General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsus circuit court: Unconstitutional to force girls to wear skirts because they are "fragil vessels"
(Reuters) - A North Carolina charter school's requirement that girls wear skirts based on the view that they are "fragile vessels" deserving of "gentle" treatment by boys is unconstitutional, a federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 10-6 that Charter Day School violated three female students' equal protection rights by adopting the skirts policy based on gender stereotypes about the "proper place" for girls in society.
The school implemented a dress code that its founder, businessman Baker Mitchell, in an email and testimony said would "preserve chivalry" and ensure girls are treated "courteously and more gently than boys."
The state-funded school in Brunswick County argued the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment did not apply to it because it was a private entity, not a "state actor."
But U.S. Circuit Judge Barbara Milano Keenan said it was one since North Carolina delegated to it its duty to provide free, universal education to students. A contrary ruling would mean North Carolina could ignore "blatant" discrimination, she said.
The Richmond, Virginia-based court also allowed the students to pursue a claim under Title IX, a federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in federally-funded education.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/north-carolina-charter-school-s-skirt-requirement-for-girls-unconstitutional-court-rules/ar-AAYsQMn
The six dissenting votes were all from Republican-appointed judges.
https://news.yahoo.com/north-carolina-schools-requirement-girls-212120593.html
bucolic_frolic
(43,157 posts)Phoenix61
(17,003 posts)Volaris
(10,270 posts)It's not a private entity if it's STATE FUNDED, you fuckin' chuckleheads. Thank jeebuz this particular set of judges, (overall) are NOT one of the aforementioned chuckleheads.
All of the dissenters, were Republicans. Well, because OF COURSE they were.
hlthe2b
(102,255 posts)and lets them molest them at will. I can't help but hate these misogynists that hide behind "GAWD" for all their creepy notions...
malaise
(268,982 posts)My aunt brought me these lovely jeans from New York and I was going to show them off. I was a lil teenager - it had nothing to do with feminism or rebelling against their rules. I didnt know shit about their rules. The freaking nuns made quite a scene about it, but mum defended me and that was that. Mum was worldly and they regularly deferred to her views.
In no time we all wore jeans or even mini skirts to Saturday classes and school fairs.
I had forgotten about this moment, but some years ago one of my best friends reminded me that I took them on that day. She thought I was very brave. It had nothing to do with bravery - idiots in those ridiculous clothes werent going to tell me how to dress.😀😀😀😀
thucythucy
(8,050 posts)a myth.
Women and girls are far more likely to be raped, both by strangers and people they know including family. They're more likely to be victims of stalking and domestic violence. They're more likely to suffer sexual harassment at work, school, and on the street.
This is like the idea that people with disabilities lead "sheltered lives." That's such BS. Disabled people are, again, more likely to be victims of sexual and physical violence and abuse than people without disabilities.
These myths are a part of the oppression. It's gas-lighting in the extreme. Something that perpetuates the abuse at the same time it mollifies the conscience of people who should know better.
MineralMan
(146,288 posts)However, dresses or skirts for girls used to be the rule pretty much everywhere.
I graduated from high school in 1963. At no time during my primary and secondary school experience were girls allowed to wear pants of any kind. It was a stupid rule then. It remains a stupid rule. It used to be pretty much a universal rule, which demonstrates that some progress has been made.