• spiderplant@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s not really the extremes, it’s exactly what you were calling for. You called for uniforms which is taking agency away from young people and you said that it is the duty of schools to protect (I assume only the male) students from distractions which involves punishing the girls and assuming the boys are guaranteed to be guilty of this crime of distraction.

    Not gun lisences, im talking about joiming the military. A lot of countries have 16 or younger as enlisting age as well as children younger than that in cadets organisations.

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      School is a massive fuck you to personal agency. Trying to argue for dress codes as an aspect of agency is putting lipstick on a pig.

      If you’re going to force kids to be at a place all day, you should give them some accommodations. For the boys, that’s helping them out with the distractions.

      You are definitely failing to see the two sided argument this other poster is making. It’s a really important point, and you don’t even seem to realize it’s been made.

      • spiderplant@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        There’s no two sides here, the aguments about distractions and agency fall apart when you compare countries like Sweden and Denmark where they don’t have uniforms and allow the students lot more agency, against countries like the US, UK and Ireland where they infantalise their students and in the UK’s and Ireland’s case uniforms are mandatory.

        The Nordic countries have way better school performance scores.