Carlow school issues clothing diktat to female students

jrosen

Hurrache wrote: »

The media storm was pretty much because of their reluctance to answer queries, and they let it roll.

Please there was pervy teacher comments as soon as the story broke.

I have no doubt there were sensible students who thought nothing more of that assembly and even sensible parents who called the school and had their answers directly from source

Im not sure about anyone else but if I thought something off about my own kids schools the last call id be making would be to a newspaper.

walshb

Hurrache wrote: »

More than once have you commented on what kids wear and how revealing they may be, and how uncomfortable you are because of it.

Where did I say I was uncomfortable?

Quit the nonsense..

I never said I was at all uncomfortable with clothing being worn in relation to this..

I said I agreed with the school and its wanting a dress code policy!

Hurrache

titan18 wrote: »

The chairwoman of the parents council matches up with the principals story tbf

The school handled it very badly and let it snowball so.

One thing it has shown though is the issue with some adults when it comes around to what kids, particularly girls, wear and how they look at it in a sexual way, projecting how they feel about it upon girls who for the most part wear such clothing for either comfort or fashion.

Any adult I know don't wear them for sexual reasons, by and large, unless for exercise, it's for comfort.

tabby aspreme

Hurrache wrote: »

The media storm was pretty much because of their reluctance to answer queries, and they let it roll.

Maybe the Principal wanted to get the truth of the matter, and double check what was or wasn't said, before he replied to the media.

Hurrache

jrosen wrote: »

Please there was pervy teacher comments as soon as the story broke.

Pervy teachers was the insinuation that came from the public, not the media.

Hurrache

walshb wrote: »

I said I agreed with the school and its wanting a dress code policy!

Dig up. Your argument started because you felt young kids wore clothes that you believe to be too revealing, it wasn't on the basis that a dress code is a dress code.

walshb wrote: »

You can bet that this policy was directed at the older teen girls in the school, where if they are dressing in the type clothes you see some of them wearing, then the school is dead right..

Schools are not the place for some of these overly revealing clothes..

We all know what we’re talking about here..

walshb wrote: »

Tight revealing leggings was the issue.

We know exactly the clothes that the school us takin it about here

Standard of "journalism" is shocking now.

jrosen

Hurrache wrote: »

Pervy teachers was the insinuation that came from the public, not the media.

It was implied by some media headlines. Male teachers distracted and the stupid public jump on it.

The J Stands for Jay

tabby aspreme wrote: »

Good interview by the Principal, another story of people looking to find offence where there is none .

Do you have a link? I'm not doing a good job of googling for it.

walshb

Hurrache wrote: »

Dig up. Your argument started because you felt young kids wore clothes that you believe to be too revealing, it wasn't on the basis that a dress code is a dress code.

Yes, some of the clothing for this school has been flagged as too revealing and sexualised, or whatever other description one wants to put on it

I agree that the school should be able to ban certain types dress, and bring in a dress code policy..

Inappropriate for a school setting is the crux of the issue.

I back the school here.

Nothing at all to do with me feeling uncomfortable.

So, quit that crap..

KaneToad

Hurrache wrote: »

The school handled it very badly and let it snowball so.

One thing it has shown though is the issue with some adults when it comes around to what kids, particularly girls, wear and how they look at it in a sexual way, projecting how they feel about it upon girls who for the most part wear such clothing for either comfort or fashion.

Any adult I know don't wear them for sexual reasons, by and large, unless for exercise, it's for comfort.

I disagree. The school does not appear to have done anything wrong. Some students/parents did something wrong by going to local newspaper with a fabricated story.

In the absence of evidence - or a first person account from someone who was at the scene, then this story has no merit. There is evidence, however, of students being upset at what they were told was said at an assembly they were not at themselves.

Serious allegations to be throwing around if they are not going to be substantiated.

titan18

Hurrache wrote: »

The school handled it very badly and let it snowball so.

One thing it has shown though is the issue with some adults when it comes around to what kids, particularly girls, wear and how they look at it in a sexual way, projecting how they feel about it upon girls who for the most part wear such clothing for either comfort or fashion.

Any adult I know don't wear them for sexual reasons, by and large, unless for exercise, it's for comfort.

Tbf, it's not a girls or a kids thing. If I go into my office in gaa shorts and a tank top (im male), I'd be told to **** off home and wear something proper as that would be distracting in the office and against the dress code. Some might look at it sexual, even though I'd be wearing it for comfort of course.

Hell, we were told we'd be sent home if we wore soccer jerseys on the Fridays.

seamus

KaneToad wrote: »

But there was no distraction mentioned by the school. It seems this element of the 'story' may have been fabricated.

Unless someone is willing to say "I was at the X year assembly and Ms. Y said the tight clothing was distracting for the males". Then this story has no substance.

The journalist who first brought this up is well respected, so there may be something to it. But even so when she said she "confirmed" the details, she basically took statements from some of the students.

The question is whether they were officially told at assembly that tight clothes are too distracting, or whether it was an off-hand remark from some stupid teacher that's been blown out of all proportion.

It sounds like the latter. And there was lots of 3rd-hand stories of students leaving the assemblies "in tears", which now sounds like students looking to wind up the story a bit.

There's still a question though over the nature of the assemblies - it's alleged they were girls-only.

The J Stands for Jay

Curlysue76 wrote: »

‘was setting the women’s movement back years’

I would've liked to hear the response of she'd been asked to explain that remark.

JustAThought

jrosen wrote: »

It was implied by some media headlines. Male teachers distracted and the stupid public jump on it.

It wasn’t implied by rhe media - it was spelled out at length - if that comment about male teachers being distracted wasn’t said by the school then the male teachers in PCC will have a great defamation case against Today FM for a start - where they had a parent on outraged at the ankles and collarbones coverup requirement and where the presenter repeatedly talked about the male teacher distraction issue . Every male teacher in that school is now suspect until that is clarified. One would have hoped a nation licenced broadcaster would have done the minimum in research /verification for balance/due dilligance before lashing into them at peak listnernship. Arn’t they subsidised by the licence fee too? Shocking if so but I wonder if it is the school rowing back on something that WAS said & now they’ve realised the mess they have created.

If I was a male teacher in that school I’d be laywering up.

nigeldaniel

I saw the story online and after a moment or two thought to myself, why are parents and teenagers making it out to be such a big drama. Teachers are fully entitled to say their piece and twisting the matter into something else is only the slippery road to been a mini Trump. The parents in this case seem to me to be well out of order.

mariaalice

I would see a slightly different angle to it, it was a cranky middle ages teacher's views of teenage pupils the student have come to be viewed as a nuisance in various forms its their clothes one day, too loud another day, etc.


They forgot it is a privilege to a teacher.

JustAThought

JustAThought wrote: »

It wasn’t implied by rhe media - it was spelled out at length - if that comment about male teachers being distracted wasn’t said by the school then the male teachers in PCC will have a great defamation case against Today FM for a start - where they had a parent on outraged at the ankles and collarbones coverup requirement and where the presenter repeatedly talked about the male teacher distraction issue . Every male teacher in that school is now suspect until that is clarified. One would have hoped a nation licenced broadcaster would have done the minimum in research /verification for balance/due dilligance before lashing into them at peak listnernship. Arn’t they subsidised by the licence fee too? Shocking if so but I wonder if it is the school rowing back on something that WAS said & now they’ve realised the mess they have created.

If I was a male teacher in that school I’d be laywering up.

The last word feature on it last night was shockingly poor fare.

kippy

Hurrache wrote: »

The media storm was pretty much because of their reluctance to answer queries, and they let it roll.

That doesn't absolve the media of blame.
I can see the reluctance to answer queries until facts were established to be fair.

mariaalice

They shot themselves in the foot by only saying it to female students very badly handled by the school.

paw patrol

Hurrache wrote: »

The school handled it very badly and let it snowball so.

.

quality victim blaming here.
The school clearly did nothing wrong, the media believed local busy body rumour and ran the story


and parents like quoted below should be ashamed of themselves



https://carlow-nationalist.ie/2020/11/24/anger-at-body-shaming-at-carlow-school/

kippy

Hurrache wrote: »

The school handled it very badly and let it snowball so.

One thing it has shown though is the issue with some adults when it comes around to what kids, particularly girls, wear and how they look at it in a sexual way, projecting how they feel about it upon girls who for the most part wear such clothing for either comfort or fashion.

Any adult I know don't wear them for sexual reasons, by and large, unless for exercise, it's for comfort.

The school doesn't have a PR, Legal or HR department full of professionals at their beckon call.
They were perceived to let it snowball because they were dealing with the issue where it mattered most, within the scholl,with it's publis and parents, then they dealt with the media BS.
Have a listen to the principals interview on the radio this morning for a timeline.
I don't get the rational that they have to respond to the media BEFORE they establish all of the facts.

Richard Hillman

I wonder will the media retraction be as big as the initial false story. I guess we already know what the answer will be.

Hurrache

KaneToad wrote: »

I disagree. The school does not appear to have done anything wrong. Some students/parents did something wrong by going to local newspaper with a fabricated story.

In the absence of evidence - or a first person account from someone who was at the scene, then this story has no merit. There is evidence, however, of students being upset at what they were told was said at an assembly they were not at themselves.

Serious allegations to be throwing around if they are not going to be substantiated.

Disagree with what? The school did handle it poorly with its refusal to even acknowledge queries from the media, not even to say give us time, we're doing a full investigation and we'll be back to you. In doing so it allowed it to turn into this **** show.

walshb

Maybe it's just me, but does it not appear to be a case of anyone agreeing with the school and its trying to have some semblance of decorum, appropriatness, standards is being met with responses claiming you to be odd, creepy, pervy etc...or an old fuddy duddy.....

Mrsmum

When giving a sort of official talk to students like in this case, it would nearly be safer to have it recorded because people are inclined to hear what suits their agenda. Did the parent/ student go to the school first for an explanation or straight to a journalist ?

Hurrache

Hurrache wrote: »

The school handled it very badly and let it snowball so.

The school investigated the matter, established the facts and gave an interview to the state broadcaster first thing the following day.

The media ran with a false narrative, and allowed the blackening of every male teacher in the school.

Too much of a whiff of "OK, so the story isn't true, but the school handled it badly"...
"C'mon man" as Joe would say

Hurrache

titan18 wrote: »

Tbf, it's not a girls or a kids thing. If I go into my office in gaa shorts and a tank top (im male), I'd be told to **** off home and wear something proper as that would be distracting in the office and against the dress code. Some might look at it sexual, even though I'd be wearing it for comfort of course.

Hell, we were told we'd be sent home if we wore soccer jerseys on the Fridays.

You're an adult, not a kid. Big difference.

But you took up my point incorrectly. Some people are looking at kids wearing such clothing in a sexual way, regardless of the environment in which they wear it.

mariaalice

Richard Hillman wrote: »

I wonder will the media retraction be as big as the initial false story. I guess we already know what the answer will be.

Do you mean will they retract the interpretation put on the story or the actual story because there is a difference.

The is also a big difference between saying school uniform must be worn at all times to both male and female students verse naming items that must not worn by a female student that is where the issue really lies.

Hurrache

JustAThought wrote: »

It wasn’t implied by rhe media - it was spelled out at length - if that comment about male teachers being distracted wasn’t said by the school then the male teachers in PCC will have a great defamation case against Today FM for a start.....

If I was a male teacher in that school I’d be laywering up.

There is no defamation case against the media. The story reported claims made by other parties.