This is not a question about society at large. We know that girls should in general wear certain types of clothes in certain situations and same with boys. We know that girls and boys and women and men need to (according to our dominant culture) make themselves look different from each other by the clothes that they wear for whatever reasons.
Granted that society is like this, why does the leadership at many state primary schools who have a compulsory uniform enforce this sex/gender binary through policies that boys must wear XYZ and girls must wear XYZ?
Why are boys disallowed by policy to wear tunics, pinafores, skirts, skorts, tights etc… Why are girls not allowed to wear shirts? In some schools girls are not allowed to wear long pants or shorts.
Isn’t the purpose of primary schools to change future societies for the better, not to hold them back in the 1950s?
I’d be interested in the opinions of any children on this topic (no, not thingking blitz posters, more like parents of bliz posters). The primary school aged children who I’ve asked are so brainwashed that they don’t even understand the question.
Should we instead be raising a nation of critical thinkers, not mindless yes people ready to slot into the wall as the next brick on the assembly line?
Not sure critical thinking has much to do if you wear blue or pink. It is more about access to education, reading, expanding the mind and encouragement to search answers.
Us dumb parents stereotype our kids from birth. Pink for girls, blue for boys, dolls for girls and dump trucks for boys etc; it us just part of our own social conditioning.
Schools uniforms were all about discipline and conformity, and when at my High School in the late sixties, we refused to wear the blazer and tie, all hell broke loose. But they were changing times and we won. But we lost as well, as then no uniforms meant that, it became a fashion contest for some, and those in poverty were highlighted and discriminated.
Us Baby Boomers in many ways have let down our kids and grandkids, by pandering to their every need and letting their “individuality” flourish over team and community. But the issue is deeper than what boys and girls wear.
Us dumb parents stereotype our kids from birth. Pink for girls, blue for boys, dolls for girls and dump trucks for boys etc; it us just part of our own social conditioning.
School uniforms made ■■■■ real easy eveyday.
Follow-up question for you both: Does a girl/boy dichotomy of clothing make things easier? Do you think it’s a case of ‘let’s just keep things simple, this is how it’s gonna be.’?
Us dumb parents stereotype our kids from birth. Pink for girls, blue for boys, dolls for girls and dump trucks for boys etc; it us just part of our own social conditioning.
School uniforms made ■■■■ real easy eveyday.
Follow-up question for you both: Does a girl/boy dichotomy of clothing make things easier? Do you think it’s a case of ‘let’s just keep things simple, this is how it’s gonna be.’?
easier how?
i think its just something the school did to present an image of being a ‘good’ school.
Us Baby Boomers in many ways have let down our kids and grandkids, by pandering to their every need and letting their “individuality” flourish over team and community.
I like that answer because I don’t have the same individuality vs team/community perspective that you have. I’m in my late 20s. Have played basketball, but not an intense team sport such as footy. I attended two different primary schools, one without a uniform and one with and two different high schools, one with a very lax uniform code and one with a very strict blazer and tie getup. And watch out if you wore your summer socks in winter.
I was surprised when I found myself actually liking wearing the blazer and tie and I felt like part of something bigger than myself. That was an all boys school.
But for coed, why can’t you have girls wearing the exact same uniform as the boys - shirt/blouse, tie, blazer and long pants. Would it be wrong? Should it be wrong? And who has the right to decide? Are girls and boys that different from each other? Or do the collective we want to make out like they are that much different from each other?
Boys and girls are that different from each other, but maybe that starts with the traditions and social conditioning from birth.
I am a real scientist not a social scientist or psychologist, and a failed parent in many ways, so my answer are tainted with my upbringing.
I never needed anyone to tell me who was a girl or a boy, and in my view uniforms are a great idea as it puts everyone on a level playing field. I do think the cost of them is horrendous, and maybe a unisex version is progress.
Boys and girls are that different from each other, but maybe that starts with the traditions and social conditioning from birth.
I am a real scientist not a social scientist or psychologist, and a failed parent in many ways, so my answer are tainted with my upbringing.
I never needed anyone to tell me who was a girl or a boy, and in my view uniforms are a great idea as it puts everyone on a level playing field. I do think the cost of them is horrendous, and maybe a unisex version is progress.
We have tried to raise our children without imposing gender norms, yet my daughter loves pink, princesses and everything girly, while my son loves cars, footy and smashing ■■■■. I used to think environmental factors were dominant in determining gender stereotypical behaviour, but now I’ve gone the other way.
I wore shorts everyday. Didn’t want to play on monkey bars or climb trees whilst in a dress. I hated dresses for this reason. Not good for playing outside, ufff.
Not sure critical thinking has much to do if you wear blue or pink. It is more about access to education, reading, expanding the mind and encouragement to search answers.
Us dumb parents stereotype our kids from birth. Pink for girls, blue for boys, dolls for girls and dump trucks for boys etc; it us just part of our own social conditioning.
Schools uniforms were all about discipline and conformity, and when at my High School in the late sixties, we refused to wear the blazer and tie, all hell broke loose. But they were changing times and we won. But we lost as well, as then no uniforms meant that, it became a fashion contest for some, and those in poverty were highlighted and discriminated.
Us Baby Boomers in many ways have let down our kids and grandkids, by pandering to their every need and letting their “individuality” flourish over team and community. But the issue is deeper than what boys and girls wear.
even in the early 1920’s when gender specific clothing started to begin, it was still at that point a case of Boys = pink and Girls = Blue. This, again, was pushed strongly by the department stores for the same reasons as listed above. It wasn’t until the 1940’s that Pink and Blue got switched to what we know it as today.
Also, just on your overall point… I’m not sure our underfunded state schools are exactly set up to be leaders and pioneers in social change. I think that’s asking a lot.
Dutch folk still have pink & blue the other way around.
When the (half-Dutch half-Italian) grandkids of the oldies next door to my folks were little, they’d chop and change depending on which side of the family has been looking after them.
Weird.
Dutch folk still have pink & blue the other way around.
When the (half-Dutch half-Italian) grandkids of the oldies next door to my folks were little, they'd chop and change depending on which side of the family has been looking after them.
Weird.
I could not have worn a dress. My massive ■■■■■ would have been left swinging in the breeze, causing other young boys to develop inferiority complexes.
What I was trying to say above is, that based on the timeline of the Roosevelt photo, there is a pretty good chance that a photo exists somewhere of a young Noonan in a dress.
