I love feminism but can someone explain why girls get so offended by the dress code? The “I’m wearing these shorts because I’m hot” argument makes no sense. Guys literally go to school wearing jeans in 100 degree weather. Girls wear MUCH less clothing than men, and get offended because they can’t wear less? Maybe I’m looking at this wrong, my ask box is open if you’d like to give me a different perspective but I don’t get it.
#i want to support feminism, #but some stuff doesn’t make sense to me, #so it makes it hard to support everything, #but heck yeah, #female rights, #all the way, #just don’t see how a dress code violates that.
There is no reason to so heavily police girls’ clothing and specifically target them in school. The entire point of attending class is to get an education - Many excessive dress codes are preventing girls from getting that, all while sending them harmful messages about their bodies.
Arguments in favor of a dress code often use terms like “distraction,” “inappropriate” and “modesty.” All of these are ways of sexualizing girls’ bodies and claiming that girls’ bodies are inherently offensive. Because yes - Many dress codes target girls. It isn’t that girls’ clothing coincidentally happens to be more offensive or inappropriate for school - Girls’ clothing repeatedly comes under fire while boys are often free to wear the exact same thing, or worse.
When you take a girl out of class because her clothing is distracting boys, you are telling the students several things:
- Her education is less important than a boy’s education. It is perfectly acceptable to remove her from a classroom and stop her from learning, yet it is simultaneously unacceptable for a boy to be even slightly inattentive to the lesson going on. If he isn’t learning, the school thinks that the proper solution is to ensure that she isn’t learning instead.
- She is responsible for how boys behave. It is her fault that another person is failing to give their full attention to schoolwork. Even if she is passively sitting by herself and has not engaged any other students, her simple presence is blamed for any poor behavior that another student is exhibiting. (By extension: The boy is learning that he isn’t responsible for his own behavior and education. It’s not his fault if he spends all class staring at a girl. She’s the one who’s guilty, not him. He gets off scot-free and learns that it’s not only okay to objectify women, but it’s outright expected of him.)
- Bodies are inherently sexual. Bodies are inherently offensive. Even something as neutral as a girl’s shoulder is a dirty sight that needs to be hidden from view at all times. A girl may have no intentions of being sexy, she may not be acting in a sexual manner, she may not be engaged in sex of any kind, but if another person is somehow attracted to her visible body parts - That means her body is far too sexual and needs to be hidden away. It is her body that’s the problem, not the way that others are treating it. (**Remember that a secondary sex characteristic is not the same thing as a sex organ. A cis girl’s cleavage is more closely related to a cis boy’s Adam’s apple than to his penis. Wearing a tight shirt is not the same thing as flipping your dick out, so let’s not even get into that discussion.)
This is not acceptable. It’s insulting & harmful to everyone involved, both girls and boys.
And I hate to even get into the weather. You know that people dress for the weather. I don’t understand how that could possibly be debated. People wear clothing suitable for their needs, that makes them comfortable depending on the current temperature and weather - So you know that some girls wear pants during the summer, right? Lots of women like pants too. But would you use that argument as a way to prove that guys shouldn’t be allowed to wear shorts? Probably not: Just because some people choose to dress in a certain style does not mean that clothing would always be appropriate for everyone else. Boys wearing shorts in the snow wouldn’t mean that everyone should inherently lose the right to wear extra layers when they are cold. So when it’s warm out, I see no reason why all students should risk getting heat exhaustion just because some are comfortable wearing pants.
If you honestly don’t understand why women are upset when their bodily autonomy is restricted, their access to education decreases, their health is endangered, they are sexualized and they’re told that their bodies are inherently offensive - I can’t help you. These are basic issues in feminism.
If you want to read up on this issue more, here are some good starts:
- Dress Codes or How Schools Skirt Around Sexism and Homophobia
- Does slut-shaming start with school dress codes?
- My daughter was dress coded for wearing shorts
- The Problem with Dress Codes
- Is Your Dress Code Sexist?
- Feminist Dress Code
- Sexes not treated equally with Utah school dress codes
*Note that both my post here and these linked articles do not state that dress codes should be 100% eliminated. Especially in environments that cater to minors, it’s important to maintain safe and healthy communities where students can flourish. However, as many dress codes currently exist, they are excessively restricting girls’ rights and teaching the students harmful lessons about their bodies. Dress codes need to be edited and fixed before they can be part of a productive school policy.
>teenage actress’s private nudes get leaked
>teenage actress is reviled as a slut and a whore and a bad role model
>james franco asks a seventeen-year-old girl if he can meet her in a private hotel room
>james franco gets to go on saturday night live and joke about what a silly doofus he is for soliciting sex from a girl literally half his age
DO NOT DARE OVERLOOK THIS POST
I think the reason that lots of people think Steven Moffat’s version of Doctor Who is sexist is because it repeatedly acts and sounds sexist. It may be that Moffat consciously tries to craft his Who as feminist or pro-feminist. If so, I don’t think there’s any better illustration of the crucial point that, in a sexist society, however much of an ‘ally’ you may be, if you’re a man then you still enjoy male privilege, and probably don’t realise it half the time.
The Doctor describes Clara as “a mystery wrapped in an enigma squeezed into a skirt that’s just a little bit too tight”. The Doctor describes Marilyn Monroe as though she really was nothing more than the stereotypical ‘man crazy’ ditz she played in some of her movies. Rory likens being married to Amy to being trapped inside a giant robot duplicate of her. We get dialogue like “Why did she try to kill you and then want to marry you?” “Because she’s a woman”. Osgood, a scientist, is shown to be secretly obsessed with jealousy towards her prettier sister. A Dalek develops a female alter-ego, and she spends her time cooking.
In Moffat’s show, women are overwhelmingly defined by their traditional gender roles or bodily functions. It doesn’t matter that their excellence in these gender roles is praised by show and lead character. It doesn’t matter that we’re supposed to be impressed by the virtuosity with which River tricks people using her feminine wiles. It doesn’t change anything that the Doctor goes into rhapsodies about the wonders of motherhood. That isn’t liberating; it’s still the mapping of male, patriarchal conceptions of female value onto female characters.
River exists entirely because of the Doctor. Who the hell is River? She is an assemblage of gender essentialist tropes and wisecracks. When does she ever – beyond, arguably, her first appearance – behave like an academic or a scientist? When does she ever display anything resembling erudition or intellectual curiosity? When does she ever do or say anything to show or engender love? Admittedly, the Doctor seems to be sexually aroused by the way she shoots people… which is just charming. In ‘Let’s Kill Hitler’, she is incarnated as Mels, a character we’ve never seen or heard of before, and plonked unceremoniously into the story out of sheer, brazen convenience. She stalks Amy and Rory (her unwitting mother and father) for years, pretending to be their friend, all because of her pre-programmed monomaniacal desire to get to the Doctor. She regenerates while “concentrating on a dress size”. She spends the rest of the episode obsessing over her hair, clothes, shoes and weight. River’s instability is finally conquered by the love of a good man. This seems intensely hostile and patronising. If that isn’t what was aimed at, then somebody is a very bad shot.
It doesn’t matter that River is ‘powerful’. Fetishizing ‘power’ in women characters – having them kicking ass and always being ready with a putdown - isn’t the same as writing them as human beings.”
[…]The reason I feel ill when the Doctor snogs River’s ghost at the end of ‘Name of the Doctor’ is not that I hate emotion in Who, or that I want – because I’m a sexually and emotionally repressed nerd or something – Doctor Who to be emotionless. Rather, the opposite of this is the truth. The reason I feel ill at moments like that is rather that I hate fake emotion, cheap emotion, unearned emotion. Commodified emotion. Packaged, marketed, profitable, sugary, junk emotion. Sentimentality, in other words.Sentimentality is disgusting because it’s not fundamentally about other people, or relationships. It’s about oneself. It’s self-regarding, self-comforting, self-pleasing. It isn’t social. It’s narcissistic. This is precisely what is so horribly wrong with all those Moffatian emotional tornadoes. How can they be touching when the characters and relationships are so shallow? When we’re watching narcissists adoring their own reflections in their partner’s eyes?[…]I don’t like having to hate this show. I want to love it.
If you think a woman in a tan vinyl bra and underwear, grabbing her crotch and grinding up on a dance partner is raunchy, trashy, and offensive but you don’t think her dance partner is raunchy, trashy, or offensive as he sings a song about “blurred” lines of consent and propagating rape culture, then you may want to reevaluate your acceptance of double standards and your belief in stereotypes about how men vs. women “should” and are “allowed” to behave.