Teens From Frozen Lands get hotted up over bra straps?

As temperatures heat up, teenage girls across Canada are being kicked out of school for their summer attire. Between 20 and 30 girls in the Newfoundland and Labrador province were sent home at the end of last week for wearing sleeveless shirts that exposed their bra straps — leading some of them to complain that administrators are unfairly targeting girls who just want to dress comfortably.

Menihek High School sent home a group of female students last week for wearing spaghetti strap shirts, saying that violates the institution’s dress code. Although a few male students were also asked to leave for wearing sleeveless shirts, the school district allegedly approached the issue slightly differently with female students because they’re specifically worried about girls’ bare skin becoming a distraction.

Emily Connors, one of the students who was sent home, told CBC News that the girls who were asked to leave were told it was “because of our bra straps, and that it was inappropriate because some of the male teachers, and male students found it distracting for them.” Other students told the National Post that the school has been explicit about the fact that their bare shoulders could “invite unneeded attention” from male students because “boys will be boys.”

“We were actually given a presentation at the beginning of every school year, and they were telling us, ‘Well, you can’t wear certain types of shirts because they’re afraid that male students will take it the wrong way,’” recounted 12th grader Danielle Matias, who wasn’t asked to go home last week but who is still opposed to the school’s dress code.

Some parents are frustrated with Menihek High School as well. Emily’s father, Gary Connors, said that the school’s reasoning is “outrageous” and “as far as I’m concerned, what a woman wears doesn’t give a guy a right to do anything to them [or] say anything to them.”

The female students say they weren’t trying to violate the dress code, but they wanted to dress appropriately for the Canadian province’s unseasonably warm weather. Temperatures reached nearly 70 degrees last week, which is “a virtual heat wave in the harsh subarctic city,” according to the National Post.

This has been an recurring issue in Canada this spring. Over the past month, several teen girls across different provinces have been sent home from school for wearing shorts and sleeveless shirts. Now, some of them are fighting back against what they perceive as sexist dress codes. Last week, a 14-year-old in Ottawa wore a spaghetti strap shirt specifically to protest her school’s policy. And a 15-year-old in Quebec recently started hanging up signs around her high school telling school administrators, “It’s hot outside. Instead of shaming girls for their bodies, teach boys that girls are not sexual objects.”

Dress code issues certainly aren’t specific to our neighbor to the north. Here in the United States, schools across the country work to police girls’ necklines and hemlines so they aren’t a “distraction” to their male peers. Girls have been kicked out of prom for wearing short skirts, banned from wearing leggings to class, and even photoshopped to appear as though they’re showing less skin in their yearbook photos. There’s a common thread running throughout these examples: The assumption that it’s young women’s responsibility to cover up their bodies because men just can’t help themselves. Dress code critics point out that’s the same cultural attitude that contributes to rape culture and the normalization of violence against women.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Btw, that's quite the welcome wagon, Veya

veya_victaous wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Btw, that's quite the welcome wagon, Veya

Actually that is any afternoon at the beach 8 months of the year      

veya_victaous wrote:                                    

Welcome to Australia

Cass wrote:its a school not a beach.....parents and students are aware of dress codes....if they don't like it take your kids elsewhere or homeschool them. this is why I loved school uniforms back in the Uk.

you will find that most schools and places of business have a dress code. its not rocket science. personally I don't want to be served any place by someone with their boons or moobs hanging out or a Butt crack showing or a gross of smelly hair under their pits. its unhygenic and just tacky.

victorisnotamused wrote:Nah veya...for get the "fress codes"
forget everything else

soon all these ladies here will be parceled up in burkahs and walking around like animated post boxes


creeping islamisation...

drip drip drip

lovedust wrote:
I should have known a story on this site about Canadian kids being sent from school would morph into a discussion about Islam and the burka within a day.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

lovedust wrote:
I should have known a story on this site about Canadian kids being sent from school would morph into a discussion about Islam and the burka within a day.

Just using it as an example, Love -- at least, that's what I've always viewed such tendencies as.

veya_victaous wrote:And we all know the REAL truth      

Anyone against Boobs is Evil         

Ben_Reilly wrote:But this story is really about the same thing that led to the burqa in fundie Islamic states and "moderate dress" among some Christian groups, let alone all the assholes who blame rape on the victim dressing provocatively -- first, the notion that women are responsible if men are distracted around them, second, that men are insane sex monsters who can't carry on if there's a pretty woman showing some skin around them.

Let me just say, there is no level of covering up a teen girl can do to keep a teen boy from being interested. When I was that age I thought girls looked hot in marching band uniforms! If we had not evolved to be the way we are, there might not be any of us around to discuss it now.

Cass wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:But this story is really about the same thing that led to the burqa in fundie Islamic states and "moderate dress" among some Christian groups, let alone all the assholes who blame rape on the victim dressing provocatively -- first, the notion that women are responsible if men are distracted around them, second, that men are insane sex monsters who can't carry on if there's a pretty woman showing some skin around them.

Let me just say, there is no level of covering up a teen girl can do to keep a teen boy from being interested. When I was that age I thought girls looked hot in marching band uniforms! If we had not evolved to be the way we are, there might not be any of us around to discuss it now.

horse hockey - its about someone turning a molehill into a mountain by not wanting to follow rules. somebody has now turned this into a whole hooley about surpressing women's rights to dress how they want - bull cookies again.

we just got issued a new dress code for the county...you don't see me screaming and crying because I cant wear spaghetti straps or a sheer shirt or jeans (ok I am miffed at that especially for the weekends but I ain't going to risk losing my job over it).

they should be on their hands and knees thanking the spirit in the sky (ace song by the way) that a) they have clothes to wear in the first place and b) that they live somewhere that doesn't force women to be truly second class citizens and are forced to wear something that if they don't could see them in prison or dead.

cry me a river.

veya_victaous wrote:

Cass wrote:

horse hockey - its about someone turning a molehill into a mountain by not wanting to follow rules. somebody has now turned this into a whole hooley about surpressing women's rights to dress how they want - bull cookies again.

we just got issued a new dress code for the county...you don't see me screaming and crying because I cant wear spaghetti straps or a sheer shirt or jeans (ok I am miffed at that especially for the weekends but I ain't going to risk losing my job over it).

they should be on their hands and knees thanking the spirit in the sky (ace song by the way) that a) they have clothes to wear in the first place and b) that they live somewhere that doesn't force women to be truly second class citizens and are forced to wear something that if they don't could see them in prison or dead.

cry me a river.

they are being told "if you don't wear what we say, you wont get educated"
we are nations that Don't treat women like Shit, because we Don't Believe that is an acceptable ultimatum to give a young woman.
Like Many Men in Australia I am fighting for (and we are winning) the right to wear shorts to work... Dress for the weather.... Fuck the rest  ::D:: ::D:: ::D:: ::D:: ::D:: ::D:: 
it all just Racist    Why should I have to wear an Ugly uncomfortable Anglo suit... Samurai Pants are so Much more comfortable ... and Dammit I want a Cape        

Well, you can’t wear certain types of shirts because they’re afraid that male students will take it the wrong way.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Let them worry about it when they're in the workplace, says I. Until then, let them be young and show their freakin' bra straps if they want.

We're talking about this:



Not like they're parading around half-naked or something.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Okay, they have that right, but is it wise?

lovedust wrote:a) It's not draconian to advise people they ought not bear their underwear in a place of  work
b) It's not forcing children to act like adults to advise them not to bear their underwear in a place of work

Do you like seeing other men's underpants when you're at work, Ben?

I'm 17. Looking at linoleum makes me wanna have sex.

Ben_Reilly wrote:OK, Love -- and I'm being somewhat conciliatory here so you should feel special -- perhaps I'm just a bit too old to think of bra straps as the big deal they could be to teen boys.

I'm 17. Looking at linoleum makes me wanna have sex.

- Xander Harris, Buffy the Vampire Slayer

lovedust wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:OK, Love -- and I'm being somewhat conciliatory here so you should feel special -- perhaps I'm just a bit too old to think of bra straps as the big deal they could be to teen boys.

I'm 17. Looking at linoleum makes me wanna have sex.

- Xander Harris, Buffy the Vampire Slayer

Well. The same way you may find it inappropriate to see other men's underwear at work, girls may find it inappropriate to have to see other girls' underwear when they're trying to work.

That's all I can say really

Ben_Reilly wrote:And Veya, I say, if you want to wear a cape then wear it. I always sort of pictured you in one anyway

lovedust wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:OK, Love -- and I'm being somewhat conciliatory here so you should feel special -- perhaps I'm just a bit too old to think of bra straps as the big deal they could be to teen boys.

I'm 17. Looking at linoleum makes me wanna have sex.

- Xander Harris, Buffy the Vampire Slayer

Well. The same way you may find it inappropriate to see other men's underwear at work, girls may find it inappropriate to have to see other girls' underwear when they're trying to work.

That's all I can say really

lovedust wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Let them worry about it when they're in the workplace, says I. Until then, let them be young and show their freakin' bra straps if they want.
We're talking about this:

Not like they're parading around half-naked or something.

School is a work-place - that's the whole point of enforcing dress codes. The school has every right to require underwear not be visible.

Original Quill wrote:Dress codes and uniforms aside, what is discredited in the eyes of the law--in the US, at least--is the reasoning that because someone of the opposite sex is affected, that should govern someone of your sex's dress, or behaviour...whatever.

I know a lot of guys who go commando (don't wear anything under their Levi's). I also know a lot of girls who are inveterate crotch-watchers.

Can you imagine a rule that says a boy must dress so-and-so, because a girl might be distracted?

It's roles...and outright sexism.

lovedust wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Dress codes and uniforms aside, what is discredited in the eyes of the law--in the US, at least--is the reasoning that because someone of the opposite sex is affected, that should govern someone of your sex's dress, or behaviour...whatever.

I know a lot of guys who go commando (don't wear anything under their Levi's).  I also know a lot of girls who are inveterate crotch-watchers.

Can you imagine a rule that says a boy must dress so-and-so, because a girl might be distracted?

It's roles...and outright sexism.

Quill, you said you had a female acquaintance take your secretary shopping to get her more appropriately attired for the workplace. I see these school rules as attempting to do the same thing. I don't see why that would be sexist.

Original Quill wrote:

lovedust wrote:





Quill, you said you had a female acquaintance take your secretary shopping to get her more appropriately attired for the workplace. I see these school rules as attempting to do the same thing. I don't see why that would be sexist.

No, it's entirely different.  What I did was promote a worker from my Phoenix office to my San Francisco office.  Now, there is a huge difference between cow-poking, shit-kicking, rodeoing Phoenix, and formal, straight-laced banker's San Francisco.  This employee needed to learn how to cope in a new environment.  She was hob-nobbing with bankers and insurance people, not Phoenix cowboys with shit on their boots.

But the real point is, it had nothing to do with boys who would get erections if she wore the wrong thing; it was simply fitting in with a new place. That's a completely different matter than school rules admittedly formulated for purposes having to do with the sexual reactions of another gender.  I see the latter as not only sexist on its face, but prejudicially placing the blame on the wrong person.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

lovedust wrote:
Well. The same way you may find it inappropriate to see other men's underwear at work, girls may find it inappropriate to have to see other girls' underwear when they're trying to work.

That's all I can say really

Didn't think of the effect it might have on girls, I must say. I imagine there's a whole other issue at play there.

I still have to say, though, the opposite lesson could be valuable as well -- don't judge others by their clothing? Some white people will cross the street if they see a black person coming toward them down the sidewalk, but they'd do the same if they saw a white person with a biker jacket coming toward them. And people in biker jackets can be some of the nicest people you could ever meet!

..............

lovedust wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No, it's entirely different.  What I did was promote a worker from my Phoenix office to my San Francisco office.  Now, there is a huge difference between cow-poking, shit-kicking, rodeoing Phoenix, and formal, straight-laced banker's San Francisco.  This employee needed to learn how to cope in a new environment.  She was hob-nobbing with bankers and insurance people, not Phoenix cowboys with shit on their boots.

It sounds like the aim was to formalise dress, which was also the aim of this school.

But the real point is, it had nothing to do with boys who would get erections if she wore the wrong thing; it was simply fitting in with a new place. That's a completely different matter than school rules admittedly formulated for purposes having to do with the sexual reactions of another gender.  I see the latter as not only sexist on its face, but prejudicially placing the blame on the wrong person.

Hmm I disagree; boys who wore sleeveless shirts were also sent home. Who do you suppose it to be sexist toward? 

Original Quill wrote:

lovedust wrote:

It sounds like the aim was to formalise dress, which was also the aim of this school.



Hmm I disagree; boys who wore sleeveless shirts were also sent home. Who do you suppose it to be sexist toward? 

Admittedly, the aim is to formalise dress in both cases.  But the rationale in my case was not built on the premise that the opposite sex would be aroused without the restrictions.

In response to your second point...again, it was not alleged that boys in sleeveless shirts improperly aroused young girls.  So it was just a matter of decorum.

The point I believe you are missing is that it is unfair to blame one gender for the response in another gender.  It's reminiscent of the argument that a woman invites rape by the clothes she wears.  Blaming the victim is not a real solution for the problem.