Replies

I agree. The girl won’t lose, or will in most instances regain her femininity. The guy will never regain his masculinity.

Don't know if I'd go that far. A boy can put on a dress and still be a boy and a girl can wear pants and still be a girl. It's just clothes. However, this type of social experimentation has no place in our school systems. Like I said in the earlier post, go back to school uniforms like they did up until the 1960s. Put the focus on learning and prepare them for the dress codes they will encounter in the work place. Letting kids dress however they want in school turns most of them into slobs and makes it difficult for them to gain employment later on.

If it were just the clothes, I’d probably agree. There’s more to this than clothes though, IMO.

And dressing this way and asking the kids to think in terms of the opposite sex, which is undoubtedly going to be part of the lesson plan, can do real harm.

Not only this they take recess away from boys who must have it for social manly growth. And they essentially brow beat the manliness out of them in every other way too.

These young boys are being turned into girls.

The bible did warn about this for a reason; chosen garments reflect one’s self perception, which is context dependent. In a hypothetical society where nobody cared if he or she was wearing skirts or pants, the context would be gone. But as long as there is a context and it is defied, then it bespeaks a warped frame of mind.

44 posted on 6/2/2013 3:13:48 PM by SamAdams76: “Put the focus on learning and prepare them for the dress codes they will encounter in the work place. Letting kids dress however they want in school turns most of them into slobs and makes it difficult for them to gain employment later on.”

I agree with the point behind your statement. Unfortunately, the way kids are dressing today — dressing like slobs — is all too often quite accurately preparing them for what to expect in the workforce of too many companies.

When I see people who think there is nothing wrong with wearing dirty t-shirts, faded jeans, and what look like shower sandals with thongs to work in white collar office jobs, it says a lot about society.

That type of slovenly clothing was worn in the 1960s by student radicals to attack authority and had the same ideological rationale behind it as the unisex “Mao suit” — to reject social distinctions and promote egalitarianism.

I'm certainly not saying everyone who dresses that way has bought into the principles of Abbie Hoffman, but clothing is a reflection of cultural values, and a culture which understands respect for authority and social distinctions is not going to be dressing the way that many people dress in corporate life in modern America.

There's an additional problem in the American society of the 2010s which is even worse than the 1960s.

At least the Mao suit had the advantage of being deliberately asexual. The way too many women dress today in the workplace sends a very clear message of “I'm available.” Unlike the underlying message of egalitarianism which is often unintentional and given without a lot of thought, the sexual message is often quite deliberate.