From Faith Moore at PJ Media:
A California school district recently announced that they are doing away with their dress code. Alameda Unified School District says that students may now wear whatever they want as long as it “covers genitals, buttocks, and areolae/nipples with opaque material” and doesn’t feature “images or language depicting violence, drugs, alcohol, hate speech, profanity and pornography.” The decision is being hailed as “feminist” — parenting site Scary Mommy, for example, called it “feminist AF” — for seeking to diminish “body shaming” and discrimination against girls.
The argument is that by having a dress code schools are guilty of the feminist sin of “body shaming” women. This is you might recall the same reason Sheila Gregoire explained that churches can’t have dress codes.
While Ms. Moore disagrees with the new standards, she is solidly on board with the feminist fears of “body shaming” women that birthed the standards:
When school dress codes make the news — as they frequently do — it is often because a teacher or school administrator has made a ridiculous comment about why the dress code is being enforced. A school principal in Missouri, for example, recently came under fire for saying that girls shouldn’t show their “boobs, bellies or butts so they don’t distract the boys.” A Florida high school student who came to school in a t-shirt but no bra was told she was too “distracting” and had to put band-aids on her nipples before going back to class. These comments — and others like them — have been criticized for sexualizing girls, and painting boys as “oversexualized creatures who will implode at the sight of an exposed shoulder.”
Obviously, shaming girls about their bodies in front of their peers, or assuming that boys are just sex monsters who can’t keep their hands off girls’ bodies, is not a good plan. Nor is implying that girls are somehow responsible for the bad behavior of boys. And school officials who make comments like the ones mentioned above should be called out for it. But instances like those don’t mean the dress code itself isn’t warranted — they only mean that its purpose needs clarification.
Ms. Moore has bought into the feminist logic but doesn’t want to live with the consequences. She argues that the only problem with girls showing up to school “wearing nothing but a pair of underpants and a set of pasties” is that panties and pasties aren’t formal enough for a serious environment like school. This is obviously a problem, but she is fundamentally denying what this is really about. Ms. Moore and Ms. Gregoire are in denial of why modesty standards for women are such a lightening rod issue while modesty standards for men are not. Both are denying women’s temptation to garner sexual attention from men. To them, there is only one kind of sexual temptation/sin involved when a woman shows all (or as much as she can get away with), and that is temptation of men to look. But there is another complementary temptation, the temptation to be looked at.
The problem with the panties and pasties dress code isn’t just that boys will pay undue attention to any girl who takes the school district up on its offer; the problem is the girls will be tempted to take the district up on its offer because they are competing with each other for that very attention.
The only thing that will inhibit the girls from taking full advantage of the new policy will be slut shaming (what both Gregoire and Moore call “body shaming”), and this is the very thing both hope to banish forever. This will come from the girls themselves, their teachers (unofficially), and their parents. But there will be much more confusion in the rules since the effective rules will be at odds with the official rules. This confusion will be all the more painful for the girls because matrons like Gregoire and Moore are so focused on feminist correct thought they are denying what the girls themselves will understand (at some level) is really going on. Instead of playing an anchor role for girls and young women as intended, our matrons have decided they would rather just stir the pot.
H/T Oscar.
See Also:
I don’t understand why any mother, or present father, would deem it acceptable for their teenage daughter to wear yoga pants to school. It is inappropriate.
You will hear them say “I wear them because they feel so comfortable.”
I don’t doubt that they are comfortable for some women. Others, ah…no.
But come on, that is not the only reason women wear lululemons and yogapants to work, to school, to the grocery store and to Target.
We know this. Don’t we?
I was talking about this article with a friend yesterday and the key point, it seems to me, is exactly what you have said: it overlooks the primary motivation for a girl to show up at school dressed like a prostitute. It just glosses it over completely. It’s obviously rather deliberate in that respect, as everyone basically knows why teen girls dress that way when they are permitted to — we just can’t say that because it would be critical of a female’s behavior, which is per se misogyny. So instead we criticize the heterosexuality of the boys which is drawn to view the displayed female physique as being animalistic and problematic, and not the equally strong desire of the girls to display themselves and be looked at with desire (especially from desirable boys). That latter part gets glossed over completely.
The other point is that it’s quite ironic that this is being done ostensibly to curtail body shaming, when in fact all this does is increase the sense of isolation and shame, due to their bodies, experienced by the plain jane and unattractive girls, because the hot girls now get to reveal almost the entirety of their nearly perfect bodies with impunity. What this does, as a “loosening of rules” always does, is intensify competition — in this case among the girls themselves — and make the stronger hands even stronger than they were beforehand. The girls who are not hot will suffer quite a bit under these rules, and that’s also being swept under the rug.
You will hear them say “I wear them because they feel so comfortable.”
I don’t doubt that they are comfortable for some women. Others, ah…no.
But come on, that is not the only reason women wear lululemons and yogapants to work, to school, to the grocery store and to Target.
We know this. Don’t we?
That’s “plausible deniability” right there, nothing more. Yes, they are comfortable. But sweat pants are also comfortable,and moreso than yoga pants are. Yet women all seem to prefer yoga pants to sweatpants. There’s an obvious reason why, and it isn’t comfort.
In any case, the new dress code (or lack thereof) in Alameda County would permit ultra-short shorts, bikini tops (or heck it would allow pasties as well) and stripper shoes. Never mind yoga pants, it goes way beyond that.
Feminist
lifedress code: “Fried Ice for all girls whenever they want it”.Back in the previous century on soc.women some girls complained about how all the guyz at the beach kept looking at them whenever they wore a simple T-back suit. Lots of complaints about that. The best complaint was:
…at the beach. Tee. Hee. Drat those pesky photons, always bouncing off of private clothing and flying off into the wrong man's eyeballs.
Feminists complain about the "male gaze" when they are under 30. Then they enjoy it. Then sometime over 40 they suddenly start missing it.
It's all about who and whom. Who gets to tell whom "don't look at me!" vs. "lookit me! Lookit me! Look. At. ME! NOW!".
Terms such as "attention whore" and "whoring for attention" needs to be introduced into more conversations…especially with conservative feminists such as the two Dalrock is pointing at.
Pingback: Meet the new Yiayia. Her name is Sheila. | @the_arv
Novaseeker
In any case, the new dress code (or lack thereof) in Alameda County would permit ultra-short shorts, bikini tops (or heck it would allow pasties as well) and stripper shoes. Never mind yoga pants, it goes way beyond that.
Sheah, some strippers would be overdressed. A pair of short-shorts and some electrical tape X’d over the nipples? Legit by definition.
As I pointed out the previous thread, Moore is taking the usual Libertarian approach by making a utilitarian argument with a definite whiff of equalism plus “women are just men with boobs and babies”. IOW the usual conservative feminism.
Nova
What this does, as a “loosening of rules” always does, is intensify competition — in this case among the girls themselves — and make the stronger hands even stronger than they were beforehand. The girls who are not hot will suffer quite a bit under these rules, and that’s also being swept under the rug.
Sure, because the loudest noise about dress codes will always be made by (a) hot girls and (b) their formerly hot mothers — where the hotness may be entirely inside some dearie’s little head.
Women lie to themselves first. Plausible deniability demands it.
Wonder how Alameda schools would react if, in light of the newly lax dress code, an unattractive or average boy wore some tightie whities and band aids over his nipples to school…
Can’t decide if it’s on topic or off topic but here it goes…
When I worked with the public a while back I saw a phenomenon that honestly kind of freaked me out at the time. It’s not terribly uncommon for single mothers to go “looking for trouble” to use an old quaint phrase with their daughters once their daughters are of age.
We’d think women would want their daughters to be chaste but maybe it’s only really fathers, married women, and widows who care, at least potentially.
“…all this does is increase the sense of isolation and shame, due to their bodies, experienced by the plain jane and unattractive girls, because the hot girls now get to reveal almost the entirety of their nearly perfect bodies with impunity.”
That’s and important and usually ignored point about the requirements for modest in the America-that-once-was. It muted (not hid) the differences between women’s different levels of attractiveness, while allowing them to dress to best advantage. And shifted, to some degree, competition among women into other areas.
We’re trashed those codes. So the prettiest ones dress to full advantage, and most of the rest dress like monks (black baggy clothes, little attention to appearance). Perhaps because they’re daunted by the difference between them and the others.
It is another unintended consequence of the Leftists at America’s controls, happily spinning dials and flipping switches. Guided only by their ideology. Like monkeys in the control room of an atomic power plant. Probably not going to end well.
Speculation time for lurkers:
A woman cannot be “one of the guys” if her mere physical presence effects “the guys” at the subconscious level. Feminists by definition want to be “one of the guys” in some sense (yes, even lesbian feminists, even lesbian separatists in some way). But feminists are still women who still want some men to be attracted to them at the subconscious level. So they want to be “just one of the guys”, treated Just Like Any Other Guy except when it comes to Mr. Attractive, then it’s time for Him to treat Her – and only her – differently. In a special way. And that begins with noticing her, perhaps by the way she dresses.
It’s cognitive dissonance. The feminist ideology of “men and women are exactly the same” collides with the Feminine Imperative desire to be Noticed by an attractive man, with predictable schizoid results. Cog-dis is painful to live with, but admitting the truth can be more painful. Therefore any man who dares to point out the obvious mutual contradiction of these positions is obviously a misogynist purveyor of teh Patriarchy and must be punished.
The solution to Moore / Gregoire / other conservative feminist discomfort is obvious: stop trying to be One Of The Guys. That’s completely unacceptable, of course, because it would require them to repudiate their feminism, and that means the “death” of a key part of their self.
Therefore the cognitive dissonance and resulting hypocritical whining / yelling / screeching will continue.
tl;dr
As noted previously, dress codes are all about the fried ice.
Another example of trashing dress codes as sexist
https://olympics.nbcsports.com/2018/08/29/alize-cornet-us-open-women-shirt-penalty/
“The U.S. Open on Wednesday clarified its rules about players changing their shirts during a match after a women’s player was penalized for doing so. The tournament said it regretted the code violation issued to Alize Cornet of France day earlier, a ruling that was criticized by people who thought it was unfair to women because male players frequently do it.”
Because men change their shirt in public, women should also. That’s logic. Q.E.D.
Let’s deny the differences between men and women and see what happens! It’s an experiment, now in the early stages. Expect much of this in the future. We will look back at this as a small step compared to what came after.
Follow-up to my previous comment — the last two paragraphs were sarcasm. I forgot the hashtag /s
It’s not terribly uncommon for single mothers to go “looking for trouble” to use an old quaint phrase with their daughters once their daughters are of age.
What do you mean by “of age” in this case?
We’d think women would want their daughters to be chaste but maybe it’s only really fathers, married women, and widows who care, at least potentially.
Who’s “we”? Would you like a nice pair of The Glasses?
A great rundown of what is happening here is in this older Dalrock post:
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/03/21/raising-feral-females/
“Two mothers with junior high aged daughters were talking about the kinds of clothing their girls were wearing. It fascinated me to hear how confused they were about what was actually going on. They were sure that the girls were only dressing like little hookers because of pressure society was putting on them. What they didn’t understand was the girls were dressing like hookers because society wasn’t putting any pressure on them. Female intra-sexual competition being what it is, this is what young women will devolve to if all restraints are lifted. Today’s crop of young women are perilously close to as Zeets would say* presenting like a red-assed chimp.”
Larry Kummer
Because men change their shirt in public, women should also. That’s logic. Q.E.D.
Not even close to new.
Let’s deny the differences between men and women and see what happens!
Fundamental premise of feminism, as has been explained here and elsewhere for years.
It’s an experiment, now in the early stages
I guess, if by “early stages” you mean “has been going on for over 100 years”.
‘We know this. Don’t we?’
We know this…and they know this. They know what they look like in them.
A common theme with feminism is to eliminate old social rules which were explicitly stated, taught, and enforced, and replace them with “freedom” and “self-expression”, which in practice means emergent rules. On pain of social sanction (which coincidentally looks exactly the behavior we call “shaming” when it’s done in support of civilization), people are a) required to deduce and follow the actual rules; b) forbidden to state the actual rules out loud. Since the actual rules are emergent and never stated, they’re subject to change without notice and full of unpredictable exceptions.
The old system made life a lot easier for people who weren’t so good at inferring and exploiting poorly-defined social rules, and a little harder for those who were good at it. But you can push any boundary in any time and place if you’ve got enough charm, and there were always charming folks who knew what they could get away with. The new rules are a nightmare for those who aren’t so good at navigating social minefields.
The good-looking girls who always know just what they can get away with will benefit from the g-string-and-pasties rule. And let’s face it, you can get away with more if you’re better looking. The more awkward girls who don’t “get it” are encouraged to make fools of themselves, and I doubt very much that the more popular girls will have any qualms about “shaming” them.
What’s odd about this is that feminists tend to be awkward weirdos. I don’t think they understand at all what they’re doing. I think they *believe* they’re “empowering” awkward weirdos. Look at any slutwalk: Very few of them are the cool, pretty girls who actually look good dressed that way.
We had a similar discussion on Cane’s the other day about cheerleaders.
Dress code = sexist repression
No dress code = sexist objectification
It’s only the girls (or their mothers) who ever complain. They always get exactly what they demand and still complain.
I coach a girls independent sports team with junior high and high school ages. Before the season I put out, as part of the general policies, a dress code requesting “modest attire”. After two practices I had to reemphasize it (“Here’s a list of what not to wear: a, b, c…”). You have to spell it out. Compliance is good so far, a regular crew-neck t-shirt does the trick. In Christian circles people are more used to an emphasis on modesty, so no one challenged me at all on it, but my answer would have been something like this.
Part of it is for me. I don’t appreciate people’s jailbait daughters shakin’ what they got in my face (or even worse, shakin’ what they don’t got–ugh!). If they do, then I am burdened with either a) seeing and pretending not to, or b) pretending not to see and pretending I didn’t. In order not to notice you have to notice.
The other part is for them. If you take away the temptation to put themselves on display they are much happier. Trust me, even eleven- and twelve-year olds know exactly what that’s all about. You’d be surprised how often I observed one or another of them out of the corner of my eye after she had bent over in a loose V-neck to pick up a ball. She’d straighten up and look around for me (male coach and authority figure), to see whether I had been watching. I have daughters and understand the tendencies, but they are pretty well trained in modesty, so it’s still astonishing to see it so clearly.
Anonymous Reader says:
August 31, 2018 at 10:19 am
Simply more evidence that our forebears, from the ancients all the way down to the mid portion of the last century, were correct in their assessment of women as being hopelessly infantile and illogical creatures who had to be kept on the tightest leash possible for their own protection and that of everyone around them. Although history might not repeat itself, it rhymes often enough for us to take comfort in knowing that at some point the wisdom of our forebears will be rediscovered and reapplied. Whether that happens in our lifetimes or in time to save what little is left of Western civilization is a whole other question for analysis.
Go back to sex segregated schools and I bet the women will dress more modestly. Instead of competing for the attention of Harly McBadboy they will dress to show up the other girls.
‘They always get exactly what they demand and still complain.’
You’d think we’d learn at some point about trying to appease complainers. But they seem to have all the power and those with actual authority have none.
This article is a perfect example of how ‘conservative’ women are not against feminism at all, but truly believe themselves to be, and manage to convince all Tradcon men that they truly are (including RS McCain, who would happily extol Faith Moore as a ‘good woman fighting feminism’).
feeriker,
Simply more evidence that our forebears, from the ancients all the way down to the mid portion of the last century, were correct in their assessment of women as being hopelessly infantile and illogical creatures who had to be kept on the tightest leash possible for their own protection and that of everyone around them.
Not only that, but the more that something advances civilization forward, the more women try to obstruct it. The brain-gina interface of women is hopelessly obsolete.
Is “fat shaming” a subcategory of “body shaming?” Just trying to get my terminology right.
It is in my view delusional to think that there is or will be no uniform at the schools of the Alameda Unified School District. There is, no matter the occupation, always a uniform (whether formal or not) and the girls will adopt to that new uniform which sounds to me the same as the Uniform of the Prostitute. Pity those with thunder thighs (see my comment on the previous thread).
Cultural standards and the law exist only to restrict, harass, impoverish, and terrorize males. Cultural standards and the law are not meant for the sex that already is perfect. Duh uh. Except to further empower and entitle them, and set them in supremacist positions over males. In order to make up for the millennia of transgressions committed against the Holy Ones by previous Evil Males, of course. Not because we are wicked, and selfish, and deceitful, and predatory. But because we seek Equality and Justice and Security.
Very much like J.J. Bachofen’s descriptions of sanctitas, in which it is impossible for a female to transgress custom or law. Because each female is a part of the goddess, and the goddess does not take orders. She gives them.
Guess who’s coming to dinner? With her crown on?
As for the guys? Open season, baby.
Hazelshade @ 10:38 am:
“Wonder how Alameda schools would react if, in light of the newly lax dress code, an unattractive or average boy wore some tightie whities and band aids over his nipples to school…”
RAYYYYYPE!!! Eww, he followed me into the gender-fluid bathroom!
Just so everybody’s aware, Alameda County is the location of Oakland, U of California Berkeley, San Leandro and Pleasanton. This is the crucible of the New World Order; they’ve used their own children for social experiments for a long time now.
There is no chance, none, that the Powers That Be are unaware of the logical consequences of this dress code. Untrained gerbils would randomly do something right.
‘Very much like J.J. Bachofen’s descriptions of sanctitas, in which it is impossible for a female to transgress custom or law. Because each female is a part of the goddess, and the goddess does not take orders. She gives them. ‘
Which is very Satanic ideology and a danger to their souls. For she will be like God, knowing good and evil. Funny how they always seem to overlook the evil in themselves though.
There will always be enough weak pathetic men willing to marry these worthless women. And thus they will breed more and more weak and pathetic men compounding the problem. And so our civilization eventually weakens to the point of extinction one way or another.
But there is another complementary temptation, the temptation to be looked at.
Spot on. I’m pretty sure the Church used to know this.
Go back to sex segregated schools and I bet the women will dress more modestly. Instead of competing for the attention of Harly McBadboy they will dress to show up the other girls.
Not necessarily. Girls will still dress provocatively to garner attention from any male teachers or staff at the school, as well as boys and men they may come across walking to and from school and so on. Uniforms help somewhat, but girls tend to “tailor” those as well to be more provocative once they leave school grounds (skirts get hiked, buttons on blouses get undone, or blouses get tied around the belly and so on). Teenage girls will find a way to dress for attention. Regardless of that a dress code makes sense, because having no dress code means that they will dress like strippers if their parents permit them to do so.
The majority of women will not…CANNOT…be red-pilled. You can bury them in information. You can point out the bad outcomes. It will never stick. Attention whoring, selfishness, projection, group-think, etc. These traits are hard wired. Women themselves will never ‘see the light’, not even if a collapse comes. Men of ages past knew this.
Vektor
Nah. All women are “red pilled” in the sense that they understand how this whole attraction thing works, and why they do it. They know what they’re attracted to, and they know what men are attracted to, and they use it to full advantage.
They just don’t call it “red pill”. What women are flummoxed about right now is that more and more men are rediscovering how it all works after a 50 year hiatus called “second and third wave feminism” and a Bizarro World in which Alan Alda, Phil Donahue, Woody Allen, are “sexy” because they’re so “in touch with their feelings” and “not afraid to cry and emote” and ‘have great senses of humor’ and “are funny and interesting” and “are down with feminism”. After Sheryl Sandberg finally let the cat out of the bag with this:
“When looking for a life partner, my advice to women is date all of them: the bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys. But do not marry them. The things that make the bad boys sexy do not make them good husbands. When it comes time to settle down, find someone who wants an equal partner. Someone who thinks women should be smart, opinionated and ambitious. Someone who values fairness and expects or, even better, wants to do his share in the home. These men exist and, trust me, over time, nothing is sexier.”
it can’t be concealed anymore. In fact, women don’t even try to hide this. They now make no bones at all about their intent to have as much fun as they can with as many sexy men as they can, and then husband up one of the simp chumps still hanging around the punch bowl as their golden parachute/early retirement/coparent.
Just to throw some fuel on the fire:
As far as I can tell Moore is writing from the Libertarian point of view, pretty common at PJmedia.
Gregoire is writing ostensibly from a Bible based point of view. Yet she’s on record having conniptions about any man objecting to a girl (her then unmarried daughter, hmmm?) flashing some cleavage in church. Because it’s not that slutty bad girl cleavage, it’s good girl churchgoing cleavage…legs…booty…
Anyone care to speculate how conservative feminists such as Gregoire read Bible quotes that have to do with such topics as “modesty”? Well, hmm, just reading words on paper could be a problem, what to do?
Matthew Walker has a very cogent point about “emergent rules”:
This is why new Bible translations are so popular and important, and new interpretations even more popular and important. See Rachel Held Evans for one example.
I thought body shaming was aimed at fat, ugly, etc. I am sure some of those will push the limits, but I can’t see the problem ones being in that category. The ones with the hawt bodies are more likely to push the limits, except possibly for some who are less hawt that want to make parts (such as boobs) stand out more.
That is exactly what you find in dating site profiles.
I don’t want a partner, I want a helpmeet, almost impossible to find today.
OT…but how close is this to actual feminism in Christianity?
‘Netflix Mocks Christianity With Girls Singing Sexual Hymn ‘Sweet Jesus Inside Me’’
https://www.dailywire.com/news/35310/netflix-mocks-christianity-girls-singing-sexual-paul-bois
Pingback: Meet the new Yiayia. Her name is Sheila. | Reaction Times
Just to tag on to Deti, that little quote from Sheryl Sandberg is the standard advice to girls in high school and college now. They get it from peers, they get it from teachers, they get it from advisers. Mass entertainment from Disney to Netflix is stuffed full of it. It’s another form of feminism that just “is”, it’s in the water. Including in the various church schools, if what I hear from people in my social circle is any indication. Do I have to point out that it’s a constant undercurrent in a lot of churches, or can we just stipulate that equalitarian equalism is the norm in most
beta factorieschurches now?Either push back against that, or passively accept it.
More detailed info about the show…it’s certainly the Satanic ethos mocking Christianity.
https://www.lifenews.com/2018/08/31/netflix-mocks-christianity-with-teen-girls-singing-sexual-hymn-sweet-jesus-inside-me/
No word on if this is actually what goes on in Shelia’s feminist run church.
“Meet the new Yiayia. Her name is Sheila.” ~ Dalrock
I prefer the original.
She reminds me of my Abuelita.
Anyone care to speculate how conservative feminists such as Gregoire read Bible quotes that have to do with such topics as “modesty”? Well, hmm, just reading words on paper could be a problem, what to do?
No such quotes exist within the New American Feminist Bible translation, the standard “go to” source for all churchian women these days.
More detailed info about the show…it’s certainly the Satanic ethos mocking Christianity.
I feel compelled to ask: is this overt mockery of Christianity really any more vile than the more subtle form that occurs within increasing regularity in what were once “churches?”
@ Novaseeker
They’re pretty much already there in the sports realm.
They’re pretty much already there in the sports realm.
Sure, but it’s one thing to wear that when you’re competing in a sport, and another to wear it sitting in class. Girls wear thongs at the beach, too, but never was (before) allowed in class.
Pingback: Nude selfies and the complementarian male gaze. | Dalrock
Leggings used to be reserved for sports too. Now they’re part of the unofficial women’s uniform.
Confessional moment:
It ain’t just women. When I was young and immodest I actually bought a pair of spandex running pants. There was no way whatsoever to wear them, without showing my endowment, nor did I try to hide my blessing. I didn’t want panty lines. Obviously if anybody noticed my Johnson, or looked twice at my Ace, they were a lustful and perverted woman in need of prayer, but I was cool about it, and wasn’t going to make a big deal out of their moral failing. /S Although I still own the pants, and still would look good in them, I have grown wiser, and no longer wear them.
hmmm so “covers genitals, buttocks, and areolae/nipples with opaque material” so basically a jock strap and half t-shirt for the guys…. ok, let’s go to school!
As you all know, I live in the sun belt. Its real hot here, real hot. Well, tonight I took my high school freshman daughter and friend of hers to a high school football game. This is really big school, enrollment up in the 2000+ range. Alright so these girls are 14 and 15. And they are dressing modestly (shorts to the knees, and t-shirts.) Well, the rest of the 14 and 15 year old girls dressed like whores. I never saw so many tube-tops and belly shirts on 15 year old girls as I did tonight. Yes, its 100 degrees out and sure, shorts are appropriate (especially in that temperature.) But tube top and spaghetti strap girls also wore super short-shorts such that I could see all their ass cheeks. There was nothing hidden, nothing left to the imagination. All their innocence, gonezo.
Dress like a whore get treated like a whore. Don’t like that eh? Then quit being a temptress and dress modestly.
Novaseekers comment is spot on regarding the body shaming this does to the ugly. A uniform can be sexed up a little but still doesn’t differentiate terribly. When girls start wearing bikinis to school it highlights and shames the others.
Dress codes are hard for schools because the teachers lack the will to enforce them so they only enforce the most egregious offenses. As for this being feminist because it is to remove body shaming….this whole of thinking is completely counter intuitive for feminists except as being seen as intra-sex competition. Fat girls want to remove shaming from hot sluts in the hopes long term it will lead to the removal of their lower status on the totem pole.
@ Kevin
Teachers aren’t the real problem. Parents are. Usually it’s the moms, but sometimes it’s the dads.
http://www.drivepedia.com/trending/girl-outfit-tb/
Is Alameda County a place where left-libtards want high immigration levels?
If so, then the experiment is on: How will girls coming to school showing off all of their goods going to go with Muslims, MS-13 contenders, ghetto blacks, Africans and others – the ones that don’t obey any of the unwritten rules regarding women?
@Oscar
It is amazing how hard dad’s will fight to maintain the sluttiness of their daughters. Daddy’s little princess really needs to be a whore! No one can tell her NO!
@ Spike
For reference, see Sweden, Germany, England, etc.
@ Kevin
Remember when dads and moms used to protect their daughters’ purity? Remember when Mr. Darcy’s great heroic act was to persuade Whitcomb to a shotgun wedding? Whatever happened to those days?
Oscar,
I expect Sweden to reap the fruits of its openness far sooner than they think. The others will reap a bit later, but those who sow the wind will reap the whirlwind.
Why is shaming sluts bad again? I missed that part of the lecture.
Pingback: We tighten the leashes on men and unleash women - Fabius Maximus website
@squid_hunt:
>Why is shaming sluts bad again? I missed that part of the lecture.
Because it makes someone – a female someone – fell bad. And feeling bad is wrong (a lot of the progtard mantra can be summed up with that). Thus, making a female feel bad is wrong.
Pingback: He lived it. | Dalrock