What women (don't) want.

[eFestivals]

Have you read about Chrissie Hynde's latest comments?

yes

[eFestivals]

what do you think?

 

I think she's trying to be controversial in order to drum up some interest for her book.

 

It's pretty dumb

I think she's trying to be controversial in order to drum up some interest for her book.

It's pretty dumb

[bunique]

It's dumb but dangerous. I came across a couple of women online utterly distraught at her comments, which they felt had put them back years to when they felt they were responsible for their own sexual assault (when nothing could be further from the truth - in one case the woman was 10 and raped by a 13 year old relative).

[feral chile]

it's all the men's fault when women cannot stick to the rules...?

 

Dress codes are a common thing in society, for both males and females. While I think dress codes are a ridiculous thing, it's only that person's fault if they step over the line and is pulled-up for it.

 

yes, if the rules are treating women like second class citizens because males can't be civilized. AND if males made the rules. You believe in patriarchy, don't you, and yrt5 every time you get a chance to point it out, you don't seem to see an example of it. And THAT's what will perpetuate it.

 

My son's school had an incident where the young, extremely attractive receptionist was freaked out because a lot of lads were coming to her counter on lame excuses, and hanging around staring wistfully at her.

 

No threats, no sexual innuendo or jibes, just longing looks.

 

guess what, the school took her concerns seriously, explained to the young men that their behaviour was making her uncomfortable, and to be a bit more sensitive in future.

 

And quite right and sensible too. If it had been young girls and an attractive male, the same thing should have happened.

 

So THIS is an example of how patriarchal attitudes can be challenged. And a dress code blaming girls for 'distracting' males perpetuates patriarchal attitudes.

[feral chile]

It's dumb but dangerous. I came across a couple of women online utterly distraught at her comments, which they felt had put them back years to when they felt they were responsible for their own sexual assault (when nothing could be further from the truth - in one case the woman was 10 and raped by a 13 year old relative).

I suspect she wants to see herself as in control of her life, and this is a threat to that. It's a way of empowering herself, of denying the loss of autonomy and sheer helplessness she suffered - being someone's plaything is being treated as less than human, so I can understand why she feels this is her survival strategy. It's why objectification is such a maor issue in feminism, across the board, and not only at this extreme level. It's lesser attempts to objectify that alow for this kind of thing to be acceptable to some men. (and women, evidently).

unfortunately, her survival strategy disempowers other women, particularly other survivors, so it's very difficult to respect her coping mechanism when it causes so much harm to others.

Victim guilt is extremely common.

Maybe she desperately needs someone to give her a hug, and to let her know that it wasn't her fault

Edited September 1, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

it's all the men's fault when women cannot stick to the rules...?

 

Dress codes are a common thing in society, for both males and females. While I think dress codes are a ridiculous thing, it's only that person's fault if they step over the line and is pulled-up for it.

Are men allowed to show their collarbone without fear of sexual harassment, or is there a rule censoring them as well?

Would you like all British women to cover up completely in case they got any males excited?

You do realise that's EXACTLY what you're defending, it's just a matter of degree/where you draw the line?

You do, don't you?

[eFestivals]

yes, if the rules are treating women like second class citizens because males can't be civilized.

 

but that's not all dress codes.

 

What I said applies to all dress codes, no matter what stupid - or more sensible - reasons might have had them put in place.

[eFestivals]

Are men allowed to show their collarbone without fear of sexual harassment, or is there a rule censoring them as well?

Would you like all British women to cover up completely in case they got any males excited?

You do realise that's EXACTLY what you're defending, it's just a matter of degree/where you draw the line?

You do, don't you?

 

I'm pointing out that no matter why those rules exist, the person in that article had failed to abide by them.

 

As my Gran used to say, two wrongs don't make a right.

[gary1979666]

Are men allowed to show their collarbone without fear of sexual harassment, or is there a rule censoring them as well?

Would you like all British women to cover up completely in case they got any males excited?

You do realise that's EXACTLY what you're defending, it's just a matter of degree/where you draw the line?

You do, don't you?

 

Dress codes aren't always (and generally aren't) about stopping men getting exciting.  It's generally about what type of culture you want an organisation to have.  Be it a professional on or more casual.  In most offices, men wouldn't be allowed to show their collar bone at all, whereas women sometimes have some leeway.  Similarly men can't show their legs.

 

It's all down to interpretation about what is / isn't profession from the standard business suit (in most offices) through to jeans / tshirt (at say Google).  

 

A ban on a woman wearing a croptop isn't necessarily about her midriff turning on the blokes, it's because it looks too casual for what that company wants to portray.

[eFestivals]

But this dress code was introduced because men were behaving inappropriately. Instead of getting them to change their behaviour, the rule was introduced to make women change theirs.

That's wrong

 

perhaps apply the same logic to your own posting? Nah, that'd never do.

[gary1979666]

Which wasn't the case here.

 

Correct, but that doesn't mean all dress codes are a result from that.  Feral had made that jump in the post I was replying to.

 

If men's actions are inappropriate, then I agree - they need to appropriate action taken against them.

[feral chile]

gary - can't quote your post AND add my coments, for some reason - did you read the link I posted? It's not MY jump -

Titled "Shame: A Documentary on School Dress Code," the 33-minute film highlights some of the students' issues with the dress code, which mandates that shirts cover their collarbones and that shorts and skirts to be knee-length or longer.

Though Stacie Dunn's daughter Stephanie is not featured in the film, the girls interviewed express the same kinds of concerns she shared this week. They say they feel embarrassed and ashamed about being "called out" for "revealing" outfits that show their collarbones, that it's difficult to find acceptable clothes for schools, that the rules are not uniformly enforced and that it's absurd to be forced to missed class because of these unfair standards.

As a result, they say they feel distracted with worry about whether or not each teacher will deem their outfits appropriate and fear that they may be humiliated.

In the documentary, Principal Akers cites removing distraction as a motivating factor behind dress codes, though he adds he was not at Woodford County High School when this particular policy was implemented during the 2004-05 school year. In his past experience as an administrator, he says, "issues with sexual harassment" among students prompted stricter dress codes.





"Certain outfits that [female students] wore created this situation where guys would make inappropriate statements, and there was a distraction to the learning environment based on what some of the folks were wearing at school," he says in the film.

But the girls believe that it's unfair to limit female students' clothing options instead of addressing the harassment issues more directly with male students. "It sends the message to boys that it's all girls' fault, basically -- any reaction or any action that they do is the girl's fault," one girl says in the film. "It wasn't their fault that they were staring or got distracted. It's the girls' fault."

In an interview with The Huffington Post this week, Sunseri said the inspiration behind her film and her opposition to the dress code "has little to do with clothing and more to do with the underlying message behind a code that tells young women to cover up and young boys that they can't control themselves." The 16-year-old high school junior said the dress code is sexist toward both girls and boys in that it "perpetuates the notion that a woman's body is inherently more sexual than a man's body, and that young boys' natural tendencies are to harass or assault women."

Sunseri added that she believes this is a widespread problem in schools and greater society across the nation, not just at Woodford County High School. "This is a time when we are already trying to figure out our place in the world, and on top of that we are made to feel guilty about the body parts we were born with."

Principal Akers told HuffPost in response to last week's incident that his school's dress code is not about "sexualizing the collarbone" but having "measurable" metrics that allow the rules to be applied fairly. He also added that he's always been open to discussing students' concerns and making adjustments to the rules but that no one has ever tried to meet with him.

Until now. Since the recent incident with Stacie Dunn and her daughter Stephanie, Sunseri has come forward with a proposal for a new dress code. After making small changes to the proposal in a meeting with Principal Akers', she presented it at a school meeting on August 17 in front of a council of parents, teachers and administrators. According to Akers and Sunseri, the council moved the proposal to a committee for review and asked the junior to put together a group of students to join the committee in this task. Then, the council as a whole will consider a proposal from the committee at the next meeting on September 21.

Sunseri's proposed dress code, which she considers an exercise in compromise, would allow for sleeveless shirts with straps that are at least three fingertips wide, skirts and dresses that meet the "fingertip rule" for length and shirts that meet the "credit card rule" -- a credit card length from the bottom of the throat to the top of the shirt. The rules would also permit leggings and yoga pants as long as a top covered the front and back sides. If passed, the code would go into effect in January.

Stacie Dunn expressed her joy at the prospect for real change in a Facebook post. "Hopefully the outcome will be favorable!" she wrote. Principal Akers told HuffPost that he applauds Sunseri's initiative, both in making the documentary and following through with tangible action.

"Everyone always wanted the dress code to change, but no one was willing to do anything about it," Sunseri said in her interview, adding, "I hope that anyone reading my story feels empowered to go out and make changes within their own community."

Edited September 2, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

as per the above post - a subjective judgment of how 'distracting' a pupil is - translates to how sexually attractive he/she is deemed to be, as explicitly explained by the principal quoted here.

That's what i'm concerned about. This is not my interpretation of a dress code, the reason given is that girls cause their own sexual harassment.

As I explained earlier, my children's school dealt with this totally differently, by explaining to the boys the need to respect women.

We did have a female head teacher, however.

 

(mind you, in a different area, in a primary school, a 10 year old girl was sexually assaulted by a male classmate, and teachers were (privately) stating that she'd provoked it by 'dressing like a slut'.)

 

It's not the implementation of the dress code I have a problem with, by the way, it's the explanation given for it. I'm all for desexualising school, I even support school uniform, because with uniformity comes equal treatment. Or at least, the aspirations of it.

 

So removing sexual tension isn't bad pre se. But let's try addressing the situation, rather than trying to apportion blame.

 

(and bear in mind that what's classed as 'revealing' is extremely subjective, both culturally and through time - but I bet when you thought about that, you thought about women covering their ankles, sixties swimsuits etc., rather than male attire).

Edited September 2, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

it's all the men's fault when women cannot stick to the rules...?

 

Dress codes are a common thing in society, for both males and females. While I think dress codes are a ridiculous thing, it's only that person's fault if they step over the line and is pulled-up for it.

 

I'm guessing from the smilie you know perfectly well how provocatively sexist that comment is.

 

I think arbitrary rules should be discussed and challenged, although dress codes seem to have more impact on females, there are occasions where men are impacted, a rule baring long hair on men in the workplace, for instance.

 

Which I would challenge vehemently, as banning long hair on men would be an absolute tragedy

Edited September 2, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

I'm guessing from the smilie you know perfectly well how provocatively sexist that comment is.

 

I'm guessing from the third post of stupidity against one set of words that you fail badly at a basic grasp of language.

[feral chile]

I'm guessing from the third post of stupidity against one set of words that you fail badly at a basic grasp of language.

 

no, I'm just patiently struggling to reason with a man who's incapable of grasping the concepts that he claims to support. You know, feminism, democracy, socialism.....and as soon as you face a real life example, you fail miserably to be able to apply all the grand concepts that you supposedly represent, to the situation in front of you.

 

You present yourself as someone who has heard of concepts that sound like something you shoud believe in theoreticlly, but as soon as you scratch the surface, you display a total failure to understand their real life application.

 

Both in your comments generally and in your behaviour towards women.

 

I'm quite concerned sometimes about your posts, you need to remember they're public and could be used against you if someone had an agenda. (as in, had personal reasons to prove sexism, verbal abuse etc.).

 

here - idiot's guide:

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/24vi6l/how_are_school_dress_codes_a_product_of_patriarchy/

 

 

 

School dress codes are part of a regulatory structure that aims to regulate the social conduct of individuals and penalise those that don't conform to it. This is in itself objectionable as it limits their substantive freedom to self-determinate based on petty moralism, but this doesn't answer your question.

To the extent that we agree that the substance of a regulatory structure is of course to regulate we need to ask based on what rule. Obviously all prescriptions must follow a rule or other, some general principles that delineate which behaviour is acceptable and which isn't.

In this case the regulation aims to regulate how people dress, and it does that based on what? Preconceived notions of how they ought to dress obviously.

So essentially a school dress code formally enforces obedience to a preexisting societal norm that already describes how people ought to dress.

So the question isn't how school dress codes are a product of patriarchy (there could conceivably be a school dress code that -though still objectionable in itself- would have nothing to do with patriarchy), it's how the societal norms that inform the content and direction of the actually existing regulation, the societal norms that are enforced by it are a product of patriarchy.

Now I define patriarchy as a system of patriarchal values that aim (as all values do) to regulate human relations and social behaviour according to them, and I define a value as patriarchal when it reveals an androcentric view of the world, it enforces power structures that privilege men due to their identity as men or enforces obedience to historically patriarchal gender roles that disprivilege those that disagree with them over those that don't.

I find that the aforementioned societal norms (for example that men should wear pants and women dresses as mperrone445 mentioned, or the idea that women should wear dresses of specific lengths) are by the established above rule patriarchal values.

Now let's bring all of it together. We have a regulation, that enforces obedience to a norm, that is structured based on patriarchal values. Therefore we have a patriarchal regulation.

Doubt the soundness of the patriarchal value and reject it. Immediately the societal norm that is informed by it is rendered completely arbitrary and so is the formal regulation that enforces it. Would there still be a need for a school dress code from this point of view? Maybe but it would have to be legitimised by another rule as this was proven to be illegitimate.

​

Edited September 2, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

no, I'm just patiently struggling to reason with a man who's incapable of grasping the concepts that he claims to support.

if you could grasp some words and their meanings, you'd cope much better.

I support literacy. You'd probably claim to support that.

[feral chile]

if you could grasp some words and their meanings, you'd cope much better.

I support literacy. You'd probably claim to support that.

 

I support courtesy, I find people respond better to it. And I feel it gives people a better impression of my intelligence.

[eFestivals]

I support courtesy, I find people respond better to it. And I feel it gives people a better impression of my intelligence.

being able to read what has actually been posted would also give a better impression of your intelligence.

[feral chile]

It would certainly give a better impression of yours, since once again I'm questioning what someone ELSE claims is the reason for a dress code, and still getting accused of agreeing with THEIR justification for it, or making assumptions for what THEIR STATED reasons are.

 

THEY made the rules, THEY explained the justification for them, FEMINISTS objected.

 

You know, that cause you support. That you're now vehemently disagreeing with. In favour of the' patriarchal' (gender biased) perspective.

 

You display a SPECTACULAR lack of understanding of the causes you claim to support, both in your reply content and in your tone and behaviour.

 

I'm concerned about how some of these comments might be perceived if seen by women close to you, they don't show you in a good light.

 

(genuinely, I'm not point scoring here).

Edited September 2, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

It would certainly give a better impression of yours, since once again I'm questioning what someone ELSE claims is the reason for a dress code, and still getting accused of agreeing with THEIR justification for it, or making assumptions for what THEIR STATED reasons are.

 

THEY made the rules, THEY explained the justification for them, FEMINISTS objected.

 

You know, that cause you support. That you're now vehemently disagreeing with. In favour of the' patriarchal' (gender biased) perspective.

 

You display a SPECTACULAR lack of understanding of the causes you claim to support, both in your reply content and in your tone and behaviour.

 

I'm concerned about how some of these comments might be perceived if seen by women close to you, they don't show you in a good light.

 

(genuinely, I'm not point scoring here).

the ONLY thing I've agreed with is the fact that that girl wasn't able to stick to the rules.

But don't let that stop you making something up. It wouldn't be the same around here if people lived in the real world.

Edited September 2, 2015 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

the ONLY thing I've agreed with is the fact that that girl wasn't able to stick to the rules.

But don't let that stop you making something up. It wouldn't be the same around here if people lived in the real world.

 

er..no, you referred to stupidity and 3 replies to the sae post, which didn't make sense, and you seem to have missed the wole feminist issue involved in 'girls should obey the (male) rules'.

 

It doesn't surprise me in the slightest, I never for a minute thought you actually advocated feminism, you weren't supporting the wrongness of patriarchy, just more proposing the notion that men ruled the roost and an uppity female was refusing to accept 'the rules'.

Edited September 2, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

Dress codes aren't always (and generally aren't) about stopping men getting exciting.  It's generally about what type of culture you want an organisation to have.  Be it a professional on or more casual.  In most offices, men wouldn't be allowed to show their collar bone at all, whereas women sometimes have some leeway.  Similarly men can't show their legs.

 

It's all down to interpretation about what is / isn't profession from the standard business suit (in most offices) through to jeans / tshirt (at say Google).  

 

A ban on a woman wearing a croptop isn't necessarily about her midriff turning on the blokes, it's because it looks too casual for what that company wants to portray.

No, I know they're not. That's my point

[eFestivals]

isn't 'why' the rules were put in place worth mentioning?

 

Isn't why just-this-girl failed to meet those rules worth mentioning?

 

Did she fail to meet this rules because she's a woman, or for another reason?

[eFestivals]

er..no, you referred to stupidity and 3 replies to the sae post, which didn't make sense, and you seem to have missed the wole feminist issue involved in 'girls should obey the (male) rules'.

I referred to your inability to read correctly and your ability to fantasise.

 

There's two separate and distinct issues here, but you only wish to recognise one of them.