Schoolgirls in New Zealand told to lengthen skirts to stop distracting male staff and pupils

Comments by deputy principal have been criticised by students and academics

Teenage girls at a New Zealand high school have reportedly been told to lower their skirts to knee level so as not to “distract” male students and teachers.

Around 40 students in year 11 at Henderson high school in Auckland were called to a meeting and told by deputy principal Cherith Telford that their skirts would need to be lowered to knee level, Newshub reports.

Telford said the move was designed to “keep our girls safe, stop boys from getting ideas and create a good work environment for male staff”.

The comments have caused outrage among many students, parents and feminist commentators.

“I am very annoyed by this,” said Deborah Russell, a feminist commentator and lecturer at Massey University.
“It sends a message that young women are responsible for young men’s sexual behaviour, and also sends a bad message to young men that their sexual behaviour is uncontrollable.”

Debbi Tohill, executive director of Rape Crisis, said it was “appropriate” for schools to have dress codes but the instruction to lengthen skirts sent the message that the onus was on young women – teenagers – to stop male students and teachers getting “distracted”.

“We know that victim blaming is very common and this is a clear example of the responsibility on the girls to be responsible for their own safety,” Tohill said.

“In this instance, where the teacher is in a position of authority and control, the teacher has the responsibility to ensure a safe environment is created for all students. Teachers need to ensure that they have respectful relationships with their students.”

Sade Tuttle, a Henderson student who attended the meeting, said she did not object to the rule, but the thinking behind it.

“The rules themselves aren’t the problem; the problem is when these codes target girls specifically because their bodies are sexual and distracting,” she told Newshub.

Henderson told The Guardian that principal Mike Purcell was unavailable to comment.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/11/schoolgirls-in-new-zealand-told-to-lower-skirts-to-stop-distracting-male-staff-and-pupils




Hey, what's going on, that's not like any Kiwi I used to work for.  Perhaps he's a emigrated there from UK?   And hold on,  he's not a Muslim lol

Could very well be a a literal Christian.
He is fundamentally sexualizing the children, when they are there to learn.
Its sadly a regressive belief based on Victorian Morality
Its also casting blame on young girls and sexualizing as to blame for students and teachers being distracted.

The question is - are the girls are deliberately wearing short skirts in order to distract the boys or male teachers.

Okay here's the thing: the girls are saying "we can wear what we like!"

Yes. But why do you CHOOSE short skirts?

Because they make you feel sexier. There's no other explanation. None.

They don't make you feel cooler (in actual fact the longer the material the cooler you are)
They don't make you walk better
Learn better
Concentrate better
Feel fuller for longer
Keep headaches away etc etc

So it's all  about what they look like.

So.

Why short skirts??
Becasue it makes them feel sexier/prettier whatever
Dress it up how you want but that's what it is.

So the teachers aren't wrong to think that are they?

And before anyone says it - no one is sexualising a child, it school, not a nightclub.

eddie wrote:Okay here's the thing: the girls are saying "we can wear what we like!"

Yes. But why do you CHOOSE short skirts?

Because they make you feel sexier. There's no other explanation. None.

They don't make you feel cooler (in actual fact the longer the material the cooler you are)
They don't make you walk better
Learn better
Concentrate better
Feel fuller for longer
Keep headaches away etc etc

So it's all  about what they look like.

So.

Why short skirts??
Becasue it makes them feel sexier/prettier whatever
Dress it up how you want but that's what it is.

So the teachers aren't wrong to think that are they?

I agree.

I've always been a proponent of a 'school uniform'; yes...even during my high school days.  Being told what length of skirt/dress to wear - what type of shirts could be worn for the boys...trying to get things ironed and ready the night before; I was always of the mind that a standard school uniform would alleviate all of that and just make life easier at school --- no more peer pressure about what/who had the most expensive clothes to wear.
Can you imagine those high schools with all of those DROOPY DRAWS worn by the boys with their underwear hanging out 3" - 5" below their pant line
But the flip side is: just this morning the local news carried a story about a public school's benefit program that was trying to help parents with the cost of uniforms for their grammar school - uniforms ranged in prices from $25. - $45. {depending on size} per outfit.  Shirt/slacks or shirt/skirt for the boys and girls --- girls could get the shirt/slacks if they preferred...but that's still $150. for a full weeks set of just clothing to be worn to school --- and children grow so quickly during any school year. 
What does a basic school uniform cost in England?

The cost of a school uniform depends on the age of the child - high schools' uniforms normally cost more.

But they are cost-effective in the long term, as they're cheaper than buying clothes from shops - again, especially for high school age as they're more liable to want better brands etc and my teen son is in men's sizes.

We should get help towards it, or rather, low-income families should.

Raggamuffin wrote:The question is - are the girls are deliberately wearing short skirts in order to distract the boys or male teachers.

If male teachers are attracted to children they should not be anywhere near them. As for the boys they need be taught it is not good to become a sex pest.

captainJane wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:The question is - are the girls are deliberately wearing short skirts in order to distract the boys or male teachers.

If male teachers are attracted to children they should not be anywhere near them. As for the boys they need be taught it is not good to become a sex pest.

Nobody has said that the male teachers are actually attracted to the girls. The point is that the girls are probably wearing short skirts to impress the boys and/or young male teachers - IMO.

captainJane wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:The question is - are the girls are deliberately wearing short skirts in order to distract the boys or male teachers.

If male teachers are attracted to children they should not be anywhere near them. As for the boys they need be taught it is not good to become a sex pest.

Don't you wish that there was a sure fired test that could be applied to anyone wanting to become a 'TEACHER/TUTOR/MENTOR'...

Lately here in America {past 10 yrs seems to be an increased number}, we've had more disgusting media stories about the WOMEN teachers having sexual relationships with their 13 - 18 yr old male students

eddie wrote:Okay here's the thing: the girls are saying "we can wear what we like!"

Yes. But why do you CHOOSE short skirts?

Because they make you feel sexier. There's no other explanation. None.

They don't make you feel cooler (in actual fact the longer the material the cooler you are)
They don't make you walk better
Learn better
Concentrate better
Feel fuller for longer
Keep headaches away etc etc

So it's all  about what they look like.

So.

Why short skirts??
Becasue it makes them feel sexier/prettier whatever
Dress it up how you want but that's what it is.

So the teachers aren't wrong to think that are they?

So they want to feel sexier.
Which is up to them and of little relevance
It still does not take away the view they are being blamed as a distraction, towards other pupils and even teachers, the later of which is troublesome. The claim to a distraction is also a poor reason to claim also when it will in now way stop some boys from being distracted, simply because they will be attracted to some girls. So the reasoning is poor behind such a claim, is claiming that by how women dress, is to blame for if something happens to them. I mean look at their reasoning behind this. You tackle the problem at its root cause, teaching the boys to learn to respect the girls.

Telford said the move was designed to “keep our girls safe, stop boys from getting ideas and create a good work environment for male staff”.



Its gibberish, as a girl wearing sexy clothes does not translate into they want boys to come and harass or have sex with them. In fact its creating the opposite effect, because its blaming the wearing of sexy clothes to causing problems. When in fact they should be teaching that girls should be able to walk around and that the m,en learn to respect them. This sends out all the wrong messages. It steers blame away from men. It will make them feel that girls wearing such clothes is giving off messages. How on earth are young boys going to understand being around women wearing sexy clothes is not an open invitation, when the school has just basically stated that it is?

Again this is another example of failing to provide life lessons. They are instead just pushing the issue outside the school and have given off the completely wrong idea to the boys by blaming the manner by how the girls have dressed.  By teaching you try to help teach about misconceptions people have and one them is for boys to grow up understanding that wearing sexy clothes does not mean that girl is inviting you over to harras them or want to have sex with them

eddie wrote:The cost of a school uniform depends on the age of the child - high schools' uniforms normally cost more.

But they are cost-effective in the long term, as they're cheaper than buying clothes from shops - again, especially for high school age as they're more liable to want better brands etc and my teen son is in men's sizes.

We should get help towards it, or rather, low-income families should.

The uniform grant was taken away.

Miffs2 wrote:

eddie wrote:The cost of a school uniform depends on the age of the child - high schools' uniforms normally cost more.

But they are cost-effective in the long term, as they're cheaper than buying clothes from shops - again, especially for high school age as they're more liable to want better brands etc and my teen son is in men's sizes.

We should get help towards it, or rather, low-income families should.

The uniform grant was taken away.

And that sad budget cutting impact is what has been happening around this country too; public schools financial budgets are shrinking faster then the money flowing into their annual needs.  Between the roller coaster fuel expenses - ever escalating utility costs and the shocking increase in food --- well, public schools have been targeted and get hit hardest. IMHO

But if the increase of the 'STATUS QUO' for wearing the most recent/smartest/chic attire {name brands} clothing has become such a divisive issue for our children --- at least leveling the social issue for their dress code saves many from being bullied about their clothes choices. 
We grew up with hand-me-downs, or shopping at the local thrift stores; hardly something that any child wants to be broadcast to the entire classroom.

Raggamuffin wrote:

captainJane wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:The question is - are the girls are deliberately wearing short skirts in order to distract the boys or male teachers.

If male teachers are attracted to children they should not be anywhere near them. As for the boys they need be taught it is not good to become a sex pest.

Nobody has said that the male teachers are actually attracted to the girls. The point is that the girls are probably wearing short skirts to impress the boys and/or young male teachers - IMO.

If they are, shouldn't the teachers and students have to do what the rest of the straight male world should do, and learn to focus? I thought CaptainJ's comment was spot on.

I heard Didge had 'hand me downs', the pink frilly frocks from his sister suited him a treat.



I luv a laff.

didge wrote:Could very well be a a literal Christian.
He is fundamentally sexualizing the children, when they are there to learn.
Its sadly a regressive belief based on Victorian Morality
Its also casting blame on young girls and sexualizing as to blame for students and teachers being distracted.

I think it's a lot older than Victorian morality, actually. Isn't it interesting that the meme of males telling females to cover up exists in Christianity, Islam and Judaism? I would suspect these attitudes have a common origin.

Judaism: http://www.chabad.org/search/keyword_cdo/kid/1590/jewish/Tzniut-modesty-in-dress-behavior.htm Christianity: http://www.covenanteyes.com/2013/08/16/biblical-definition-of-modesty/ Islam: probably doesn't need any more hashing out at this site

I used the term "meme" on purpose, by the way -- in the sense that Dawkins does: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme#Origins If an idea is viewed as having virus-like tendencies (i.e. it can "go viral"), then it stands to reason that in some populations (which have fewer defenses against the viral idea) the virus spreads, where in others, it goes dormant. So in cultures where the viral idea is dormant, you get occasional expressions -- schoolmasters telling their girls to cover their knees. In cultures where the viral idea is spreading and infectious, you get the burqa.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Nobody has said that the male teachers are actually attracted to the girls. The point is that the girls are probably wearing short skirts to impress the boys and/or young male teachers - IMO.

If they are, shouldn't the teachers and students have to do what the rest of the straight male world should do, and learn to focus? I thought CaptainJ's comment was spot on.

Or the girls could just stop wearing skirts which look like belts.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:
Nobody has said that the male teachers are actually attracted to the girls. The point is that the girls are probably wearing short skirts to impress the boys and/or young male teachers - IMO.

If they are, shouldn't the teachers and students have to do what the rest of the straight male world should do, and learn to focus? I thought CaptainJ's comment was spot on.

Well, in utopia maybe that works...but in the REAL WORLD  

Exactly how does one go about weeding out those perverts from a Normal Man when the pervert is able to hide behind his façade of 'NORMAL' until he's caught/busted for violations???

4EVER2 wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:
Nobody has said that the male teachers are actually attracted to the girls. The point is that the girls are probably wearing short skirts to impress the boys and/or young male teachers - IMO.

If they are, shouldn't the teachers and students have to do what the rest of the straight male world should do, and learn to focus? I thought CaptainJ's comment was spot on.

Well, in utopia maybe that works...but in the REAL WORLD  

Exactly how does one go about weeding out those perverts from a Normal Man when the pervert is able to hide behind his façade of 'NORMAL' until he's caught/busted for violations???

Well, the truth is that you can't do that. It's impossible to safeguard against anything bad ever happening, whether a girl being molested, a murder or a terrorist attack.

The issue is how to minimize that sort of thing, and I don't think a child molester is going to be stymied by four extra inches of skirt so much as by good background checks and vigilant teachers, parents and students.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

4EVER2 wrote:
Well, in utopia maybe that works...but in the REAL WORLD  

Exactly how does one go about weeding out those perverts from a Normal Man when the pervert is able to hide behind his façade of 'NORMAL' until he's caught/busted for violations???

Well, the truth is that you can't do that. It's impossible to safeguard against anything bad ever happening, whether a girl being molested, a murder or a terrorist attack.

The issue is how to minimize that sort of thing, and I don't think a child molester is going to be stymied by four extra inches of skirt so much as by good background checks and vigilant teachers, parents and students.

As with our medical - both nurses & doctors/dentists/law enforcement/clergy/teachers associations    If only the authorities and people in charge would actually REPORT those discharged perverts, instead of burying their personnel files deep within their books...yes, indeed --- maybe we'd have less of them in such paid professions!
But they don't and then the perverts just wander from one school district to another.

Best to just put all our innocent young humans in burlap bag type of acceptable attire and send them off to spend 4-5 hours under the watchful eyes of the adults.

Isn't it fair to say that the girls were told to lengthen their skirts so that they were "safe" because nobody wanted to tell them that they were behaving like tarts?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

didge wrote:Could very well be a a literal Christian.
He is fundamentally sexualizing the children, when they are there to learn.
Its sadly a regressive belief based on Victorian Morality
Its also casting blame on young girls and sexualizing as to blame for students and teachers being distracted.

I think it's a lot older than Victorian morality, actually. Isn't it interesting that the meme of males telling females to cover up exists in Christianity, Islam and Judaism? I would suspect these attitudes have a common origin.

Judaism: http://www.chabad.org/search/keyword_cdo/kid/1590/jewish/Tzniut-modesty-in-dress-behavior.htm Christianity: http://www.covenanteyes.com/2013/08/16/biblical-definition-of-modesty/ Islam: probably doesn't need any more hashing out at this site

I used the term "meme" on purpose, by the way -- in the sense that Dawkins does: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme#Origins If an idea is viewed as having virus-like tendencies (i.e. it can "go viral"), then it stands to reason that in some populations (which have fewer defenses against the viral idea) the virus spreads, where in others, it goes dormant. So in cultures where the viral idea is dormant, you get occasional expressions -- schoolmasters telling their girls to cover their knees. In cultures where the viral idea is spreading and infectious, you get the burqa.

Completely agree that it has a common origin and Victorian morality is just a later extension from that.
All 3 religions at their core lay the blame of sins onto women and you see repeated views throughout blaming women. They are misogynistic in nature, but the worst part of all is that in the story of the creation it is Eve blamed  for committing the first sin. Which is really the most illogical  and unfair judgement passed onto her. I mean both Adam and Eve are created as basically with the mindset of toddlers and even states within the bible they did not understand good from evil. God then states they can eat from the tree of knowledge. Which is like placing a chocolate snack in front of a child daily to tease them with. Saying they cannot then eat this. Now if any parent did that, we would consider them cruel As the child has no conception of anything being right or wrong. Then of course if someone says it okay to eat and convince them, which would be very easy. Then the whole scenario has been set up from the start for one of them to fail. Blame would lie at its root cause with the deity for creating and placing the tree. Which clearly the tree would have no purpose if not for the fact, that the plan is for the fruit to be eaten. So a very nasty trick is played onto people who have the mindset of children and then have women viewed for bringing sin into the world. Even in Islamic texts like the hadiths one states.

'Were it not for Bani Israel, meat would not decay; and were it not for Eve, no woman would ever betray her husband.'" (Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 611, Volume 55)



This is why it is so important to tackle problems at their root cause, that being the boys learning to respect women.
By taking the problem out of school, is pushing the problem  to one side and by the schools actions is blaming women for what they wear.

didge wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

didge wrote:Could very well be a a literal Christian.
He is fundamentally sexualizing the children, when they are there to learn.
Its sadly a regressive belief based on Victorian Morality
Its also casting blame on young girls and sexualizing as to blame for students and teachers being distracted.

I think it's a lot older than Victorian morality, actually. Isn't it interesting that the meme of males telling females to cover up exists in Christianity, Islam and Judaism? I would suspect these attitudes have a common origin.

Judaism: http://www.chabad.org/search/keyword_cdo/kid/1590/jewish/Tzniut-modesty-in-dress-behavior.htm Christianity: http://www.covenanteyes.com/2013/08/16/biblical-definition-of-modesty/ Islam: probably doesn't need any more hashing out at this site

I used the term "meme" on purpose, by the way -- in the sense that Dawkins does: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme#Origins If an idea is viewed as having virus-like tendencies (i.e. it can "go viral"), then it stands to reason that in some populations (which have fewer defenses against the viral idea) the virus spreads, where in others, it goes dormant. So in cultures where the viral idea is dormant, you get occasional expressions -- schoolmasters telling their girls to cover their knees. In cultures where the viral idea is spreading and infectious, you get the burqa.

Completely agree that it has a common origin and Victorian morality is just a later extension from that.
All 3 religions at their core lay the blame of sins onto women and you see repeated views throughout blaming women. They are misogynistic in nature, but the worst part of all is that in the story of the creation it is Eve blamed  for committing the first sin. Which is really the most illogical  and unfair judgement passed onto her. I mean both Adam and Eve are created as basically with the mindset of toddlers and even states within the bible they did not understand good from evil. God then states they can eat from the tree of knowledge. Which is like placing a chocolate snack in front of a child daily to tease them with. Saying they cannot then it this. Now if any parent did that, we would consider them cruel As the child has no conception of anything being right or wrong, then of course if someone says it okay to it and convince them, which would be very easy. In other words its a setup. Blame would lie at its root cause with the deity for creating and placing the tree. Which clearly the tree would have no purpose if not for the fact, that the plan is for the fruit to be eaten. So a very nasty trick is played onto people who have the mindset of children and then have women viewed for bringing sin into the world. Even in Islamic texts like the hadiths one states.

'Were it not for Bani Israel, meat would not decay; and were it not for Eve, no woman would ever betray her husband.'" (Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 611, Volume 55)



This is why it is so important to tackle problems at their root cause, that being the boys learning to respect women.
By taking the problem out of school, is pushing the problem  to one side and by the schools actions is blaming women for what they wear.

I remember even as a small child thinking it was unfair for Eve to get all the blame. They always seem to forget that Adam ate the apple too

Ben_Reilly wrote:

didge wrote:


Completely agree that it has a common origin and Victorian morality is just a later extension from that.
All 3 religions at their core lay the blame of sins onto women and you see repeated views throughout blaming women. They are misogynistic in nature, but the worst part of all is that in the story of the creation it is Eve blamed  for committing the first sin. Which is really the most illogical  and unfair judgement passed onto her. I mean both Adam and Eve are created as basically with the mindset of toddlers and even states within the bible they did not understand good from evil. God then states they can eat from the tree of knowledge. Which is like placing a chocolate snack in front of a child daily to tease them with. Saying they cannot then it this. Now if any parent did that, we would consider them cruel As the child has no conception of anything being right or wrong, then of course if someone says it okay to it and convince them, which would be very easy. In other words its a setup. Blame would lie at its root cause with the deity for creating and placing the tree. Which clearly the tree would have no purpose if not for the fact, that the plan is for the fruit to be eaten. So a very nasty trick is played onto people who have the mindset of children and then have women viewed for bringing sin into the world. Even in Islamic texts like the hadiths one states.

'Were it not for Bani Israel, meat would not decay; and were it not for Eve, no woman would ever betray her husband.'" (Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 611, Volume 55)



This is why it is so important to tackle problems at their root cause, that being the boys learning to respect women.
By taking the problem out of school, is pushing the problem  to one side and by the schools actions is blaming women for what they wear.

I remember even as a small child thinking it was unfair for Eve to get all the blame. They always seem to forget that Adam ate the apple too

He is also got punished less severely as well, where again emphasis is blamed on Eve in convincing him to eat, even though both before they ate the fruit had no conception it would be wrong to do so.
I think some of these views have become deep rooted through the ages.

You're all barking up the wrong tree.

These make teachers are NOT attracted to the girls or "finding them a distraction" (the boy students are for sure!) what they're trying to say is this::

WE ARE EMBARESSED AND DONT KNOW WHERE TO LOOK!

I know tons of mums with teens girls who come to their houses with everything hanging out and their husbands always say they don't know where to look as they find it uncomfortable.

There's no need to go to school looking like you're going clubbing and mums should advise their daughters not to go to school like it.

eddie wrote:You're all barking up the wrong tree.

These make teachers are NOT attracted to the girls or "finding them a distraction" (the boy students are for sure!) what they're trying to say is this::

WE ARE EMBARESSED AND DONT KNOW WHERE TO LOOK!

I know tons of mums with teens girls who come to their houses with everything hanging out and their husbands always say they don't know where to look as they find it uncomfortable.

There's no need to go to school looking like you're going clubbing and mums should advise their daughters not to go to school like it.

I have to go to high schools two or three times per week for my job, and I find looking at their faces works just fine

Yes Ben but some people are uncomfortable by flesh exposure and perhaps they don't want to ever appear to be looking at something they're not supposed to?

eddie wrote:Yes Ben but some people are uncomfortable by flesh exposure and perhaps they don't want to ever appear to be looking at something they're not supposed to?

Sure sure, but I'm also sure that's the type of thing that ultimately led to the burqa. Better men learn self-control, including keeping an eye on where they're keeping their eyes

eddie wrote:Yes Ben but some people are uncomfortable by flesh exposure and perhaps they don't want to ever appear to be looking at something they're not supposed to?

Then there are the problem.
So Should we then ban black students if some teachers feel uncomfortable around them?
As I am sure just as some teachers have created their own feeling of being uncomfortable around girls in how they dress, I am sure you will also find some teachers who hold stereotype views of |Blacks being criminal making them feel uncomfortable.

In each case the problem is with those who have allowed themselves to feel uncomfortable.
That is where the problem stems from

Ben_Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:Yes Ben but some people are uncomfortable by flesh exposure and perhaps they don't want to ever appear to be looking at something they're not supposed to?

Sure sure, but I'm also sure that's the type of thing that ultimately led to the burqa. Better men learn self-control, including keeping an eye on where they're keeping their eyes

I'm no prude but I have to be honest, I think children should, go to school looking respectable and not like they're heading out for a club.

I'd not send my child to a school if I saw they had lax uniform rules.

I don't think most schoolgirls wear short skirts to look sexy or attract lads, I think they do it to be fashionable and cock a snoot at authority.

I would support the school if they insisted on a certain length of skirt....no trainers or Doc Martens,  piercings etc.....if that doesn't suit pick a school with  a less strict dress code.

Male students are of an age where they would be attracted to the girls no matter what clothes they wore.
I agree  completely with Captain Janes comment re  the male teachers. IF they are attracted sexually to the young girls they are teaching they shouldn't be teaching them in the first place.

Sort out their parents.

Stormee wrote:Sort out their parents.

You, sir, must be some kind of genius. Send school staff door-to-door to somehow "sort out" the parents, something they have no training, qualifications, power, or really even a right to do. Problem solved, we can all go home!

didge wrote:Could very well be a a literal Christian.
He is fundamentally sexualizing the children, when they are there to learn.
Its sadly a regressive belief based on Victorian Morality
Its also casting blame on young girls and sexualizing as to blame for students and teachers being distracted.

highly unlikely as there is 2 christian schools in the area and this is not one of them (this is the free state school)
But it is a poorer outer suburb so guessing it has new zealand 'chavs'

And if a women wears too short a skirt to work she will get in trouble too, these are teenagers not children so they are pushing boundries and i heard some one here compalin about girls wearing 'belts' as skirts in the uk (i dont think it was you, i think raggs)
Plus guys often aren't even allowed to wear shorts to work even when it is really hot

Additionally it is hard enough to keep good male teachers without saying if you find a 16 year old in a too short skirt distracting you shouldn't teach (some of these girls are 18 and legal adults)
it is definetly not the same as being attracted to children. allegations of such serious nature should not be thrown lightly

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Stormee wrote:Sort out their parents.

You, sir, must be some kind of genius. Send school staff door-to-door to somehow "sort out" the parents, something they have no training, qualifications, power, or really even a right to do. Problem solved, we can all go home!

in some ways i think he is probably right though

school is trying to sort the parents, by making this rule cause some parents wont discipline their own kids and make them wear appropriate clothing

the media is beating it up cause it knows "schoolgirl's short skirts" sells papers

just shows how islamisation is working on veya......

next week he'll be calling for the burka and next month for women to walk 3 paces behind their menfolk....

veya_victaous wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:
You, sir, must be some kind of genius. Send school staff door-to-door to somehow "sort out" the parents, something they have no training, qualifications, power, or really even a right to do. Problem solved, we can all go home!

in some ways i think he is probably right though

school is trying to sort the parents, by making this rule cause some parents wont discipline their own kids and make them wear appropriate clothing

the media is beating it up cause it knows "schoolgirl's short skirts" sells papers

WOW...your post just brought back a memory from my Senior year in high school: {ya, that long ago circa 1970's} our drivers-education teacher was also our track coach...Seniors were allowed to fill in for aide or office work in the afternoons, and when she had X-number of students to take out to drive she'd need a sponsor/aide to sit in with her freshman class and just monitor their behavior until she was through.
These were the days of the 'Mini - Skirts' and I'll never forget the first time I went into relieve her and sat down in her chair; glancing up and seeing the 'CROTCH SHOTS' that were being delivered from the rest of the freshman girls --- who obviously hadn't been taught how to sit properly or keep a hand in your lap so you weren't giving everyone a view of your CROTCH!!!

I asked her about that later; 'oh, I know --- you ought to hear those male teachers discussing just that very issue in the teachers lounge!', was her reply
I learned years later that the number of male teachers - out voted the number of female staff that wanted to BAN THE MINI-SKIRTS!
So the girls either were providing a peep show on purpose or they were so absolutely brain-dead-obtuse to 'NOT' know what I'd got an eye full from behind the teachers desk! 

I'm saying nothing, I went out with my History Teacher when I was 17, he was gorgeous lol

Lord Foul wrote:just shows how islamisation is working on veya......

next week he'll be calling for the burka and next month for women to walk 3 paces behind their menfolk....

we have bikinis, so it is not that we are not used to seeing flesh there is the swimming carnival etc.

but classrooms are not the place and reaosnable length I suggest is Atleast 2 inches lower than their crotch (so hardly burqa )
which I have seen some at the station with shorter skirts than that.

As 4eva said i wonder if they are unaware? cause you cant walk up the stairs behind them without seeing their underwear

I suspect combination of fashion and diminished parenting

Lord Foul wrote:just shows how islamisation is working on veya......

next week he'll be calling for the burka and next month for women to walk 3 paces behind their menfolk....

The women in Afghanistan and Iraq actually walk further back than 3 paces - land mines.

They ain't daft.

veya_victaous wrote:

didge wrote:Could very well be a a literal Christian.
He is fundamentally sexualizing the children, when they are there to learn.
Its sadly a regressive belief based on Victorian Morality
Its also casting blame on young girls and sexualizing as to blame for students and teachers being distracted.

highly unlikely as there is 2 christian schools in the area and this is not one of them (this is the free state school)
But it is a poorer outer suburb so guessing it has new zealand 'chavs'

And if a women wears too short a skirt to work she will get in trouble too, these are teenagers not children so they are pushing boundries and i heard some one here compalin about girls wearing 'belts' as skirts in the uk       (i dont think it was you, i think raggs)
Plus guys often aren't even allowed to wear shorts to work even when it is really hot

Additionally it is hard enough to keep good male teachers without saying if you find a 16 year old in a too short skirt distracting you shouldn't teach (some of these girls are 18 and legal adults)
it is definetly not the same as being attracted to children. allegations of such serious nature should not be thrown lightly

Which shows you understand zero about attraction.

People work daily with women in offices throughout the world with women wearing short skirts.
To blame them for how men should learn to respect them is straight out of the abrahamic book of placing blame and shame onto them.
What you do not do is like the school make out the girls are to blame, when they should be teaching others to respect how the girls are dressed

What is distracting about the female leg?
Either it sexually attracts you and then you should not be working in the school, as they are minors and you probably need seek help or its just the exposed legs of a young girl that does not effect you at all because you are not sexually attracted to children.
Again you are placing blame on the girl for something she has not created, because that teacher if they are sexually attracted will be sexually attracted to that minor whether wearing a short skirt or not.
Again the only way this is an issue comes from the person who is sexualizing the minor wearing the short skirt.

Like Victor has said, the Islamification process is almost complete with you

Went to a parents evening once, some female Teachers wore mini skirts so short I could see what they had for dinner!

didge wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

didge wrote:Could very well be a a literal Christian.
He is fundamentally sexualizing the children, when they are there to learn.
Its sadly a regressive belief based on Victorian Morality
Its also casting blame on young girls and sexualizing as to blame for students and teachers being distracted.

highly unlikely as there is 2 christian schools in the area and this is not one of them (this is the free state school)
But it is a poorer outer suburb so guessing it has new zealand 'chavs'

And if a women wears too short a skirt to work she will get in trouble too, these are teenagers not children so they are pushing boundries and i heard some one here compalin about girls wearing 'belts' as skirts in the uk       (i dont think it was you, i think raggs)
Plus guys often aren't even allowed to wear shorts to work even when it is really hot

Additionally it is hard enough to keep good male teachers without saying if you find a 16 year old in a too short skirt distracting you shouldn't teach (some of these girls are 18 and legal adults)
it is definetly not the same as being attracted to children. allegations of such serious nature should not be thrown lightly

Which shows you understand zero about attraction.

People work daily with women in offices throughout the world with women wearing short skirts.
To blame them for how men should learn to respect them is straight out of the abrahamic book of placing blame and shame onto them.
What you do not do is like the school make out the girls are to blame, when they should be teaching others to respect how the girls are dressed

What is distracting about the female leg?
Either it sexually attracts you and then you should not be working in the school, as they are minors and you probably need seek help or its just the exposed legs of a young girl that does not effect you at all because you are not sexually attracted to children.
Again you are placing blame on the girl for something she has not created, because that teacher if they are sexually attracted will be sexually attracted to that minor whether wearing a short skirt or not.
Again the only way this is an issue comes from the person who is sexualizing the minor wearing the short skirt.

Like Victor has said, the Islamification process is almost complete with you

Umm not really minors grades 7 to 13 means 13 years old to 18 years old, and You obviously have zero experience with teachers, teenagers, teaching, short skirts and women.

I work in education I am fully ceritifed to work with children, so are ALL of these men, These people are professional and doing their job properly by enforcing a school dress code, You have to be super naive to think teenage girls do not go through a stage of experimenting with how risqué they can be, which is why they can be honest and not LIARS like you and say yes this 16 year old with a skirt that barely cover her crotch is distracting and it would NOT be acceptable in any workplace but a strip club.




You are only making a big deal out of a non issue of a school enforcing appropriate clothing rules because you like the idea of schools girls in skirts that are too short.

at no point are they saying they are attracted in a away that would cause an action, they are saying it is distracting.

and they are to blame they are choosing to not follow the school dress code
NO different than a boy that wears designer shoes instead of the regualtion ones and HE WILL ALSO be told to follow the rules

Again NON-issue, the media has decided to beat up cause pervie old men, that thankfully have no contact with real schoolkids, get all worked up about the thought of measuring schoolgirls short skirts. what they wont do to sell papers

veya_victaous wrote:

didge wrote:



Which shows you understand zero about attraction.

People work daily with women in offices throughout the world with women wearing short skirts.
To blame them for how men should learn to respect them is straight out of the abrahamic book of placing blame and shame onto them.
What you do not do is like the school make out the girls are to blame, when they should be teaching others to respect how the girls are dressed

What is distracting about the female leg?
Either it sexually attracts you and then you should not be working in the school, as they are minors and you probably need seek help or its just the exposed legs of a young girl that does not effect you at all because you are not sexually attracted to children.
Again you are placing blame on the girl for something she has not created, because that teacher if they are sexually attracted will be sexually attracted to that minor whether wearing a short skirt or not.
Again the only way this is an issue comes from the person who is sexualizing the minor wearing the short skirt.

Like Victor has said, the Islamification process is almost complete with you

Umm not really minors grades 7 to 13 means 13 years old to 18 years old, and You obviously have zero experience with teachers, teenagers, teaching, short skirts and women.

I work in education I am fully ceritifed to work with children, so are ALL of these men, These people are professional and doing their job properly by enforcing a school dress code, You have to be super naive to think teenage girls do not go through a stage of experimenting with how risqué they can be, which is why they can be honest and not LIARS like you and say yes this 16 year old with a skirt that barely cover her crotch is distracting and it would NOT be acceptable in any workplace but a strip club.


You are only making a big deal out of a non issue of a school enforcing appropriate clothing rules because you like the idea of schools girls in skirts that are too short.  

at no point are they saying they are attracted in a away that would cause an action, they are saying it is distracting.

Anyone 16 or under is a minor
Its irrelevant that you work in education as this is about you exposing your views onto the young girls blaming them for how others are the problem, showing again you understand zero about attraction.
Like I said, people work all around the world where women wear short skirts
What you are saying is that men or boys should not learn to respect women and that women can feel comfortable because men accept them dressed as they are.
So again what is wrong with a girls leg exposed unless you are sexualizing it?
I am exposing you for trying to shame and blame women for nothing they have done

Right am off to work

I have to ask veya

Do you conduct your lessons like this??



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtL5bOK8EAI

veya_victaous wrote:

didge wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

didge wrote:Could very well be a a literal Christian.
He is fundamentally sexualizing the children, when they are there to learn.
Its sadly a regressive belief based on Victorian Morality
Its also casting blame on young girls and sexualizing as to blame for students and teachers being distracted.

highly unlikely as there is 2 christian schools in the area and this is not one of them (this is the free state school)
But it is a poorer outer suburb so guessing it has new zealand 'chavs'

And if a women wears too short a skirt to work she will get in trouble too, these are teenagers not children so they are pushing boundries and i heard some one here compalin about girls wearing 'belts' as skirts in the uk       (i dont think it was you, i think raggs)
Plus guys often aren't even allowed to wear shorts to work even when it is really hot

Additionally it is hard enough to keep good male teachers without saying if you find a 16 year old in a too short skirt distracting you shouldn't teach (some of these girls are 18 and legal adults)
it is definetly not the same as being attracted to children. allegations of such serious nature should not be thrown lightly

Which shows you understand zero about attraction.

People work daily with women in offices throughout the world with women wearing short skirts.
To blame them for how men should learn to respect them is straight out of the abrahamic book of placing blame and shame onto them.
What you do not do is like the school make out the girls are to blame, when they should be teaching others to respect how the girls are dressed

What is distracting about the female leg?
Either it sexually attracts you and then you should not be working in the school, as they are minors and you probably need seek help or its just the exposed legs of a young girl that does not effect you at all because you are not sexually attracted to children.
Again you are placing blame on the girl for something she has not created, because that teacher if they are sexually attracted will be sexually attracted to that minor whether wearing a short skirt or not.
Again the only way this is an issue comes from the person who is sexualizing the minor wearing the short skirt.

Like Victor has said, the Islamification process is almost complete with you

Umm not really minors grades 7 to 13 means 13 years old to 18 years old, and You obviously have zero experience with teachers, teenagers, teaching, short skirts and women.

I work in education I am fully ceritifed to work with children, so are ALL of these men, These people are professional and doing their job properly by enforcing a school dress code, You have to be super naive to think teenage girls do not go through a stage of experimenting with how risqué they can be, which is why they can be honest and not LIARS like you and say yes this 16 year old with a skirt that barely cover her crotch is distracting and it would NOT be acceptable in any workplace but a strip club.




You are only making a big deal out of a non issue of a school enforcing appropriate clothing rules because you like the idea of schools girls in skirts that are too short.  

at no point are they saying they are attracted in a away that would cause an action, they are saying it is distracting.

I totally agree with your post

Which means you support the school endorsing the view that girls are at fault for what they wear. Making the wearing of mini-skirts be deemed taboo.
The boys learn nothing then in order to treat and respect girls at school for what they wear.
That is not preparing children for life, but ensuring a problem will continue after school, where now boys will deem the wearing of clothes an open invitation, as the school has blamed girls for being at fault for nothing they have done.
Boys will be distracted over girls, no matter what they wear.
That is why the whole belief around this is nonsense
It sends out all the wrong messages

No didge, it's teaching what's appropriate dress for whatever it is you're doing.

Short skirts do not improve a child's concentration so why would anyone have a problem with wearing a longer skirt if it means everyone is happier?
I know most parents agree with this.

Girls need to realise  that dressing up for school isn't important.

My son's school has just enforced that all girl's skirts should come to their knees.
No one moaned, no one took to social media and we've just had a newsletter, befroe Easter, to say grades have gone up in an already excellent school (it doesn't say why of course but it could be that making the kids get 'serious' about school has helped?)