A South Carolina school has put a star student on notice - unless she wears a dress, she won't be welcome at her graduation ceremony.
She's the image of a model graduate, this year's recipient of the Heart of Chapin Spirit Award, proud of her school from tassel to class ring, but Chelsea Sarvis' high school won't allow her to participate at graduation without the dress."I just don't see why girls have to wear dresses," said Sarvis.
Chapin High School's graduation dress code requires females to wear a dress or skirt. Males must wear dress pants. Chelsea says wearing a dress makes her feel very uncomfortable.
"If girls are uncomfortable with their bodies like I am, I just don't like wearing them," said Sarvis. "Why is it a stereotype that a girl has to wear a dress?"
Indeed. You know, what bothers me is not that the dress code exists - after all, there are a lot of antiquated rules still on the books at schools. What really gets me is that the principal of this school is actually enforcing the dress code, and in turn enforcing traditional gender roles.
Chelsea says she's not trying to be disrespectful. She'll be dressed as formal as other males. "If it looks nice, why can't they wear it?" she said.Chelsea wore a tuxedo to prom with no problems and she wore blue face paint at more Chapin sporting events than anyone else this year. She feels to be forced out of pants and into a dress, would be a complete contradiction to the proud student she's been these last four years.
"If I had to walk across the stage in a dress, I'd be completely miserable and that's not how I want to leave high school," said Sarvis.
But what's a miserable student compared to ensuring that school administrators feel comfortable with young people's gender presentation?
A similar case in Delaware last month resulted in the school backing off the dress code. The ACLU chapter there got involved, noting that the policy was "based on illegal gender stereotypes."
Related Community posts: "Dress Code" Should Not Equal "Self-Respect", Dress Codes, Authority, and Pre-Teens
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Enforcing femininity: SC school will ban pants-wearing female students from graduation.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14077
I think, to parody this archaic gender stereotype, this young woman should take a cue from Lady Gaga's wardrobe...
http://www.212dressingroom.com/UserFiles/gagachalayan2.jpg
Are these people for f*cking real? My grandmother was wearing pants in 1940's Iraq, and American girls are not allowed to?
Seriously? Pants?
GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!&%$#*$%$$%##$#^%#$%^!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Gotta love the typical drivel the principal spouts.
I'm not even gonna get into how stupid that is.
Exactly. Cause a wearing flip flops and shorts is the same as a girl not wearing a dress, right? Right?
*crickets*
I was the only woman to wear pants to my high school graduation. If they had told me I had to wear a dress, I probably would have told them to mail me my fucking diploma.
What if she wears slacks, and hikes them up a little so they don't show below the graduation gown? No one will be the wiser, except her!
I wore shorts. That way, it at least appeared as though I was complying with the girls-in-dresses rule. Well, until you looked down and saw my Doc Martens.
(The Docs ended up being kind of a big deal, too. I later met a girl who had gone to my high school, a couple of years behind me, and she knew me as "the girl who wore combat boots to graduation.")
Hasn't this principal walked into a women's clothing store lately?
What crack!
Barfle. The "nice clothes = boys in slacks, girls in dresses/skirts" line definitely got tossed out there as my high school class was preparing to graduate, and I promptly asked about pants. The answer was a fairly icy "I guess that would be okay," but come graduation day people were in shorts and flip-flops left and right anyway.
Leave it to SC. Grew up there and stayed in the state until I was 21 and joined the Army. And that's not the worst I've seen for that area. Try going to a fundamentalist Bible believing Baptist high school. I was totally the black sheep. However, this girl is in a public school where wearing pants should have no bearing on a graduation ceremony. O and don't forget SC was the first to secede the union, last to legalize tattoos, (or 2nd to last with OK being last I think), and recently got rid of mini bottles in clubs. I know this has little to do with the femininst issue discussed but that state is still in the stone age in so many areas. It's part of the Bible belt and some thing die extremely hard.
I'm pretty sure the only rule at my high school was that you had to be dressed up and that your footwear had to be formal. I remember the VP saying that you couldn't wear casual sandals after several people tried to wear Old Navy flip flops, but that had more to do with being formal than gender.
I wore a dress voluntarily, though, so there may have been a rule that I don't remember because I was following it without being prompted.
Why don't they do something more useful like enforce rules on the audience? I graduated from community college this year and that's where the problems were. Some people actually brought airhorns to the event.
Wow. Bullshit. If this is really a graduation "requirement," I can't believe she's the first girl to have complained about it. I wore pants and a T-shirt to graduation. And don't your clothes gets covered up anyway by your gown ... ?
Secondly, how do private schools with uniforms deal with this? Do they usually give girls both a skirt and pants uniform option?
I hope the ACLU steps in on this one, too.
My private school did just that. Girls could wear either the skirt or the slacks. The only thing girls weren't allowed to wear was the tie. Even then, some people complained...
That is until about April. Then we had the option to switch to "summer" uniforms. Girls had to wear a skirt and boys had to wear shorts. I don't recall anyone complaining about that too much, though. If a girl didn't want to wear the skirt, she could still wear the regular uniform slacks...
Why didn't girls get the option of wearing shorts?
I have no idea, to be perfectly honest. I'm sure they would have given in on that issue rather easily if someone had put up a fight about it, like they did with the slacks in the other uniform, but as far as I know, nobody ever made a big deal out of it, so the school just sort of left it for another time...
wow, that's some straight up bollocks there.
First of all, don't people usually wear, I don't know, robes at their graduation! No one can see what you're wearing under them anyway so I see no point in saying that the graduates have to wear this or that UNDER their robes. It's ridiculous. At my graduation it was so hot under those things that most kids wore tank tops and shorts and some girls even wore bikinis.
Secondly, even if they felt the need to enforce some sort of dress code because it was graduation and they wanted the graduates to look "nice" I see no need to force these stupid traditional gender roles on the students. Why can't the girls also just be told to wear nice clothes? Are the girls also told they must wear make up? Heels? Where does it stop?
Ridiculous.
I'm not sure about the high school in question, but at my graduation, we didn't wear robes. We all had to wear white dresses and hold red flowers, no exceptions. (All-girls PUBLIC school).
I hated it because I thought it was too prissy, too uniform, too stereotypical 'this is what a good girl would wear and do'. I am and was sort of a tomboy. I don't have problems with occasionally wearing dresses, but a whole group of us (read: interchangable) wearing white (read: virgin) and looking all 'pure' and 'innocent' because it was 'tradition' (read: outdated and kept up for no good reason).
And I'm cisgendered and actually was a virgin at the time. Back then I couldn't articulate why it bugged me. One size definitely does not fit all. Graduations are not military exercises where there is good reason for everyone to be wearing camouflage.
I wonder if the administration of your school thought at all about the symbolism of white dresses and red flowers. I mean, come on! The flowers were even red? (Your school colors were probably red & white, right?) Anyway, I don't think I would have been able to keep my mouth shut, but then I never was good at that sort of thing.
At my high school graduation, the issue was whether boys were wearing long pants or not--as everyone wanted to wear shorts--and I seem to remember they were threatened with not walking if there weren't pant legs showing under their gowns. The girls, of course, were assumed to be wearing skirts, when a lot of us had shorts on. I did wear a dress, but I didn't wear a lot of dresses in those days so I wanted an excuse to get one and show it off. Now I look at my graduation photos and cannot believe I ever picked out such a hideous, unflattering thing, but it was the 80s.
Our colors were green and gold, actually. Rather hideous. But nope, no one seemed to get the red thorn/virgin in white symbolism. We were just supposed to be nice young ladies carrying pretty flowers. Or something.
Our school was founded in the 1800s, so I can't fault anyone of my particular era (class of 1992) for coming up with that nonsense in the first place, though SOMEONE should have had enough of a clue to pick up on it 150 years after the fact. As far as I know, the girls at my alma mater still dress that way and still have red flowers in their left hand/arm as they accept their diplomas with their right.
Wow. In an American public high school? In 2009? It seems like administrators like the principal of this high school are concerned with and devote their time to the most minute, harmless and unimportant things. And so often theses things have to do with reinforcing tired, old gender stereotypes and dated, restricted notions of masculinity and femininity.
*restrictive
Actually, when I was in choir my director had the same policy (a woman). Girls were expected to wear a skirt and black heels, because she believed that seeing the pants legs underneath the robes was too informal. Men were expected to wear dress pants and nice shoes.
At the time, I was far less aware of gender stereotyping than I am now. If I ever run into that woman again, though, I will definitely let her have it.
I go to a SC college where the dress requirements for graduation are: white tuxes for men, white dresses for women.
If I graduate from there (I'm out-of-state, so the economy is crapping on my plans), I'm wearing a women's tux. Not that I don't love dresses, but I'd just rather make a statement when I walk across the stage.
CofC? I'm an alumna. I graduated in a dress, but since I don't shave my legs it was a bit of a statement (I also refused to carry the roses because I didn't see why I should pay so much more for them than the men had to pay for boutneirs). I was pleasantly surprised when another woman I was friends with graduated in white pants and encountered no problems with the administration.
At my high school in PA, girls wore dresses and boys suits. I never saw a problem with it. I know that there was a transgendered kid (FtM) and he wore a suit. I guess if someone felt uncomfortable, they could wear something else.
Enforcing femininity=Enforcing subjugation.
Susan Brownmiller wrote a brilliant book called "Femininity" in which she attempted to identify the most common physical traits or attributes that are stereotypically thought of by most people as being "feminine" -- attributes such as wearing heels, skirts, long nails, long hair, etc. -- and analyzed what all these things had in common. The answer? They all either inflicted pain, restricted movement, made women more vulnerable to attack, or all three.
Ha! I always thought that myself, but thanks for putting a theorist's name to it. I'll have to check that book out.
I was like racking my brain for a male equivalent of a painful item of clothing ... all I got was the tie. Which is also a sort of interesting symbol of wealth/class. But anyway.
My high school required ties for the boys, along with white dress shirts. One kid who seriously did not own a tie was not allowed to be in our senior picture. For real.
We girls were supposed to wear dresses short enough not to show from under our robes and white close-toed, close-heeled shoes... which are pretty hard to find nowadays. I can understand wanting some formality, but dictating things to that extreme? Just silly.
Personally, I feel that if a high school is going to require a restrictive dress code in order to participate in a graduation ceremony, it should be willing to help out with providing the required items. For instance, a tie for my friend whose family didn't own a single one, or "appropriate" pumps for a girl who couldn't afford new shoes for one single occasion.
Huh. Given how hot it is in South Carolina at this time of year, I'd think challenges going in the other direction--ie, boys wanting to wear skirts to avoid the stifling heat of long pants under a graduation robe--would be more common.
Honestly, I do think that gendered standards about what "appropriate" business or formal dress clearly give women an advantage in in summer--While the men have to suffer through 90 degree-plus days in suits, ties, and shoes with socks, I get to be cool and comfortable--and still totally professional--in a sheath dress and open-toed shoes. Awesome. (Obviously, I'm being a bit facetious here, but given the number of disadvantages to being a woman in a professional environment, one's got to be happy about the few advantages we do get :)
"Honestly, I do think that gendered standards about what 'appropriate' business or formal dress clearly give women an advantage in in summer"
...if she can "get away with" bare legs or pantyhose beneath the hemline. I can't - my stubble grows back within a few hours and is sharp enough to shred pantyhose, so I have to wear thick pantyhose-colored dance tights with a skirt in order to "look professional" wearing a skirt.
Likewise, I wouldn't be surprised if the school in the post also hassles girls for exposing leg hair by wearing the skirts the school requires.
I think some of the comments are a bit of an over-reaction. First of all, no one has really showed any empathy or knowledge about why school administrators, teachers, etc set and enforce a dress code for formal events. Anyone who has worked with teens knows that some students lack the respect to dress properly at formal events. They set a rigid dress code to impress upon students that they must come in proper attire--NO EXCEPTIONS.
Lots of you have said that it is gender stereotyping. Yeah, I guess. But if the dress code stated that everyone must wear dress slacks, some pepole would complain that this doesn't allow women to express their femininity (and might be a problem for women of certain religions).
The school is going for a UNIFORM. Anyone who works in a school system knows that sometimes you have to set guidelines and disallow exceptions unless there is a very compelling reason for it.
BTW,I know some women don't like dresses but I find that most dresses are much more comfortable than slacks (no tight waistband).
I'm confused. The dress code that the young women are protesting is not "UNIFORM"--it's slacks for men and skirts/dresses for women. I agree that forcing everyone to wear slacks (or skirts) regardless of gender is an unfair restriction of expression. I also agree that schools have the right to enforce a level of formality in dress for graduation and similar events. But if the school code is that everyone has to wear formal clothing, which may be pants or skirts or dresses--then why should it make a difference if some women wear pants? The only possible reasoning is gender stereotyping. Not only is this a very outdated anti-feminist tactic on the school's part, it's also very problematic for students who are trans and genderqueer.
You seem to be making an assumption that the young women involved in these protests are being disrespectful. I urge you to read the actual articles- they are not.
The fact that you find dresses to be more comfortable is irrelevant. I find pants to be more comfortable, but this doesn't give me the right to tell you what to wear.
I live really close to the Delaware school, and heard about it from several people. I asked around, but apparently I wouldn't have been able to do much because I don't actually live in the district. I'm really glad it got overturned and the young woman was allowed (or will be allowed) to dress as she pleases. She seemed like a very strong, intelligent, reasonable person in all of her press quotes and I'm so proud of her for sticking up for herself.
Something I think is important to add to this whole topic is that although neither of these two cases involved women who identified themselves as transgender, I think this is a big trans issue. I absolutely think that all women should be able to choose to wear formal pants instead of skirts to formal functions, but it seems like an even more pressing issue if being forced to wear a skirt or dress violates someone's gender identity. I hope that overturning outdated dress codes is setting useful precedents that will help trans students fight discrimination.
Does the principal have any idea what century it is? REALLY??
I had the unfortunate experience of attending a Catholic high school, complete with uniforms, and it was a HUGE deal when, during my junior year, the dress code was adjusted so that in the winter time, girls were allowed to wear slacks instead of a skirt. Didn't change the fact that the uniforms were in and of themselves hideous, but there were quite a few older nuns & priests who made it very clear they did not approve of the adjustments.
Which was actually pretty damn funny, considering the skirts were knee-length to begin with and there were a lot of girls who had pretty high hemlines, so you'd think that the nuns & priests would prefer a uniform option that had all those temptingly young legs all covered up, but nope, the irony was completely lost on them.
This sounds very familiar. The rule when I graduated high school (2003) was that the men could wear whatever they wanted as long as their pants and shoes looked nice, and women had to wear white dresses with white dress shoes, no thongs. Our school colors were orange and black, so there was no reason to make the girls wear white (white dresses under white gowns). It was like how white wedding dresses are supposed to symbolize "purity." I can just remember all the parents being so proud to watch their "virginal" daughters march to get their diplomas. Give me a break.
Of course this is the public school where we also had our baccalaureate (does anyone even still do that?) in a CATHOLIC church.
Looks like the principal has come around. Of course, it shouldn't have taken a news story and p.o.'ed alums to reach that result...
http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=10468170
That is so stupid. Girls required to wear skirts or dresses *gag*
I graduated high school in 2007 and it was required that girls wore dresses/skirts while boys wore slacks, ties, and collared shirts. If you didn't abide to these rules, you would not be accepted during the graduation (meaning you wouldn't graduate).
I broke the rule. I went to the podium and accepted my diploma wearing pants! The teachers and staff were obviously annoyed but they didn't want to cause a scene and allowed me to continue. Besides, I was the only girl willing to break the rule, so they probably figured 'why bother'!
I hate that the schools are actually enforcing such rules. It's ridiculous! Women wear pants (and skirts / dresses) nowadays.
Ugh, well, I'm glad to hear that the girls were finally allowed to wear pants. Hopefully the school's graduation policy will change with that [and influence other schools around the country].
Oh no! I went to HS at Chapin! Everyone, wears robes for graduation, so honestly she could have worn shorts and no one would be the wiser, but it's still stupid and sexist on the principal's part. ON the other hand, the linked article says they've capitulated to her request, so that's good.
Similarly to Kathleen6674's graduation attire, when I graduated from Chapin High, seniors had an in-school event called "class day" where we were required to wear white dresses or skirts and carry white flowers. The boys wore blue dress shirts. Even creepier, we processed into the event girls on one side, boys on the other, then met in boy-girl pairs to walk up the aisle to our seats. It was like some crazy mass teen wedding.
Oh that sounds so annoying! My highschool had white graduation gowns for the girls, and you were supposed to buy a white dress to wear under them. well, A) my family is poor as hell B) pasty dark haired girls with yellow toned skin look like hell in white... so I decided to just go with a very pale green dress I already owned...
They gave me demerits on my graduation day! HA!
I'm a long time reader, but first time commenter. When I graduated all the girls were required to wear dresses or we couldn't walk. At the time I didn't know what I know what I know now about feminism or I would of said something (actually my aunt gave me Jessica's first book as a graduation present), but I do remember thinking how stupid it was. However, I went to a very small, mostly conservative school.
I hope that anyone will wear whatever makes them feel comfortable for their big day without having their rights denied by overzealous school administrators.
It should NOT have to take a news story from Gray Communications (WIS and WRDW) in order for Chapin to do the right thing and let the woman wear whatever she feels the most comfortable in.
There are TWO uniforms-- a "boy" and a "girl" uniform. Yes, both are based on sexual stereotypes. Not allowing anyone to deviate from their uniform is the "uniform" part. It's fair if neither boys or girls are allowed to deviate.
In cases similar to this, girls probably would have more luck being allowed to wear slacks than boys would wearing a dress. For example, many restaurants have uniforms that allow women to wear black slacks or black skirts wheras Men only get the slacks option.
Like a previous post stated, in some cases, girls actually get more leeway (just not in this specific case).
*sighs* Why doesn't this surprise me?
But the stereotype cuts both ways. When I was in highschool a close friend of mine (who was very proud of his family's Scottish heritage) wore a kilt with his family's colors. Being a shy nerd, :p he was exceedingly careful to not accidentally expose himself or do anything...inappropriate while wearing it.
The school freaked out. He was in a "skirt." The whole thing exploded; the principal tried to send him home, his parents got involved...long and short of it - there was actually NOTHING in any school code or regulation banning a guy from wearing a "skirt." It was all the bias of the teachers and staff. They could not put aside their own gender stereotypes long enough to see this was a cultural thing and NOT actually a skirt.
They ended up allowing him to continue wearing the kilt. His parents threatened to sue if they made him take it off.... Several of his friends wore full lenght flowered skirts the next week, just to do it :D
I sympathize with this girl - I would have MUCH rather worn pants to my graduation, it was buggy, hot and dusty...pants would have been more bug proof!
It could always be worse - my mom (class of 1972) wasn't allowed to wear pants / shorts/ jeans to school period. The 2nd semester of their sr. year it was changed, they could wear dress pants on Fridays only. *shudders*
Yeah, we have to recognize that in a lot of different cultures, both genders wore types of dresses as their daily attire. Even in the U.S. both boys and girls wore nightdresses to bed until at least the generation of Laura Ingalls. In some other cultures the dress is more similar between the genders. Even in Europe, there was a period of time where it was the gentlemen who wore high heels to show off their calf muscles, and it was the gentlemen who were adorned in lots of jewels to show off their wealth - it wasn't until after the industrial revolution that it became common for a man to show off his wealth through what his wife wore instead of what he wore.
Either way, if there is to be a uniform it needs to be equal. Either everyone wears pants or everyone wears a dress or everyone has the choice of either. It is not fair to make arbitrary decisions based only on a person's gender and not what the person prefers. You don't see women in prison being forced to wear dresses, so why do schoolchildren have less rights and supposedly need more discipline than prisoners?