Vent - Sexism within schools - Boys & Earrings

k12479

That's quite specific prohibitions about earrings you mention, and there's good reasons for them like hygiene or safety. A lot of other settings, e.g. a typical office, wouldn't allow earrings for men but would for women, if not as a written rule, as an expectation. School rules like this reflect that.

Azari

Whether someone knows about rules before signing up for something is irrelevant. If a rule is illegal it is void.

I would suggest that you ask the school precisely which piece of the sex discrimination legislation they are relying on in making and enforcing a rule that discriminates in favour of one sex. There may be some loophole that they are relying on.

If they can come up with no satisfactory explanation, ask them on what moral authority they would expect pupils to obey the school rules when they themselves are not obeying the law of the land.

warehouse

k12479 wrote: »

Maybe, the purpose of these kinds of things is to instill some level of discipline so that the kids stand some chance of becoming employable one day. Earrings on men are inappropriate in many workplaces, as are having Nike swooshes carved into your hair. If people don't learn these basics in school, they probably never will.

Bingo.

OP, you need to be backing up the school on this and not your son.

Azari

k12479 wrote: »

That's quite specific prohibitions about earrings you mention, and there's good reasons for them like hygiene or safety.

Irrelevant to the discrimination aspect.

A lot of other settings, e.g. a typical office, wouldn't allow earrings for men but would for women, if not as a written rule, as an expectation. School rules like this reflect that.

warehouse wrote: »

Bingo.

OP, you need to be backing up the school on this and not your son.

Rubbish.

If they want to instil discipline or reflect rules they should do so within the framework allowed by the law.

Discriminating in against one sex is illegal and no one is ever going to effect a healthy attitude to rules by enforcing ones which themselves break the law.

When schools forced girls to wear skirts whilst boys could wear trousers this was quite rightly fought against. Jewellery is of less consequence but allowing one sex the right to personalise themselves more than the other is wrong. Both in principle and in law.

JReacher1

There must be different sexual discrimination rules for schools as some schools only allow one sex to study there. Surely it's sexual discrimination to say only girls can attend a school?

JReacher1

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.

stephen77

k12479 wrote: »

Maybe, the purpose of these kinds of things is to instill some level of discipline so that the kids stand some chance of becoming employable one day. Earrings on men are inappropriate in many workplaces, as are having Nike swooshes carved into your hair. If people don't learn these basics in school, they probably never will.

I think you can learn it, soon as you leave school. No need for a school to teach this. However I will be old school and say earrings on men just looks wrong.

Azari

JReacher1 wrote: »

There must be different sexual discrimination rules for schools as some schools only allow one sex to study there. Surely it's sexual discrimination to say only girls can attend a school?

Sometimes, where there is no overall discrimination (i.e. there are plenty of schools at all levels for both boys and girls), these things are intentional exceptions in the legislation. Sometimes it's simply because no one has ever fought it and the status quo has remained in place.

After all, generally, what kind of parent would want their child to be the only boy in a girl's school?

I'm not sure which is the case where a whole school is dedicated to one sex.

However, I'm pretty certain that there is not a general exception that allow boys and girls to be subjected to different rules.

That's why I suggested that the OP ask the school which piece of the legislation they were relying upon to support their overt discrimination.

JReacher1

Azari wrote: »

Sometimes, where there is no overall discrimination (i.e. there are plenty of schools at all levels for both boys and girls), these things are intentional exceptions in the legislation. Sometimes it's simply because no one has ever fought it and the status quo has remained in place.

After all, generally, what kind of parent would want their child to be the only boy in a girl's school?

I'm not sure which is the case where a whole school is dedicated to one sex.

However, I'm pretty certain that there is not a general exception that allow boys and girls to be subjected to different rules.

That's why I suggested that the OP ask the school which piece of the legislation they were relying upon to support their overt discrimination.

I have a feeling Nick Griffin of BNP fame was the only boy at a girls school.

k12479

Azari wrote: »

Rubbish.

Is it? JReacher1's comments suggest otherwise.

Azari wrote: »

...no one is ever going to effect a healthy attitude to rules by enforcing ones which themselves break the law.

And whining about inconsequential little things will? If boys weren't allowed to study e.g biology and girls had to do home economics, that would be a different matter.

Azari wrote: »

Sometimes it's simply because no one has ever fought it and the status quo has remained in place.

Azari wrote: »

That's why I suggested that the OP ask the school which piece of the legislation they were relying upon to support their overt discrimination.

People like you are what is wrong with society today. I expect you also agree with teachers marking in a 'non-threatening' green pen rather than red to avoid lowering self-esteem from a wrong answer. Or banning parents from sports day because it causes anxiety for children. Or prizes for all participants rather than the winner.