In Defense of Dress Codes
In a few brief paragraphs, I will construct my, now infamous, counter-thesis to dress-code deconstructionism (as I, playfully, have determined to call it).
Clarifying Statement
In stating what my argument is, I will first state what it is not. I do not suggest that victims are to blame, in any sense, for sexual assault that they may experience. I do not suggest that disparate, and sometimes unfair, conceptions of gender do not contribute to the specific contents of various dress codes. I do not suggest that the specific dictates of our dress code are justified or universally applicable (what is, and is not, unconventional or suggestive dress is, of course, relative).
Construction of Claim
Now I will build my thesis. I do claim that the external is an expression of the internal, and dress is no exception (and therefor that there is such a thing as sexually expressive dress). I do claim that it is reasonable for schools to limit some degree of sexually expressive dress (I make no firm statement about the extent of this degree — but requisites somewhat beyond general public expectation seem reasonable). I do claim that dress codes can alter, direct, and focus student behavior in ways that schools, and those who are interested in their effective function, find desirable (This is only tangential to my argument, but school dress codes are certainly legally enforceable — in loco parentis, etc). It is very strange that I even have to state this, but I do not believe that the sexualization of minors is invented or heightened by the existence of a dress code (the dress code only recognizes and combats the reality of an unfortunate phenomenon already occurring).
Victims of sexual assault are not, in any part, at fault for the heinousness of what they have experienced, and yet there are preventative measures that are wise to take, given the crookedness of many men (it is probably wise to carry mace, always have phone, don’t drink too much in a sketchy environment, wear clothes that will not make sexual assault more likely, etc). These actions, in an ideal world, are without benefit, but unfortunately, we must grapple with a sinful and sometimes dangerous reality. And importantly, depending on circumstance, these actions may have no effect in deterring sexual assault.
Core Claim
Centrally, I do claim that existing rules/standards/regulations should be reconsidered on the basis of their own merit, and not because of groups who they may or may not disproportionately implicate.
Now I will elaborate on the essential elements of my argument. The crux of my defense surrounds the claim yesterday made by Javi: that disparities in implication, by group, are indicative of implicit bias and/or systemic discrimination (as I understand it). In opposition to this, I believe that directives should be evaluated on their own merit (their own merit in regard to the stated intent of the directives). The very valid reality, that contributes to Javi’s argument, is that dress codes differ for men and women.
Elaboration citing Gendered Nipples
The gendered nature of dress codes may be unfair. Consider that exposed male nipples are not considered shocking, but exposed female nipples are. The banning of female nipples may be unfair, in a sense, but it is also incredibly practical. While there is a double standard regarding gendered nipples, there is also a gendered response to visual exposure of these nipples.
The stated intent of a dress code is to diminish non-academic distraction, and, even if for only socially constructed and arbitrary reasons, female nipples elicit more attention and reaction than male nipples. Therefore, it is reasonable for institutions interested in preserving decorum (in this example, beaches, pools, and amusement parks) to ban female nipples but not male ones. Once the social expectation changes, reconsideration is due. This same argument can be applied to midriffs and legs and partially exposed breasts and etc.
Elaboration considering Intent of Dress Codes
It seems to be the case that, for whatever reason, boundary-pushing female dress elicits more reaction and attention than boundary-pushing male dress (in part due to male sexual physiology — an unfortunate but undeniable reality). It is also true that there is more breadth in what boundary-pushing female dress can be, as opposed to male (as male dress typically features less variance), and therefore the more expansive female dress code, in terms of number of restrictions, is at least partially due to the comparative diversity of female clothing options.
Practical Response to Realities of our Non-Ideal World
In an ideal world, males would not become distracted when visually distinguishing various female clothing choices, but it also seems to be true that, without male sexualization of clothing choices, female patterns of dress would shift, at least in part, in practical aim. To this, one would logically retort, “You are suggesting that females ought to alter their clothing choices to tend to male physiology.” And that is the case, but only in a sense. This restriction is, unfortunately, very practical for all parties involved (females receive less unwanted sexual advances — again, which are unjustified — and males are less fixated on the sexual — and focus for all shifts from the sexual and relational to the academic, in the case of dress at school). Considering male reaction in the restriction of female dress is not equivalent to victim blaming in cases of sexual assault, -first and foremost- as both sexual advances and sexual assault are voluntary, but distraction is not.
Beyond Dress Codes
To conclude, I will offer an illustrative opposition to similar deconstructionism, more generally. Standards and ideals should be evaluated based on their effectiveness, usefulness, fairness, and goodness -their merit- and not based on the identity of those who meet or fail to meet such standards. They should not be eliminated or changed because they disproportionately indite certain groups. Neither should standards and ideals should be eliminated due to inditement of individuals. It is my view that emphasis on certain specific group identities, as opposed to other group identities, is often unfounded. Why should we be concerned about inequities between various races and sexes, and not between people of various other group classifications — such as the tall and short, English and Spanish speakers, rural and urban, attractive and unattractive, intelligent and unintelligent, organized and disorganized, wealthy and impoverished, etc?
Comparison to the Deconstruction of Academic Standards
Let us take academic performance as an example. Clark County school district, one of the largest in the United States, famously raised the lowest possible score on any assignment to 50%. They also stopped recording tardiness and stopped considering missing assignments for final grades (in August 2021). Among other reasons, the district cited pursuit of equity as rationale for this change. I agree that, if academic grades are not an accurate measurement of what they are indented to measure, they need to be changed (over time and with precision). But the system of academic grading does not need to be changed simply because struggling individuals sometimes belong disproportionately to various group identities.
Similarly, the system of dress code enforcement may necessitate amendment, but not simply because it disproportionately affects female students.
With love, respect, and attempted thoughtfulness and sensitivity, your teammate and friend,
David
I look forward to reading and hearing your rebuttals
(Writing addressed to HSE WTP)
