Is my school's uniform policy sexist?

[M&m_Fan99]

Hey guys M&m_Fan99 (Thaddeus  Peuterschmidt) back with another IB Survival forum post!

So, today's QOTD (question of the day) is: "Is my school's uniform policy sexist?", if you couldn't tell from the title of this forum post.

In the uniform policy, it is stated that girls are not allowed to have their skirts more than 10cm above their knees, but there are no rules about how high boys can wear their shorts. Many are outraged at this and is calling this inequality.

So IB Survival forum viewers, what do you think? Do you think my school is being sexist?

 

:ivan:

[hobbitsarerad]

I think it totally is, restricting what a girl wears and not boys is ridiculous. 

[kevG]

no they arent, how is that sexism? i find it funny how you were able to relate those two things

do you even know how high 10 cm above the knee is?

who would want a bunch of half naked girls walking around school

 

as for the boys

if shorts go 10 cm above the knee, they shouldnt be called shorts; more like boxers or underwear

 

and pretty sure none of the men wear only underwear to school

 

maybe a cultural thing in japan...

Edited July 20, 2015 by kfernando1

[TykeDragon]

I wouldn't think it as much a problem as boys not being equally restricted, my stance is that I don't think girls should be restricted as much as they are. I mean if they turned up to school in underwear alone (age depending I'm sure the other guys wouldn't mind, but nevertheless) they would be berated for it being inappropriate, just as if a male turned up in his underwear. But the 10cm rule is possibly too harsh, if they wish to wear that, and it isn't as short as their underwear, then why not? Are they to be punished for what they like to wear? Surely the problem lies with those who find it inappropriate or can't control themselves around it?

 

Obviously there would be extremes to this, for example if a girl wears short shorts and a crop top then arguably that's too far, but I've seen girls told off for wearing a sleveless button up shirt because it shows their shoulders, and how come the first 10cm of thigh above the knee is acceptable but that last 2cm crosses the line?

 

But for the record there are some equivalences - my school banned male hair to be below the collar whereas girls were not restricted in this manner  

[mac117]

To simply answer the question: yes. It is sexist to restrict only one gender's school uniform policy. However, like everything else, this is more complex.

 

We have to look at it from the society's perspective and the way today's mode portrays women. Let's take an example of a woman's breast. Women are not allowed to show it publicly (except for some cases), yet there is no problem with men walking shirtlessly around the town on a hot summer day. People called this sexism too, but we have to look at the fact that their body is constructed in a different way, and their breasts are seen as a sexual sign, therefore they have to cover them in public.

 

When it comes to things like shorts, it's the fashion that plays a significant role here. Let's face it: how often have you seen a guy with shorts so short, that they were 10cm above their knees? It is much more common for designers to make such short shorts for women. I would assume that this is the reason for why your school applied this rule only for girls, as it is hardly possible for a guy to wear such shorts.

 

There is always the aspect of education. School is not the beach where you can show off your summer body, and everybody should respect each other and dress appropriately. It's not only girls, but also boys that should obey this rule. Sadly, due to today's fashion, girls are usually the ones to wear really short shorts and revealing shirts, which can make the rules at a school more biased.

 

Overall, I would say it would be easier for your school to add "and boys" so that no one would be outraged by this. Boys probably won't notice the difference, and everyone will be happy

[ThePotnoodleBoy]

I believe it is mildly sexist, yes. Why restrict one gender's uniform and not the other? I believe it is quite unfair, to be honest.

[ibprincess]

no they arent, how is that sexism? i find it funny how you were able to relate those two things

do you even know how high 10 cm above the knee is?

who would want a bunch of half naked girls walking around school

 

as for the boys

if shorts go 10 cm above the knee, they shouldnt be called shorts; more like boxers or underwear

 

and pretty sure none of the men wear  only underwear to school

 

maybe a cultural thing in japan...

 

HELLO FRIEND I'M HERE TO TELL YOU WHY YOU ARE WRONG

 

please, as i begin this post, find your nearest measurement device and take a note of where 10cm is. if the only measurement device you have is in inches, that would be 3.94 inches. That is about the length of my index finger and i have small hands!! you with your incredebly powerful and masculine hands must have much long and stronger fingers, but i'm sure you get the gist. 

 

now, to answer your, truly brilliant and not even slightly misogynistic, question "who would want a bunch of half naked girls walking around school".

 

Wow ok so this might be a hard one for you to understand, but if i can do it with my lady brain, i'm sure you can manage as well!! I promise you, 1 million billion percent, those girls are not "half naked" to impress you. they are not "half naked" because they are being forced to be. they are not "half naked" to upset you.  â€‹There are doing it because they want to.

 

1. they
2. are
3. doing
4. it
5. because
6. they
7. want
8. to

no one (e.g. school/government/person) should be able to tell a person what they can or cannot wear.

there are a few things wrong with how you seem to be struggling to understand about this.

 

Firstly, extended from my earlier point about legs. legs are not something a person should be ashamed of and hide. In our modern society, in all settings, at the very least, a persons genitals must be covered, as they are sexual organs and we, as a society, have decided it is unacceptable for our sexual organs to be on display. (this is not because we should be ashamed of them-some say we started doing this to prevent genital lice). now, the reason i am mentioning this is because a female's legs, and a female's vagina, are very very different things. I am sure that you don't need me to explain why. There is no reason that legs must be covered as we should not be sexualising legs in the way a sexual organ can be sexualised. Additionally, there are no diseases, such as genital lice, that apply to legs, so it is not necessary in any way to cover legs. Furthermore, this is in a school setting, where the majority of pupils would be under 18. There is no reasons for legs to be sexualised, and there is especially no reason for the legs of minors to be sexualised. if there are regulations in place to prevent male students, or male teachers or male members of the public from being aroused by a teenage girls legs, it is more of a problem of the society than of young girls going around "half naked". 

 

you made a point that the double standard doesn't exist, and men wouldn't wear shorts that are as unholy as being 10cm above the knee.

In japan, this is the primary school uniform (prepare yourself, the shorts are short) http://japandave.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/ElemGakuran.jpg 

it is a cultural norm for (at just about every primary school) young boys to wear shorts that are that short. Yes, this uniform changed in Japanese middle and high school, but it is socially acceptable for shorts that short to be worn by young children. yes, i understand a teenage or older male might not wear these shorts, but i'm trying to show you it is socially acceptable. Also, like I don't know how long the underwear you wear is but it must be pretty damn long if it can be caught so high up in your ass and also reach 10cm above your knee. additionally, there is a difference between underwear and shorts or skirts. while underwear are used to cover sexual organs, short or skirts are used to cover legs. underwear and shorts are quite different in nature, and function in different ways.

 

Lastly, your comment about men not wearing only underwear to school is also wrong. as i just said underwear does not equal shorts. Underwear have developed a sexual connotation due to their function of covering sexual organs. shorts or pants or skirts should not have this connotation. if a man wanted to wear shorts to school, even if they are more than 10cm above the knee, that should not be a problem, it shouldn't effect you and it shouldn't be your business. 

 

if anything doesn't make sense feel free to quote this post with your questions and i will happily help you out

Edited July 21, 2015 by ibprincess

[ibprincess]

 

We have to look at it from the society's perspective and the way today's mode portrays women. Let's take an example of a woman's breast. Women are not allowed to show it publicly (except for some cases), yet there is no problem with men walking shirtlessly around the town on a hot summer day. People called this sexism too, but we have to look at the fact that their body is constructed in a different way, and their breasts are seen as a sexual sign, therefore they have to cover them in public.

 

 

I just want to comment on the notion of covering boobs.

 

brief history lesson: 

in the early 20th century, men could not show their chest anywhere. it was illegal for their chest to be exposed at the beach and the male nipple was just as illegal as the female nipple. now you see, these men were like, "hey, its hot, i wanna take my shirt of, i want to let my nipples be free" so they did it. and they got reprimanded but men kept doing it. now in 2015, it is completely acceptable for a man to go around without a shirt and male nipples are not considered a bad thing in any way. that is because of the efforts of those men 100 years ago.

 

now, the biggest argument i see against female nipples is that it is a sexual organ but honestly, its not! a sexual organ is used for the procreation of life and breasts do not procreate life. although breasts are not a sexual organ, they are a characteristic of the female sex, the same way that  having an adams apple or a beard is a characteristic of the male sex. so like, if men are being forced to cover their adams apple, then yea, equality, females can cover their boobs too, but because they're not, why should females not be allowed to go topless if that is what they want?

 

you mention they are constructed in different ways but not really. male nipples are left over from how when in the womb, everyone stars of being a female then developing either female or male genetalia at some point in the developmental process. additionally, apparently mens nipples can lactate as well so really aint that different except the amount of breast tissues on women vs men.

 

if society would stop sexualising women, women's nipples would not be perceived as more sexual than men's nipples. it  should be up to the person to show or not show their nipples and really women should not lose the choice of showing their nips.

 

#freethenipples

[mac117]

 

 

now, to answer your, truly brilliant and not even slightly misogynistic, question "who would want a bunch of half naked girls walking around school".

 

Wow ok so this might be a hard one for you to understand, but if i can do it with my lady brain, i'm sure you can manage as well!! I promise you, 1 million billion percent, those girls are not "half naked" to impress you. they are not "half naked" because they are being forced to be. they are not "half naked" to upset you.  â€‹There are doing it because they want to.

 

1. they
2. are
3. doing
4. it
5. because
6. they
7. want
8. to

no one (e.g. school/government/person) should be able to tell a person what they can or cannot wear.

there are a few things wrong with how you seem to be struggling to understand about this.

 

I can't fully agree with you on this statement. As I mentioned before, I do agree that the school is sexist for restricting the rules only for females, yet what you said here doesn't apply fully to our society, and public places such as schools.

 

One can't wear anything they want to to school just because they feel like it. There is an etiquette that everone, I'll repeat, everyone should obey. Just because I want to wear a shirt with offensive jokes on it doesn't mean I'm allowed to do this. And it's the same thing with revealing clothing. You can't tell me that just because you want to wear bikini to school (yes, radical example, but still fits into your statement) and no one can be mad about it because it's "none of their business"! 

 

I do understand your frustration, and how females in today's society are overly sexualised, but really, what you said could apply in many different things then. I want to wear see-through clothing. Can I do this? Yes, of course. Am I supposed to wear it in public places? No, because as I mentioned before, there are certain rules people have to obey.

 

 

 

 

I just want to comment on the notion of covering boobs.

 

 

you mention they are constructed in different ways but not really. male nipples are left over from how when in the womb, everyone stars of being a female then developing either female or male genetalia at some point in the developmental process. additionally, apparently mens nipples can lactate as well so really aint that different except the amount of breast tissues on women vs men.

 

if society would stop sexualising women, women's nipples would not be perceived as more sexual than men's nipples. it  should be up to the person to show or not show their nipples and really women should not lose the choice of showing their nips.

 

#freethenipples

 

 

They are still constructed in a different way/are more developed than the ones of a male. I could take the same example with little kids on a beach. As you probably noticed yourself on holiday, the 1 y.o. have no underwear are walk around naked. That's because their organs are not developed and these kids are not looked at in a sexual way (yes, there are exceptions but let's not talk about that).

 

But the main thing, which you and I both mentioned, is today's fashion and society which oversexualises women in every way. They have less freedom when it comes to exposing their body, as (sadly) people would start using insults towards them. It is a problem in most western countries, which make women's entire body a sex symbol, and I agree with you, that is not correct. 

 

As you mentioned, women have to fight like men to be able to have their breasts revealed in public, and I personally think they have the right to fight for a change. But as long as the society and fashion doesn't stop oversexualising them, it's not going to change. 

 

The real question is, whether this is the biggest concern that women in the world have right now. There are countries where women have no right to vote, no right to get educated, no right to marry who they would like to marry. In western countries women are more free, and they might think that toplessness is now one of their bigger issues, but I personally think that there are far more severe issues that women face which need more focus than toplessness.

I'm not saying it's wrong that they're fighting against it, but I think that the problem of inequality when it comes to payment is far more severe compared to the revealing of women's breasts.

Edited July 21, 2015 by mac117

[Excalibre]

​There are doing it because they want to.

 

1. they
2. are
3. doing
4. it
5. because
6. they
7. want
8. to

no one (e.g. school/government/person) should be able to tell a person what they can or cannot wear.

 

Whoa! Whoa! Why the hell should you be allowed to wear whatever the *bleep* you want in a public place? (As mac117 also pointed out.) I would NOT want to go to a place where people's clothes (or a lack thereof) will cause me and my (hypothetical) children to sustain emotional/mental harm. (Don't tell me it's acceptable for children to be exposed to nudity, just don't.)

Why is it not perfectly acceptable to have a dress code in public places? The only thing I agree to is that the guidelines should be equally fair for people of both sexes. But there should always be some degree of appropriateness as per societal norms.

As for women's legs being over-sexualized, that really is an issue for society as a whole. But blatantly breaking the guidelines is not going to be the most effective way to reforms. It has been proven time and time again, that diplomacy can work, so why not take that route.

 

On a side note, I sure has hell hope you're not a feminist. Because if there's anything your posts have done, it's make me hate the way you converse with people. And till now, most of the feminists I've met have done the same. Just saying, this isn't the best way to win support for your cause (REGARDLESS of whether you're a feminist or not).

[Quintessential]

 

On a side note, I sure has hell hope you're not a feminist. Because if there's anything your posts have done, it's make me hate the way you converse with people. And till now, most of the feminists I've met have done the same. Just saying, this isn't the best way to win support for your cause (REGARDLESS of whether you're a feminist or not).

 

 

I completely agree with the bolded part. She began with explaining how long 10cm is, presuming, for some reason, that he didn't how long that was, even though he had just made a post about that exact thing. Then being extremely sarcastic and following that up with a "this might be a hard one for you to understand, but...".

 

I'm really not a fan of people using master suppression techniques while debating.

 

 

no one (e.g. school/government/person) should be able to tell a person what they can or cannot wear.

there are a few things wrong with how you seem to be struggling to understand about this.

 

 

As mac117 and Excalibre pointed out before: one can't be allowed to wear anything to school, or any other public area for that matter. It would simply not be appropiate. 

 

[ibprincess]

 

 

One can't wear anything they want to to school just because they feel like it. There is an etiquette that everone, I'll repeat, everyone should obey. Just because I want to wear a shirt with offensive jokes on it doesn't mean I'm allowed to do this. And it's the same thing with revealing clothing. You can't tell me that just because you want to wear bikini to school (yes, radical example, but still fits into your statement) and no one can be mad about it because it's "none of their business"! 

 

I do understand your frustration, and how females in today's society are overly sexualised, but really, what you said could apply in many different things then. I want to wear see-through clothing. Can I do this? Yes, of course. Am I supposed to wear it in public places? No, because as I mentioned before, there are certain rules people have to obey. 

 

 

 

 

but if you were to wear a shirt with offensive jokes on it, that should offend people. if you were to expose the area above your knee in a way you were comfortable to do, that should not offend anyone. if you are wearing a shirt with offensive jokes on it, you are doing it to incite anger, distress and discomfort among people who see you in that shirt. if you are wearing something that reveals the area above your knee, you are doing it because you are comfortable wearing something like that. 

 

and also, why would it be anyones business if a person comes to school in a bikini? i understand it is revealing, but when guys wear tight pants and you can see the impression of their genitals, or when its cold and you can see the impression of a girls nipples, those things should not be your business. just because you see something does not make it immediately your business. 

 

what i was trying to say was you do you and don't let others stop you. of course there is still progress that needs to be done for people to actually, realistically wear whatever they want without being judged and without people being offended, but until then, why not fight to be able to show the area 10cm above your knee, or to be able to wear crop tops or sleeveless tops or whatever?

 

 

 

They are still constructed in a different way/are more developed than the ones of a male. I could take the same example with little kids on a beach. As you probably noticed yourself on holiday, the 1 y.o. have no underwear are walk around naked. That's because their organs are not developed and these kids are not looked at in a sexual way (yes, there are exceptions but let's not talk about that).

 

But the main thing, which you and I both mentioned, is today's fashion and society which oversexualises women in every way. They have less freedom when it comes to exposing their body, as (sadly) people would start using insults towards them. It is a problem in most western countries, which make women's entire body a sex symbol, and I agree with you, that is not correct. 

 

As you mentioned, women have to fight like men to be able to have their breasts revealed in public, and I personally think they have the right to fight for a change. But as long as the society and fashion doesn't stop oversexualising them, it's not going to change. 

 

The real question is, whether this is the biggest concern that women in the world have right now. There are countries where women have no right to vote, no right to get educated, no right to marry who they would like to marry. In western countries women are more free, and they might think that toplessness is now one of their bigger issues, but I personally think that there are far more severe issues that women face which need more focus than toplessness.

I'm not saying it's wrong that they're fighting against it, but I think that the problem of inequality when it comes to payment is far more severe compared to the revealing of women's breasts.

 

 

yea, kids shouldn't be looked at in a sexual way. neither should breasts. comparing children, who are generally not sexualised, to breasts which are constantly sexualised is a very different thing. also in my original post, i spoke about how sexual organs and other parts of the body, such as legs, are different things that function in different ways. that still stands with breasts. breasts and sexual organs are not the same thing and just because sexual organs are conventionally covered up, doesn't mean that breasts should be.

 

 

but being able to show your breasts is part of a much larger societal movement to stop sexualising breasts. hypothetically, if breasts didn't have sexual connotations, we would be able to go topless. because women's breasts are sexualised, we cannot go topless.

 

as i said earlier,  breasts are a characteristic of the female sex, in the way a beard is a characteristic of the male sex. As men have the choice to shave or not shave their beard, women should have the choice to expose or not expose their breasts. there's an actor called Matt Mcgorry who recently posted on instagram about freethenipples and I think his post had a lot of very significant arguments. you can read it here http://www.ew.com/article/2015/07/09/matt-mcgorry-free-nipple-photo 

 

no, this is not the biggest concern women have right now. but it does fall into a much larger range of human issues (sexualisation of females, **** shaming, victim blaming, in-proportionate number of men to women in governments, freedom of choice, freedom of expression, gender roles and expectations, female bodies being taboo, male privilege, cis privilege, censorship etc.). I know and recognise human issues that carry much more of significance and need to be worked on in a much more immediate way, and i promise if this post had been about any of the issues you mentioned and others, I would have still been on the side for fighting for those things. women being able to go topless falls under freedom of choice: the choice to go topless or not. That freedom of choice is the underlying problem under all that you listed and more--everyone should be able to chose who will represent them politically or chose who they want to marry, no doubt. To me, i think the way the media has caught onto women going topless through freethenipple and through celebrities such as miley cyrus who pioneer it is a good thing in that it shows the need for freedom of choice internationally.

 

[ibprincess]

 

 

​

Whoa! Whoa! Why the hell should you be allowed to wear whatever the *bleep* you want in a public place? (As mac117 also pointed out.) I would NOT want to go to a place where people's clothes (or a lack thereof) will cause me and my (hypothetical) children to sustain emotional/mental harm. (Don't tell me it's acceptable for children to be exposed to nudity, just don't.)

Why is it not perfectly acceptable to have a dress code in public places? The only thing I agree to is that the guidelines should be equally fair for people of both sexes. But there should always be some degree of appropriateness as per societal norms.

As for women's legs being over-sexualized, that really is an issue for society as a whole. But blatantly breaking the guidelines is not going to be the most effective way to reforms. It has been proven time and time again, that diplomacy can work, so why not take that route.

 

On a side note, I sure has hell hope you're not a feminist. Because if there's anything your posts have done, it's make me hate the way you converse with people. And till now, most of the feminists I've met have done the same. Just saying, this isn't the best way to win support for your cause (REGARDLESS of whether you're a feminist or not).

 

 

tbh the likeliness something someone is wearing will cause you to sustain any sort of harm is incredibly ridiculous lol. If you honestly think seeing the bottom half of a girls thigh will cause you harm then wow seek help buddy

 

why would i tell you it's acceptable for children to be exposed to nudity? literally why? that doesn't answer OP's question and i don't think i spoke about that in my argument so...?

 

See that thing I did earlier, like about arguing for women's rights, trying to show that women and men are equal? yeah, if you look at the definition of feminism, you will find my actions and the definition are very much in line. 

And even if you don't like how I argue something, I ask that you don't hate feminism because of me. You're more than welcome to hate me, that would totally be cool, but feminism is not a bad thing and you shouldn't hate it because of me.

[ibprincess]

 

I completely agree with the bolded part. She began with explaining how long 10cm is, presuming, for some reason, that he didn't how long that was, even though he had just made a post about that exact thing. Then being extremely sarcastic and following that up with a "this might be a hard one for you to understand, but...".

 

I'm really not a fan of people using master suppression techniques while debating.

 

 

aw dang!! you didn't like my argument?!?!? whatever am i going to do now??? I truly did write it for your satisfaction :/ what a bummer

[Emilia1320]

I think its more about that a skirt shorter than that might accidentlly expose girl's underwear, while shorts on either gender rarely expose anything they aren't supposed to unless they are extremely loose fit.

Btw. Would a boy be allowed to wear a miniskirt on your school?

Other than that, it might be just so your school saw a need to restrict girl's uniforms but not boys. This is of course outright wrong since rules should be same for everyone. However, I very rarely see boys on revealing clothes, but very often girls. So I kind of understand why your school might have restricted girls clothing. It doesn't make it right thing to do thou.

However, I don't see why it's necessary to restrict anyone's clothing, and I say this as a person who hates to look at people on revealing clothes. I find it extremely uncomfortable to look at a boy without shirt or a girl on microshorts (the type that's basically an underpants made of jean). It's not anything sexual, I just don't feel comfortable.

I don't even go swimming because of this

However. Their right to dress as they want is more important than how I feel.

[King112]

​There are doing it because they want to.

 

• they
• are
• doing
• it
• because
• they
• want
• to

no one (e.g. school/government/person) should be

On a side note, I sure has hell hope you're not a feminist. Because if there's anything your posts have done, it's make me hate the way you converse with people. And till now, most of the feminists I've met have done the same. Just saying, this isn't the best way to win support for your cause (REGARDLESS of whether you're a feminist or not).

Hey hey. Mate your way out of line. If you actually have seen ibprincess's posts, she has not been impolite. Next whether she believes in feminism or not is her choice and you have no right to bring that up. I believe in feminism as I think women have been oppressed and deserve equality. I don't think I fit your definition of being rude and stuff. Next you really need to chill a bit. Haven't you heard of chivalry? She is a girl and deserves respect so please ease off. And whether or not you believe in chivalry, all humans are entitles to their beliefs and we should respect them. So I suggest easing off a bit, OK.

Have a nice day.

King112

[kevG]

no one (e.g. school/government/person) should be

On a side note, I sure has hell hope you're not a feminist. Because if there's anything your posts have done, it's make me hate the way you converse with people. And till now, most of the feminists I've met have done the same. Just saying, this isn't the best way to win support for your cause (REGARDLESS of whether you're a feminist or not).

Hey hey. Mate your way out of line. If you actually have seen ibprincess's posts, she has not been impolite. Next whether she believes in feminism or not is her choice and you have no right to bring that up. I believe in feminism as I think women have been oppressed and deserve equality. I don't think I fit your definition of being rude and stuff. Next you really need to chill a bit. Haven't you heard of chivalry? She is a girl and deserves respect so please ease off. And whether or not you believe in chivalry, all humans are entitles to their beliefs and we should respect them. So I suggest easing off a bit, OK.

Have a nice day.

King112

 

 

if feminism is about equality then chivalry should have a mutual meaning

Edited July 22, 2015 by kfernando1

[King112]

well, do we have equality yet? No. So should we be chivalrous? yes.

 

and anyways, lets say someone spoke to your mom/sister/cousin/female friend/girlfriend by attacking her beliefs, would you like that?

 

thats what I'm saying.

[ThePotnoodleBoy]

well, do we have equality yet? No. So should we be chivalrous? yes.

 

and anyways, lets say someone spoke to your mom/sister/cousin/female friend/girlfriend by attacking her beliefs, would you like that?

 

thats what I'm saying.

I believe we should be chivalrous, everyone should. Even if it is holding the door open for a lady or telling your friends to have a nice day. My opinion.

[kevG]

truth be told

i wouldnt like it if someone attacked anyone close to me of either sex, not only female