That would mean people born in the late 1940s/early 1950s though, and there's not too many around here.Moonlit_Angel said:I just find it really strange that the exact same generation that asked to be able to allow guys to wear their hair long or girls to wear pants or whatever else is now sitting here supporting school uniforms.
That's probably overstating things a bit, but I was surprised by the intensity of resistance to the idea too. None of the schools I went to had uniforms and I never wished for them; on the other hand, I can't imagine I would've had a problem with them. I'm not inclined to buy the idea that they'd function as fantastic social levellers and abolish cliqueishness and hierarchy heartaches, but I'm not inclined to buy the idea that they'd cruelly stifle self-expression and leave artsy or politically restive kids psychically scarred, either. The strongest argument in favor of them, I think, is the one several have already mentioned, i.e. the economic argument.dazzlingamy said:i think you're hearing conformity and you're having vietnam, fight the man flashbacks.
Trying to think in terms of precedents here...I'm not sure what age you are, but I can recall, from when I was roughly the age of the kids in the article, several instances of fashion trends that seemed similarly all-encompassing. For example, for both girls and boys, there was Izod shirts with the collar pulled up, and for girls only, legwarmers. Now very few kids where I went to school could afford either of those, and you probably had to shop in Memphis or Jackson to find them, but for those who could afford them, well they wore Izod shirts and color-coordinated legwarmers every day. High school seemed a little more diversified fashionwise, but there was clearly only a pretty small range of styles that were 'in' at any given time, and those who could afford it wouldn't have been caught dead in anything but. (In general their parents tended to be notably 'well-heeled' types too, if not to quite that degree--adults aren't usually quite as anxious about visually 'making the grade' as kids, especially girls, are, and are less likely to fixate on one 'must-have' way to get there.) I never personally felt bad that I wasn't one of those kids (though I would've liked to have had more and nicer clothes than I did), but I don't really have any reason to think they were somehow irreversibly morally or psychologically compromised by passing through that stage--only that their parents spent more money on clothes than was necessary for them to look suitably prepared for the occasion. I suppose you could call that a 'values' issue, but it's not really my place to tell other parents how to budget for their kids' clothing needs and wants.MrsSpringsteen said:Yes uniforms might help in school as a short term solution to this bullying, but what about the larger question of the values these kids are learning? Are uniforms going to stop them from worshiping designer names and just things in general and somehow connecting that to their self esteem and self worth? Because there are adults who have the same values. Did they grow up with those values or did they acquire them when they became adults?
Why in the world would I ever want to "teach" such a thing to my high school age daughter? She wears Hollister from head to toe and was just voted Freshman Homecoming Princess. Being popular doesn't always make someone a bad person.
Liesje said:I think uniforms level the playing field, so to speak. I'm all for individuality and self-expression, but seriously, many kids do not have the luxury (as in, they literally cannot afford) to express themselves with clothing the way others do. For those who are against uniforms, how then do you make a fair way for every child to express him or herself? Give them a stipend for school clothes?
Who says you have to be able to afford certain clothing in order to be an individual and express yourself?
Liesje said:Right, but I don't remember any of the poorer kids in high school being glad they had to wear hand-me-downs or old clothes.
Liesje said:Most of the people I knew that would be all for "freedom of expression" were from families that never thought twice about where their clothes were coming from or what it cost to get them. Some of the artsy people loved thrift store and vintage shopping, but again, their parents were giving them allowances or buying them whatever they wanted anyway, so expressing themselves was a luxury.
Liesje said:I always wanted to be really preppy (not preppy as in pop-culture A&F, but I loved really classic stuff like pastel cashmere cardigans, wool jackets, and straight-legged corduroy pants) but no WAY could I ever afford that kind of stuff in high school. So for anyone who saw clothes as a means of expression, they would have got the totally wrong idea about me!