Ahh, dress code. The bane of every high schooler’s existence, the annoying government regulations on the clothing that their students are allowed to wear to receive an education. And yes, these regulations are inherently extremely sexist.
The nature of dress code is a good one. Certain clothing items, especially low-cut shirts or short-shorts, are inappropriate to be worn to school. Obviously it is unnecessary for students to wear shirts with beer logos or shirts with profanity on them to school. Bandanas are understandable; with gang violence in many schools, banning these helps prevent more issues. Hats have never been permitted in school. And no one wants to see anyone’s underwear, so anti-sagging concerns also make a large deal of sense. But here is where the logic ends and, ironically (or not,) where the unisex elements also end.
Another important sidebar: if one is caught violating the dress code, they are sent to the office where they remain until someone brings them clothes that conform to the dress code and are less “distracting.” If no one is available to bring students these clothes, they may remain there all day long, with their absence from class being considered “unexcused disciplinary action.”
Chiefly banned are “shoulder-revealing clothing,” a category that contains spaghetti-strap clothing, off-the-shoulder tops, shirts with cut-out shoulders and sleeveless shirts. However, this apparently does not include “wifebeater” tanks or athletic tanks, shirts worn only by guys that expose the same general amount of skin as some sleeveless shirts.
While the “short-shorts” category is deliberately vague, the popular mantra of administrators is the “fingertip rule;" if the shorts are shorter than one’s fingertips when their arms are placed normally at their sides, the shorts are too short. Exempt from this rule, of course, are “chubbies," a male version of short-shorts that are not quite as short, but if one is considering the difference in what needs to be hidden, the lengths are comparable.
Bra straps have always been a big deal to be visible (as if anyone is surprised that high school girls are wearing bras?) but, recently, Johns Creek High School has begun to also crack down on bralettes. Bralettes, for those who are not familiar, are decorative lace bras; many have straps around the neck or decorative tops or backs. They are for dressing up an outfit that would otherwise expose the dreaded bra strap and making it look cute and less suggestive (if this word could have even been used to start with.)
Bras are a fact of nature. Girls have to wear them from about middle school age, onwards. Not only is it socially unacceptable to let everything hang loose and free, exercise without proper support is actually harmful. Why are girls expected to keep it so secretive? Why is the strap of a bra (or, even more confounding, the pretty lace strap that is meant to make bras more enjoyable to look at) something distracting? If you can’t see anything – just, literally, the strap of the bra – why is your learning effected? Wouldn’t it be more distracting if it was clear that I wasn’t wearing a bra?
Similarly, my shoulders. Do guys have a sexual attraction to shoulders? Are shoulders a sensual item that just turns everyone into a sex-crazed dog? And, hey. My shoulders have few major differences from guy’s; why can guys wear wifebeater tanks, but my shirt in a similar design is a problem?
And, the king of all nonsensical rules, headbands. At their class assemblies during the first week of school, Johns Creek High School announced that, this year, headbands would be against dress code. Yes, the strips of cloth that retain hair from falling into the wearer’s face. Are people now attracted to foreheads? Does the sight of hair arranged behind the headband fill viewers with hormones? The only logical conclusion is, in line with the other rules, the creators of dress code simply want as much skin covered as possible.
While the clothing banned is inherently sexist, especially given the passes given to male equivalents of female fashion (it is well-noted that, since more fashion exists for females, it would be logical for more female fashion items to be problematic, but please see the given examples above to understand how sexism is still very clear in the rules), it doesn’t end there. As mentioned earlier, violators report to the office, where they remain until someone brings them clothing. Even in high school, with most kids driving, the clothes must be delivered. The reason given for this punishment is that the “distraction must be removed.”
For any confused, the sequence is thus: certain items of clothing are deemed “distracting,” so the wearer is removed. Distracting to whom? One would assume the male population, since the clothing banned is for sexual reasons (no matter how irrelevant) and males are rarely dress-coded. So, the girls wait all day in the office, missing class so that the guys aren’t distracted. Equal prioritization of education? Not apparently.
And clearly missed is the idea that these general principles play clearly into the rape culture in America today. Instead of teaching guys to control themselves around girls showing shoulders, wearing shorts of reasonable length or sporting a headband, we teach the girls to curb their personal expression and identities in fashion to cater to the guys. Instead of reminding guys that girls are not sexual items, we force the girls to change. The inequality and sexism is apparent and abound. Clothes are not consent!
Johns Creek phrased it as, “you’re going to school, not the pool," which is true and important to remember. However, there is a difference between sexually revealing clothing and normal fashion. Obviously there are parts that should stay covered in a public building, but there are a lot that are forced to be covered that do not need to be. Have your identity. Be free. If the guys get a boner from a girl with a headband, that is their personal hangup to deal with.
