Not to forget arbitrary, biased and ridiculous, heavily discriminatory based solely on gender, virtually singling out girls for scrutiny and disciplinary action while insulating boys from any comment at all, over things bought off the rack at Wal-Mart and Target in the age appropriate section and size, but, more than that, creates needless problems for children, families of a specific heritage, following particular religions as well. Often resulting in as much of a distraction, via enforcement, as it hoped to alleviate covering, primarily girls, bodies up; teaching them now, from the youngest ages, there is something shameful about their “exposed” selves, exposed skin, as the father said, “it’s designed to make girls responsible for the way other people feel about them.” Sure enough it has happened again, clothing wars have once more gone viral because a parent dared employ a unique way to stand up to schools’ zero tolerance conformity insanity needlessly visited upon his 5 year old daughter; the problem this time, spaghetti straps on her bright, floor length sun dress worn to school. According to the student handbook, even kindergarten parents are forced to sign at the beginning of the school year, spaghetti straps are against the rules, the teacher spoke with the student and the 5 year old offered to change her clothes, coming out at the end of the day to meet her father wearing black long sleeves and jeans during 80 degree Huston Texas weather. Administrative actions that not only angered this dad because they somehow sexualized his daughter, who just the year before would still have been considered a toddler, but cajoled a sweet, innocent, yet curious and questioning child into a compliant one, used her developmentally appropriate eagerness to please against her, to get her to do what they wanted rooted in their “authority,” based on a teachers far from logical, clinical calculus, more akin to what am I in the mood for today, interpretation of the dress code. Deciding what is or isn’t appropriate independent of if it is mentioned in the code or not, usually applying some religious centered moral reasoning for their objection. Unnerved and irritated by the incident, the man looked over the code, probably added to knowledge about recent headlines, a growing battle for girls, young women regarding their choice of clothing, our seemingly endless judgments about what is too short, too low or too little fabric for them to wear, whether at school, work or running errands in public, the increased fervor, cultural white noise assigning character measurements to once more, primarily females, across age, ethnicity, socio-economic spectrums by what type of clothing they happened to be wearing at any given moment, and noted just how many of the “no listed” items, styles, garments were aimed only at girls. Thus being the freelance writer he is, took to his blog to sound off on what we as a society are once again doing to girls, young women, recounting his own, fellow parents’ struggles with school district guidelines, even incorporating his youth strewn encounters with same. Recollections putting in stark relief just how many of said supposed guidelines reinforce negative gender stereotypes including the one area it does affect boys, their choice to wear long hair and school objections to it for no apparent reason than the antiquated thinking long hair belongs on girls. Likewise girls in certain charter, independent or religious schools shouldn’t have short hair, wear predominately jeans, t-shirts and sneakers because it could lead to gender identity confusion, which is unnatural, homosexuality and other forms of immorality. Here is the kind of thinking Jef Rouner is trying to combat while pointing out A- what is available to buy for young girls, adolescent young women in stores today, that you may be buying “skimpy” shorts, less fabric than religious minded, moral tightwads, uppity old women and possibly perverted old men would like, shirts because they are what is there to purchase, and B- how many of those standard off the rack items are deemed unacceptable for school by those same characterized individuals because they are in authority, not because there is anything decidedly immodest about them.
Next enter the sad, yet expected, firestorm of comments calling out the father for everything from daring to blog about something that is not news, using his interaction with the dress code and his daughter to drum up publicity for himself, manipulation of his freelance position to, “being like so many parents today” letting their kids rule them, openly defying the dress code, the rules then becoming mad about the ensuing consequences. Others, electronically jumping up and down about what is appropriate, asking why the dad can’t follow a clear, uncomplicated rule, accusing his, freedom of speech guaranteed, blog of being little more than a tantrum. “It is a simple rule, no spaghetti straps. Not very difficult to follow and definitely doesn’t warrant dad’s flat out tantrum claiming it is sexist. As he says, these kinds of clothes aren’t available in the boys department, but if they were there would be a rule against them for boys as well. Once again another parent thinking their child should be exempt from the rules. School districts were forced to put these rules in place because of parents like this, ones who can’t seem to figure out what is and isn’t appropriate. Our former school district had to revisit the dress code because we had parents that thought a bikini top was appropriate dress for school. FYI the dress was inappropriate with or without the spaghetti straps. A five year old should be dressed in a manner that allows them to run and play during recess and PE. And a dress that must be picked up to walk is not suitable, at all.” Except if you read the man’s words, yes he details his daughters repeated begging to wear her sun dress; however, his decision to finally let her had nothing to do with shirking his responsibility as a parent, giving his child what she wanted simply because he was tired of resisting her request, giving her items, privileges wrong for her age, maturity level, the most rudimentary moral standards, or something that shouldn’t have been given because of the way she asked/demanded, and in the process, consciously flouting the school’s dress code. Instead focusing on the weather and when it would be warm enough for her to wear it sans getting too cold, leading to potential sickness; his continued statements she was looking forward to wearing it in the increasing temperatures, because it was light and comfortable prove that. Likewise yes he makes reference to having read the handbook at the beginning of the year, signing it, identical to most parents having had no reason to reread, consult it afterwards, the thing that looks strikingly similar to the L.A. tri-county phonebook containing pages and pages that easily don’t apply to a 5 year old including knives, chains, gang designs, truly inappropriate t-shirt logos. Translation being he read it and forgot about it, because it is extremely out of character for parents to have other, distinctly more important things on their minds besides what ridiculous thing violates a school dress code, um-hum. Thus when she asked to wear the dress he knew it was warm enough, saw nothing wrong with it, later angered because he didn’t think rules normally applied to teenagers would affect his child during her first year of school. Also, at the time he wrote his obviously labeled opinion piece he had every intention of contacting the school to discuss the issue surrounding his daughter’s dress, and more importantly, how the school handled the whole thing; it’s a matter of he could get to his blog first, so it is what he used first. Nor is speaking out, sounding the alarm about educational issues affecting younger and younger children a tantrum, or if it is it shouldn’t be considered a bad thing. He expressly states he did not buy her dress to purposefully go against the dress code, let her wear it for the same reason; his defiance, the defiance he plans to teach his daughter to use if a mirroring situation crops up in the future, at her current school or elsewhere, came from the school’s judgment call, horrible lack thereof applying something knowingly meant for older children to his 5 year old, lacking the decency to call him and tell him to bring a change of clothes for her, speak to him after school saying she can’t wear the dress again, instead shirking their adult responsibility and leaving her, the 5 year old, to explain it to him. Secondly, and we’ve seen this recurring pattern, his article states she had worn the dress to school before, no issue, worn it to church, no objection; demonstrating one more school who has a dress code with willy-nilly enforcement, people more interested in rules than knowledge supported by the following public comment. “…also disturbing is that there is someone in this little kindergartener’s life who saw her in a sun dress and decided to consult a handbook and impose a rule…just to follow a rule. Just to follow orders. These are not the people who should be in charge of educating children. There is nothing wrong with questioning teachers, and so what if the kid has a reputation for not being a little drone? What if all parents and students demanded that their teachers and school administrators used reason instead of rulebooks?” [Sic] Astoundingly good question; here’s a hint, if the church didn’t find it offensive, immoral, immodest, inappropriate, the school shouldn’t either. Sexualizing 5 year olds is not ok.
Neither is this father naïve about the culture his little girl is growing up in, the world she will have to navigate later as a teen, as a woman; fortunately he, in direct contrast to them, the people charged with educating and imparting knowledge to children, can differentiate between a 5 year old and a 12 year old starting to develop, a 15 year old with an obvious bust. His shock stems from it beginning this early, that with all the progress we have made regarding equal rights, women’s rights, understanding violence period, but specifically violence against women, in 2015 we still believe glaringly pointed out non-sexual body parts, shoulders and collar, bones must be hidden lest a laundry list comprising ever mounting, unthinkable horrors be visited upon them starting at age 5. Additionally he challenges the solution to problems faced by children and parents buying clothes, problems faced by women seeking not to be deemed sex objects, to be respected in their own right is to cover yourself, if these people had their way, from head to toe. “I’m not so old that I’ve forgotten being a teenager and rolling my eyes at adults who went on and on about the “slutty” dress of my female classmates. I didn’t have the term “rape culture” back then but I understand it now. The continued fascination of people that a girl with too much skin showing, or who develops breasts early or any number of other things is somehow opening the door to everything from commentary about her purity to outright assault is in no danger of going away. But I swear to God and all his Alf pogs I really didn’t think that I would have to face that particular dragon before she even entered a numbered grade. Now I have this child, the one that argues scientific points about everything from the top speed of land animals in Africa to the classification of the planets with me endlessly, wordlessly accepting that a dress with spaghetti straps, something sold in every Walmart in America right now, is somehow bad. Wrong. Naughty. And most importantly that the answer is to cover up.” [Sic] He is hardly isolated in his thinking, multitudes coming forward declaring dress codes, especially school dress codes, are far from about the safety of girls, what is or isn’t morally, modestly appropriate and is more about easing the discomfort of people who don’t want to exert control over their baser instincts. People who think it is societies job to manage their anxiety over looking at things they find distasteful rather than their issue to deal with by turning their head, getting some therapy, making their own choices and leaving people to make theirs, blue haired and other ladies who think they increase their chances of getting into heaven by enforcing their, the schools definition of appropriate, modest; let’s be clear the area between the neck and the beginning of a young girl, a woman’s bust is not indecent when bare, showing in a sleeveless shirt, a sundress, a fact multiplied exponentially when the girl in question is not old enough to have a bust yet. That is the area where a standard photo drape sits; here’s another hint, if it is acceptable for female high school senior pictures done in a photo studio, it is then acceptable for class, certainly acceptable for a 5 year old to wear to school.
Addressing the latter part of the first quoted comment 2 paragraph up goes to the sexualization of girls motivations that may not be sexual at all, may not, here’s a shock to parents appalled by Miley Cyrus, wondering where the fabric is in girls shorts and why manufactures put suggestive slogans on the rear of pants, never mind why girls, women choose to wear them, be to get boys, older boys attention, to flirt, to look older, just to be comfortable. What’s wrong with a bikini top; this is school not work, a bikini top on what age of child? It is well known little kids go through phases of wanting to wear this or that, the same outfit daily, character snow boots out of season; parents know what a challenge it is to get younger ones dressed in the morning, get them to keep their clothes on forget battling over what they wear. What’s wrong with a bikini top even for a middle school student in a school with no air conditioning, on a student with unusual body temperature, prone to heat sensitivity that will make them sick, a high school student who takes swimming for PE credit and is lazy when it comes to dressing out, has it first hour? None of which encompasses a girls so called “slutty” behavior, has its roots in looking like a celebrity, following fashion trends, being trashy, wanting to be seen as a sex object, wanting to be seen as easy, willing to have sex. Our obsession with what people wear, tying it to morality, purity, character goes all the way back to Columbus’ discovery of America, colonial interactions with the Native Americans, naming them savages because they went about without shirts in hot weather, the same attitudes British colonists had in India, rain forest areas; in both cases to Christianize them, give them the gospel was to Europeanize them, westernize them. To be good spiritually, show your transformation away from your “heathen” ways you had to dress like them, speak their language, adopt their customs. Women, who abandoned their body damaging corsets, dared expose their collars, lose chin high necklines where unseemly and it has just gone from there leading us to a truth housed in the proceeding thoughts; “If a parent of a boy can’t teach their sons to respect a girl beyond what she is wearing that is their wrong doing. If a boy wants to “punish,” a girl for not following rules… that boy is a sick individual. Rules or lack thereof does not cause rape. Clothing on or off, does not cause rape. The style of clothing does not cause rape… man and boy causes rape.” Hints why you see women at rallies decrying our current “rape culture,” naked, at least from the waist up, holding a sign or wearing body paint that says ‘still not asking for it,’ because what you wear or don’t, where you go or don’t does not cause rape, ever, and if it did, it would imply the old lady in her flowered housecoat got raped because of her outfit, the infant, toddler was raped because their dress and diaper, onezie was somehow indecent- utterly ridiculous. Arguably attitudes shorn up by dress codes and dictatorial enforcement of them that has increased instances of rape by, in addition to shamming girls, compelling them to cover themselves to varying degrees of extreme, simultaneously teaching boys girls who don’t do so are impure, promiscuous, deserving of whatever attack, assault, harassment, rumor, comment that comes to them, need to be punished in all the above ways, including rape and/or sexual assault in order to learn modesty. Instead of anyone teaching both genders intrinsic things character, purity, modesty is determined by your actions, intentions, not your dress. Promiscuity is not in your clothing; clothing is not an immediate invitation to proposition someone for sex, give unasked for, untimely comment on their choice of attire, is not grounds for harassment sexual or otherwise. That is the lesson that needs to be learned by all ages, not endless lists on what is or is not appropriate according to whoever it is this week having a problem.
Unfortunately little Katy is not alone joining a long line of students and parents who suddenly find themselves doing battle with a school dress code, hardline administrators, staff who repeatedly, deliberately confuse clothing items, who can’t tell the difference between a tank top AKA sleeveless t-shit, exercise, yoga gear and a tube or halter top akin to a sports bra minus the straps. So who says the commenter previously complaining about their former school districts dress code revision was actually talking about a bikini top at all; we just don’t know. Concurrently, school officials who are prone to calling any strap on a sundress or shirt they believe is too thin, happens to expose a bra strap, due to it being sleeveless, a spaghetti strap whether it is or not, a key problem in the Utah yearbook photos altered last year without student or parent knowledge, permission. Parents responding to the latest dress code outrage detailing situations where they did attempt to comply with the dress code, made sure their child followed the guidelines only to be called up to the school about width of sun dress or top traps, ruler proving the staff member wrong, that they indeed met the required parameters; still the school refused to rescind her disciplinary action, choosing instead to back their employee. What was probably not readily apparent until recently, since headline cases were largely about middle and high school students who should know how to follow simple guidelines, were pushing the envelope with tight yoga pants and short shorts, is how increasingly extreme dress codes coupled with their extreme enforcement drastically impacts schools’ larger purpose, learning. Take the boy above excited to start kindergarten, who was pre registered, where staff no doubt saw the child, only to arrive on his first day be told he could not attend class because his hair was too long. Issue one, he is Navajo Indian and they, as a part of their heritage and religion, do not cut their hair; issue 2, why was his mother not confronted about this at registration to iron out the problem before school started, before disrupting his education over hair in a public school? For the record, his mother quickly contacted the local Indian authority, was able to produce documentation he is at least one half native American and he was enrolled in school, hair and all, without further problem, but she is undeniably correct, he missed something important, he can’t get back the first day of kindergarten. Or the sweet little girl whose father was repeatedly harassed about his daughters dreadlocks; though the independent charter school’s handbook does say dreadlocks, Mohawks and other fad styles are not allowed because they might be a distraction, that wasn’t the problem administrators had, rather saying her dreads weren’t presentable. However video shows a little girl, who if you didn’t know what you were looking at, you wouldn’t know she had dreads in her hair, it looks like braids; not to mention had the father, incidentally a barber, complied with their asinine notion her hair was not decent enough for school, shaved her head to regrow it in a different style, the only way to remove dreads, how do we know he would have gotten flack for that too, similar to the girl who got suspended from school for shaving her head to support her cancer suffering classmate. Her father swiftly took care of that pulling her out of that school and placing her in another who had no problems with her hair. Ironic for a school already employing uniforms to ensure conformity, minimize the looming monster called distraction and a cautionary tale to those who think uniforms solve all these dress problems. As is the young man below whose school did impose a type of uniform dress code that got him sent home for the polo design on his polo shirt alongside several of his classmates; his mother telling local news of both the now added expense getting the uniform items and the difficulty in finding plain, no design whatsoever polo shirts.
Broader topic to be strongly considered, why the Navajo mother had to take that extra step, why her child required an exemption just to attend class because of the length of his hair as, opposed to an infestation of lice, a contagious disease found in his hair? Why is it suddenly acceptable to turn away students, who possess a federally mandated right to an education, there is a federal mandate all children 6-16 attend some variation of school, for hair, clothing, footwear; why did my friend have to coordinate with our school’s principal so her sons, who are heat sensitive asthmatics , some taking medication mandating they stay hydrated could change from pants and t-shirts to shorts and tanks as the day warmed, only to have an adjacent staff member write up her 7 year old because kids aren’t supposed to change clothes at school, even after he had received permission from his teacher to go to the bathroom expressly for that? And why do these things always come down on racial, ethnic and religious lines? Because who does it effect, the little African American girl in tears who, damage is done, believes there is something wrong with her natural, ethnic, authentic hair; when it does effect boys, who does it effect the Native American. Who do bans on too loose, baggy or sagging pants, clothes effect, the African American, predominately male student whose choice of dress is a form of identity not with gangs, prisons, rap stars, but who he is as a black individual. The black male student who already has 3 strikes against him walking in the door by virtue of his race, his probable street address and what people think of the area, his gender and the society wide tendency to view him as a thug, a danger the moment he looks like anything approaching manhood compounded by teachers discriminating against boys for being fidgety, according to them inattentive. And despite school personnel swearing up and down it is to do everything from eliminate distractions, ready children to learn, to teaching kids how to dress appropriately later for job interviews, work, enhance their chances of getting better, more stable jobs than their poverty stricken parents, prevent them from being suspected a criminal if they aren’t, it certainly doesn’t compel them to stay in school, find school a friendly, inviting, accepting place, give them reason to value education, motivate them to do their best, complete their education, when adults around you refuse value your worth as a human being based on what you are wearing, your resistance to their needless conformity. In fact it probably increases dropout rates, increases chances of criminality and decreases job opportunities, economic success, when they don’t finish, don’t absorbed materials due to the unrelated white noise, barely graduate with poor grades because it was an act of willpower to show up at all thanks to their approach.
Bigger than the negative message you send girls by sending them home to change clothes, telling them huge chunks of what can be bought on store clothing racks in their age and size range is inappropriate, indecent for school, devaluing their education over their male counterparts, ingraining in them the idea the boys’ education is more important than their own, forming almost a bigger cloud over modern education than the creepy tactics employed ensuring compliance to a dress code, stopping girls in the hallway, telling them to grab their crotches so a staff member can put 2 fingers on her upper thigh to determine if her shorts, skirt, dress are long enough, the humiliating spectacle it creates, is what they miss from the learning environment while correcting a non-existent wardrobe malfunction. Never answering the question what do the clothes you wear have to do with your ability to learn, anyone else’s for that matter; like the standard fitted uniform shirt isn’t going to accentuate a young woman’s bust, once she has one, to a pubescent boy getting random erections anyway, because that is the nature of puberty for maturing boys. Like said shirt combined with forcing a girl to wear a skirt that comes to knee length isn’t going to do the same thing and that’s wearing school sanctioned uniforms; We all know the reputation of the catholic school girl uniform it’s presence in actual sex shops, used as a sexy Halloween costume. So if it (boys distraction) is going to happen either way, we’ve already established women will or won’t get attacked regardless of what they wear or don’t, why do we keep having these discussions? Scenes perpetuated by persons screaming the following, “I am teaching three daughter’s how to be beautiful mature woman. Sorry but any time I see someone running around with their bra straps showing it looks to me as if they are unable to dress themselves properly. Bras are UNDER wear, not to be worn out in the open. When I was in school (I graduated 11 years ago so its not like I’m old school!) the girls who had to show off their bra straps weren’t too respectful.. So yes I will teach my children to cover their underwear! Not wanting my kids to look as if they can’t understand how clothing works doesn’t mean I am teaching them to be ashamed of their bodies! Outside of school my children dress as they wish, within reason but underwear is covered…” [Sic] Striking don’t you think how similar they sound to the religious fanatics, dictators in Arab countries willing to let school girls burn to death in a building because they were wearing improper clothing to come outside in order to escape a fire, countries where they arrest women for uncovered hair, improperly covered hair, flog them for daring to wear pants, drive, where not educating girls is a holy thing. Except, for someone who is defacto proclaiming themselves some sort of expert on how clothing works, they fail to notice a bra strap can be seen wearing a t-shirt, if it is even slightly big on a growing adolescent child, teen, as most parents live on a budget and don’t buy clothes their child will grow out of in 5 minutes, hopefully not 5 months, if they like their clothes slightly loose, in other words comfortable, allowing for movement, if horror of horrors, the shirt, neck stretches when washed, washed several times. Who hasn’t seen the rounded neck tops for particularly plus sized women, there is no way you won’t see a bra strap wearing that, because of how it’s made, and nearly everything from decorated variations on the t-shirt to professional clothing has a degree of that exaggeratedly rounded neck. Most times it has nothing to do with “having to show your bra straps,” being respectful or not, I think the word they were looking for was respectable, rather it is something that happens gong about your day, as you move; your visible bra strap in a certain shirt, outfit, dress may not be apparent until you’ve already bought it, as you don’t move the same way trying on clothes in a fitting room as you do working, running errands. God forbid your bra is slightly stretched or worn out, you have an odd body shape, body type, don’t fit between a size 2 and a size 8 therefore things are difficult to find, more expensive; with adolescents, teens still growing into those bodies, still changing that’s unheard of- right.
Making it again about race, minorities who are more apt to be poor, class warfare; our commenters screams middle class with nothing better to do than sound off at a father and fellow commenters asking why we are shaming girls before they even have breasts, for having breasts, giving them a complex over an often times only partially visible bra strap, a spaghetti strap sundress. Like-minded thinkers will then complain about seeing extremely tight clothing on teens, young or older women drawing attention to fat rolls, proving women can’t win for losing. Bra straps will almost always be seen wearing anything sleeveless sundress to tank, another word for workout, top; what is the solution, never wear sleeveless, not wear a bra, that won’t cause a scene, sure. One can perhaps assume you are supposed to find a front hook, strapless bra to wear with such things; that works for adult women just fine, but on adolescents and teens, this same person would be scandalized, call that sending the wrong message, trying to grow them up too early. Yes technically bras are underwear, for under there that should be covered, but a visible bra strap, especially in conjunction with something sleeveless, is not the same thing as wholly uncovered, walking around in just a bra. Then there is the type of bra, sports bras were made not only as active wear to be worn during sports, exercise, usually worn with that vilified tank top, it is routinely worn with a sundress, rounded neck top as well as being known to be worn alone by fit women while jogging, been used as swimwear on beaches. Infuriatingly for people who live in a free country, believe in that freedom, believe there are far better things to spend our time on, these are the same people who never shut up about baggy pants and seeing the waistband of boxer shorts. For those wearing their outer pants “half off,” as uptight decriers of the trend call it, still seeing boxer shorts, which are only slightly smaller shorts, isn’t showing anything it shouldn’t, isn’t indecent, doesn’t meet the standard for lewd, indecent exposure. Certainly is largely condemning black males, while men, overwhelmingly Caucasian men, can go shirtless without comment, and men, predominately white men, wear speedos with little complaint apart from age. Dismissed entirely, other uniforms for track, gymnastics, cheerleading that are just as revealing, if not more so, but those are ok, especially on middle class white girls, padding the résumés, showing school spirit or using their time wisely in a structured activity; double standard much? Projecting a little more sanity, “I do and don’t agree with this. yes it’s against the rules and he knew it full well, he simply didn’t think, I doubt it was an intentional violation of the rules. making her change for violating the code is simply fair to the other students who abided by the code. that said, it shouldn’t be IN the code. a spaghetti strap floor length sundress has been appropriate women’s attire going back to at least the 1920’s, and it’s no doubt more appropriate than things that DO make it through the code. And dad is right here, barring a logo anything in the boys or men’s department-with the possible exception of a “muscle” shirt is going to pass the code. in the girls or juniors or women’s department at least a third won’t pass muster, and yet it’s gender-appropriate. and usually age appropriate. unless you insist on shopping at one of the high fashion stores of course-A&F as an example are notorious for trying to be inappropriate. [Sic]
Maybe if we spent more time focusing on the old school 3 R’s, you remember reading, writing and arithmetic, rather than the new school 3 R’s of moral religiosity, ridiculousness and rooted in prejudice stereotypes on everything from girl purity, to kids who live “there,” what their ethnicity, skin color says about them, specifically centered around clothing, test scores wouldn’t be so abysmal, our international ranking wouldn’t be such an embarrassment and we wouldn’t have a profound skills gap. Imagine if, instead of obsessing over whether little Katy’s sundress passed the school dress code, her teacher, the staff member responsible for this mess, made sure she knew her ABC’s, her colors, how to count to 100, her sight words in preparation for reading next year in first grade. Imagine if, instead of spending time explaining that and why spaghetti straps are against the rules, convincing her to change her clothes, they fostered her already present and growing love of science by asking her what she knew about the planets, what she could tell them about the top speed of land mammals in Africa, pointed out age appropriate books in the school’s library that would increase her knowledge in an area of interest. Imagine if we, instead of sending middle and high school girls home for dresses, skirts, shorts that are too short, tops that are too low, skimpy, spaghetti strapped, we worked on engaging students in learning making them less distracted, taught them how to manage distraction, brought back comprehensive sex education, so they could understand their changing bodies, the changing bodies of the opposite sex, in the process learning to respect each other. And if a third of what’s on the rack sold in basic stores, not ‘My First Stripperwear’ doesn’t pass muster, then we need to change muster, not the children, their parents or their attitudes towards usurped freedoms, at the very least while changing what’s on the rack, available to buy, understanding what is there and the challenge in meeting current dress codes. When the only shorts available are Daisy Dukes, that’s what those “too short” shorts are called, not ‘booty shorts,’ but administrators, policy supporting parents, society members wouldn’t ever think for one minute their inflammatory terminology is part of the problem; when shirts for girls, teens, juniors are almost always baby doll style with the characteristic rounded neck and tiny t-shirt imitation sleeves working to create the infamous bra strap problem. Ignored completely, students in the late 50’s 60’s and 70’s fought through civil disobedience protests to win the right to wear normal, off the rack clothing to school, t- shirts, jeans, sneakers, boots rather than dress pants, shined dress shoes and tucked in collared shirts for young men, at least knee length skirts and blouses for young women; the feminist movement brought the right for them to wear pants, jeans too. Uniforms only came back into play as a possible way for schools to deal with gangs, later to, as they put it, level the playing field for poorer kids who couldn’t afford brand name clothing, stop the “fashion show” kids were worried about putting on coming to school and center their focus back on learning, charter schools trying to be a cut above the rest, further impress parents fed up with public school chaos, mediocrity buy putting kids in utilitarian clothing. Look how well that worked, now who is absolutely obsessed with clothing, obstructing learning, staff not students; prompting student civil disobedience protests to wear yoga pants if the want to, Ugg boots if they feel like it while staff stare on in disbelief that yes students can, will effect change. It seriously calls into question which generation has a problem with decision making, navigating choices vilified millennials, emerging gen Z or everyone else; flies in the face of characterized millennial disrespect for authority, disregard for the rule of law, constant legal troubles, because apparently there are plenty of properly programed drones out there doing the most extreme in societies bidding to return us to the fictional Mayberry. It’s time school got back to what it was supposed to be about education, not only in an academic sense, but socialization, true life lessons not just follow the @#! rules! This person, probable parent is on to something, “Let’s start by oppression of ever right and value of our children? We pay school taxes for the school to criticize or children. We can allow children to wear knifes as a religious vault but a cute dress on a little girl is forbidden? What if the parents don’t agree to sign the rule book of the school? That have a right to attend regardless and by law. Perhaps that’s the solution – parents don’t agree anymore to these guidelines.”[Sic] If they are wearing clothes, they have a legal right to come to class period; the rest is needless garbage.