This school’s dress code has us scratching our heads.
Last week, Macy Edberly’s outfit was deemed “inappropriate” for her to wear to highschool.
It was so shocking that she was sent home from school for wearing it.
This is what she wore …
……
…(shield your eyes, ye pure of heart!)….
……
Yep. That’s it.
Shocking, no?
Read more: Feeling gutsy? Come and share your insane school uniform rules with us.
Macy’s older sister, Erica, was deeply confused and turned to social media to call it out.
Erica shared her sister’s photo on her Facebook page with the following message:
Apparently the school dress code states that leggings are permitted but only if the top worn with them is ‘below fingertips when hands are held straight down at your side.’
Erica’s post has now been shared over 90,000 times.
And commenters on the post have been as perplexed as she was.
In reaction to this immense support, Erica shared on Facebook another post to make sure that her position was clear. She was not slamming the school (which she attended herself).
Her aim was squarely focussed on the culture that calls on young women to cover up rather than teaching young men that women aren’t eye candy.
Preach it, Erica!
Top Comments
I was once sent home from school as I wore jeans (with my school shirt and jumper) on exam day.
Granted this was a year 10 exam (which does not count towards any formal scoring, it was merely a practice exercise for when we reach VCE). I was over the moon to be sent home and not have to complete the exam however I still think it was absolutely ridiculous and schools need to get off their high horse.
I understand rules are rules and regardless of whether you agree with them, you must abide by them. When do we stop and look at the rules though and say this is not okay?! Its not okay to tell me I cant wear any item of clothing as I look too sexualized.
School should be about learning, and being creative and using as much of my mind as I can. Don't keep me out of class for wearing hoop earrings or black socks instead of white socks, or too much make up or having a long sleeve top on underneath my short sleeve school shirt. (all of these examples kept me out of class at least once during my high school years!).
Its time to wake up and make people aware of what is okay and what is not okay. Assaulting someone in a sexual manner is not okay. THATS the lesson we should be teaching NOT don't dress in a sexual manner.
I don't think you were sent out of class because your jeans/black socks or long sleeve top under your shirt were seen as dressing in a 'sexual manner' or made you look sexualised . I think it's because they were against the rules. I went to a school that had a very strict uniform policy - my parents knew it when they sent me there and I signed the policy agreeing to abide by it. This is very different to the case of the girl above.
Sorry, I should of worded that differently. I didnt mean that the things I was sent out of class for wearing was "too sexualized". I more was implying that schools are caring more about what students are wearing instead of their education.
Schools have dress codes because some students would wear inappropriate clothing. Not that the clothing would be inappropriate sexually, more inappropriate for the business that goes on at schools. E.g. hoop earrings are not suitable to wear in a sporting event. I'm darn sure that schools also have dress codes to prepare students for the tougher world of work, where employers call the shots.
Dear Erica Edgerly
Firstly, I PERSONALLY do not agree that your sister's clothing was modest to wear to SCHOOL. That is my personal perspective, though, and of course there is room for subjectivity as it is somewhere near borderline and would be perfectly fine to wear around one's own house, as it is fairly conservative and (as you say) covers everything up.
That being said:
Your Facebook post about your sister's school attire is the single most sexist thing I have read in months - blaming males and males only for someone's (in this case, your sister's) inability to follow a simple rule that is in place. Failure to follow this particular rule will contribute far more to the sexualization of minors than flouting it will encourage individuality and expression, as the rule is in place to teach youths a sense of DECENCY - something which seems to be lacking in the current social climate.
How DARE you coin 'rape culture'. By absolutely no means do I condone or accept rape as it is an absolutely abhorrent act, however I refuse to idly allow ANYONE to (collectively) label ME a rapist or endorser of rape. You even saw your own error and tried to correct it in your second post, however words cannot be withdrawn.
Let me for one minute put myself into your shoes, and assume that young men are now overflowingly hormonal sexual beings unable to control themselves, their minds and their eyes when fronted with someone scantily clad (according to the sexual orientation of their choosing, mind you). Then, I think we would both agree that inappropriate clothing (not necessarily what your sister chose to wear) would be a distraction to many and the collective good would warrant an amendment to the clothing. Agreed? Good. Now, we return to reality and see that when (usually) boys act up at school (think: fight, argue, be obnoxious) and we see that the standard action is to remove the problematic child, problematic according to the rules of the school, would be removed from the environment until the 'distraction' was no more.
So you see, regardless of whether men are green-eyed rape monsters or not, YOUR SISTER BREACHED THE SCHOOL RULES WHICH ARE PERFECTLY REASONABLE. Stop feeling so oppressed and that the world is out to get you and your family, and accept that these are still formative years of peoples' lives and that they need to adhere to certain direction to place them in good stead for their adult years.
Yours sincerely,
A male who does not rape people.
I can already see the backlash at my comment, however take a moment to think how insulting it would feel to be called part of a 'rape culture' by a stranger.
Oh and whilst we're talking about body image, who has seen He-Man? Boys seem to be doing fine, maybe girls could take a leaf out of their books.
You've completely misunderstood the term "rape culture". No-one is suggesting all males rape. Have a look at Melissa McEwan's page "Rape Culture 101" for a thorough explanation.
There IS a rape culture that still exists and it's not just about rape and it's not just males that are apart of it - it's about many things, including suggesting women are too scantily dressed rather than (as Erica writes) educating males that female bodies are not simply sexual objects. You've exemplified this perfectly - you've suggested that if boys were hormonally driven horn-dogs unable to control themselves, "inappropriate clothing ... would be a distraction to many and the collective good would warrant an amendment to the clothing. Agreed?" No, not agreed.. the collective good would be educating the boys that they must learn to control themselves and what women wear is NEVER an issue or an invitation. As you suggest "accept that these are still formative years ... and that they need to adhere to certain direction to place them in good stead for their adult years." ... you're right, but this should be applied to the boys because it is overwhelmingly men that rape (sorry - that's not sexist, it's just the facts). Boys need to learn early that whether they think they can control themselves or not, they MUST because another person's body is off bounds unless they are invited.
Part of this is education needs to start from the top - and this part isn't just directed at the males. As Erica points out, rules are rules BUT let's ask why that rule is in place - a girl cannot wear lycra unless the shirt uniformly goes down to her mid-thighs. Why? Because then the shirt is covering her backside. And that her (already covered) backside isn't also completely covered by a shirt is a problem because ....?
Why can young men walk around with their pants down nearly to their knees and no-one ever suggests that it's to be "sexy"? Yet if a girl doesn't wear something resembling a nightgown to cover her already-covered bottom, well that's just inappropriate.
Erica does not suggest that all males rape - she's suggesting that the culture STILL exists where women are being instructed on how to dress "appropriately" and that seems to be about covering up. And it shouldn't be. As long as it's neat, tidy and she can function in her role (i.e. as a student), that should be the end of it.
"a girl cannot wear lycra unless the shirt uniformly goes down to her mid-thighs. Why? Because then the shirt is covering her backside. And that her (already covered) backside isn't also completely covered by a shirt is a problem because ....? " well because a) Lycra is stretchy an when it is stretched it no longer covers what is or isn't underneath and b) there are now more camel toes in our cities than in our deserts.
Education v hormones hasn't worked so well with PMS now has it, expecting to educate teenage boys not to be distracted by a) and or b) above is unrealistic.
Boys who's pants are hanging down aren't described as sexy, or cool for that matter because they look like they have borrowed their dads pants.....there's nothing sexy or cool about doing that.
If it were "I have PMS, therefore you mustn't wear a tight t-shirt because I may not be able to control myself", you'd be on par. But we don't use PMS as an excuse to dictate to men what they have to wear or how to behave. If anything, PMS is an explanation of female behaviour as a way of apology to others - "Sorry I'm so cranky. I have PMS."
And in terms of the camel-toe - if we're telling girls how to dress so as not to distract the boys, are we then going to suggest when they should start wearing padded bras in case the outlines of their nipples are visible through their shirts on a cold day?
"expecting to educate teenage boys not to be distracted by a) and or b) above is unrealistic." - I think that's what the next generation is trying to do. They are working to create a new reality where we expect more of teenage boys.