Dressing well makes us feel good. For some people, this means looking nice.
For others, it’s the comfort ?that matters.
But imagine losing that privilege of being able to wear the clothes you pick for yourself. It happened to 18-year-old Macy Edgerly of Texas, who was sent home from her high school due to her clothing.
She wore leggings and a loose-fitting, long baseball-style shirt to class. But apparently, it violated her school’s dress code. Given how normal her clothing was, we have to wonder whether it is she or the dress code that is ?to blame.
The school’s dress code has a fingertip rule for wearing leggings. It stipulates that while leggings are allowed to be worn, the garment worn over it must meet the ?fingertip rule.
Basically, whatever skirt or shirt worn over the leggings must fall below the fingertips of its wearer when her arms are by her sides. While Edgerly’s shirt did not pass fingertip rule, many Facebook users have thought the rule ridiculous.
Macy’s older sister Erica made a Facebook post expressing her general dissatisfaction about the existence of the dress code. Her post was shared over 80,000 times.
The Orangefield Independent School District has stood by its rules. It’s superintendent released a statement, saying that Orangefield ISD “strives to maintain a positive and successful learning environment for our students free from disruption and distraction, which includes enforcement of our student ?dress code.”
Erica acknowledges that her sister failed to comply with the dress code, but she is critical of the dress code itself because it implies women are seen as sexual beings.
While this “sexualizing women” criticism is definitely not one I usually side with, I think it applies particularly well to this case.
I don’t always agree with the sexualizing women criticism because I don’t believe being venereal is inherently a bad thing.
After all, it’s perfectly normal for humans to be carnal beings. However, in this case, where even wearing leggings can be considered a source of “disruption and distraction,” this idea of sexualizing is ?incorrect and excessive.
It suggests that a woman’s legs, even when clothed, both can be and are somehow meant to be provocative.
Moreover, this sexualization is appropriated by the enforcement of the rule itself.
But there is nothing inherently scandalous about a woman’s legs.
And while like many other body parts, legs can be sexualized, I see no good argument to make this kind of objectification more appropriate than by sensationalizing other body parts through the enforcement of a dress code.
Saying a woman’s legs are prone to distract and disturb is like saying someone’s arm, neck or feet are prone to distract and disturb. And while Macy may be to blame for breaking the rules, she is not to blame for having legs.
Therefore, in this case, it seems the rules are more at fault than she is.
nywu@indiana.edu
