What could be a clearer case of slut shaming than asking a girl to remove red lipstick but allowing 'discreet' lipstick/makeup?
'Red lipstick is just not suitable for a girl in school and not necessary.' Asking a girl in class to remove any makeup (or earrings, etc) is really bad form, imo.
I agree with Giles -- either it all goes or it all stays. Otherwise you are left with ridiculous differentiation between shades of red, or pure subjectivity as to the intent of the user or nature of lip gloss. No doubt there are many girls being made miserable because others are allowed to wear it and their parents won't let them. There are parents out there who don't let their children wear lip gloss until their teens. Chapstick yes, bubblegum flavour tinted lip gloss, no.
The difference between teenage girls and 'dirty doctors/nurses/etc' is that in the latter case grown adults are being used as material for titillation. When the clothing assigned to teenage girls becomes a fetish object then maybe it is time to explore other options.
But the issue is not really sexualisation associated with uniform per se. That is something of a side show, that illustrates the perils of unintended consequences. The rest of the unintended consequences of setting up teachers as judges of girls' appearance is what is really significant. At stake is the question of whether girls are equals in the classroom or just viewed however subconsciously as a potential distraction for boys, and the disproportionate time and attention accorded to policing the appearance of girls suggests that schools believe that boys need protection from distraction and that they exist more for the benefit of boys than for girls.
The class of students most likely to be adversely affected by problems in the class environment is actually girls who are relatively quiet and well behaved but who are in class with boys who are unruly or who are actually rewarded for disregarding classroom etiquette (calling out answers instead of waiting to be called on, for instance) and attention-seeking behaviour (often met with humour by teachers, or treated as humour and acceptable), while girls' attention-seeking is considered inappropriate or too rowdy, and unacceptable.
Aside from outright and identifiable breaches of classroom rules that boys get away with and girls do not, girls tend to be the victims of a multitude of micro-inequities in the classroom -- they are asked lower level questions, they are given less constructive feedback in verbal interactions, they are called upon less frequently and are expected to observe classroom etiquette in Q&A sessions so if they call out an answer they are reprimanded, they receive fewer follow up questions or challenges to defend their answer, and immediate feedback for correct answers tends to be muted compared to what boys receive.
One way or another, boys dominate classrooms. Yet if you looked at uniform policies, you would think that girls distracting boys with their lipstick or their false eyelashes or their skirts at mid thigh was an actual issue, or that girls focusing on all of that was a problem, when really what needs to be looked at is the (perhaps) unconscious bias of teachers. Girls going all out for physical appearance is an issue because it shows that somewhere along the line girls have decided that they won't try any more in class, and they will focus instead on something that is almost 100% sure to get attention, and is completely fine up to a point in the world outside of school -- their appearance.
The appearance of girls involved in uniform infractions is not an issue because of its distraction potential. Schools should realise that it is a symptom of a deep malaise and it will not be cured by crackdowns on uniform infractions. That is a case of mistaking the symptom for the disease. A school that is spending a lot of time dealing with girls' uniform infractions needs to ask itself a lot of questions about whether girls are really accorded the same welcome in school as boys, and about classroom culture, and about gender expectations.
Girls involved in fights and concerns about gel nails -- fighting needs to be explored. It is not ok for girls to be involved in fights as long as their gel nails aren't going to gouge out someone's eye. What are they fighting about? If fights are about boys then a school urgently needs to examine the sort of learning environment it is creating, whether girls are really engaged and encouraged or whether they are just staying under the radar and not causing trouble. When girls are involved in fights at all, something is wrong in the culture. The squeaky wheel gets the oil unless it is a girl wheel, in which case it will be told to follow classroom rules or unroll its skirt or go to the bathroom and wipe off all that mascara.
Uniforms can therefore mask problems rather than curing them. They do not cause all of the issues girls face in schools but they make it harder to identify them and deal with them. They do contribute (as do dress codes that police expressions of female sexuality such as earrings and makeup) to the idea that girls can only be pretty and relationship material or smart, a really damaging false dichotomy that can alienate many girls from taking studying seriously.
They also contribute to the idea that many boys and men entertain, that a conventionally 'feminine' woman, or one with large boobs, or one whose hair is blonde or who likes red nail polish or whose voice is light and high could not possibly be anything other than a bimbo/slut/sexually available. It is a real problem when a society feels that women must almost take the veil in order to be taken seriously (but they must not be too ugly or they will just be laughed at for their perceived lack of sexual attractiveness -- think Mary Beard) and uniform and appearance codes and their public enforcement contribute (1) to the assumptions about appearance and deportment of girls, and to the rewarding of polite and conformist behaviour that will get women and girls nowhere, both so detrimental to girls and women, and (2) to the assumption that it is perfectly ok to publicly judge women's and girls' appearance and expect them to take note and conform to expectations. Accepting that girls can express femininity or an individual sense of style in the school environment goes a long way towards erasing the concept of the blonde bimbo vs ugly nerd divide.
Would it be unthinkable for uniform in a coed school to consist of a pink shirt or blouse, with a tie and blazer in another shade of pink, and trousers or skirt in paisley featuring splashes of pink, or with pink flowers, or a plaid dominated by shades of pink? How many schools is anyone here aware of where pinks or soft purples dominate the uniform colours, where floral motifs are worn by both boys and girls or even permitted to girls? Where clothing is concerned, the default setting in schools is a masculine style and masculine colours, as they are normally perceived. The message is that girls have to check their feminine side at the door, that femininity and seriousness about school cannot coexist. This is a message that boys take up and run with, unfortunately.
Article about Mary Beard, TV appearances, and misogyny that illustrates what we are really doing when we preside over an environment in which policing the appearance of girls, either public or private, is acceptable.
'At Cambridge, the inequities of gender began to dawn on Beard. “Most of the people who taught us in the faculty were blokes,” she says. “There were only twelve per cent women among the students, and you thought, Actually, there is an issue here. You go into a dining hall of a men’s college, and everybody’s portrait was a bloke. Well, perhaps some female founder back in 1512, some lady who gave the cash—and everyone else was a bloke. For the first time I saw that, somehow, I was there as sort of a favor.” ...'
'...The real issue, [Beard suggests] is not merely guaranteeing a woman’s right to speak; it is being aware of the prejudices that we bring to the way we hear her.'