Vent - Sexism within schools - Boys & Earrings

Rev

JReacher1 wrote: »

No irony at all. What you do is look at all the evidence and make an informed decision based on that. I've looked at the website which I have been informed is out of date (although there is no actual link that proves it, yet I suspect he's right), I have taken my own personal experiences and beliefs and don't believe its sexist. I believe its not sexist to impose different uniform codes on girls and boys. School children are the public face of the school and the school should be able to dictate what they wear. I realise its the 21st century but boys in earings still is the exception as opposed to the rule. I can see why they should be banned.

The problem I've found with this forum in the last couple of months is that there are many posters like yourself who don't know either way but state that you do know with absolute proof. Even though there is no evidence to back up your position. Then everyone who disagrees with this view is wrong and an idiot! Still each to his own!

I don't need evidence to back up my own opinion. I can state it with absolute proof because its my opinion. I don't need some website to tell me 'either way'. I have nowhere said 'this is fact'. I thought to myself 'is it okay that he can't wear an earring and the girls can - no I don't think it is. I think that's sexist'. I have called nobody an idiot either. So please stop twisting things to suit yourself.

I don't need a website to tell me what's right and wrong. To form my opinion for me and tell me it's okay. I don't need links and other people's opinions to tell me it's okay.

My opinion, formed by nobody else but myself. Is that is sexist.

JReacher1

Rev wrote: »

I don't need evidence to back up my own opinion. I can state it with absolute proof because its my opinion. I don't need some website to tell me 'either way'. I have nowhere said 'this is fact'. I thought to myself 'is it okay that he can't wear an earring and the girls can - no I don't think it is. I think that's sexist'. I have called nobody an idiot either. So please stop twisting things to suit yourself.

I don't need a website to tell me what's right and wrong. To form my opinion for me and tell me it's okay. I don't need links and other people's opinions to tell me it's okay.

My opinion, formed by nobody else but myself. Is that is sexist.

If websites are a waste of time and don't help form your opinion then why do your waste your time posting on a website? I assume this means that you can't have your opinion changed by anyone so then i can't help but feel we are wasting our time arguing about this point.

Therefore really you should have just said your opinion and stopped arguing about it.

You've basically wasted all of our time!

Rev

JReacher1 wrote: »

If websites are a waste of time and don't help form your opinion then why do your waste your time posting on a website? I assume this means that you can't have your opinion changed by anyone so then i can't help but feel we are wasting our time arguing about this point.

Therefore really you should have just said your opinion and stopped arguing about it.

You've basically wasted all of our time!

Yes. Arguing against sexism is a waste if time.


You assume incorrectly. This is a discussion. I can't have a discussion with a web page. I can here. With people who have formed opinions by themselves.

Exile_geordie

JReacher1 wrote: »

This is quite interesting.

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/advice-and-guidance/your-rights/gender/sex-discrimination-in-education/education-your-rights/

I've quote the relevant bit.

It is not unlawful for a school to have rules about the standard of dress of its pupils. There has been no legal case decided by the courts on the question of whether different school uniform regulations for boys and girls would be discriminatory under the Sex Discrimination Act.

A lot depends on what is currently considered to be a ‘conventional form of dress’. Smart trousers are now a widely accepted alternative to skirts for women at work, and trousers have practical advantages for school life.

Because it is quite normal for girls to wear trousers, there is a strong argument that it is unlawful sex discrimination to deny a girl the opportunity to wear smart trousers as an alternative to skirts as part of a uniform code.

Since skirts are not currently a conventional form of dress for boys, it is probably not unlawful on the basis of current legal authority to prevent boys wearing skirts.

The same considerations apply to rules about haircuts and jewellery: in the light of current conventions on dress, it is likely to be lawful to deny boys the option of having long hair or wearing earrings. There have been no decided cases about dress codes in school and the outcome of a legal challenge would be uncertain.

Anyone notice how Azari has not responded to this posting yet which contradicts what the pretend know-it-all claimed further up the page?:rotfl:

System

Rev wrote: »

Yes. Arguing against sexism is a waste if time.


You assume incorrectly. This is a discussion. I can't have a discussion with a web page. I can here. With people who have formed opinions by themselves.

I don't care either way on this argument but how do schools get away with only allowing one sex to study there. Why is that not sexism?

Azari

goater78 wrote: »

I don't care either way on this argument but how do schools get away with only allowing one sex to study there. Why is that not sexism?

I gave a possible explanation for that earlier.

I can't, of course, be certain that it is correct but I'm pretty sure it goes something along the lines of:

1) There are plenty of schools at all levels open to boy and girls, either separately or co-ed.

2) Because of this it is unlikely that there is any actual disadvantage to anyone to any significant extent.

3) As no one is disadvantaged there is no particular reason for anyone to challenge the situation.

Nonetheless, more and more single sex educational establishments are now becoming co-ed.


Of course, there may be some specific exclusion.

Azari

Exile_geordie wrote: »

Anyone notice how Azari has not responded to this posting yet which contradicts what the pretend know-it-all claimed further up the page?

If you had actually read the thread properly you would see that I have said right from the beginning: "There may be some loophole that they are relying on."

So I was clearly indicating that I did not know it all.

And I have effectively responded - even if I didn't necessarily quote that post - by pointing out that the website is:

a) Only offering an opinion.
b) Admits that the outcome of a legal challenge is 'uncertain'.
c) Contradicts itself.

Also, someone else pointed out the site is out of date.

It was, nonetheless an interesting and useful addition to the discussion, posted by someone who has been more interested in sensible debate than the cheap point scoring you seem to favour.

somethingcorporate

For all those suggesting this is sexism would you support the rights of boys to go to school in skirts?

PLog86

somethingcorporate wrote: »

For all those suggesting this is sexism would you support the rights of boys to go to school in skirts?

That is rather different in that earrings are now a fairly common fashion accessory for males. There may be a tiny number of boys who seriously want to go to school in a skirt but it's not really a problem.

Even so, I seem to remember that when a school was challenged on this very point they simply banned skirts altogether because they knew, morally and probably legally, given discrimination legislation, they didn't have a leg to stand on.

I think a lot of people here have forgotten what it's like to be a teenager and although desperate fit in, at the same time desperate to show some individuality. This is why the school's action is so wrong. It allows one sex the freedom to express their individuality by wearing makeup and jewellery but denies it to the other. How important that is to the 'old farts' on this board isn't relevant. It's how it affects the victims of the discrimination that's important.

Rev

somethingcorporate wrote: »

For all those suggesting this is sexism would you support the rights of boys to go to school in skirts?

If that's what he wanted to do yes.