> On Fri, 22 Aug 2003, mike larkin wrote:
>>Dress codes that accomomodate individuality are one
>>thing, and a fine way to curb all that sexy 11-year
>>old Lolita stuff. But uniforms? If you're a Maoist!
> Go to a mall and look at the clusters of 13 year olds and
> what they're wearing. Can you say with a straight face
> they're expressing their unique individuality? Bullshit.
> As Wojtek emphasizes, it's a corporate-garment-industry
> mandated uniform enforced by incessant ads and peer
> pressure.
>
> School uniforms stifle "individuality" no more (or less)
> than current corporate standards for teen clothing do. (Buying
> corporate brands to "fit in" is not the unique expression
> of a person's individuality!)
I have to agree here that school uniforms don't stifle "individuality".
When I went to Catholic school, we found a way to make them ours. There is enough latitude in sock type, skirt length, blouse type, to make your personal stamp.
I know that in Chicago people began thinking about "school uniforms" for public schoool kids, after inner city kids were being shot for the jackets or shoes they wearing. Also, parents were lobbying for their kids to have "school uniforms" for this same reason and also because they thought it would save them money. One thing that "school uniforms"
do is help to eliminate classism in school. Kids have to find some other way to group themselves or ostracize one another besides the clothes that they, the kids, wear to school.
> Miles
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>