keep the masses uninformed and stupid; that makes them easier to control.

This is nothing new. It's all been done before, and usually with horrible consequences. See above. Rinse, lather, repeat.

Sadly, we never seem to learn.

I think you misundertand me.
I work with everyone around me to improve understanding of diverse people. I do my best to support other diverse people especially MIS. I'm happy to meet any MIS if they are nervous on an outing. I would join any event for diverse people. I stand with the people who attend Pride events. I have spoken to schools and asked them to accept boys in skirts. I am an MIS myself.

I cannot March into Parliament and demand action for MIS. I would not make it passed security.

How is this what the controllers want?

As a side note Emma Trimble Nee Webb (from the You Tube video) has been very vocal on gender critical issues.

[crfriend]

I think you misundertand me.

That's entirely possible because of the differences in culture between our two countries.

But, generally in the United States, the intent is to keep the electorate as dumb as possible so nobody can actually ask the hard questions about how the country and economy are being run -- mostly for the advantage of WHO, and this has been the trajectory since the 1980s. Before that, we tried educating the population -- and did a pretty good job of it -- but then after the power shift in 1980 everything went the other way.

I cannot March into Parliament and demand action for MIS. I would not make it passed security.

Any more than I can approach The Leader here and demand accounting for the damage already visibly done. I'd get shot on approach.

How is this what the controllers want?

They don't want the bother of "answering to 'little people'".

[Grok]

As with the Trans thing, the (suggested) requirement for trousers shows how de-gendered these garments now are. I recall the transition at school when the girls started to wear trousers, after being confined to skirts/dresses.