Madness in a California Dress Code


Want some more evidence that our society has gone mad?

The relaxed new dress code at public schools in the small city of Alameda, across the bay from San Francisco, is intentionally specific: Midriff-baring shirts are acceptable attire, so are tank tops with spaghetti straps and other once-banned items like micro-mini skirts and short shorts. …

The new policy amounts to a sweeping reversal of the modern school dress code and makes Alameda the latest school district in the country to adopt a more permissive policy it says is less sexist.

Students who initiated the change say many of the old rules that barred too much skin disproportionately targeted girls, while language calling such attire “distracting” sent the wrong message.

Got that?  A policy that limits the degree to which schoolboys think “sex” when they look at their female classmates is supposedly sexist.  Not allowing girls to dress in a way that draws attention to their bodies (as opposed to their minds or personalities) is somehow demeaning of them.  This is crazy.

The strongest response to my assertion would be that we should teach boys not to look at girls any differently no matter what they wear to school rather than limit what they can wear, but that’s simple fantasy.  Young men are hardwired with a sex drive that is natural and part of their healthy development.  We can and should guide them toward better control of those feelings and help them channel their drives in a healthy direction, but one of the ways we accomplish that goal is through gradually changing standards for the environments in which we place them.

Please consider a voluntary, tax-deductible subscription to keep the Current growing and free.

Note this paragraph, later in the article:

Students in Alameda, Portland and Evanston have freedom to wear mostly anything as long as it includes a bottom, top, shoes, covers private parts and does not contain violent images, hate speech, profanity or pornography.

Objectively, how can one claim that it is sexist to place limits on girls’ clothing in order to avoid discomfort among boys and also ban various images and words that others might find discomfiting?  Why can’t we all abide by limits for the good of other people, especially if we’re going to expect young men to be exquisitely sensitive about the way young women might interpret their looks and remarks?

Featured image: Norman Rockwell, Young Love: Walking to School.

  • Rhett Hardwick

    I recall being suspended for wearing jeans to school. It was duck season and I hadn’t had time to change and make school on time.l

  • BasicCaruso

    In my day we required girls to wear burlap sacks… and we liked it!

    How is it possible Justin went from angry young man to disgruntled geezer in such a short period of time?

    • Rhett Hardwick

      A supplement to my post above. On the way out, I spoke to one of the teachers. He came out to my car with me to admire my Fox Sterlingworth with Krupp barrels and double bead sights. A gun in the car during duck season was no problem. Anyway, my father understood duck season and that was the end of my public school career.

  • Merle The Monster

    Hey Katz , lets go back to the good old days when a man could comment on a women’s body, make suggestive sexual comments , compare himself with a colorfully named porn actor to a fully clothed woman in their workplace and still be nominated and confirmed to join the highest court in the nation.When that justice was confirmed dress codes in their workplace and in most schools were fairly conservative.

  • Merle The Monster