🚀 go-pugleaf

slemons@mailhost.iamerica.net (Sandy Lemons) wrote:


>Sexist:  Females are more often than not forced into dresses or skirts

When in doubt, cry sexism.

>Elitest.  Unifoms are expensive. Yes, there are programs to help
>poverty line partents, but what of the working class poor?  What of
>children of homeless parent (s) who reside in shelters?

When was the last time you took a kid shopping for clothes? Uniforms,
don't have to be any more expensive than the garb they wear now.  In
this era of $80 tennis shoes, $45 jeans and all the other
paraphernalia, uniforms might just be a welcome break economically.

>Racist.  Children /parents who wish to continue celebrating their own
>cultures will not be allowed to.
>Anti-religous freedoms. Islam? Menonites? Orthodox Jews? Hindu? All of
>these religions have laws covering clothing.

Did anyone say that no provisions could be  made for such situations.

>Enviromently unsound.  Manufacture of new clothing when exsisting
>clothing could be ulitized.

If "special" clothes had to be made then maybe. Most uniforms can be
assembled from existing styles though.

>Controling.  Self explanatory

That's part of the point.

>Depresses creativity.  I can see where banning obscene words and
>images and maybe even gang colors *might* be useful..but I'm not
>convinced of that. Fosters comformity.

That's pure bunk.  Our uniforms in school never seemed to *supress*
our creativity.

>  No Japanese robot children needed, thank you.

You were claiming that the dress code was racist. Now I think maybe we
are starting to see your true colors.

>Who is to judge just what clothing is 'correct'? Your idea of
>'correct' clothing is not always mine.

How about the PTA- give them something useful to do.

>If you insist on a dress code for children..also insist on one for
>teachers as well.

So far as I know, the teachers DO have a dress code. When was the last
time you saw a teacher with 8" spiked hair and their pants around
their knees?


-Kahn