Non uniform at school - provocative clothing.

[MotherMorph]

I'm probably really late to the party about this and has been discussed a million times before.
I was discussing with a friend the other day how only womens clothing is really ever described as provocative/suggestive. "They were dressed like a slut etc" I've literally never seen anything written about how a males clothing could be overtly sexual or provocative. It made me wonder why there always eems to be some responsibility on woman (and the way they dress) for how how men behave.
Then recently on a local fb page someone started a discussion about 6th form dress codes and non uniform policies at school. The list of what girls cant wear is as long as your arm. What cant boys wear? Ripped jeans. That's about it. (In 6th form to be fair, they are expected to wear suits)
The argument was brought up about hormones and whether girls would dress provocatively. I realise that they would need some boundaries, but my DD has "cropped" tshirts that finish on her belly button, it's not the same as wearing a triangle bikini. No strappy tops, vests, cropped tshirts, off the shoulder, cold shoulder, short shorts, ripped jeans etc. There is not a lot in her wardrobe that isnt in this list and yet she dresses quite conservatively!! (This is for non uniform)
In 6th form they must also wear suits or business like clothes. But there are 100 rules about that as well.

Remember the 80s? When fashion was long skirts, high-waisted baggy trousers, puffed sleeves, waistcoats and baggy jackets? Sure, skin was on show, but it wasn't all about displaying as much shape and skin as possible.

And I deliberately did not specify whose fashion, because in the 80s many of these styles were unisex.

I wonder how a boy turning up wearing 'provocative' stereotypically female clothing might be treated?

Do you remember a few years ago where boys at a school (I think it was in devon) wore skirts to school in the summer one day as they said it was unfair that boys couldnt wear shorts?

Men's clothes are merely functional, as men possess worth in their own right. Women have to work bloody hard to even be acknowledged, let alone valued, in society, and every tiny choice they make is scrutinised and criticised because they should know their place and not seek acknowledgement of any kind.

This is spot on

Now thinking about how many differing dress codes there are for women as opposed to men.
My DH has a suit that gets wheeled out for weddings, parties, funerals, formal (but not black tie) dinners etc whereas what I would wear to a party would be in no way suitable to wear to a funeral in winter!
I wear short denim shorts and strappy vests in the summer, sometimes I wear that to work too. I've no idea if anyone is judging me. I wear it because I like it, and its comfortable.

The easy answer is simply to redraft the wording in the policy, retain the references to the list clothing that is not permitted but remove references to girls so that it’s a blanket restriction. So no one is allowed to wear such items.

Obviously there should be no reference to subjective terms such as provocative. Instead it needs to state things like “clothing must not reveal navels, buttocks, breasts or genitalia”. Then deal separately with any other more detailed requirements eg thighs/shoulders as per school culture.

Non uniform day in my kids' primaries (and in the local secondary from what I see walking up and down to school) and most of the girls default to leggings and hoodies anyway! There's more of a faff during the school year with the secondaries constant flip flopping over what minuscule logo detail is suddenly prohibited on shoes than anything in non uniform day.

The ones where it's an issue are the nursery/reception girls, where it's come from parents obviously - who send the kids in in strappy sandals and frilly pretty dresses and loose flowing hair (which just makes me cringe with how inevitable the nits are) that are utterly impractical for early years learning. As soon as the kids get to dictate what they're wearing the clothing becomes much more geared to the important task of hanging upside down off the climbing frame for as long as you can competitions.

For whatever reason there is less consensus about professional dress for women and more variation in what is worn in warmer weather

My experience is this is a hangover from when women in an office were supposed to look ornamental as well as do their job - see also makeup and heel requirements for receptionists/flight crew etc, whereas for a man it's just be clean and neat.

What I find interesting, is my kids have been to non-uniform schools, including those with 6th forms, in hot countries, and there was never much problem - because it was ever day, they pretty much all wore shorts/t-shirt or jeans/t-shirt. When we lived in asia there just wasn't this fuss over legs in short shorts - no-one even noticed. So I almost think that it's just that when you allow the kids that one day of freedom, they go all out.

Having said all of this, it also forgets that teenage girls have all the hormones that teenage boys do - we're just expected to control ourselves and not pandered to by the patriarchy, but I remember getting very flustered seeing my crush in his t-shirt and jeans the first day of year 12!

my dc go to no uniform schools.
2 rules

• torso needs to be covered (including bottom)
• no writing on clothing apart from band labels

My experience is this is a hangover from when women in an office were supposed to look ornamental as well as do their job - see also makeup and heel requirements for receptionists/flight crew etc, whereas for a man it's just be clean and neat.

My friend works in a shop and she was told off for not wearing make up one day and asked to go and put some on!!

Schools could be setting the ground rules from an early age by talking about fashion and clothes choices with children.

In primary we prepared for a school trip by reminding children to wear comfortable shoes and bring a waterproof. The same conversation could be had every year, bringing in commentary about why some women's clothing is very impractical. By the time they get to sixth form, it should be really clear that women's clothes can be sexualised in a way men's are not, and it should be easier for everyone to recognise appropriate clothes.

'Appropriate' meaning practical and well fitting.

My DH has a suit that gets wheeled out for weddings, parties, funerals, formal (but not black tie) dinners etc whereas what I would wear to a party would be in no way suitable to wear to a funeral in winter!

You could purchase a simple black shift dress (the equivalent of the male suit). Worn with bare legs/arms and a sparkly necklace it's an evening outfit. Worn with opaque tights and a cardigan and it's a winter funeral outfit.

Women, imo, generally spend more time, thought and money on their outfits. The perception of what others think of them (notably other women more so than men) is also considered.

A man would (typically), never worry about wearing the same suit and tie 8 occasions in a row. A woman (typically) wouldn't dream of doing the same. Usually the driver for that is either 1- enjoyment of finding a new outfit or 2- what she thinks other women would think of her for doing so. Your typical man wouldn't notice if a woman wore the same outfit at every formal event.

@QuentinWinters

I feel bad for teen girls. I remember the quandary of very short skirts being in fashion and it looking "wrong" if they were longer.

My feelings are:

1. bodies aren't shameful so if a girl is confident to go out in shorts with her bum hanging out good for her (looking at you SD) There's only a short window in life where you have that confidence

2. if boys/men can't deal with it, that's their problem and should be treated as such.

I think the root cause of this is porn culture and oversexualisation of girls, it's not fair to tell teen girls not to wear certain things when everything around them is telling them that's how they "should" look.

We need to deal with the underlying culture, then things will become more equitable. Although it appears that actually boys are becoming more image conscious, rather than women being less image conscious. Based on DS's instagram feed of waxed 6 packs and how to get them

But why should boys feel comfortable with girls around them being explicitly dolled up as sex objects? And I don't necessarily think that is the intent of the young women but it is certainly the intent of the fashion industry.

Don't we want them to feel uncomfortable with that?

Why shouldn't grown men feel quite uncomfortable with going to work and having their students, who are mstly underage, dressed up in that way?

"They should just handle it" what does that mean? They should pretend they don't realise that is what is going on? They should just train themselves to think it is ok? Do we really want them to start thinking that way? If they do, what are the logical consequences of that perspective on how they think about women or girls?

Dd's non uniform school had two rules-no offensive slogans, no sports colours.

Now thinking about how many differing dress codes there are for women as opposed to men. My DH has a suit that gets wheeled out for weddings, parties, funerals, formal (but not black tie) dinners etc whereas what I would wear to a party would be in no way suitable to wear to a funeral in winter!

Maybe there are more dress codes for women than for men because men only get one gigantic rule: "Be fully covered, in sombre colours".

I wonder who is more free: the one who has simple basic rules, or the one who has lots of choice available, but the choice matters.

TeiTetua
Good points.
In my sector, I've tended to find that men are expected to look smarter than women.

In all the schools I've worked in men have generally had the options of some or all:

• full suit and tie
• smart trousers, shirt and tie
• smart trousers, shirt and jumper/cardigan/waistcoat/contrasting jacket
• flexibility on colours and style as none of the schools I've worked in have had a very heavy corporate feel

Meanwhile the women's dress code, like the men's, typically refers to office dress and so you'd expect it to be smart trousers and top, blazer optional (like the men), smart dress, smart skirt and top, sensible shoes. Both options have enough flexibility for men and women to style themselves how they like and to be comfortable.

What actually happens is that 75% of staff follow that and then there's a substantial minority who decide flip flops are ok, casual skirts and t shirts, summery beach dresses, perfectly nice smart dresses but they're more cocktails in a nice bar dress than working with teenagers, high heels they struggle to walk in so are never at their duty spot on time (or worse seem to never make it there at all). It is almost exclusively women who stand out for this because you don't tend to see men coming in in chino shorts and t shirt to work in the same way you see some women in casual skirt, t shirt and flip flops.

To me a semi formal dress code for men and women is quite clear, but as with teenagers who want to argue their trainers are school shoes, there's some adults who haven't grown out of that.

But why should boys feel comfortable with girls around them being explicitly dolled up as sex objects? And I don't necessarily think that is the intent of the young women but it is certainly the intent of the fashion industry.

What is and isn't "dolled up as sex objects" is entirely cultural - it isnt innate so boys learn any discomfort because they learn to associate certain clothes with sex.

But I was actually talking about men being "distracted". That is their problem. I find men in short sleeved shirts with their guns out distracting (and chest hair. And too tight trousers). Noone expects men to change their dress because I (or other women) find it distracting. Men arent told that if they dress like that, they can expect to be sexually assaulted.

Males should not get a pass for bad behaviour based on womens clothes.

I find men in short sleeved shirts with their guns out distracting

Yes, it's typical male behavior to flash weapons about. They should wear jackets with enough fabric to hide a shoulder holster.

@LolaSmiles expresses the problem really well. DD is 5 and it's something I find very concerning. Girls wear leggings, boys wear trousers. Arguably, there nothing sexualised about 5 year olds in leggings whatsoever, but I am constantly questioning why even at 5, fashion for girls is designed to be tight and, in effect, show their bodies. Ditto shorts.

So for me, the rules shouldn't be about what girls can't wear, it should be about what is appropriate full stop - ie in professional environments, showing skin from around mid thigh to shoulders is inappropriate and this applies equally to boys wearing very short football shorts, trousers that don't cover their bum or vests. And the language used should be gender neutral accordingly.

But at the same time, we should be tackling this idea that fashion for girls is about showing their bodies. DH and I discuss this endlessly - where's the line between saying that DD (when she's older) should feel comfortable dressing how she likes without it automatically being about her trying to be "provocative" or "sexualised" and how society thinks girls should dress? We want her to be independent and confident, but I'm uncomfortable with the baked in double standard that exists in fashion for young girls in particular.

I used to work v close to a girls high school. On non-school uniform days, it was an endless procession of girls wearing very tight jeggings/leggings and cropped tops. We live close to a boys high school - non uniform days are all about jeans and trackies. At most, the jeans might be skinny jeans with a few rips.

We can tell ourselves until we're blue in the face that girls have a choice, but it doesn't change the fact that there is a double standard and we're not doing anything to address it. As a pp poster said, instead, we've just reframed it so that girls are convinced they're empowered when wearing clothes that ultimately have been designed for the male gaze.

The point of these dress codes/uniform regulations is to teach children how to dress appropriately in a professional context hence all the polished shoes and tucked in shirts. Unfortunately, women’s work wear isn’t as well defined as men’s so there’s greater likelihood that they may unwittingly wear something unprofessional hence the long list of rules telling them how to dress.

@QuentinWinters most people would find that kind of get up on a man unacceptable. If a man turned up to his first day at a magic circle law firm dressed like that he’d be fired. If he turned up like that to a social event he’d be judged to high heaven.

We actually had the opposite at work this term. We have been told as we work in a school clothes need washing after every wear. To address the issues with professional clothes needing dry cleaning etc, the head said he didnt expect people coming in for an hour to be in suits, so the dress code would be downgraded to a more smart casual. Then he went in detail on what he meant by That for the men. No legs. No need for ties. No denim. Etc etc. Then pointed to an example of an appropriately dressed smart casual for the workplace man. Women were assumed to know what he meant. Presumably thats because we have it every year when it gets warm and we go into summer wardrobe which is often less formal, where the men are always usually in suits.

I think its partially the fashion now, the highly sexualised look which dictates the market. For girls.
In the 80s we were completely covered in long black and purple shrouds, as was the fashion.

I agree with the sentiment about words such as slut to describe the way women can dress, wholly wrong.

I don't agree with non-uniform days anyway, but that's not really the point of the thread.