Non uniform at school - provocative clothing.

I've been talking pretty exclusively about society and the fashion industry's sexualisation and objectification of the female body.

People who benefit from women being seen and treated as objects are the ones pushing this

As for the response of men - pretty much everyone has a sexual response. The fashion industry deliberately produces products meant to trigger it. It really says nothing bad about men that they do so effectively

Goosefoot, the reason we will never agree on this is because we fundamentally disagree as to whether structural oppression exists in any form. We've discussed it on other threads in the context of race and homophobia also, so I'm not even going to try to convince you here!

It's great that we both agree that the sexual objectification of women is harmful and that sexism is damaging for everyone.

It's just that we disagree on the root cause of the problem. My view is that we are never going to be able to identify a single tangible culprit for the sex-based oppression women face. It's not Mr Moneybags at the top of the fashion industry or Evil McGreedy and his publishing empire - removing them will not solve the problem as the patriarchy is bigger than all of them.

I know you don't agree and you absolutely don't have to. I do wonder if you might find the notion of structural oppression unpalatable because you're viewing it in terms of evil oppressor and innocent victim, though. For the record, I don't think that members of a dominant class (men, for example) are inherently evil or malicious by virtue of being members of that class, and I believe that most people want no part in the oppression of others. It's just that it's sometimes hard for individuals to see everything that's going on around them because of where they're standing.

The fashion industry only benefits from the sexual objectification of women to the extent women want to buy clothes that make them sexually attractive. The fashion industry didn't mastermind the whole of the patriarchy.

The other point is we aren't talking about laws around what women wear. It's schools, mostly filled with minors, and schools have a duty of care as far as the environment the provide for all the students.

I think you are pretty determined to only see this as being about girls being responsible for men's response.

I've been talking pretty exclusively about society and the fashion industry's sexualisation and objectification of the female body.

People who benefit from women being seen and treated as objects are the ones pushing this, and their victims in these cases are the young women that buy into it and face the consequences of that - not just directly but in terms of the larger picture of how women are placed in society in the law etc - and their victims are also the young men who are conditioned to see this as normal.

People talk here pretty disparagingly about people/men who take a choice feminism approach to porn and sex work. Where do you think they learn that it is ok for women to choose sexual objectification, that some of them just like that, that they do it for their own selves, that it is empowering? That it would be wrong to try and question that?

As for the response of men - pretty much everyone has a sexual response. The fashion industry deliberately produces products meant to trigger it. It really says nothing bad about men that they do so effectively, it's a billion dollar industry and they are good at what they do. Obviously they need to control their urges like anyone else, but it's pretty unfair to insist they can somehow not notice what the products are designed to make them notice. And that will affect them, that's what happens when we are exposed to things over time.

I tell my girls that wearing certain things is likely to encourage certain behaviours from men. But I also tell them this is down to the men involved and they can wear what they like. We talk a lot about fashion/sexualisation of women.
There is nothing inherently sexy about most body parts (genitalia excluded I guess) and it's not down to girls that the patriarchy has sexualised them.

The victorians were covered up and the men found a flash of ankle scandalous and provocative. Telling females to change their clothing choices to avoid being sexualised has precisely no impact because the patriarchy will just sexualised them for something else.

We need to deal with the root cause- which is to address a society that sees women as less than human, sex objects.

We do that by creating and enforcing expectations on boys and men not to treat girls as sex objects, regardless of what they look like or wear.

Unfortunately at the moment we have a society which is saturated in porn and where women can be raped with impunity. Telling girls not to wear short shorts is not any kind of solution to that problem.

**Insidiously

But knowing why men are leering at girls in short skirts doesn't excuse their behaviour
I've not excused their behaviour.

I still think it's worth talking to teens about socialisation and advertising and encourage them to question why they're making certain decisions.

For example, there's no need for any students to have their arse on show, their midriff out, their chest out. There's a question then as to why girls' fashion more than boys seems to be designed to expose more flesh. And it's worth questioning why disproportionately schools have to make rules to respond to the way some girls dress for school. It's because they're continually told that this is what's attractive, more invidiously continually bombarded with the idea that dressing in this way is empowerment (and just happens to be the very thing that men have been pushing for decades).
We could say 'you do you and if anyone has an issue with students having bums/chests/midriffs out then turn it around and suggest they are responsible for male actions' or we could say there's no reason for any students to be dressing with that much exposed and if it's such a big issue where girls feel they must have their crop tops and hot pants start to unpick the issues as to why girls seem to disproportionately want to show up to school with substantially more bare skin than their male peers.

I think it's naive if people want to pretend that their choices are made in a vacuum free from all of these influences.

Of course.

But knowing why men are leering at girls in short skirts doesn't excuse their behaviour.

Do you mean that women should be free to dress however they want but should also be re-educated to make better-informed choices?

So it's not that they should be forced to dress more modestly, but that they should be encouraged to want to dress more modestly?

I haven't said they should dress modestly.

I think female socialisation is complex and there's been centuries of it. I think a lot of time and money is invested (largely by organisations headed by men) in telling women how to look and behave. I think it's naive if people want to pretend that their choices are made in a vacuum free from all of these influences.

Is it not right to respect choice whilst also shedding light on the conditions in which choices are made?

Do you mean that women should be free to dress however they want but should also be re-educated to make better-informed choices?

So it's not that they should be forced to dress more modestly, but that they should be encouraged to want to dress more modestly?

Do the men need any re-education too?

where are we going wrong in thinking that women shouldn't be held responsible for men's behaviour toward them?
Women are in no way responsible for men's behaviour.

Equally, as feminists surely we would want to unpick female socialisation and the way lots of money in the fashion and beauty industry has defined the ideal women around a model of femininity that happens to be the same one that is based on what men find attractive? And in recent years has continued to promote this image of female attractiveness and sexuality that appeals to make desires, but just rebranded it as empowering women?

Is it not right to respect choice whilst also shedding light on the conditions in which choices are made?

Surely it’s not about men’s behaviour towards woman but dressing the right way for the environment they are in?

You don’t wear a ball gown to work, yet I doubt that’s on an unacceptable list?

So now it's not about the sexual objectification of women? Merely about practicality?

What's impractical about a sixth former wearing a cropped jumper in a Maths lesson?

How about looking at how parents chose to dress their daughters?

In what way?

It sounds like we've come back around to controlling girls and women to prevent their objectification by men.

Surely it’s not about men’s behaviour towards woman but dressing the right way for the environment they are in?

You don’t wear a ball gown to work, yet I doubt that’s on an unacceptable list?

And I do feel girls are in a no win situation really because a lot of money has been spent over the years Most teens don’t have jobs to buy the clothes

That means their parents are in charge of pitching garments. They may ‘want’ but it doesn’t mean they ‘get’

How about looking at how parents chose to dress their daughters?

Really, sexualisation of the female form is sort of feminism 101. I get that some people think it's not important but it shouldn't be surprising that people have an issue with it

Please educate us, Goosefoot - where are we going wrong in thinking that women shouldn't be held responsible for men's behaviour toward them?

Really, sexualisation of the female form is sort of feminism 101. I get that some people think it's not important but it shouldn't be surprising that people have an issue with it
There's some double standards in some branches of feminism though.

If women reclaim pole fitness and enjoy the athleticism of the discipline then they couldn't possibly be enjoying wearing shorts and a sports crop top to do an acrobatic sport in a typically all female studio. No, they're 100% being a tool of the patriarchy and have been brainwashed even though the fitness discipline is different to exotic dancing.

But then at the same time, if anyone comments that the whole fashion and beauty industry seems to be built on getting to girls at an increasingly young age and selling the idea that they have to look a particular way (that happens to line up with stereotypical male desires) then that's awful and how dare anyone question clothing. After all just raising the background politics and exploring socialisation and the tensions in the area is tantamount to victim blaming.

I don't understand it.

The list should say: all pupils no: ripped clothing, clothing exposing stomach, very low necklines, very high hems. Surely that would cover it and save us all from those god awlful deep v necks that Russell brand types wear.

Really, sexualisation of the female form is sort of feminism 101. I get that some people think it's not important but it shouldn't be surprising that people have an issue with it.

Choice feminism is pretty insipid stuff.

I never understood why wearing trousers slung so low they were falling off and the more recent fashion of trousers so tight their bulge shows were acceptable for boys but girls had to hide their shoulders in 100F 38C weather.

Assuming the boys wear suitable trousers, can they show their shoulders in 100F 38C weather, or is it a hardship for them if they can't?

If you seriously think that telling people that sexualised clothing is not sexualising the people wearing them, and don't think that affects their perception of what a woman is, and what she is there for, there is zero reason for feminists to object to sexualisation in the media and fashion industry, in porn, or anywhere else.

You can tell people to treat people with x characteristic respectfully, but if everywhere around them they see you treating them disrespectfully - the second is more important.

You seem to be caught up in the word "policing". We "police" all kinds of negative things in schools, from language use that might be disrespectful, to images that treat people in ways that are wrong, to clothing with images that are offensive.

A pin up girl is a real person too, even all you see of her is the sexualised image. The image creates a perception that women are mainly sexual objects.

The same is true when it is the girls around the halls of the school that are the sexualised image. In fact I think it's even more powerful because a person who is clearly flesh and blood is being presented that way, like an image that's produced to be sexually provocative.

Answer the bloody question.

Why is your answer to the problem of oversexualisation of girls to police girls clothing?

Why not do more to get boys to see girls as people not sex objects? E.g. expect them to behave respectfully regardless of how a girl presents herself.

Really, please, rather than endless questioning and evasion, just answer. What exactly do you think the impact of "girls be dolled up as sex objects" is on boys? What do you think boys and men can do to mitigate that?

Tell me, do you think the sexualisation of women in the media or porn has no effect on people that are surrounded by it? How does it affect how people think about women? How young men, who are still developing their ideas about women and sex, view them?

Why don't we allow people to put up photos of pin up girls, even fairly mild ones, in schools and workplaces?

Is it effective to tell young men that they should keep their eyes to themselves and see women and girls as people rather than sex objects, and then surround them constantly with a culture which screams "sex objects"! What will influence them more?

I agree that men and boys should teach everyone respectfully. But you cannot expect that they will not be influenced when all the images around them of attractive womanhood are highly sexualised. You are saying one thing and showing them something quite different, and they notice the gap.

Are you saying men are too stupid to differentiate between a sexualised image in the media and a fellow student wearing a cropped jumper?

If so, why should women be forced to dress like nuns until men understand that women are people too and should be treated with equal respect despite their female bodies?

Schools don't let them put photos of pin up girls in their lockers any more, why do you think that is?

Because a school that condones the sexual objectification of women fails in its duty to protect its female staff and students from sex discrimination, fails in its duty to properly educate its students and reinforces the oppressive patriarchal structures that damage society and prevent progress toward equality.

Goosefoot, I also do not understand. You seem to be saying that girls are dressing in a highly sexualised way and the boys therefore cant help it if they are distracted? You have some sympathy for girls not realising what is going on but mostly you think that the boys need help because they are helpless in face of an exposed belly?

Sorry, but no. The point many have made on this thread is that walking a line between letting girls dress how they like and realising that they are still being subtly influenced by the male gaze is difficult.

It's also been pointed out that dress codes dont need to specify girls - agreeing that skin shouldn't be on show should apply equally to girls ans boys.

But dressing appropriately for certainnoccassions is a very different thing tonsaying that if a girl dresses a certain way the boys cant be blamed for ....(I'm not actually sure what you think might happen. Be distracted? Be aroused?)

A lot of schools where sagging has been a fashion don't allow it.

I can't say I've seen the bulge thing on boys at school here. I hope its not on the way.