OT: No end to the stupidity
Susan Stansfield
In article <rCnl9.437466$f05.19...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca>, "First Fallen"
<no...@nope.com> wrote:
>I just read this story that was run in the Washington Post on Thursday.
>Don't our educators have more important things to focus on?
>
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4849-2002Sep26.html
That *is* ridiculous.
Susan
Darth Maul's Highlander Site:
http://pub54.ezboard.com/fdarthscommunityfrm20
The Ranger
> I just read this story that was run in the Washington Post
> on Thursday. Don't our educators have more important
> things to focus on?
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4849-2002Sep26.html
>
incident of Zero Tolerance is the result of overzealous administrators.
Besides, the WaPo is notorious for its... uhm... stories; just enough facts
to string a reader out but not enough to help them make an intelligent
decision.
My [very conservative, very personal] opinion is that she's testing limits.
At 15, she isn't an adult -- even if she has the body of one -- and is in
such a flux mentally that testing is the only way she sees being able to
"control" [some] things. <shrug> She got called on her hair style. She
changes it or she doesn't attend school. It's a simple decision for her
parents now.
The Ranger
TBird
I had a friend in high school, a tall skinny white blonde boy, who decided
to... create dreds on his head. His classmates fought to have him banned from
graduation unless he washed his hair. I think he won that battle. And by the
time he got to college (my college too) he had cut them off and was washing his
hair regularly.
Now he's a hot NYC artist. And probably still a total sweetheart.
TBird <------ lost the website but his name is Peter Bogardus (really)
~~~
One of the Four Horsewomen of the Apocalypse
Jerri
> I say (in the absence of all the facts) let her
> test limits. As long as she is not passing
> contagious diseases or lice...let her wear
> dread locks.
Pretty blonde curls can pass contagious diseases and lice as well as any
other hairstyle. I say kill the lice, cure the disease, and let her wear the
dred locks, regardless. Didn't we fight this battle back in the 60s/70s? I'm
just sure we did.
--
Jerri
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~jerlapoint
The Ranger
> To Trudy's:
> > I say (in the absence of all the facts) let her
> > test limits. As long as she is not passing
> > contagious diseases or lice...let her wear
> > dread locks.
>
> Pretty blonde curls can pass contagious diseases and lice as
> well as any other hairstyle. I say kill the lice, cure the disease,
> and let her wear the dred locks, regardless. Didn't we fight
> this battle back in the 60s/70s? I'm just sure we did.
We also wore bell-bottoms, tye-dies, and did a few other "counter-cultural"
thangs... The administrators that were a part of that pop culture are the
same ones making Zero Tolerance decisions. <shrug>
The More Things Change...
The "Koom-by-yahin'" Ranger
The Ranger
> More of the facts *would* be nice. So, they've banned dread locks
> and mohawks.
I have a feeling they've been pigeon-holed as "Goth" (whether they are or
not is quite beside the point.) They don't fit the mold of the vocal
majority and make that same majority (which also tends to be CONSERVATIVE in
most things) uneasy. I would guess that if you asked someone what they
thought of someone wearing dreds, the first thing that would come out would
be that the person was "smokin' dope" and "listenin' to that Rastaschtuff."
Obviously, anyone that's wearing a mohawk is into the Punk Scene is just
LOOKIN' t' cause problems... <shrug> I'd say that my community is pretty
liberal in MOST things but you get them together at a parent meeting and
they suddenly start putting up walls and huggin' their kids closer. Can't
explain it.
> Around here, many of the kids skip school to go hunting with their
> dads on the first day of the season. Cammies are *in* during the fall.
> So what happened? A couple boys got into a fight at school. What
> were they wearing? Yep, cammies. What did the administrator do?
> Banned cammies because the boys *may have* belonged to gangs.
> This included cammie winter coats that so many students wear.
Another victory for Zero Tolerance. But... These type of policies are a
direct result of their community endorsements. They wouldn't be allowed if
people sat back and LOOKED at them. But then, that takes effort and time.
Have A Leader spoon-feed sheeple and you can do whatever you want.
> A grandparent asked at the Town Hall Meeting, if gangs started
> wearing blue shirts, would they ban blue shirts. The wise
> councilman answered, "yes."
Didn't the Crips use blue as their "colors?" (The bloods used "red" I
think...) So, yes, they were already associated with gang banging.
> IMO, rather than teach acceptance of diversity and respect,
> they teach communism...let us all look, dress, think, act alike;
> that way there are no differences, all students are equal in
> all things, placed on the same level, learn at the same speed,
> blahdda blahdda blahdda, and our school is just a happy,
> happy place.
That's not "communism" specifically... Fascism falls under this catagory,
too, if you expand your definition. What you're actually defining is
"conformity." And any anti-establishment "group" will tell you that it's
bad, and individuality is the "way to go."
The Ranger
John Biltz
up but I am guessing it is about hair. I read a story of stupid zero
tolerance about a good kid expelled over bringing a knife to school. He
used his pick up truck to move his grandmother's stuff when she moved. A
kitchen knife was left in the back of the truck by accident and oversight.
He never knew it was there until it was discovered by a security guard at
the school parking lot. Zero tolerance is good because it treats everyone
the same. No politics, where the rich and powerful get an advantage. But
there needs to be an appeal process in their somewhere. Someplace someone
can say this is stupid and it is making us look pretty damned stupid also.
Most people think the military is inflexible and go by the book types ready
to punish any infraction. But there is nothing that is not subject to
appeal.
Appealing Moose
"The Ranger" <cuhul...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:anamfr$cn5q1$1...@ID-61173.news.dfncis.de...
The Ranger
> > > > I say (in the absence of all the facts) let her
> > > > test limits. As long as she is not passing
> > > > contagious diseases or lice...let her wear
> > > > dread locks.
And Jerri followed up with:
> > > Pretty blonde curls can pass contagious diseases and lice as
> > > well as any other hairstyle. I say kill the lice, cure the disease,
> > > and let her wear the dred locks, regardless. Didn't we fight
> > > this battle back in the 60s/70s? I'm just sure we did.
So I typed:
> >We also wore bell-bottoms, tye-dies, and did a few other
> >"counter-cultural" thangs... The administrators that were a
> >part of that pop culture are the same ones making Zero
> >Tolerance decisions. <shrug>
> >
> > The More Things Change...
So John Biltz appealed to reason by typing:
> I don't have a problem with intelligent zero tolerance. I did
> not look this up but I am guessing it is about hair. I read a
> story of stupid zero tolerance about a good kid expelled over
> bringing a knife to school. He used his pick up truck to move
> his grandmother's stuff when she moved. A kitchen knife was
> left in the back of the truck by accident and oversight. He
> never knew it was there until it was discovered by a security
> guard at the school parking lot. Zero tolerance is good because
> it treats everyone the same. No politics, where the rich and
> powerful get an advantage. But there needs to be an appeal
> process in their somewhere. Someplace someone can say this
> is stupid and it is making us look pretty damned stupid also.
> Most people think the military is inflexible and go by the
> book types ready to punish any infraction. But there is
> nothing that is not subject to appeal.
Well and good /IFF/ all ZT policies were administered intelligently, with
forethought to the public's perception, and no politicizing were involved...
Unfortunately, very few administrators are given the chance to review and
appeal because of the very nature of ZT policies.
Here's a link to help understand ZT and how sheeple have fallen "victim" to
its absurdities.
<http://www.thisistrue.com/zt.html>
The Ranger
Susan Stansfield
In article <d565751d.02093...@posting.google.com>, Holt...@aol.com
(Trudy) wrote:
<snip>
>I say (in the absence of all the facts) let her test limits. As long
>as she is not passing contagious diseases or lice...let her wear dread
>locks.
>
>- T
I agree completely.
GinjerB
(Trudy) writes:
>Subject: Re: OT: No end to the stupidity
>From: Holt...@aol.com (Trudy)
>Date: 1 Oct 2002 05:50:18 -0700
>
>I stand corrected. I always speak 'communism' when I hear schools
>wanting to go to uniforms and mandating other 'conformist' constructs.
>Their reasoning being that it puts everyone on the same socioeconomic
>level; it ceases the beatings and thefts of those expensive leather
>jackets and sports shoes. It increases attention span and learning(?).
>What I wonder, though, is what do those kids do when they get out into
>the real world and realize that everyone actually is NOT on the same
>socioeconomic level and other people have more than they? I just don't
>get the reasoning that everyone is/can be equal IN school, when they
>are not so OUT of school. Does it really aid in education to have
>everyone put aside their individuality in order to learn?
>
>- T
>
>
Give them credit. Kids know that everyone doesn't exist on the same
socieconomic level, whether they go to schools that require uniforms or not.
I'm pro-uniform/dress code. The truth is, such things as dress codes exist in
"the real world" too. MHO, it does no harm for kids to begin to figure that out
sooner rather than later.
As to individuality, whether you're sixteen or sixty, you can express that in
ways other than dress, or in what you wear on your own time. And, more than
likely, when you are sixteen, you will express it by dressing as much like
everyone else as humanly possible! <g>
GinjerB
Jette Goldie
"Trudy" <Holt...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:d565751d.02100...@posting.google.com...
> I stand corrected. I always speak 'communism' when I hear schools
> wanting to go to uniforms and mandating other 'conformist' constructs.
> Their reasoning being that it puts everyone on the same socioeconomic
> level; it ceases the beatings and thefts of those expensive leather
> jackets and sports shoes. It increases attention span and learning(?).
> What I wonder, though, is what do those kids do when they get out into
> the real world and realize that everyone actually is NOT on the same
> socioeconomic level and other people have more than they?
We do just fine, thanks.
I wore a uniform all the way through school, as most UK
folks did. You expressed your individuality, your socioeconomic
level, etc, OUTSIDE school.
>I just don't
> get the reasoning that everyone is/can be equal IN school, when they
> are not so OUT of school. Does it really aid in education to have
> everyone put aside their individuality in order to learn?
Yes. It really does help.
--
Jette
(aka Vinyaduriel)
"Work for Peace and remain fiercely loving" - Jim Byrnes
je...@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://bosslady.tripod.com/fanfic.html
Jerri
> I'm pro-uniform/dress code. The truth is, such
> things as dress codes exist in "the real world"
> too. MHO, it does no harm for kids to begin
> to figure that out sooner rather than later.
Yeah, have 'em learn to knuckle under as early as possible, I always say.
> As to individuality, whether you're sixteen
> or sixty, you can express that in ways other
> than dress, or in what you wear on your own
> time. And, more than likely, when you are
> sixteen, you will express it by dressing as much like
> everyone else as humanly possible! <g>
But there's always that guy in the cool, fringed jacket who just wouldn't
look the same in khaki pants and a blue shirt. Onliest place I ever seen him
was in school, and I wouldn't wanted to have missed that. Conformity be
damned, I say! Belly buttons rule!
--
Jerri
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~jerlapoint
Mark Jones
> I don't have a problem with intelligent zero tolerance. I did not look this
> up but I am guessing it is about hair. I read a story of stupid zero
> tolerance about a good kid expelled over bringing a knife to school. He
> used his pick up truck to move his grandmother's stuff when she moved. A
> kitchen knife was left in the back of the truck by accident and oversight.
> He never knew it was there until it was discovered by a security guard at
> the school parking lot. Zero tolerance is good because it treats everyone
> the same.
I couldn't disagree more. "Zero tolerance" is by definition a system
set up to make decision-making both unnecessary and impossible. The
very essence of "zero tolerance" is that no exceptions are to be made,
no matter what. Stupid and excessive consequences are inevitable. If
you make exceptions, it is no longer zero tolerance--it's just an
ordinary policy which must be ajudicated by the person(s) in charge.
And _that_ is what "zero tolerance" is designed to prevent. God forbid
that a principal should have to make a decision about whether little
Susie's plastic knife for cutting up her lunch is a dangerous weapon, or
who started the fight. It's much easier and safer for him to be able to
pass the buck and claim that "I had no choice but to suspend little
Susie because we have Zero Tolerance." It's a Get Out Of the Hot Seat
card for decision-makers and organizations who are terrified of making a
decision and being held accountable for it.
Suspending a good student because she had a plastic knife in her
lunchbox, or for fighting back when attacked, or drawing a picture of a
weapon, or whatever other stupid "zero tolerance" rule was violated is
an act of cowardice and teaches students that unthinking obedience to
absurd rules is the only way to avoid trouble (or, alternatively, that
authority figures are cretins who can't make common sense decisions).
Either way, that's not a lesson I want to see kids learning.
> Most people think the military is inflexible and go by the book types ready
> to punish any infraction. But there is nothing that is not subject to
> appeal.
That's just it, though. If you can appeal on the grounds that the rule
was stupid, or ill-considered, or that the violation was unintentional,
or that the consequences are out of proportion to any harm (real or
potential), it's not zero tolerance. Even the "by the book military"
doesn't do that.
--
Mark Jones
"This is a matter of opinion--I disagree."
"Are you kidding? This is USENET! Two men enter, one man leaves!"
--from a usenet discussion
Mark Jones
> Well and good /IFF/ all ZT policies were administered intelligently, with
> forethought to the public's perception, and no politicizing were involved...
It can't be. That's the _purpose_ of zero tolerance--to refuse to make
any exceptions for any reason, no matter who stupid and unjust the
outcome may be. It's a policy driven by the desire to take human
decision-making out of the loop. It's the real-world equivalent of
those SF stories where they put all the nuclear weapons under computer
control because the computers can't be bribed or threatened and will
never, ever make a mistake....
GinjerB
<jerla...@earthlink.net> writes:
>Subject: Re: OT: No end to the stupidity
>From: "Jerri" <jerla...@earthlink.net>
>Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 16:56:30 GMT
>
>"GinjerB" <gin...@aol.com> wrote
>
>> I'm pro-uniform/dress code. The truth is, such
>> things as dress codes exist in "the real world"
>> too. MHO, it does no harm for kids to begin
>> to figure that out sooner rather than later.
>
>Yeah, have 'em learn to knuckle under as early as possible, I always say.
I don't see wearing a uniform as knuckling under to anything. I see it as a way
of helping students focus attention on the purported reason that they are in
school, which is to learn, not to impress their peers with their wardrobes.
Most parents and teachers are pro-uniform, for both economic and safety
reasons, at least at the level of what we used to call Junior High up.
>
>> As to individuality, whether you're sixteen
>> or sixty, you can express that in ways other
>> than dress, or in what you wear on your own
>> time. And, more than likely, when you are
>> sixteen, you will express it by dressing as much like
>> everyone else as humanly possible! <g>
>
>But there's always that guy in the cool, fringed jacket who just wouldn't
>look the same in khaki pants and a blue shirt. Onliest place I ever seen him
>was in school, and I wouldn't wanted to have missed that. Conformity be
>damned, I say! Belly buttons rule!
>--
>Jerri
But--belly buttons don't rule, not in the business world, not if you really
want to get ahead.
Come in for an interivew as an editorial assistant wearing hip-huggers and a
nose ring, and you're not likely to get the job.
GinjerB
Susan Stansfield
In article <anaol3$cjipi$1...@ID-61173.news.dfncis.de>, "The Ranger"
<cuhul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Here's a link to help understand ZT and how sheeple have fallen "victim"
>to
>its absurdities.
><http://www.thisistrue.com/zt.html>
Very interesting article. Thanks for sharing it.
The Ranger
[Snip-O'-Matic employed]
> Conformity be damned, I say!
Aren't you the one that advocates anarchy? (Or is that another regular?) <G>
The Ranger
The Ranger
> >> I'm pro-uniform/dress code. The truth is, such
> >> things as dress codes exist in "the real world"
> >> too. MHO, it does no harm for kids to begin
> >> to figure that out sooner rather than later.
> >
> >Yeah, have 'em learn to knuckle under as early as possible,
> >I always say.
>
> I don't see wearing a uniform as knuckling under to anything.
> I see it as a way of helping students focus attention on the
> purported reason that they are in school, which is to learn,
> not to impress their peers with their wardrobes.
These are often the reasons cited for moving schools (and whole districts)
to uniforms. I know the "PTA" at a former school was swayed by a report
given to them, conducted by three independent school districts, on the pros
and cons of uniforms. And -- just to show how serious the administrators
were on uniform enforcement -- several little Britney-wannabees got sent
home at 8:31 to change.
> Most parents and teachers are pro-uniform, for both economic
> and safety reasons, at least at the level of what we used to call
> Junior High up.
Same reasons for elementary (primary) and middle schools (junior highs).
Even the kids, once they got over their angst at being "unKool," were fine
with uniforms.
> >> As to individuality, whether you're sixteen
> >> or sixty, you can express that in ways other
> >> than dress, or in what you wear on your own
> >> time. And, more than likely, when you are
> >> sixteen, you will express it by dressing as much like
> >> everyone else as humanly possible! <g>
> >
> >But there's always that guy in the cool, fringed jacket who
> >just wouldn't look the same in khaki pants and a blue shirt.
> >Onliest place I ever seen him was in school, and I wouldn't
> >wanted to have missed that. Conformity be damned, I say!
> >Belly buttons rule!
> >
> But--belly buttons don't rule, not in the business world, not if
> you really want to get ahead.
>
> Come in for an interivew as an editorial assistant wearing
> hip-huggers and a nose ring, and you're not likely to get the job.
>
Same with being painted [or pierced in other areas]. You've probably been
recruited if you're that externally avante guard... In which case, Common
Workplace Ruhlz don't [generally] apply anyway.
ObTopic: Ship the OTG off to a military academy. It'd be a good
character-building experience.
The Ranger
HiRene23
>to uniforms. I know the "PTA" at a former school was swayed by a report
>given to them, conducted by three independent school districts, on the pros
>and cons of uniforms. And -- just to show how serious the administrators
>were on uniform enforcement -- several little Britney-wannabees got sent
>home at 8:31 to change.
School dress codes are very standard in these parts. My daughter was actually
busted during the second week of school this year for wearing an inappropriate
shirt. Her choices were to go home and change or wear her art shirt over her
clothes for the day. She wore the art shirt, knowing full well that I told her
that she was pushing the envelope with a few of the shirts she had been
choosing for school and calling me would have been futile. Not that they are
such bad or risque shirts, but there are differences in dance clothes, hanging
out with friends clothes, and school clothes. This year we happen to have a
very strict principal who is a stickler for the dress code. My daughter is now
much more careful about what she chooses to wear to school.
I have no problem with her being reminded that at school, her emphasis should
be on learning and not on who has the trendiest clothes. Trust me, amongst 6th
grade girls, clothes ARE an issue.. and it's not necessarily all about wanting
to express their individuality, it's more about "everyone's wearing this, so I
have to also." Expressing individuality, IMO, is something that is more
authentically represented by how she approaches her problem-solving, how she
learns, her artwork, her writings, her interacting with her friends and
enemies, NOT her clothes. Although, she has enough chances for expressing
herself through her clothing outside of school.
Rene
John Biltz
"HiRene23" <hire...@aol.comn> wrote in message
news:20021001183326...@mb-fc.aol.com...
I had a dress code when I was in school myself. I didn't think it was fair
but I have to admit just about anything where I did not get my way was not
fair back then. The only time I can remember where I did not have a dress
code was in college. I really can't work up a good case of outrage over
this.
Complacent Moose
inge
>
> GinjerB countered Jerri's assertions with:
> >
> >
The advantage of wearing a uniform is that you won't get noticed as an
individual, but only as part of a group. Which is OK as long as you are
*in* the group and can hide, but extraordinarily embarrassing when you
are on your own. Might as well carry a flag. Next they expect you to
sing stupid songs praising some organization you didn't join
voluntarily. Shudder.
I was a member of a scout-like organization when I was a young teenager.
It was customary to go to the group meeting in uniform, which meant for
me, changing at home and taking the train to town and walking all
through the town looking like an idiot. I hated it with a passion.
> >
> > I see it as a way of helping students focus attention on the
> > purported reason that they are in school, which is to learn,
> > not to impress their peers with their wardrobes.
>
> These are often the reasons cited for moving schools (and whole districts)
> to uniforms.
By reducing everyone to what nature has given them. So, if you're fat or
ugly you can't even make up for it by dressing well (or at least
appropiate).
--
Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana.
- Groucho Marx
===
<http://home.foni.net/~lyorn> -- Stories, RPG & stuff.
===
To send me priority mail, replace 'wildwusel' with 'lyorn'.
Anita Terry
about conformity. and oppression. it exists to keep the poor poor and the
rich rich. nothing will ever change that. no matter how hard you believe
otherwise.
Annie T
"GinjerB" <gin...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021001142058...@mb-cg.aol.com...
inge
(I'd apologize for useless rambling, too, but I guess you are all used
to me doing that by now ;-)
inge wrote:
>
> The Ranger wrote:
> >
> > GinjerB countered Jerri's assertions with:
> >
>
> >
> > Same reasons for elementary (primary) and middle schools (junior highs).
> > Even the kids, once they got over their angst at being "unKool," were fine
> > with uniforms.
;-/ When I saw school uniforms as a kid I always wondered how any girl
could put up with those. Not only did they have skirts, but they had
*short* skirts. In my primary school, wearing a skirt was an invitation
to the boys to harass you, so if you wore one you'd better be prepeard
to bang a few heads together and bloody a few noses.
>
> >
> > > Come in for an interivew as an editorial assistant wearing
> > > hip-huggers and a nose ring, and you're not likely to get the job.
> > >
> > Same with being painted [or pierced in other areas]. You've probably been
> > recruited if you're that externally avante guard... In which case, Common
> > Workplace Ruhlz don't [generally] apply anyway.
One reason I absolutely wanted a tech job: You can wear what you want.
No need to spend hundreds of Euro on clothes you wouldn't want to be
caught dead in. I offered moral support to a few of my friends who
happened to get temp jobs in marketing and had to shop for clothes.
Horrible experience ;-/
inge
John Biltz
"Anita Terry" <ate...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:a2sm9.49840$121.1...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> it's still conformity, no matter how you wrap it. the business world is
all
> about conformity. and oppression. it exists to keep the poor poor and
the
> rich rich. nothing will ever change that. no matter how hard you believe
> otherwise.
>
> Annie T
I knew that 1100 meeting on keeping the poor poor would leak out. The
business world exists to make money, which of course is why they call it
business. I don't know you but that is the silliest thing I have read in
quite some time.
Moose Flashing Back to the 60s
Jerri
> it's still conformity, no matter how you wrap it.
> the business world is all about conformity. and
> oppression. it exists to keep the poor poor and the
> rich rich. nothing will ever change that. no matter
> how hard you believe otherwise.
I agree. I believe the Evil Empire is in the ascendancy and nothing proves
that to me more than regular folks agreeing together that kids should be
shoe-horned into uniforms. As one of the fat kids who always looked like a
particularly over-stuffed sausage when forced to wear a uniform of any sort,
I was humiliated and uncomfortable. Not exactly the kind of preparation I
would prefer for entering the work force.
--
Jerri
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~jerlapoint
Jerri
> One reason I absolutely wanted a tech job: You
> can wear what you want. No need to spend
> hundreds of Euro on clothes you wouldn't want to be
> caught dead in.
All those years I was programming, I kept one pair of hurty heels to be worn
to interviews. Those heels lasted about 15 years ... until a dog chewed them
up. I have another pair of heels now ... really pretty strappy sandals.
Unfortunately, there are no jobs available in my former field of endeavor,
so I have nowhere to wear them.
--
Jerri
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~jerlapoint
TBird
whatsoever to make me conform or help me fit in.
About all it did was make school clothes one less source of stress in my life.
They could make fun of me for a lot of things, but my choice of clothes wasn't
one of them.
TBird <----- was ostracized for not being Catholic ... now you tell me how they
knew THAT bit of individuality when we were all dressed alike....
~~~
One of the Four Horsewomen of the Apocalypse
HiRene23
>that to me more than regular folks agreeing together that kids should be
>shoe-horned into uniforms. As one of the fat kids who always looked like a
>particularly over-stuffed sausage when forced to wear a uniform of any sort,
>I was humiliated and uncomfortable. Not exactly the kind of preparation I
>would prefer for entering the work force.
And as one of the poor kids who was still wearing K-Mart jeans and tennis shoes
when the others were discovering Calvins, I can tell you that humiliation takes
many forms.
Rene
The Ranger
> > > I see it as a way of helping students focus attention on the
> > > purported reason that they are in school, which is to learn,
> > > not to impress their peers with their wardrobes.
> >
> > These are often the reasons cited for moving schools (and
> > whole districts) to uniforms.
>
> By reducing everyone to what nature has given them. So, if
> you're fat or ugly you can't even make up for it by dressing
> well (or at least appropiate).
A glitzy blouse or half-hipped pant isn't going to make that "lack of gift"
any more appealing... In fact, given the catty comments I've heard from kids
on the playgrounds, it's likely to elicit more negative reactions than the
dorky uniform.
The "Suit-n-Tie" Ranger
The Ranger
> it's still conformity, no matter how you wrap it. the business
> world is all about conformity. and oppression. it exists to
> keep the poor poor and the rich rich. nothing will ever change
> that. no matter how hard you believe otherwise.
u r so, like, rad, grrl. U g0.
The "Able to Capitalize & Write Coherently" Ranger
The Ranger
> > > Same reasons for elementary (primary) and middle schools
> > > (junior highs). Even the kids, once they got over their angst
> > > at being "unKool," were fine with uniforms.
> > >
> ;-/ When I saw school uniforms as a kid I always wondered how
> any girl could put up with those. Not only did they have skirts,
> but they had *short* skirts. In my primary school, wearing a
> skirt was an invitation to the boys to harass you, so if you
> wore one you'd better be prepeard to bang a few heads together
> and bloody a few noses.
>
passage at that age...
> > > > Come in for an interivew as an editorial assistant wearing
> > > > hip-huggers and a nose ring, and you're not likely to get
> > > > the job.
> > > >
> > > Same with being painted [or pierced in other areas]. You've
> > > probably been recruited if you're that externally avante guarde...
> > > In which case, Common Workplace Ruhlz don't [generally]
> > > apply anyway.
>
> One reason I absolutely wanted a tech job: You can wear what
> you want. No need to spend hundreds of Euro on clothes you
> wouldn't want to be caught dead in. I offered moral support to
> a few of my friends who happened to get temp jobs in marketing
> and had to shop for clothes. Horrible experience ;-/
Huh. The last two companies I worked for (software development), we had a
"dress code." It was casual compared to the old IBM daze but there was still
one enforced. The only guy that didn't have to adhere to it was someone they
recruited. He was good enough that companies made allowances for his
eccentricities. Nice kid too.
The Ranger
Jerri
> And as one of the poor kids who was still wearing
> K-Mart jeans and tennis shoes when the others
> were discovering Calvins, I can tell you that
> humiliation takes many forms.
I hung out with the debate team. We were not the most style-conscious and/or
socially acceptable folks in the world. Uniforms would have killed us all
together. Oh my. The mind boggles. The local Catholic high school closed
down while I was attending the public high school, and all those kids got
transferred into our school. I never heard a one of them wishing a return to
those plaid skirts and khaki pants.
--
Jerri
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~jerlapoint
GinjerB
(HiRene23) writes:
>And as one of the poor kids who was still wearing K-Mart jeans and tennis
>shoes
>when the others were discovering Calvins, I can tell you that humiliation
>takes
>many forms.
>
>
>Rene
>
>
Amen to that, Rene!
GinjrB
GinjerB
<ate...@houston.rr.com> writes:
>Subject: Re: OT: No end to the stupidity
>From: "Anita Terry" <ate...@houston.rr.com>
>Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 01:33:58 GMT
>
>it's still conformity, no matter how you wrap it. the business world is all
>about conformity. and oppression. it exists to keep the poor poor and the
>rich rich. nothing will ever change that. no matter how hard you believe
>otherwise.
>
>Annie T
>
>
For fifteen years, I was a social worker, in foster care and adoption. Not
exactly a profit-making endeavor. The dress code there was a whole lot
stricter than anything I've ever encountered in the publishing business.
Conformity and oppression are not the same thing. Conformity is not, in and of
itself, bad.
MHO.
GinjerB
GinjerB
<jerla...@earthlink.net> writes:
>Subject: Re: OT: No end to the stupidity
>From: "Jerri" <jerla...@earthlink.net>
>Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 12:11:45 GMT
But it's not about what the kids want, eh?
I *hated* both my high school unifroms. The boarding school one was beyond
hideous, the other was actually not that bad, but it just wasn't a style and
color flattering to me.
However, in retrospect, I know my abject misery in the 11th and 12th grade
would have only been made worse if I had also had to worry about what I was
wearing every day.
GinjerB
GinjerB
<cuhul...@yahoo.com> writes:
>Subject: Re: OT: No end to the stupidity
>From: "The Ranger" <cuhul...@yahoo.com>
>Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 21:13:44 -0700
It's been my obervation, here in NYC, that the schools that have uniforms now
offer a range. They are still uniforms--but you can go for the vest and pants
or the vest and longer skirt or the vest and shorter skirt. And you can choose
solid color or plaid. Etc.
So it does allow for a kid to work around personal taste and body-type issues.
I would have been inclined to do vest and pants had I had the choice when I was
in High School. (altho in truth, my Mom wouldn't have gone for that.)
GinjerB
GinjerB
sixt4...@aol.comedancing (TBird) writes:
>Subject: Re: OT: No end to the stupidity
>From: sixt4...@aol.comedancing (TBird)
>Date: 02 Oct 2002 03:03:11 GMT
I second that, T. Four years of Catholic shool uniforms certainly didn't turn
me into a lock-step anything.
I *was* Catholic, so I couldn't be ragged on about that. But I was chubby and
smart, the nuns liked me (oy!) and I was really un-socialized. (thanks to the
two years in the girl's boarding school.) so there were lots of other things I
could be dumped on for.
GinjerB
inge
>
> inge countered:
> >
> > By reducing everyone to what nature has given them. So, if
> > you're fat or ugly you can't even make up for it by dressing
> > well (or at least appropiate).
>
> A glitzy blouse or half-hipped pant isn't going to make that "lack of gift"
> any more appealing...
Note that I said "well or appropiate". Which demands a certain amount of
taste and common sense. ;-)
Of course, if you have *neither* good looks nor taste, you're out of
luck...
Reminds me of a girl I went to school with. She had natural red wavy
hair to kill for and perfect ivory skin, but was severely overweight...
and she wore tight pink leggins and tight yellow T-shirts. She would
probably have benefitted from having to wear a uniform, provided they
made them for someone 5'4'' and 230 lbs.
inge
Jette Goldie
"inge" <wild...@gmx.de> wrote
>
> One reason I absolutely wanted a tech job: You can wear what you want.
> No need to spend hundreds of Euro on clothes you wouldn't want to be
> caught dead in. I offered moral support to a few of my friends who
> happened to get temp jobs in marketing and had to shop for clothes.
> Horrible experience ;-/
LOL - there are only two departments in my work
who have to wear suits (shirt and tie for men, skirt
suit for women) - Customer Services (of course)
and IT(tech)!
The rest of us wear jeans and t-shirts, or whatever
else we want.
--
Jette
(aka Vinyaduriel)
"Work for Peace and remain fiercely loving" - Jim Byrnes
je...@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://bosslady.tripod.com/fanfic.html
inge
>
>
> And as one of the poor kids who was still wearing K-Mart jeans and tennis shoes
> when the others were discovering Calvins, I can tell you that humiliation takes
> many forms.
I wonder whether it's a matter of country or of age bracket, or simply
of my own well-schooled selective perception, but with the exception of
the really awful or the really daring I do not remember what anyone was
wearing a significant topic at school. It was jeans, sneakers and
sweatshirts all around, except for a group of blond skinny girls who
painted their faces and wore miniskirts, a few leftover hippies and a
few wannabe punks. (I always admired both the hippies and the punks but
never dared to try to imitate them - my mother would have skinned me
alive.) Later we had a couple of kids who went for brand-name clothes
and were generally considered a few neurons short of a brain...
inge
>
> Conformity is not, in and of
> itself, bad.
Conformity is, I have to give it to the concept, the perfect place to
hide. You slip into a pattern of automated responses and expected
behaviours every morning and no one will ever notice you being anything
else than a warm body taking up space. You can become as weird and crazy
as you want or need to be inside your shell because no one will ever
reflect your strangeness back at you and force you to think about
whether you are still vaguely within parameters of sanity.
It's always the quiet ones... ;-/ [slightly strained smiley...]
Mark Jones
> it's still conformity, no matter how you wrap it. the business world is all
> about conformity. and oppression. it exists to keep the poor poor and the
> rich rich. nothing will ever change that. no matter how hard you believe
> otherwise.
Wow. Bitter much?
--
Mark Jones
"This is a matter of opinion--I disagree."
"Are you kidding? This is USENET! Two men enter, one man leaves!"
--from a usenet discussion
inge
>
> "inge" <wild...@gmx.de> wrote
> >
> > One reason I absolutely wanted a tech job:
> > You can wear what you want.
>
> who have to wear suits (shirt and tie for men, skirt
> suit for women) - Customer Services (of course)
> and IT(tech)!
IT? What for? No one ever sees them, and they only come out after
dark... ;-)
Jette Goldie
"inge" <wild...@gmx.de> wrote in message news:3D9B262E...@gmx.de...
> The Ranger wrote:
> >
> > inge countered:
> > >
> > > By reducing everyone to what nature has given them. So, if
> > > you're fat or ugly you can't even make up for it by dressing
> > > well (or at least appropiate).
> >
> > A glitzy blouse or half-hipped pant isn't going to make that "lack of
gift"
> > any more appealing...
>
> Note that I said "well or appropiate". Which demands a certain amount of
> taste and common sense. ;-)
>
> Of course, if you have *neither* good looks nor taste, you're out of
> luck...
>
> Reminds me of a girl I went to school with. She had natural red wavy
> hair to kill for and perfect ivory skin, but was severely overweight...
> and she wore tight pink leggins and tight yellow T-shirts. She would
> probably have benefitted from having to wear a uniform, provided they
> made them for someone 5'4'' and 230 lbs.
>
They make school uniforms for any size of child - since
it usually involves a plain coloured (white or blue) shirt,
plain skirt or trousers (usually dark blue or black - sometimes
bottle green or brown, but those are usually RC schools)
(private fee paying schools sometimes have scarlet, burgundy
or dark green) and a plain coloured blazer (colour rules as
above for trousers and skirts)
Literally at my school the rules said "navy blue skirt,
no more than two inches above the knee, no more than
three inches below the knee; white shirt, navy blue
v-neck pullover (sweater), white knee high socks OR
tan or navy tights (pantyhose). Black shoes, navy
blue blazer (with or without the school badge on the
breast pocket). Blue and white diagonal striped
tie (for males and females both). You could skip
the tie if you wore navy blue polo-neck sweater
instead. There's a bit of leeway there for
different body types - A-line skirt, pleated, pencil
(bit racy that though <g>). I think they've added
navy blue straightleg trousers for girls (no jeans, for
either gender) and a sweatshirt option now. There
was no specified supplier for the uniform, so parents
could buy whatever items of clothing matched the
requirements wherever they could get them cheapest
(private schools usually have a specified supplier
which makes things a bit more expensive).
(my nephew and niece now go to the same school
I did)
Jette Goldie
"inge" <wild...@gmx.de> wrote in message news:3D9B2C10...@gmx.de...
> Jette Goldie wrote:
> >
> > "inge" <wild...@gmx.de> wrote
> > >
> > > One reason I absolutely wanted a tech job:
> > > You can wear what you want.
> >
> > LOL - there are only two departments in my work
> > who have to wear suits (shirt and tie for men, skirt
> > suit for women) - Customer Services (of course)
> > and IT(tech)!
>
> IT? What for? No one ever sees them, and they only come out after
> dark... ;-)
You have GOT to be joking!!! Our IT department
is the busiest dept in the whole agency - we're a
very computer driven environment, and the IT
folks are always on the go, here, there, everywhere,
installing, upgrading, maintaining - and being cursed
at generally <g>.
(you can imagine the curses when HALF the IT
dept were all..... missing...... this week for a
stag do in Amsterdam, when the new financial
client went *live* <g>)("just WHO was in charge
of leave allotment??")
--
Jette (not planning to apply for any IT positions within
Registers of Scotland <g>)
GHorvath
>was no specified supplier for the uniform, so parents
>could buy whatever items of clothing matched the
>requirements wherever they could get them cheapest
Oh, that sounds like the worst of both worlds. You have to wear the uniform,
but you can still be ridiculed for the quality or styling of your clothes.
Yikes.
IMHO, if you're going to have uniforms, they should be *uniform.* Otherwise
what you have is a Dress Code.
GH
<== Not a fan of either.
GinjerB
>Subject: Re: OT: No end to the stupidity
>From: inge <wild...@gmx.de>
>Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 19:19:56 +0200
>
>GinjerB wrote:
>>
>> Conformity is not, in and of
>> itself, bad.
>
>Conformity is, I have to give it to the concept, the perfect place to
>hide. You slip into a pattern of automated responses and expected
>behaviours every morning and no one will ever notice you being anything
>else than a warm body taking up space. You can become as weird and crazy
>as you want or need to be inside your shell because no one will ever
>reflect your strangeness back at you and force you to think about
>whether you are still vaguely within parameters of sanity.
>
>It's always the quiet ones... ;-/ [slightly strained smiley...]
>
>inge
>
>
The ones who sit in the back of the class and never cause any trouble? <g>
GinjerB
GinjerB
>Subject: Re: OT: No end to the stupidity
>From: inge <wild...@gmx.de>
>Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 19:00:31 +0200
>
>The Ranger wrote:
>>
>> inge countered:
>> >
>> > By reducing everyone to what nature has given them. So, if
>> > you're fat or ugly you can't even make up for it by dressing
>> > well (or at least appropiate).
>>
>> A glitzy blouse or half-hipped pant isn't going to make that "lack of gift"
>> any more appealing...
>
>Note that I said "well or appropiate". Which demands a certain amount of
>taste and common sense. ;-)
>
>Of course, if you have *neither* good looks nor taste, you're out of
>luck...
>
>Reminds me of a girl I went to school with. She had natural red wavy
>hair to kill for and perfect ivory skin, but was severely overweight...
>and she wore tight pink leggins and tight yellow T-shirts. She would
>probably have benefitted from having to wear a uniform, provided they
>made them for someone 5'4'' and 230 lbs.
>
>inge
>
>
But teenagers aren't governed, by and large, by taste and common sense. They
are governed by wanting to be in fashion.
F'rinstance, there are way too many teen girls who are not Britney-thin (and
toned) on the streets of NYC these days showing their belly buttons--and the
little role of fat around their waists.
GinjerB
Jerri
> But it's not about what the kids want, eh?
I do not understand why it shouldn't be about what the kids want. This kind
of reasoning makes absolutely no sense to me. If the kid doesn't want to
wear an ugly uniform, the kid shouldn't have to wear an ugly uniform. I
speak as one who was dressed by her mother in the ugliest clothes possible
until the school system legalized jeans for girls and I was able to dress as
I pleased. I always saw the girls in the parochial schools in their plaid
skirts and white blouses and pitied them. Dressed as I was [until jeans were
legalized], I shouldn't have been able to pity anyone.
> I *hated* both my high school unifroms. The boarding
> school one was beyond hideous, the other was actually not
> that bad, but it just wasn't a style and color flattering
> to me. However, in retrospect, I know my abject misery
> in the 11th and 12th grade would have only been made
> worse if I had also had to worry about what I was
> wearing every day.
I had fun in high school. I actually had lots of friends ... yes, I hung out
with the debate team, but I was also in drama and music. We dressed as we
pleased, and I don't remember anyone stressing out over which pair of jeans
to put on [I had one pair] [straight leg, even though everyone else was
wearing bell-bottoms, because they didn't make bell-bottoms in my size] and
which t-shirt to choose for that day. Sometimes having a choice means
dressing like everyone else, and when I was in school ... it was jeans and
t-shirts. If I'd had a waist to speak of, I might have chosen blouses to
tuck in. Where's the worry? I'd have kicked like a mule if anyone had even
suggested the uniform route ... and oh, the editorials that would have been
written for *that*. I would have lost the editorship of the school paper
even sooner.
--
Jerri
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~jerlapoint
Jerri
> Reminds me of a girl I went to school with.
> She had natural red wavy hair to kill for and
> perfect ivory skin, but was severely overweight...
> and she wore tight pink leggins and tight yellow
> T-shirts. She would probably have benefitted
> from having to wear a uniform, provided they
> made them for someone 5'4'' and 230 lbs.
I am sitting here at my little computer, all agawp. I do not know how
wearing a uniform could possibly have benefited a girl who was 5'4" and 230
lbs. If she wore pink leggings and yellow t-shirts, she probably thought
they looked good on her. At the very least, she probably thought they were
pretty ... and thought "what the hell?" How good would she have looked in a
uniform designed for an "average" figure? She would have looked like a
stuffed, strangled sausage and all the natural red wavy hair and perfect
ivory skin in the world wouldn't have kept her from singing the I Am The
Walrus Blues.
--
Jerri [ku-ku-ka-chu]
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~jerlapoint
Jerri
> LOL - there are only two departments in my work
> who have to wear suits (shirt and tie for men, skirt
> suit for women) - Customer Services (of course)
> and IT(tech)!
The IT departments I worked in always had the greatest leeway in dress.
Jeans were "usually" off-limits, but managers were loathe to piss off
programmers who were obligated and willing to get up in the middle of the
night to fix the machines. The window for getting programs fixed in the
middle of the night was usually pretty short, even on New Year's Eve during
the middle of a snow storm. Of course, that was back when mainframe ruled
the world. The good old days.
--
Jerri
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~jerlapoint
GinjerB
<jerla...@earthlink.net> writes:
>Subject: Re: OT: No end to the stupidity
>From: "Jerri" <jerla...@earthlink.net>
>Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 19:09:50 GMT
Just because she thot that she looked good in pink leggings and yellow t-shirts
doesn't mean she did, or that she was any less likely to be mocked for being
5"4"and 230 pounds.
It's the mocking, not the uniform, that leads to the I Am The Walrus blues.
GinjerB
GinjerB
<jerla...@earthlink.net> writes:
>Subject: Re: OT: No end to the stupidity
>From: "Jerri" <jerla...@earthlink.net>
>Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 19:01:39 GMT
We'll just agree to disagree on this, Jerri.
GinjerB
Jerri
> Just because she thot that she looked good in
> pink leggings and yellow t-shirts doesn't mean
> she did, or that she was any less likely to be
> mocked for being 5"4"and 230 pounds. It's the
> mocking, not the uniform, that leads to the I
> Am The Walrus blues.
If you're the kind of person who wants to wear pink leggings and yellow
t-shirts, you're going to be miserable in a uniform. I know this for a fact.
I'm the kind of person who would be wearing the pink leggings and yellow
t-shirts. Actually, I wear black, green and maroon leggings and all colors
of t-shirts ... and you should see my collection of sweats. I am a rainbow
in my natural plumage. I also know that fat people look awful in uniforms.
They're not made for people like us. They're made for people with a
waistline, not rolls of fat, big thighs and enormous breasts. Did you ever
see that poor schlub Natalie on The Facts of Life? Then Tootie and Blaire
got fat and that uniform did no one any favors. They didn't look good. They
didn't look neat and pretty. They looked like parade floats, and I'm
speaking as one who would have been floating right along with them in that
uniform. Goodgodinheaven, why would anyone wish that on innocent children?
--
Jerri
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~jerlapoint
Jerri
> We'll just agree to disagree on this, Jerri.
Agreed.
--
Jerri
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~jerlapoint
Patrick W. Heinske
>
>I was a member of a scout-like organization when I was a young teenager.
>It was customary to go to the group meeting in uniform, which meant for
>me, changing at home and taking the train to town and walking all
>through the town looking like an idiot. I hated it with a passion.
>
If you so despised the uniform and the ideals that it represented, why were you
a member of this group?
Hell, I remember in my earlier days wearing a couple of different uniforms in
public very proudly, even though they were vastly different from street
clothes, because I respected and believed what they stood for.
And I'm pretty much an introvert, for a large part. Being embarrassed in public
puts me close to, if not over, the edge.
LZ -- Patrick W. Heinske
LZeit...@aol.NOSPAM.com
BronzeA...@aol.NOSPAM.com
ATH Resident Methos
Patrick W. Heinske
etc. - one thought comes starkly to mind...
I don't know about the rest of the world, but I went to school to *learn*.
GHorvath
>etc. - one thought comes starkly to mind...
>
>
>I don't know about the rest of the world, but I went to school to *learn*.
>
>LZ -- Patrick W. Heinsk
With the implication that -- what? No one else did, because they thought about
what they were wearing?
I go to the office to work, but I still choose my outfit in the morning.
Oh, and thanks for characterizing every opinion but your own as "thrashing and
wailing." Very considerate.
GH
Jerri
> I don't know about the rest of the world,
> but I went to school to *learn*.
I went to school to *graduate*. Learning was a by-product.
--
Jerri
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~jerlapoint
inge
>
> "inge" <wild...@gmx.de> wrote in message news:3D9B2C10...@gmx.de...
> > Jette Goldie wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > LOL - there are only two departments in my work
> > > who have to wear suits (shirt and tie for men, skirt
> > > suit for women) - Customer Services (of course)
> > > and IT(tech)!
> >
> > IT? What for? No one ever sees them, and they only come out after
> > dark... ;-)
>
> You have GOT to be joking!!!
Well, I know *I* haven't crawled out of office in daylight since
beginning of September... and in office I see nothing but IT people and
blue collar workers. ;-)
inge
>
> inge wild...@gmx.de writes:
>
> >
> >I was a member of a scout-like organization when I was a young teenager.
> >It was customary to go to the group meeting in uniform, which meant for
> >me, changing at home and taking the train to town and walking all
> >through the town looking like an idiot. I hated it with a passion.
> >
>
> If you so despised the uniform and the ideals that it represented, why were you
> a member of this group?
I liked the group. I liked my friends, who were all part of that group.
I liked doing unusual and adventurous things with them. I only hated
walking through town being gawked at, called 'cute' and treated
patronizingly by adults and generally looking like an idiot (Jerri's
"stuffed sausage" comparision fits very well...) in that stupid uniform.
What you do, who you are with and what you think is *not* the same as
what you wear. This is trivial, but it seems it's still often
overlooked.
(I go to roleplaying conventions in tie-dyed shirts, baggy pants and
Birkenstocks because everyone else is wearing frilly black shirts or
dresses and several pounds of mystical-symbol silver jewelry... Yep, I'm
weird.)
>
> Hell, I remember in my earlier days wearing a couple of different uniforms in
> public very proudly, even though they were vastly different from street
> clothes, because I respected and believed what they stood for.
Maybe it's a cultural thing. There's a german saying "Ich weiss nichts,
ich kann nichts, gebt mir eine Uniform." ("I'm ignorant, I'm
incompetent, give me a uniform"). It's very hard being proud when
wearing what is commonly considered the sign of having checked your
brain at the door.
inge
>
>
> I don't know about the rest of the world, but I went to school to *learn*.
So did I... man, was I in for a disappointment ;-)
inge
>
> In article <3D9B2ABC...@gmx.de>, inge <wild...@gmx.de> writes:
>
> >
> >It's always the quiet ones... ;-/ [slightly strained smiley...]
> >
> >
>
Oh yes.
John Biltz
"inge" <wild...@gmx.de> wrote in message news:3D9B8FE8...@gmx.de...
My ex wife loved to watch Cops. So I watched Cops, It never seemed to be
the quiet ones. Generally it was the drunk ones without shirts.
Criminologist Moose
DonnaLetto
>>those plaid skirts and khaki pants.
>>--
>>Jerri
And I never heard one of them begging to wear a seatbelt or a bike helmet or to
abstain from sex until they're at least old enough to spell it correctly. Your
point?
Donna
Anita Terry
rich. i don't know about you, but my financial situation ain't gettin' any
better.
yes, part of that is my fault, but i hear employers telling everyone. we
have to cut jobs and wages....why? so the top echelon won't have to take
pay cuts.
it's not that i want to be rolling in money (well maybe i do), but i would
really like to be able to pay all of my bills and buy the extras...like
food, clothes, shampoo, cleaning products. i'm getting really tired of
having to play games with my money to get to pay bills and eat, too.
Annie T
wants a decent job and benefits. had a couple, but got laid off because of
"cut backs" so the big guys wouldn't have to stop playing golf at their
country clubs.
"John Biltz" <bilt...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:VFsm9.3827$OB5.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> "Anita Terry" <ate...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:a2sm9.49840$121.1...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> > it's still conformity, no matter how you wrap it. the business world is
> all
> > about conformity. and oppression. it exists to keep the poor poor and
> the
> > rich rich. nothing will ever change that. no matter how hard you
believe
> > otherwise.
> >
> > Annie T
>
> I knew that 1100 meeting on keeping the poor poor would leak out. The
> business world exists to make money, which of course is why they call it
> business. I don't know you but that is the silliest thing I have read in
> quite some time.
>
> Moose Flashing Back to the 60s
>
> >
> > "GinjerB" <gin...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:20021001142058...@mb-cg.aol.com...
> > > In article <2tkm9.657$Jo1...@tornadotest1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> > "Jerri"
> > > <jerla...@earthlink.net> writes:
> > >
> > > >Subject: Re: OT: No end to the stupidity
> > > >From: "Jerri" <jerla...@earthlink.net>
> > > >Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 16:56:30 GMT
> > > >
> > > >"GinjerB" <gin...@aol.com> wrote
> > > >
> > > >> I'm pro-uniform/dress code. The truth is, such
> > > >> things as dress codes exist in "the real world"
> > > >> too. MHO, it does no harm for kids to begin
> > > >> to figure that out sooner rather than later.
> > > >
> > > >Yeah, have 'em learn to knuckle under as early as possible, I always
> say.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't see wearing a uniform as knuckling under to anything. I see it
> as
> > a way
> > > of helping students focus attention on the purported reason that they
> are
> > in
> > > school, which is to learn, not to impress their peers with their
> > wardrobes.
> > >
> > > Most parents and teachers are pro-uniform, for both economic and
safety
> > > reasons, at least at the level of what we used to call Junior High up.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >> As to individuality, whether you're sixteen
> > > >> or sixty, you can express that in ways other
> > > >> than dress, or in what you wear on your own
> > > >> time. And, more than likely, when you are
> > > >> sixteen, you will express it by dressing as much like
> > > >> everyone else as humanly possible! <g>
> > > >
> > > >But there's always that guy in the cool, fringed jacket who just
> wouldn't
> > > >look the same in khaki pants and a blue shirt. Onliest place I ever
> seen
> > him
> > > >was in school, and I wouldn't wanted to have missed that. Conformity
be
> > > >damned, I say! Belly buttons rule!
> > > >--
> > > >Jerri
> > >
> > >
> > > But--belly buttons don't rule, not in the business world, not if you
> > really
> > > want to get ahead.
> > >
> > > Come in for an interivew as an editorial assistant wearing hip-huggers
> and
> > a
> > > nose ring, and you're not likely to get the job.
> > >
> > > GinjerB
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
TBird
>"Patrick W. Heinske" <lzeit...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote
>
>> I don't know about the rest of the world,
>> but I went to school to *learn*.
>
>I went to school to *graduate*. Learning was a by-product.
That's a personal perference.
Some people go to learn. Some go to
graduate. I dropped out because I went to learn and found I was learning more
out of class than in.
<shrug>
>Jerri
>http://www.home.earthlink.net/~jerlapoint
>
TBird <---- yep
~~~
One of the Four Horsewomen of the Apocalypse
Anita Terry
in this country. yes, i know there would be problems with making a living
if it weren't for big busines. so what? is that suppose to make me like
it?
i don't like conformity. it takes away from any individualistic or creative
development.
these are my opinions, of course. if you make sense of them..great. if you
can't..too bad.
Annie T
Artist
"The Ranger" <cuhul...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:andrtq$d5mhn$1...@ID-61173.news.dfncis.de...
> Anita Terry tried to make sense but failed after posting:
> > it's still conformity, no matter how you wrap it. the business
> > world is all about conformity. and oppression. it exists to
> > keep the poor poor and the rich rich. nothing will ever change
> > that. no matter how hard you believe otherwise.
>
> u r so, like, rad, grrl. U g0.
>
> The "Able to Capitalize & Write Coherently" Ranger
>
>
JDChronicler
my mother, but when I got a few teachers who gave a damn I got into the
learning thing too. Hurrah for Mrs. Cusseine, Mrs. Lynch and Mr. Damanti!
Shomeret
Maggie
"John Biltz" wrote ...
>
> "inge" wrote ...
> > GinjerB wrote:
> > > inge writes:
> > > >It's always the quiet ones... ;-/
> > > >[slightly strained smiley...]
> > > The ones who sit in the back of
> > > the class and never cause any trouble?
> <g>
> > Oh yes.
> My ex wife loved to watch Cops. So
> I watched Cops, It never seemed to be
> the quiet ones. Generally it was the
> drunk ones without shirts.
> Criminologist Moose
LOL
What is the thing about the shirts? I've never actually watched
Cops, but when I channel surf by, it does seem that the guys are
all shirtless and falling down.
Maggie
Maggie
> >> Conformity is not, in and of
> >> itself, bad.
> inge writes:
> >Conformity is, I have to give it to the concept, the perfect
place to
> >hide. You slip into a pattern of automated responses and
expected
> >behaviours every morning and no one will ever notice you being
anything
> >else than a warm body taking up space. You can become as weird
and crazy
> >as you want or need to be inside your shell because no one
will ever
> >reflect your strangeness back at you and force you to think
about
> >whether you are still vaguely within parameters of sanity.
Well, conformity is also the basis of manners and standards, not
to mention traffic.
If everybody pretty much conforms to some basics, then people can
be creative. If we have to negotiate everything or be aware of
everything, then we're all too exhausted getting by to have any
energy for really new ideas or ways of being. Conformity per se
is a neutral value, IMV. If people are conforming to a good value
or a useful practical procedure, that seems like a pretty good
thing. If they are conforming with cruelty or numbing themselves,
that seems like a pretty bad thing. What Inge describes sounds
more like numbness or dullness.
MHO
Maggie
First Fallen
or to
> abstain from sex until they're at least old enough to spell it correctly.
Your
> point?
All right, I'm 29 and I can spell abstain...so where's the sex already?
Jerri
Jerri sez
> > I never heard a one of them wishing a return to
> >>those plaid skirts and khaki pants.
> And I never heard one of them begging to wear a
> seatbelt or a bike helmet or to abstain from sex
> until they're at least old enough to spell it correctly.
> Your point?
My point being that those students brought up in the uniform of a typical
parochial school system were content to abandon those uniforms the minute
they were given the choice.
--
Jerri
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~jerlapoint
John Biltz
"Maggie" <crc@don'tmail.atutexas.edu> wrote in message
news:angh7l$t42$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu...
I don't know I was pretty surprised too. My wife never noticed until I
mentioned it. But she agreed.
Observent Moose
Jerri
> I *still* wear K-Mart jeans and tennis shoes.
I've always worn K-Mart jeans ... and I'm wearing K-Mart jeans and sandals
right now. People *WITH* money shop on the cheap. I've known that for years,
so I never really understood the name brand thing. I work with real estate
agents who make real money ... *real money* ... and I have noticed that
they're wearing the same K-Mart sandals I've been wearing for 2 years. In
fact, one of them pointed it out herself. I am, however, wearing my Hard
Rock Cafe sweatshirt. Those aren't cheap, but I've been amortizing it over
the last 10 years, so I reckon it was a worthwhile purchase. It gets washed
gently in cold water and hung to dry, so it still looks very good ... even
the logo embroidery.
I've also found a very nice thrift store ... run and stocked by the KC
Assistance League ... they have some great used clothes for real cheap
sometimes. Poor real estate agents appreciate great used clothes for real
cheap.
--
Jerri
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~jerlapoint
Jerri
> And what do responsible citizen leaders do?
Uh ... I always thought they got to make their own rules. <G>
--
Jerri [not a leader, but makes her own rules, regardless]
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~jerlapoint
Jerri
> And it's all about choice. Disregard my memory
> for details, but I read where a school system that
> went uniform was told that they had to make it
> 'optional.' As word spread, practically everyone
> got rid of their uniforms. Can't understand how a
> policy can be made optional, but that being the
> case, wouldn't it make *any* dress code 'optional?'
I dunno about the whole idea. My sister in Louisiana was buying clothes for
her grandchildren, who are in a public school WITH a uniform dress code. No
choice. But the uniforms were just stated as a certain color and style ...
not as what I would think of as a real uniform. She thought it was cute,
dressing up little kids as adults ... and she bought the cheapest stuff that
would fill the requirements that she could find ... which is probably what
most of the parents were doing ... it's a poor school district. I bet the
stuff looked like crap and the kids were miserable 3 days in. But better
that than letting them dress like kids with a choice.
--
Jerri [snerk]
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~jerlapoint
John Biltz
"Jerri" <jerla...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:yjVm9.689$G%1....@tornadotest1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Most children are very happy to abandon children's car seats the minute they
are given a choice as well. I don't have strong feelings on this issue
either way. This probably because I don't have kids. I think we are
kidding ourselves if we think they don't have uniforms even if there is not
an official one. Kids are the most conformist things around. You don't
have to look any further than piercings and tatoos to see that. It is the
new uniform. I hated our dress code when I was in school. But I hated a
lot of things including the drinking laws. I do know this, if you look at
those school systems over seas that are beating the designer jeans off our
butts in testing they are wearing uniforms and I think they are in school to
learn whether they know it or not. The fact that they don't know they are
there to learn really makes me think they are not the ones who should be
deciding too many things about school.
Drive By Moose
DonnaLetto
>parochial school system were content to abandon those uniforms the minute
>they were given the choice.
>--
>Jerri
And my point being -- they're children. They don't automatically get a choice.
Or did you regularly eat 4 desserts and no veggies when you were growing up?
Donna
Jerri
> I do know this, if you look at those school systems
> over seas that are beating the designer jeans off our
> butts in testing they are wearing uniforms and I think
> they are in school to learn whether they know it or
> not. The fact that they don't know they are there to
> learn really makes me think they are not the ones who
> should be deciding too many things about school.
Tattoos don't offend me. Piercings will disappear when the fad disappears,
or, perhaps body art will become so mainstreamed that no one will look
askance at kids who decide to decorate themselves according to their
interests. I know there *are* cultures where body art is high fashion and
I'm not sure we un-tattooed, un-pierced whitebread types are superior in any
way.
I don't think it makes a bit of difference that those kids are wearing
uniforms. I think teaching methods differ and I think the teaching methods
in *our* schools suck. I don't think we expect enough of the kids or
teachers in school; and I think there is a lack of discipline on the part of
the teachers, the administration, and the students that has nothing to do
with what the kids are wearing. Put the kids in uniforms and keep the
teaching methods and the expectations the same, and those kids won't learn a
darned thing more than they're learning today. Put a band-aid on a problem
and what you've got is a problem covered up with a band-aid ... or a
uniform.
--
Jerri
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~jerlapoint
Jerri
Jerri sez
> >My point being that those students brought up in the
> > uniform of a typical parochial school system were
> > content to abandon those uniforms the minute
> >they were given the choice.
> And my point being -- they're children. They don't
> automatically get a choice. Or did you regularly eat
> 4 desserts and no veggies when you were growing up?
I don't know how this even applies, but ... since you asked ... yes, I got a
choice. We didn't have desserts, except for Sunday ... and no, I didn't eat
veggies. I hated veggies and there was nothing my mother could do about it.
She couldn't make me eat meat either. Somehow, I survived. [shrug]
Back to the subject at hand, which is a mandated uniform for schools.
Clothes for *children* are generally purchased by their parents/guardians,
or at least with the p/g's approval. Clothes are that are purchased by
adolescents who hold down a job may not meet the p/g's approval, but the p/g
has the option of not allowing the kid out the door in the morning until the
kid dresses to some standard.
The uniform presupposes that adults/taxpayers are unable to choose/regulate
their children's clothing. Personally, that would piss me off as an
adult/taxpayer. It also would have pissed me off as a child.
--
Jerri
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~jerlapoint
John Biltz
> Back to the subject at hand, which is a mandated uniform for schools.
> Clothes for *children* are generally purchased by their parents/guardians,
> or at least with the p/g's approval. Clothes are that are purchased by
> adolescents who hold down a job may not meet the p/g's approval, but the
p/g
> has the option of not allowing the kid out the door in the morning until
the
> kid dresses to some standard.
>
> The uniform presupposes that adults/taxpayers are unable to
choose/regulate
> their children's clothing. Personally, that would piss me off as an
> adult/taxpayer. It also would have pissed me off as a child.
> --
> Jerri
Well yeah, I think your right it does presuppose that adults/taxpayers are
unable/unwilling to choose/regulate their children's anything at all. Are
you saying that you think they all are able and willing? Because I don't
think so. I don't even think that is true of kids living in these condos.
I think a good many parents are the problem. This is news?
Moose Sort of Agreeing
Jerri
>Well yeah, I think your right it does presuppose that
> adults/taxpayers are unable/unwilling to choose/regulate
> their children's anything at all. Are you saying that you
> think they all are able and willing? Because I don't
> think so. I don't even think that is true of kids living in
> these condos. I think a good many parents are the problem.
> This is news?
Okey dokey. Take away the right of children to make their own decisions
because they're children. Take away the right of adults to manage their
children because you think not all of the adults are able and willing to do
it.
Next step is to rewrite the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and all
that, because we ain't living in the good ole USA anymore. We're living in a
state that's regulated to meet Somebody's Expectations. Not my expectations,
of course, but the expectations of Somebody In Authority, Somebody Who Cares
How You Dress and Wants To Raise Your Children For You.
No thanks. I'll take sloppy casual anyday. Not really much into the Being
Regulated For Our Own Good kinda thang.
--
Jerri [glad I grew up when kids were kids and adults were adults ... and we
all stood on opposite sides of the street and went neener neener]
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~jerlapoint
HiRene23
>
>I've always worn K-Mart jeans ... and I'm wearing K-Mart jeans and sandals
>right now. People *WITH* money shop on the cheap.
Wearing things on the cheap doesn't bother me *now*, but I've never been a big
clothes hound anyway. *Then* however, I was in a position of being the new
kid, the only military kid, one of the very rare Asian(ish) kids, and had to
start at a middle school in a very affluent suburb. Clothing was suddenly an
"issue" that I had never encountered before. I never felt poorly dressed until
I went to a school out of my socioeconomic level. It was a lot for a 13 yr.
old girl to deal with (like that's not hard enough).
I don't think school uniforms are the "key" to better learning, but I don't
think they are a great evil and threaten individuality either.
Rene
Jette Goldie
"inge" <wild...@gmx.de> wrote in message news:3D9B8FE8...@gmx.de...
> GinjerB wrote:
> >
> > In article <3D9B2ABC...@gmx.de>, inge <wild...@gmx.de> writes:
> >
> > >
> > >It's always the quiet ones... ;-/ [slightly strained smiley...]
> > >
> > >
> >
> > The ones who sit in the back of the class and never cause any trouble?
<g>
>
> Oh yes.
Like me?
I went to school because I liked the teachers.
--
Jette
(aka Vinyaduriel)
"Work for Peace and remain fiercely loving" - Jim Byrnes
je...@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://bosslady.tripod.com/fanfic.html
Jette Goldie
> "John Biltz" <bilt...@earthlink.net> wrote
>
> > I do know this, if you look at those school systems
> > over seas that are beating the designer jeans off our
> > butts in testing they are wearing uniforms and I think
> > they are in school to learn whether they know it or
> > not. The fact that they don't know they are there to
> > learn really makes me think they are not the ones who
> > should be deciding too many things about school.
>
> Tattoos don't offend me. Piercings will disappear when the fad disappears,
> or, perhaps body art will become so mainstreamed that no one will look
> askance at kids who decide to decorate themselves according to their
> interests. I know there *are* cultures where body art is high fashion and
> I'm not sure we un-tattooed, un-pierced whitebread types are superior in
any
> way.
Tattoos and piercings (other than pierced ears)
are not legal for school age children (over 18 only
for tattoos and you either have to be over 16 or
have your parents' permission for piercings), so the
question doesn't arise for =high school=........ and that's
always been one of the advantages of college and
university - you're considered to be old enough to decide
for yourself how to dress, whether to drink and whether
to have a tattoo or a piercing.
(some schools I know even forbid the wearing of
pierced earrings at school, because of safety
issues)
Maggie
"Trudy" wrote ...
> Yes, hide in conformity...don't rock the boat. Numb numb numb
dull
> dull dull conformity. Do as I do because that's how *everyone*
does
> it. Look alike act alike dress alike think alike speak alike.
It is my
> university's mission to develop responsible citizen leaders.
And what
> do responsible citizen leaders do? Ask questions. Take nothing
for
> granted. Learn. Speak out. But what happens when people ask
questions
> and speak out? I can tell you...because it happened to me too.
I was
> told I shouldn't act like that. And I was told it was
inappropriate of
> me to ask that person that question. And exactly *who* was I
supposed
> to ask? I went to the horse for land's sake. Mixed messages?
> Conformity. Where is the creativity in conformity? If you don't
accept
> me and my way of doing things, then I'm not 'conforming.' Don't
rock
> the boat baby.
Well, that sounds absurd. It also sounds painful to you, which is
a shame. I guess I've been lucky that I've never been told that
by anybody important.
Maggie
>
>
> "Maggie" wrote ...
Mark Jones
> Since when is speaking the truth being bitter?
It isn't--but since you _aren't_ speaking the truth, that's irrelevant.
> Now, if you want to say
> *I* am angry...you would be correct. This is one of my many soapboxes.
> And it takes angry people to affect change.
And it takes one loudmouthed extremist to drive away lots of potential
supporters for a political position.
The following:
>>>it's still conformity, no matter how you wrap it. the business world is all
>>>about conformity. and oppression. it exists to keep the poor poor and the
>>>rich rich. nothing will ever change that. no matter how hard you believe
>>>otherwise.
Is a steaming load of crap. The business world is about making money by
delivering goods and services. Some people do it well, some don't.
Some people do unethical things in the pursuit of success--many others
don't. Some poor people get rich every day by doing business, and doing
it better, faster or smarter than the competition; some rich people get
poor everyday by doing it badly.
It's not a perfect system, but anybody who claims--without presenting
any evidence at all--that it's all some kind of immense conspiracy to
"keep people down" is a moron.
--
Mark Jones
"This is a matter of opinion--I disagree."
"Are you kidding? This is USENET! Two men enter, one man leaves!"
--from a usenet discussion
Jerri
> (some schools I know even forbid the wearing of
> pierced earrings at school, because of safety
> issues)
Oh, the mothers would be up in arms. When I was a kid, all the girls were
getting their ears pierced in 7th grade [12 years old], but now it seems all
the little girls get their ears pierced when they're babies or at least
before they enter pre-school. Boys don't seem to get their ears pierced
until 5th or 6th grade. [Getting an ear pierced and chewing tobacco seem to
be a rite of passage around that age.] I don't recall there being any safety
issues around here, as long as the piercing is done in a sanitary manner and
the wound is cared for properly, and the rings are kept clean. [There's
always the idiot who gets his/her ears infected and there's just nothing you
can do for stupidity.]
--
Jerri
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~jerlapoint
Kristina
<j...@blueyonder.com.uk> wrote:
>
>"Jerri" <jerla...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:MwYm9.737$G%1....@tornadotest1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> "John Biltz" <bilt...@earthlink.net> wrote
>>
>> > I do know this, if you look at those school systems
>> > over seas that are beating the designer jeans off our
>> > butts in testing they are wearing uniforms and I think
>> > they are in school to learn whether they know it or
>> > not. The fact that they don't know they are there to
>> > learn really makes me think they are not the ones who
>> > should be deciding too many things about school.
>>
>> Tattoos don't offend me. Piercings will disappear when the fad disappears,
>> or, perhaps body art will become so mainstreamed that no one will look
>> askance at kids who decide to decorate themselves according to their
>> interests. I know there *are* cultures where body art is high fashion and
>> I'm not sure we un-tattooed, un-pierced whitebread types are superior in
>any
>> way.
>
>
>Tattoos and piercings (other than pierced ears)
>are not legal for school age children (over 18 only
>for tattoos and you either have to be over 16 or
>have your parents' permission for piercings), so the
>question doesn't arise for =high school=........
And here, we've got scads of 5th and 6th grade boys with ear
piercings. Girls tend to do it earlier.
Kristina
*~*~*~*~*
"Only Dennis Franz has suffered more than my characters."
- Joss Whedon, talking about NYPD Blue's Andy Sipowicz and BTVS.
One of the Four Horsewomen of the ATH Gutter
Kristina
wrote:
>Re going to school to learn-- Well, I initially went to school to get away from
>my mother, but when I got a few teachers who gave a damn I got into the
>learning thing too. Hurrah for Mrs. Cusseine, Mrs. Lynch and Mr. Damanti!
Replacing "mother" with "parents", I'll second that. And add a hooray
for Mrs. Munzinger, Mrs. Lindgren and Mr. Steele.
Jerri
jdchro...@aol.com (JDChronicler) wrote:
> >Re going to school to learn-- Well, I initially went
> >to school to get away from my mother, but when
> > I got a few teachers who gave a damn I got into the
> >learning thing too. Hurrah for Mrs. Cusseine,
> > Mrs. Lynch and Mr. Damanti!
> Replacing "mother" with "parents", I'll second that.
> And add a hooray for Mrs. Munzinger, Mrs.
> Lindgren and Mr. Steele.
I never had a need to get away from my parents [they went their way, we kids
went *our* way], but I'll throw in a cheer for Mrs. Miller [who went way
above and beyond the call of duty for everyone] and Mr. Roberts [who taught
us that English lit didn't have to be a total snooze]. The list of the
non-cheer-worthy is beyond my memory to construct.
--
Jerri
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~jerlapoint