High school girl sent to office and told to put band aids on her nipples

[cabanafrau]

Yes, but what I was talking about was almost 40 years ago. And trust me, I has some words with my parents about sending us to a school like that.

As a mother of college and post college aged children I'm referring to a similar timeframe, in other words comparing apples to apples.

 

[soccerdad72]

I acutally do think it's a crazy rule. What's wrong with a beard? I'm not a guy and my son is still little, so maybe I'm missing some rationale, but why do schools have rules against facial hair? (Obviously in a parochial school they can have any rules they want, but I'm trying to understand the logic.)

Like others have said, I think it just is an attempt to have students looking neat and 'proper'. And some of it is pretty archaic, to be honest.

 

[luvsJack]

You cannot even see the bias in your own daughter's wrestling league. Per your own words the gear of the female wrestlers is designed "to make you think you see more than you actually do". When I repeatedly asked you whether the male gear was designed with that thought you started dancing, suddenly feeling a desire to mix your daughter's league with WWE, which you had previously specifically wished to delineate as different from your daughter's league in apparel. Then you felt compelled to school me in the fact that male gear is very tight and form fitting, thereby showing a lot. That is a function of necessity with wrestling attire, NOT a desire to make anybody think they're seeing more than they truly are. Then I got the example of male wrestlers who are topless, which of course female wrestlers never are.

Why is it that the female wrestling attire is designed to make anybody think they see more than they actually do? The question is for you. I'm already well aware of the answer. The fact you refuse to acknowledge it doesn't make me inclined to accept your viewpoint on bias or lack of in school dress codes.

Oh dear gussy. She wears what SHE chooses as do all the women. No one is telling them what to wear. You are looking for something that is not there. THEY design their own gear. . DD went to the lady who made the gear. She showed her pictures of what she wanted and told her what she wanted to add/take away. Other than telling them to have actual gear (not wear sweats or a costume) and boots, no one tells them what they need to do. You stated that she probably wears provocative clothing for wrestling, my response to you was that it isn't what it seems.

I wasn't mixing anything. Pro Wrestling is pro wrestling. There isn't some special gear for the WWE that doesn't exist for the indies. They pay more for their gear, for the most part but its not any different. In fact, several of the wrestlers that dd has worked with had their gear made by the guy that makes gear for a lot of the WWE people and for the movie "The Wrestler". Sooo, no difference.

There is no reason for the guys to "look like you are seeing more than you are" because you are pretty much ACTUALLY seeing it. The women have to wear tight clothing for the same reason the guys do. DD's is shorts and the do seem short but she has bent over the ring and around the ring in every possible way and they stay put. They look very short but are designed to fit around her leg so they don't move up at all. Her top is not low in the least. It does show her stomach. Some do wear lower cut tops. Some do not. Some wear tops that have the skin colored material so that it looks low cut but really is not. The only real difference between the WWE and the indies is the women wear panty hose in the WWE.

I am sorry you feel there must be some conspiracy but I can assure you there is not. Since she is half owner of one company, and very well looked after by 2 others, no bias exists.

 

[Lilsia]

As a mother of college and post college aged children I'm referring to a similar timeframe, in other words comparing apples to apples.

I wish the school they sent us to was better. We literally had some of the student's moms teach some years instead of a certified teacher. Which should have been illegal but was not at the time.

 

[luvsJack]

I wish the school they sent us to was better. We literally had some of the student's moms teach some years instead of a certified teacher. Which should have been illegal but was not at the time.

There are still schools that do that. We have a church school right next door. They are not accredited and their students either have to have a Home School transcript or get a GED to go to college. They hire their staff from the members of the church. Even asked DS to coach for them. (he isn't a member of that church but some of the deacons know him) He was a college student at the time. He said no. He would have loved to coach but they wanted him to teach history too.

 

[Colleen27]

But otoh, imo, we all comply with rules, laws, society norms, the norms of our peers, etc. Some of you live in places where the number of cars in your driveway is limited or you can’t cut down a tree making a mess in your yard or there is a rule about your garbage can. You are complying. Why are any of you so against your teens learning that sometimes you do just have to comply with rules?

There is a fundamental difference between rules you choose to subject yourself to and rules you have no ability to avoid or challenge. School dress codes are the latter - students seldom choose their own educational setting, and have little to no voice in how the rules are made or whether they should be changed. That isn't the same as choosing to live in a community with a HOA or strict city codes, and even in those situations there is usually some avenue for residents to have a voice in the rule-making and enforcement process. That's the same reason I think the "prepare them for the real world" argument about dress codes falls flat - because in the "real world", people choose their field of study and their career path and can, if they value it highly enough, prioritize paths compatible with the choices they make for their appearance. Because students have no comparable freedom, and because youth is a time for exploring identities, dress codes should be as minimal and non-intrusive as possible. There are good reasons for some elements of dress code - ie, no gang colors in a community with gang issues, because that's a rule that exists to protect student safety - but beyond that, students should be free to wear what they choose.

 

[jaybirdsmommy]

There are still schools that do that. We have a church school right next door. They are not accredited and their students either have to have a Home School transcript or get a GED to go to college. They hire their staff from the members of the church. Even asked DS to coach for them. (he isn't a member of that church but some of the deacons know him) He was a college student at the time. He said no. He would have loved to coach but they wanted him to teach history too.

My son's school is like this - it's a glorified home school with classrooms and teachers. It actually started as a homeschooling group to help parents with subjects they weren't comfortable in their ability to teach and then morphed into an actual school.

He will only be there for elementary school and possibly through 7th grade as that's all they offer at this point. I'm sure that if they decide to offer grades beyond that they will have to address the accreditation issue somehow. However, I will say that the folks they have teaching there are amazing, even without teaching certificates. He's repeating first grade at this school after failing at public school last year - his reading is unbelievable, his handwriting is better than mine, their art teacher is brilliant, math, grammar, all taught at a much higher level than what the public school offered (not that our public schools are bad, they are actually really really good, they just weren't able to teach him in the way he needed to be taught). So, not all schools like this are bad. It really does depend on how dedicated they are to providing a good quality education vs just religious instruction.

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

Oh dear gussy. She wears what SHE chooses as do all the women. No one is telling them what to wear. You are looking for something that is not there.

 

[cabanafrau]

Is the gear for the males designed to make you think you're seeing more than you are?

I specifically didn't want to upset anybody and twist your words, so I most specifically used yours exactly in my question -- which you demonstrably did not answer directly. Is the gear for the males designed to "make you think you're seeing more than you are", which you distinctly said is the case for younger women?

You are swapping back and forth between pro and indy, which is not what your original statement and my question stemmed from. You specifically stated in relation to your daughter's gear, gear worn by women in her league, that women's gear is designed to make you think you're seeing more than you are.

I now have enough information to formulate my opinion based on the means you chose to respond. Maybe now I might mention that for a time in HS I served as a statistician for the wrestling team and therefore have an understanding of the form and function needed for a wrestling uniform. (Perhaps watching the first season of GLOW on Netflix might have given me some more info. as well.)

Oh dear gussy. She wears what SHE chooses as do all the women. No one is telling them what to wear. You are looking for something that is not there. THEY design their own gear. . DD went to the lady who made the gear. She showed her pictures of what she wanted and told her what she wanted to add/take away. Other than telling them to have actual gear (not wear sweats or a costume) and boots, no one tells them what they need to do. You stated that she probably wears provocative clothing for wrestling, my response to you was that it isn't what it seems.

I wasn't mixing anything. Pro Wrestling is pro wrestling. There isn't some special gear for the WWE that doesn't exist for the indies. They pay more for their gear, for the most part but its not any different. In fact, several of the wrestlers that dd has worked with had their gear made by the guy that makes gear for a lot of the WWE people and for the movie "The Wrestler". Sooo, no difference.

There is no reason for the guys to "look like you are seeing more than you are" because you are pretty much ACTUALLY seeing it. The women have to wear tight clothing for the same reason the guys do. DD's is shorts and the do seem short but she has bent over the ring and around the ring in every possible way and they stay put. They look very short but are designed to fit around her leg so they don't move up at all. Her top is not low in the least. It does show her stomach. Some do wear lower cut tops. Some do not. Some wear tops that have the skin colored material so that it looks low cut but really is not. The only real difference between the WWE and the indies is the women wear panty hose in the WWE.

I am sorry you feel there must be some conspiracy but I can assure you there is not. Since she is half owner of one company, and very well looked after by 2 others, no bias exists.

Perhaps you are confused? I absolutely did not say or speculate about your daughter's wrestling gear -- I specifically took your own words about it and raised the question brought about by your own statement that the clothing for the females is "designed to make you think you see more than you actually do". You brought the entire topic of your daughter's attire into the conversation, not me. It was your statement and yours alone about the thought process behind what the female wrestlers wear -- an unsolicited comment BTW. It's all still there if you care to go back and read if you think I'm being misleading with what I've quoted here.

Judging by your ire beginning this last response to me, you might have been a bit too wound up to realize that you once again failed to address why it would be that the female gear would be specifically designed with the thought you told us it is? The fact that you singled out female attire specifically seems to indicate that the same doesn't hold true for what the males wear. Do you have any thoughts why it would be done particularly for females and not males?

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I'm going to guess there's a lot of overlap between the anti-school-dress code and anti-home owners association posters (and vice versa for pro-HOA and pro-strict dress code posters)
For me, I'd hate to live somewhere with a limit on the number of cars in my driveway, and I have no problem if the neighbors leave the garbage can out for an extra day. And I think the school was soooo far off base and totally inappropriate in handling this poor girl.

I think that personally would show more the extremes but they are also somewhat different.

But a large portion of people in general just want balance in both cases. They don't want an overzealous school board nor do they want an overzealous HOA board. They are fine with some rules for dress codes and some rules for HOAs.

You'll also have people who don't care about dress codes but care about HOAs (perhaps due to their area) and people who do care about dress codes but don't care about HOAs.

I'm fine with dress codes in general so long as they don't go overzealous. I am not ok with what happened in the OP. I live in an HOA neighborhood and am quite fine with that. But I would not be ok if my HOA turned into the ones you see in the media.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Judging from the bolded, I’m going to guess that you are white and truly do not understand implicit bias. Please go watch the Starbucks video and read their response to it. Even they are recognizing it and feeling shame for it. This thread has been mostly about the bias toward girls but many codes definitely extend to racial bias as well.

Implicit bias is real and I’m proud to care about it.

Seriously..if this thread is going to devolve into a race thing I'm out.

 

[jiminyC_fan]

I thought that's what I was doing here...

I have. I PERSONALLY (JMO) think it is mostly ridiculous in this day and age -- feels like looking for things to be upset about -- TO ME. I now understand better from this thread that there really are some people who take that idea to heart.

I spend a good deal of my time and charitable contributions working for an urban NPO that serves homeless and low-income women. I do not need an education on implicit bias.

I disagree wholeheartedly with your characterization of dress codes as implicitly biased today. I certainly believe that it is possible that SOME still exist that are biased. I do not believe from the bit of research I've done that this is at all the general case.

We don't agree. That does not mean that one of us must be ignorant -- it may well be that we just have a difference of opinion. That's still ok today, right?

 

[luvsJack]

Perhaps you are confused? I absolutely did not say or speculate about your daughter's wrestling gear -- I specifically took your own words about it and raised the question brought about by your own statement that the clothing for the females is "designed to make you think you see more than you actually do". You brought the entire topic of your daughter's attire into the conversation, not me. It was your statement and yours alone about the thought process behind what the female wrestlers wear -- an unsolicited comment BTW. It's all still there if you care to go back and read if you think I'm being misleading with what I've quoted here.

Judging by your ire beginning this last response to me, you might have been a bit too wound up to realize that you once again failed to address why it would be that the female gear would be specifically designed with the thought you told us it is? The fact that you singled out female attire specifically seems to indicate that the same doesn't hold true for what the males wear. Do you have any thoughts why it would be done particularly for females and not males?

LOL I am not confused and I am not angry. The "dear gussy" was the exasperation of trying to explain something to someone who is refusing to understand. Your experience in collegiate wrestling isn't even on the same planet as what they do.

I did say that it is designed that way. DD's is designed that way. What I am telling you is no one makes them have it made that way. No one has a rule that says it must look that way. No one is dictating to them what to wear. THEY are deciding how they want to look and THEY are designing it. There are no dress codes (which is what we are talking about, no?) You are saying there is bias. How can there be when THEY are making the decision? They are biased against themselves?

Some wear long pants and with a top that really doesn't even show their stomach. There is no conspiracy to make these women show their bodies. They have to wear stuff that is easy to move in.

I never said they are expected to make it appear they are covered less than they are. That is what you are driving at and its not the truth. DD's is professionally made, that's why I referred to her's and to give you an idea of what I meant. If I refer to a female in the WWE, you are going to say I am switching back and forth (even though there is actually no difference in the gear).

There is not some big wrestling entity that is designing their gear and making the girls look more revealing than the guys (although i laugh when I say that because I realize most of the guys look like they are walking around in their underwear). For them to get gear they buy the material, go to the seamstress and tell her/him what they want. THEY decide, no one else.



You want to know why? Why what? Why is not as revealing as it looks? I explained that. Why is made to look revealing? It is part of the show. Same reason a dancer's costume is made the way it is or a skater's. BUT its not just the females. Its the guys too. So tell me what you are fishing for and I will let you know if it exists.


Maybe what you are fishing for is why is it ok for the men to show as much as they do but not the women?

Because the shows would get shut down if the women had on what basically amounts to a bikini bottom (not what they wear now but in comparison to men's trunks) and no top. Or less. These are family shows.

 

[sk!mom]

Like others have said, I think it just is an attempt to have students looking neat and 'proper'. And some of it is pretty archaic, to be honest.

Neat and proper by a biased standard that in no way impacts their education. And archaic for sure.

Seriously..if this thread is going to devolve into a race thing I'm out.

This thread has morphed into so much more than the issue that started it. But as a broader problem with dress codes, I’ll point out that many are racially biased because they are requiring a basically white middle class standard of “neat and proper.”

I really can’t imagine why that is so offensive to you.

 

[soccerdad72]

Neat and proper by a biased standard that in no way impacts their education. And archaic for sure.

Yeah, well we're Catholic - not exactly a bastion of progressiveness.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

This thread has morphed into so much more than the issue that started it. But as a broader problem with dress codes, I’ll point out that many are racially biased because they are requiring a basically white middle class standard of “neat and proper.”

I really can’t imagine why that is so offensive to you.

1) I'm not offended by your comments I think it's ridiculous to turn this into a race thing.
2) The thread has changed and moved through different topics but has not turned into a race thing..until you said it.
3) If you feel so strongly on this either PM the poster privately or create a new thread- "are dress codes based on race"

 

[sk!mom]

1) I'm not offended by your comments I think it's ridiculous to turn this into a race thing.
2) The thread has changed and moved through different topics but has not turned into a race thing..until you said it.
3) If you feel so strongly on this either PM the poster privately or create a new thread- "are dress codes based on race"

Just as you are free to exit the thread. I am free to comment as I see fit. I’ve avoided the wrestling attire spin off as I have nothing to add there. Feel free to do the same.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Just as you are free to exit the thread. I am free to comment as I see fit. I’ve avoided the wrestling attire spin off as I have nothing to add there. Feel free to do the same.

lol instead of owning up to it you blow it off. Ok. There is a difference between talking about wrestling attire as a tangent and saying "you must be white you've got not idea what bias really is" (paraphrase here) hopefully you can see that. If you want to go the race route take it to PM or make a new thread--seemed to be a relatively reasonable request.

Ok back to your regularly scheduled dress code programming

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

lol instead of owning up to it you blow it off. Ok. There is a difference between talking about wrestling attire as a tangent and saying "you must be white you've got not idea what bias really is" (paraphrase here) hopefully you can see that. If you want to go the race route take it to PM or make a new thread--seemed to be a relatively reasonable request.

Ok back to your regularly scheduled dress code programming

And as the person that post was addressed to, please no PM.

 

[kaytieeldr]

I can read dress codes that my kids and/or grandkids have to abide by and know where there is a bias. There isn't. When both genders are either told the same things or both have things that one can do and the other not, I do not feel there is an inequality. There is a difference but not bias.

In soccerdad's experience, aka his kids' school dress code, boys can't have dyed hair period. Girls can't have hair dyed unusual colors.

That's bias.

LOL I am not confused and I am not angry. The "dear gussy" was the exasperation of trying to explain something to someone who is refusing to understand. Your experience in collegiate wrestling isn't even on the same planet as what they do.

Because collegiate wrestling is a sport while professional wrestling is rehearsed entertainment?