babynoz said:

Where he at??? Just make sure you got some bail money for my ass.
[Edited 1/13/10 21:06pm]

SCNDLS said:

Oh, don't worry gurl...I got'chu!

babynoz said:

Aight, lemme dust off my black ninja gear and it's on an' poppin'!

SCNDLS said:

Deal!

babynoz said:

We'll maintain radio silence tho, until well, ya know

SCNDLS said:

SCNDLS said:

Kids today, especially teenagers, are extremely brand and label savvy. Do you honestly believe that just making everyone wear the same shirt and pants masks class? Not even close. Even pre-K children recognize brands and know which ones are "better". What's supposedly hidden by a uniform shines through anyways in backpacks, accessories, shoes, purses, cell phones, lap tops, cars...

PurpleJedi said:

That's some expensive shit. 6 bucks for a hair bow?

johnart said:

Easy.

Backpacks, purses, accessories, shoes, cell phones, lap tops, cars the student or their parents drive. Kids do indeed recognize this stuff, and I don't just mean the spoiled fashionista brats either. Even which elective courses the students take -elective often costing extra -can show off how much money a family does or doesn't have.

It's simplistic and naive to assume young people don't recognize the same status symbols adults do.

SCNDLS said:

You're comparing the cost of uniforms to the cost of designer clothing and you actually believe it proves your point. Even growing up in an affluent city it most certainly was NOT the norm for kids to wear designer labels where I came up. Most people are not out buying designer threads for their offspring to begin with. Where's a cost-for-cost comparison for a normal family's clothes shopping list?

In my city there was one company supplying dress uniforms for those schools SS-inspired enough to try justifying using them. A girl's shirt, skirt or pants, and jacket would run about $180 before taxes, and that's not including shoes, a second uniform, or a physical education "uniform".

cborgman said:

There's this fantastic myth flying around that conformity for the sake of it=success in life, and even something as god-awful rebellious as shaggy hair on a little boy will doom one to a life of dereliction and misery. Probably drug addiction too. And according to at least one Orger on this thread, living in a trailer park.

meow85 said:

It's no more simplistic than this fairy world where rules or dress codes serve no purpose.
It's not as simple as children not recognizing these things. It's that even if they do, there is some leveling implemented. Rules put in place by which you have to abide. You don't have to like it. I don't have to like it. It is life. To pretend otherwise is doing a child a great disservice.

And shoes and accessories or even cars are in no way indicative of how well off people are. My friend works for the DC housing authority. Folk come in to complain about their vouchers and public housing in designer threads all the time. There are fancier cars parked along the streets and driveways in poor neighborhoods than what I can afford to drive at the moment.
[Edited 1/13/10 23:21pm]

cborgman said:

Just to be clear, I wasn't comparing them to the balloon boy's parents or suggesting a book deal. I'm just suggesting that these parents want the debate with the school.

meow85 said:

Yeah, whatevs. I'm still waiting for all those studies YOU mentioned that disprove the benefits of school uniforms. All the bs you're spouting is based on your narrow, misinformed opinion. At least I backed my opinion up with studies and surveys from actual parents and professional educators, of which you are neither but as usual you are convinced you know more than. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you exhibit A.
[Edited 1/14/10 7:39am]

johnart said:

Sometimes I feel like you come into discussions/debates like these with the approach of "It must be because I want it to be and I say it is(or should be)" and that is that. You don't want the it (whatever the subject at hand) to be any other way, so of course it must not be. You just disregard any opposing view to yours as false, dumb or just at it. In this thread, I don't see you listening and taking people's points into consideration then responding (I'm not saying you need to agree with differing views, I'm strictly talking about approach). You seem to just go down the list checking each point off with a rebuttal.

And yes, I'm fully aware that it is of no importance to you how I feel.
I'm just making an observation.
[Edited 1/14/10 8:30am]

Efan said:

no, i know you weren't the one making the balloon parents comment, and i know you aren't trying to make them sound crazy either.

i doubt they grew his hair long just to engage the school district in a fight over a sexist rule. i am certain the school started this ridiculous stand-off. all they have done is smartly stand up to a rule that has no merit or basis. this idea of them as rebels or exploitive or bad parents and all the other attacks on them or their motives is the silliest part of this thread.

i think you're right. i certainly would want this fight if i were them, because it's such a moronic fight. the school has no right to declare that boys must have a different set of rules imposed on them about something as meaningless and stupid as their hair, just because that was the status quo 40 to 50 years ago.

and i would want to teach my child to stand up against sexism, much as i would teach him to stand up against homophobia and racism. i think that is a great life lesson to teach.
[Edited 1/14/10 8:30am]

johnart said:

Nowhere in this thread has anyone said fuck all rules who needs em! I think everyone agrees that children and schools need rules and rules are good. The only issue here is this ONE particular hair rule. Which to some seems completely ridiculous and to others seems to signify rules are rules and must be followed or else all hell brakes loose.
as far as can't kids find another way to express themselves....Oi! ofcourse they can...but can't we all think back to our own school days for a minute? sure there are other ways but let's face it, kids don't have allot of say in what they can and can not conrol in their lives most of it is controlled by parents, and school so the most immediate and personal way is through their very own hair and clothes to wich is also ultimately controlled by their parents.

Shorty said:

You might be right, no one might have said or implied that no rules at all are ever necessary, so my manner of speech might make that point a bit exaggerated, but it was said and/or implied in the conversation that stemmed off the original case at hand that dress/codes/clothes are meaningless and that it's a ridiculous thing to impose.

If clothes are so meaningless, then why the argument against uniforms or dress codes?
[Edited 1/14/10 8:51am]

johnart said:

I don't feel anyone implied that dress codes/clothes are meaningless and are a ridiculous thing to impose. Just this one hair rule seems ridiculous and meaningless to impose. It's weird cause to me...it's you guys (those who support this hair rule) who think clothes are meaningless not the other way around. For the record, I don't condone coddling children or spoiling them with designer anything. I think school uniforms are on one end of the spectrum while children dressed in expensive designer digs (or totally weird or provocative) are on the other end of the spectrum. I like to think there's got to be happiness somewhere in the middle range.

Shorty said:

Whaaaat??

meow85 said:

And I don't support the hair rule in this case. In my very first post I asked if girl's hair is allowed to touch their collars.

And I do agree that there should be a middle ground. I don't think I've argued otherwise on this thread. Matter of fact I believe this about most things in life.
[Edited 1/14/10 9:09am]

I fought all dress convention for the first 3 years or so immediately after high school. I'll never forget my poor mother's reaction as I stepped off the bus (visiting from college for the weekend) at Harold Square, Princeton wearing an electric blue rain coat, jean cut offs with black and white flower print tights and combat boots. Eyes lined for filth!

She nearly ran me the fuck over and I argued "I'm just expressing myself!"

You know what? All these years later I can totally admit that I was just young and self absorbed (and a little full of shit) and just lookin for attention and trynna get a rise out of folk.

johnart said:

I can see how you could think that's what she means and perhaps she does (I'll ler her comment on her own comments) but I see her comments in the bigger picture, not necisarrily to mean all dress codes are meaningless. Ultimately what someone wears does not define them as a person...right?

johnart said:

Right! but it's a lesson that most of us need to learn on our own, not be told.

Shorty said:

I think it's a bit of both actually. But I do agree about learning things by one's own experiences. However I don't think one should learn lessons at the expense of others, just for the sake of being uncooperative and wanting things to be the way that suits them. The world is not about any one individual.
[Edited 1/14/10 9:59am]

Shorty said:

No what someone wears does not define them as a person, but it can and does have effects on more than just ourselves. There are times when it's appropriate to just go for it and dress as individually as you want (like during your own time) and times when it is not (school, workplace), for reasons that have been discussed over and over on this thread but will undoubtedly be questioned again for at least a few more pages. And for reasons that we might not have touched on.

OMG ...I stepped away from this thread one day and it almost imploded.



Can we somehow throw religion into this? Maybe figure out a verse in the New Testament that decries unkempt hair? Or, what about Sampson? Yeah...maybe this kid's strength would vanish if he got a haircut?

P&R here we come!!!!

PurpleJedi said:

go for it! I'm sure you'll come up with something

johnart said:

i would wager that you just found a more sensible output for it in your art, which is what i have done. i went through my wierd faze as well, but found a more productive and somehow mor accepted form of expression through my acting, and to a greater and later extent, my writing.

i could be wrong, but while we look back and laugh at it, i think it is a baby step, albeit an important one, in our path as artists, making it useful in the grand scheme.

but perhaps this isn't true for you. it certainly makes sense to me.
[Edited 1/14/10 11:45am]

Shorty said:

that too.

PurpleJedi said: