Forum: Author Hangout

Banning Denim aka blue jeans in Texas would be political suicide.

While none of the public schools in my area have banned Denim there are a few of the private schools that have as well as banning T-shirts.

Now some of are public schools have went to wearing uniforms where Denim is only to be worn on fridays or special school events.

Do you live in Texas?

South East Michigan. Easier to find Toledo, Ohio and just put a pin in the map on the Michigan side of the boarder.

I just don't see it, especially in Texas rural public schools. Many of those kids work the family farm/ranch after school. Polo shirts and khaki pants don't lend themselves well to that kind of labor, so it would add a burden of cost to those families.

Charter schools in Dallas Ft Worth, Houston etc, I could see.

I started life on the Rez. At seven, my old man got us into TN. It did not make life better. Mixed race couples and children didn't fair well in the early sixties. The end result for us was home schooling.
We wore what we had for the farm. Going to school was clearing the kitchen table.
I spent a good part of my life disconnected from society as a whole. Either home school and farm work, or later, working contracts overseas the white folk thought too dangerous to work.
As a result, my perspective is one of looking in, rather than being inside society as a whole.
The idea of school dress codes make little to no sense to me. There doesn't appear to be any consistency involved across the country.

It's probably primarily just desire for simplicity, although certain biases aren't to be ruled out.

Allowing only masculine pattern clothing eliminates the gender discussion altogether and, not less notably, avoid the need of describing fashions of dresses in painstaking detail along with the ready trap of deciding who get to wear those (sure, "anyone" would not be option considered).

I didn't meditate on the specifics of the dress code linked, but no doubt adventurous and creative ladies will explore the borders on their own risk, however tight, and find plenty of ways to signal gender if desired. That's not to say such isn't drastic, and potentially culture changing.

Interesting that as so far the skirts are allowed at all (in the interim/very young/special waiver section) they are restricted to nearly one and one length at all: between bottom of the knee and three inches above top of the knee, banning anything longer as well. I'm especially surprised there seems to be a specific mention extracurricular activities are covered with no obvious provision for stage or otherwise performance outfits.

Allowing only masculine pattern clothing eliminates the gender discussion altogether and, not less notably, avoid the need of describing fashions of dresses in painstaking detail along with the ready trap of deciding who get to wear those (sure, "anyone" would not be option considered).

The problem with skirts/dresses comes down to defining what is an acceptable length and how you go about checking a particular skirt.

No matter how you define it, the standard will come out different on women/girls of different heights.

And in the #metoo age, checking the hemline of a girl's skirt/dress is asking for a lawsuit.

The problem with skirts/dresses comes down to defining what is an acceptable length and how you go about checking a particular skirt.

No matter how you define it, the standard will come out different on women/girls of different heights.

And in the #metoo age, checking the hemline of a girl's skirt/dress is asking for a lawsuit.

A friend of mine is an high school vice-principal and the part he hates most about his job is making sure that clothing complies with the dress code. The special problem is girls with skirts too short, blouses to low or clothing too tight. He says it makes him feel like a pervert that he even has to mention it to them.

@StarFleet Carl

he's the vice-principal. He's supposed to be a douche

Always is in teen movies. Like "Mr. Holland's Opus" and "Back to the Future" and probably all the others.

In the Milwaukee public schools, with which I am most familiar, the vice principle's primary day to day duty was student discipline. He/She is not supposed to be the student's friend.

UK or England? I would guess in Scotland (which I believe is part of the UK), to be transgender inclusive everyone would have to wear a skirt, or what they call a kilt.

I'd like to see you telling a Scott wearing a Kilt to his face that it's a skirt. :)

However the school that simplifies the uniform rules by making everyone -- everyone -- wear nothing but a dress of one certain fashion and nothing else at all has merit (at least on a story site allowing porn).

"School boards are stupid"

They would be correct in that. Or at least educated beyond their intelligence.

banning hoodies is a thing that has happened for a while

Is there a logical reason for banning hoodies?

Is there a logical reason for banning hoodies?

Pre-COVID, because it can be used to hide the face.

Seams kind of silly after two years of mandatory face-diapers.

Some other doozies: All shoes must be closed toe with a back (no flip flops, no sandals, no crocs, for instance).

Part of the reason for the shoe rule is liability.

Is there a logical reason for banning hoodies?

Several logical reasons to ban hoodies in a school dress code.

1) similar to why t-shirts are banned, they don't have a collar. There are quite a few places with a dress code, that require a collar (at least on men's shirts).

2) Hoodies are basically light coats. Typically, coats must be taken off and put in your locker, or hung up in home room, etc.

3) Hoodies have a hood. Usually, kids are not allowed to wear hats inside the school.

4) Hoodies are typically bulky and loose fitting; too easy to conceal contraband in or under a hoodie. (Weapons, aides to cheating being the most concern to school officials.)

Denim a.k.a. Levi's jeans, was something only the bad boy motorcycle gangs wore to high school - in the 1950's.

My experience was different. IN the district where I went to school - in the 1950s - blue jeans were the dominant fashion among both boys and girls. At the time, they were cheap and durable - both of which were important considerations where I lived. As far as I can remember, we did not have a dress code at all - didn't need one. If a principal did not like the way a student dressed, he had the authority to send the student home to change clothes to something more appropriate. I never once heard of any parent objecting - since parents were more likely to punish the students themselves rather than complain about the principal. I remember once I got into trouble for "sword-fighting" with T-squares in mechanical drawing class. The teacher did not involve the principal, and gave both of us a few swats on the butt with our own T-squares. My opponent in the sword fight just happened to be the son of the Superintendent of Schools (the top job in the district). Both of us got in trouble at home. There was no rule against sword-fighting with T-squares - and parents of both of us believed in "spare the rod and spoil the child." Kids were supposed to know better than to act like we did - without needing rules spelled out in detail. If girls wore tight jeans, it was because the loose jeans they bought before the school year began shrank (blue jeans did that back then) or they outgrew them. Either way, parents could not afford to buy more clothes for kids. As far as I know, not one of us ever felt deprived - we were all in the same boat. Nobody had extra money to buy "designer" clothes or a second set of blue jeans. We wore the same blue jeans Monday though Friday and they got laundered on the weekend. Most of us had different clothes - though not expensive - to wear to church on Sundays. If your clothes got a tear or worn with a hole (knees were the usual place), they got patched. We made do with what we had.

Wearing a mask or other face covering in public has been banned since 1951 in GA (to make it harder to be a member of the KKK).
Had to suspend the law due to COVID, which turned out to be very helpful to a new 3-letter violent racist organization.

Wearing a mask or other face covering in public has been banned since 1951 in GA (to make it harder to be a member of the KKK).

I will note here that the KKK of the mid 20th century to now is not the same organization as the KKK of the post civil war period. There's almost no relationship between the two other than the name.

Also, my understanding is that a few states have anti-mask laws that go back to anti-Klan laws from the Reconstruction era 1870s-1880s.

As for hoodies if I remember they first were being banned because blacks like to wear them when they commit crimes which made white kids wear them.

Back in the 1970's, before the two sensationalized incidents in the second decade of the 21st Century that spawned the canard you mention, "Hoodies" were not permitted by dress codes in schools because they have no collar. All of the school dress codes I am aware of require both boys & girls to wear a shirt with a collar.

When I was a kid in the 1970's we were allowed to wear a hoodie to school as a light jacket, but then had to hang it up, or put it in our locker.

The thing that pisses me off the most is it is hard to find a sweatshirt that doesn't have a hoody because I hate wearing hoodies.

If you are in the USA or Canada, I recommend Costco or Walmart. REI, Fred Meyer, Target, Eddie Bauer, and Goodwill are all places that sell sweatshirts (without hoodies).

I usually have to buy one or two a year because I wear them for volunteer work where I get them filthy or torn. Walmart or Goodwill are great for inexpensive sweatshirts. REI or Target are better if you want better quality but have to pay more.

May I suggest an alternative? Try an "Army Surplus" store or places such as Quantico Tactical (near several military bases), or similar stores look for "Fleece Shirts" they come in several weights and textures. I prefer them to sweatshirts, but I don't want to get them filthy or damaged, so, that's why I still get sweatshirts. Most "fleece" shirts are designed to be loose fitting and to be used as a part of a layered system. Most fleece shirts or jackets are not good against wind, and in particular rain; fleece are designed to be worn under a Gore-Tex "shell" (jacket). Fleece shirts/jackets are so popular in the armed forces that the term "Fleece Mafia" was in vouge for a while (probably because earlier versions had no rank nor name tape. Senior officers had a "Hissy Fit" and newer versions of fleece were produced that the velcro Rank tabs and name tapes could be attached to.

Polypropylene (or Microfiber) shirts are another alternative, they are more form fitting, and are perhaps more similar to a sweatshirt. In fact, they are designed to "wick" sweat from you to an outer layer (many "modern" versions are one piece not requiring the layers as in the "ancient past" of the 1980's & 1990's).

All of the school dress codes I am aware of require both boys & girls to wear a shirt with a collar.

What's wrong with wearing a shirt with no collar?

2 issues got them nailed on that.

1. The way NC law is structured, the charter schools are government run, not private schools working on contract, thus they are state actors.

2. They were stupid enough to explicitly state the justification of the policy as "girls are 'fragile' and require protection by boys".

No exactly.
They are run under contract with primarily state and federal funding. It's simply that funding that makes them subject to the 14th amendment as state actors.
The implications of that opinion are enormous: suddenly every state contractor becomes a state actor, an agent of the state.

Why is the N.C. case opposite? To me, the rules in that Texas school are non-sensical. I see no reason why kids shouldn't wear blue jeans, or non-collared shirts, or dresses. Is the N.C. case opposite because it makes sense and the Texas one doesn't?

Is the N.C. case opposite because it makes sense and the Texas one doesn't?

Probably because in the NC case the dress code was overturned by the courts.

Is the N.C. case opposite because it makes sense and the Texas one doesn't?

When has anything about Texas ever made sense?

The reason the NC school forced girls to wear dresses is they are easier to rape.

@PotomacBob

Is the N.C. case opposite because it makes sense

I would imagine girls would feel safer wearing pants or shorts. No upskirting, less accessibility for groping, more protection for sanitary wear.

Yeah, the NC charter's justification for the policy was a bunch of BS and the court rightly smacked them for it.

Those facts, taken together, make no sense to me. Why would a right-wing UK newspaper write a story (apparently true) about a school dress code in Texas. If it was an attempt at ridicule, then what? - they think Texas is some sort of loony left-wing paradise?

Why would a right-wing UK newspaper write a story (apparently true) about a school dress code in Texas.

Why does the US media give so much coverage to the UK royal family?

Why does the US media give so much coverage to the UK royal family?

Why does the US worship the royal family? Meghan Markle went from also-ran to A-list celebrity merely by marrying Prince Harry.

AJ

Why does the US worship the royal family? Meghan Markle went from also-ran to A-list celebrity merely by marrying Prince Harry.

I don't know of anyone outside the media in the US that follow them that closely.

I'm aware of stories that actually portray Prince Andrew as a great business leader.

How many stories portray them positively vs how many stories don't mention them at all?

I think you are greatly overestimating the SOL authorship's views on the British Royals.

But when they do crop up, the majority seem to be positive.

Yeah, but how many authors does that actually cover. I don't think it's valid to generalize that the the larger pool of SOL authors.

I think you'd be surprised at how many Americans are familiar with the UK royalty.

No I wouldn't, because our media obsesses over them for some bizarre reason.

However, I am skeptical that there is any real US interest in the British Royals outside of media insiders.

just like the US nobility.

The US has nobility?

The US has nobility?

The US has people who think they are nobility, or at least the media treats them as nobility.

Rockafellers, Kenedys, ...

the media treats them as nobility.

Rockafellers, Kenedys, ...

May they rest in peace

As the USA grew, these were supplanted by dynasties of the very rich. Last century saw them joined by rising political dynasties (Kennedy, Bush, Clinton (beware Chelsea)

The Kennedys And the Bushes were very rich before they got involved in politics.

Why would a right-wing UK newspaper write a story (apparently true) about a school dress code in Texas. If it was an attempt at ridicule, then what? - they think Texas is some sort of loony left-wing paradise?

https://www.ksat.com/news/texas/2022/06/23/texas-school-districts-new-dress-code-bans-hoodies-limits-dresses-skirts-to-4th-grade-students-and-younger/

The more likely case is that they picked the story up from the wire and ran with for reasons of their own.