Telling High Schoolers No Short Shorts Is Body Shaming Or Something
I’m sure almost every high school boy would agree that teenage high school girls should be allowed to wear extremely revealing clothing in school
(Global News) It all started when Grade 11 student Lindsey Stocker was singled out by Beaconsfield High School officials for the length of her shorts.
“I was in violation for showing my legs,” she said.
Last week, Stocker had decided to wear a pair of shorts, the length of which two vice-principals decided was unacceptable during a tour of the school.
This was determined during a “finger-length test,” where school officials apparently asked students to stand up with their arms at their sides. If the girls’ fingers hung past the length of their shorts, the shorts were considered too short for school.
“It was in front of my entire class,” Stocker said. “I felt attacked, it was humiliating.”
Now, if you look at the photo at the link, the shorts aren’t really that short. But, the rules are the rules. This is where it dives into idiocy
She said that she had been affected by the recent massacre in California, where 22-year-old Elliot Rodger: opened fire on a group of students after publishing a: manifesto, in which he laid out his plans to exact revenge for being rejected by women.
“He didn’t pull that out of nowhere…: There are girls everyday, girls in my grade, that go through,: not fun things.”
To link not being allowed to wear skimpy shorts to class to Rodgers is idiotic. She also trotted out the “rape culture” meme. All because the little snowflake was told to adhere to school policy.
a girl at a school got suspended for hanging this up in her school pic.twitter.com/v2jtb5oHbo
— FAT AMY (@RelatableQuote) May 24, 2014
A couple points. First, it’s Canada. How hot can it be? Second, she knew the rules. Third, let’s face an uncomfortable truth: high school boys love seeing women wearing skimpy clothing. They are obsessed by sex. It doesn’t mean they’ll act on it, it doesn’t mean a girl who wears skimpy clothing is a “slut”, it’s not an invitation to rape. But, it damned sure is a distraction for boys (OK, really, any woman in skimpy/sexy/tight clothing is a distraction for men, age appropriate). Our eyes and brains are wired that way as part of evolution. Get over it.
Furthermore, another uncomfortable truth is that young women will wear this type of clothing to be noticed by boys! Shocking, eh? Again, it doesn’t mean they are looking for sexual contact (despite liberals pushing young women to be sexual creatures), nor to be raped. Does anyone actually think Lindsay didn’t want the boys to look at her legs?
Perhaps culture shouldn’t push young women to be hyper-sexual. There have always been dress codes. The purpose of being at school is to learn. This little special snowflake is “challenging the dress code”, because it is All About Her. Just like so many are being taught. Out of control narcissism.
I’m certainly dating myself, but we didn’t have these problems when I attended high school during the 1980’s. Nor even college.
One final observation: if it’s hot out, aren’t you supposed to wear loose fitting, lightweight, loose woven clothing? Yes. yes you are. In essence, Lindsay, and all the people “defending” her, are pissed off that she got caught breaking the rules, so are doing what they do best: changing the subject.
When liberals look at the poor, first and foremost, they see people who will vote for them in exchange for goodies. This gives liberals a perverse incentive to keep as...Read More
George Will crafts quite a descriptive metaphor for California’s failing economy, comparing it to the titular ultimate basket-case soldier in Dalton Trumbo’s infamous 1939 anti-war novel “Johnny Got His Gun.” As Trumbo writes, if Johnny got his gun, then most certainly, “Berkeley Got Its Liberalism.”
Don’t look for Christmas trees at the Copenhagen summit, where bureauweenies are gathering from around the world to push global