long skirt requirement no more
Posted: Wed May 25, 2005 9:46 pm
Hello all,
Something I forgot to say, that came up when I approached this tutor abut the abuse allegations raised on this site (I don't like calling them tutors, since they are actually teachers or moderators -- a tutor is someone who works with you one-on-one) anyway, he said something interesting about the dress code. I remarked that it was exactly this question about women being required to wear long skirts that had initially prompted me to Google the founder, Leon Maclaren. And the tutor said that it was NOT A RULE that women must wear skirts below the knee, and gestured to me as if to say, "look, you're wearing pants." Which I thought was pretty disingenuous of him, since OBVIOUSLY it?s not a rule for new students ? how could it be, since we had never been told what to wear! It is only after initiation or some other point involving several years commitment to the org that the dress code comes up. It was plain dishonest of him to imply otherwise. However, he was adamant that it was NOT a rule that women must wear skirts, at any point...although he did say that after a number of years participation I might find I WANT to wear skirts.
I could not seem to communicate to him that it is not the skirt I object to (I wear skirts all the time!) ? nor is it the mere fact of a dress code. It is the symbolic enforcement of a traditional definition of gender roles that I mind. A decorous pantsuit would be as acceptable as a below-the-knee skirt if it were only dressiness and modesty the School was after.
But...apparently in NY at least the org is tired of fighting about it, tired of losing students over it, and willing to change. I haven?t actually seen a woman in pants doing service, though?I have seen one woman serving on a cold day in a long skirt OVER pants.
Also note that in the first three parts so far there has not been any sort of doctrine teaching that ?women are instinct & intuition, and men are reason,? or any such gender stereotype. However, there has been discussion of ?natural virtues,? which I expect will be used as the basis for future such divisions into strict gender roles.
NYC
Something I forgot to say, that came up when I approached this tutor abut the abuse allegations raised on this site (I don't like calling them tutors, since they are actually teachers or moderators -- a tutor is someone who works with you one-on-one) anyway, he said something interesting about the dress code. I remarked that it was exactly this question about women being required to wear long skirts that had initially prompted me to Google the founder, Leon Maclaren. And the tutor said that it was NOT A RULE that women must wear skirts below the knee, and gestured to me as if to say, "look, you're wearing pants." Which I thought was pretty disingenuous of him, since OBVIOUSLY it?s not a rule for new students ? how could it be, since we had never been told what to wear! It is only after initiation or some other point involving several years commitment to the org that the dress code comes up. It was plain dishonest of him to imply otherwise. However, he was adamant that it was NOT a rule that women must wear skirts, at any point...although he did say that after a number of years participation I might find I WANT to wear skirts.
I could not seem to communicate to him that it is not the skirt I object to (I wear skirts all the time!) ? nor is it the mere fact of a dress code. It is the symbolic enforcement of a traditional definition of gender roles that I mind. A decorous pantsuit would be as acceptable as a below-the-knee skirt if it were only dressiness and modesty the School was after.
But...apparently in NY at least the org is tired of fighting about it, tired of losing students over it, and willing to change. I haven?t actually seen a woman in pants doing service, though?I have seen one woman serving on a cold day in a long skirt OVER pants.
Also note that in the first three parts so far there has not been any sort of doctrine teaching that ?women are instinct & intuition, and men are reason,? or any such gender stereotype. However, there has been discussion of ?natural virtues,? which I expect will be used as the basis for future such divisions into strict gender roles.
NYC