Fashion is meant to be a form of self expression, but if you’re currently a teenage girl in high school that expression might be seriously limited due to strict dress code restrictions. Of course making sure there are no visible butt cracks, nipples, or genitals is a must for school administrators, but when bare shoulders, backs, and thighs are considered just as taboo there’s a serious problem. In the past week alone I’ve read two stories about obscene dress code restrictions and sexist double standards in both the New York Times and Buzzfeed that call for some rant worthy commentary.

Now about 100 years ago it was positively scandalous for a woman to show a bare ankle in public, but it’s not the Victorian era anymore. Unlike the oppressed women back then, we have the right to vote, serve in the military, obtain an education, and take birth control, just for starters. So you’d think that with all of these advancements in women’s rights, women would have the right to decide for themselves what to wear, right? Wrong.

The New York Times wrote a very interesting piece discussing the issue after speaking with high schools girls who were told by administrators that the expensive dresses they’d purchased for prom weren’t acceptable and either needed to be altered or they wouldn’t be permitted to attend. In their piece Kristin Hussey and Marc Santora write:

Girls have been told to cover up shoulders, knees and backs. They have been reprimanded for partially exposed stomachs and thighs and excessive cleavage. They have been ordered to wear jackets, ordered to go home and suspended.

For one girl in the article, that meant a dress and alterations that cost $400 on top of the $90 prom ticket. Some schools have even begun to require girls to take pictures of their gowns and submit them to administrators for approval before they’re even able to buy a ticket to the dance. When asked why the rules are so strict, one superintendent they spoke with said “We want our young ladies to be dressed beautifully; we want them to be dressed with class and dignity. But we are going to draw the line relative to attire that would be deemed overexposing oneself.”

This idea that schools need to protect girls from overexposing themselves isn’t restricted to just the U.S. Take 17-year-old Canadian teen Laura Wiggins, for example. Laura looked in her closet one morning and decided she wanted to wear a full-length halter dress to her high school in New Brunswick. Her legs weren’t showing. Her belly button wasn’t hanging out. Her breasts weren’t on display. The ensemble did, however, showcase her bare arms and a semi-bare back.

A Canadian Teen Wrote The Best Rebuttal After Getting Detention For Wearing A Halter Dress http://t.co/hS4WHTHsf0 pic.twitter.com/hfZSXjghbB

— BuzzFeed Canada (@BuzzFeedCanada) May 13, 2015

That was apparently enough for Laura to receive a detention for being a “sexual distraction” to her male classmates, because if there’s anything that gets a teenage boy all hot and bothered, it’s a back. Isn’t that what Justin Timberlake meant when he said he was “bringing sexy back?”

But it’s the way that Laura dealt with the situation that is truly amazing. Instead of taking the detention quietly, she chose to write a letter to her school’s vice principal and it was very eloquent, impressive, and inspiring. I won’t quote the whole badass letter, but here are two passages that particularly stood out to me:

In today’s society, a woman’s body is constantly discriminated against and hypersexualized to the point where we can no longer wear the clothing that we feel comfortable in without the accusation and/or assumption that we are being provocative.[…]

Then she continues with,

So no, Mr. Sturgeon, I will not search for something to cover up my back and shoulders because I am not showing them off with the intention to gain positive sexual feedback from the teenage boys in my school. I am especially not showing them to receive any comments, positive or negative, from anybody else besides myself because the only person who can make any sort of judgment on my body and the fabrics I place on it is me.

So instead of focusing on what causes boys to be “distracted” my advice to schools would be to try teaching them self control. These young men will need that in the real world, especially with all these empowered girls walking around in yoga pants everywhere.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Are Schools Going Too Far with These Dress Code Rules? appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

I was trying really hard to keep my opinion to myself when it came to the Ray Rice, Adrian Peterson, and Jonathan Dwyer domestic violence cases, but I just can’t anymore.

Last night I watched as many different male commentators shared their opinions on ESPN about all things domestic violence and what the NFL should do, and then I read an article this morning that has irritated me beyond belief. Female Soccer star Hope Solo was arrested and charged with domestic violence back in June but there is little coverage of the story. The only news I found about her recently is that she set a new “record while awaiting domestic violence trial.” So Hope gets to live her life, play the sport that she loves, and silently await trial for not only causing injury to a child but also to her sister. Now reports say that she was drunk at the time, which is no excuse! No matter if you are sober, drunk, or have some crazy sleep disorder that causes you to hit someone you should not be left on a pedestal while others are ostracized for causing bodily harm to others as well.

I do not support domestic violence and I certainly have a problem with any woman who states “I don’t believe in domestic violence, but I will say: any woman who can hit a man, a man shouldn’t have to sit there and take the abuse. The abuse goes both ways.” This Ray Rice fan, only identified as Kathy, is out of her mind! No one needs to be laying a hand on anyone in a violent manner. Ever. Both men and women should be able to exercise restraint, you are adults!

Do I believe in corporal punishment? Absolutely. But there is a difference between corporal punishment and domestic violence. Domestic violence is defined as “violent or aggressive behavior within the home, typically involving the violent abuse of a spouse or partner.” Corporal punishment is defined as “punishment administered by an adult (as a parent or a teacher) to the body of a child ranging in severity from a slap to a spanking.”

So while Ray Rice is now an ex-NFL player, Adrian Peterson is on the NFL’s “exempt” list (what is that, like Santa’s naughty and nice list?), and who knows what will happen to Jonathan Dwyer, little miss Hope Solo was able to apologize to the public and go back to work. How is this fair? After all these years of women wanting to be treated as equals we go and do this. We allow a woman to hit not one but two people, apologize, and then go back to work and be praised for a 72nd shutout game with her national team?

Men can’t hit women or children, but apparently women can hit men, women, and children while still being able to go about their lives without being judged by the public and no actions are taken from the league she works for? Yes, her charges seem to be misdemeanors but an arrest and a trial, that is enough for me to feel the need to ostracize her and state that she should have been yanked from the league until her trial was over and resolved.

We do things differently in the south. We were all raised on the idea of getting a spanking. In fact, there may have been a time or two where my Mississippi grandmother would order me outside to the weeping willow tree to grab a switch because I had done something wrong. In all honesty I don’t remember if I ever got a whipping but the threat of it and making me pick out my switch was enough to make me not act up again. I also had a father who was a true military man through and through. I would have to say, in my eyes, my dad was a mix of John Wayne and General Patton. All he ever had to do was give a look and I knew not to do what I was about to do. That is the kind of fear we need to instill in our children today. We shouldn’t coddle them, but we also shouldn’t have to actually harm them, that fear is enough. (For me at least, until I got into my teenage years, but that’s a different story.) I love my dad but even to this day he could scare me to death with that look.

Hope needs a reality check. You don’t get to hit people — even if you’re drunk — and still have a career that influences young women all over the world. Many claim that Rice, Peterson, and Dwyer were role models to children. So is Hope. Maybe, as a parent, you should want your child’s role model to be someone in the community and not a celebrity.

Can we also remember that domestic violence is NOT just violence against women! Women beat their husbands and children, too. We can’t spend weeks talking about the male athletes charged with domestic violence like Rice, Peterson, and Dwyer without acknowledging Solo. It’s sexist and full of exclusion.

—

Allison Dawson (@AllyD528) Born in Germany, raised in Mississippi and Texas. Graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University. Currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative.

Featured image courtesy of [love @ll via Flickr]

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Men Aren’t the Only Superstar Athletes Charged with Domestic Violence appeared first on Law Street.

As a young woman, I have been inundated with advice on how to dress myself appropriately for a professional situation for years now. My first introduction to professional dress was in high school when I did Model UN. We competed at tournaments around the East Coast a few times a year, and every time we were told to wear “Western Business Attire.” For boys, that was easy. They had to wear khakis or suit pants with a button down and tie, with maybe a sports jacket. But for us girls, it was different. The guidelines were clear, but finding clothes that were appropriate and still cute were difficult. We occasionally got in trouble for wearing skirts that were too tight or short, but we still talked about other girls’ inappropriate club-like dresses with a certain sense of satisfaction.

In college, it got even worse. I compete in intercollegiate mock trial, where formality is even more intense. Girls wear suits in grey, black, or navy; collared shirts; conservative heels; and pantyhose. I make younger members of my team show me their outfits before we compete. I do this because I have received comments about my appearance before — my skirts are too short, or my sleeves are too long, or I chose the wrong color blouse.

And as it turns out, the pressure doesn’t change when you make it into the legal profession, because we hear things about women needing to dress more appropriately for court all the damn time.

A few weeks ago, Loyola Law School sent out a memo about female students dressing appropriately at their jobs or internships. The school’s externship director wrote, “I really don’t need to mention that cleavage and stiletto heels are not appropriate office wear (outside of ridiculous lawyer TV shows), do I? Yet I’m getting complaints from supervisors.” Last fall, law firm Clifford Chance sent out a lovely memo detailing how exactly women should dress — and act, and speak, and breathe, but that’s besides the point. (If you missed it, by the way, definitely read Hannah Winsten’s takedown on that memo.) Some of the tips were real winners: “Understated jewelry, nothing jingly or clanky.” “Don’t dress like a mortician: if wearing a black suit, wear something bright.” “If wearing a scarf, make sure it stays tied.”

These are by no means isolated incidents. In fact they’re more common than you probably think. And they’ve once again started a debate about what female lawyers should be wearing, who is allowed to comment on their dress, and why we care. So as someone who someday hopes to be a female lawyer, here are three things I think we all need to keep in mind.

3. ‘Lady in the streets, freak in the sheets,’ anyone? 

This entire thing reminds me of that saying, because that’s what women are taught. Women are expected to dress conservatively in the courtroom, but still retain femininity. They’re expected to be professional in the work place, but not dress too masculine — after all pantsuits have only become acceptable for women in the last couple decades. Think about how women and men dress up throughout their young lives in Western culture. Little boys wear little suits to say, a cousin’s wedding. Girls wear puffy, pink frocks. Young men wear nice suits or tuxes to prom. Girls wear ball gowns. Men wear tuxes to their wedding. Women wear gigantic white dresses.

For every single part of our lives, we’re taught that different things are acceptable, while men wear essentially variations on the exact same outfit. And that’s because women are taught that their roles are different at each of those events. At prom, be a princess. At your wedding, be a pure virgin. In court, be strong and masculine.

2. Pop culture and societal pressure.

Think about youngish female lawyers on TV and in movies. They’re all gorgeous. We have Reese Witherspoon’s immortalized portrayal of Elle Woods in Legally Blonde. Casey Novak, played by Diane Neal on Law & Order: SVU. Calista Flockhart’s Ally McBeal.

The only way female lawyers are ever portrayed otherwise is the sort of elder stateswoman type, but still incredibly attractive. Think Diane Lockhart in The Good Wife, for example.

Now, it is pretty fair to say that everyone on TV and in Hollywood is attractive. But the men on legal shows usually wear pretty basic suits. The women wear incredibly expensive and well tailored outfits, all beautifully put together. This just continues to propagate the issue of balance. Most women don’t look like the fictional lawyers we see on TV, and that’s completely okay. But that fine line between feminine and too sexy, or between professional and stuffy is not helped by the images of female lawyers in the media.

1. Apparently men can’t control themselves. 

Now, women should dress appropriately in the courtroom. There are  no ifs, ands, or buts about it. It takes some effort, but it’s not that hard. I absolutely judge grown women who cannot dress themselves appropriately. When you walk into a courtroom, you need to impress the judge, and you need to impress the jury. But judges are mostly men — women usually make up roughly 1/3 of the bench. But one of the big issues, as XoJane points out, is that women’s clothing in the courtroom is not standardized the way men’s suits are. Every judge has a preference: “Some never want to see pants, for example, while others abhor specific hemlines or colors.”

And some of these male judges say BS, like District Judge Richard Kopf. He recently published a blog post in which he described how he leers at one of the attractive young women around the courthouse, and suggested, “You can’t win. Men are both pigs and prudes. Get over it.”

I can win. I can look professional, despite all the ridiculous double standards that abound in women’s clothing choices. But that doesn’t mean that I have to get over the fact that I’m held to those double standards. Why do I have to accept that a male judge is either going to mock me for being too frumpy, or eye me for being too sexy? And, most importantly, why in this day and age do we focus more on how smart, capable women dress than what they say?

So new rule, everyone. Let’s all dress appropriately…and all treat each other like respectable human beings. Deal?

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Martijn Schornagel via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Three Reasons to STFU About Female Lawyers’ Clothes appeared first on Law Street.

The U.N News Centre announced new members of the UN Security Council. Among the new members,  Chad, Lithuania, Nigeria, and Chile, to accept non-permanent seats, was suppose to be Saudi Arabia. The operative word is “was”, as Saudi Arabia turned down the seat, instead adopting a double standard.Released on October 17, the U.N. News Centre announced the new member, along with videos of the event. In an informal interview after the announcement, the Permanent Representative of Saudi Arabia Mr. Abdallah Yahya A. Al-Mouallimi congratulated the other elected countries, and spoke about Saudi Arabia’s concerns and interests with its new position. More specifically, Saudi Arabia reiterated its support of the rebel forces in Syria, and also stressed the paramount importance of finding a solution to the Israel- Palestine conflict. He broadcasted, “we take this election very seriously as a responsibility, to be able to contribute to through this very important forum, to peace and security of the world.Our election today is reflection of a longstanding support of moderation and in support of resolving disputes in peaceful means”.

These same troubles, however, caused Saudi Arabia to shift its position. The following day, the country refused the seat. The Saudi Foreign Ministry stated that the United Nation’s inaction toward Syria’s government handle of rebel forces demonstrated the deep-rooted errors with the council, “allowing the ruling regime in Syria to kill its people and burn them with chemical weapons in front of the entire world and without any deterrent or punishment is clear proof and evidence of the UN Security Council’s inability to perform its duties and shoulder its responsibilities.”

Given this position, Saudi Arabia was granted a platform to fix the problems it believed existed in the UN Security Council. Ironically, Saudi Arabia’s critique of UN Security’s inaction did not deter them from following suit. By rejecting the position, Saudi Arabia, too assumes inaction.

[un.org] [aljazeera]

—

Featured image courtesy of [United Nations Photo via Flickr]

Vasudha Sadana

The post Inaction is an Action: Saudi Arabia Declines UN Security Council Seat appeared first on Law Street.