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.

My boy already asked me, at 5

“Why is it you can only see the ladies’ tummies, mummy? “

Awww it's sad they notice the double standard. My ds loves dresses, make up and sparkly jewellery but is already ashamed of himself for that (hes 8).

@QuentinWinters

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.

Yes, what counts as a sex object is culturally determined, but that does not mean it isn't real. Women's clothes are designed to sexualise them in the ways that people in western countries currently interpret as sexualised.

Expecting to be sexually assaulted is beside the point in a way, but there is a larger cultural message that is being sent when we tell young women this is the way they should look, and we tell young men this is the way young women should look.

They aren't idiots, they recognise sexualised presentations when they see them on tv, in porn, in advertising, and they absolutly recognise them when they see them on the young women in their school. If people think that seeing women this way in the media affects people, how is seeing the regular girls around them, their friends and sisters, not going to afect their view of what a woman is?

As for the teachers - if we found these same teachers with photographs of underage girls in some of these outfits, we would consider it pretty terrible, a reason to be fired. Do we really think that they don't notice the blatant sexualisation of the same girls around them, even if they know it's not a good thing? What is a society saying when we dress up minor girls who are supposed to be untouchable, that way. We want to avoid men thinking of these girls as sexy, but you really can't ask people not to notice when they are dressed up like a Kardashian what that is supposed to be about.

There is a huge difference between finding someone attractive and the larger cultural messages about women. If there isn't than feminists have zero business calling for advertising or page three girls or even porn to stop depicting women that way.

It's because females are sex objects and males are not considered in the same way.

Fashion accentuates this.

If you think there aren't sexualised male clothes, go to a gay bar for a while. But they're not main stream male fashion.

And when men wear short shorts or tight trousers that show their balls, no-one calls them sluts.

I'm struggling to understand your point goosefoot.
I found your use of "dolled up as sex objects" quite sexist and it suggested to me that you think girls wearing clothes that show a lot of skin can expect boys/men to treat them differently because of that.

I think boys/men should be taught to treat women respectfully whatever they are wearing.

Agree there's a broader cultural issue regarding sexualisation in fashion, but that's not going to be solved by policing what girls wear.

@QuentinWinters

I'm struggling to understand your point goosefoot. I found your use of "dolled up as sex objects" quite sexist and it suggested to me that you think girls wearing clothes that show a lot of skin can expect boys/men to treat them differently because of that.

I think boys/men should be taught to treat women respectfully whatever they are wearing.

Agree there's a broader cultural issue regarding sexualisation in fashion, but that's not going to be solved by policing what girls wear.

But they are dolled up as sex objects, whether or not you like the implications. The same way a girl in a pair of cheeky cut-offs and a tank top in a men's magazine is. The implications of that aren't very nice either - that's the problem.

It's been particularly bad the last few years, the vision given to young women of attractive fashionable women has been hyper-sexualised to a starling degree, and it seems to come closer and closer to the porn look. Teen girls don't always appreciate that is what is gong on - they see it as just what is in style, but the designers know exactly what they are looking to produce.

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

There is a real fear for some reason of saying to young women - look, fashion here is exploiting you, and it's actually not good for you or the young men in your classes to see women treated that way. So while we can't control what you do out of school, when you are in school we expect everyone to dress with the same kind of respect that you would in a workplace. Young women don't necessarily know this stuff unless someone tells them, and both they and young men have the right to go to school in an environment that treats bodies respectfully.

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.

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.

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?)

@MushyPeasAreTheDevilsFood

Dont you think it's because mens clothing is not at all Adventurous in any way and women's clothing is so varied?

What are the makes going to wear thats provocative? Hot pants?

One of DH’s former student housemates liked wearing short shorts in the summer. More than once we all had to tell him to put a leg down or rearrange himself when he was sitting because a bollock had fallen out of his shorts. He wasn’t an exhibitionist, just loved his tiny shorts.

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.

@BlingLoving

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?)

I don't think I said anything about boys being distracted, I think that is probably true in many cases but also not the most important point.

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?

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?

@LonginesPrime

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.

Your second point answers your question.

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.

@QuentinWinters

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?

I've answered your question six times.

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.

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?

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.

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
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.

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?

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?

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.

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?

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?

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.