This is silly.
What's Next?
Burkas?
Chador?
Handmaids?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57232694

A Florida high school is facing backlash for altering the yearbook photos of 80 female students to add clothing to their chests and shoulders.

The school district told local media the changes were made to ensure the photos met the dress code, which says girls' shirts must be "modest".

But critics pointed to yearbook photos of male students left unedited despite violating the same standards.

The digital alterations were made without permission, the students say.

Bartram Trail High School's yearbook co-ordinator - a female teacher - made the decision to edit the photos after determining they had violated the dress code, the St Johns County school district said.

A disclaimer on Bartram Trail's website warns students that their yearbook photos may be digitally edited to be consistent with the dress code.

But some students have called the alterations distressing and accused the school of sexism.

"The double standard in the yearbook is more so that they looked at our body and thought just a little bit of skin showing was sexual," Bartram Trail student Riley O'Keefe, 15, told CBS affiliate WJAX News.

The school can have any reasonable dress code, but there needs to be more of an effort to be consistent about it.

Mormons, Evangelicals, Southern Baptists, etc are just stuck on this "the female body is sinful" thing when really it's just what's in the male mind -- and boys are going to fantisize about whatever clothes on or clothes off...

That reminds me of a passage in a book I recently read describing the routine in an English boarding school.

"Twice-daily chapel services praise the school's war dead to the detriment of its living, value the white man above lesser breeds, and preach chastity to boys who can find sexual stimulation in a Times editorial."

We know what King Canute would say.

Meaning what--that a private evangelical or Christian school would never impose an unreasonable dress code or blame girls for boys' thoughts?

What a relief!

Public schools, Private ones, religious ones, charter schools. Some will be more strict than others.

We can expect kids to test limits. I remember when clothing standards were eliminated in my city. Girls started wearing halter tops, which were little more than bras. Clothing standards returned. What one person considers oppressive, a school committee may consider reasonable.

I myself favor uniforms. Golf shirts for boys & girls, neutral sweaters, khaki or navy pants and skirts that fall just below the knees. The point is not to be prudish, but to equalize appearances so that children of different body types, income brackets, fashion inclinations, etc. do not stand out. The purpose is to reduce (somewhat) ranked cliques and cohorts. School is for learning, after all.

But Bertram Trail could have done better, by publicizing standards and guidelines, and contacting, before publication, certain students for acceptable submissions.

Right, and I've never worked in a public school that *doesn't* have standards. Basically it usually boils down to you can't be too bare or be dressed like you are expecting to go to the beach -- no bare midriffs, no cleavage, no short shorts, no spaghetti straps, no basketball tops on boys with nothing underneath. Oh, and no vulgar expressions on your clothing. Many schools also insist on closed shoes or sandals that strap on (as opposed to flip-flops.)

Uniforms go a long way towards eliminating a lot of these problems. Most schools have loaner shirts for students who are under-dressed.

I don't have a problem with these standards as long as they are enforced fairly and equally.

I'm still wondering why the question of "government-run" versus private school is relevant. It seemed, and seems, a non sequitur.

They took a page out of the mormon playbook. Heber (heavily lds) did the same thing 7 years ago. Freakin' prudish stormtroopers.

https://www.fox13now.com/2014/06/04/wasatch-high-administrators-apologize-for-altering-yearbook-photos

Schools are like employers -- they can set standards for what you can and can't wear. The Mormons take it too far, though. Prohibiting bare shoulders at a prom is a religious standard, not a commonly accepted secular standard.

to avoid "wardrobe malfunctions," as they say.

Yes the school can set standards. But, they let the girls dress that way, including picture day. It's not against their dress code. To have some prudish biddy randomly alter their yearbook pictures really crosses a line. Plus, boys wearing speedos and no shirts to school is a dress code violation. But, they published the entire swim team photos with the guys in nothing but speedos.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/25/2021 02:09PM by stillanon.

In forty years of marriage I have never seen my wife's shoulders.

At my school, I'm the one who gets to try to remedy the dress code violations.

I'll get a call at 1:10 p.m. "I am sending a student for a new shirt."

Me, "What's wrong with her shirt?"

Them, "It's showing some midriff."

Me, "Is it causing a problem?"

Them, "No, but it's violating dress code."

Me, "School is out in 50 minutes. If it's not causing a problem for the other students, please ignore it."

Them, "Don't we need to send a message to mom?"

Me, "I'm more worried about the student's feelings."

This particular student doesn't live with mom. Isn't it interesting that we assume it's a women's job to police girls about clothing.

Girls who are more flat chested can show a lot of skin without getting in trouble.

Girls who have bigger boobs are shamed for having the nerve to have boobs let alone have boobs that create cleavage.

Ridiculous!

Everyone ought to recognize, and praise, that boobs bring 90% of 15 to 18-year-old males closer to ghawd...and country.

If anything is uplifting, praiseworthy, or of good report, we seek after these things.

"If I could build a wall around you
I could control the thing that you do.
But I couldn't kill the will within you.
And it never shows
Where evil grows.

(Chorus)
Evil grows in the dark
Where the sun it never shines.
Evil grows in cracks and holes
And lives in peoples' minds.
Evil grew. It's part of you
And now, it seems to be
That every time I look at you
Evil grows in me."

--"Where Evil Grows," The Poppy Family, 1971

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7EGMBS6nXI

This idea that we can stop people (usually males) from thinking sexual thoughts by having females wear clothes that attempt to hide their cleavage is laughable at best. It's also as old as the hills and very much represents male misogeny in Christian, Jewish, and Islamic societies.

I just read about this.

Cover the skin girls... any kind of fabric will do [just for the pic]. We've got to outsmart them. Cover it or they will. They hate skin!

How much more ridiculous can they get??

You have to admire the cognitive dissonance of modern feminism which decries the objectification of women and their bodies but encourages women to wear objectifying clothing and to show off their bodies. Doublethink like this is one of the reasons anorexia and depression are off the scale among young women today. But we don't need a spiffing state broadcaster from a dead empire to tell us that.

Hanging On Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You have to admire the cognitive dissonance of
> modern feminism which decries the objectification
> of women and their bodies but encourages women to
> wear objectifying clothing and to show off their
> bodies.

That's pretty funny. The objectification is male behavior yet your recommendation is that women accept responsibility for it. Haven't learned much since leaving Mormonism, have we?

Also, did you bother to look at the photos we are discussing? I think not. Here is the first article again. Do you think the girl's dress is inappropriate? Is it "objectifying clothing?"

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57232694


-----------------
> Doublethink like this is one of the
> reasons anorexia and depression are off the scale
> among young women today.

I'm guessing you aren't a trained psychologist or psychotherapist.


-----------------
> But we don't need a
> spiffing state broadcaster from a dead empire to
> tell us that.

That would be what logicians term a "non sequitur." But putting that aside, perhaps you'll take the issue more seriously if the story were told by private broadcasters from a living empire.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/25/us/florida-yearbook-photos-altered-trnd/index.html

https://www.npr.org/2021/05/23/999596246/florida-high-school-edited-girls-yearbook-photos-to-cover-more-of-their-chests

https://nypost.com/2021/05/23/florida-high-school-edits-clothes-onto-female-yearbook-pictures/

There. Does that make the issue more "real" to you? Can you find any photos in the articles of girls who were dressed provocatively?

Funny! Ogden yearbook.

https://www.fox13now.com/news/coronavirus/local-coronavirus-news/utah-school-district-apologizes-after-masks-added-to-faces-in-yearbook-photos