SAWANT: Public school dress codes play into misogyny
Column: Sincerely Rue
Something that has always bothered me about public school — more than the cardboard-flavored pizza — was the dress code. Especially as a young woman, I always found it very strange and unsettling how the dress code seemed to impart garment prohibitions specific to feminine clothing and body parts.
Clothes traditionally marketed for girls tend to be shorter and tighter, while clothes traditionally marketed for boys are longer and baggier. (Think of how "women’s" merchandise tends to come in body-hugging V-necks, while "men’s" merchandise tends to come in regular crew neck shirts). As a result, the dress code tends to target primarily feminine clothing, setting girls up for objectification from the beginning.
Bans on spaghetti straps, skirts, shorts, certain necklines and much more represent only the beginning of what is oftentimes a multiple-page document.
A popular reason cited in support of these rules is to keep school a “distraction-free” zone. The distractions are, of course, the shoulders, legs, stomachs and chests of minors. I never understood how this could be the case. There is nothing inherently distracting or sexual about any of these body parts. But when a dress code is enforced in such a way that treats a girl’s body like a distraction, it teaches young girls that their bodies are inherently sexual before anything else.
If the first thing that a person thinks about when they see an exposed shoulder, collarbone or thigh is that they are inappropriately distracted by it, so much so that it interferes with their ability to participate effectively in their education, that is not the girl's fault. It is also not the girl's responsibility to fix that frame of thought by simply changing their clothes. That thought process is rooted in a far deeper issue than a simple wardrobe change could mend.
It is obvious, then, that when schools find body parts disruptive, there is a problem, not with the clothes that girls choose to wear but with those who find those clothes distracting in the first place.
Many argue that young women must cover up because "boys will be boys." But truthfully, we are tired of hearing that excuse. If "boys will be boys," then why are we not helping them learn that sexualizing a girl’s body is wrong, instead of forcing young women to limit their wardrobe?
The problem here is the objectification of a girl’s body from a young age. A dress code is merely a small part of a much larger problematic system. Schools perpetuate this objectification, and even validate it, when they tell girls to cover up rather than teach boys to stop having such thought patterns.
It is damaging to a young woman’s self-confidence to go through this. When social media already fosters unrealistic beauty and body standards, the sexist nature of most dress codes worsens the situation by forcing girls to wonder why, at the end of the day, it always comes down to their bodies. Girls are left to wonder about the world’s obsession with regulating their bodies and what they choose to put on them.
It is humiliating when you are forced to wear a sweatshirt because you are showing too much shoulder. You cannot help but wonder, "what is so inappropriate about my shoulder?"
Obviously, I agree that there is a time and place for certain clothing. I simply take issue with the principle of the matter that punishes girls for what they are wearing (by restricting them from wearing certain things) rather than those who sexualize girls in the first place.
Many do not realize it right away, but this issue has broader implications that extend beyond the four walls of a high school or middle school.
When sexual assault cases are scrutinized, people often look at what the victim was wearing. The amount of skin she was revealing then determines how much of the incident was her fault — the blame is always placed on the victim, rather than the perpetrator.
Clothing is clothing, and bodies are bodies. What a girl wears and how much skin she shows is never an invitation for an unwanted activity or an inappropriate gaze. When you teach kids from a young age that clothing is a distraction, you also teach them that there is implicit consent that exists within a woman’s choice to wear certain clothes, when this is not the case.
It is not a young woman’s responsibility to prevent young men from getting distracted by her skin, and schools are actively doing a disservice to their female students when they enforce such dress codes. Instead, schools and our broader culture must cultivate an environment where every student, every girl, is treated equally and respectfully.
Rujuta Sawant is a Rutgers Business School junior majoring in business analytics and information technology and minoring in political science. Her column, "Sincerely Rue," runs on alternate Mondays.
*Columns, cartoons and letters do not necessarily reflect the views of the Targum Publishing Company or its staff.
YOUR VOICE | The Daily Targum welcomes submissions from all readers. Due to space limitations in our print newspaper, letters to the editor must not exceed 500 words. Guest columns and commentaries must be between 700 and 850 words. All authors must include their name, phone number, class year and college affiliation or department to be considered for publication. Please submit via email to oped@dailytargum.com by 4 p.m. to be considered for the following day’s publication. Columns, cartoons and letters do not necessarily reflect the views of the Targum Publishing Company or its staff.
