As reported in the Observer two schools in England have banned skirts altogether and have insisted girls wear trousers-dozens of other schools are now considering following their example. Why have these schools taken this step? "Letters have been sent to parents saying the current fashion is for wearing skirts as short and as tight as possible" They go on to advise, in a typically British understatement that "dealing with the issue is a distraction from teaching".
One Headmaster said that short skirts were encouraging "inappropriate thoughts" amongst boys. I can confirm this remembering a time I had been asked to present a paper I had written to my senior class in high school and noticed that the front row was all female in open fronted desks in skirts that had ridden up. This presented an inflammatory sight to an hormonally challenged young man- and I certainly struggled to present the paper as well as I had hoped.
But why trouser and not longer skirts? Apparently Tesco's the huge supermarket chain had been selling school skirts much shorter than standard skirts "which looked like they should be sold in a sex shop" advised a parenting website "Netmums". Even the standard issue length skirts were being "'customized" by being rolled up by the waistband. One teacher said that male teachers are being "embarrassed by the sight of female underwear in the corridors and especially on the stairs."
The liberals came rushing into this example of patriarchy, misogynism and God now what else they thought it represents in their busybody brains, when Robert Kelly, Rector of Berwickshire High in Duns, Scotland presented his thoughts on this to his female students.
Rape Crisis Scotland came rushing in to defend the right of young females to show off as much of their upper thighs as possible. Advocate Eileen Maitland was reported to complain that she agreed schools had the right to have a school uniform but should not "encourage prejudicial attitudes that dress is somehow a provocation" and then concluded Miniskirts don't cause rape, rapists do."
Eileen Maitland is 100% right-I have checked criminal records both in the U.K. and the USA and have found not a single case of a miniskirt raping a female. However, and perhaps I am being old fashioned and out of touch with modern trends, but in my day the sight of naked thighs in ultra short skirts which showed off underwear did have a stimulating effect on males of all ages. I would also consider that if females wear clothing so short and tight then the incidence of sexual unwelcome advances of all types would be considerably higher than if more modest apparel-in length and looseness-was worn, witness the reporter Ines Sainz in the NY Jets clubhouse brouhaha.
No one is suggesting that the Burkha should be clothing du jour for for high school students.But surely, responsible adults running schools have the right, in fact duty, to impose a dress code which has some relation to an understanding of such things as a moral code, is not distracting to students and staff, and which does not contribute to sexual advances-even rape.
But apparently the liberal feminists can't accept that these very real factors can't be addressed as an explanation to the female students as to why the school is imposing standards. This is because, apparently, by doing so they are sending a message to women that dress is "somehow a provocation". The idiocy of that statement beggars belief. What it seems the schools should do is to impose a clothing regulation without explaining why they are doing it, in case they offend against females right to have no bounds as to what they wear, no matter how sexually explicit and or offensive as the case may be. No doubt because this is an example of the "patriarchy" in action.
Thank God there are women like Camille Paglia who have railed against this idiotic feminism, especially in the case of "date rape" where she condemns both the attacker and the person attacked when, in the latter case, there is a lack of common sense and provocation on the females part. No one is condoning rape or unwanted sexual attacks-they are horrendous and deserve to be punished by the full weight of the law. But we are sexual beings ("Sexual Personae" as Paglia puts it) and common sense should come into how society functions.
Sadly the radical feminist have such a grip on the mores of society that it is unlikely any male in political life can address these issues and call them out for the stupidity they represent. Just like Nixon being the only politician who could have opened up China from the right (a Democrat would have been destroyed as a communist if he had tried it) so it will take a female leader to try and restore sanity in our national discourse.
Sarah Palin, who is a strong and fearless leader in the Thatcher mold, is ideally placed to take on the feminist mafia as she goes about the business of leading America to look to a society based on moral values, the sanctity of life and yes, schools where students and teachers can work without embarrassment and distraction. Palin owes the feminist movement absolutely nothing-they have stood by, and often have lead the cheering, when the liberal media and blogosphere have done everything they can to destroy her by attacking her as a woman. She is impervious to their attacks and can ensure America doesn't reach the absurd levels that the British school system had descended into.