Other side of the coin

Clippings from news sources involving fashion freedom and other gender equality issues.

Re: Other side of the coin

Postby crfriend » Fri Feb 23, 2018 11:04 am

ethelthefrog wrote:When my son's school revised their uniform rules, they just removed the boys list entirely and removed the word "girls" from the girls' list, to give one list of approved clothing items for all [...].

That's an entirely sensible way of doing things in the modern world -- and something completely unexpected. Good news. Finally.

Does your lad catch any stick for his sartorial sense?
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!
User avatar
crfriend
Master Barista
 
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: New England (U.S.)

Re: Other side of the coin

Postby Stu » Fri Feb 23, 2018 1:23 pm

ethelthefrog wrote:When my son's school revised their uniform rules, they just removed the boys list entirely and removed the word "girls" from the girls' list, to give one list of approved clothing items for all (it's a Catholic school; girls always had the option to wear trousers), including trousers, skirts and dresses. My son has worn all of the above to school since that change was made, but he's pretty much exclusively in a skirt these days.


What you are telling us is seismic stuff from the perspective of this group. Are you really saying your son goes to school in skirts as a matter of routine? Is he is the only boy who rocks up to school in a skirt? Or is this normal at his school? Have you had any comments from anyone? Teachers? Other parents? The implications are huge if this is becoming normalised. I would have expected him, and any othe boys doing the same, to have made the national and international news for their sartorial initiative. Clothing suppliers would also need to be told because of how they market school uniforms.

We need to know more. And some pics would be good, even if faces aren't shown.
Stu
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 8:25 am
Location: Sweden

Re: Other side of the coin

Postby ethelthefrog » Fri Feb 23, 2018 3:34 pm

It took something of a concerted effort on the part of my wife and I. I even got myself elected to the school's governing body. Then the breakthrough only occurred when the Principal retired and I was able to talk to the new about it. After the rule change came in, we had a long sit down with the Principal, his teacher and the equality officer from the county education department. It was all a bit of a faff, but we were assured that the school would be fine with him and that they would keep him safe.

When he did show up in a skirt, there were some odd looks on day 1 and everything was normal from day 2.

Everyone agreed that it would be best not to alert the press and, two years on, they have showed no interest at all.

This is fine with us, as we don't want our 10 year old in the newspapers.

(edited to correct typo)
User avatar
ethelthefrog
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 268
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 1:31 pm
Location: Cambridge, UK

Re: Other side of the coin

Postby denimini » Sat Feb 24, 2018 2:00 am

ethelthefrog wrote:When my son's school revised their uniform rules, they just removed the boys list entirely and removed the word "girls" from the girls' list, to give one list of approved clothing items for all (it's a Catholic school; girls always had the option to wear trousers), including trousers, skirts and dresses. My son has worn all of the above to school since that change was made, but he's pretty much exclusively in a skirt these days.

That is a very encouraging story and it sounds like that school recruited a progressive Principal. In Australia, some Catholic schools are more advanced in social justice issues than State schools. Our local Catholic primary school used to teach the local Aboriginal language and do cultural trips. Unfortunately the current Principal is a bit more conventional - like so many things, it hinges on the efforts of individuals.
Commendation to your son for making the most of the opportunity - and his parents of course.
Anthony, a denim miniskirt wearer in Outback Australia
User avatar
denimini
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 1134
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2015 2:50 am
Location: Outback Australia

Re: Other side of the coin

Postby Caultron » Sat Feb 24, 2018 4:02 am

ethelthefrog wrote:...When he did show up in a skirt, there were some odd looks on day 1 and everything was normal from day 2...

So, no big deal, eh? Nobody cares what you wear? Where have I heard that before?
Courage, conviction, nerve, verve, dash, panache, guts, nuts, balls, gall, élan, stones, whatever. Get some and get skirted.

caultron
User avatar
Caultron
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 4037
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2013 4:12 am
Location: Phoenix, AZ

Re: Other side of the coin

Postby Stu » Sat Feb 24, 2018 10:12 am

ethelthefrog wrote:This is fine with us, as we don't want our 10 year old in the newspapers.



Indeed not. I was thinking maybe he was one of a number of boys who were doing this, in which case that would be quite a sensation.

He is amazingly brave, though. I assume he uses the boys' facilities. What will he do when he moves up to senior school? Will he continue wearing skirts? I can that being an issue as he gets older.
Stu
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 8:25 am
Location: Sweden

Re: Other side of the coin

Postby mishawakaskirt » Thu Mar 01, 2018 10:48 pm

ethelthefrog wrote:When my son's school revised their uniform rules, they just removed the boys list entirely and removed the word "girls" from the girls' list, to give one list of approved clothing items for all (it's a Catholic school; girls always had the option to wear trousers), including trousers, skirts and dresses. My son has worn all of the above to school since that change was made, but he's pretty much exclusively in a skirt these days.


Wow, that's Amazing, safe to say most of us envy him a little. I know I would have jumped in at the chance to add a few skirts to my rotation. I know my parents would have objected. Does he just exclusively wear them at school? Or evenings and weekends etc?
A word of caution, the school system may try to put him into a trans bucket. Don't let them label him like that. People have the tendency to want to turn you into what they want, I have been called both trans and gay because of my skirts, I am neither. I am sick of lables, I am a man that just prefer s skirt and kilts to trousers, nothing more. HE can wear a skirt because HE wants to. If your both willing, and he don't mind post a headless photo or two (protect his identity). He is an encouragement to us other members that thought this might never be possible.
User avatar
mishawakaskirt
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 262
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2015 9:59 pm
Location: Mishawaka, INDIANA USA

Re: Other side of the coin

Postby Daryl » Fri Mar 02, 2018 10:01 am

Sinned wrote:In the article there is the following paragraph:

"Doubtless, some people out there will say – some waggishly, others less so – that if girls should be allowed to wear trousers at school then boys should be able to wear dresses. My personal feeling on that is, sure, boys can wear dresses if they want but women’s clothing, from skirts to stilettos, was designed to restrict women’s movement, whereas men’s clothing is all about freedom."

Since when was men's clothing all about freedom? In our western culture men's fashion is the most restrictive of all. Very few skirts restrict movement ( the pencil skirt maybe ) and this is one of the traits that has attracted me to skirts. It's hardly progress from our point of view if, instead of opening it up for boys to wear skirts, they go the other route and stipulate trousers for all.


Exactly so, but it goes further than skirts. The writer laments that women must "monitor" the amount of skin they show, when the truth is the exact inverse of that: they can choose how much skin they want to show. Men do not have that luxury.

I'll be going outside in the heat this summer for the first time wearing a top that fits nicely while also allowing a lot of skin to be exposed to the breeze. Without shopping in the women's department, there is no equivalent for men. Even men's tank tops are not as open as women's, and other designs with straps do not exist for men at all. To expose more skin than a woman a man has to go completely shirtless. Women pretending that their freedoms are burdens is just a sign of how silly the everything-oppresses-women narrative has become.
Daryl...
User avatar
Daryl
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 786
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 4:25 am
Location: Toronto Canada

Re: Other side of the coin

Postby Sinned » Fri Mar 02, 2018 11:20 am

Daryl, you are right in your comment. Working in retail I have loads of opportunities to observe womens' dress and they can choose how much they display. Even when wearing what is an apparently demure top if it has a wide front part then when they bend over they can show a remarkable degree of cleavage/breast. As for skirts then yes, they have a choice as to what length of skirt to wear and they are aware of how much leg/thigh that is on display. And in general I see very little concern on their part when they show what I consider too much. Not limited to skirts either. I have seen trousers/leggings ( difficult to tell what they are sometimes ) so tight that not only can you tell that they are not wearing underwear the camel toe is on display too. So I don't really see a lot of evidence of them being oppressed by the restrictive clothing available.
I believe in offering every assistance short of actual help but then mainly just want to be left to be myself in all my difference and uniqueness.
User avatar
Sinned
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 3175
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 5:28 pm
Location: York, England

Re: Other side of the coin

Postby Grok » Fri Mar 02, 2018 6:08 pm

Daryl wrote:Exactly so, but it goes further than skirts. The writer laments that women must "monitor" the amount of skin they show, when the truth is the exact inverse of that: they can choose how much skin they want to show. Men do not have that luxury.
Women pretending that their freedoms are burdens is just a sign of how silly the everything-oppresses-women narrative has become.
Particularly when women can wear just about anything they feel like.

And BTW, I can imagine The Powers That Be dictating trousers for all. I expect that their dictates will be based on what is convenient for them, rather than what we would like to see.
Grok
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 1525
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 2:21 am

Re: Other side of the coin

Postby Gusto10 » Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:59 pm

crfriend wrote:The attachment above represents one of the heights of modern misandry. Women are not the victims they try to portray themselves as; make no bones about it, women can be just as domineering and controlling -- if not more-so -- than their male counterparts who frequently have better things to do. If women hated those things so much they'd never have gone along with them.

The bait, gentlemen, is rotten. Don't rise to it.


I fully agree. The other day I indicated to a female friend that I would not go along in the hype of having pity on women in general, only if the individual case causes need thereto. The woman in question is still angry with me.
One of the main problems is that many "problems" which took place 30 years or so are regarded with present day norms.
Gusto10
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 12:07 pm

Re: Other side of the coin

Postby crfriend » Sat Mar 03, 2018 12:17 am

We cannot judge past actions using modern "norms". I just doesn't work, and, worse, it leads to revisions of history that should not happen. One needs to take historical context into account when analysing history; to do anything less is to fall victim to being a "revisionist".

The other thing that bothers me about the whole "me too" bit is that no concrete proof -- i.e. evidence -- is required. This opens the door for all manner of abuse.
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!
User avatar
crfriend
Master Barista
 
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: New England (U.S.)

Re: Other side of the coin

Postby Daryl » Mon Mar 05, 2018 7:59 am

crfriend wrote:We cannot judge past actions using modern "norms". I just doesn't work, and, worse, it leads to revisions of history that should not happen. One needs to take historical context into account when analysing history; to do anything less is to fall victim to being a "revisionist".

The other thing that bothers me about the whole "me too" bit is that no concrete proof -- i.e. evidence -- is required. This opens the door for all manner of abuse.


That abuse is already evident. I'm not going to name the one case I know of but it appears that one might rightly suspect journalistic career advancement as a motive. The accusations themselves fell apart but only after a forced resignation had taken place. The allegations were not even of a criminal nature, just one of those "inappropriate" things.
Daryl...
User avatar
Daryl
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 786
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 4:25 am
Location: Toronto Canada

Re: Other side of the coin

Postby crfriend » Mon Mar 05, 2018 10:06 am

Daryl wrote:
crfriend wrote:The other thing that bothers me about the whole "me too" bit is that no concrete proof -- i.e. evidence -- is required. This opens the door for all manner of abuse.

That abuse is already evident. I'm not going to name the one case I know of but it appears that one might rightly suspect journalistic career advancement as a motive. The accusations themselves fell apart but only after a forced resignation had taken place. The allegations were not even of a criminal nature, just one of those "inappropriate" things.

The right thing in this case, then, would be for the accuser to make up the lost wages and prestige of the accused. Perjury, after all, really should be a crime carrying real penalties and not something to be pooh-poohed away -- especially when based on double-standards.
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!
User avatar
crfriend
Master Barista
 
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: New England (U.S.)

Re: Other side of the coin

Postby Daryl » Mon Mar 05, 2018 2:56 pm

crfriend wrote:
Daryl wrote:
crfriend wrote:The other thing that bothers me about the whole "me too" bit is that no concrete proof -- i.e. evidence -- is required. This opens the door for all manner of abuse.

That abuse is already evident. I'm not going to name the one case I know of but it appears that one might rightly suspect journalistic career advancement as a motive. The accusations themselves fell apart but only after a forced resignation had taken place. The allegations were not even of a criminal nature, just one of those "inappropriate" things.

The right thing in this case, then, would be for the accuser to make up the lost wages and prestige of the accused. Perjury, after all, really should be a crime carrying real penalties and not something to be pooh-poohed away -- especially when based on double-standards.


There are indications that the accused person in this case is possibly going to take his accusers to court, including the journalists and their employer. Employer has already made public statements that it will defend its "journalistic standards", which looks to me like it means it won't be defending its journalist. Our libel laws are quite strong, unlike US laws which make it very difficult for a person in the public eye to defend themselves. It could be an interesting and possibly precedent-setting case.

The main reason charges of perjury or mischief are rarely brought against false accusers, I believe, is that vindications often rely on the same scant evidence that convictions rely on, and many vindications happen because an accuser recants of her own free will, realising she took it too far, and we wouldn't want to disincentivise that.
Daryl...
User avatar
Daryl
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 786
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 4:25 am
Location: Toronto Canada

PreviousNext

Return to In the News / Advocacy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest