Kids who have jobs can afford to go places during the rest of the week. It's not like high school is fucking Harvard College of Law in terms of workload or anything.
I'm afraid I've lost the thread of your argument.
Are you saying uniforms are bad because kids have to change out of them for after school activities?
Kids who have jobs can afford to go places during the rest of the week. It's not like high school is fucking Harvard College of Law in terms of workload or anything.
I'm afraid I've lost the thread of your argument.
Are you saying uniforms are bad because kids have to change out of them for after school activities?
I'm not saying uniforms are bad at all. I'm simply saying that they will still need their regular clothes, and that "kids shouldn't be doing anything but school!" is a stupid notion.
Kids who have jobs can afford to go places during the rest of the week. It's not like high school is fucking Harvard College of Law in terms of workload or anything.
I'm afraid I've lost the thread of your argument.
Are you saying uniforms are bad because kids have to change out of them for after school activities?
I'm not saying uniforms are bad at all. I'm simply saying that they will still need their regular clothes, and that "kids shouldn't be doing anything but school!" is a stupid notion.
I'm not saying uniforms are bad at all. I'm simply saying that they will still need their regular clothes, and that "kids shouldn't be doing anything but school!" is a stupid notion.
They'll still need regular clothes, but I would estimate that they would need less. There are savings to be had through school uniforms if you want (or need) to take advantage of them.
I know myself that my wardrobe has not gotten any larger even though I tend to change out of my work clothes when I get home in the evenings.
1) Regarding the "with uniforms you have to buy normal clothes afterwards anyway so it all costs more in the end" argument: Where in hell do you keep going after school? Something is wrong with your schedule if you spend most of your weeknights out. You're equating the kind of fashionable clothing that's been described as being necessary to be a part of said group of friends at school to the bogan crap you slip into after school.
I, and everyone else I knew, spent our weeknights out, we still managed to graduate just fine from the best school in the area.
2) Regarding the "I deserve the freedom to wear whatever I want" argument: They're not adults... their elders are supposed to tell them what to do. Remember those days? The idea is to instill some kind of discipline, and with discipline comes respect for authority. The uniforms help that. Yes, it's why the military uses uniforms too, but I don't see how you can relate the two being a bad thing, unless you consider attempting to teach discipline and respect for authority to be some kind of brainwashing technique.
How do arbitrary rules reinforce discipline and respect?? When ever administration tried to tighten the dress codes there was always a large vocal student population that spoke out against it. There is nothing wrong with being disrespectful to someone who hasn't earned it.
Uniform rules are either to lax and useless, therefore pointless to even instate.
OR
Strict and terrible to the students, many of whom, as well as their parents, would be greatly opposed to.
Uniforms did not stop my sister from getting picked on in high school.
1) Regarding the "with uniforms you have to buy normal clothes afterwards anyway so it all costs more in the end" argument: Where in hell do you keep going after school?
To work.
Or out with your friends, or to play a sport like Football or American Football or any other sport, or to go to town, or to just plain change into different clothes when you get home.
There is such a thing as a social life in which you don't wear your school uniform. In my highschool a couple of kids had to buy second hand school uniforms from the school because they just couldn't afford it, they also got low-income meal tickets for lunch time.
They all have jobs they go to everday after school?
And jobs that require a unique and varied wardrobe?
Ever work at one of those clothes stores at the mall? You know, the kind with overpriced, pre-damaged jeans that you'd never buy yourself, but hey, why not let them pay me?
Those aren't exactly the kind of jobs where you wear uniforms.
1) Regarding the "with uniforms you have to buy normal clothes afterwards anyway so it all costs more in the end" argument: Where in hell do you keep going after school?
To work.
Oh come on. Most high school students do not go to work after their school day is over. Even those that do don't do it the majority of school days.
And then there are the grade and middle schoolers who don't work at all.
And the jobs most high schoolers work at require them to have uniforms, and I haven't seen many kids at my school wearing their McDonald's polos to school.
Ever work at one of those clothes stores at the mall? You know, the kind with overpriced, pre-damaged jeans that you'd never buy yourself, but hey, why not let them pay me?
Those aren't exactly the kind of jobs where you wear uniforms.
And, thus, those stores offer employee discounts so that they will show up to work in the company's products.
Ever work at one of those clothes stores at the mall? You know, the kind with overpriced, pre-damaged jeans that you'd never buy yourself, but hey, why not let them pay me?
Those aren't exactly the kind of jobs where you wear uniforms.
And, thus, those stores offer employee discounts so that they will show up to work in the company's products.
Cost of ridiculously overpriced clothing - employee discount = cost of regular priced clothing.
1) Regarding the "with uniforms you have to buy normal clothes afterwards anyway so it all costs more in the end" argument: Where in hell do you keep going after school?
To work.
Oh come on. Most high school students do not go to work after their school day is over. Even those that do don't do it the majority of school days.
And then there are the grade and middle schoolers who don't work at all.
And the jobs most high schoolers work at require them to have uniforms, and I haven't seen many kids at my school wearing their McDonald's polos to school.
I guess . . . so what?
I don't find either the pro-uniform "we won't have to buy so many clothes" or the anti-uniform "We'll have to buy more clothes" particularly important points.
I think the studies showing that uniforms do nothing to bring down the rates of bad behavior, drug use and attendance. In fact, there seems to be a negative correlation between uniforms and academic performance.
Ever work at one of those clothes stores at the mall? You know, the kind with overpriced, pre-damaged jeans that you'd never buy yourself, but hey, why not let them pay me?
Those aren't exactly the kind of jobs where you wear uniforms.
And, thus, those stores offer employee discounts so that they will show up to work in the company's products.
Cost of ridiculously overpriced clothing - employee discount = cost of regular priced clothing.
Two things:
I have never known anyone to take up a job at one of those places who wasn't also highly interested in the discount.
Being expected, by your employer, to come to work in the company's products (and not someone else's) is pretty much a given.
Ever work at one of those clothes stores at the mall? You know, the kind with overpriced, pre-damaged jeans that you'd never buy yourself, but hey, why not let them pay me?
Those aren't exactly the kind of jobs where you wear uniforms.
And, thus, those stores offer employee discounts so that they will show up to work in the company's products.
Cost of ridiculously overpriced clothing - employee discount = cost of regular priced clothing.
Money made at work - Cost of discount clothing = find a job outside retail if you have a problem no one is weeping for the poor children.
Shinto on
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
edited May 2007
Both of my parents were teachers, my father Deputy Principle - the position most heavily assosciated with discipline.
Almost every Australian school has a uniform, and thus, the schools my parents taught at required uniforms.
So called "Mufty days", "casual days" or "Oh Oh You" days were loved by the students - a change from the routine made the day seem special and fun - and hated by the administration. The security aspect of uniforms is not a red herring and is not insignificant.
One of the required items was ostensibly available exclusively from the school office - the school tie, so it was difficult to construct a uniform if you were not actually a student and thus supposed to be on the school grounds.
Girls' tunics were more readily available, I think, I never purchased on, being male. However they were impossible to imitate, meaning that you had to actually purchase the uniform if you wanted to pass yourself of as a student - not an insurmountable task, but an extra bit of effort. Additionally I think the collars changed colour for each new year's worth of students, making students easier to identify.
There were never any problems of people attempting to access the school having acquired a uniform and trying tio dispense drugs/narcotics/violence/sexual offence. However, even during my 6 years of being there there were multiple incidents of people who did no belong being challenged and removed because they were easily identified by their lack of uniform. The icing on the cake is that in about 16 "Out of uniform days" about 5 of those had incidents with people not from the school entering campus, selling drugs, beating up kids and in one case being a mentally disturbed drunk guy on the back oval.
So, have we determined yet that the monetary impact of uniforms is probably more or less neutral? Because that's where I saw this going a while ago.
mcdermott on
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
edited May 2007
I very much doubt that it is economically neutral. Considering that those of us who have had experience in both systems have found the uniformed option less expensive.
Also, I forgot to say in my earlier post - how many of us posting are girls? Pretty much sweet fuck all. So, everyone who isn't a girl gets to shut up about the complete lack of social pressure to dress in a fashionable manner without too regular repeats of outfit, because we are not nor have we been members of that part of society.
Given society's expectation that girls be pleasing to the eye and fashionably appointed, I strongly suspect that there's a lot more to the question of whether removing the majority of the issue from consideration is of negligible benefit, afterall.
So called "Mufty days", "casual days" or "Oh Oh You" days were loved by the students - a change from the routine made the day seem special and fun - and hated by the administration. The security aspect of uniforms is not a red herring and is not insignificant.
Do you really think that if uniforms were not required then every day would have the same social signifigance for children as the casual days?
Because that does not seem to me like a very good assumption.
Ever work at one of those clothes stores at the mall? You know, the kind with overpriced, pre-damaged jeans that you'd never buy yourself, but hey, why not let them pay me?
Those aren't exactly the kind of jobs where you wear uniforms.
And, thus, those stores offer employee discounts so that they will show up to work in the company's products.
Cost of ridiculously overpriced clothing - employee discount = cost of regular priced clothing.
Which of course ignores the fact that 90% of the kids who tend to work there would be buying the clothes anyway. Hell, most of the ones I knew who did it, worked at a clothing store FOR the employee discount.
To clarify, they were gonna buy the clothes anyway at the rediculous price. So by working there they both get payed AND get the clothes they were gonna buy anyway cheaper.
So everybody needs to wear uniforms because girls need protection from the horrors and pressures of having to dress themselves?
Or maybe instead "Uniforms help alleviate the pressure many/most teens feel to fit in by dressing like everyone else"?
By.....dressing them like everybody else? And the poster I was responding to (I guess I could have quoted) was saying that us guys should shut up because we can't possibly understand how hard it it for girls specifically to bear the burden of choosing their own clothes.
Because it seems to me that, as I had mentioned, even at a relatively affluent high school guys had little problem getting away with t-shirts and jeans on a regular basis. If this overwhelming pressure doesn't even apply to almost half the population, I fail to see how you're getting to "most" teens.
So everybody needs to wear uniforms because girls need protection from the horrors and pressures of having to dress themselves?
Or maybe instead "Uniforms help alleviate the pressure many/most teens feel to fit in by dressing like everyone else"?
By.....dressing them like everybody else?
Yup, but it's not how they want to dress. It's how the school tells them to dress. If you can't see the difference between that, I don't know what to do with you.
Dressing like all your friends = fitting in
wearing uniform = dresing like your told to
Big difference.
And the poster I was responding to (I guess I could have quoted) was saying that us guys should shut up because we can't possibly understand how hard it it for girls specifically to bear the burden of choosing their own clothes.
Because it seems to me that, as I had mentioned, even at a relatively affluent high school guys had little problem getting away with t-shirts and jeans on a regular basis. If this overwhelming pressure doesn't even apply to almost half the population, I fail to see how you're getting to "most" teens.
I agree with her completely. If you think high school girls don't feel any pressure to dress nicely in expensive and fashionable clothes, you've got your head too far up your ass to see the light.
And sure guys wear t-shirts and jeans at some schools. Because that's what everyone else wears, cause it's "cool".
All teenagers feel pressured to fit in and be accepted. Uniforms simply take the clothes part of that out of the equation. Less for the kids to deal with at school, where they should be learning and not worrying about if people will laugh at them because of how their dressed.
So everybody needs to wear uniforms because girls need protection from the horrors and pressures of having to dress themselves?
Or maybe instead "Uniforms help alleviate the pressure many/most teens feel to fit in by dressing like everyone else"?
By.....dressing them like everybody else? And the poster I was responding to (I guess I could have quoted) was saying that us guys should shut up because we can't possibly understand how hard it it for girls specifically to bear the burden of choosing their own clothes.
Because it seems to me that, as I had mentioned, even at a relatively affluent high school guys had little problem getting away with t-shirts and jeans on a regular basis. If this overwhelming pressure doesn't even apply to almost half the population, I fail to see how you're getting to "most" teens.
It also doesn't even attempt to solve the underlying problems that cause dressing in the morning to be so much more bullshit for girls than it is for guys. Applying a band-aid to cure cancer. I don't like covering problems up or hiding them/confining them to "the real world". Especially because doing so helps the forces of evil to claim they're solved.
Yup, but it's not how they want to dress. It's how the school tells them to dress. If you can't see the difference between that, I don't know what to do with you.
Yeah, I was just being a smartass with that one.
I agree with her completely. If you think high school girls don't feel any pressure to dress nicely in expensive and fashionable clothes, you've got your head too far up your ass to see the light.
And sure guys wear t-shirts and jeans at some schools. Because that's what everyone else wears, cause it's "cool".
But never once did I feel pressured in the morning, wondering which pair of jeans and which t-shirt I should wear. So while yes, I was dressing to "fit in," as most people will for the rest of their lives, it's not like it required a lot of money or effort. So again, the "problem" we're talking about here seems to for the most part apply to girls specifically.
It also doesn't even attempt to solve the underlying problems that cause dressing in the morning to be so much more bullshit for girls than it is for guys. Applying a band-aid to cure cancer. I don't like covering problems up or hiding them/confining them to "the real world". Especially because doing so helps the forces of evil to claim they're solved.
It's not about covering up the problem. It's about taking it out of the equation when the kids are at school. Or as much out of the equation as we can.
It doesn't solve the problem, I don't think much of anything will, at least not in the near future. But it does help remove that problem from the school environment, where the kids should be concentrating on more important shit.
It's not about covering up the problem. It's about taking it out of the equation when the kids are at school. Or as much out of the equation as we can.
It doesn't solve the problem, I don't think much of anything will, at least not in the near future. But it does help remove that problem from the school environment, where the kids should be concentrating on more important shit.
See, solving the problem would take it out of the equation to a much greater degree. Perhaps even to a significant degree. In school, girls are already ahead of guys on bypassing uniforms to make their prejudicial judgement calls against eachother, because they have all that make-up and hair stuff that is not only not expected of guys but severely socially stigmatized among men in general. They're all set to continue calling eachother ugly cows if they are so inclined (which not all are but then not all girls are bullies, which are who we're supposedly trying to work against with policy). And accessories. Basically we're removing access to most of one element out of probably a dozen without actually removing it and calling it a victory. More importantly, it allows other people who oppose solving the problem in the first place to claim it as a much bigger victory than it is using selective studies and proper application of spin. I find it unacceptable to arm the opposition.
It's not about covering up the problem. It's about taking it out of the equation when the kids are at school. Or as much out of the equation as we can.
It doesn't solve the problem, I don't think much of anything will, at least not in the near future. But it does help remove that problem from the school environment, where the kids should be concentrating on more important shit.
See, solving the problem would take it out of the equation to a much greater degree. Perhaps even to a significant degree. In school, girls are already ahead of guys on bypassing uniforms to make their prejudicial judgement calls against eachother, because they have all that make-up and hair stuff that is not only not expected of guys but severely socially stigmatized among men in general. They're all set to continue calling eachother ugly cows if they are so inclined (which not all are but then not all girls are bullies, which are who we're supposedly trying to work against with policy). And accessories. Basically we're removing access to most of one element out of probably a dozen without actually removing it and calling it a victory. More importantly, it allows other people who oppose solving the problem in the first place to claim it as a much bigger victory than it is using selective studies and proper application of spin. I find it unacceptable to arm the opposition.
I pretty much agree with everything you just said.
It's not about covering up the problem. It's about taking it out of the equation when the kids are at school. Or as much out of the equation as we can.
It doesn't solve the problem, I don't think much of anything will, at least not in the near future. But it does help remove that problem from the school environment, where the kids should be concentrating on more important shit.
See, solving the problem would take it out of the equation to a much greater degree. Perhaps even to a significant degree. In school, girls are already ahead of guys on bypassing uniforms to make their prejudicial judgement calls against eachother, because they have all that make-up and hair stuff that is not only not expected of guys but severely socially stigmatized among men in general. They're all set to continue calling eachother ugly cows if they are so inclined (which not all are but then not all girls are bullies, which are who we're supposedly trying to work against with policy). And accessories. Basically we're removing access to most of one element out of probably a dozen without actually removing it and calling it a victory. More importantly, it allows other people who oppose solving the problem in the first place to claim it as a much bigger victory than it is using selective studies and proper application of spin. I find it unacceptable to arm the opposition.
So, if we can't solve the whole problem your opposed to even solving a bit of it?
It's not about covering up the problem. It's about taking it out of the equation when the kids are at school. Or as much out of the equation as we can.
It doesn't solve the problem, I don't think much of anything will, at least not in the near future. But it does help remove that problem from the school environment, where the kids should be concentrating on more important shit.
See, solving the problem would take it out of the equation to a much greater degree. Perhaps even to a significant degree. In school, girls are already ahead of guys on bypassing uniforms to make their prejudicial judgement calls against eachother, because they have all that make-up and hair stuff that is not only not expected of guys but severely socially stigmatized among men in general. They're all set to continue calling eachother ugly cows if they are so inclined (which not all are but then not all girls are bullies, which are who we're supposedly trying to work against with policy). And accessories. Basically we're removing access to most of one element out of probably a dozen without actually removing it and calling it a victory. More importantly, it allows other people who oppose solving the problem in the first place to claim it as a much bigger victory than it is using selective studies and proper application of spin. I find it unacceptable to arm the opposition.
So, if we can't solve the whole problem your opposed to even solving a bit of it?
His point is that it's not a solution, it's a mask and a mask is not a solution. Out of sight out of mind and all that.
Furthermore, since no one's thinking about the problem at the early levels, they guarantee it's survival into the adult world and the continuations of the various social disparities between men and women, for both of which can be equally devastating.
It's not about covering up the problem. It's about taking it out of the equation when the kids are at school. Or as much out of the equation as we can.
It doesn't solve the problem, I don't think much of anything will, at least not in the near future. But it does help remove that problem from the school environment, where the kids should be concentrating on more important shit.
See, solving the problem would take it out of the equation to a much greater degree. Perhaps even to a significant degree. In school, girls are already ahead of guys on bypassing uniforms to make their prejudicial judgement calls against eachother, because they have all that make-up and hair stuff that is not only not expected of guys but severely socially stigmatized among men in general. They're all set to continue calling eachother ugly cows if they are so inclined (which not all are but then not all girls are bullies, which are who we're supposedly trying to work against with policy). And accessories. Basically we're removing access to most of one element out of probably a dozen without actually removing it and calling it a victory. More importantly, it allows other people who oppose solving the problem in the first place to claim it as a much bigger victory than it is using selective studies and proper application of spin. I find it unacceptable to arm the opposition.
So, if we can't solve the whole problem your opposed to even solving a bit of it?
His point is that it's not a solution, it's a mask and a mask is not a solution. Out of sight out of mind and all that.
Furthermore, since no one's thinking about the problem at the early levels, they guarantee it's survival into the adult world and the continuations of the various social disparities between men and women, for both of which can be equally devastating.
The point isn't to solve the problem. No ones claiming it'll do that. It's doing the best we can to make sure the problem doesn't occur while the kids are at school.
Your whole issue here is you think we're trying to say "See, problem solved!". All we're trying to do is make iit as little of a problem as we can while the kids are at school.
Without a uniform I would never have learned how to tie a tie.
Anything else I could say would just be repeating the first page, but I'd like to reiterate that as one of six children, uniforms are a blessing, especially when you can just hand them down to the next child.
1) Regarding the "with uniforms you have to buy normal clothes afterwards anyway so it all costs more in the end" argument: Where in hell do you keep going after school?
To work.
Or out with your friends, or to play a sport like Football or American Football or any other sport, or to go to town, or to just plain change into different clothes when you get home.
There is such a thing as a social life in which you don't wear your school uniform. In my highschool a couple of kids had to buy second hand school uniforms from the school because they just couldn't afford it, they also got low-income meal tickets for lunch time.
Yeah. I went to catholic school with uniforms through eighth grade. Our uniform was a red or white polo with blue slacks. The first thing I did when I came home from school was change into jeans and a T-shirt. That way I could wear my pants two days in a row (if they didnt get particularly dirty that day).
I'm not for or against uniforms. It sucked wearing the same thing everyday, but everyone else had to do it so whatever. I didn't go to private high school, but my best friend did. I liked their approach, which was to have a dress code of wearing slacks (any color, just not blue jeans) and a collared shirt. It also had to be tucked in. I could have lived with that, because those are clothes I could see myself wearing after school.
Anyway, my initial intention was to side with VC's argument that uniforms end up costing more money because you have to have a set of school clothes AND a set of regular clothes. Nobody in my school would be caught dead wearing their uniform at after school social gatherings (sorry, I guess I cant remember what I did after school when I was younger, so social gatherings will have have to do).
I guess times have changed. I came home to do schoolwork or music/dance, eat and then read and go to bed. We weren't permitted to socialise after school anyway until we reached the age of 14-15, by which time high school was nearly over. I can't say I ever missed out; there were the weekends to play.
I certainly needed fewer clothes with a uniform than I would have otherwise. I had perhaps 1-2 other outfits, and it didn't matter if they weren't fashionable.
So everybody needs to wear uniforms because girls need protection from the horrors and pressures of having to dress themselves?
No.
Might want to talk to Apothe0sis then. Because that's what I was getting there...that girls need particular protection from all the social pressures to be fashionable and what not...something us guys just cannot understand.
I guess times have changed. I came home to do schoolwork or music/dance, eat and then read and go to bed. We weren't permitted to socialise after school anyway until we reached the age of 14-15, by which time high school was nearly over. I can't say I ever missed out; there were the weekends to play.
I certainly needed fewer clothes with a uniform than I would have otherwise. I had perhaps 1-2 other outfits, and it didn't matter if they weren't fashionable.
Times?
No.
Just everyone here comes from a variety of lifestyles.
Both my parents worked, so I was going to a daycare center until middle school, where we abso-fucking-lutely ruined our clothes with all the biking and horseplay and hanging out in the sand box and playing on playgrounds and going to parks we did after school.
When I was a kid, holes in your jeans weren't a style, they were just a fact of life.
And I wasn't even that active of a kid compared to the others.
And these were suburban kids in a fricking cul-de-sac.
You don't want to know how hard country kids play after classes.
Honestly, a lot of this is like that stupid "Everyone should move in to condos!" thing.
Condos may work for some people. They really, really don't work for other people. People are -different-.
A couple of outfits that use for 40+ hours every week during the school year. Pretty fucking rare to find a 'lifestyle' where this will not be cheaper for most parents.
A couple of outfits that use for 40+ hours every week during the school year. Pretty fucking rare to find a 'lifestyle' where this will not be cheaper for most parents.
Of what material do you propose to make these uniforms that are more durable than denim?
Or do these uniforms look rad awesome with holes in the knees?
Incenjucar on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Because it seems to me that, as I had mentioned, even at a relatively affluent high school guys had little problem getting away with t-shirts and jeans on a regular basis. If this overwhelming pressure doesn't even apply to almost half the population, I fail to see how you're getting to "most" teens.
I'm sure it depends on the school. My school put little importance on the way kids dressed or the affluence of their parents, and I never really felt under any pressure to dress any particular way. In fact, ostentatious displays of wealth were considered fairly gauche and silly. Mine was kind of an odd town though. Frankie's high school in the wealthy suburbs of DC apparently put huge importance on the way kids would dress and picked on anyone who wasn't a fashion plate mercilessly.
If I had to guess, I suspect that her experience was a little more representative than mine of the general attitudes of public schools.
edit: also, when I lived in England I wore a uniform. All in all, I think it was probably preferable - they're cheaper than outfitting kids in a general wardrobe, and they probably cut down on some level of bullying. They do seem to cause some inter-school rivalries though.
Irond Will on
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
So called "Mufty days", "casual days" or "Oh Oh You" days were loved by the students - a change from the routine made the day seem special and fun - and hated by the administration. The security aspect of uniforms is not a red herring and is not insignificant.
Do you really think that if uniforms were not required then every day would have the same social signifigance for children as the casual days?
Because that does not seem to me like a very good assumption.
Why do you think I think that it would have the same social significance? The fact that I make it clear that their being a change of routine would suggest that I do not, rather explicitly. Even then their special joy for students was in no way a part of the argument I was just setting it up for the juxtaposition with the administration's feelings about uniforms.
Posts
I'm afraid I've lost the thread of your argument.
Are you saying uniforms are bad because kids have to change out of them for after school activities?
I'm not saying uniforms are bad at all. I'm simply saying that they will still need their regular clothes, and that "kids shouldn't be doing anything but school!" is a stupid notion.
Well, I certainly won't argue too much with that.
I know myself that my wardrobe has not gotten any larger even though I tend to change out of my work clothes when I get home in the evenings.
How do arbitrary rules reinforce discipline and respect?? When ever administration tried to tighten the dress codes there was always a large vocal student population that spoke out against it. There is nothing wrong with being disrespectful to someone who hasn't earned it.
Uniform rules are either to lax and useless, therefore pointless to even instate.
OR
Strict and terrible to the students, many of whom, as well as their parents, would be greatly opposed to.
Uniforms did not stop my sister from getting picked on in high school.
Or out with your friends, or to play a sport like Football or American Football or any other sport, or to go to town, or to just plain change into different clothes when you get home.
There is such a thing as a social life in which you don't wear your school uniform. In my highschool a couple of kids had to buy second hand school uniforms from the school because they just couldn't afford it, they also got low-income meal tickets for lunch time.
Ever work at one of those clothes stores at the mall? You know, the kind with overpriced, pre-damaged jeans that you'd never buy yourself, but hey, why not let them pay me?
Those aren't exactly the kind of jobs where you wear uniforms.
And then there are the grade and middle schoolers who don't work at all.
And the jobs most high schoolers work at require them to have uniforms, and I haven't seen many kids at my school wearing their McDonald's polos to school.
Cost of ridiculously overpriced clothing - employee discount = cost of regular priced clothing.
I guess . . . so what?
I don't find either the pro-uniform "we won't have to buy so many clothes" or the anti-uniform "We'll have to buy more clothes" particularly important points.
I think the studies showing that uniforms do nothing to bring down the rates of bad behavior, drug use and attendance. In fact, there seems to be a negative correlation between uniforms and academic performance.
I have never known anyone to take up a job at one of those places who wasn't also highly interested in the discount.
Being expected, by your employer, to come to work in the company's products (and not someone else's) is pretty much a given.
Money made at work - Cost of discount clothing = find a job outside retail if you have a problem no one is weeping for the poor children.
Almost every Australian school has a uniform, and thus, the schools my parents taught at required uniforms.
So called "Mufty days", "casual days" or "Oh Oh You" days were loved by the students - a change from the routine made the day seem special and fun - and hated by the administration. The security aspect of uniforms is not a red herring and is not insignificant.
One of the required items was ostensibly available exclusively from the school office - the school tie, so it was difficult to construct a uniform if you were not actually a student and thus supposed to be on the school grounds.
Girls' tunics were more readily available, I think, I never purchased on, being male. However they were impossible to imitate, meaning that you had to actually purchase the uniform if you wanted to pass yourself of as a student - not an insurmountable task, but an extra bit of effort. Additionally I think the collars changed colour for each new year's worth of students, making students easier to identify.
There were never any problems of people attempting to access the school having acquired a uniform and trying tio dispense drugs/narcotics/violence/sexual offence. However, even during my 6 years of being there there were multiple incidents of people who did no belong being challenged and removed because they were easily identified by their lack of uniform. The icing on the cake is that in about 16 "Out of uniform days" about 5 of those had incidents with people not from the school entering campus, selling drugs, beating up kids and in one case being a mentally disturbed drunk guy on the back oval.
Also, I forgot to say in my earlier post - how many of us posting are girls? Pretty much sweet fuck all. So, everyone who isn't a girl gets to shut up about the complete lack of social pressure to dress in a fashionable manner without too regular repeats of outfit, because we are not nor have we been members of that part of society.
Given society's expectation that girls be pleasing to the eye and fashionably appointed, I strongly suspect that there's a lot more to the question of whether removing the majority of the issue from consideration is of negligible benefit, afterall.
Do you really think that if uniforms were not required then every day would have the same social signifigance for children as the casual days?
Because that does not seem to me like a very good assumption.
Which of course ignores the fact that 90% of the kids who tend to work there would be buying the clothes anyway. Hell, most of the ones I knew who did it, worked at a clothing store FOR the employee discount.
To clarify, they were gonna buy the clothes anyway at the rediculous price. So by working there they both get payed AND get the clothes they were gonna buy anyway cheaper.
Or maybe instead "Uniforms help alleviate the pressure many/most teens feel to fit in by dressing like everyone else"?
By.....dressing them like everybody else? And the poster I was responding to (I guess I could have quoted) was saying that us guys should shut up because we can't possibly understand how hard it it for girls specifically to bear the burden of choosing their own clothes.
Because it seems to me that, as I had mentioned, even at a relatively affluent high school guys had little problem getting away with t-shirts and jeans on a regular basis. If this overwhelming pressure doesn't even apply to almost half the population, I fail to see how you're getting to "most" teens.
Yup, but it's not how they want to dress. It's how the school tells them to dress. If you can't see the difference between that, I don't know what to do with you.
Dressing like all your friends = fitting in
wearing uniform = dresing like your told to
Big difference.
I agree with her completely. If you think high school girls don't feel any pressure to dress nicely in expensive and fashionable clothes, you've got your head too far up your ass to see the light.
And sure guys wear t-shirts and jeans at some schools. Because that's what everyone else wears, cause it's "cool".
All teenagers feel pressured to fit in and be accepted. Uniforms simply take the clothes part of that out of the equation. Less for the kids to deal with at school, where they should be learning and not worrying about if people will laugh at them because of how their dressed.
It also doesn't even attempt to solve the underlying problems that cause dressing in the morning to be so much more bullshit for girls than it is for guys. Applying a band-aid to cure cancer. I don't like covering problems up or hiding them/confining them to "the real world". Especially because doing so helps the forces of evil to claim they're solved.
Yeah, I was just being a smartass with that one.
But never once did I feel pressured in the morning, wondering which pair of jeans and which t-shirt I should wear. So while yes, I was dressing to "fit in," as most people will for the rest of their lives, it's not like it required a lot of money or effort. So again, the "problem" we're talking about here seems to for the most part apply to girls specifically.
Put better than I could.
It doesn't solve the problem, I don't think much of anything will, at least not in the near future. But it does help remove that problem from the school environment, where the kids should be concentrating on more important shit.
See, solving the problem would take it out of the equation to a much greater degree. Perhaps even to a significant degree. In school, girls are already ahead of guys on bypassing uniforms to make their prejudicial judgement calls against eachother, because they have all that make-up and hair stuff that is not only not expected of guys but severely socially stigmatized among men in general. They're all set to continue calling eachother ugly cows if they are so inclined (which not all are but then not all girls are bullies, which are who we're supposedly trying to work against with policy). And accessories. Basically we're removing access to most of one element out of probably a dozen without actually removing it and calling it a victory. More importantly, it allows other people who oppose solving the problem in the first place to claim it as a much bigger victory than it is using selective studies and proper application of spin. I find it unacceptable to arm the opposition.
So, if we can't solve the whole problem your opposed to even solving a bit of it?
Furthermore, since no one's thinking about the problem at the early levels, they guarantee it's survival into the adult world and the continuations of the various social disparities between men and women, for both of which can be equally devastating.
The point isn't to solve the problem. No ones claiming it'll do that. It's doing the best we can to make sure the problem doesn't occur while the kids are at school.
Your whole issue here is you think we're trying to say "See, problem solved!". All we're trying to do is make iit as little of a problem as we can while the kids are at school.
Anything else I could say would just be repeating the first page, but I'd like to reiterate that as one of six children, uniforms are a blessing, especially when you can just hand them down to the next child.
Yeah. I went to catholic school with uniforms through eighth grade. Our uniform was a red or white polo with blue slacks. The first thing I did when I came home from school was change into jeans and a T-shirt. That way I could wear my pants two days in a row (if they didnt get particularly dirty that day).
I'm not for or against uniforms. It sucked wearing the same thing everyday, but everyone else had to do it so whatever. I didn't go to private high school, but my best friend did. I liked their approach, which was to have a dress code of wearing slacks (any color, just not blue jeans) and a collared shirt. It also had to be tucked in. I could have lived with that, because those are clothes I could see myself wearing after school.
Anyway, my initial intention was to side with VC's argument that uniforms end up costing more money because you have to have a set of school clothes AND a set of regular clothes. Nobody in my school would be caught dead wearing their uniform at after school social gatherings (sorry, I guess I cant remember what I did after school when I was younger, so social gatherings will have have to do).
I certainly needed fewer clothes with a uniform than I would have otherwise. I had perhaps 1-2 other outfits, and it didn't matter if they weren't fashionable.
Times?
No.
Just everyone here comes from a variety of lifestyles.
Both my parents worked, so I was going to a daycare center until middle school, where we abso-fucking-lutely ruined our clothes with all the biking and horseplay and hanging out in the sand box and playing on playgrounds and going to parks we did after school.
When I was a kid, holes in your jeans weren't a style, they were just a fact of life.
And I wasn't even that active of a kid compared to the others.
And these were suburban kids in a fricking cul-de-sac.
You don't want to know how hard country kids play after classes.
Honestly, a lot of this is like that stupid "Everyone should move in to condos!" thing.
Condos may work for some people. They really, really don't work for other people. People are -different-.
Of what material do you propose to make these uniforms that are more durable than denim?
Or do these uniforms look rad awesome with holes in the knees?
If I had to guess, I suspect that her experience was a little more representative than mine of the general attitudes of public schools.
edit: also, when I lived in England I wore a uniform. All in all, I think it was probably preferable - they're cheaper than outfitting kids in a general wardrobe, and they probably cut down on some level of bullying. They do seem to cause some inter-school rivalries though.
Why do you think I think that it would have the same social significance? The fact that I make it clear that their being a change of routine would suggest that I do not, rather explicitly. Even then their special joy for students was in no way a part of the argument I was just setting it up for the juxtaposition with the administration's feelings about uniforms.