Picture this: a row of girls aged 12 to 18, kneeling before a male teacher who inspects the hems of their dresses to make sure they touch the ground, justifying it as "school policy" and for "personal safety".
Do not get me wrong. I completely understand the notion of long, potato-sack dresses to avoid being sexualised while in school uniform. However, can you explain to me (with the demeaning image above still in your mind) why I am not allowed to wear shorts or long pants?
As a student at an all-girls Anglican school, the value of tradition is not a new concept to me. However, when the longer-dress rule was introduced just a few years ago, there was quite an uproar. The school's rationale for this was that the "less friendly public"Â might look up our skirts while we were going up stairs. This concept, while appearing to be for the protection of the students, quickly falls apart under examination.
Why should I change what I wear because of the possibility that others may act inappropriately?
Nancy Lesko, a researcher who addressed gender issues in school uniforms, argues dress-code policies emphasising restraint spread the belief that girls' bodies and sexualities are in need of control.
So how does my school reconcile the inconsistency of saying its goal is to produce "confident, competent young women", while forcing them to dress like prim young ladies from another age?
Why is my school not teaching girls to expect and demand to be treated appropriately and equally? Are boys given constant, or in fact any, messages to hide themselves from what is clearly implied to be a scary world?
More obviously, if the school is so desperate to save me from scary perverts, why can't I wear shorts or long pants? Is lowering our dress hems by 10 centimetres a solution to anything at all, or just part of the ongoing gender problem?
Then there's a matter of comfort. Skirts and dresses clearly restrict movement and provide inadequate warmth in winter. And they may even affect health.
A study by the University of Notre Dame found female students allowed to wear shorts or long pants during recess and lunch were much more likely to participate in physical activities than those who were forced to wear dresses or skirts.
Interest in sports is not set at birth: it is learnt through our environment and exposure to physical activity in our youth. Gendered uniforms reinforce to children that sports are for boys, whereas girls should sit, talk, and perhaps watch and admire.
The older these children get, the bigger the disparity in physical activity becomes between the two genders.
Gender-specific uniforms also force gender conformity on to students who may not identify in any way with the gender they were assigned, or who may be questioning their gender identity.
My "all-girls"Â school includes a number of transgender students who identify as male, yet it forces them to continue wearing dresses. This humiliates and distresses them for no better reason than to follow some antiquated tradition.
To feel most comfortable in a learning environment, students should be allowed to wear a uniform (which is intended to unify)Â in which they are comfortable both physically and mentally.
Just this week, a Sydney mum won the right for her daughter to wear pants to school and for all students to have the option, but only after taking it to the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board. Why should it be up to parents to have to fight for the right for their children to be comfortable?
Very rarely, schools are proactive about challenging this sexist tradition. Since its inception in 2000, Reddam House has had a "multiform"Â that enables students to choose between skirts, shorts, and long pants as the weather and their mood dictates.
International Grammar School announced that all students can wear any combination of the girls' and boys' uniforms, reflecting that the school is "more interested in what is in students' heads than what combination of uniform they are wearing". Why has this attitude not been adopted by more schools?
Refusing to change does not show that a school is strong and bold. Instead, it shows that a school is stuck in the past and unwilling to let go of tradition even for the sake of a goal like gender equality, or as basic as student health, comfort, or identity.
The question is: How can parents trust such schools to educate, equip and prepare their children for the future?
Revolutions in favour of gender-neutral uniform options have occurred not only in NSW but all over Australia, and yet many schools still refuse to ditch the outdated, gendered uniforms in favour of more comfortable, practical, and empowering alternatives. How can schools still struggle with making pants an option for girls in their uniform choices?
I ask all schools out there that have gender-specific uniforms: the war against gendered uniforms is here. Why are you still fighting on the wrong side?
Jacqueline Rousselot is a year 12 student at a Sydney high school and a Plan International Australia ambassador.Â
67 comments
New User? Sign up