the_rck | (no subject)

Cordelia's school has actually set a dress code, just for the 7th graders. I've been expecting it for a while, but I'm still not enthusiastic. There are a couple of bits that I have questions on, so I've emailed both teachers and the principal.

The first is almost certainly a typo. I don't think they're requiring that all shirts actually reach far enough down the leg to be below where the wearer's fingers end when their arms are relaxed at their sides. It says 'skirt/shirt,' and I'm 99% sure that it's supposed to say 'skirt/dress.' I can't imagine most parents putting up with a requirement that shirts be that long.

Cordelia's also concerned by the ban on 'saggy' pants and shorts. She wears stuff with an elastic waist but that is very loose in the hip and the leg, and she's afraid that is banned. I'm pretty certain that the ban is actually on having a waistband that falls low enough to show off ones underwear or butt. I've assured Cordelia that her current shorts are fine, but I don't think she entirely believes me.

The form also claims that there's a field trip permission slip on the other side from the dress code, but that side is blank, making it very hard to fill out any sort of form. I mentioned that in my email, too.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

adrian_turtle

Have you and Cordelia discussed why a school would make a dress code like this? In 7th grade, she's old enough to understand that a lot of people don't want to see women's bodies as anything other than sex objects. (She doesn't need to understand why. But knowing that it IS happening makes sense out of a lot of things that can otherwise seem incomprehensible.)

The school dress code is intended to keep people from seeing women's bodies. That's why it doesn't care about little girls. There is probably something forbidding low necklines, as well as short skirts. They almost certainly like loose-fitting pants, though.

From:

the_rck

I think the pants rule is aimed at the boys. As far as I can tell, it's currently fashionable for teenage boys to wear pants that sag so much that the crotch is about at their knees and their underwear shows by two or even three inches.

Which I'd think would interfere with walking. But what do I know?

There's nothing about necklines (though they do ban bare midriffs), but they have a strap width requirement of three fingers width, and a number of the requirements are aimed at girls.

I think the no non-religious headgear and the ban on 'vulgar and inappropriate' t-shirts applies equally to both boys and girls. (And I wonder if they make an exception for kids dealing with hair loss due to chemo? That seems like a very good and necessary thing to do.)

From:

retsuko

I don't think it's a typo. One of the really prevalent fashions (at least, in my experience, here in SoCal) is the semi-long shirt paired with the super tight jeans or leggings. Basically, they don't want female students wearing tight pants or leggings that show off their butts with a shirt that's too short to really hide said butts. (I, personally, won't wear leggings unless I have a shirt or tunic long enough to cover my butt, but that's mostly because I'm sensitive about my appearance and don't like to draw attention to stuff I think needs work.) I agree with the comment above that Cordelia needs to think about why this is sexist and creepy/wrong. :(

My only other thought is, why is it just for 7th graders? That's weird. Is it an 8th grade free-for-all, clothing-wise?

Edited Date: 2015-09-22 11:49 pm (UTC)

From:

the_rck

There's no 8th grade at the school this year. There will be next year, and most likely, the dress code will apply to them.

It's just that they didn't have a dress code for the 6th graders last year, so I assume it doesn't apply to the younger grades.

Shirts to mid-thigh is utterly ridiculous. If they want that, most kids won't be able to attend school at all. And that clause isn't just for girls. Everything on the list is supposed to apply to both boys and girls. It's very much the sort of requirement that would have to be given to parents *months* in advance since nobody around here even carries shirts that long.

My impression from talking to other parents is that it's fairly common for schools to ban leggings and jeggings altogether. I've worried about that because Cordelia loathes jeans (she'd rather wear shorts in -20F weather than wear jeans) and I haven't been able to find anything that isn't jeans except leggings. I'm hoping that we'll be able to order a decent selection of knit pants online now that she's wearing women's sizes, though.

From:

retsuko

Oops, I forgot Cordelia's school setup. :p

Why is Cordelia so opposed to jeans?

From:

the_rck

They're uncomfortable, mostly.

I suspect, too, that she dislikes the fact that the way most current jeans are cut means it's impossible to sit down while wearing them without, at best, showing one's underwear. We have searched and searched for jeans cut differently, and Cordelia is skinny, so it's not a case of trying to fit too much into too small a space. They're just made that way. Deliberately.

From:

retsuko

There have got to be some high-waisted jeans that don't do this, and they're all the rage right now. I'm trying to think who I could ask about this...

From:

the_rck

I'll see if I can persuade Cordelia to try some jeans on and see if the current styles feel better than the styles that were available four years ago did. At the time, I suggested trying boys' jeans, but Cordelia reacted with utter horror at the very notion, so I didn't push it.

From:

kyrielle

Jeans are WICKED uncomfortable.

I like the Alfred Dunner "jeans". They're made of lightweight, flexible denim - they're basically denim slacks.

From:

the_rck

I'll look into those. Thanks!

From:

the_rck

The only ones I found at Macy's online lack pockets, and that's a deal breaker. The Alfred Dunner website doesn't seem to sell directly (or to be searchable). JC Penney's sizes start at 8, and Cordelia is, at most, a 6.

I'm also reluctant, given that Cordelia may still be growing, to spend more than $25 on a pair of pants because, if she grows, she's not likely to get more than one year out of them.

I will note the brand, though, for when I'm sure she's reached her adult size.

From:

adrian_turtle

It's really hard to get jeans to fit properly. Any kind of woven trousers needs to fit in the rise (crotch to waistband, which is different back and front) instead of just fitting in the waist and being "big enough" in the hips, and letting the knit cloth rearrange itself around the body shape. If you're not going to get stuff tailored (which is too expensive) you have to take your chances with the rise and thigh size the manufacturer happens to use.

I know Lands End sells jeans with different rise measurements, and tells you if they're high or low or mid-rise. They do the same thing with corduroys (which I always used to wear in winter instead of jeans. Even though jeans block wind better.) They're pricey, but maybe you could find something on clearance?

Is Cordelia willing to consider skirts? That's what I do sometimes, when I can't get pants that fit comfortably in the rise and/or thighs. I recall you wear dresses fairly often yourself.

From:

the_rck

Cordelia won't wear skirts or dresses these days. I think that a big part of it is that none of the other girls do. She wore dresses pretty much exclusively up through first or second grade and then stopped. I'm pretty sure that her preference for dresses before that came largely from the fact that that was all I usually wore.

I think we've found some pants online that fit-- Blair's women's petite size 6 seems to be right. Those are knit pants with elastic waists, too, so they don't have the problems that come with jeans or corduroys.

From:

antisoppist

I'm in the UK and we have school uniform. When my eldest started at secondary school (age 11) the uniform rules said "no pleated skirts". When I asked a friend who taught there why this was, she said "it's to stop the boys flicking the girls' skirts up with a ruler". Well I don't know. Could you not stop the boys flicking up girls' skirts rather than policing the female dress code????!!!

They have tightened up the uniform rules since then and girls now have to wear one style of straight, plain, regulation grey skirt which must reach the knee. It has escaped the attention of whoever designed this that girls come in different sizes and heights and waist to leg length ratios and regulation skirts that fit them round the waist may not reach to their knees. As one of my child's friends said at the start of term: "If they tell me it is too short, I will tell them This Is How Long My Legs Are!"

From:

the_rck

I would very much like to see policies that emphasized boys being respectful to girls. Policing girls' clothing choices doesn't address the true problem and tells boys that they don't have to control themselves because, if they can't, it's someone else's fault.

At least the basic point of this dress code seems mostly to be not to have underwear showing. I'm of the opinion that that's a reasonable goal in selecting one's attire.

I'm a little less pleased about the ban on 'vulgar and inappropriate' t-shirts since there's no definition of what either term means. 'Inappropriate' is awfully open to interpretation and terribly easy to use to harass a child.