![\"from](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/533\/2017\/09\/leggings.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
In the back-to-school news:<\/p>\n
\u201cStudents question dress codes in District U46: \u2018It\u2019s basically telling us to hide ourselves\u2019<\/a>\u201d in which students are upset that a new principal at Elgin High School is enforcing a school dress code which bans leggings and tank tops.<\/p>\n \u201cTelling us we\u2019re too revealing, a distraction, it lowers your self esteem, and we already have a lot of that at Elgin,\u201d [junior Maris] Lipsey, 16, said. \u201cI can see it in the girls, and it\u2019s been concerning for the guys, too.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n and \u201cEvanston Township High School adopts a kinder, gentler dress code where leggings are OK<\/a>\u201d by a Tribune columnist, Heidi Stevens, who praises the schools new dress code<\/a> that specifically green-lights those items, and sets the minimum requirements that a shirt (with an unspecified amount of fabric on front, back, and sides), pants (with no further definition), and shoes be worn. \u00a0Underwear waistbands are permitted to be exposed, as are bra straps, but pants may not have rips that expose the non-waistband part of the underwear, and, if I\u2019m interpreting this correctly, boys\u2019 pants must not sag so much as to expose more of the underwear than can reasonably be called the \u201cwaistband,\u201d but students should not be \u201cshamed\u201d\u00a0on dress code violations in front of other students. \u00a0 Effectively the only way to violate the dress code is by wearing t-shirts with unacceptable images, which are defined as violent images, \u201chate speech,\u201d pornography, profanity, or images which \u201ccreate a hostile or intimidating environment based on any protected class or consistently marginalized groups.\u201d \u00a0(Is a MAGA hat allowed?)<\/p>\n Here\u2019s what strikes me:<\/p>\n First of all, the claims that dress codes need to restrict girls\u2019 manner of dress because they are \u201cdistracting\u201d to boys \u2014 well, I\u2019m not sure what to make of it. \u00a0On the one hand, that\u2019s a suspect claim to make when you know that it\u2019s been applied in all sorts of ways: \u00a0at its most extreme, requiring women to wear burqas or niqabs, in the Islamic world. \u00a0Among some conservative Christians, of the Duggar type, it\u2019s denim skirts all the way because pants are too form-fitting. \u00a0And the notion that boys can\u2019t control their actions and need to be protected from temptresses? \u00a0Ugh. \u00a0No.<\/p>\n But how far do you take this \u201cfreedom to dress\u201d? \u00a0A librarian-friend reported an encounter with a teen at the high school library, who was wearing a tube top, and had rolled it down to her waist, so that she was basically only wearing a bra.<\/p>\n The Daily Herald reports<\/a> that Bartlett High School tries to solve this with its dress code, which specifies that<\/p>\n The new dress code clarifies what students must have covered \u2014 upper thighs, chest, buttocks and midriff area \u2014 regardless of gender.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Does that work? \u00a0Is there boundary-pushing around what it means to cover the \u201cchest\u201d or the \u201cbuttocks\u201d sufficiently?<\/p>\n One suggestion that I\u2019ve read, though, is that maybe administrators themselves don\u2019t necessarily even worry about boys being distracted; it\u2019s just a matter of instinctively feeling that it\u2019s wrong for girls to wear clothing that exposes every bulge, but not being able to articulate it other than \u201cit\u2019s distracting.\u201d \u00a0Certainly at a public school one can\u2019t say, \u201cit\u2019s morally wrong to expose yourself with skin-tight clothing\u201d or \u201cit\u2019s inappropriate to do so in a classroom environment\u201d so the \u201cdistraction\u201d claim is an out.<\/p>\n But here\u2019s what\u2019s odd: \u00a0for all the complaints that the dress code enforcement is unfair to girls, it seems to me that boys have generally become much more modest than girls<\/strong>, anyway. \u00a0It\u2019s not that boys are getting away with immodest clothing but girls aren\u2019t; boys aren\u2019t being penalized because there\u2019s nothing that they\u2019re wearing that would raise these issues. \u00a0(Unless there\u2019s something about the teen fashion world that I\u2019m unaware of?)<\/p>\n After all, there exist leggings for boys, too. \u00a0Athletes wear them, when biking or running, for example. \u00a0But how often have you seen a boy wear these as \u201cregular\u201d clothing? \u00a0And it seems to me that, almost always, they wear a loose-fitting short on top of their athletic shorts.<\/p>\n And consider swimwear: \u00a0teen girls\u2019 swimsuits contain less and less fabric even as boys\u2019 trunks grow in length. \u00a0A teen boy or a man wearing a speedo is \u201cicky\u201d and the notion of men being required to wear these (e.g., in France<\/a>) is horrifying. \u00a0There\u2019s even a parody of Despacito<\/a>, \u201cI Wear Speedos,\u201d that\u2019s based on the notion that men wearing something that shows a bulge is, well, creepy.<\/p>\n Regular shorts, too, for teen boys have gotten longer, even as, for teen girls, they cover butts, at best.<\/p>\n Yes, teen boys and men go shirtless (remember the volleyball scene in Top Gun?), though even then, only those with the right bodies are \u201csupposed\u201d to take their shirts off, and definitely not if you\u2019ve got chest (or back!) hair. \u00a0(Remember, Goose the family man wore a t-shirt.)<\/p>\n Second thought: \u00a0yes, there are circumstances in which girls are intentionally \u201cshowing off their bodies\u201d and trying to impress the boys. \u00a0But leggings seem to have evolved somewhat differently<\/strong>. \u00a0Near as I can tell, this started first as a style of clothing worn under a loose-fitting shirt, or even under a too-short dress or miniskirt. \u00a0Then women and girls abandoned the butt-and camel-toe-hiding tops. \u00a0But the current generation of teen girls grew up wearing leggings as young girls, when their moms didn\u2019t care about preserving \u201cmodesty\u201d since they were just girls, after all, and found that it was easier to dress toddlers in leggings, and easier to give preschoolers dressing themselves leggings to put on, rather than pants that needed a button or snap and zipper. Which means that the girls themselves\u00a0don\u2019t perceive of them as \u201cclothes I started wearing to get attention from boys\u201d so much as just \u201cnormal clothes.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n And, look, much as I\u2019m weirded out by all the leggings-wearing, the genie\u2019s not going to go back into the bottle. \u00a0Some battles you can fight. \u00a0Some you can\u2019t \u2014 short of a uniform with strict requirements such as khakis and polos for everyone.<\/p>\n Third \u2014 it seems to me that something has changed in fashion more generally.<\/strong> \u00a0Maybe I just don\u2019t know enough about teen girls, but for all that the teens of my 80s generation were colorful and had their own, er, unique styles, it seems to me that the clothes were, well, more tailored. \u00a0I\u2019m not going to use my own style of dress, back in the day, as an example, because I had no fashion sense (I wore blazers, and skirts, and cords), but something\u2019s changed.<\/p>\n If I pull up an old blog post of mine<\/a>, from my early days of blogging, I can read that teen and young adults\u2019 clothing is what\u2019s called \u201cfast fashion,\u201d clothing that changes constantly, but is always cheaply made and essentially considered as disposable. \u00a0Now, leggings don\u2019t seem to change much with the new fashion-season, but they are certainly constructed very simply and cheaply: \u00a0at Kohls, for instance<\/a>, girls\u2019 leggings are currently priced at $8, and women\u2019s likewise start at $8 for juniors. \u00a0As for the construction, the Lularoe brand<\/a> sells its leggings in One Size, Tall & Curvy, and Tall & Curvy 2, and markets them based on the softness of the fabric and the variety of the prints.<\/p>\n Do I have any firm grounds for getting all high & mighty? \u00a0As I said, I have no fashion sense. \u00a0But it does seem as if we\u2019ve lost something.<\/p>\n