themostfeminist:

pragmaticaddict:

jessicavalenti:

I’ve been amazed at the number of comments thatjust don’t get it over atmy post at The Nationon the way dress codes can discriminate against women. (And the way school administrators and faculty can use said code to sexually harass young women.)

What’s been truly interesting to me is the way that commenters continue to make the same argument that Stuyvesant’s principal did: that the way some young women dress is “distracting.” That men can’t help but look at these young women and their supposedly scandalous attire - and that this overwhelming desire to ogle young women means that school work isn’t being properly paid attention to. 

This “distraction” standard for a dress code sets up a model in which the default student we are concerned about - the student whose learning we want to ensure is protected - is male. It presumes that female students are a distraction to male students’ learning, and therefore it’s young women’s actions that must be policed.

But what about the way that the young women of Stuyvesant are being “distracted” from their studies by a school that harasses and slut-shames? What’s more distracting - glancing at a girls’ legs or being pulled from class, humiliated, and made to change outfits before you’re allowed to learn?

Maybe because it’s not discriminating against women; not EVERYTHING is an attack on women, but perhaps an issue that only applies to women. The way that men dress has never been a distraction to women because popular fashions between genders differ as well as the way both genders’ hormones work. Sure, we can blame men for not being able to contain themselves during class and shamelessly ogling their female peers. But the reason girls dress that way in the first place is for the men so how can males be blamed? If the girls wearing the short skirts and the low-cut tops don’t want to jeopardize their education by constantly being pulled out of class and being told to change, then they should think about taking it upon themselves to dress appropriately and tastefully. That way there will be nothing to “discriminate” against.

If it’s an issue that only applies to women and discriminates against the group it applies to, then it discriminates against women.

There’s a popular idea that women don’t ogle men or see them in a sexual way, which is perpetuated by how much society emphasises the male gaze (with sexualised images of women, for example), but isn’t true. Women (if they’re attracted to men) do see them in a sexual way based on what they wear, e.g. eyeing up a man’s legs when he wears shorts or his chest if he’s topless.

But somehow this doesn’t count. Somehow people don’t see this as distracting women, yet a woman wearing a skirt just above the knee is distracting. It makes no sense.

The reason why women’s clothes are seen as a sexual choice rather than a fashion-based choice isn’t because men’s hormones are different and it makes them sexualise women, it’s because (cis) female bodies are automatically seen as sexual by society. If I wear tight trousers, I’m showing off my body; if I wear tops showing a bit of cleavage (I’m skinny so a lot of tops show something) I’m showing off my body; if I wear a skirt I’m showing off my body. There is nothing I can wear that can’t somehow be turned into me displaying my sexuality in some way.

MEN ARE ABLE TO CONTROL THEMSELVES. This is very important, because the attitude that men can’t control themselves, that women’s appearances and behaviour make them lose control, is incredibly fucked up and is used to justify a lot of rapes and victim blaming. It’s also wrong. Men are just as able to control themselves as anybody else and saying they can’t is excusing their discriminatory behaviour.

Furthermore, women don’t dress just for men. For a start, not all women are sexually attracted to men. Some women don’t want to date. Some women are already in relationships. In my experience, it’s much more common for women to dress for their platonic female friends, who often admire their outfits, make up etc. in ways that men aren’t encouraged to do.

Taking women out of class and telling them to get changed is part of the issue. If they’re following the dress code, THEY SHOULDN’T BE PULLED OUT OF CLASS. But somehow what women wear is never modest enough, because underneath their clothes is a female body.

IT IS NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF WOMEN TO MAKE THEMSELVES UNABLE TO BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST. That isn’t how it works. Discrimination against women isn’t women’s fault. The women in this article FOLLOWED THEIR DRESS CODES and were still discriminated against. Your argument makes no sense. Furthermore, placing the onus on the people being discriminated against to change themselves to better fit the oppressive systems they live in so they might not be discriminated against is ridiculous. It’s the sort of attitude that leads to victim blaming (“if she hadn’t done X, she wouldn’t have been raped”) and it’s horrible.

(via robaemea-deactivated20120917)