News on a different front

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

News on a different front

Postby r.m.anderson » Sat Mar 30, 2019 4:39 am

This just in on my RBC brokerage account:

10:58 pm ET US judge: School's rule for girls to wear skirts breaks law

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — A North Carolina charter school promoting traditional values engaged in unconstitutional sex discrimination by requiring girls to wear skirts, a federal judge has ruled. U.S. District Judge Malcolm Howard ruled that Charter Day School can't enforce the skirts-only rule as part of its dress code that punishes violations with suspensions and even expulsion. No child has been expelled for violating the dress code since the school opened in 2000, Howard said in a decision filed on Thursday.

I don't have the rest of the story or any more details.
"Kilt-On" -or- as the case may be "Skirt-On" !
WHY ?
Isn't wearing a kilt enough?
Well a skirt will do in a pinch!
Make mine short and don't you dare think of pinching there !
User avatar
r.m.anderson
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 1827
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 6:25 pm
Location: Bloomington MN

Re: News on a different front

Postby STEVIE » Sat Mar 30, 2019 11:16 am

This does beg a question, why is the skirt policy being challenged now?
It's clearly wrong but there must have been some catalyst.
Realistically, even if the girls are allowed trousers the boys will not be especially welcome in skirts.
Harsh but true.
Steve.
STEVIE
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 1856
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 11:01 pm
Location: North East Scotland.

Re: News on a different front

Postby moonshadow » Sun Mar 31, 2019 1:48 am

Wait what? You mean the girls don't have to identify as boys to wear pants?

So.... in North Carolina (a southern state), forcing girls to wear skirts is unconstitutional.... but forcing boys to wear pants is okay? Sex discrimination has been held up in courts numerous times, what gives here? Gender and sex isn't even mentioned in the constitution.

Now if the roles were reversed I can tell you exact how the judge would rule...

He'd say it's completely fair, reasonable, and constitutional to require males to wear trousers. It is not sex discrimination as we are enforcing district gender clothing differences as our girls are required to wear skirts.

But now that the judge has ruled in this, if a boy tries to wear a skirt how can they deny him this privilege without discriminating on him based on his sex (for being male)?

... oh I forgot, the southern ace in the hole.... RELIGIOUS FREEDOM... When all else fails, just say it's a moral outrage and invoke the official state religious code. :roll:
User avatar
moonshadow
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 4051
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:58 am

Re: News on a different front

Postby denimini » Sun Mar 31, 2019 6:16 am

moonshadow wrote:
But now that the judge has ruled in this, if a boy tries to wear a skirt how can they deny him this privilege without discriminating on him based on his sex (for being male)?


Logically that would be the case.
It would greatly simplify things if all students had a choice of skirts or pants - everyone would be happy.
Anthony, a denim miniskirt wearer in Outback Australia
User avatar
denimini
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 1422
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2015 2:50 am
Location: Outback Australia

Re: News on a different front

Postby moonshadow » Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:43 pm

denimini wrote:It would greatly simplify things if all students had a choice of skirts or pants - everyone would be happy.


Ha! That would be witchcraft! (No really.... that's what they'd call it) :lol:

I'll betcha that same judge would have NEVER ruled in favor of a skirt wearing boy!
User avatar
moonshadow
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 4051
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:58 am

Re: News on a different front

Postby crfriend » Sun Mar 31, 2019 3:00 pm

moonshadow wrote:I'll betcha that same judge would have NEVER ruled in favor of a skirt wearing boy!

That sets up an interesting possibility for a creative lawyer and anybody's son's parents who want to cause a stir. The thing about American jurisprudence (or what supposedly passes there-for) is that it's based on precedent -- and this judge set a powerful precedent in ruling the way he did. The law is supposed to apply equally to all citizens. Observationally we all know that's not the case, but here's the rub: If the case of a boy wanting to wear a skirt to school arose that judge would not be able to rule against the boy without also reversing his decision about the girl. A cagey lawyer could trap the judge in that logic and the judge would pretty much have to rule in favour of the boy because of the arguments pertaining to equal applicability of the law to all citizens.

It'd be fun seeing that scenario play out.

The real problem here is not the legal system, it's the local culture that has no experience with guys wearing anything other the trousers. That's the catch-22: guys won't wear skirts until skirt-wearing on guys becomes fairly common, and until more guys wear skirts, it's not going to become common. We are our own jailers here, and make no bones about it.

I actually agree with the ruling. Forcing the wearing of certain types of clothing by anybody is ridiculous and, in this particular circumstance, is one reason that women deploy when asked why they don't wear skirts more often: "I was forced to when I was younger." One of my reasons for wearing skirts? "I've been pretty much confined to trousers all my life and I wanted to branch out a bit."
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!
User avatar
crfriend
Master Barista
 
Posts: 10316
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: New England (U.S.)

Re: News on a different front

Postby moonshadow » Sun Mar 31, 2019 4:34 pm

crfriend wrote:That sets up an interesting possibility for a creative lawyer and anybody's son's parents who want to cause a stir. The thing about American jurisprudence (or what supposedly passes there-for) is that it's based on precedent -- and this judge set a powerful precedent in ruling the way he did. The law is supposed to apply equally to all citizens. Observationally we all know that's not the case, but here's the rub: If the case of a boy wanting to wear a skirt to school arose that judge would not be able to rule against the boy without also reversing his decision about the girl. A cagey lawyer could trap the judge in that logic and the judge would pretty much have to rule in favour of the boy because of the arguments pertaining to equal applicability of the law to all citizens.


Indeed, that is my thoughts on it as well. In an ironic way, it's better that the dress code was challenged by females being required to wear skirts, because had it had been a boy wanting to wear a skirt, the court would have found some reason for upholding the status quo. However nobody in their right mind is going to tell a female she can't wear pants. It is a practice universally accepted and almost expected in almost all situations.

So in some crazy way... this is actually more of a win for boys (who STILL want to identify as BOYS) who might want to wear a skirt. The fact that it was a federal judge is icing on the cake. Of course then on the other hand we have this:
The real problem here is not the legal system, it's the local culture that has no experience with guys wearing anything other the trousers. That's the catch-22: guys won't wear skirts until skirt-wearing on guys becomes fairly common, and until more guys wear skirts, it's not going to become common. We are our own jailers here, and make no bones about it.


It takes a brave boy in combination with supportive parents to pull this off. A skirt wearing boy WILL be sent home by many schools, so it is up to the parents to stand by the kid and fight it. Success is almost certainly guaranteed, but there will be some struggles along the way. But at any rate, grouping a brave boy, with parents that support this type of thing is like winning the lottery twice in one day...

...but it's nice to know the tool is in the toolbox if it's ever needed...

I actually agree with the ruling. Forcing the wearing of certain types of clothing by anybody is ridiculous and, in this particular circumstance, is one reason that women deploy when asked why they don't wear skirts more often: "I was forced to when I was younger." One of my reasons for wearing skirts? "I've been pretty much confined to trousers all my life and I wanted to branch out a bit."


Don't get me wrong, my comments at the start of the thread are not meant to imply that I don't support the ruling. It's logical, fair, and makes since, not to mention ironically helping the case of skirt wearing boys who DON'T want to play the TRANS card. I just hate that males can't have this kind of justice on their own merit, it has to come in the form of female liberation first and foremost.

It irritates me on principle... that's all.
User avatar
moonshadow
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 4051
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:58 am

Re: News on a different front

Postby Gusto10 » Mon Apr 01, 2019 5:17 pm

r.m.anderson wrote:This just in on my RBC brokerage account:

10:58 pm ET US judge: School's rule for girls to wear skirts breaks law

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — A North Carolina charter school promoting traditional values engaged in unconstitutional sex discrimination by requiring girls to wear skirts, a federal judge has ruled. U.S. District Judge Malcolm Howard ruled that Charter Day School can't enforce the skirts-only rule as part of its dress code that punishes violations with suspensions and even expulsion. No child has been expelled for violating the dress code since the school opened in 2000, Howard said in a decision filed on Thursday.

I don't have the rest of the story or any more details.


As by NBC:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/no ... wn-n988901
- the girls would suffer a burden bos don't have...
- no connection to attaining traditional values and the need of the dresscode
Gusto10
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 537
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 12:07 pm


Return to In the News / Advocacy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest