Republican Representative Martha McSally commented on the Congressional dress code on the House floor on Wednesday. The debate over the dress code, which is not clearly stated and irregularly enforced, was reignited last week after a female reporter was turned away from the Speaker’s Lobby outside of the House chamber. Reporters congregate in that area to grab lawmakers for quick interviews and the dress code rules are stricter there than in other parts of the Capitol Building.

On Wednesday, when speaking on the House floor, McSally ended her speech by saying, “Before I yield back, I want to point out I’m standing here in my professional attire, which happens to be a sleeveless dress and open-toed shoes.”

Here’s @RepMcSally on the House floor wearing a sleeveless dress, which chamber security says violates dress code (rule doesn’t exist). pic.twitter.com/RCjOeYE3wd

— Rebecca Shabad (@RebeccaShabad) July 12, 2017

The dress code is actually not specifically written out, which is why it has been interpreted differently at different times. Right now, women are expected to not wear sleeveless blouses or dresses or shoes with open toes. Men are supposed to wear suit jackets and ties. But the only written specifics are contained in Jefferson’s Manual and Rules of the House of Representatives.

In the 2015 edition of that manual, it says that Tip O’Neill, who was Speaker of the House from 1977 – 1986, thought that proper attire should be “customary and traditional,” and elaborated by saying that meant a coat and tie for men and “appropriate” clothing for women. “Appropriate” is not very specific. The manual then states that the House Speaker should determine what is proper attire. In June, Speaker Paul Ryan reiterated that all House members should wear “appropriate business attire.”

.@SpeakerRyan: “Members should wear appropriate business attire…” pic.twitter.com/a4f1Oy5ifT

— CSPAN (@cspan) June 23, 2017

After the female reporter was turned away, a lot of people reacted to the outdated dress code, especially since it is so irregularly enforced. Moreover, many female lawmakers wear sleeveless clothes, particularly given the oppressively hot weather in Washington D.C. during the summer. And former First Lady Michelle Obama often wore sleeveless dresses in an official capacity.

The Speaker’s Lobby has one of the most ridiculous and backwards dress codes around. Did when I covered Congress. Still does. https://t.co/88yv6YSuz1

— Lizzie O’Leary (@lizzieohreally) July 6, 2017

This is not the first time McSally has put her foot down when it comes to men making rules about what women wear. Back in 2002, she sued then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld over a military rule that required female soldiers to wear an abaya when off-base in Saudi Arabia.

At the time, McSally was the highest ranking female fighter-pilot in the U.S. She said the rule was unconstitutional, as male soldiers weren’t required to wear any particular clothes when off-base. Women also had to be accompanied by a man at all times when off duty. The rules were changed, and while the military said they had been under review for a while and had nothing to do with the lawsuit, McSally’s tenacity went down in history. And while it’s unclear whether her speech played any role in this decision, Paul Ryan just announced that the dress code will be “modernized.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Republican Congresswoman Argues Against Supposed House Dress Code appeared first on Law Street.

United Airlines is receiving criticism, after it was reported that two young girls were prohibited from boarding a flight because they were wearing leggings. The girls were reportedly traveling from Denver to Minneapolis when three of them were stopped for their outfits. One changed out of the leggings and was let on the flight, and the other two were prohibited from boarding. Shannon Watts, a woman who was boarding a separate flight, tweeted about the incident:

1) A @united gate agent isn’t letting girls in leggings get on flight from Denver to Minneapolis because spandex is not allowed?

— Shannon Watts (@shannonrwatts) March 26, 2017

2) She’s forcing them to change or put dresses on over leggings or they can’t board. Since when does @united police women’s clothing?

— Shannon Watts (@shannonrwatts) March 26, 2017

3) Gate agent for flt 215 at 7:55. Said she doesn’t make the rules, just follows them. I guess @united not letting women wear athletic wear?

— Shannon Watts (@shannonrwatts) March 26, 2017

United responded to the tweets Watts sent, indicating that the girls were in violation of its “Contract of Carriage” which includes a provision that passengers be “properly clothed.” But the concept that adolescent girls wearing leggings is improper sparked outrage on social media.

A 10-year-old girl in gray leggings. She looked normal and appropriate. Apparently @united is policing the clothing of women and girls. https://t.co/RKsIFoE8pq

— Shannon Watts (@shannonrwatts) March 26, 2017

@shannonrwatts Hey, @united, you know how this ends, right? Images of women in leggings tagging you on social as they fly your competition.

— Jenn (@jennvzande) March 26, 2017

@washingtonpost leggings? Like the ones in your advertisement @united hmmmmm… pic.twitter.com/EfIlBRMlEY

— OLIVIA FOX RADIO (@Oliviafoxradio) March 26, 2017

For the record, the girl wearing the leggings was TEN YEARS OLD. Good luck to @united explaining why she looked too sexual.

— Dana Schwartz (@DanaSchwartzzz) March 26, 2017

@united Leggings are business attire for 10 year olds. Their business is being children.

— Patricia Arquette (@PattyArquette) March 26, 2017

United has since stated that the girls were flying as “pass riders,” which are usually family members of United employees. Apparently, those designated as pass riders are held to a stricter dress code that specifically includes a ban on spandex. A local outlet, 9News, spoke to Jonathan Geurin, a spokesperson for United, about this special pass rider dress code:

Pass riders have a stricter dress code to board. The three people involved in the incident did not meet the criteria for pass riders.

Pass riders are considered representatives of United and that extends to the dress code requirements. Casual attire for pass riders is allowed as long as it is in good taste for the environment.

As an example, Guerin says flip flops are not allowed for pass riders.

9NEWS asked to see the dress code policy for pass riders. Guerin says the information is part of an internal policy and will not be released at this time.

But that concept seems odd–it’s hard to believe that anyone would have mistaken pre-teen girls for employees, or assumed that they represented United just because they may have been related to an employee. United has announced that it’s looking into the policy and the complaint, but many were left with a bad taste by the incident. After all, leggings are normal travel attire for many women–and that’s certainly not the airline’s business.

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 United Prevents Girls Wearing Leggings from Boarding Flight appeared first on Law Street.

In May 2016, Nicola Thorp arrived at accounting firm PwC in London for her first day as a temporary receptionist. But the first thing her temp supervisor said was that her shoes–a pair of black ballerina flats–were unacceptable, and she would have to get a pair with at least two inch heels. When she refused, she was sent home without pay.

Thorp said that she asked whether the same rules applied to her male colleagues, but the supervisor just laughed at her. The company couldn’t give her a single reason when she asked how wearing heels would improve her work. “I was expected to do a nine-hour shift on my feet escorting clients to meeting rooms. I said ‘I just won’t be able to do that in heels,'” she said.

Five months after the incident, Thorp created an online petition that quickly collected more than 150,000 signatures. Dozens of women tweeted photos about wearing flats to work in protest. It prompted an inquiry by two British parliamentary committees. On Wednesday, the committees released a report on the issue and concluded that the outsourcing firm, Portico, had broken the law.

#FamiliarFeminist of the day is #NicolaThorp!! Let’s make the work place safe and comfortable for women everywhere.https://t.co/DmWTikWYgW

— #UndefeatedSisters (@BeandBeyond_) January 27, 2017

This may seem like a petty matter, but for women fighting for professional equality, it is a big step. Aside from the fact that this rule is blatantly old-fashioned and sexist, Thorp also cited public health concerns, as high heels can be damaging to women’s feet. Why should women suffer through wearing them if it doesn’t improve their work, and the same uncomfortable rules don’t apply to men? During their investigation, the committees came across hundreds of cases of women who had been ordered to dye their hair blonde, wear more revealing clothes, or constantly reapply makeup.

The shoes that got Thorp sent home from work are already famous.

@HackneyMuseum Neat bit of contemporary collecting. Shoes that got Nicola Thorp sacked in 2016 pic.twitter.com/NHHkFYqVkL

— Museum of Marco Polo (@MoMarcoPolo) January 4, 2017

The parliamentary report stated that the law needs to be tightened to combat sexism in the workplace. “Discriminatory dress codes remain widespread,” the report said, and reiterated concern for workers who are affected by them, “many of whom are young women in insecure jobs who already feel vulnerable in the workplace.” Even though the dress code that the company imposed on Thorp was unlawful, many companies still require their female employees to wear heels. The government expects companies to research and follow the law voluntarily, but this is not enough, according to the report.

Thorp herself pointed out that now, more than ever, with a U.S. president who brags about grabbing women, it is important for women to speak up about this kind of discrimination. She said:

I refused to work for a company that expected women to wear makeup, heels and a skirt. This is unacceptable in 2017. People say sexism is not an issue anymore. But when a man who has admitted publicly to sexually harassing women is the leader of the free world, it is more crucial than ever to have laws that protect women.

The outsourcing company Thorp was working for, Portico, has said it has rewritten its appearance guidelines. It used to include warnings against greasy hair or flower accessories, and demanded heels two to four inches high, makeup “worn at all times” and “regularly reapplied,” with a minimum of lipstick, mascara, and eye shadow. Representatives for the company she was sent to work for, PwC, emphasized that the heels requirement was not in their guidelines and that they are committed to gender equality.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Nicola Thorp: Woman Who Was Sent Home for Wearing Flats Sparks Change in the UK appeared first on Law Street.

As long as I have been writing about these weird legal cases, I have written on a shockingly low number of weird Alabama stories. And let’s face it: surely Alabama has some weird things going on in its legal system.

Has the fact that I lived in Alabama for 16 years made me biased? Am I hiding all the juicy gossip to downplay this great state’s craziness? Or have I really just not been able to find any good ones because I get too distracted by the oddities going on in Florida (and also in my current state of New Jersey where my bias has certainly not been showing)?

Whatever the reason I have been ignoring good ole Bama in the past, I am over it this week. Because I’m about to tell you all a story about the Alabama fashion police. You know. Since Alabama is so well known for its fashion forwardness and all that.

For those individuals out there who believe God only gets involved in big picture items, you will want to read this: it turns out you are obviously very wrong. Because God recently decided to give us all a fashion lesson of a very basic nature.

A civil council member in Dadeville, Alabama (where I am not from, thank goodness, since my fashion sense is pretty nonexistent) is trying to create a dress code that would ban, among other things, baggy pants.

I’m well and fine with that, personally, because I hate the look myself. However, why did Councilman Frank Goodman suddenly decide this should be his life mission? Because God, who I’m assuming got the idea after watching this year’s New York Fashion Week, told him to.

Okay. I admit, Goodman does not actually claim God spoke those words to him, but he does say that he has been thinking on this for a while. And more importantly, he has been praying about it.

What was the result of said prayer? Goodman–whose name seems very fitting in this story–determined that “God would not go around with pants down.”

Thank you for the info, Goodman. Because I have been wondering if that would be God’s fashion sense for quite some time now.

What is more, when Goodman asked God to show him if the councilman should do anything about the baggy pant epidemic, God gave him a pretty clear answer.

“He would show me this saggy pant,” Goodman told The Daily Beast, “—it’s one of the things He did not do. It is not in His orders to do that to gain eternal life.”

So there you have it, folks, right out of the mouth of some random Councilman in Alabama: wearing baggy pants is not one of the things you need to do to gain eternal life. Which is probably a big disappointment to the people who wear baggy pants, since I am sure that gaining eternal life was the sole purpose in the low-riding pants.

Now, there is some history in towns banning or trying to ban saggy pants. In that sense, this is not a unique story. However, as to my knowledge, this is the first time that the ban is being attempted on God’s direct orders.

I’m not exactly sure how saggy is too baggy, but if this dress code is passed, people of Dadeville, you just might want to invest in a good belt or two. After all, you don’t want to get a ticket from the fashion police–especially when those fashion police are being sent directly on God’s commands!

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post God Doesn’t Like Saggy Pants, According to an Alabama Councilman appeared first on Law Street.

From sorority secrets to celebrity chicken thefts, the Best of the Week from Law Street was truly bizarre. The number one article of the week, from Anneliese Mahoney, details a new lawsuit from Phi Sigma Sigma alleging that a former member, whom they can’t identify because of anonymous online postings, has leaked closely guarded secrets. The number two article of the week, from Alexis Evans, is an interesting look at the increasing–and increasingly weird–school dress codes across the country, and the third most-read article of the week, from Ashley Shaw, is a funny take on Mila Kunis’ continued legal problems over an alleged chicken theft in the Ukraine. ICYMI, here is the Best of the Week from Law Street.

#1 Phi Sigma Sigma Sorority Girl Sued For Releasing These Secrets

Sororities, and Greek Life organizations in general, gain much of their prestige from tradition and history. As a result, certain traditions and secrets are kept under lock and key, and members are trusted to keep it that way. But now, one former sorority girl may have to pay a big price for violating that sacred trust. Read full article here.

#2 Are Schools Going Too Far With These Dress Code Rules?

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. Read full article here.

#3 Star’s Legal Battles Over Childhood Chicken Theft Continue

I am a busy person, which means I don’t get to spend hours at a time following the latest Hollywood gossip. I can usually survive without keeping up with the Kardashians and the Bieber and so on. However, every once in a while, I stumble across a celebrity scandal so interesting that I question everything I thought I knew about myself and begin to wonder why I ever do anything other than watch E!. Read full article here.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Crime and weird news ruled the news last week. A new interactive map from writer Law Street’s crime editor Kevin Rizzo made waves across the internet as it allows you to visualize where crime in the United States is getting better or worse. Definitely check that out! The number two story, from Anneliese Mahoney, brings yoga pants back into the news as Montana lawmakers continue their quest to outlaw the comfortable clothing in public spaces. And finally the third most popular post came from writer Marisa Mostek with her weekly look at the dumbest laws across the country, this time focusing in on the Virginias and the Carolinas. ICYMI, check out the best of the week from Law Street.

#1 Interactive Crime Map: Is Your City Getting Safer or More Dangerous?

As reported in Law Street’s comprehensive annual crime rankings, Crime in America 2015, violent crime across the United States continued its downward trend according to the latest figures reported by the FBI. Curious to know how your hometown stacks up against the rest of the country? Check out the interactive map below for yourself to see if your city is getting safer or more dangerous according to the latest data. Read full article here.

#2 Just Relax: Montana Lawmaker Attempts to Ban Yoga Pants

A proposed bill that would ban yoga pants in Montana has been tabled, eliciting joy from practitioners, women who like to be comfy, and rational human beings everywhere. If you’ve never worn yoga pants before (or their closely related cousin the leggings) they’re basically like wearing a hug on your legs. But not everyone is that happy with yoga pants, because they tend to conform to our bodies, apparently rendering them a scourge to society that needs to be outlawed. Read full article here.

#3 Dumbest Laws in the United States: The Virginias and the Carolinas

This week, the dumb laws blog will focus on two sets of neighboring states: Virginia and West Virginia and North and South Carolina. What do railroad companies and Sundays have in common? South Carolina has dumb laws pertaining to both seemingly unrelated things, as it turns out. On Sundays in South Carolina, you won’t be able to go dancing, as dance halls may not operate on that day of the week. Also on Sundays in South Carolina, you cannot do any work. It is the day of rest after all. If you wish to spend your day off playing an instrument, make sure you buy one before Sunday, as they are banned from being sold then. It makes sense, if you think about it–since work on Sunday is prohibited, who would be working at the musical instrument store? Read full article here.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

A proposed bill that would ban yoga pants in Montana has been tabled, eliciting joy from practitioners, women who like to be comfy, and rational human beings everywhere.

If you’ve never worn yoga pants before (or their closely related cousin the leggings) they’re basically like wearing a hug on your legs. But not everyone is that happy with yoga pants, because they tend to conform to our bodies, apparently rendering them a scourge to society that needs to be outlawed.

At least, they’re that scourge according to one Montana lawmaker. Rep. David Moore, a legislator from Missoula, proposed a bill that would redefine indecent exposure laws, making it illegal to wear in public:

any device, costume, or covering that gives the appearance of or simulates the genitals, pubic hair, anus region, or pubic hair region.

Moore explained that “Yoga pants should be illegal in public anyway” during a hearing on the bill. He also cited that tight-fitting beige clothing would be something included under the new bill as indecent exposure.

So, the bill didn’t really actually ban yoga pants–but it did leave determining indecent exposure up to the discretion of police officers, and yoga pants could certainly have been included.

One of the most concerning things this about this bill is that it didn’t amend the penalties for breaking indecent exposure laws. According to the Billings Gazette:

A first offense for violating Montana’s indecent exposure law carries a fine of no more than $500 and six months in jail. A second offense carries up to $1,000 or one year in jail.

That seems incredibly extreme for pants that don’t even show skin. A year in jail for yoga pants, really?

In addition, there are many worries that Moore’s legislation is sexist in nature–after all, it mentions only the “female nipple” and based on societal norms alone, women are more likely to wear tight-fitting clothing. One of Moore’s female colleagues, Rep. Virginia Court, even attempted to point that out to him, to seemingly no avail.

The debate over yoga pants in our public spaces is nothing new–the fight over whether to ban them in schools has been waging for a couple years now. Read fellow Law Streeter Noel Diem’s breakdown of the subject here.

The applicability of a ban of yoga pants in school is debatable–those who believe in instituting one argue that the tight-fitting garments are distracting to students, while those who disagree with a ban argue that young men should be taught not to objectify women for their clothing choices. Either way, schools are somewhat different; they usually have stricter dress codes than the real world, and they do have to take special considerations into account, such as bullying, and developmental differences between students.

To ban yoga pants and other tight clothing for adults, however, would most likely be both significantly more difficult, and receive even more ire than a similar move inside a school. Expression concerns aside, it’s important to take into account that yoga pants, spandex, and other forms of tight-fitting clothing are often used by athletes, as they provide minimal interference to physical performance.

The entire move on Moore’s part paints him as outdated and puritanical. While there’s certainly many, many times and places where yoga pants shouldn’t be worn–and private businesses are more than welcome to institute dress codes that exclude them–outlawing them for all of public society is extreme to the point of being laughable. Moore’s bill has been tabled–which means that nothing will really come of it. Meanwhile, people of Montana, relax easily tonight in your comfy, form-fitting clothes.

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 Just Relax: Montana Lawmaker Attempts to Ban Yoga Pants appeared first on Law Street.

Law Street’s top three articles last week covered a whole range of hot topics. Don’t worry if you ate too much turkey and couldn’t keep your eyes open to read them though, we’ve got you covered here. The Crime in America Team’s coverage of the Safest and Most Dangerous States in the nation took the top spot; Noel Diem delved into the complicated world of school dress codes and their effects on students for article number two; and Allison Dawson wrote the third most popular post of the week with a look into the University of Virginia’s move to shut down fraternities while it investigates rape allegations published in Rolling Stone. ICYMI, here are the top three stores of the week from Law Street.

#1 Slideshow: America’s Safest & Most Dangerous States 2015

Alaska is the most dangerous state in the nation according to the latest violent crime data from the FBI. With an increase in violent crime rate from 603 per 100,000 people in 2012 to 640 in 2013–the most recent year for which the FBI provides data–Alaska moved into the number one spot, followed by New Mexico (613) and Nevada (603). Read full article here.

#2 School Dress Codes: Are Yoga Pants Really the Problem?

Anyone who has been inside of a high school in the last five years has seen some interesting fashion choices by today’s teenagers. Teachers are expected to teach to the tests, teach students how to survive in the real world, personalize the curriculum for IEP students of all levels, and still have their work graded within twenty-four hours. And now? Some districts are adding another dimension: dress code enforcement. Dress codes are an important part of school culture, as they sometimes dictate whether or not a student can even attend class. Read full article here.

#3 University of Virginia Suspends All Fraternities After Rape Allegations

You might have missed it with all the huge news events within the last week, but there was aRolling Stone article published last week about a young woman who was the victim of a heinous crime. Seven (yes, SEVEN) young men at a fraternity party raped the woman over a three-hour period. The rape took place two years ago, but now that the story is out UVA President Teresa A. Sullivan has decided to shut down all fraternities until at least January 9, 2015. Read full article here.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Anyone who has been inside of a high school in the last five years has seen some interesting fashion choices by today’s teenagers. Teachers are expected to teach to the tests, teach students how to survive in the real world, personalize the curriculum for IEP students of all levels, and still have their work graded within twenty-four hours. And now? Some districts are adding another dimension: dress code enforcement. Dress codes are an important part of school culture, as they sometimes dictate whether or not a student can even attend class. Some things make more sense when it comes to the dress code: no short-shorts, no shirts with offensive sayings, and no pants that sag too low. There are also some questionable additions to the dress code, namely yoga pants, leggings, spandex running pants and other clothing that fights tightly to the body. With the seemingly endless stream of issues that American school teachers are responsible for this begs the question, are yoga pants really the problem?

What’s the fuss about yoga pants?

Yoga pants have really become a hot button topic among everyone from teenagers to fashion’s biggest designers. The pants are made out of a thin material that stretches and gives, which is why they’re comfortable for people to wear. The pants are usually credited as flattering on most body types because they cling to the legs and give definition where there may not be any. The pants also can become sheer when someone bends over, which is a chief complaint among the trend’s naysayers; however, if they are the proper size, that may not be an issue–especially with yoga pants, which tend to be thick. Many schools are dealing with the dilemma of whether or not they are proper attire for the classroom, and emotions run deep on both sides.

What sort of punishments can yoga pants get you in school?

Regulations vary from school district to school district, but an increasing number of them are outlawing yoga pants, leggings, and similar wear. The punishments and ramifications also vary, but they usually involve a request to change into either clothes brought by parents, or provided by the school.

Ashley Crtalic published a well written letter in the Billings Gazette a few weeks ago that raised some interesting points about her local high school dress code, including a punishment that is increasingly popular in public schools: public shaming and humiliation for not following the dress code. Some schools have extra, extra large shirts that say “I disobeyed the Dress Code,” or “Dress Code Reinforcement” on them, showing everyone in the school that that person broke the rules. Students have to either wear the shirt or have a parent bring in a spare pair of clothes.

Alternatively, some schools will have their students sit in the office until parents come in with a change of clothes. The concern with this is that today in America, if a home does have two parents, they usually both work, so requiring a parent to leave work in order to bring alternative clothing to school can be a burden. These students are missing out on important class time that they need, especially if they want to go onto college–all because they wore yoga pants to school. Other punishments range from detention, demerits, loss of privileges, and loss of activities.

How are students fighting back?

Feminism is reaching a whole new, younger audience thanks to social media websites like Tumblr. It is through those platforms that people are hearing more and more about these argued injustices. A 14-year-old student recently put up these posters over signs announcing her school’s dress code, protesting against them publicly and hoping to gain support.

Many school officials claim “distraction” is why these types of pants are banned. Students have responded to that criticism with concerns of their own, however, that such strict dress codes and punishments unduly distract female students. If a female student has to sit in the classroom with an embarrassing shirt on, or sit in the office waiting for a new outfit, she is probably not able to pay full attention to her studies.

Students who disagree with these dress codes argue that the distraction comes in many forms–gossip, catcalling, attention, unwanted touching, or even unwanted pictures. If it is as bad as has been reported at some schools, it would be bordering on sexual harassment, which shouldn’t be tolerated by any school. Those who stand against such dress restrictions argue that part of the purpose of school is to prepare young people to be functioning members of society, one of those things should be how to properly function in public.

So, is banning yoga pants a good idea?

Some argue that not allowing girls to wear yoga pants or leggings to school is a way to keep them responsible for their own appearances, and provide training for when they go into the real world. Girls won’t be allowed to wear leggings or yoga pants to the office, and school is preparing young adults to go out into the work force. Schools have banned pajamas, basketball shorts, and sweatpants for students for similar reasons–they aren’t the correct attire to wear in a professional environment. Supporters argue that it’s not an attack on young women, but rather a valuable teaching moment for students.

Other parents say that not allowing yoga pants or leggings in schools will cut down on the bullying and taunting of other students, namely females. Many girls who are bigger get made fun of for wearing leggings, especially if they cannot find them in the correct size. There is also a question of classism within leggings. Those who can afford the more expensive leggings are more likely to not have a problem with the sheerer, cheaper variety.

Some of the parents who are for banning yoga pants are in favor of instituting a much stricter dress code overall for all students, limiting them to shirts with collars and khaki pants. This works to eliminate some of the label mongering that many schools face, as the outfits will all be similar. It also prepares students for being comfortable in what would be a business casual outfit in college or a work place.

Case Study: Haven Middle School

The administrators of Haven Middle School in Illinois told parents in September that their daughters were no longer allowed to wear shorts, leggings, or yoga pants to school because they were “too distracting.” Parents fought against the rule because they didn’t think it was the girls’ responsibility to stop boys from becoming distracted.

They wrote a petition that 500 students went on to sign, claiming that the rule was sexist. Some students wore yoga pants anyway, in protest. One girl told the Evanston Review that, “Not being able to wear leggings because it’s ‘too distracting for boys’ is giving us the impression we should be guilty for what guys do.”

The parents are fighting back as well, say that, “This kind of message lands itself squarely on a continuum that blames girls and women for assault by men. It also sends the message to boys that their behaviors are excusable, or understandable given what the girls are wearing. We really hope that you will consider the impact of these policies and how they contribute to rape culture.”

As of publication time the dress code at Haven Middle School is still up for review.

Case Study: Skyview High School

When the administrators of the small Billings, Montana high school decided to add the following provision to the handbook over the summer, they didn’t think it would cause a big problem: “Leggings, jeggings, and tights ARE NOT pants and must be worn with dress code appropriate shorts, skirts, dresses, or pants.”

But it was a problem for many students, including one who went to the school board and declared that they were shaming the women in the school. “It’s completely sexist and misogynistic,” she said. “This tells women that our bodies are something that need to be hidden.” It is important to note that boys in the school were allowed to wear sleeveless t-shirts as they are a part of their uniforms.

No one has been sent home for violating the new code, but the principal has said that she has asked students to put on a longer top or sweatshirt. If they don’t have one, they can borrow one from the office. By a week after the ban, 200 students wore yoga pants on the same day.

Conclusion

Dress codes do have a place in our public schools. It is the job of the school district to prepare students for their best possible futures–futures that probably don’t include wearing leggings or yoga pants to the office. They are fine for gym class, for lounging around on the weekends, but in school, the goal should be to learn, not be comfortable. In fact, not allowing any sort of loungewear on the school grounds is a great way to improve the wardrobe of students before they go into college or the workforce. Let’s teach our kids how to dress for success.  As is currently the case of some dress codes or dressing standards, schools are typically assuming that boys can’t pay attention because of the way girls dress; however, we might not be giving either party the benefit of the doubt. By high school, if schools have done their jobs, our students should know how to act. If they don’t, then it is up to principals, guidance counselors, teachers, or other male students to have a meeting of the minds with these young men. This is a topic that will continue to cause contention in our public schools as districts deal with new trends and fads.

Resources

NY Daily News: ‘Distracting’ Yoga Pants Banned By Officials at North Dakota High School

Billings Gazette: Why Yoga Pants Are Incredibly Dangerous to Today’s Youth

My Fox Philly: High School Bans Yoga Pants

Alternet: High School Bans Dangerous Threat to Male Students: Yoga Pants

Fox 17: Leggings and Yoga Pants Are Banned at Niles High School

Boston.com: Your Guide to America’s War on Yoga Pants

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post School Dress Codes: Are Yoga Pants Really the Problem? appeared first on Law Street.

As Millennial women, we often have to take advantage of any possible networking opportunities to make a great first impression. But there’s a lot of variation in women’s clothing, and sometimes its difficult to figure out how to maximize your self-presentation. So, how should you dress for a professional event? Should you go with traditional black bottoms and a white blouse? Or can you spice it up with some bold colors and patterns?

In some cases it’s perfectly acceptable to stray from the traditional professional look, but there’s a fine line between jazzing up business casual and dressing for a party. Presenting oneself professionally can be challenging, but it’s imperative Millennial women learn to do so. Appearance and self-presentation go far beyond attire, and Millennials sometimes overlook minor details when preparing for professional events.

I witnessed many young women who failed and many who succeeded in presenting themselves professionally at the National Conference for the Public Relations Student Society of America this weekend. With more than 1,200 college students from across the country in attendance, I began to see a trend in my peers: some individuals truly understand how to present themselves professionally, but many Millennial women do not pay as much attention to detail in their appearances as they should.

While some style choices are obviously acceptable, other self-presentation decisions may negate professionalism. Below is a list of dos and don’ts for building a professional presence for interviews, conventions, conferences, and other professional events.

DO

• Wear modest clothes that cover your cleavage, lower back, midriff, and thighs.
• Wear light, natural-looking makeup, if you wear makeup at all. There’s no need to go for a full-on smoky eye look at the office.
• Bring professional accessories. Bring purses that can fit padfolios or other organizers and devices.
• Hand out your business cards! What better way is there to quickly promote your personal brand?
• Eradicate the use of filler words, for example, “like,” “uh,” or “um.” It’s extremely distracting when listening to someone ask a question in which every other words is “like.” This is easier said than done, no doubt; click here for some tips on how to stop saying “like.”

DON’T

• Wear too much perfume. Walking past someone whose scent is too strong can deter other individuals from approaching that person to talk.
• Wear short, tight skirts/dresses. Professional events are not the time to show off the results of all those squats you did. Skirts and dresses should at least lineup with your fingertips when your hands are at your sides.
• Wear heavy, gaudy or intense makeup. The makeup you wear in professional settings should enhance your natural beauty.
• Wear clothes that are too casual. Avoid wearing sneakers, T-shirts, sweat clothes, and clothes with company logos.
• Let your nail polish chip. Chipped nail polish can send messages that your are lazy. It’s harder to notice chips on lighter, softer colors than it is with dark or bright colors.

At professional events, your appearance is your brand. The way you look is the first information you convey to others about your personality. Thus, paying attention to details and adhering to some typical professional attire standards can help you appear more professional. You can be trendy and professional at the same time–your style may even help get you noticed.

—

Natasha Paulmeno (@NatashaPaulmeno) is an aspiring PR professional studying at the University of Maryland. She is learning to speak Spanish fluently through travel, music, and school. In her spare time she enjoys Bachata music, playing with her dog, and exploring social media trends.

Featured image courtesy of [Vladimir Yaitskiy via Flickr]

Natasha Paulmeno

Natasha Paulmeno is an aspiring PR professional studying at the University of Maryland. She is learning to speak Spanish fluently through travel, music, and school. In her spare time she enjoys Bachata music, playing with her dog, and exploring social media trends. Contact Natasha at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Do’s and Don’ts of Professional Presentation for Millennial Women appeared first on Law Street.

I was recently married, and my husband is in the armed services. While military life isn’t quite what Army Wives would have you believe, there are definitely some aspects I have had to get used to. One of these is the dress code. Recently I went to the PX (think a T.J. Maxx with Wal-Mart prices) on our new base, and encountered a woman being turned away from the door because her midriff was showing. When I say “showing” I mean her tank top had ridden up about two inches. She did not look inappropriately dressed at all — clearly she had just thrown on her tank and jean shorts to do some shopping — yet she was being told she was in violation of the rules.

This was not the first time I had come into contact with strict military clothing restrictions. While my then-fiance was still stationed in Hawaii, I flew there so we could get married and honeymoon on the islands. While there, I ended up — apparently — being in violation of the dress code not once, but twice.

The first time happened shortly after the wedding, when my husband, some friends, and I went to a bar on the Naval base. It was country-themed, with a huge floor for line dancing, so I dressed accordingly: high-waisted skater skirt, polka-dotted crop top, Keds, and bandana headband. When showing our IDs to the bouncer, he stopped me and said, “Ma’am, you’re going to have to pull your shirt down or your skirt up.”

Now, this was the first time I had had any exposure to the dress code. My husband, not being known to wear crop tops himself, had not yet told me about it. I was understandably confused; barely an inch of my lower rib cage was showing, and my skirt was not short by any standard. Not wanting to cause a scene, I pulled down my shirt and was let in.

My second violation was pointed out when we went to the on-base golf course. I had on pastel shorts from the Gap and a white tank top. Not a spaghetti-strap tank, mind you (which would not have been a violation anyway), but a thick-strapped, loose fitting, high-neckline shirt. The man checking people in took my husband’s ID, wrote us down to tee off, then looked at me and said: “Ma’am, that type of shirt is not allowed here.”

I believe my jaw might have involuntarily dropped open. I looked down at my shirt and back up at him, saying “Tank tops? Or white shirts?”

Not amused by my sarcasm, he informed me that tank tops were not allowed and that to be let on the course I would have to buy a shirt in their shop or go home and change. Excuse me, sir, if I don’t want to buy a $50 Puma polo just to play golf. Needless to say, we did not play golf that day.

My point with sharing these examples is not to say that the military needs to take away its dress code. I understand that there is a necessity for uniformity: it makes things easier to regulate, tampers jealousy, and creates a global standard for all active military and their families. Women are not the only ones who have regulations. Men most certainly cannot be found in cropped off short-shorts. My point is that uniformity is not, truly, the only reason women have their clothing choices regulated.

Personally, I have no problem with the way other people dress. They’re expressing their individual style, wearing what they find comfortable, or dressing up for a special occasion (like going to a country bar). I would never call a woman “trashy” for wearing a tight-fitting dress or 6-inch heels, and I certainly wouldn’t say that lewd behavior toward a woman dressed that way is justified. Believe it or not, women DO NOT dress the way they do for the benefit of men or other women. 

When an organization’s dress code seeks to put a stop to those “trashy” fashion trends, they are encouraging uniformity, yes, but they are also saying that a woman showing her midriff, or her shoulders, is inviting inappropriate attention. That somehow the way she dresses makes it her fault men sexually harass her.

Let me explain. The US military continues to have a terrifyingly high number of sexual assault cases each year, yet thousands more go unreported. They are not, by any means, the only organization that has the same problem. This is a huge issue, and one that will not be solved easily because victims are encouraged to keep their assaults quiet. Dress codes like the one the military has in place are there not just for uniformity, but to discourage sexual assault.

If this doesn’t seem ridiculous to you, let me put it another way. In an episode of How I Met Your Mother, Marshall seduces Lily by showing her his calves. Take a look at this quick clip from the episode:

The scene is hilarious because a woman put into a sexual frenzy by the sight of a man’s legs seems ludicrous. Yet, when a woman goes to report a rape, one of the questions she is asked is “What were you wearing?” As if the sight of her bare shoulders caused a man to force himself on her. Telling women what they can and cannot wear to discourage sexual assault is telling them that, somehow, it is their fault when it happens.

Let’s be clear: WHAT SOMEONE IS WEARING DOES NOT JUSTIFY NOR CAUSE SEXUAL ASSAULT.

So, do I think the military and other organizations with similar dress regulations need to take those regulations away? No. Like I said before, I get why they’re there. What I am saying is the reasons behind those dress codes need to change. Instead of encouraging women to cover up to prevent rape, let’s encourage men to be respectful. Instead of saying “cover your midriff” let’s say “don’t catcall someone on the street.” Only when we acknowledge the problem can we change the perspective.

—

Morgan McMurray (@mcflurrybatman) is a freelance copywriter and blogger based in Savannah, Georgia. She spends her time writing, reading, and attempting to dance gracefully. She has also been known to binge-watch Netflix while knitting scarves.

 Featured image courtesy of [Florian Ramel via Flickr]

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Uniformity Isn’t the Only Reason Organizations Enforce Dress Codes appeared first on Law Street.