Support NeoGAF

[Opiate]

Hardly?

I don't understand. At most, you can say it is justified discrimination.

She will see guys wearing tux or, not required to wear a DRESS for the simple fact they are male instead of female, to the same event.

Just to be clear -- since this is clearly a semantic argument -- discrimination cannot by definition be justified.

If it's justified, then it's simply a (good) law or rule, and not discrimination. Discrimination is specifically the act of treating one group or class differently than another group for no good reason. For instance, there is good reason why men's and women's sports are separated; we recognize real differences between men and women's athletic performance (due specifically to hormones like testosterone), and recognize persistent differences like height and muscle mass. That isn't discrimination because these differences are valid and pertinent to the situation. Similarly, some sports separate people who weigh 100lbs from those who weigh 200lbs, such as wrestling or boxing. Again, this is because we recognize real differences in physical performance between these two groups and work to separate them.

So again, there has to be a good reason. There are lots of bad reasons, and one of those bad reasons is "because that's the way it has always been."

 

[grandjedi6]

The best test case for these sort of gender conflicts is to propose a simple scenario: What if we reversed it?

In this case, it would be making all the men wear dresses and all the women suits. Would many of the men be upset by this and feel uncomfortable? Probably. Would they be right in complaining and demanding a change? Yes. So if it's alright for a man to refuse to wear a dress, why isn't it alright for a woman to do so too?

 

[moggio]

Shame on the school for perpetuating anachronistic dogshit like this.

She should arrive dressed in a tux. If they don't let her in she should tell them to go fuck themselves and go have fun on her own terms and maybe do a shit in the Principal's desk drawer as well.

 

[Izuna]

Just to be clear, since this is clearly a semantic argument, discrimination cannot by definition be justified.

If it's justified, then it's simply a (good) law or rule, and not discrimination. Discrimination is specifically the act of treating one group or class differently than another group for no good reason.

It was an oxymoron an purpose.

However there are semantics to consider for what justified means, but that is off-topic and pointless.

 

[Yrael]

Ridiculous and archaic thinking.

I recently went to a friend's wedding, which had the dress code "formal adult attire" (dresses and suits). I was the only woman there wearing a suit instead of a dress. And no-one cared, because it wasn't a big deal (in fact, I was even complimented on my suit!).

 

[Currygan]

if there's no policy then she's got a right to wear whatever she wants, and stop, nobody should tell her shit

if there's indeed a dress code, she should just swallow it and follow the rule. Rules are rules for a reason

 

[Transhuman]

She should just just retaliate like a normal person by rocking up to the prom drunk, then shitting on that teacher's car afterward.

 

[moggio]

if there's no policy then she's got a right to wear whatever she wants, and stop, nobody should tell her shit

if there's indeed a dress code, she should just swallow it and follow the rule. Rules are rules for a reason

Half the attendees will be wearing tuxes. There's no logical reason to disallow her to wear one other than antiquated patriarchal nonsense.

Rules are rules for a reason

Load of shit, mate.

 

[Opiate]

I want to repeatedly emphasize how important it is to recognize that "it's tradition" is a completely invalid argument. It is, as I linked to earlier, a well known logical fallacy, and it applies to all cases, not just this one.

Now, many traditions can persist, but the reason needs to be more than just "because that's the way it is." We have traditions in most modern societies not to murder each other, not to steal from each other, and not to rape one another, for instance. But those traditions don't continue just because; they continue because we can make reasonable, cogent arguments why those rules should continue to exist.

A tradition is not inherently worth keeping just because it's tradition. If you want a tradition to continue, you have to provide a good reason why it should do so.

 

[Bubba T]

Social issue withstanding, I think what bothers me the most is how poorly this article is written, with a title aimed getting the most views, but presenting very little facts, relying on second hand information.

Is this a blog?

EDIT: No, it's actually from a newspaper, picked up by USATODAY. Wow.

 

[Opiate]

if there's indeed a dress code, she should just swallow it and follow the rule. Rules are rules for a reason

Okay. What is that reason?

 

[Currygan]

Okay. What is that reason?

I don't know. I'm just saying that a rule is a rule. It can be stupid, idiotic, backwards, whatever you want, but its still a rule

Half the attendees will be wearing tuxes. There's no logical reason to disallow her to wear one other than antiquated patriarchal nonsense.



Load of shit, mate.

it's not. Look at this forum, it has rules, we all try to follow them.

unless you were specifically referring to her case, which i agree with

some rules and laws are complete arse, I agree, but you don't see me breaking them just because I don't agree with them

 

[Opiate]

it's not. Look at this forum, it has rules, we all try to follow them.

unless you were specifically referring to her case, which i agree with

I definitely agree that rules should be followed if those rules can be reasonably justified. What would be the reasonable justification for this rule?

some rules and laws are complete arse, I agree, but you don't see me breaking them just because I want to protest against them

Are you suggesting that (for instance) civil rights protestors should not protest laws discriminating against blacks, gays, or other groups?

 

[hidys]

I hope some dude tries to wear a dress to the prom in protest.

 

[Condom]

Yeah no, sorry. Some women don't feel comfortable wearing dresses and would rather not. Who are you or anyone else to impose what they should, or should not wear.

It's sexist, pure and simple.

I'm a man and don't want to wear tuxedos. I'm totally against any form of dress code, all dress codes have the same dirty smell: That of elitism.

 

[Izuna]

The truth is, if this thread had existed decades ago, the "reasons why man wear tux and girls wear dresses" would appear. They would be close the reasons why the tradition itself came to be, but...

It would be considered ban worthy, sexist by today's standards.

Using today's societal views to remove traditions would be chaos if done all at once, so "it's decrimintory" in my opinion, isn't the winning argument either.

Which is why I like that this is challenged. These traditions should be abolished where it counts.

If a TV station says women can't present, we ask, why though? Yes, like Anchorman.

I want someone to come in, and instead of arguing what is discrimination or not, to argue why rules should still be rules but in a modern view.

If you cannot, then...

Fake Edit: it used to say fuck off above

 

[Siegcram]

some rules and laws are complete arse, I agree, but you don't see me breaking them just because I don't agree with them

Sounds like a personal problem.

Seriously, the only counter-arguments people have come up with so far are "tradition", "dress code" and "rules", all of which are horseshit when it comes to this particular case.

 

[Bubba T]

I'm a man and don't want to wear tuxedos. I'm totally against any form of dress code, all dress codes have the same dirty smell: That of elitism.

That's not the purpose of dress codes.

 

[Currygan]

Sounds like a personal problem.

Seriously, the only counter-arguments people have come up with so far are "tradition", "dress code" and "rules", all of which are horseshit when it comes to this particular case.

I assure you there's nothing personal about any of all this

I definitely agree that rules should be followed if those rules can be reasonably justified. What would be the reasonable justification for this rule?

Are you suggesting that (for instance) civil rights protestors should not protest laws discriminating against blacks, gays, or other groups?

there's a difference between protesting, which I did in the past many times and still do whenever the chance, and breaking the law. While I agree that sometimes a heavy handed approach can be justified and may bring some results, it almost never goes that way and the protesters end up being with a baton up their arse

 

[Kenshin001]

I want to repeatedly emphasize how important it is to recognize that "it's tradition" is a completely invalid argument. It is, as I linked to earlier, a well known logical fallacy, and it applies to all cases, not just this one.

Now, many traditions can persist, but the reason needs to be more than just "because that's the way it is." We have a traditions in most modern societies not to murder each other, not to steal from each other, and not to rape one another, for instance. But those traditions don't continue just because; they continue because we can make reasonable, cogent arguments why those rules should continue to exist.

A tradition is not inherently worth keeping just because it's tradition. If you want a tradition to continue, you have to provide a good reason why it should do so.

That kind of defeats the purpose of a tradition. Most traditions continue because people enjoy traditions. They enjoy the idea of doing things that have been done through the centuries and their children will continue doing. There doesn't have to be any deep meaning to justify their existence. Once you start changing the tradition it no longer becomes enjoyable or has any value as a tradition. It's just something that is done.

 

[Condom]

That's not the purpose of dress codes.

This is not a good post. If you do not agree, explain a little why. ie. What is the purpose?

 

[Opiate]

That kind of defeats the purpose of a tradition. Most traditions continue because people enjoy traditions. They enjoy the idea of doing things that have been done through the centuries and their children will continue doing. There doesn't have to be any deep meaning to justify their existence. Once you start changing the tradition it no longer becomes enjoyable or has any value as a tradition. It's just something that is done.

Again, "it's just something that is done" is not a valid or cogent argument. Rules need to continuously justify themselves.

 

[fastford58]

I don't see the issue. There is a dress code, stick to it, you're not a special snowflake.

Blue is for boys! Pink is for girls!

It's not about dress code. It's about enforcing unwritten gender stereotypes that should have been put to rest a long time ago.

 

[Opiate]

there's a difference between protesting, which I did in the past many times and still do whenever the chance, and breaking the law. While I agree that sometimes a heavy handed approach can be justified and may bring some results, it almost never goes that way and the protesters end up being with a baton up their arse

Isn't that what this student is doing? She's protesting the rule in place. She has not broken the rule -- the prom hasn't even happened yet, and she's not planning to attend.

 

[Siegcram]

That kind of defeats the purpose of a tradition. Most traditions continue because people enjoy traditions. They enjoy the idea of doing things that have been done through the centuries and their children will continue doing. There doesn't have to be any deep meaning to justify their existence. Once you start changing the tradition it no longer becomes enjoyable or has any value as a tradition. It's just something that is done.

"Tradition: one of those words conservative people use as a shortcut to thinking." /transmet

 

[Yrael]

That kind of defeats the purpose of a tradition. Most traditions continue because people enjoy traditions. They enjoy the idea of doing things that have been done through the centuries and their children will continue doing. There doesn't have to be any deep meaning to justify their existence. Once you start changing the tradition it no longer becomes enjoyable or has any value as a tradition. It's just something that is done.

People enjoying a tradition may be one reason to keep it.

However, people not enjoying a tradition because it is restrictive and discriminates against them is a good reason to discard it.

 

[Izuna]

People enjoying a tradition may be one reason to keep it.

However, people not enjoying a tradition because it is restrictive and discriminates against them is a good reason to discard it.

I agree with this post.

 

[DeathyBoy]

I see the 'what if a man wore a dress? Would you allow that?' counter argument has been made. To which any sane person would say 'yes.' Because it's a non-issue. It doesn't affect anyone there in a way that justifies banning it, the same way her wearing a tuxedo doesn't affect anyone there.

And the 'tradition' rants are the fucking pits.

Personally? I think proms and May Ball and formal events are staggeringly boring and a waste of space. But if this woman wants to go to one wearing a tuxedo, or a guy wants to go to one in a dress, and feels less awkward and shit upon by society? More power to them.

 

[Currygan]

Isn't that what this student is doing? She's protesting the rule in place. She has not broken the rule -- the prom hasn't even happened yet.

and indeed I havent said she's broken the rules or else. She's - rightfully - concerned and baffled about it. All I've said is, if there's indeed a dress code tradition in the institute, as stupid as it may be, which it is, it has to be followed. Obviously nothing prevents whatever authority to change or erase it if need be

 

[NoblesseOblige]

It's disheartening to see people actually defending blatant discrimination with "it's the rules" and "it's tradition". I would hope people using those excuses were just playing devil's advocate but unfortunately that doesn't seem the case. At least the majority of posters seem to have the right idea and aren't living in the past.

 

[spekkeh]

This is the best argument I've seen put forth yet, but even here I'm quite skeptical. I think we can recognize a difference between forcing people to wear formal wear (e.g. no jeans and tutu) and forcing people to wear particular formal wear we have designated for their gender. She isn't asking to wear men's scrubs, she's asking to wear men's formal wear. This rule is implicitly insisting on two separate functions; the first is to make sure everyone dresses nice (i.e. no jeans), the second is to make sure everyone wears gender appropriate clothing (i.e. no tuxes for women). I think you'd see far more sympathy for the former part of this rule than the latter.

Yes and no, I mean decorum is innately silly. Personally I would have let her wear the damn tux, but there are a number of reasons why the school would want to enforce it anyway (apart from it being silly in the first place of course). For instance, they might not want to have funny guys ruin the decorum by showing up in a dress, and if you don't allow guys to gender bender, it would be sexism to allow girls to do it. Similarly, these proms are obviously modeled after balls of the European high society, to give it that certain cachet, and the dress code are already incredibly lax in comparison, to the point of missing out on the decorum. Try coming to the Vienna Opernball wearing a black bowtie, you'd be removed, ostracized and a shame for everyone, never mind wearing anything out side of gender norms.

There's etiquette for certain white dinner jackets not being allowed above the Mason-Dixon latitude line, and this girl is going to balk about having to wear a dress? I mean seriously, get some perspective and choose your battles. You're being forced to wear something? That's the point.

 

[Razmos]

and indeed I havent said she's broken the rules or else. She's - rightfully - concerned and baffled about it. All I've said is, if there's indeed a dress code tradition in the institute, as stupid as it may be, which it is, it has to be followed. Obviously nothing prevents whatever authority to change or erase it if need be

The dress code isn't "Boys wear tuxedo's, Girls wear dresses" though. It's simply "Formal".

The stipulation that the girl has to wear a dress was imposed by the faculty because they are gender stereotyping.

 

[Siegcram]

All I've said is, if there's indeed a dress code tradition in the institute, as stupid as it may be, which it is, it has to be followed.

Why?

I mean, disregarding the fact that from what I gathered from the article, the rule seemed to be the spontaneous product of a sudden surge of bigotry, why would it need to be followed if it did exist prior? What would be the justification? There are gonna be tuxedos anyway, who gives a fuck who wears them? Is the place suddenly burst into flames as soon as a women clad into tux and tie steps over the threshold?

 

[Kenshin001]

Again, "it's just something that is done" is not a valid or cogent argument. Rules need to continuously justify themselves.

I said the opposite. If you change the tradition it becomes something that is just done. It has no significance. If you don't abide by it it no longer becomes a tradition.

 

[Bubba T]

This is not a good post. If you do not agree, explain a little why. ie. What is the purpose?

The purpose of dress codes is to establish a environment suitable for the establishments purpose. It helps maintain an image and boosts credibility.

If you visit a law office, bank, or any other place of business, finding the employees wearing jeans, t-shirts, and baseball caps, you start to question their ability to properly conduct business. You might decide to take your business elsewhere.

Same goes for a job interview for a corporate job. If you show up in any old outfit, the potential employer starts to question your credibility.

There really isn't much more to it.

 

[BowieZ]

This thread seems to have tiptoed around the real issue here. The story's victim doesn't want to a wear a dress not because wearing a dress would make her feel uncomfortable, but because wearing a dress would make her feel repressed and remind her that how she truly wants to express herself is abnormal and unsanctioned by the society she lives in.

The fact that some in this thread are defending this due to "tradition" are ignorant and a little heartless.

How about you reach out and learn why she might not want to wear a dress? Maybe it isn't arrogance? To be a "special snowflake"?

Maybe it's for the good of us all to bend the rules to make a girl feel normal and happy.

 

[Izuna]

The purpose of dress codes is to establish a environment suitable for the establishments purpose. It helps maintain an image and boosts credibility.

If you visit a law office, bank, or any other place of business, finding the employees wearing jeans, t-shirts, and baseball caps, you start to question their ability to properly conduct business. You might decide to take your business elsewhere.

Same goes for a job interview for a corporate job. If you show up in any old outfit, the potential employer starts to question your credibility.

There really isn't much more to it.

This school prom isn't to advertise for kids to join the school though, is it?

It is for the kids to celebrate their being a student at their school.

 

[Razmos]

The purpose of dress codes is to establish a environment suitable for the establishments purpose. It helps maintain an image and boosts credibility.

If you visit a law office, bank, or any other place of business, finding the employees wearing jeans, t-shirts, and baseball caps, you start to question their ability to properly conduct business. You might decide to take your business elsewhere.

Same goes for a job interview for a corporate job. If you show up in any old outfit, the potential employer starts to question your credibility.

There really isn't much more to it.

That's all well and good, now apply that to the prom. What professional image are they trying to convey?
What "credibility" would be hurt by wearing a formal outfit usually worn by another gender?

Would this girl showing up in a tuxedo ruin their credibility or whatever image they are going for?

It's a goddamn prom, a party for the kids to celebrate. Fuck professional image.

 

[Moosichu]

And being gay prevents her from wearing a dress because....?

And bein female stops her from being alowed to wear a tux because.....?

Dame argument applies viceversa. If there is a dress code. Such as dress and suite. People should be allowed to choose which of those they wear regardless of gender.

 

[Goodstyle]

A guy can wear a dress and a girl can wear a tux. I do not care at all. Like I said it wouldn't bother me if she wore it to the event BUUUT

I just don't think we need to bend the knee and change the rules for every little thing. You aren't always going to get what you want and you won't always be happy. I don't know why it's that big of a deal.

If it is a rule (which I'm pretty sure it isn't), it's an arbitrary one based on outdated conceptions. There is no reason for its existence other than tired gender role stereotypes, and really, we should have moved passed that. If it's still a rule, it's best to let it go the way of the dinosaurs as it has no place in today's society.

How are we ever going to move forward if people like you will defend every ludicrous tradition no matter how out of place it is?

 

[Izuna]

That feeling when there are people defending the same view point, but articulated with more precision and knowledge.

 

[Jackpot]

Silly comparison.

Why? Because it exposes how stupid it is to pretend it's just about the rules and has no wider context at all?

 

[Gaogaogao]

dress codes are bullshit and so are proms

 

[Kazerei]

Wow, apparently high school prom is serious fucking business or something. At my prom some kids just wore a nice pair of jeans and a polo shirt. Nobody gave a shit. This isn't a job interview or a boardroom meeting, it's just a big ass high school party. If some snobs want a fancy shmancy prom where boys wear tuxes and girls wear dresses, they can go do that somewhere else. High school is supposed to be inclusive. All the "buh-buh-buh ruuuules" people need to pull the stick out of their asses and lighten up.

It's a goddamn prom, a party for the kids to celebrate. Fuck professional image.

Exactly!

 

[jerd]

The purpose of dress codes is to establish a environment suitable for the establishments purpose. It helps maintain an image and boosts credibility.

If you visit a law office, bank, or any other place of business, finding the employees wearing jeans, t-shirts, and baseball caps, you start to question their ability to properly conduct business. You might decide to take your business elsewhere.

Same goes for a job interview for a corporate job. If you show up in any old outfit, the potential employer starts to question your credibility.

There really isn't much more to it.

And when you see that woman in a pants suit you just know that isn't a credible business that's worth your time

 

[Transhuman]

dress codes are bullshit and so are proms

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOeKidp-iWo

 

[Bubba T]

This school prom isn't to advertise for kids to join the school though, is it?

It is for the kids to celebrate their being a student at their school.

An advertisement to join the school was not the point I was making.

That's all well and good, now apply that to the prom. What professional image are they trying to convey?
What "credibility" would be hurt by wearing a formal outfit usually worn by another gender?

Would this girl showing up in a tuxedo ruin their credibility or whatever image they are going for?

It's a goddamn prom, a party for the kids to celebrate. Fuck professional image.

I don't know the answer to that. Maybe they will think their prom will become a joke if she wears a tux? That's a hit to credibility. It's their establishment. Unless it is proven that the school is openly discriminating against the woman because she's gay, they can bar a female from wearing a tux because it doesn't align with their dress code.

 

[Bubba T]

And when you see that woman in a pants suit you just know that isn't a credible business that's worth your time

Now you're just being facetious. I merely used an example to illustrate my point...

You know what, never mind.

 

[Moosichu]

An advertisement to join the school was not the point I was making.





I don't know the answer to that. Maybe they will think their prom will become a joke if she wears a tux? That's a hit to credibility. It's their establishment. Unless it is proven that the school is openly discriminating against the woman because she's gay, they can bar a female from wearing a tux because it doesn't align with their dress code.

Well. Now (thankfully) the reverse is happening. This behaviour is a hit to their creditability. And going forward businesses will have to stop forcing people to be gender conforming or risk harming their own credibility as well. You can have standards, yes. But have a uniform set of them or let different dress codes be a choice. Don't dictate who gets to wear what based on their genitals.

 

[royalan]

The purpose of dress codes is to establish a environment suitable for the establishments purpose. It helps maintain an image and boosts credibility.

If you visit a law office, bank, or any other place of business, finding the employees wearing jeans, t-shirts, and baseball caps, you start to question their ability to properly conduct business. You might decide to take your business elsewhere.

Same goes for a job interview for a corporate job. If you show up in any old outfit, the potential employer starts to question your credibility.

There really isn't much more to it.

The funny counterpoint here is that, in the scenarios you listed, it would be socially acceptable for a woman to wear a suit.