Shorts policy is slut shaming.

[rugbywife]

gawker.com/this-teen-girls-short-shorts-launched-a-protest-against-1584801191?utm_campaign=socialflow_gawker_facebook&utm_source=gawker_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

I hope the link works. I am on my phone, can't copy the whole article. My high school in Montreal (I was there for 7 and half of 8) made it into Gawker because of their policy regarding the length of shorts/skirts. A student was suspended and says the policy is slut shaming.

I hadn't actually considered the argument from that perspective before, although I still cringe at the length of the shorts when there is no policy. Our high schools have no required length and some of the shorts are so tiny. But I do get her point.

[rugbywife]

I should add, the admin dealt with it extremely poorly.

[AAM2012]

Eh......While I don't think anyone should ever be embarrassed in front of their classmates I have no problem with the rule. I feel students should get used to "dress code" standards as they're typically required in the workforce once they graduate. Maybe a better rule would be a XX inches long versus finger tips?

[darthnbjenni]

She's lucky it's fingertip length. Ours is 3" above the knee and it's a lot hotter here in SC (though the a/c makes the building 60 degrees so no one really wants to wear shorts anyway). It seems, from the school's response, this isn't her first time bucking against the rules. Still - you write the kid a pass to administration and let them deal with it - not right in front of your class.

[ttt]

These are the people who grow up to wear clubbing outfits to the office and then get offended and scream sexual harassment when told to wear something more professional.

And yeah its hot outside. But shorts that are four inches longer are not going to make you much hotter. I doubt any boys at that school are wearing booty shorts to stay cool. If it's that hot maybe you need to wear something that's not so tight.

[ttt]

Also if it's that hot maybe you shouldn't be wearing a sweater!

How hot does it even get in Montreal???

[Deleted]

I hate shorts policies, mostly because one size doesn't fit all. If you are a particularly leggy tween finding shorts 2" above the knee can be hard and ones that reach your finger tips may still be 6" above the knee.

Too bad "sense of the appropriate" is so subjective because that's really what's needed.

[rugbywife]

Jun 3, 2014 5:48:02 GMT -5 ttt said:

Also if it's that hot maybe you shouldn't be wearing a sweater!

How hot does it even get in Montreal???

It can get to the early 90s with humidity at this point in the year.

[rugbywife]

We used to do inseam (10cm - so 4 inches) with kids (grades 6-8) but the issue is that fingertips is way easier to eyeball than 4 inches…

[Deleted]

All students, but in practice, just girls. Between the policy itself and the implementation, yeah, I'm on team stop slut shaming girls. Because I've noticed boys never get the same kind of scrutiny.

Just look at the school's response. It's not a matter of looking professional or wearing appropriate clothing for the environment. For most schools, it's the idea that boys and male teachers look. Therefore girls are responsible for wearing clothes that keep boys from looking (good luck.)

It's shitty.

[rugbywife]

Jun 3, 2014 6:14:24 GMT -5 @helenabonhamcarter said:

All students, but in practice, just girls. Between the policy itself and the implementation, yeah, I'm on team stop slut shaming girls. Because I've noticed boys never get the same kind of scrutiny.

Just look at the school's response. It's not a matter of looking professional or wearing appropriate clothing for the environment. For most schools, it's the idea that boys and male teachers look. Therefore girls are responsible for wearing clothes that keep boys from looking (good luck.)

It's shitty.

I get this except they don't wear short shorts!  Our policy for boys was always no muscle shirts and no inappropriate images/sayings on shirts (that was for all students)…and no hats (all students)….the muscle shirts and sayings weren't an issue but the boys hated no hats...

I do agree with your 2nd paragraph…I WANT to be able to say that the rules are entirely about 'what's appropriate for school' but I know in reality it becomes about 'the shorts distract the boys, etc…'.

[ringstrue]

It's hard to tell what went down. *Obey the rules, you don't have to understand why, it's the dress code, the end* is fine. Two male VPs confronting a female about dress I front of the class = not ok. I dunno that I'd outright call it "slut shaming" but it's intimidation and humiliation and shame none the less.

If the VPs, or any teacher, even once, say its in anyway a "distraction" yes that is slut shaming. If they say it's for appropriate school attire, not slut shaming.

Are those hipster shorts?

[Deleted]

Jun 3, 2014 6:21:19 GMT -5 rugbywife said:

I get this except they don't wear short shorts!  Our policy for boys was always no muscle shirts and no inappropriate images/sayings on shirts (that was for all students)…and no hats (all students)….the muscle shirts and sayings weren't an issue but the boys hated no hats...

I do agree with your 2nd paragraph…I WANT to be able to say that the rules are entirely about 'what's appropriate for school' but I know in reality it becomes about 'the shorts distract the boys, etc…'.

But the boys don't get the same scrutiny for any part of their uniform. Unless it's flagrant, it's often ignored. So if your pants are too tight or too short, boys usually get away with it. The idea is that welp, they've outgrown them so whatever. Meanwhile, girls who are outgrowing their clothes as well are presumed to be hussies who best change before they tempt the boys with the skanky clothing.

This is especially true with uniforms. My son's pants were too tight and a bit too short the last month of school. But with a month left, I wasn't buying new ones. I would bet large sums of money most child's uniforms fit similarly but it was only the girls who were being sent to the office and embarrassed over it.

Too tight for boys is meh, if anyone even notices. Too tight for girls equals a siren call for boys to stare at their bodies and must be stopped.

[rugbywife]

Jun 3, 2014 6:32:42 GMT -5 @helenabonhamcarter said:

Jun 3, 2014 6:21:19 GMT -5 rugbywife said:

I get this except they don't wear short shorts!  Our policy for boys was always no muscle shirts and no inappropriate images/sayings on shirts (that was for all students)…and no hats (all students)….the muscle shirts and sayings weren't an issue but the boys hated no hats...

I do agree with your 2nd paragraph…I WANT to be able to say that the rules are entirely about 'what's appropriate for school' but I know in reality it becomes about 'the shorts distract the boys, etc…'.

But the boys don't get the same scrutiny for any part of their uniform. Unless it's flagrant, it's often ignored. So if your pants are too tight or too short, boys usually get away with it. The idea is that welp, they've outgrown them so whatever. Meanwhile, girls who are outgrowing their clothes as well are presumed to be hussies who best change before they tempt the boys with the skanky clothing.

This is especially true with uniforms. My son's pants were too tight and a bit too short the last month of school. But with a month left, I wasn't buying new ones. I would bet large sums of money most child's uniforms fit similarly but it was only the girls who were being sent to the office and embarrassed over it.

Too tight for boys is meh, if anyone even notices. Too tight for girls equals a siren call for boys to stare at their bodies and must be stopped.

hmm, I could see that I suppose…I never really considered the tightness of clothes since it was never an aspect of our policy. The girls wore super tight skinny jeans…as did some of the boys, I never really considered it.

But, I see your point that when girls dress a certain way they are seen as skanky - that isn't the case, ever, for boys.

Also, Proboards autocorrects skanky to swanky. Um, no.

[Deleted]

But that's how skirts get too short. Yes, some girls are wearing short things for funsies but many girls wear them because that's what's in the stores or it used to be longer but not it isn't.

[pixy0stix]

I'm pro-team rules. As I said in the last iteration of this thread, boobs and ass ARE distracting to me even though I'm female. Cover it up when you're in school. This would go for the guys if their pants slip to show ass-crack, or if they were wearing the 70s-80s short shorts.

[lys]

Our codes requires clothing not to be "distracting"

[ttt]

Jun 3, 2014 6:09:32 GMT -5 rugbywife said:

Jun 3, 2014 5:48:02 GMT -5 ttt said:

Also if it's that hot maybe you shouldn't be wearing a sweater!

How hot does it even get in Montreal???

It can get to the early 90s with humidity at this point in the year.

So definitely too hot for that huge sweater she's wearing. 

[rugbywife]

Jun 3, 2014 7:55:46 GMT -5 ttt said:

Jun 3, 2014 6:09:32 GMT -5 rugbywife said:

It can get to the early 90s with humidity at this point in the year.

So definitely too hot for that huge sweater she's wearing. 

but it's kewl.

[eddy]

Can I ask for some advice? So I conduct an orientation session for future doctors on a clinical rotation. I am having a hard time addressing the clothing thing without coming off as slut shaming. The fact of the matter it is women I hear complaints about from our sites. Think sheer blouses with visible bras, way to short skirts etc. This is obviously a professionalism issue and I want them to learn it now.

So I talk about dressing conservative because they want to be taken seriously. Also there is obviously a dress code issued by the college and we go over that. I normally just use vague examples that are not gender specific. Good enough? Or should I say don't wear skirts that show your coochie. I struggle with this.

You would think this is stuff I wouldn't have to talk about with students who are smart enough to be doctors but sadly there is always a handful of incidents a year.

Also, then I think maybe this is secret slut shaming because would I hear about a guy if he was equally inappropriately dressed? Probably not

[ttt]

So what exactly is the definition of "slut shaming"?

[frog]

While I think the admin handled this poorly, she did break the rules and she knew it. Her post about teaching boys that girls aren't sexual objects is a valid one, but she's in a school, aka professional environment. Her sign posting rings of less of a social protest and more of a tantrum.

Also, besides the point, but that's an outfit that expired in the early 90s.

[Michelle]

Jun 3, 2014 7:35:21 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

I'm pro-team rules. As I said in the last iteration of this thread, boobs and ass ARE distracting to me even though I'm female. Cover it up when you're in school. This would go for the guys if their pants slip to show ass-crack, or if they were wearing the 70s-80s short shorts.

Lol if a guy wanted to wear 70s running shorts i would not be able to think straight. My grandpa took us fishing when i was a kid and i fell in the canoe at just the right angle to look up and see his grandpa balls inside the loose leg of the shorts.

i am still traumatized 30 yrs later.

Every time i see that style of shorts i see grandpa balls ::shudder::

[Michelle]

We would slut shame this guy for his shorts too, right? 

[ttt]

Jun 3, 2014 8:51:37 GMT -5 Michelle said:

We would slut shame this guy for his shorts too, right? 

I'm going to call this basic human decency shaming.

[pixy0stix]

Fuck michellebelle. Where's the eye bleach?

[IIOY]

PARTY FOUL MICHELLEBELLE

[doobeedoo]

Jun 3, 2014 6:48:36 GMT -5 rugbywife said:

Jun 3, 2014 6:32:42 GMT -5 @helenabonhamcarter said:

But the boys don't get the same scrutiny for any part of their uniform. Unless it's flagrant, it's often ignored. So if your pants are too tight or too short, boys usually get away with it. The idea is that welp, they've outgrown them so whatever. Meanwhile, girls who are outgrowing their clothes as well are presumed to be hussies who best change before they tempt the boys with the skanky clothing.

This is especially true with uniforms. My son's pants were too tight and a bit too short the last month of school. But with a month left, I wasn't buying new ones. I would bet large sums of money most child's uniforms fit similarly but it was only the girls who were being sent to the office and embarrassed over it.

Too tight for boys is meh, if anyone even notices. Too tight for girls equals a siren call for boys to stare at their bodies and must be stopped.

hmm, I could see that I suppose…I never really considered the tightness of clothes since it was never an aspect of our policy. The girls wore super tight skinny jeans…as did some of the boys, I never really considered it.

But, I see your point that when girls dress a certain way they are seen as skanky - that isn't the case, ever, for boys.

Also, Proboards autocorrects skanky to swanky. Um, no.

I don't know about that.  What about skinny jeans on um...well...endowed men?  It's man-skanky, IMO, not to mention terribly distracting in a bad way.  I was at a convention and there was a guy there in skinny, bright green "dress pants".   By definition, it met a dress code of sorts--long sleeved business shirt, blazer, pants..check, check, check.  But the pants must have been a size 2P from Ann Taylor and you didn't have to use your imagination to know what his naughty bits looked like.  Maybe this is not an issue for boys, at least I hope not, but still...

[PinkSquirrel]

Steven Colpitts, director of the school board that covers Stocker's district, told Canada's Global News that calling students out for the dress code is a "learning situation," not for administrators, but for kids.



"It needs to be clear that this is always an opportunity for the school to make it a learning situation for the students," he said. "To sensitize them about hypersexualization, which is often a topic that is discussed and the students are well aware of."



"She should have known better than wearing those shorts," he added.

The director of the school board is saying calling people out on dress code infractions teaches them about hypersexualization.  FUCK. NO.   Everything about that reads "teach girls not to distract the menfolk with their skin" because you know it's only a "learning situation" for the girl being called out for showing too much skin.

[Deleted]

I think the VP handled it poorly, but I don't see this as slut shaming--they have rules, she broke them. The only way it would be shaming is if there were another kid in the class wearing something similar and nothing was said.
And I don't know how shorts 1" longer or shorter are going to make that much difference in how hot you are--especially if you're wearing a stupid sweatshirt on top.