SHE'S THREE YEARS OLD! This makes me so furious. In our quest to moralize, we have successfully sexualized a toddler. I wonder what this preschool's thought process was. I imagine it was something...
SHE'S THREE YEARS OLD! This makes me so furious. In our quest to moralize, we have successfully sexualized a toddler.
I wonder what this preschool's thought process was. I imagine it was something like "We'd better discourage this now so once she gets to the sexy sexy age of eleven she's sufficiently under our thumb."
I know right. When I first saw the title I was really hoping her parents let her wear a costume or swimsuit or just something actually inappropriate for school as a 3 year old.
I know right. When I first saw the title I was really hoping her parents let her wear a costume or swimsuit or just something actually inappropriate for school as a 3 year old.
Absolutely ridiculous! Dress codes in general for women and girls usually feel pretty arbitrary, but not allowing a three year old to wear a sun dress when it is 30 degrees outside seems...
Absolutely ridiculous! Dress codes in general for women and girls usually feel pretty arbitrary, but not allowing a three year old to wear a sun dress when it is 30 degrees outside seems especially stupid. God forbid anyone see an extra two inches of shoulder! Sometimes I wonder what age we are living in.
Honestly any "sexualization" of the situation is being done by the preschool!! This outfit looks just like the stuff my sisters wore and which my mother made from a sewing pattern.
Honestly any "sexualization" of the situation is being done by the preschool!!
This outfit looks just like the stuff my sisters wore and which my mother made from a sewing pattern.
Oh, that's absolutely what i meant!! That little girl's outfit is adorable and fine. I meant we as a society sexualize children. Just by criticizing seeing a toddler's shoulders, we are saying...
Oh, that's absolutely what i meant!! That little girl's outfit is adorable and fine. I meant we as a society sexualize children. Just by criticizing seeing a toddler's shoulders, we are saying that her 3yo body is "too sexual" for school and that's simply not true.
Exactly! They start sexualizing girls from BIRTH. It starts with clothing choices from easily accessible stores. Then they start telling girls they can't wear the only clothes stores sell because...
Exactly! They start sexualizing girls from BIRTH.
It starts with clothing choices from easily accessible stores. Then they start telling girls they can't wear the only clothes stores sell because they're too revealing. No shoulders, no thighs.
I honestly never understood what was so scandalous about those two inches of shoulder. I agree spaghetti straps are inappropriate for a formal workplace, but if you can wear casual clothes, they...
I honestly never understood what was so scandalous about those two inches of shoulder. I agree spaghetti straps are inappropriate for a formal workplace, but if you can wear casual clothes, they should be acceptable, which I just assume a preschool does.
Does anyone here know this little girl? I agree that this is outrageous -- but certainly this issue of "prudishness" has nothing to do with any of us...?
Does anyone here know this little girl? I agree that this is outrageous -- but certainly this issue of "prudishness" has nothing to do with any of us...?
This individual story is part of a pretty common pattern-- dress codes that are more restrictive for girls (and often based on sexualizing them, whatever their age). Even if we don't know her, we...
This individual story is part of a pretty common pattern-- dress codes that are more restrictive for girls (and often based on sexualizing them, whatever their age). Even if we don't know her, we can discuss the general issue surrounding it.
Well, agreed. Linked immediately from the article is another story about a woman being asked by gym staff to change out of her tanktop because apparently its fit on her torso seemed inappropriate...
Well, agreed. Linked immediately from the article is another story about a woman being asked by gym staff to change out of her tanktop because apparently its fit on her torso seemed inappropriate to someone. Utterly mundane discrimination, and important to have discussion and make policy changes to support the subjects of discrimination.
None of us may know this girl but the pressure being exerted by certain (vocal minority) elements within our society that caused this policy to be put in place have the potential to effect all of...
None of us may know this girl but the pressure being exerted by certain (vocal minority) elements within our society that caused this policy to be put in place have the potential to effect all of us eventually if left unchecked and will also have downstream ramifications. That's why this issue is worth talking about IMO, even though right now it only involved a few people who none of us personally know.
Yeah, I totally understand that this stuff matters. But, if I had to guess what was actually happening here, before it received some measure of international amplification from a news outlet, I...
Yeah, I totally understand that this stuff matters. But, if I had to guess what was actually happening here, before it received some measure of international amplification from a news outlet, I would assume that this was a prudish folly of one or two preschool administrators, tops, and their conflict with a parent.
On the one hand, I believe that repression should have a light shined on it, on at any level. But it also seems like an incredible burden for a stupid decision in your organization to be the subject of international press. If you skim the comments on the article, we're all agreed that this is dumb. This article exists to outrage you and to demonstrate social pressure and shaming to these people. That sounds hellish to me.
I agree there too. I'm not a fan of flamebait / clickbait articles either... but this isn't an isolated incident, at least here in Canada, unfortunately. So to a certain extent I think they are...
This article exists to outrage you and to demonstrate social pressure and shaming to these people. That sounds hellish to me.
I agree there too. I'm not a fan of flamebait / clickbait articles either... but this isn't an isolated incident, at least here in Canada, unfortunately. So to a certain extent I think they are called for in order to shine a very bring, public light on the overall trend and get people to further scrutinize the actions of people in power/authority (even minor positions like school administrators).
There's nothing at all wrong with a thread where everyone in our community agrees, but I feel like shallow, reactive pieces like this one -- whose relevance to us is, at most, general and societal...
There's nothing at all wrong with a thread where everyone in our community agrees, but I feel like shallow, reactive pieces like this one -- whose relevance to us is, at most, general and societal is very much a low-effort content, deserving of the same treatment as whatever policy is developed for fluff stuffs. I recognize how much of a bugbear that would be to mete out, but I dunno.
I suppose that the community will find a natural balance between how many outrage pieces it wants to support, but I think we're really shot through with a potentially unlimited number and degree of outrageous things to be gathered around. Maybe I should just ignore this sort of thread, but I hope you take my meaning that this sort of material is pretty grating.
(I have no idea why I'm being as much of a crank this morning [and yesterday, too, I suppose] as I am. I think I'm just in a mood...)
I think the low vote count on this particular post already shows that the community has found a balance in regards to them. If these sorts of topics start taking over the site, then we might...
I think the low vote count on this particular post already shows that the community has found a balance in regards to them. If these sorts of topics start taking over the site, then we might consider a policy but not until then since, while these sort of posts are not necessarily on the same qualitative scale as others, still provide valuable topics to talk about. "Fluff" should ideally be posts that add no value in and of themselves and don't have potential to spark interesting conversations.
(I have no idea why I'm being as much of a crank this morning [and yesterday, too, I suppose] as I am. I think I'm just in a mood...)
Heh no worries... I am pretty patient and get cranky occasionally myself, so no worries.
I disagree. As this and really girl grows up in this society, it will only get worst. There will be more judgement on her body and what she should and should not wear. This will be the case unless...
I disagree. As this and really girl grows up in this society, it will only get worst. There will be more judgement on her body and what she should and should not wear. This will be the case unless we call out the ridiculous actions when they happen.
SHE'S THREE YEARS OLD! This makes me so furious. In our quest to moralize, we have successfully sexualized a toddler.
I wonder what this preschool's thought process was. I imagine it was something like "We'd better discourage this now so once she gets to the sexy sexy age of eleven she's sufficiently under our thumb."
I know right. When I first saw the title I was really hoping her parents let her wear a costume or swimsuit or just something actually inappropriate for school as a 3 year old.
Absolutely ridiculous! Dress codes in general for women and girls usually feel pretty arbitrary, but not allowing a three year old to wear a sun dress when it is 30 degrees outside seems especially stupid. God forbid anyone see an extra two inches of shoulder! Sometimes I wonder what age we are living in.
Honestly any "sexualization" of the situation is being done by the preschool!!
This outfit looks just like the stuff my sisters wore and which my mother made from a sewing pattern.
Oh, that's absolutely what i meant!! That little girl's outfit is adorable and fine. I meant we as a society sexualize children. Just by criticizing seeing a toddler's shoulders, we are saying that her 3yo body is "too sexual" for school and that's simply not true.
Exactly! They start sexualizing girls from BIRTH.
It starts with clothing choices from easily accessible stores. Then they start telling girls they can't wear the only clothes stores sell because they're too revealing. No shoulders, no thighs.
It's really ridiculous!
This is a really good read. A mom went to target and compared boys' clothes to girls' clothes.
I honestly never understood what was so scandalous about those two inches of shoulder. I agree spaghetti straps are inappropriate for a formal workplace, but if you can wear casual clothes, they should be acceptable, which I just assume a preschool does.
Does anyone here know this little girl? I agree that this is outrageous -- but certainly this issue of "prudishness" has nothing to do with any of us...?
This individual story is part of a pretty common pattern-- dress codes that are more restrictive for girls (and often based on sexualizing them, whatever their age). Even if we don't know her, we can discuss the general issue surrounding it.
Well, agreed. Linked immediately from the article is another story about a woman being asked by gym staff to change out of her tanktop because apparently its fit on her torso seemed inappropriate to someone. Utterly mundane discrimination, and important to have discussion and make policy changes to support the subjects of discrimination.
None of us may know this girl but the pressure being exerted by certain (vocal minority) elements within our society that caused this policy to be put in place have the potential to effect all of us eventually if left unchecked and will also have downstream ramifications. That's why this issue is worth talking about IMO, even though right now it only involved a few people who none of us personally know.
Yeah, I totally understand that this stuff matters. But, if I had to guess what was actually happening here, before it received some measure of international amplification from a news outlet, I would assume that this was a prudish folly of one or two preschool administrators, tops, and their conflict with a parent.
On the one hand, I believe that repression should have a light shined on it, on at any level. But it also seems like an incredible burden for a stupid decision in your organization to be the subject of international press. If you skim the comments on the article, we're all agreed that this is dumb. This article exists to outrage you and to demonstrate social pressure and shaming to these people. That sounds hellish to me.
I agree there too. I'm not a fan of flamebait / clickbait articles either... but this isn't an isolated incident, at least here in Canada, unfortunately. So to a certain extent I think they are called for in order to shine a very bring, public light on the overall trend and get people to further scrutinize the actions of people in power/authority (even minor positions like school administrators).
There's nothing at all wrong with a thread where everyone in our community agrees, but I feel like shallow, reactive pieces like this one -- whose relevance to us is, at most, general and societal is very much a low-effort content, deserving of the same treatment as whatever policy is developed for fluff stuffs. I recognize how much of a bugbear that would be to mete out, but I dunno.
I suppose that the community will find a natural balance between how many outrage pieces it wants to support, but I think we're really shot through with a potentially unlimited number and degree of outrageous things to be gathered around. Maybe I should just ignore this sort of thread, but I hope you take my meaning that this sort of material is pretty grating.
(I have no idea why I'm being as much of a crank this morning [and yesterday, too, I suppose] as I am. I think I'm just in a mood...)
I think the low vote count on this particular post already shows that the community has found a balance in regards to them. If these sorts of topics start taking over the site, then we might consider a policy but not until then since, while these sort of posts are not necessarily on the same qualitative scale as others, still provide valuable topics to talk about. "Fluff" should ideally be posts that add no value in and of themselves and don't have potential to spark interesting conversations.
Heh no worries... I am pretty patient and get cranky occasionally myself, so no worries.
I disagree. As this and really girl grows up in this society, it will only get worst. There will be more judgement on her body and what she should and should not wear. This will be the case unless we call out the ridiculous actions when they happen.
Obviously the school is being dumb, but I found this quote adorable and hilarious: