What women (don't) want.

[eFestivals]

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).

 

that's genuinely made me laugh out loud, given the goings-on a few months back. :lol;

[feral chile]

that's genuinely made me laugh out loud, given the goings-on a few months back. :lol;

cool, as long as you're aware.

[feral chile]

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.

That's strange, you spent several weeks trying to harangue me into accepting patriarchy was all consuming a few months back. And now there are separate issues from it.

Good, I'm glad you're learning not to be so reductive.lting people just makes you seem ignorant, especially when you tend to do it while showing lack of awareness of the issues under discussion.

there are either at least two of you posting as efestivals, or you're less insecure around certain subjects, when you can manage to seem quite intelligent and knowledgeable.

Edited September 2, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

That's strange, you spent several weeks trying to harangue me into accepting patriarchy was all consuming a few months back. And now there are separate issues from it.

Good, I'm glad you're learning not to be so reductive.

 

it wasn't patriarchy that had her fail to meet the rules that were in place, was it?

 

Unless no women are able to meet them...?

[feral chile]

it wasn't patriarchy that had her fail to meet the rules that were in place, was it?

 

Unless no women are able to meet them...?

should all women be circumcised in countries that expect it, should they cover their faces? Ankles? legs? breasts? Collarbones?

Where does obeying 'the rules' drift into feminist issues for you neil? It wasn't just this one girl, there's a whole movement over there, and rightly so.

Boys are not sexualised in this way, though if they were, I'd support their right to grow their hair/get it cut/wear shorts etc. etc.

And please don't compare indecent exposure with dress codes again, you know nobody's suggesting girls should be allowed to display their genitals.

[feral chile]

it wasn't patriarchy that had her fail to meet the rules that were in place, was it?

 

Unless no women are able to meet them...?

the rules should apply to both sexes, at least, though they might still be stupid and arbitrary. But at least they wouldn't be sending out the wrong message.

[eFestivals]

should all women be circumcised in countries that expect it, should they cover their faces? Ankles? legs? breasts? Collarbones?

Where does obeying 'the rules' drift into feminist issues for you neil? It wasn't just this one girl, there's a whole movement over there, and rightly so.

Boys are not sexualised in this way, though if they were, I'd support their right to grow their hair/get it cut/wear shorts etc. etc.

And please don't compare indecent exposure with dress codes again, you know nobody's suggesting girls should be allowed to display their genitals.

 

So you advocate dress codes after all.

 

There are some dress codes that are in place for very good - non-patriarchal - reasons. But all dress codes can be lived up.

 

This girl failed to live up to the rules, and has her own failure within that outside of all other aspects.

 

You meanwhile went on an anti-man rant, absolving the girl of her own responsibilities, and did all you condemn by doing so.

 

But never mind, eh? It's so much better to repel your own argument than to advance a cause.

[feral chile]

So you advocate dress codes after all.

 

There are some dress codes that are in place for very good - non-patriarchal - reasons. But all dress codes can be lived up.

 

This girl failed to live up to the rules, and has her own failure within that outside of all other aspects.

 

You meanwhile went on an anti-man rant, absolving the girl of her own responsibilities, and did all you condemn by doing so.

 

But never mind, eh? It's so much better to repel your own argument than to advance a cause.

me personally? I've already said I'm not against dress codes, there have been very good reasons presented within schools for them, and I certainly agree with taking the sex out of schools, as long as you have a uniform that applies equally ie trousers allowed for girls etc.

I ignore the 'no dress code' in work and wear smart/casual, so I impose a dress code on myself. I think a 'uniform' influences how people behave, and are perceived, and you can't get away from some kind of 'uniform' so I choose a slightly corporate one.

it's the reasons for dress codes that's under discussion.

The anti-man rant is all in your insecurity -riddled head though. I don't hate men in the slightest. I'm a bit of a tomboy in fact.

Edited September 2, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

it wasn't patriarchy that had her fail to meet the rules that were in place, was it?

 

Unless no women are able to meet them...?

you don't understand this at all, do you? We're not talking employment law here.

If the dress code was to WEAR things that revealed their curves, would that be acceptable?

it's still basing a dress code on female sexuality. Though in reality, it's based on male sexuality, perceiving clothes as sexual.

I'd love a dress code that forced men to grow their hair long, personally.

or maybe I should be campaigning for one that banned long hair, in case I got 'distracted'.

Edited September 2, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

so, let me get this straight. Men (patriarchy) can put whatever rules they like in place, and if the women don't follow those rules, they're at fault for not following the rules...??

 

Ultimately it's no different to who is at fault for a woman failing to wear a hard hat on a construction site.

 

You don't have to agree with a rule to live up to that rule, you only have to live up to that rule. Else you're at fault for your own failure to live up to that rule.

 

The rules being a (do-able) crock of shit doesn't reduce your own abilities towards living up to them. That part of things is non-discriminatory.

[eFestivals]

you don't understand this at all, do you? We're not talking employment law here.

 

a rule is a rule is a rule. How sensible that rule might be is something different from it being a rule.

[feral chile]

a rule is a rule is a rule. How sensible that rule might be is something different from it being a rule.

and in a democracy, if a rule is unfair it can be challenged.

part of the reason the girls were complaining is because they couldn't tell when they were breaking the dress code, because it was so arbitrary and subjective.

A uniform might have actually improved matters, strict, defined rules.

We had rules about skirt length. I didn't have a problem with that, I did have a problem with the deputy headmistress who would shame girls by publicly calling them trollops, or that their parents couldn't afford their uniform (which was often the case, that they'd outgrown the massively expensive grammar school uniform). We used to buy one that took about 3 years to grow into

Rules should be fair, impartial, and should not unfairly discriminate.

Edited September 2, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

and in a democracy, if a rule is unfair it can be challenged.

 

best done when you've not just had your knuckles rapped.

[feral chile]

best done when you've not just had your knuckles rapped.

I think you'll find stinging from an unfairness is the perfect time to notice the injustice.

And let's be fair, there's very little that girl could do to avoid being 'distracting', she was rather attractive.

Edited September 2, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

Further debate from feminists:

http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/12/school-dress-code-myths/

I must admit, the way the ban on sexy clothes was stated there, I might have had a bit more sympathy for it - that it was intended to avoid the sexualisation of women (rather than the distraction of males) - but apparently it's still the same issue disguised:

Myth #2: Dress Codes Take the Pressure off Girls to Dress Sexually

Dress codes are supposed to free girls from sexualization.

Indeed, Jean Kilbourne, author of So Sexy So Soon: The New Sexualized Childhood, told the Christian Science Monitor, school dress codes can help to take away some of the pressures that girls feel to don sexy outfits.

As she said in an interview on the matter, “Girls these days are really pressured to dress in a very provocative way. All of their role models — celebrities and pop stars — dress that way. For them, sexy and attractive is defined in a very clichéd and stereotypical way.”

This view assumes teen girls have no autonomy in deciding what they wear. It assumes that they dress for other people. Moreover, it assumes that the sexualization is the fault of the girl, and not the person sexualizing her.

And that’s a pretty insulting notion.

A teen may simply be trying to be fashionable, but an adult may perceive her outfit as sending a sexual message. Or a girl may indeed be trying to look sexy, but the adult is almost certainly not her intended audience.

Either way, any confidence and pride she might take in her appearance is automatically stripped from her when she is told that she is dressing inappropriately.

When adult teachers insert themselves into the role of interpreting a teen’s clothing, it is they who are overtly sexualizing children. And when it’s a male teacher calling out a female student, the dynamic gets even more twisted.

Another common argument for monitoring girls’ clothes is that boys can’t focus on school when they encounter exposed female skin or see curves.

Not only is this view utterly heterosexist, but it also reduces boys to slathering sex fiends with no self control and then tells girls they are responsible for those boys’ behavior — which is disparaging to all parties.

Plus, it has been noted by plenty of folks that dress codes are less about banning particular clothes than they are about banning girls bodies, particularly those which are bigger or curvier.

And while a lot of this discomfort with female bodies comes from expected places, some of it doesn’t.

Last year, Leah, a ninth grade student of mine shared a story about how a teacher at her previous school, a feminist who she deeply respected, pointed out her low-cut shirt in front of an entire class and suggested she cover up.

She explained, “The school had a dress code, but there was nothing in it about cleavage. I know that the slut shame-ish aspect was said by accident, but it was powerful because it had been ingrained even in a feminist teacher to make such comments.”

Leah’s experience reminds us that even otherwise progressive people sometimes (perhaps subconsciously) buy into the myth that girls bodies are inherently problematic and that to protect themselves, girls need to hide those bodies from public view.

Not surprisingly, constantly hearing this message from adults impacts the way girls see their own bodies and can result in complicated feelings about the way they and their peers dress in general.

A paper on girls’ views about high school dress codes published in the journal Youth and Society highlighted this issued. It found that while girls tended to dislike dress codes, dress codes also gave them an excuse to judge other girls’ outfits and that those who were judged most harshly were often working class girls.

As the author writes, “[Dress codes] normalize certain forms of girlhood, problematize others, and suggest girls’ responsibility for the school’s moral climate.”

That’s a hugely unfair burden to put on 50% of the population and one with negative consequences that can last long beyond the time a school can dictate what its students can wear.

Edited September 2, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

Ultimately it's no different to who is at fault for a woman failing to wear a hard hat on a construction site.

 

You don't have to agree with a rule to live up to that rule, you only have to live up to that rule. Else you're at fault for your own failure to live up to that rule.

 

The rules being a (do-able) crock of shit doesn't reduce your own abilities towards living up to them. That part of things is non-discriminatory.

 

depends why she has to wear a hard hat. if it's to avoid being hit by falling objects, that's fine, the safety rule applies to men too.

 

if it's to avoid getting hit on by men - uh-uh.

 

We've moved on from chastity belts, and ULTIMATELY that's a better analogy.

[eFestivals]

if it's to avoid getting hit on by men - uh-uh.

so men are meant to hit on her...?

 

[eFestivals]

depends why she has to wear a hard hat. if it's to avoid being hit by falling objects, that's fine, the safety rule applies to men too.

without attempting to deny the existence of patriarchal dress rules, whether a rule is good or bad is ultimately subjective.

Back when I worked on building sites most people didn't wear hard hats, and on those sites at those times there was not a single issue because of it. So I don't see the need for today's too-anal attitudes towards hard hats, but you might do.

 

And when there's always going to be differences in how rules pan out via the very fact we're different as men and women, they'll always be an amount of claims of unfairness via those differences.

 

[feral chile]

without attempting to deny the existence of patriarchal dress rules, whether a rule is good or bad is ultimately subjective.

Back when I worked on building sites most people didn't wear hard hats, and on those sites at those times there was not a single issue because of it. So I don't see the need for today's too-anal attitudes towards hard hats, but you might do.

 

And when there's always going to be differences in how rules pan out via the very fact we're different as men and women, they'll always be an amount of claims of unfairness via those differences.

 

 

and do hard hats have anything to do with 'distracting' the opposite sex? and is it only one sex who seem to need protecting from whatever hard hats protect you from?

 

If only women had to wear hard hats to protect their 'weaker' skulls, then it would be a similar situation. But while only women have dress codes that relate to 'sexy' clothing, we still have  a sexism problem. You would usually call this patriarchy, in a different context, I don't understand why you're not applying that term now.

[gary1979666]

and do hard hats have anything to do with 'distracting' the opposite sex? 

 

 

Helmets possibly.......sorry

[eFestivals]

But while only women have dress codes that relate to 'sexy' clothing, we still have  a sexism problem.

Do women not refer to themselves dressed up as sexy? And what place does that have in an office?

It's not all a one way street here, and there's more than one thing in play.

 

(there are of course some deliberately-discriminatory rules in some places, but I'm talking about the more normal social compromises that tend to fall in a discriminatory way)

If I was wanting to be flippant I might say that men might only stand a chance of complying with women's wishes on these sorts of things once women had made up their collective mind and stuck to it.

Or I could point out that there's other social rules which discriminate unfairly against men to the benefit of women where men are not allowed to exploit their natural advantages over the opposite gender, too.

 

But mostly I'd say it's probably an irresolvable conflict because of the biological factors, and there will never be a singularly satisfactory answer because different people have different ideas.

 

That doesn't mean there's not some nutty rules to be brought down, btw.

Edited September 2, 2015 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

Helmets possibly.......sorry

[feral chile]

without attempting to deny the existence of patriarchal dress rules, whether a rule is good or bad is ultimately subjective.

Back when I worked on building sites most people didn't wear hard hats, and on those sites at those times there was not a single issue because of it. So I don't see the need for today's too-anal attitudes towards hard hats, but you might do.

 

And when there's always going to be differences in how rules pan out via the very fact we're different as men and women, they'll always be an amount of claims of unfairness via those differences.

yes, it could conceivably work the other way (this is hypothetical, I'm not suggesting this actually happens).

you COULD have a situation where men feel it would be weak to wear a hard hat, because they're pressured into being macho. So they might want to discuss the issues around the rule, that's not related to the safety issue.

can you see that, if this were the case, then they'd have a point?

Edited September 2, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

flippant.. sexist.. .dumb

 

all of them

 

and yes, I get it's (supposed to be) a joke. It's also a perfect example of how far there is to go, that you even contemplate saying something like that

I say it because there's very clearly an element of truth with it.

Ask a hundred different women and you'll get a hundred different opinions (and why not? There is no definitely right answer to the dress code dilemma). Even if you got a hundred who were in the same ballpark they'd differ on the fine detail. And then ten years later they might have a different opinion, because of the extra life experience they've had.

I don't suppose it would be any different for men, either. Needs sayin', just because.

There is no such thing as no dress code, unless we allow nakedness. Everything beyond that is a matter of opinion for where the lines should be drawn.

Edited September 2, 2015 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

I say it because there's very clearly an element of truth with it.

Ask a hundred different women and you'll get a hundred different opinions (and why not? There is no definitely right answer to the dress code dilemma). Even if you got a hundred who were in the same ballpark they'd differ on the fine detail. And then ten years later they might have a different opinion, because of the extra life experience they've had.

I don't suppose it would be any different for men, either. Needs sayin', just because.

There is no such thing as no dress code, unless we allow nakedness. Everything beyond that is a matter of opinion for where the lines should be drawn.

you don't see men having to discuss whether they're too sexy for their clothes, though, do you? (except in tongue in cheek songs?)

I struggled to think of an example when I tried to compare, couldn't think of actual clothes, so settled for hair.

Now, if men weren't allowed to wear their hair long, and women could, that would be a gender issue for me. genuinely, because although I joke about it, hair is an identity thing with me.

Edited September 2, 2015 by feral chile