Yirgacheffe Posted May 30, 2014 Posted May 30, 2014 Yes. No bare shoulders was pretty universal.Shoulders have never been mentioned anywhere I lived and have always been allowed at school.
bluebell Posted May 30, 2014 Posted May 30, 2014 (edited) Shoulders have never been mentioned anywhere I lived and have always been allowed at school. Yes, i read that. My kids have gone to school in Utah, Wyoming, Montana and North Dakota and their schools have all had that as policy (though i admit that these were elementary/middle schools). All my schools growing up in Wyoming had such a policy, but i graduated in 1995 so it's been a while There was one school (which my kids didn't attend) in a neighboring town in Wyoming which did not have such a policy. That is the extent of knowledge on the subject. Edited May 30, 2014 by bluebell
Scott Lloyd Posted May 30, 2014 Posted May 30, 2014 (edited) Yes, i read that. My kids have gone to school in Utah, Wyoming, Montana and North Dakota and their schools have all had that as policy (though i admit that these were elementary/middle schools). All my schools growing up in Wyoming had such a policy, but i graduated in 1995 so it's been a while There was one school (which my kids didn't attend) in a neighboring town in Wyoming which did not have such a policy. That is the extent of knowledge on the subject. Regardless, I think it fairly obvious that things such as school dress standards will vary from community to community, and for one self-important twit on a network morning talk show to get on his/her high horse and wonder aloud what country Utah is in strikes me as insufferably arrogant and, in its own way, provincial. Edited May 30, 2014 by Scott Lloyd
bcuzbcuz Posted May 30, 2014 Posted May 30, 2014 Yes. No bare shoulders was pretty universal.I don't normally quibble over words, but I hardly think what may apply in a few states in the United States ranks as "universal".. Isn't that like having a world championship where only one country participates?
bluebell Posted May 30, 2014 Posted May 30, 2014 (edited) I don't normally quibble over words, but I hardly think what may apply in a few states in the United States ranks as "universal".. Isn't that like having a world championship where only one country participates? I don't want to quibble over words either, but i think it would help for you re-read my post and realize that i was talking about it being universal in the schools i had experience with, and not, you know, in the entire universe. Edited May 30, 2014 by bluebell 2
bluebell Posted May 30, 2014 Posted May 30, 2014 Regardless, I think it fairly obvious that things such as school dress standards will vary from community to community, and for one self-important twit on a network morning talk show to get on his/her high horse and wonder what country Utah is in strikes me as insufferably arrogant and, in its own way, provincial. I think it goes without saying that anyone who pursues a career on t.v. is to some extent arrogant and believing that their own opinions are better than other peoples. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted May 30, 2014 Posted May 30, 2014 I think it goes without saying that anyone who pursues a career on t.v. is to some extent arrogant and believing that their own opinions are better than other peoples. Touche. However, I have to say I rub shoulders professionally with some people in local TV news, and I don't see in them a comparable degree of arrogance. Maybe it's because the TV station is Church-owned.
Rain Posted May 30, 2014 Posted May 30, 2014 (edited) I got curious so I checked around a little Stuyvesant High School in NYC- Shoulders, undergarments, midriffs and lower backs should not be exposed. Raoul Wallenberg High School in san Francisco - no mention of shoulders West End Acadamy in Atlanta - no mention Mesa School District - Mesa, AZ - Tank tops and other sleeveless tops are permitted only if the straps are wider than 1 1/2 inches and the armholes are no lower than 2 inches from the armpit. - as a side note, this is not enforced at my daughter's high school, nor at my son's jr high, but I understand it will probably be enforced at the jr high he will go to next year Duval County Public Schools - Jacksonville, FL - Halter-tops, tank tops, backless tops, tops with thin or no straps, or tops that show midriff or expose the body are prohibited. Logan County Schools - Man, WV - The wearing of garments considered as tank tops or tops with spaghetti straps is inappropriate. Denver public schools - 3. Inappropriately sheer, tight, loose, or low-cut clothing that bares or exposes the stomach, back, breasts, buttocks, or genitalia. (For example, the following items are prohibited under this section: garments made of fishnet, mesh, or similar material, and midriffs, halter tops, backless clothing, tube tops. Muscle tops, revealing tank tops or sundresses, etc.) Central Valley High - Spokane - no shoulders mentioned Eldorado, La Cueva and Volcano Vista high schools - NM - "The dress code will change at three Albuquerque high schools to ban tank tops and sleeveless shirts." - this is a news article from 3 years ago. The ban was put into affect at that time. Edited May 30, 2014 by Rain 2
Scott Lloyd Posted May 30, 2014 Posted May 30, 2014 (edited) I got curious so I checked around a little Stuyvesant High School in NYC- Shoulders, undergarments, midriffs and lower backs should not be exposed. Raoul Wallenberg High School in san Francisco - no mention of shoulders West End Acadamy in Atlanta - no mention Mesa School District - Mesa, AZ - Tank tops and other sleeveless tops are permitted only if the straps are wider than 1 1/2 inches and the armholes are no lower than 2 inches from the armpit. Duval County Public Schools - Jacksonville, FL - Halter-tops, tank tops, backless tops, tops with thin or no straps, or tops that show midriff or expose the body are prohibited. Logan County Schools - Man, WV - The wearing of garments considered as tank tops or tops with spaghetti straps is inappropriate. Denver public schools - 3. Inappropriately sheer, tight, loose, or low-cut clothing that bares or exposes the stomach, back, breasts, buttocks, or genitalia. (For example, the following items are prohibited under this section: garments made of fishnet, mesh, or similar material, and midriffs, halter tops, backless clothing, tube tops. Muscle tops, revealing tank tops or sundresses, etc.) Central Valley High - Spokane - no shoulders mentioned Eldorado, La Cueva and Volcano Vista high schools - NM - "The dress code will change at three Albuquerque high schools to ban tank tops and sleeveless shirts." - this is a news article from 3 years ago. The ban was put into affect at that time.Interesting. Thanks for doing the research. Bravo! So, contrary to the wise folks at the "Today Show," Utah is not in another country. Edited May 30, 2014 by Scott Lloyd
Yirgacheffe Posted May 31, 2014 Posted May 31, 2014 The SLT has an article about boys who were pictured in the same schools yearbook last year, with bare shoulders, tattoos, and underwear showing One boys shirt wasn't even buttoned at all.
Calm Posted May 31, 2014 Posted May 31, 2014 (edited) Were the girls edited?It may have been that the editing option hadn't been used. If it hadn't been this year the unedited versions might have been used after all.I do agree if boys were not chastised by officials while girls were for breaking standards that is a big issue. Edited May 31, 2014 by calmoriah
Yirgacheffe Posted May 31, 2014 Posted May 31, 2014 Were the girls edited?It may have been that the editing option hadn't been used. If it hadn't been this year the unedited versions might have been used after all.I do agree if boys were not chastised by officials while girls were for breaking standards that is a big issue.It appears the boys were prominently displayed in a variety of dress code violations you can see the picture herehttp://www.sltrib.com/csp/cms/sites/sltrib/pages/slidegallery.csp?cid=58007750&pid=6230328Over all I think this speaks very poorly of the school administrators, and underscores the fact that the dress code is not uniformly enforced with girls and not at all with the boys.
bcuzbcuz Posted May 31, 2014 Posted May 31, 2014 It appears the boys were prominently displayed in a variety of dress code violations you can see the picture herehttp://www.sltrib.com/csp/cms/sites/sltrib/pages/slidegallery.csp?cid=58007750&pid=6230328Over all I think this speaks very poorly of the school administrators, and underscores the fact that the dress code is not uniformly enforced with girls and not at all with the boys.A male administrator that enforces a dress code for girls but ignores the same issue for boys? How strange and unusual.
bluebell Posted May 31, 2014 Posted May 31, 2014 It appears the boys were prominently displayed in a variety of dress code violations you can see the picture herehttp://www.sltrib.com/csp/cms/sites/sltrib/pages/slidegallery.csp?cid=58007750&pid=6230328Over all I think this speaks very poorly of the school administrators, and underscores the fact that the dress code is not uniformly enforced with girls and not at all with the boys. The SLT has an article about boys who were pictured in the same schools yearbook last year, with bare shoulders, tattoos, and underwear showing One boys shirt wasn't even buttoned at all. I'm a little confused. The SLT is reporting on what the school did with the boys' pictures last year but the issue with the edited pictures that is all over the news is what happened this year, right? If i'm getting that right, then are we too assume that the school also edited the girls pictures last year but that this was the first year that anyone was outraged or surprised enough for it to make national news? It only makes sense to be upset that they didn't edit boys pictures from last year if they did edit girl pictures from last year. It's very weird though that they would get away with the editing last year without problems but have all the hoopla this year over doing the exact same thing. ?? 3
thatjimguy Posted May 31, 2014 Posted May 31, 2014 In my school, the yearbook had the faculty in charge, but essentially ran and edited by students. Could this be a form of social bashing? Even if it is run by adults fully, could they be involved in shaming kids to make others look better?
Yirgacheffe Posted May 31, 2014 Posted May 31, 2014 I'm a little confused. The SLT is reporting on what the school did with the boys' pictures last year but the issue with the edited pictures that is all over the news is what happened this year, right? If i'm getting that right, then are we too assume that the school also edited the girls pictures last year but that this was the first year that anyone was outraged or surprised enough for it to make national news? It only makes sense to be upset that they didn't edit boys pictures from last year if they did edit girl pictures from last year. It's very weird though that they would get away with the editing last year without problems but have all the hoopla this year over doing the exact same thing. ??If the dress code last year forbid shoulders, tattoos, underwear and totally unbuttoned shirts, then the yearbook had no business publishing the picture of the young men in flagrant violation of the code. Those were not small pictures that could be missed they were large and purposely included in the yearbook on a page about boys. That they later altered pictures of girls who were more decently dressed than the boys shows hypocrisy and sexism.
Calm Posted May 31, 2014 Posted May 31, 2014 (edited) Do we know if it was the same people involved in making the decisions? Perhaps the stricter rules this year were in response to complaints from last year's letting stuff slip by. Are there any inappropriate boys' pictures this year? Were there any inappropriate girls' pictures last year?I don't see it as sexism if they treated both boys and girls the same way each year...no editing or removals the first year, violations not allowed for both sexes this year....(ignoring inconsistency of application at this point due to not knowing who was involved...possibly multiple students did the editing without sufficient instruction or oversight, thus some edited according to school standards and others put in pictures that were violations without realising it or not caring.Hypocrisy...that would depend on who did the Yearbook stuff and if they were the same as last year, why they changed if they were the same and if they were the same people involved in regular enforcement and how consistent they were with that. Unless there is more info about last year than just the link to the pictures I don't think conclusions should be drawn at this point. Edited May 31, 2014 by calmoriah 1
bluebell Posted May 31, 2014 Posted May 31, 2014 If the dress code last year forbid shoulders, tattoos, underwear and totally unbuttoned shirts, then the yearbook had no business publishing the picture of the young men in flagrant violation of the code. Those were not small pictures that could be missed they were large and purposely included in the yearbook on a page about boys. That they later altered pictures of girls who were more decently dressed than the boys shows hypocrisy and sexism. What i'm wondering is if they also let pictures go thru of girls in clothes that violated the dress code last year. Because if they did, then it's not at all an issue of sexism. The decision to enforce the dress code this year while not last year is also not that disturbing. The way that policy is enforced in different organizations changes all the time depending on who's in charge and also who is complaining or how outright violations become. As long as the change in enforcement was broadcast (and whether or not it was a change, the enforcement definitely was broadcast in this case) it's not that big of a deal. 1
Thinking Posted June 1, 2014 Posted June 1, 2014 I wonder if girls were turned away at the prom if their dresses didn't have sleeves or showed cleavage.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 (edited) If the dress code last year forbid shoulders, tattoos, underwear and totally unbuttoned shirts, then the yearbook had no business publishing the picture of the young men in flagrant violation of the code. Those were not small pictures that could be missed they were large and purposely included in the yearbook on a page about boys. That they later altered pictures of girls who were more decently dressed than the boys shows hypocrisy and sexism.Unless it can be shown that there were similar pictures of boys in this year's yearbook, the only reasonable conclusion is that the school was more careful and vigilant this year -- regarding both sexes -- than it was last year. So what? Institutions, like people, can improve. Edited June 2, 2014 by Scott Lloyd
Thinking Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 Wasatch HS can step aside and let somebody else in the spotlight for a while. Link
Scott Lloyd Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 (edited) Wasatch HS can step aside and let somebody else in the spotlight for a while. LinkWell, at least when the arrogant talking heads at the "Today Show" show imply that the high school is in a foreign country, this time they will be right. Edited June 2, 2014 by Scott Lloyd
bluebell Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 Wasatch HS can step aside and let somebody else in the spotlight for a while.LinkI don't understand her accusation that the dress code is sexist because she can't wear short shorts. Is she suggesting that boys are allowed to wear short shorts or is she saying that girls should get a pass on wearing short shorts because otherwise they will feel picked on?
Scott Lloyd Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 (edited) I don't understand her accusation that the dress code is sexist because she can't wear short shorts.Is she suggesting that boys are allowed to wear short shorts or is she saying that girls should get a pass on wearing short shorts because otherwise they will feel picked on?Perhaps this might be considered pulling the sexism card. Edited June 2, 2014 by Scott Lloyd
Calm Posted June 3, 2014 Posted June 3, 2014 (edited) I don't understand her accusation that the dress code is sexist because she can't wear short shorts. Is she suggesting that boys are allowed to wear short shorts or is she saying that girls should get a pass on wearing short shorts because otherwise they will feel picked on?I believe it was because guys weren't lined up in the same way to catch violations."Lindsey Stocker, an 11th-grader at Beaconsfield High School in Quebec, Canada, says that she and several female classmates were asked to stand up for an outfit inspection during class. The girls were instructed to put their arms by their sides so school officials could assess whether the bottom of their shorts or skirts lined up with their fingertips. If their fingers reached beyond their hemlines, the girls would be considered in violation of the school's dress code."When I started explaining why I didn’t understand that rule, they didn’t really want to hear anything I had to say, and it was in front of my entire class. I felt very attacked … and I wanted to tell them how I felt," Lindsey told Canadian news outlet CBC. "They should approach it in a way that doesn’t target girls at least — for starters — because that’s the first problem. They don’t really care what guys wear. They just kind of target the girls first.""She may have called the dress code itself sexist which would be wrong because from the way I read it, it is the same for guys...at leat with short shorts. It is enforcement of the code that appears to be sexist. Edited June 3, 2014 by calmoriah
Recommended Posts