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.