Today in the Taliban USA
Mon, 2004-05-17 00:32
#1
Today in the Taliban USA
Mon, 2004-05-17 00:32
#2
For crying out loud!
[url=http://www.channelcincinnati.com/education/3306732/detail.html]Teen Sent Home From Ceremony For 'Revealing' Dress[/url]
Watch the videos in that link. They call that exposed cleavage??? Yeesh. I guess she should have been wearing a Burqa [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
Mon, 2004-05-17 18:54
#3
Not fair! Not fair! If any of us posted this title, Gir woulda pounced on us! Cheating leftie-rightie rightie-leftie. Grrrrr.
Mon, 2004-05-17 18:58
#4
I have to admit I clicked on that link for entirely the wrong reasons.
Mon, 2004-05-17 19:10
#5
Well, it's a complex issue but basically I agree with Gir.
There are two ways of looking at it, as I see it, and neither side is black-and-white.
1. From the standpoint of her maturity, she looks 16, and the dress is totally appropriate as a semi-formal dress for a sixteen-year-old.
2. From the standpoint of her age, a dress like that is *a little* too mature for her.
BUT - as someone who wore a D-cup in grade 4, and who was mistaken for a student teacher by the police no less at age 12, I think there is no virtue in forcing a young woman who *looks like a woman* to dress like her peers. I think it should be up to the parents (my parents wouldn't have let me dress like that, but seeing as I was the same size at age 13 as I am now - 5'4", 140lbs, 44-28-38 measurements - the alternative was dressing like Mrs Doubtfire).
But bottom line, the dress isn't inappropriate for a young lady to wear. The fact that she's probably at the 'young' end of 'young lady' isn't a good-enough reason to disallow her from wearing it.
Edited to add:
Actually, after reading the article over more carefully, it seems that the school had provided clear guidelines as to dress code, and 'no cleavage' was one of them. So, unfortunately, I think they were enforcing a clear rule (however unfair people might think it to be). And I sympathise *so much* with the girl, since when you're busty it's hard to find a *truly* modest dress that isn't matronly, but since it *was* a rule sent home in a letter to every parent...
[ 17 May 2004: Message edited by: Anchoress ]
Mon, 2004-05-17 20:58
#6
quote:
Originally posted by Coyote:
[b]Not fair! Not fair! If any of us posted this title, Gir woulda pounced on us! Cheating leftie-rightie rightie-leftie. Grrrrr.[/b]
[img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img]
I've seen similar phrases on babble before. Like in [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=004045&p=... thread[/url].
quote:
Originally posted by 'lance:
[b]I have to admit I clicked on that link for entirely the wrong reasons.[/b]
And weren't you sorely disappointed? Do you think any sane person would consider that dress "too revealing"? She wore a similar one to CHURCH for her confirmation. You'd think something acceptable at Church would be okay for school [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
quote:
Originally posted by Anchoress:
[b]
But bottom line, the dress isn't inappropriate for a young lady to wear. The fact that she's probably at the 'young' end of 'young lady' isn't a good-enough reason to disallow her from wearing it.[/b]
What isn't appropriate about it? Like the girl's mom said, if the girl was smaller, there would be no issue whatsoever. And I've seen young girls wear FAR skimpier things than that dress. It's not the most modest thing in the world, but I think forcing the girl to dress like a grandma in order to find something "modest" enough just because of her size is apalling.
quote:
Originally posted by Anchoress:
[b]Actually, after reading the article over more carefully, it seems that the school had provided clear guidelines as to dress code, and 'no cleavage' was one of them. So, unfortunately, I think they were enforcing a clear rule (however unfair people might think it to be). And I sympathise *so much* with the girl, since when you're busty it's hard to find a *truly* modest dress that isn't matronly, but since it *was* a rule sent home in a letter to every parent...[/b]
That is exactly the point. It is an absolutely stupid rule because it implies that breasts, especially large ones, are something to be ashamed of. This is where I draw my Taliban paralell- the female body is to be hidden at all times.
[Edited to remove Coyote's original screen name]
[ 06 September 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]
Mon, 2004-05-17 21:32
#7
quote:
That is exactly the point. It is an absolutely stupid rule because it implies that breasts, especially large ones, are something to be ashamed of.
No, no, no, NO! Boobs, and our other naughty parts, are exciting (in part) [i]because[/i] they're naughty! Of course there's no real reason they should be considered "naughty", but take away the mystery and you take away, well, somethin'. Less is more. You young'uns will get it eventually.
My limited defense of repressed sexuality notwithstanding, I think that girl was treated despicably. I'll defend the right of schools to set dress codes, however silly, but they should be spelled out unambiguously from the start. If she was in violation of some rule it could/should have been dealt with more tactfully.
Mon, 2004-05-17 23:28
#8
quote:
Originally posted by Gir Draxon:
[b]What isn't appropriate about it? Like the girl's mom said, if the girl was smaller, there would be no issue whatsoever. And I've seen young girls wear FAR skimpier things than that dress. It's not the most modest thing in the world, but I think forcing the girl to dress like a grandma in order to find something "modest" enough just because of her size is apalling.
[/b]
You misread me, Gir. I didn't say it was inappropriate. I said it *wasn't* inappropriate.
quote:
Originally posted by Gir Draxon:
[b]That is exactly the point. It is an absolutely stupid rule because it implies that breasts, especially large ones, are something to be ashamed of. This is where I draw my Taliban paralell- the female body is to be hidden at all times.[/b]
But it *is* a rule. Which isn't the gripe you had about the issue (your gripe was that she looked *fine*, which I agree with BTW). If you now say that the rule was unfair because it penalises large breasts (whew, I'm sweating just writing that), then fine, but it is a private Catholic school, and they have the right to make their own dress code for their own events.
Mon, 2004-05-17 23:55
#9
Whoops, sorry for the misreading, Anchoress.
And yes, they have every right in the world to set their own dress code. That doesn't make it any less stupid. My "gripe" is that she looks perfectly fine, and that a smaller girl wearing the exact same dress would be in compliance with the "rules", which are stupid anyways. Instead of trying to define in black-and-white what is appropriate, it should be taken cae by case, and discretion used in cases such as this, where according to the letter of the policy her dress was indeed too revealing, but to any sensible person it was perfectly fine.
Tue, 2004-05-18 00:11
#10
quote:
Originally posted by Gir Draxon:
[b]Whoops, sorry for the misreading, Anchoress.[/b]
No problem! [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
quote:
Originally posted by Gir Draxon:
[b]My "gripe" is that she looks perfectly fine, and that a smaller girl wearing the exact same dress would be in compliance with the "rules", which are stupid anyways. [/b]
Yeah, well I agree with you to a point. I guess this is what I think: she's *not* smaller. And IMO the problem isn't with the school, which frankly I think has a right to set their own dress code, no matter how unreasonable; it's with dress designers, who (as we both pointed out) *don't* design attractive yet modest clothing for young women. It's either revealing, matronly, or childish (basically a kids' dress but done in a size 12).
quote:
Originally posted by Gir Draxon:
[b]Instead of trying to define in black-and-white what is appropriate, it should be taken cae by case, and discretion used in cases such as this.[/b]
I think that would have been a very good idea. I mean, it's understandable that she would want to look her best on her special day; I think as far as balancing fashion with modesty, she and her mother did about the best job possible. It's unfortunate but true that if she had tried any harder to be modest, it would have most likely been at the expense of fashion (somehow even the old-fashioned straples deb gowns from the '50s look sexy on big girls - take Marilyn Monroe for example, who was put in that modest pink strapless for her 'Diamonds are a Girls Best Friend' number in order to make her seem like less of a sex symbol...)
Wed, 2004-05-19 19:53
#11
quote:
..and 'no cleavage' was one of them..
What she needs is a roll of duct tape. That'll take care of the ol'cleavage. [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
Sat, 2004-06-05 07:12
#12
uh clem
At the Peel Board of Ed high school I taught in (just west of Toronto) they instituted a no-cleavage rule. When I pointed out that as a male teacher it opened me up to a clear charge of sexual harrassment to send a student to the office for revealing too much (If I hadn't been looking, I wouldn't have seen), the office told me to just send students down without telling them why, they'd figure it out when they got there.
I suggested that just as the school raises money by having hat days, when students pay 25ў to wear hats (despite a no-hat rule), we could raise more by having cleavage days. To the best of my knowledge the rule has never been enforced....
Sat, 2004-06-05 09:03
#13
quote:
Originally posted by uh clem:
[b]we could raise more by having cleavage days.[/b]
Thats just a tad extreme, I hope that was said tongue-in-cheek.
And very good point about the conflict between enforcing the rules and not risking sexual harassment. But really, what is that principal thinking.... sending students out of class for no reason at all is stupid, but after a while people would catch on to what it means when that happens and we are back to the question of what the teacher is looking at.