Society/Culture Feminism part 1 - continued in part 2

[cartwright]

Thought most of the pictures in the buzz feed link I looked at suggest that dress codes in America are old-fashioned.

... and felt the need to sexualise kids who wore yoga pants & skirts that aren't to the ankles... except one was given detention for wearing a maxi dress... weird.

 

[Theseventhhamster]

Hooray for yoga pants.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Thought most of the pictures in the buzz feed link I looked at suggest that dress codes in America are old-fashioned.

Old fashioned/modest = sexist? I dont make that link like these girls obviously do.

Some of the examples.

Open backed dress, crop top, these are things that guys arent allowed to wear either.

 

[Illinois Nazi]

Perhaps, but we can't know whether they panicked or considered it carefully-given its not that easy to just sack someone, and given that we hope people in charge of companies are smart and measured, am going to assume that a panic reaction was less likely.

Another assumption I wouldn't be going with.

 

[romeohwho]

Another assumption I wouldn't be going with.

Haha probs, but certainly no grounds for your assumption that they 'panicked' so am going with trusting the universe.

 

[romeohwho]

Old fashioned/modest = sexist? I dont make that link like these girls obviously do.

Some of the examples.

Open backed dress, crop top, these are things that guys arent allowed to wear either.

You are making too big a deal of this. Most of the clothes the girls were wearing were completely fine and if they objected to a dress code that frowns on the wearing of them-good for them. Its the southern states of America, where most of these seemed to be occurring, that needs to lift their game. The students such as Cat Just made perfectly reasonable points.

 

[fleabitten]

The students such as Cat Just made perfectly reasonable points.

Such as? The school doesn't have a dress code for female students only while male students can wear whatever they want. What point is she making other than "girls shouldn't have to follow school rules"?

We all tried to get away with violating the dress code at school as much as possible, but kids' today can somehow imagine that they are being victimized when they are asked to dress a certain way at school. And it turns into international news when some girl gets sent home for wearing a belt as a skirt. And idiots will clap and say how brave she is for it.

 

[Lester Burnham]

Now you're calling it "acceptable" - a word I didn't use.


Who knows? Depends on the individual case and local law.

What are you trying to get at? You seem to be chasing specificity and trying to set some sort of consistency trap. Adding in new words where I never used them.

All this is just uni-level stuff I recall from 5-ish years ago.

It is simple fact that you can't say that every physical assault is worse than every non-physical assault. You need to know the facts of each instance.

Say your girlfriend yells at you and turns away, and in the moment you grab her arm. She demands to be let go and you do. Was that a damaging physical assault?

If you stand over her every day as she leaves the house, threatening her with a golf club and tell her you'll beat her to death if she isn't home to cook your dinner, is that a worse assault than the above example? I think it is.

FYI: Every time you touch someone that is "an assault". Every time your doctor touches you, that is an assault. Every time you bump into someone in the street, that is an assault. The facts surrounding the assault are pertinent. Bumping someone on the bus is incidental day to day contact. You give your doctor permission to examine you. If your wife puts her arm around you, that is an agreed and expected part of your relationship. If your wife says "don't touch me" but you give her a hug anyway, is that some terrible physical assault? No, but it is an assault.

The facts around the assault matter. Common law physical assault is not always worse than a threat. Criminal code assault is specifically defined and doesn't match common law.

I was taking romeohwho's argument to a logical extension.

His argument that being called a **** by a stranger on teh intenetz was worse than getting a broken arm was pretty silly. Ford has chosen to make her FB page open to the public and chooses to have an confrontational style including making abusive statements. If she doesn't like that type of comment she should stop making them. But she has the power to delete and block anyone she doesn't like. Someone giving her a broken arm would rightfully be treated much more seriously.

As for domestic violence, you are saying that verbal abuse or non-violent controlling behaviours can be worse than a physical assault or threat of physical assault. I would agree. Except, of course, that the law never treats emotional abuse in the same way as physical abuse. Say your wife constantly belittles you or threatens to leave telling you that you will never see your kids again. Here I agree with romeohwho that hurtful words from someone you are close to can be very damaging - I would rather have a broken arm than never see my kids again. But try calling the cops and reporting non-violent controlling behaviours. They will say you have wasted their time. But if you react physically out of frustration it will always be treated as assault. Then extrapolate those types of scenarios to the stats on 'domestic violence' and a different picture to the one we are routinely presented with might emerge.

 

[Chief]

I was taking romeohwho's argument to a logical extension.

His argument that being called a **** by a stranger on teh intenetz was worse than getting a broken arm

I didn't read this - and given your predisposition for embellishing the statements of others I'll assume it didn't happen until proven otherwise.

 

[romeohwho]

I was taking romeohwho's argument to a logical extension.

His argument that being called a **** by a stranger on teh intenetz was worse than getting a broken arm was pretty silly. Ford has chosen to make her FB page open to the public and chooses to have an confrontational style including making abusive statements. If she doesn't like that type of comment she should stop making them. But she has the power to delete and block anyone she doesn't like. Someone giving her a broken arm would rightfully be treated much more seriously.

As for domestic violence, you are saying that verbal abuse or non-violent controlling behaviours can be worse than a physical assault or threat of physical assault. I would agree. Except, of course, that the law never treats emotional abuse in the same way as physical abuse. Say your wife constantly belittles you or threatens to leave telling you that you will never see your kids again. Here I agree with romeohwho that hurtful words from someone you are close to can be very damaging - I would rather have a broken arm than never see my kids again. But try calling the cops and reporting non-violent controlling behaviours. They will say you have wasted their time. But if you react physically out of frustration it will always be treated as assault. Then extrapolate those types of scenarios to the stats on 'domestic violence' and a different picture to the one we are routinely presented with might emerge.

Soz, I don't recall making that specific claim Lester.

 

[romeohwho]

Such as? The school doesn't have a dress code for female students only while male students can wear whatever they want. What point is she making other than "girls shouldn't have to follow school rules"?

We all tried to get away with violating the dress code at school as much as possible, but kids' today can somehow imagine that they are being victimized when they are asked to dress a certain way at school. And it turns into international news when some girl gets sent home for wearing a belt as a skirt. And idiots will clap and say how brave she is for it.

Quote from Just's article - Using a line from the code — “Clothing that exposes cleavage, the midriff, undergarments, or that is otherwise immodest or provocative is prohibited” — as a jumping-off point, Just and classmates staged their own Crop Top Day, which Just says went exactly as expected.

“A young woman was withheld from her classes. She was denied access to them for two and a half hours. She missed really important classwork, but then there was a man wearing a crop top all day long [who] was not spoken to.”

Her objection to the girls' clothing being seen as 'immodest' & 'provocative' strikes me as quite reasonable. Why not just say certain clothing is inappropriate? She goes on to say that the clothing doesn't provoke people, and I concur with her.
ps. am not calling her 'brave' and that is a vastly overused word. Just calling her point reasonable.

 

[Lester Burnham]

I didn't read this - and given your predisposition for embellishing the statements of others I'll assume it didn't happen until proven otherwise.

I dispute your assertion about me but here is the quote in question.

The old saying sticks and stones is rubbish in any case. One can recover from a broken arm but words that hurt can last forever.

Now we have straightened that out maybe you can address the 2nd part of my post - about domestic violence.

 

[skipper kelly]

I was taking romeohwho's argument to a logical extension.

That's how I read the exchange. Romeohwho then clarified his position in a good post explaining what he meant.

Non threatening controlling behaviour can have serious and long lasting consequences. But good luck going to the police stating my mother has blamed me for the divorce of my parents for 30 years. Unfortunately shit parenting and being an arseh*le are very hard to legislate against.

 

[romeohwho]

I dispute your assertion about me but here is the quote in question.



Now we have straightened that out maybe you can address the 2nd part of my post - about domestic violence.

Yep- and I spoke in generalities, not referencing being called a '**** by a stranger on the internet'/Ford scenario.
Besides, pretty sure I made a fair attempt to explain that further. I agree that verbal abuse can be damaging. I also think its not just a female offence-men can be pretty good at verbal abuse too. I am also saying I am not sure what does more harm- physical or verbal, emotional abuse etc. My understanding is that verbal abuse is seen as an offence. As is neglect-but it doesn't get much attention either.

 

[Chief]

I dispute your assertion about me but here is the quote in question.

As I said, you've embellished. Or rather you've imputed a specific meaning from a general statement. I have no need to continue to read your posts or answer them. You are not discussing the topic with any sincerity, and you refuse to acknowledge the plain evidence of this.

 

[fleabitten]

Quote from Just's article - Using a line from the code — “Clothing that exposes cleavage, the midriff, undergarments, or that is otherwise immodest or provocative is prohibited” — as a jumping-off point, Just and classmates staged their own Crop Top Day, which Just says went exactly as expected.

“A young woman was withheld from her classes. She was denied access to them for two and a half hours. She missed really important classwork, but then there was a man wearing a crop top all day long [who] was not spoken to.”

Her objection to the girls' clothing being seen as 'immodest' & 'provocative' strikes me as quite reasonable. Why not just say certain clothing is inappropriate? She goes on to say that the clothing doesn't provoke people, and I concur with her.
ps. am not calling her 'brave' and that is a vastly overused word. Just calling her point reasonable.

Their dress code also prohibits t-shirts or caps with offensive messages, so provocative could be in reference to that kind of thing rather than suggesting that girls are provoking boys by being scantily clad. I'm sure a boy wearing a lewd shirt or with a swear word shaved into his head or even just wearing "immodestly" tight jeans would be sent home. It's not like only one gender has to follow the code. When I was at school, girls would get busted for having their skirts too short, boys would get in trouble for not tucking in or get sent home for having an "inappropriate" hairstyle. It's normal to challenge the rules, but kids like this act like it's some great injustice that they have to follow rules at all.

I don't know. Maybe if we'd had the internet when I was in high school, we'd have been starting stupid campaigns like Cat Just and trying to pretend we were victims of some kind of oppression. It's still annoying.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Quote from Just's article - Using a line from the code — “Clothing that exposes cleavage, the midriff, undergarments, or that is otherwise immodest or provocative is prohibited” — as a jumping-off point, Just and classmates staged their own Crop Top Day, which Just says went exactly as expected.

“A young woman was withheld from her classes. She was denied access to them for two and a half hours. She missed really important classwork, but then there was a man wearing a crop top all day long [who] was not spoken to.”

Her objection to the girls' clothing being seen as 'immodest' & 'provocative' strikes me as quite reasonable. Why not just say certain clothing is inappropriate? She goes on to say that the clothing doesn't provoke people, and I concur with her.
ps. am not calling her 'brave' and that is a vastly overused word. Just calling her point reasonable.

I dont see the difference between immodest or provactive vs innapropriate. Why does it matter what its called?

It's not a promotion of rape culture to say that certain clothing is designed to sexualise a persons figure. Men wearing v-necks/low cut singlets. Women wearing exposing clothing. It's designed to make a person look and feel good. You may try and posture that youre wearing it for something else but youre lying to yourself and others.

Sidetracking for a moment - Individuals admire other individuals all day every day. It doesnt lead to rape culture unless your an abhorrent individual. And people who try to push that message in my opinion trivialise rape.

Back to the clothing, it is designed to look good and make the wearer look good, and I can understand that that can be innapropriate in a schooling enviroment.

As i said earlier. You can disagree with the dress code, but dont act like its some injustice that you can't wear a crop top, or trivialise rape by saying it promotes rape culture.

I wear skins(tights) to the gym or for runs but I wouldnt wear them to uni or work, it's innapropriate. But hey im all for people wearing tights etc around. Just all for schools and workplaces settinf boundaries as well. And of course i'm all for not turning a simple disagreement on viewpoints into a ****ing ideological statement.

Also I would love to see the "guy wearing a crop top" line exaplained and sourced because I find that hard to believe.

 

[BlueBagged]

I dont see the difference between immodest or provactive vs innapropriate. Why does it matter what its called?

It's not a promotion of rape culture to say that certain clothing is designed to sexualise a persons figure. Men wearing v-necks/low cut singlets. Women wearing exposing clothing. It's designed to make a person look and feel good. You may try and posture that youre wearing it for something else but youre lying to yourself and others.

Sidetracking for a moment - Individuals admire other individuals all day every day. It doesnt lead to rape culture unless your an abhorrent individual. And people who try to push that message in my opinion trivialise rape.

Back to the clothing, it is designed to look good and make the wearer look good, and I can understand that that can be innapropriate in a schooling enviroment.

As i said earlier. You can disagree with the dress code, but dont act like its some injustice that you can't wear a crop top, or trivialise rape by saying it promotes rape culture.

I wear skins(tights) to the gym or for runs but I wouldnt wear them to uni or work, it's innapropriate. But hey im all for people wearing tights etc around. Just all for schools and workplaces settinf boundaries as well. And of course i'm all for not turning a simple disagreement on viewpoints into a ******* ideological statement.

Also I would love to see the "guy wearing a crop top" line exaplained and sourced because I find that hard to believe.

Mayte judging from your post history you're in Bali right now - I hope for your sake you're using the Skygarden wifi to post this, and you're not holed up in your room in prime sloot acquisition time, posting about how beta you are, and ordering carbonaras off your television, instead of going after sloooooooots!

 

[romeohwho]

Their dress code also prohibits t-shirts or caps with offensive messages, so provocative could be in reference to that kind of thing rather than suggesting that girls are provoking boys by being scantily clad. I'm sure a boy wearing a lewd shirt or with a swear word shaved into his head or even just wearing "immodestly" tight jeans would be sent home. It's not like only one gender has to follow the code. When I was at school, girls would get busted for having their skirts too short, boys would get in trouble for not tucking in or get sent home for having an "inappropriate" hairstyle. It's normal to challenge the rules, but kids like this act like it's some great injustice that they have to follow rules at all.

I don't know. Maybe if we'd had the internet when I was in high school, we'd have been starting stupid campaigns like Cat Just and trying to pretend we were victims of some kind of oppression. It's still annoying.

Inappropriate covers all manner of clothing and is not value-laden, and gender- laden in the way the other words are.
Not going to go round and round with this-its pretty clear to me.

 

[DemonTim]

Inappropriate covers all manner of clothing and is not value-laden, and gender- laden in the way the other words are.
Not going to go round and round with this-its pretty clear to me.

We used to have the same wording at my school for our uniform policies
Guys got sent home more often than girls.

 

[romeohwho]

We used to have the same wording at my school for our uniform policies
Guys got sent home more often than girls.

Yep, fine- which is precisely why the use of 'inappropriate' is better.-takes the focus on gender out of it.

 

[DemonTim]

Yep, fine- which is precisely why the use of 'inappropriate' is better.-takes the focus on gender out of it.

The point was, you are making a gender issue out of something that has no relation to it. You're looking for something that isn't there.

 

[Maggie5]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ules-married-women-cannot-keep-their-surnames
"The same-name ruling came in response to a lawsuit by five women who argued the requirement, as stipulated in the 1896 civil code, violates married couples’ civil rights.
Japan’s supreme court has ruled that a 19th-century law forcing married couples to use the same surname – almost always that of the husband – does not violate the constitution.
In a minor victory, however, the country’s top court said that a second legal provision preventing women from remarrying for six months after they divorce violates the constitution’s commitment to gender equality. But the court said that a remarriage ban on women of up to 100 days was reasonable, according to Kyodo News."

Interesting, I didn't know this.

 

[romeohwho]

The point was, you are making a gender issue out of something that has no relation to it. You're looking for something that isn't there.

lol If you can't see the difference between the use of words like 'immodest and provocative' in comparison to 'inappropriate' then not worth my while.
As I said-am not going to get caught in this silly discussion-the request to change the wording is completely reasonable. Its not Victorian England anymore.
I reckon you are the one looking for a bit of unnecessary angst. Go for a swim is my suggestion but dress appropriately.

 

[fleabitten]

lol If you can't see the difference between the use of words like 'immodest and provocative' in comparison to 'inappropriate' then not worth my while.
As I said-am not going to get caught in this silly discussion-the request to change the wording is completely reasonable. Its not Victorian England anymore.
I reckon you are the one looking for a bit of unnecessary angst. Go for a swim is my suggestion but dress appropriately.

The unnecessary angst is coming from the people crying sexism over that issue. It's a nothing story about some kids who want to change their school dress code but it's shared around with "you go, girl" sentiments and gets recognition as some kind of noble feminist cause. If the words immodest and provocative are sexist now, then flying spaghetti monster help us all.