Catholic School Bans Girls’ Skirts Because “Male Faculty Feel Uncomfortable”

[Enoch07]

If male staff struggle with sexualizing children, then the problem is with them, not the children.

Again you are misrepresenting the issue in favor of telling a false narrative.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

This is a skirt.View attachment 29281
This is also a skirt.
View attachment 29282

Are you unable to see the difference?

Tom

See the difference?

If you can't then there is a problem

 

[Enoch07]

How are his personal tastes relevant?

Non-sequitar, nobody mentioned personal taste.

 

[Father Heathen]

Any girl can figure out that she can get more attention from males if she shows off her body. She can wear short skirts, tight clothes and bend over a lot and boys will make her the center of attention. Males are visual creatures and are always looking for cues for procreation opportunities. Women know this and some will use this as a tool for attention or for fun and profit.

A wife, who is trying to get her husband's attention, in a sexual way, she will dress sexy, since this is a test proven formula. Men are visual animals and they will associate certain dress with desire. Victoria Secrets lead an industry, that is based on this cause and affect.

The wife will not go outside, with her sexy nighty, since this will give the wrong impression to the neighbors. There is a social cause and affect that everyone is aware of. The same dress, outside, will illicit certain reactions from others men and different reactions from other wives. The Catholic school girl, in her plaid skirt, is the template for an entire area of sexual fetish. She is a blend of clean and dirty, and the fantasy of a certain type of males, including atheist males.

The problem is Progressivism has applied a dual standard for women, in an attempt to get the female vote. Women can dress in ways that can impact male reactions. But if the males reacts to the cause and affect, it is harassment. The woman is never at fault even though this is based on cause and affect. This entire system is geared to creating legal problems and jobs for lawyers. Lawyers should not be the ones setting moral standards, using social legal traps, to make money.

Say the new male fashion involved wearing knives and swords as fashion accessories. These would be used to make the males look more macho. Even though these are just accessories, it could make some people feel uncomfortable since the visual of a knife is a threat. Say the legal system was set up, where these boys are always right, and anyone who feels any tension, is liable for a law suit. This would be a money scam, parallel, where lawyers on both sides, can rake in the cash.

Defense lawyers contribute the lions share of their campaign donation to Democrats. In turn, Democrat politicians, who are mostly lawyers, help to set up the defense lawyer industry for mutual profit.

A grown-*** adult should be able to behave themselves and mind their business regardless if someone else's attire happens to make their naughty bits twitch...and are really equating clothing to weapons?

 

[Father Heathen]

Non-sequitar, nobody mentioned personal taste.

I see where I erred. I thought you were referring to this post.

 

[columbus]

See the difference?

If you can't then there is a problem

Yes I can.
It's @Skwim who doesn't seem to get that all skirts aren't the same.
And you.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

If male staff struggle with sexualizing children, then the problem is with them, not the children.

But the problem doesn't go away by assigning blame this way.
If even the female staff have trouble with dress code enforcement
regarding skirts, then the most practical solution very well could be
to make'm all wear pants.
Just ask @Rival....dungarees are comfy, practical & stylish.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Regarding these last 3 paragraphs.....


Is the Kool-aid really that yummy?

Any girl can figure out that she can get more attention from males if she shows off her body. She can wear short skirts, tight clothes and bend over a lot and boys will make her the center of attention. Males are visual creatures and are always looking for cues for procreation opportunities. Women know this and some will use this as a tool for attention or for fun and profit.

A wife, who is trying to get her husband's attention, in a sexual way, she will dress sexy, since this is a test proven formula. Men are visual animals and they will associate certain dress with desire. Victoria Secrets lead an industry, that is based on this cause and affect.

The wife will not go outside, with her sexy nighty, since this will give the wrong impression to the neighbors. There is a social cause and affect that everyone is aware of. The same dress, outside, will illicit certain reactions from others men and different reactions from other wives. The Catholic school girl, in her plaid skirt, is the template for an entire area of sexual fetish. She is a blend of clean and dirty, and the fantasy of a certain type of males, including atheist males.

The problem is Progressivism has applied a dual standard for women, in an attempt to get the female vote. Women can dress in ways that can impact male reactions. But if the males reacts to the cause and affect, it is harassment. The woman is never at fault even though this is based on cause and affect. This entire system is geared to creating legal problems and jobs for lawyers. Lawyers should not be the ones setting moral standards, using social legal traps, to make money.

Say the new male fashion involved wearing knives and swords as fashion accessories. These would be used to make the males look more macho. Even though these are just accessories, it could make some people feel uncomfortable since the visual of a knife is a threat. Say the legal system was set up, where these boys are always right, and anyone who feels any tension, is liable for a law suit. This would be a money scam, parallel, where lawyers on both sides, can rake in the cash.

Defense lawyers contribute the lions share of their campaign donation to Democrats. In turn, Democrat politicians, who are mostly lawyers, help to set up the defense lawyer industry for mutual profit.

ROFL... yeah, that's GREAT comparison. Because a girl showing a portion of her bare leg is JUST AS THREATENING as some guy wielding a sword or a knife... except of course that it ISN'T.

 

[oldbadger]

.

"Cathedral Catholic High School in San Diego has a new dress code rule for next year:

​

Looking at the picture above, the school should definitely introduce a sock code.

Seriously, if girls were coming to school in very short skirts, too short to be shown on RF posts (?), then that's a problem. ??

If girls could wear very short skirts to school, then why can't they come to school in just their underwear? Turn the whole problem around and you might see some sense in the school's policy, methinks.

 

[QuestioningMind]

.

"Cathedral Catholic High School in San Diego has a new dress code rule for next year: Girls are banned from wearing skirts because they’re distracting too many men.

After issuing “thousands of hours of detention” to students modifying the length of uniform skirts, Principal Kevin Calkins sent news of the ban to students in an email on Friday, local media reported. In the email, Calkins wrote that the dress code exists to foster a faith-based environment where students are focused on learning and not outward appearances.

“Male faculty feel uncomfortable addressing female students about the length of their skirts, even female faculty have expressed frustration with the ongoing challenge of dress code,” Calkins wrote in the email.
​

Mind you, the new rule is not to ban short skirts — most public schools have similar rules — but to ban skirts altogether. Girls will now only be allowed to wear long pants or (what are they thinking?) Bermuda shorts.

Several girls at the school protested the decision yesterday morning with signs saying things like “I’m sorry… Did my knees distract you from reading this poster?” “Even Jesus wore a skirt” and “Stop sexism. Start education.”

(One sign said “My body, my choice”… which suggests a complete ignorance of Catholic dogma.)

They raise some good points, though. If the skirts are too short, then the school should enforce its own rules. If the appropriate-length skirts are a distraction, then the school should say something to the men. It’s ultimately not the girls’ fault that other people can’t deal with their fashion. And why did the school make girls pay for special uniforms that are now banned only for them?

The girls also point out an obvious double standard: The school has a rule prohibiting facial hair on boys, too, but they’re not very strict about enforcing that. A girl wears a comfortable skirt, however, and all hell breaks loose.

An anonymous and brief petition posted at Change.org calls for the skirts to remain in place. It has thousands of signatures, and the comments are a joy to read:

Ok so the reasoning behind this was that “male teachers are uncomfortable”. If a male teacher feels uncomfortable over the length of a MINOR’S skirt, they have no business being anywhere near a high school. Maybe try to crack down on that rather than continuing to sexualize underage girls?

Tell the boys to keep their eyes up and there won’t be a dang issue

Girls’ clothing at school especially should allow them to feel comfortable in their bodies, not restricted by the opinion of faculty with a superiority complex and need to dictate their bodies. The challenges and complexities of being a growing teenage girl do not need to be heightened by further unnecessary dress codes that instill in girls what is or isn’t “appropriate” through the lens of adults unfamiliar with the pressures and anxieties of being a teenage girl in 2019.
​

At least there’s one upside to the change:

“Oh my gosh it is so bad right now,” said Mimi Cleary, another student. “Everyone wants to leave Cathedral, and it’s like not the best.”
​

Well, at least they’re quickly learning what it means to be a woman in the Catholic Church. If they have the option to leave, they should take it."
source​

Words fail me,

.​

Truly amazing. I recall a time when girls in school were told that they HAD to wear skirts and wearing pants was banned. Sadly there are some religious folks who insist upon sexualizeing girls regardless of what they wear.

 

[oldbadger]

If male staff struggle with sexualizing children, then the problem is with them, not the children.

If Dad's and Mum's want to send their kids to school in sexualised clothing, maybe the problem starts there?

School teachers shouldn't be blamed for preferring an acceptable standard of dress code to be observed by all.

Or would you be prepared to post up a pic of a young girl in a mini-skirt on RF? I think not........... case closed.

 

[Skwim]

This is a skirt.View attachment 29281
This is also a skirt.
View attachment 29282

Are you unable to see the difference?

Tom

Yes I am, but so what? The more important question is, what kind of skirts are the girls at Cathedral Catholic High School in San Diego wearing?

You are misrepresenting the problem. See Joe1776 post below.

The Male faculty feel uncomfortable addressing the female students about the girls abuse of the dress code.

Didn't read that at all. What I did read was,

"Male faculty feel uncomfortable addressing female students about the length of their skirts,"​

Nothing at all about an "abuse of the dress code." According to the article, all the male teachers were concerned with was skirt length and their inability to talk to the girls about it---it said nothing about the modification of skirt length breaking the dress code. Nor do we even know how the code/rule reads. Perhaps their modified skirt lengths were still within the code, but the male teachers just couldn't handle it.

They abused a privilege and have now lost that privilege. Case closed.

Show me where it says "They abused a privilege," or even uses the word "abused." You can't because it doesn't. It's simply something you've cooked up in your brain. Truthfully, I can see the distinct possibility that it was because they didn't break the code, yet upset the male teachers, that the school had to ban all skirts to make the teacher(s) happy. I'm not about to give Catholic school employees too much credit for having perceptive intelligence.

.

 

[Skwim]

Truly amazing. I recall a time when girls in school were told that they HAD to wear skirts and wearing pants was banned.

I can too. Only when there was a football game after school on Fridays were girls allowed to wear slacks to school that day.

Sadly there are some religious folks who insist upon sexualizeing girls regardless of what they wear.

Even those with a college education and affiliated with a religion.

.

 

[columbus]

Yes I am, but so what?

If you don't see the difference between an ankle length denim skirt and a black plastic mini skirt, then I don't think you have any reason to criticize the staff of a school.
You should be prevented from coming within a 1000 feet of an elementary school.
Tom

 

[Skwim]

If you don't see the difference between an ankle length denim skirt and a black plastic mini skirt, then I don't think you have any reason to criticize the staff of a school.
You should be prevented from coming within a 1000 feet of an elementary school.
Tom

I already said I was able to see the difference. What to you need, a notarized statement? . . . .Or maybe it's glasses.

.

.

 

[columbus]

I already said I was able to see the difference. What to you need, a notarized statement? . . . .Or maybe it's glasses.

.

.

I asked if you were unable to see the difference and you answered Yes.
You and I didn't just meet. I believed you when you said you were unable to see the difference, based on your myriad threads.
Tom

 

[columbus]

How was I supposed to know she was 12?

She looked 14, at least."
Tom

 

[Subduction Zone]

See the difference?

If you can't then there is a problem

No, not really. Do you have more examples? Preferably of the latter.

 

[Skwim]

I asked if you were unable to see the difference and you answered Yes.
You and I didn't just meet. I believed you when you said you were unable to see the difference, based on your myriad threads.
Tom

My bad. Off the top of my head at the time, I guess answering, "I am not unable to see the difference" just didn't ring right.

.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This thread caused a flashback to a "trailer" within the film Kentucky Fried Movie. Who can ever forget "Catholic High School Girls In Trouble"?