View Poll Results: Should School enforce skirts as part of Dress code?

Voters
164. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    29 17.68%
  • No

    124 75.61%
  • Other, in post

    11 6.71%
Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ...
6
7
8
9
LastLast
  1. #141
    Pandaren Monk
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,911
    There should be a dress code but it should allow for pants for girls(or skirts for the guys)

  2. #142
    Quote Originally Posted by nacixems View Post
    Activist Judge. private school if so? can do what they want, u dont like it, find another school. public school, maybe he has a case, cause u have no choice. but. geshh no one F***ing cares. move on find something worth while to cry about. dammm
    Did you even read the OP? It says very clearly it is publicly funded. Just because a judge makes a decision you disagree with doesn't make them an activist. Someone else made a post mentioning he was appointed by raptor riding, gun toting, republican Jesus.

    There are 7 pages of people talking about this and you decided to chime in also. Apparently there are plenty of people who care about this topic. Do you just enjoy spouting nonsense?

  3. #143
    Quote Originally Posted by Boomzy View Post
    A bunch of adult men trying to make little girls wear skirts.

    Nothing weird there at all.
    Quote Originally Posted by Voidism

    I find it highly disturbing when grown up men care about and want to force little girls to wear skirts.
    I find it highly disturbing that you automatically think its the men who care about and want to force girls to wear these skirts..stop being so sexist. The leadership of the school in question is female.

    http://charterdayschool.net/leadership/staff/

  4. #144
    The Patient Yadryonych's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Матушка Россия
    Posts
    271
    Well they can just allow both male and female uniforms for girls, so if a girl wants to wear pants she just would be able to

    Quote Originally Posted by Jettisawn View Post
    The guardians of three girls attending the school sued the school in 2016. They said the dress code forces girls to pay constant attention to the positioning of their legs during class and avoid playing sports during recess.
    And this is dumb, instead of paying excessive attention to leg positioning of their daughters (which already raises some questions), they should gain some wits and finally learn that special kind of underskirt apparel resolving these issues exists for as long as probably skirts themselves.

    Also I'm pretty sure the school doesn't require them to wear minis and skirt covering knees is necessary minimum in their case. And as long as skirt covers knees you can bend and twist these poor legs of yours as much as you can without any risk of exposing your crotch.
    Last edited by Yadryonych; 2019-04-01 at 05:26 PM.

  5. #145
    Quote Originally Posted by Josuke View Post
    But schools should have that authority?
    Yes, because schools should be allowed to run themselves in accordance with their own values and traditions.

  6. #146
    Dreadlord
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    836
    Quote Originally Posted by Polly3685 View Post
    Did you even read the OP? It says very clearly it is publicly funded. Just because a judge makes a decision you disagree with doesn't make them an activist. Someone else made a post mentioning he was appointed by raptor riding, gun toting, republican Jesus.

    There are 7 pages of people talking about this and you decided to chime in also. Apparently there are plenty of people who care about this topic. Do you just enjoy spouting nonsense?
    nope, nope and no one gives a crap. 7 pages of worthless spatter by people with nothing better to do but cry about what they feel is bad. or agree with the judge. boo hoo. just cause the OP says.. dont make it so... most of the comments are nothing more than SJW crying about crap .. lol .. 7 pages dont mean crap, most of these forms are loaded with ppl just itching for a reason to preach SJW. move on.

  7. #147
    Quote Originally Posted by Kokolums View Post
    Why is it so hard to understand that its ok to have a different dress code for boys and girls?
    Because it isn't ok. Let the girls wear pants if they want to. Society isn't going to crumble because of it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sicari View Post
    We're gonna Godwin so much you might even get tired of Godwinning

  8. #148
    Quote Originally Posted by Kokolums View Post
    A dress code promotes unity and working together as part of a team, which is important for kids that are VERY apt to start picking on a classmate for dressing funny. Its more important than personal expression.
    There's been a lot of stupid pro-school uniform posts so far, but this one is the worst. So far.

  9. #149
    How about don't sign your kid up for this purely optional charter school if you do not like the school rules?
    Felpooti - DH - Echo Isles
    Hack - Warrior - Echo Isles
    Pootie - Hunter - Echo Isles

  10. #150
    You're being sexist assuming the school management board is male only.
    It could have been decided by a female grown up.

  11. #151
    Quote Originally Posted by Rustedsaint View Post
    There should be a dress code but it should allow for pants for girls(or skirts for the guys)
    This 100%!

    School uniforms help remove targeted bullying against poor people with clothes that arent the best designers etc.
    Having a rule to make women wear skirts is as retarded as religions that force women to wear headclothing and the likes.

    Its 2019... not 1019...

  12. #152
    Quote Originally Posted by phalk View Post
    You're being sexist assuming the school management board is male only.
    It could have been decided by a female grown up.
    Yeah, but they said they wanted traditional values, so clearly they didn't want women speaking in public.

    "since girls are clearly treated differently from boys"

    this legal justification made me wonder... are "girl's pushups" and differing phys-ed requirements by gender still a thing ?

  13. #153
    Quote Originally Posted by dippinsawse View Post
    snip
    1) No, its still discrimination. Bathrooms are not equivalent, especially since a man can use a womans restroom, and we have unisex, family bathrooms, etc. If establishments legally had to have separate bathrooms, you might be onto something. But they don't and you're wrong.
    2) In this case, unless you can prove that forcing girls to wear skirts is justice, you are again, wrong.
    3) Again, bathrooms are not equivalent, since they are there only because it might make occupants feel a little better, and again, are not forced. Have you seen a law enforcing the idea that only women can be strippers?
    4) This isn't the only court ruling. Can you provide one showing the opposite?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Kokolums View Post

    LOL no, they improve learning because kids are not distracted by what others are wearing.
    False, its all about control.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Kokolums View Post
    No Its more likely you are using anecdotal evidence on your part. Its general basic knowledge that kids can be cruel and will pick on someoone mercilessly for dressing different. If that didn't happen in your case, you got lucky.
    Speaking of anecdotes.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by nacixems View Post
    Activist Judge. private school if so? can do what they want, u dont like it, find another school. public school, maybe he has a case, cause u have no choice. but. geshh no one F***ing cares. move on find something worth while to cry about. dammm
    Do you really think these kids are getting a choice?

  14. #154
    Good ruling.
    The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that… it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” - Thomas Jefferson.

    If I do not respond to your post directed at myself, there will be three reasons. 1. You are on my ignore list. 2. You did not make a post I felt was worthy of a response. 3. I simply never saw it, as I do not dig thru posts if I been offline for a while.

  15. #155
    Quote Originally Posted by Polly3685 View Post



    Yes they are and you're an idiot.

    Gender roles don't have a fucking thing to do with wearing skirts or pants. What do you see them as, easy access? Your analogy doesn't work either. Restrooms and clothing are not comparable.

    Infracted - Flaming
    I mean....the ACLU lawyer the matter was brought to literally said it was wrong because it, "reflected antiquated gender stereotypes". If you don't think it has to do with gender roles and expression why do you think they have that dress code in the first place?

    - - - Updated - - -

    [QUOTE=Lemonpartyfan;51024681]1) No, its still discrimination. Bathrooms are not equivalent, especially since a man can use a womans restroom, and we have unisex, family bathrooms, etc. If establishments legally had to have separate bathrooms, you might be onto something. But they don't and you're wrong.
    2) In this case, unless you can prove that forcing girls to wear skirts is justice, you are again, wrong.
    3) Again, bathrooms are not equivalent, since they are there only because it might make occupants feel a little better, and again, are not forced. Have you seen a law enforcing the idea that only women can be strippers?
    4) This isn't the only court ruling. Can you provide one showing the opposite?

    1) Explain how they are not equivalent. Businesses CAN and DO have sex segregated bathrooms where they can prevent you from entering a certain bathroom based on your sex. If it was discrimination it would be illegal as discriminating based on sex is illegal. It is not discrimination because men and women have different privacy expectations and needs for using bathrooms and therefore it is not unjust or based on meaningless differences to have sex segregated bathrooms which in turn means it is not discrimination. This same logic applies to other matters in which men and women are treated differently and the comparison absolutely fits. A school emphasizing traditional gender roles and expression for women is not discriminating because that gender expression and role does not apply to men, it only applies to women.

    An actual example of sex discrimination would be to say that girls have to sit in the back of the classroom and have ten minutes fewer to complete exams because they are girls and girls don't deserve the same opportunities. There is no meaningful difference between girls and boys that would validate that different treatment and that is why the operating factor of discrimination exists. It's to protect people from being treated differently just to ensure they perform worse or are unequal. It is not to prevent people from being treated differently based on actual dissimilarities that exist between groups because no protection is required for that.

    Yes, some places also can and do have unisex bathrooms, that doesn't mean anything. Examples in which businesses don't elect to have sex segregated bathrooms does not invalidate the idea that other businesses are legally allowed to have sex segregated bathrooms and that it is not discrimination to do so. Saying that they also aren't legally forced to do that isn't a relevant argument either as we are talking about whether something is discrimination or not, not whether the government says you have to have sex segregation. It is illegal to discriminate against people based on sex and yet it is not illegal to have sex segregated bathrooms because it is not discrimination, that is the point.

    2) You didn't even argue what I said. Or possibly even read it.

    3) Again didn't argue what I said at all.

    4) There have been multiple court cases on this sort of issue. It has been ruled several times that dress codes can restrict and can't restrict things like boys cutting their hair based on religious grounds. Generally every situation has sided with religious freedom on those matters whether it was for or against the applicable dress code. If this goes to the supreme court which is what really decides these things this one ruling would likely be overturned.

    Just to be clear on my position again. I think it is stupid to try to enforce traditional gender roles in schools. I disagree with that but I don't think it is my right to decide how others live if it doesn't affect me and there is no clear "wrong" being committed. The problem I have is that this is a publicly funded school so it should not be allowed to push a given religious viewpoint in its teachings. If it was a private school then everyone participating would have the freedom to choose whether their kids even go to that school and so there wouldn't be an issue.

  16. #156
    Quote Originally Posted by dippinsawse View Post
    I mean....the ACLU lawyer the matter was brought to literally said it was wrong because it, "reflected antiquated gender stereotypes". If you don't think it has to do with gender roles and expression why do you think they have that dress code in the first place?

    1) Explain how they are not equivalent. Businesses CAN and DO have sex segregated bathrooms where they can prevent you from entering a certain bathroom based on your sex. If it was discrimination it would be illegal as discriminating based on sex is illegal. It is not discrimination because men and women have different privacy expectations and needs for using bathrooms and therefore it is not unjust or based on meaningless differences to have sex segregated bathrooms which in turn means it is not discrimination. This same logic applies to other matters in which men and women are treated differently and the comparison absolutely fits. A school emphasizing traditional gender roles and expression for women is not discriminating because that gender expression and role does not apply to men, it only applies to women.

    An actual example of sex discrimination would be to say that girls have to sit in the back of the classroom and have ten minutes fewer to complete exams because they are girls and girls don't deserve the same opportunities. There is no meaningful difference between girls and boys that would validate that different treatment and that is why the operating factor of discrimination exists. It's to protect people from being treated differently just to ensure they perform worse or are unequal. It is not to prevent people from being treated differently based on actual dissimilarities that exist between groups because no protection is required for that.

    Yes, some places also can and do have unisex bathrooms, that doesn't mean anything. Examples in which businesses don't elect to have sex segregated bathrooms does not invalidate the idea that other businesses are legally allowed to have sex segregated bathrooms and that it is not discrimination to do so. Saying that they also aren't legally forced to do that isn't a relevant argument either as we are talking about whether something is discrimination or not, not whether the government says you have to have sex segregation. It is illegal to discriminate against people based on sex and yet it is not illegal to have sex segregated bathrooms because it is not discrimination, that is the point.

    2) You didn't even argue what I said. Or possibly even read it.

    3) Again didn't argue what I said at all.

    4) There have been multiple court cases on this sort of issue. It has been ruled several times that dress codes can restrict and can't restrict things like boys cutting their hair based on religious grounds. Generally every situation has sided with religious freedom on those matters whether it was for or against the applicable dress code. If this goes to the supreme court which is what really decides these things this one ruling would likely be overturned.

    Just to be clear on my position again. I think it is stupid to try to enforce traditional gender roles in schools. I disagree with that but I don't think it is my right to decide how others live if it doesn't affect me and there is no clear "wrong" being committed. The problem I have is that this is a publicly funded school so it should not be allowed to push a given religious viewpoint in its teachings. If it was a private school then everyone participating would have the freedom to choose whether their kids even go to that school and so there wouldn't be an issue.
    1. They are enforcing gender roles, forcing a dress code on someone simply because of their gender. That is factually discrimination. Just because you don't feel it is, doesn't mean your feelings matter. Its not really a matter for opinion.

    Bathroom are sometimes segregated, for privacy sake, but there are often no rules enforcing those bathrooms. This is one of of why your example doesn't work. Also, this isn't a business or place of work. Its a publicly funded school, for children. And thank you for using the word "elect," becaus, again, there is no legal basis for enforcing such rules.

    2. okay

    3. okay

    4. Where? Show me?

    https://www.aclu.org/blog/womens-rig...-when-it-comes

    Here you go - plenty of information here.

    This is because, under federal laws protecting against discrimination in education, Title IX and the Constitution’s equal protection guarantee, schools can’t base either a dress code or its enforcement on sex stereotypes — generalizations about what types of clothing or appearance are appropriate for a boy or a girl. For example, a dress code can’t require girls, and only girls, to only wear skirts or dresses and boys, and only boys, to wear pants or a jacket and tie. The same goes for ceremonial events and special occasions, like prom, yearbook photographs, or graduation. A school can specify “formal attire,” or even “gowns or tuxedoes,” but it can’t require that girls, and only girls, wear gowns or that boys, and only boys, wear a tux.
    http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/...sked-questions

    Q. What is Title IX?

    Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 is a federal law that states:

    "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

  17. #157
    Herald of the Titans Darththeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away
    Posts
    2,747
    Let any student choose to wear pants or a skirt ... I don't care.
    Peace is a lie. There is only passion. Through passion I gain strength. Through strength I gain power.
    Through power I gain victory. Through victory my chains are broken. The Force shall set me free.
    –The Sith Code

  18. #158
    Banned Lazuli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Your Moms House
    Posts
    3,110
    I love schoolgirl uniforms

  19. #159
    Quote Originally Posted by Lemonpartyfan View Post
    1. They are enforcing gender roles, forcing a dress code on someone simply because of their gender. That is factually discrimination. Just because you don't feel it is, doesn't mean your feelings matter. Its not really a matter for opinion.

    Bathroom are sometimes segregated, for privacy sake, but there are often no rules enforcing those bathrooms. This is one of of why your example doesn't work. Also, this isn't a business or place of work. Its a publicly funded school, for children. And thank you for using the word "elect," becaus, again, there is no legal basis for enforcing such rules.

    2. okay

    3. okay

    4. Where? Show me?

    https://www.aclu.org/blog/womens-rig...-when-it-comes

    Here you go - plenty of information here.



    http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/...sked-questions
    Yes. It is not against the law to enforce gender roles. It is not discrimination. I explained why and you have not made an argument against it so we are unfortunately stuck on this point until you do so.

    If bathrooms can be segregated based on privacy how is that not discrimination under your understanding? It's because you subconsciously understand the difference is not based on just the fact that they are male or female but rather the results of differences between males and females which is why I illustrated that to you. People have valid concerns about privacy between sexes which translates to having a valid reason to not want to be in bathrooms with the opposite sex.

    As for title 9 it doesn't actually apply to what I am saying and neither does the actual NC ruling as it is based on title 9. That just refers to publicly funded schools. I already said that I agree that publicly funded schools should not be able to act in this way because of certain laws including religious grounds. It has nothing to do with my point that a PRIVATE school does and should have the right to dress codes that enforce gender roles because the government does not have the right to restrict that. Title 9 doesn't even apply in that case because it is only for publicly funded schools.

    And my other point is that it is not discrimination because it is not treating people differently based on sex but rather based on traditional gender roles. I understand the difference may be confusing but it exists. They are not saying girls can't learn a certain way, they are saying it is a traditional values school that enforces traditional gender expression which means girls act and dress one way and guys act and dress another. You can say that gender expressions and traditional gender roles are based on sex the same way privacy and bathroom needs are based on sex but that doesn't make it discrimination.

  20. #160
    Quote Originally Posted by dippinsawse View Post
    Yes. It is not against the law to enforce gender roles. It is not discrimination. I explained why and you have not made an argument against it so we are unfortunately stuck on this point until you do so.

    If bathrooms can be segregated based on privacy how is that not discrimination under your understanding? It's because you subconsciously understand the difference is not based on just the fact that they are male or female but rather the results of differences between males and females which is why I illustrated that to you. People have valid concerns about privacy between sexes which translates to having a valid reason to not want to be in bathrooms with the opposite sex.

    As for title 9 it doesn't actually apply to what I am saying and neither does the actual NC ruling as it is based on title 9. That just refers to publicly funded schools. I already said that I agree that publicly funded schools should not be able to act in this way because of certain laws including religious grounds. It has nothing to do with my point that a PRIVATE school does and should have the right to dress codes that enforce gender roles because the government does not have the right to restrict that. Title 9 doesn't even apply in that case because it is only for publicly funded schools.

    And my other point is that it is not discrimination because it is not treating people differently based on sex but rather based on traditional gender roles. I understand the difference may be confusing but it exists. They are not saying girls can't learn a certain way, they are saying it is a traditional values school that enforces traditional gender expression which means girls act and dress one way and guys act and dress another. You can say that gender expressions and traditional gender roles are based on sex the same way privacy and bathroom needs are based on sex but that doesn't make it discrimination.
    It is factually discrimination. I don't see how you can't understand that. Your feelings do not dictate facts or laws.

    Its a forced rule in that school that girls must wear skirts. Your bathroom argument does not fit, because segregated bathrooms are an agreed upon convenience and nothing more. You can enter either bathroom. Having a different "wee-wee" area does not equate at all to how a person should be forced to dress.

    Title IX directly applies, and if you read the information you would understand as such. This is not a private school, so it applies.

    Yes, it is factually discrimination. Both gender and sex.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •