Sexist school rules?

TriangularGuy

"Students are expected to be neat and tidy in dress and appearance. Excessive use of hair colouring and make-up is forbidden. The only jewellery allowed is a watch, a ring, a chain and a pair of ear studs for girls, a watch and a ring for boys. Any other rings/clips are not allowed on the ear; nose stud(s) or piercings on any other part of the face/body are not allowed."
This is an extract from my school rules of a secondary school in the mid-lands. I was just wondering would this be considered sexist, unequal or unfair? Sometimes a boy would wear an ear ring but it wouldn't be long till he is made to take it out. No body has really challenged the school on this, do you think this is something worth bringing to the board of management?

endacl

TriangularGuy wrote: »

do you think this is something worth bringing to the board of management?

Only after you have successfully challenged and overcome every 'actual' inequality and injustice that still exists in the world. Unless this is your first step in vanquishing tyranny? They do say its wise not to bite off more than you can chew to start with...

Cookie_Monster

write them a letter claiming sexual discrimination, see what they say.

smellmepower

No,they'll pretty much tell you that if you don't like their rules then you are free to attend another school.It's good preparation for the conformity that will be expected of you in the average workplace anyway.

You can go mad once you get to college and pierce every inch of your body and dye your hair all the colours of the rainbow if you want,and nobody will say a word to you though!

Zambia

If I was the school I would agree and change the rules and bar girls wearing earrings.

Kudos to you and your first world issue.

No Pants

Zambia wrote: »

If I was the school I would agree and change the rules and bar girls wearing earrings.

Kudos to you and your first world issue.

And make it quite clear to all that it was because of the OP.

Paz-CCFC

Why is the OP getting grief for asking this? I think it's a completely legitimate question. Differing standards for males and females is not to be expected in the workplace, because that would go against employment equality legislation, so it's not really good preparation. If anything, the OP standing up against something he/she believes isn't right is good preparation, not just for his/her future work life, but also in general.

The "first world problems" complaints on here are just rubbish. Just because there are worse things in the world, doesn't mean that we can't take exception to lesser things in our lives. And complaining about people with first world problems on your high speed broadband and expensive computer/smartphone is itself a first world problem.

A couple of classy replies too, with some people essentially hoping that the OP gets victimised/bullied by the school and his/her peers for making a complaint.


If you think it's a legitimate complaint, OP, then I think you should go for it. Remain polite and calm in your tone/writing. The rules are being bound upon you, so you most definitely have the right to express your opinion.

Little CuChulainn

I am reminded of Norris v A.G.

http://archive.equal-jus.eu/509/2/THE_SUPREME_COURT.pdf

Furthermore, in alleging discrimination because the prohibition on the conduct which he claims he is entitled to engage in is not extended to similar conduct by females, the plaintiff is complaining of a situation which, if it did not exist or were remedied, would confer on him no benefit or vindicate no right of his which he claims to be breached.

No Pants

Paz-CCFC wrote: »

Why is the OP getting grief for asking this? I think it's a completely legitimate question. Differing standards for males and females is not to be expected in the workplace, because that would go against employment equality legislation, so it's not really good preparation. If anything, the OP standing up against something he/she believes isn't right is good preparation, not just for his/her future work life, but also in general.

The OP should be concerned about his education, as should his parents. We have enough people who know all about their rights and sweet foxtrot alpha about their responsibilities.

the world wonders

No Pants wrote: »

The OP should be concerned about his education, as should his parents.

As should the school.

We have enough people who know all about their rights and sweet foxtrot alpha about their responsibilities.

We also have enough people who get off on policing trivial rules while ignoring their wider responsibilities.

To the OP, it seems like you're out of luck:

http://www.equality.ie/Files-2/Selected-Issues-in-Irish-Equality-Case-Law-2008-2011.pdf
In yet another case of this kind, the Tribunal found that a prohibition on boys wearing earrings in a secondary school’s uniform policy did not constitute gender discrimination. Distinguishing the case from the earlier cases relating to hair length, the Tribunal noted that the case before it concerned “a single earring that can be easily removed by the complainant and replaced when outside the school setting” and which therefore had “no impact on the manner in which the complainant chooses to dress outside the school”. While observing that a school must have in place procedures which allow for a change in the dress code in line with changing patterns and lifestyles, the Tribunal in this case emphasised the school’s right to determine its own uniform codes and concluded that it was not discriminatory to have different rules for males and females in relation to the wearing of earrings as part of the overall school dress code.

goz83

No Pants wrote: »

The OP should be concerned about his education, as should his parents. We have enough people who know all about their rights and sweet foxtrot alpha about their responsibilities.

Are you saying the OP should just ignore this obvious sexual discrimination? Why is it ok for a girl to wear ear studs and necklaces, where a boy is told he can't? Girls in recent years have been allowed to wear trousers instead of skirts in schools that once insisted on an impossible to change dress code. If we teach our young to ignore injustice, however insignificant you perceive the injustice, or discrimination to be; then how are we to expect real change? The sit sit back and shut your mouth approach doesn't work well for anybody. The OP is hardly going to cause a riot. But he should seek some support and get a few signatures from both sexes and maybe even a teacher or two.

coylemj

This has been trashed out in courts all over the world especially in connection with workplace rules concerning dress, jewellery and general grooming and the consensus seems to be that rules about dress and general appearance must by their nature be sexist because men and women dress differently and there are factors which come into play which are inescapably sexist such as rules about facial hair which clearly will only apply to men.

Attempting to produce a dress code which applies equally to male and female students in a secondary school is simply stretching things into the land of fantasy.

No Pants

goz83 wrote: »

injustice

FFS, it must be nice to have nothing better to do than pick the most trivial of issues. Take it to the European courts OP, this is an outrage! Everyone should have the right to stick pieces of metal through parts of their head.

Paz-CCFC

No Pants wrote: »

The OP should be concerned about his education, as should his parents. We have enough people who know all about their rights and sweet foxtrot alpha about their responsibilities.

Education extends beyond textbooks. How do you know that the OP isn't concerned with his studies? What business is it of yours?

the world wonders wrote: »

As should the school.We also have enough people who get off on policing trivial rules while ignoring their wider responsibilities.

To the OP, it seems like you're out of luck:

Interesting. Could you say that an earring isn't easily removable, though? For the first few weeks after getting your ear pierced, aren't you supposed to keep it in at all times? And couldn't you say that the skirt requirement for only females (which was ruled as discrimination by the tribunals) is okay, because you could easily change in the changing room after school/work hours?

And what about transgenders? Would a school force, for example, a male dress code on someone who identifies as female?

Zambia

Paz-CCFC wrote: »

Why is the OP getting grief for asking this? I think it's a completely legitimate question. Differing standards for males and females is not to be expected in the workplace, because that would go against employment equality legislation, so it's not really good preparation. If anything, the OP standing up against something he/she believes isn't right is good preparation, not just for his/her future work life, but also in general.

The "first world problems" complaints on here are just rubbish. Just because there are worse things in the world, doesn't mean that we can't take exception to lesser things in our lives. And complaining about people with first world problems on your high speed broadband and expensive computer/smartphone is itself a first world problem.

A couple of classy replies too, with some people essentially hoping that the OP gets victimised/bullied by the school and his/her peers for making a complaint.


If you think it's a legitimate complaint, OP, then I think you should go for it. Remain polite and calm in your tone/writing. The rules are being bound upon you, so you most definitely have the right to express your opinion.

It's not a legitimate compliant it's bollocks.

In every course of life if you want to get ahead your have to conform a little. The school need to have some rules and regulations in order to basically function.

Don't encourage such nonsense.

Op when you leave school you can pierce yourself as much as you like.

Paz-CCFC

Zambia wrote: »

It's not a legitimate compliant it's bollocks.

What's bollocks was your reply earlier, about acting out of spite towards a child. How petty can you get?

In every course of life if you want to get ahead your have to conform a little. The school need to have some rules and regulations in order to basically function.

That's not what's at issue. The problem is the rules applying equally to everybody.

Don't encourage such nonsense.

Equality is nonsense?

goz83

No Pants wrote: »

FFS, it must be nice to have nothing better to do than pick the most trivial of issues. Take it to the European courts OP, this is an outrage! Everyone should have the right to stick pieces of metal through parts of their head.

Are you not also replying in this thread? Your mocking of the OP is pathetic. I don't see why some posters feel the need to ridicule posters who have a legitimate query. Sure, it's not exactly burying hundreds of illegitimate babies in a septic tank, but it is still discrimination and should not be allowed.

It may be a relatively trivial issue, but it is, at the very core, discrimination by gender. Can you give one good reason why a boy should not be allowed to wear an ear stud or a chain, when a girl is allowed to do so? As mentioned above, in the case of ear piercings, you are not supposed to remove the stud for a considerable period of time, as the hole may close up. If the school rules applied to equally to both genders, there is no problem. If you have nothing constructive to add to the thread, then don't post. All you've done so far is is whinge and jeer.

johnciall

1, From his other posts on Boards the OP is 16. He can't do much about the major injustices of the world, however challenging one where he sees it is good practice. Reading the original post he's clearly thought his position out and is a lot more articulate than most people who come here looking for advice. Will he get the policy changed? Probably not, but that's no reason to shoot him down & ridicule him.

No Pants wrote: »

FFS, it must be nice to have nothing better to do than pick the most trivial of issues. Take it to the European courts OP, this is an outrage! Everyone should have the right to stick pieces of metal through parts of their head.

2. It certainly shouldn't be a right based on gender. In other cases where the roles were reversed [skirts & trousers] the rules were changed, but it wasn't an over night thing, people had to complain & fight for it.

OP, go for it. You probably won't win but you might get people thinking, and it's good practice for bigger injustices later in life.

BeatlesFan1992

Or you could just carry on with school. Do your work, get along with teachers etc and make school a memorable time. Why waste your time arguing? I would do anything to go back too school. I'm 22 now and secondary school were the best years of my life.

liamog

BeatlesFan1992 wrote: »

Or you could just carry on with school. Do you work, get along with teachers etc and make school and memorable time. Why waste your time arguing? I would do anything to go back too school. I'm 22 now and secondary school were the best years of my life.

Its not time wasting, discrimination should be challenged, now the only way I can see of OP winning his case is to overtly where the same ear rings as one of the girls.

BeatlesFan1992

liamog wrote: »

Its not time wasting, discrimination should be challenged, now the only way I can see of OP winning his case is to overtly where the same ear rings as one of the girls.

And the when OP leaves school, are they then planning to do the same thing in a working environment when they don't agree with another set of rules?

School is there for education, make friends, have fun and enjoy your teenage years. Why spend time trying to argue about a set of rules that the school probably won't even bother backing down to?

johnciall

BeatlesFan1992 wrote: »

And the when OP leaves school, are they then planning to do the same thing in a working environment when they don't agree with another set of rules?

School is there for education, make friends, have fun and enjoy your teenage years. Why spend time trying to argue about a set of rules that the school probably won't even bother backing down to?

Because these things have been backed down on in the past, and it's good practise for going up against bigger injustices in later life.

This is how inequalities are changed, because people argue against them.

BeatlesFan1992

johnciall wrote: »

Because these things have been backed down on in the past, and it's good practise for going up against bigger injustices in later life.

This is how inequalities are changed, because people argue against them.

My school had the exact same rules and I'm pretty sure there have been a handful of arguments about the whole earring debate but at the end of the day, the school was only trying to teach students to understand that you only need to wear uniforms to school and that's that. The school is only backing themselves up.

But if OP wants to forward on the complaint then he can always ask to speak to the principal, or vice principal, and explain his compliant. Be wise to have a few people backing him up as well as well, just to make other voices known.

goz83

BeatlesFan1992 wrote: »

And the when OP leaves school, are they then planning to do the same thing in a working environment when they don't agree with another set of rules?

School is there for education, make friends, have fun and enjoy your teenage years. Why spend time trying to argue about a set of rules that the school probably won't even bother backing down to?

Why shouldn't rules be challenged? At school, at work, anywhere there are unfair, sexist or racist rules. It is not just about personal disagreement....it is about gender inequality. If the rule is inapplicable, or impractical to be applied to both boys and girls, then it is understandable as to why the rule would only apply to one gender. For example; it wouldn't be wise for the OP to insist that sanitary pads be made available in the boys toilets. But it does make sense to challenge what is in the OP.

School is for lots of things. And it's a great place to learn how to negotiate and be a team leader, or team player, rather than just conform to what the people in charge say. If the school doesn't back down, that's fair enough. But I bet they would think about it. Thought is the start of change. The experience will also be a good one, regardless of the decision made. If the OP gathers support from around the school, it will certainly make the decision makers pay attention.

OP, have fun respectfully challenging rules the school management probably haven't considered for many years. Build up a strong case to support why you believe the school should alter the restrictions placed on the male population and point out that there is no harm in such a change. It might even give the management a chance to earn a few brownie points by showing that students can be taken seriously.

Zambia

Sun Tzu stated that knowing when to fight and when not to will lead to victory.

Op you can listen to your cheer squad and expend your energy fighting this. In the end you will have wasted your education time and the time of your friends.

In the end you are fighting for the right to look cool in front if your peers. Which on the face of it is pretty shallow.

P_1

Sadly this is a classic example of when principle clashes with practicality. It would be wonderful if this discrimination was to stop but until we reach a time where people can just stop getting worked up over other people's appearances I doubt it will.

Orion

Zambia wrote: »

It's not a legitimate compliant it's bollocks.

In every course of life if you want to get ahead your have to conform a little. The school need to have some rules and regulations in order to basically function.

Don't encourage such nonsense.

Op when you leave school you can pierce yourself as much as you like.

Why is it bollocks? Would a boy wearing ear studs totally destroy the fabric of education in Ireland. Schools should be more concerned with education than removing any individuality of young people in their personal choices. Your argument is nonsense.

Orion

johnciall wrote: »

2. It certainly shouldn't be a right based on gender. In other cases where the roles were reversed [skirts & trousers] the rules were changed, but it wasn't an over night thing, people had to complain & fight for it.

http://gawker.com/swedish-train-drivers-wearing-skirts-to-work-512174435

234

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I am reminded of Norris v A.G.

http://archive.equal-jus.eu/509/2/THE_SUPREME_COURT.pdf

Never the best case on equality to quote from.

coylemj wrote: »

This has been trashed out in courts all over the world especially in connection with workplace rules concerning dress, jewellery and general grooming and the consensus seems to be that rules about dress and general appearance must by their nature be sexist because men and women dress differently and there are factors which come into play which are inescapably sexist such as rules about facial hair which clearly will only apply to men.

Attempting to produce a dress code which applies equally to male and female students in a secondary school is simply stretching things into the land of fantasy.

Well some universities now frame their dress code for ceremonial occasions in gender neutral terms. It's quite an easy change to make.

Zambia

Orion wrote: »

Why is it bollocks? Would a boy wearing ear studs totally destroy the fabric of education in Ireland. Schools should be more concerned with education than removing any individuality of young people in their personal choices. Your argument is nonsense.

We all give up our personal choices at some stage. Leaving his ears stud free for a few years is not going to do him any harm.

Pat Mustard

OP, this is an absolute travesty of justice. You should be allowed to wear a skirt and a hair net if you that's what you want. Let's fight it all the way to the European Court of Human Rights. :pac:

No Pants

Paz-CCFC wrote: »

What business is it of yours?

Going to be a quiet discussion forum with that attitude.

goz83

Zambia wrote: »

We all give up our personal choices at some stage. Leaving his ears stud free for a few years is not going to do him any harm.

And gaining an equal right, however trivial, will do him good. He is likely to gain a greater respect for the school management should they even give his concern some thought. I doubt the OP will be taking much time or energy away from his education and I would argue that it is more educational to challenge these unfair rules.

The Mustard wrote: »

OP, this is an absolute travesty of justice. You should be allowed to wear a skirt and a hair net if you that's what you want. Let's fight it all the way to the European Court of Human Rights. :pac:

Actually, he should be allowed. Thats kind of the whole point. Girls are now allowed to wear trousers, because it was seen a sexist that they had to wear skirts, so why should a boy not be allowed wear an ear stud, or a chain? He should. I am shocked by the manner in which the Moderators have replied to the OP, mocking him on this forum, it's disgraceful. You could have made your points without the attitude and sarcasm.

There were (and still are) inequalities at work places surrounding smoke breaks. A smoker is often allowed a cigarette break per hour of between 5 & 10 minutes. For a normal 8 hour shift (7 working hours), a smoker can take between 35 & 70 minutes per day on smoke breaks. Lets say an hour a day to keep it easy. That's 5 hours a week. 250 hours a year (i have taken 2 weeks holidays into account). When you do the sums, that's 37 working days the smoker is taking off, because they have decided to smoke. That's over 7 weeks of holidays!!! What about the non smoker? Why should the non smoker have to work 250 more hours than a smoker who does the same job?

When I was 17, i was working at a warehouse and thought it was very unfair that smokers were allowed to take extra break. Each break was actually about 15 minutes, because the walk to and from the smoking area. And when you are down from three, to two and sometimes to one person on the end of a production line, it becomes a problem. I took it to management, because the non smokers had to work extra hard to allow the smokers to have their breaks. Even though I was a little scrote at the time, I put the sums on paper and got the names of some who agreed fully with me, which happened to include a couple of smokers. It took me a half hour on my break to do this and the backing of a permanent staff member.

The following week, the term smoke break had changed. A memo was posted about the warehouse allowing staff "10 minute personal breaks, if required every two hours, not including toilet breaks". There was a strong union presence and I had the backing of the union rep, who was a smoker. The company could have just as easily cancelled the loosely monitored smoke breaks, but they decided to keep the staff happy and allowed these breaks as long as production was not affected. At least on my production line, it resulted in less smoke breaks, because the smokers did not want the non smokers taking breaks and leaving them to do more work. If these things are not challenged, they are not changed.

Pat Mustard

Let's look at it from your perspective. What action do you think that the OP should take? How much of his weekly pocket money do you think that he should set aside to cover lawyers' fees, or do you think that he should represent himself in this critical human rights case?

Paz-CCFC

BeatlesFan1992 wrote: »

Or you could just carry on with school. Do your work, get along with teachers etc and make school a memorable time. Why waste your time arguing? I would do anything to go back too school. I'm 22 now and secondary school were the best years of my life.

It doesn't have to be wasted time arguing. It doesn't have to prevent him from working and getting along with his teachers. It's very easy to make a reasoned complaint without it causing any problems. Any half-decent teacher would hear a student out if they spoke to them in a respectful manner.

BeatlesFan1992 wrote: »

And the when OP leaves school, are they then planning to do the same thing in a working environment when they don't agree with another set of rules?

It's called industrial relations and it happens all the time. The Haddington Road Agreement, the Croke Park, the Aer Lingus strike, the Vita Cortex sit in etc. The reason that we as workers today have many of the rights which we see as fundamental is because some people didn't agree with "another set of rules" and complained.

School is there for education, make friends, have fun and enjoy your teenage years. Why spend time trying to argue about a set of rules that the school probably won't even bother backing down to?

Will a single complaint destroy his education, lose friends, prevent any fun or enjoyment from being had?

And it's not impossible that the school will change their rules. There was something similar in my old school about the earrings, and after gender discrimination complaints, they changed it so that both boys and girls could wear them.

Zambia wrote: »

Sun Tzu stated that knowing when to fight and when not to will lead to victory.

Op you can listen to your cheer squad and expend your energy fighting this. In the end you will have wasted your education time and the time of your friends.

In the end you are fighting for the right to look cool in front if your peers. Which on the face of it is pretty shallow.

In the end, you're not coming onto this thread for a proper discussion. You're just trying to belittle a child to make yourself feel big. Which on the face of it is pretty shallow.

We can all make assumptions.

Zambia wrote: »

We all give up our personal choices at some stage. Leaving his ears stud free for a few years is not going to do him any harm.

And women having to wear skirts at work for a few hours a day is not going to do them any harm, right?

The Mustard wrote: »

OP, this is an absolute travesty of justice. You should be allowed to wear a skirt and a hair net if you that's what you want. Let's fight it all the way to the European Court of Human Rights. :pac:

Ya see, no one even mentioned taking legal action. Stop trying to belittle the OP, just because it's not a problem on par with what David Norris and Louise O'Keeffe had to fight for. All that he has discussed is using the internal dispute resolutions - which would be present in any workplace, and should be in schools, too - to solve his problem. That seems like a mature outlook, to me. It's just a shame that some of the adults coming on here, deriding his position, couldn't show a similar level of maturity in their discussion.

No Pants

In fairness, we could have the next Gareth Peirce here.

MickeyD

Don't get most of the people's responses here. OP asked a question about discrimination and he's getting slagged off for it and receiving mostly small-minded replies. Just because it's a relatively small injustice and an issue that is out of mind of most of the posters here it still is gender inequality at the end of the day. Would you have had the same reaction to the first woman who said she didn't want to have to wear a skirt when guys can wear trousers? "nice first world problem there lady, maybe try to stamp out fascism first". Just because its a small inconvenience and you can put it off for a few years or take it out in the evenings isn't good enough.

To the OP: I wouldn't expect any change if you challenged it - you can look at the majority of the responses here to get an idea of the reactions you would face. The old fogies behind the hammer and on school boards and the like in Ireland would take a dim view since most of them would be of the opinion that a guy shouldn't be wearing a stud and girls should. Although people were being sarcastic here you probably would have to take it to the european courts to get a fair hearing! Would be interesting to hear what they say at the very least.

School uniform rules are necessary and somewhat arbitrary. Are there lines that seem somewhat unfair? Absolutely. But you have to look at this from a proportionate point of view. One of the purposes of the uniform policy is, obviously, to create uniformity. It is to reduce individualism precisely because it has been shown to make teaching easier and learning more effective. That goal is, inherently, equal and correct.

A line has to be drawn somewhere. What men and women respectively can and cannot wear is an administrative decision.

However let's look at the question at hand: Is it unequal to prevent a man from wearing an earring if a woman is allowed to do so within a school environment?

When a woman wears an earring, thanks to social convention, it is seen as nothing out of the ordinary. Simply a regular and expected part of quite simple personal jewellery. Beyond that, and I am making an assumption here, it is likely that female earrings must be no more than simple studs are quite reserved earrings. Male earrings are not simply an accessory, they are a fashion statement and a signal of individuality. The entire purpose of the uniform is to minimise individuality as much as possible. It is an entirely proportionate decision to not allow men wear earrings in school in those circumstances. The underlying policy is absolutely equal, to limit the individuality of the students, particularly in terms of outward appearance. The application of that policy is necessarily tailored to the groups within the school.

There's no actual inequality or sexism here.

MickeyD

Thanks for the well thought out, non-insulting post Kayroo. However, in my opinion, modern social convention wouldn't place male earrings out of the ordinary - perhaps back in the day this would be a bigger deal. I would agree that at least back when I was in school, most of the guys getting studs were doing it just to be controversial. The fact that it was so illicit made it more appealing to teenagers to challenge it. If it wasn't prohibited I reckon they would not have bothered!

I think the bigger issue here is what we perceive as 'normal' wear. Maybe the OP can convince all the lads to get their ears pierced and challenge today's social norms.

Zambia

I'm not belittling the issue, the issue is far to small to be reduced further.

MickeyD

That may be so but it's indicative of a much bigger issue - social and gender norms and expectations. Challenging the small ones is still a battle won. Although I think Ireland is still so conservative that most people want them to remain the same.

liamog

Time in school is about receiving and education.

In the OPs case he will learn more about forming arguments and gaining support from his peers than any social studies programme.

Gender discrimination is not allowed and should be challenged, unless you can provide a logical reason why earrings on a male student are going to affect the quality of education for him and his peers and that the same does not happen when a female student wears the same, then their is no argument to be had.

As MickeyD says, we are still quite conservative regarding Social and Gender norms, but discouraging those of us who are willing to stand up and say no is not the right answer.

School should not be a place to train a conformist workers. It is a place to educate people to give them the basic knowledge so they can go on to become artists, poets, engineers, doctors etc...

Arthur Beesley

They are doing your son a favour.

Pac1Man

MickeyD

MickeyD wrote: »

I think the bigger issue here is what we perceive as 'normal' wear. Maybe the OP can convince all the lads to get their ears pierced and challenge today's social norms.

It's not about being controversial. Wearing an earring for a man, whether you agree with it or not, is more of a fashion element than an expected or accepted form of personal dress. Neither men nor women in schools are allowed to wear items expressly for the purposes of fashion. The limits placed on that are one ring for men and one ring and earrings for women. It is a justifiable and completely rational limitation.

We can't just go around shouting about sexism and inequality whenever these situations arise. It undermines the genuine and obstructive sexism and discrimination that goes on all around us. This is a completely justifiable policy with, at the absolute most (and I am really stretching to even say this), negligible negative effects on any of the male students.

drkpower

Deleted User wrote: »

School uniform rules are necessary and somewhat arbitrary. Are there lines that seem somewhat unfair? Absolutely. But you have to look at this from a proportionate point of view. One of the purposes of the uniform policy is, obviously, to create uniformity. It is to reduce individualism precisely because it has been shown to make teaching easier and learning more effective. That goal is, inherently, equal and correct.

A line has to be drawn somewhere. What men and women respectively can and cannot wear is an administrative decision.

However let's look at the question at hand: Is it unequal to prevent a man from wearing an earring if a woman is allowed to do so within a school environment?

When a woman wears an earring, thanks to social convention, it is seen as nothing out of the ordinary. Simply a regular and expected part of quite simple personal jewellery. Beyond that, and I am making an assumption here, it is likely that female earrings must be no more than simple studs are quite reserved earrings. Male earrings are not simply an accessory, they are a fashionn statement and a signal of individuality. The entire purpose of the uniform is to minimise individuality as much as possible. It is an entirely proportionate decision to not allow men wear earrings in school in those circumstances. The underlying policy is absolutely equal, to limit the individuality of the students, particularly in terms of outward appearance. The application of that policy is necessarily tailored to the groups within the school.

There's no actual inequality or sexism here.

Excellent post.

Of course, where the battleground exists is around what are the relevant societal norms. In this regard, fair play and best of luck to the OP in trying to convince the school that the wearing of simple earrings by men is now such a norm. Students should be leading the charge in this respect. He may succeed; he may not. But he shouldn't be pilloried for his efforts by those who are old enough to understand the points Kayroo makes above.

Equally, though, the OP needs also to appreciate that - as Kayroo points out - that discriminatin and equality are nuanced issues. Make your case, OP, gather the evidence, gather the support of students and perhaps some teachers, and make the point strongly. But if you don't succeed, accept it. You don't win them all. And the school is not some kind of fascist organisation for having this rule. Someone (maybe you) will fight this issue again one day - or a similar one - and win.

I remember fighting a similar issue when I was in school many years ago over denim jackets (denim was the great evil back then). Of course I did it in a ham fisted way and made a horlicks of it. But I'm glad I tried.

liamog

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's not about being controversial. Wearing an earring for a man, whether you agree with it or not, is more of a fashion element than an expected or accepted form of personal dress. Neither men nor women in schools are allowed to wear items expressly for the purposes of fashion. The limits placed on that are one ring for men and one ring and earrings for women. It is a justifiable and completely rational limitation.

We can't just go around shouting about sexism and inequality whenever these situations arise. It undermines the genuine and obstructive sexism and discrimination that goes on all around us. This is a completely justifiable policy with, at the absolute most (and I am really stretching to even say this), negligible negative effects on any of the male students.

How is the wearing of an earring by a male any less of a fashion thing than the wearing of an earing by a female.

How in any way shape or form is this a justifiably sexist policy. This is literally a case of rule that's only difference is the sex of the person to whom the rule applies.

goz83

This thread is a perfect example of discrimination. Appears to me that the very people who are supposed to moderate have either decided to belittle the issue, or belittle the OP. Why? Well, because the OP is of school going age, so his issue is insignificant, even if it is clearly cut discrimination by gender. The OP has been treated very poorly and certain posters would appear to be ageist. Their opinions are clearly and undeniably correct, because they can jeer and taunt the OP for asking a legitimate question. I bet the OP has learned a great lesson here. Don't come to Boards.ie and expect to be treated with some sort respect when you have a question....but jump on the mod wagon, be a thanks whore and you're alright. :mad:

Pat Mustard

goz83 wrote: »

This thread is a perfect example of discrimination. Appears to me that the very people who are supposed to moderate have either decided to belittle the issue, or belittle the OP. Why? Well, because the OP is of school going age, so his issue is insignificant, even if it is clearly cut discrimination by gender. The OP has been treated very poorly and certain posters would appear to be ageist. Their opinions are clearly and undeniably correct, because they can jeer and taunt the OP for asking a legitimate question. I bet the OP has learned a great lesson here. Don't come to Boards.ie and expect to be treated with some sort respect when you have a question....but jump on the mod wagon, be a thanks whore and you're alright. :mad:

This is an overreaction.

If the guy wants to wear earrings, great. Maybe they should let him. Another outcome could be that the school authorities could just ban earrings outright.

Certain posters on this thread may believe that wearing earrings is important. Others may disagree. It's not about mocking any person. It's about disagreement, or holding a view that the problem is not important. I don't mean sexism here. I don't mean gender discrimination. I mean wearing earrings.

People express different views, and if they want to poke fun at ideas that they think are comical, they should be allowed to criticize those ideas in this way.

It is unreasonable to assert that this is disrespectful to any person.

If you think that this matter is important, perhaps you should put forward your own view on how the matter should be resolved and what the likely outcome would be.

goz83

The Mustard wrote: »

This is an overreaction.

If the guy wants to wear earrings, great. Maybe they should let him. Another outcome could be that the school authorities could just ban earrings outright.

Certain posters on this thread may believe that wearing earrings is important. Others may disagree. It's not about mocking any person. It's about disagreement, or holding a view that the problem is not important. I don't mean sexism here. I don't mean gender discrimination. I mean wearing earrings.

People express different views, and if they want to poke fun at ideas that they think are comical, they should be allowed to criticize those ideas in this way.

It is unreasonable to assert that this is disrespectful to any person.

If you think that this matter is important, perhaps you should put forward your own view on how the matter should be resolved and what the likely outcome would be.

The OP is 16 according to the research of another poster. Wearing ear rings at school to you and I is not important. But, the OP has stated that he belives it is gender inequality and is quite right. Poking a little fun at the issue is fine, i think, but this shoukd at least be followed by a genuine reply, otherwise it undermines the OP who has come on here to seek some advice. Instead, he has been jeered off and to make it worse, has been mostly by moderators, who would usually be expected to keep a thread relatively clean and on topic. I believe it is disrespectful to jeer the OP, simply because the issue is about jewellery and dress code. I have never been one for jewellery and ear rings myself, but seeing a 16 year old come on here, asking kindly for views and then being ridiculed for his first world issue is just wrong.

Kayroo is the only poster who did not taunt the OP in opposition. I am not suggesting that we all become sterile and be unable to poke a little fun. But, in this thread, I think it went a bit too far.

I have already given my thoughts to the OP on what action he can take, earlier in the thread.

Some examples below of what was said.

Zambia wrote: »

If I was the school I would agree and change the rules and bar girls wearing earrings.

Kudos to you and your first world issue.

That post was fine, but it was the start of the jeering. Maybe because it was a mod who posted it, others felt like jumping on the wagon?

Zambia wrote: »

It's not a legitimate compliant it's bollocks.

In every course of life if you want to get ahead your have to conform a little. The school need to have some rules and regulations in order to basically function.

Don't encourage such nonsense.

Op when you leave school you can pierce yourself as much as you like.

Imho, this totally undermined the OP. It says "your problem is bollocks. Pi55 off and dont be posting here with your nonsense".

Zambia wrote: »

Sun Tzu stated that knowing when to fight and when not to will lead to victory.

Op you can listen to your cheer squad and expend your energy fighting this. In the end you will have wasted your education time and the time of your friends.

In the end you are fighting for the right to look cool in front if your peers. Which on the face of it is pretty shallow.

I'm not sure the OP said he wanted to wear jewellery. He was arguing about the unfairness and asking advice on how to go about changing the rules.

The Mustard wrote: »

OP, this is an absolute travesty of justice. You should be allowed to wear a skirt and a hair net if you that's what you want. Let's fight it all the way to the European Court of Human Rights. :pac:

:rolleyes:

The Mustard wrote: »

Let's look at it from your perspective. What action do you think that the OP should take? How much of his weekly pocket money do you think that he should set aside to cover lawyers' fees, or do you think that he should represent himself in this critical human rights case?

If that is not belittling the OP, I don't know what is.

Zambia wrote: »

I'm not belittling the issue, the issue is far to small to be reduced further.

Again......small issue to us, but relevant to the OP and is certainly still gender inequality. The OP came on here with an issue that is important to him. It was disrespectful to mock him and not offer any real way forward.

So, I don't think my recent post was an over reaction at all. Seems to be a common enough thing now on boards to slag off the OP unless the OP is a woman in distress. That has been my observation over recent months. That, and the over use of "High Horse".

liamog

liamog wrote: »

How is the wearing of an earring by a male any less of a fashion thing than the wearing of an earing by a female.

How in any way shape or form is this a justifiably sexist policy. This is literally a case of rule that's only difference is the sex of the person to whom the rule applies.

Take an example of what's known as indirect discrimination. When a rule is absolutely the same for two people but the outcome is discriminatory. For example: offering an opportunity for advancement to teachers over the age of 40 but limiting it to those who had never taken a career break or sabbatical. Most female teachers take career breaks or sabbaticals while having their children while far fewer male teachers take career breaks or sabbaticals so the policy discriminates against female teachers.

What's important here is that the rules appears equal (men and women both take career breaks and sabbaticals) but the outcome is discriminatory. That's not what is occurring in the case of our young friend and his earring. In that instance the rules are patently different for boys and girls in order to achieve an equal outcome.

Now it may well be that earrings are utterly normal attire for a young boy now and that the policy is slowly becoming discriminatory in effect. I accept that. However I think that by virtue of the reactions in this thread alone we can agree that the topic is hardly agreed upon and that it is in the best interests of the school to take the decision that will lead to the most productive learning environment. As I stated before, the uniform policy for schools is designed to limit individuality and earrings are a sign of individuality for a boy that they simply are not for girls. It is a universally accepted social norm that women wear earrings. That seems to be an agreed fact between us all. It is not a universally accepted social norm for men to do the same. It still marks those who wear them apart from their peers and as such gives them individuality. That individuality is precisely what the school uniform policy is attempting to avoid. Therefore by allowing men to wear earrings as well as women the policy would actually discrimate against the female students by granting a level of individuality to the male students that they could not enjoy.

Equality discussions are far more nuanced than "we should all be able to do exactly the same things" because, frankly, we can't all do the same things nor do we want to. Equality is about being treated equally and having the same access to opportunities as everyone else and the policy of the school at the heart of this does precisely that. The limitations placed are on individualism and the rules used to achieve that are proportionate and equal in effect.