Before anyone takes it personally, i was intending my former post as a jibe at the school, as to how bible-bashing is no basis for running a school.
You can't just cherry pick the bits you like, "for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword". (Matthew 26:52)

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

There are many forms of bigotry.

Just to name a few of them:

Bigotry against another person's race, ethnicity, and/or national origin.

Bigotry against another person's gender.

AND

Bigotry against another person's religion.

Bigotry is wrong, no matter what form it takes.

Many here appear to be condemning gender-based bigotry by engaging in religion-based bigotry.

All of us need to be more tolerant of those different (for whatever reason) from us, in my opinion.

Yes, it is sad that this little girl is having to leave a school she likes and all of her friends there.

That said, it is not like that particular religious school was forcing something illegal on the little girl.

It is generally accepted that the two genders will frequently dress differently from one another.

It is also generally accepted that ALL schools (both private AND public) can to some extent control what students (of both genders) wear. 'Dress Codes'.

Also, it is accepted that, in some cases, schools (both private AND public) can require students (of both genders) to wear certain EXACT things. 'School Uniforms'. Male students will wear *this*. Female students will wear *that*. No option.

So, what is this religious private school guilty of? Having a slightly more restrictive dress code than many other schools, but not of having a strict school uniform policy. They are guilty of having a dress code that conforms to their own particular religious beliefs.

OK, let us put things into a bit of perspective. There are religions out there that REQUIRE men to wear facial hair (beards). There are jobs out there where men wearing beards is not allowed. I don't recall any big stink raised over this. The man in question is not legally required to work *there*, but is free to go find employment elsewhere where the beard is allowed.

When this little girl's parents enrolled her in this particular religious private school, they had to have been aware of that school's policies. When I enrolled my older children in public school, I was given a written booklet on their school policies, and was told to read it then sign a form indicating I would abide by it. If this little girl's 'parents' were not willing to abide by this school's policies, then why enroll her there?

This girl was not legally required to go to this school. This girl's parents were free to enroll her in any other school that would accept her.

What exactly is the issue here?

A few decades to centuries ago, being bigoted about race, gender, religion, and a number of other lifestyle choices was in vogue. Since then, we have made tremendous progress against most of these forms of bigotry. Yet, today anti-religious bigotry seems to still be VERY much in vogue. Why? What is so wrong with being tolerant of others' beliefs when they differ from your own?

There are many forms of bigotry.

Just to name a few of them:

Bigotry against another person's race, ethnicity, and/or national origin.

Bigotry against another person's gender.

AND

Bigotry against another person's religion.

Bigotry is wrong, no matter what form it takes.

Many here appear to be condemning gender-based bigotry by engaging in religion-based bigotry.

All of us need to be more tolerant of those different (for whatever reason) from us, in my opinion.

Yes, it is sad that this little girl is having to leave a school she likes and all of her friends there.

That said, it is not like that particular religious school was forcing something illegal on the little girl.

It is generally accepted that the two genders will frequently dress differently from one another.

It is also generally accepted that ALL schools (both private AND public) can to some extent control what students (of both genders) wear. 'Dress Codes'.

Also, it is accepted that, in some cases, schools (both private AND public) can require students (of both genders) to wear certain EXACT things. 'School Uniforms'. Male students will wear *this*. Female students will wear *that*. No option.

So, what is this religious private school guilty of? Having a slightly more restrictive dress code than many other schools, but not of having a strict school uniform policy. They are guilty of having a dress code that conforms to their own particular religious beliefs.

OK, let us put things into a bit of perspective. There are religions out there that REQUIRE men to wear facial hair (beards). There are jobs out there where men wearing beards is not allowed. I don't recall any big stink raised over this. The man in question is not legally required to work *there*, but is free to go find employment elsewhere where the beard is allowed.

When this little girl's parents enrolled her in this particular religious private school, they had to have been aware of that school's policies. When I enrolled my older children in public school, I was given a written booklet on their school policies, and was told to read it then sign a form indicating I would abide by it. If this little girl's 'parents' were not willing to abide by this school's policies, then why enroll her there?

This girl was not legally required to go to this school. This girl's parents were free to enroll her in any other school that would accept her.

What exactly is the issue here?

A few decades to centuries ago, being bigoted about race, gender, religion, and a number of other lifestyle choices was in vogue. Since then, we have made tremendous progress against most of these forms of bigotry. Yet, today anti-religious bigotry seems to still be VERY much in vogue. Why? What is so wrong with being tolerant of others' beliefs when they differ from your own?

Why does religion trump another person's right to respect? I am sure that if a school opened up that black people were forced to different clothing than white people there would be a huge outcry. Its strange the women's rights seem to be still be at the back of the bus when it comes to any one elses rights.

..and yes, there are outcries when people are excluded from jobs because of wat their religion expects them to wear. There was something just the other day about a girl being excluded from her sports team because she was forbidden to play wearing a headscarf. Sikh's who wear turbans don't have to wear helmets in the police force. Some universities in England have allowed some lectures to be segregated by gender so as not to "offend" religious sensibilities. I am sure if they were asking to segregate by race there would be a massive outcry.

I am not picking on religion deliberately, but is seems that religion is often used as an excuse to discriminate against women in particular and I don't buy it as a get out of jail free card.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Don't forget those who use their religion to get around the law.

---

Is this driven by religion or just plain old misogyny? Or both??

If stillbirth is murder, does miscarriage make pregnant women into criminals?

Imagine if Jackie O got arrested for losing her son after smoking. Now meet the woman facing life in prison for something like that

If you consider women as nothing but baby making machines then this makes perfect sense. If you remember that women are people, then this is horrific and terrifying.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Don't forget those who use their religion to get around the law

Real religious people wouldn't do that I think. But then I think more of Buddhism and pure minds, thinking etc... The word Religion is very broad tho these days...

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Ok, let me approach this a little differently.

Does a person have a right to the religious beliefs of *their* choice?

Does a person have the right to free exercise of their religious beliefs as long as these beliefs do not violate the government's Law?

Do people, sharing a common set of religious beliefs, have the right to associate together in furtherance of those beliefs?

Do people, in association with others of common religious beliefs, have the right to operate a school to provide the service of educating *their* *own* children?

Do people, operating a religious private school, have the right to expect at least some level of conformance with their religious beliefs from the students at the school and their parents?

I realize that you don't approve of what happened to the little girl. I don't approve of it either.

But just because you or I don't like the school's actions does not make those actions discrimination against the little girl. It is a breach of contract issue.

That particular religious private school and the little girl's parents entered into a contract that that particular religious private school would provide their daughter an education in return for certain considerations on the part of the parents. The parents refused to meet all of those considerations. The school was well within its rights to deny enrollment for the girl for next school year. The parents then removed her from the school immediately.

If anyone is to blame for the little girl's plight, it is the parents for not living up to their contractual obligations.

If it had been a little boy that liked to dress up in girl's clothes, the school's response would have been the same. What would you have thought then, Es?

Ok, let me approach this a little differently.

Does a person have a right to the religious beliefs of *their* choice?

The can believe whatever they want.

Does a person have the right to free exercise of their religious beliefs as long as these beliefs do not violate the government's Law?

As long as it does not violate someone elses rights.

Do people, sharing a common set of religious beliefs, have the right to associate together in furtherance of those beliefs?

Sure, but they still have to respect the human rights of those people.

Do people, in association with others of common religious beliefs, have the right to operate a school to provide the service of educating *their* *own* children?

I don't agree with religious schools and indoctrination, but they have the right as long as they are not oppressing someone else while doing it.

Do people, operating a religious private school, have the right to expect at least some level of conformance with their religious beliefs from the students at the school and their parents?

If you think that gender discrimination is a religious right then we are going to disagree as to how far a school can go.

I realize that you don't approve of what happened to the little girl. I don't approve of it either.

Glad to hear it.

But just because you or I don't like the school's actions does not make those actions discrimination against the little girl. It is a breach of contract issue.

Hmmmmm...I thought the school was contracted to educate her, not oppress her.

That particular religious private school and the little girl's parents entered into a contract that that particular religious private school would provide their daughter an education in return for certain considerations on the part of the parents. The parents refused to meet all of those considerations. The school was well within its rights to deny enrollment for the girl for next school year. The parents then removed her from the school immediately.

If those considerations are ethically wrong then the parents have a duty to protest against them.

If anyone is to blame for the little girl's plight, it is the parents for not living up to their contractual obligations.

I'm sorry whut?

If it had been a little boy that liked to dress up in girl's clothes, the school's response would have been the same. What would you have thought then, Es?

There is no school uniform and in most places that have a school uniform students can chose to wear a skirt or trousers. If a boy wants to wear a dress I see no reason why he should not.

Let us turn this on its head and I'll ask you how you would feel if a school insisted that all its male students wore dresses. How would your thought be on that? Would it be ok because it is the schools right to enforce a dress code? Of course the boys would have trouble playing soccer and climbing trees and running about doing the things that all children should be doing, but for some reason you think it is ok to restrict one gender in this way so I assume you would be cool with this.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Kansas can strip Planned Parenthood of federal funding, court rules

Disgusting.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Some universities in England have allowed some lectures to be segregated by gender so as not to "offend" religious sensibilities.

Do they? Certainly don't at Manchester, York, Leicester or Coventry.

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

Why does religion trump another person's right to respect? I am sure that if a school opened up that black people were forced to different clothing than white people there would be a huge outcry. Its strange the women's rights seem to be still be at the back of the bus when it comes to any one elses rights.

Well, freedom of speech also trumps peoples right to respect. WBC got their right to picket funerals on the basis of free speech as well. Why does free speech trump someones right to respect? Well, by itself there exists no right to respect. But at the other hand, basically the First Amendment is the right to respect. You are pretty much allowed to believe and say whatever you like and people have to respect that you believe those things and talk about them. At the same time, you have to respect that other people have the same right and that they are allowed to think and say whatever they like as well.

Wondering why one right trumps the other is not the right way to think about it. It is not a question of one persons right trumping the other. No one can force you to accept the premise of a religion. Therefor its right does not trump yours. And, the right to respect is a two way street. Religion has to respect your fundamental rights, but in return you have to respect religion's rights.

Now why does that apply to the school's example? Well, for starters, the school was private, therefor a choice, not an obligation. No one forced anyone to do anything. The girls rights weren't violated by the school asking her to adhere to a certain dress code or behavioral standard. Because it was a choice to go there in the first place. If she doesn't like it, she can go to a different school. Which the parents did and the girl can remain dressed and act the way she likes to.

Your right to respect is not violated as long as you are not forced by anyone to conform to that persons believe systems.

Your right to respect is not violated as long as you are not forced by anyone to conform to that persons believe systems.

One of the pillars of democracy imo

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Some universities in England have allowed some lectures to be segregated by gender so as not to "offend" religious sensibilities.

Do they? Certainly don't at Manchester, York, Leicester or Coventry.

They have done at LSE

---

Reality Internet Personality

Why does religion trump another person's right to respect? I am sure that if a school opened up that black people were forced to different clothing than white people there would be a huge outcry. Its strange the women's rights seem to be still be at the back of the bus when it comes to any one elses rights.

Well, freedom of speech also trumps peoples right to respect. WBC got their right to picket funerals on the basis of free speech as well. Why does free speech trump someones right to respect? Well, by itself there exists no right to respect. But at the other hand, basically the First Amendment is the right to respect. You are pretty much allowed to believe and say whatever you like and people have to respect that you believe those things and talk about them. At the same time, you have to respect that other people have the same right and that they are allowed to think and say whatever they like as well.

Wondering why one right trumps the other is not the right way to think about it. It is not a question of one persons right trumping the other. No one can force you to accept the premise of a religion. Therefor its right does not trump yours. And, the right to respect is a two way street. Religion has to respect your fundamental rights, but in return you have to respect religion's rights.

Now why does that apply to the school's example? Well, for starters, the school was private, therefor a choice, not an obligation. No one forced anyone to do anything. The girls rights weren't violated by the school asking her to adhere to a certain dress code or behavioral standard. Because it was a choice to go there in the first place. If she doesn't like it, she can go to a different school. Which the parents did and the girl can remain dressed and act the way she likes to.

Your right to respect is not violated as long as you are not forced by anyone to conform to that persons believe systems.

FYI most children don't get a "choice" as to where they were sent. What if her parents were just as bad as the school and forced her to conform to their backward view of what a girl should be? Would that still be ok?
I really am wondering why you think the girl had any real choice in the matter. What about the other girls in the school? Is it ok to treat them like that just because the school has the support of their parents? Or are you of the opinion that parents can do whatever they want to their children and that the children have no rights?

Let's just hope her new school isn't this school :Middle-School Girls Picket for the Right to Wear Leggings where even though its not a private school girls are still being policed in what they wear because somehow they are responsible for how boys feel.

Looking forward to reading the excuses as to why this one is ok. Its not ok...and private schools treating girls as second class citizen's is not ok either, however you frame it.

---

Reality Internet Personality

most children don't get a "choice"

I often wonder if we choose to get born at all and we sure as hell don't choose our parents if you see all the stories about what parents do with their children. They're helpless, have no one to trust but their parents, especially at a young age. By the time children of an bruised family are at a mature age, they start a rebellion both socially and psychologically and it's hard to 'educate' them with anything in most cases.

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

FYI most children don't get a "choice" as to where they were sent. What if her parents were just as bad as the school and forced her to conform to their backward view of what a girl should be? Would that still be ok?

And now you are just complaining that the parents don't raise their child in a way you would want them to raise their child. I'm sorry but it is up to the parents to decide what are backward views and what aren't.

I really am wondering why you think the girl had any real choice in the matter. What about the other girls in the school? Is it ok to treat them like that just because the school has the support of their parents? Or are you of the opinion that parents can do whatever they want to their children and that the children have no rights?

She doesn't have a choice but her parents do. And until you are old enough, it are your parents or guardians who are responsible for raising you and making these kind of decisions for you. So, is it okay for a school to treat girls like this if they have the consent of the parents? Yes, as long as no laws are violated it is fine. If parents don't like it they can take their kids out and move them to another school.

And again, you have to accept here that it is a two way street. Those parents could be on some other internet forum complaining about how public schools do not teach the values they stand for. If you want to talk about respect for persons, you must also respect that they have a different opinion on what the right way is to raise a child.

Let's just hope her new school isn't this school :Middle-School Girls Picket for the Right to Wear Leggings where even though its not a private school girls are still being policed in what they wear because somehow they are responsible for how boys feel.

Looking forward to reading the excuses as to why this one is ok. Its not ok...and private schools treating girls as second class citizen's is not ok either, however you frame it.

The school is allowed to enforce a dress code, although I think the reasoning behind it is really stupid. Indeed, to blame boys behavior on girls clothing is ridiculous and should not ever happen. The girls there are right to protest that. But really, its a dress code, the school doesn't need a reason to have a dress code. Or they can invent some non reason as maintaining the minimum standards of a safe and productive learning environment for students (I don't get why the school didn't immediately go for that excuse).

And to say that the other school treated the girl as a second class citizens...please, you are overreacting. That school merely enforced its dress code. To say that enforcing a dress code is equal to treating someone as a second class citizen is ridiculous. Dress codes exist everywhere, from schools to the work place. Would you say that if you showed up to work in jogging pants and a filthy crumbled t-shirt and your boss comes in and tells you to next time wear something a little more professional, you are treated as a second class citizen (unless of course you work at a place where that is acceptable work attire)?

Or lets take a school with a very obvious dress code like you see in the UK. And one day a student consistently shows up wearing jeans instead of the school uniform trousers. She gets called out on it by a teacher, again do you think she is treated as a second class citizen?

You make a good point Michiel but Es makes a good point as well! Carry on...

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

FYI most children don't get a "choice" as to where they were sent. What if her parents were just as bad as the school and forced her to conform to their backward view of what a girl should be? Would that still be ok?

And now you are just complaining that the parents don't raise their child in a way you would want them to raise their child. I'm sorry but it is up to the parents to decide what are backward views and what aren't.

I really am wondering why you think the girl had any real choice in the matter. What about the other girls in the school? Is it ok to treat them like that just because the school has the support of their parents? Or are you of the opinion that parents can do whatever they want to their children and that the children have no rights?

She doesn't have a choice but her parents do. And until you are old enough, it are your parents or guardians who are responsible for raising you and making these kind of decisions for you. So, is it okay for a school to treat girls like this if they have the consent of the parents? Yes, as long as no laws are violated it is fine. If parents don't like it they can take their kids out and move them to another school.

And again, you have to accept here that it is a two way street. Those parents could be on some other internet forum complaining about how public schools do not teach the values they stand for. If you want to talk about respect for persons, you must also respect that they have a different opinion on what the right way is to raise a child.

Let's just hope her new school isn't this school :Middle-School Girls Picket for the Right to Wear Leggings where even though its not a private school girls are still being policed in what they wear because somehow they are responsible for how boys feel.

Looking forward to reading the excuses as to why this one is ok. Its not ok...and private schools treating girls as second class citizen's is not ok either, however you frame it.

The school is allowed to enforce a dress code, although I think the reasoning behind it is really stupid. Indeed, to blame boys behavior on girls clothing is ridiculous and should not ever happen. The girls there are right to protest that. But really, its a dress code, the school doesn't need a reason to have a dress code. Or they can invent some non reason as maintaining the minimum standards of a safe and productive learning environment for students (I don't get why the school didn't immediately go for that excuse).

And to say that the other school treated the girl as a second class citizens...please, you are overreacting. That school merely enforced its dress code. To say that enforcing a dress code is equal to treating someone as a second class citizen is ridiculous. Dress codes exist everywhere, from schools to the work place. Would you say that if you showed up to work in jogging pants and a filthy crumbled t-shirt and your boss comes in and tells you to next time wear something a little more professional, you are treated as a second class citizen (unless of course you work at a place where that is acceptable work attire)?

Or lets take a school with a very obvious dress code like you see in the UK. And one day a student consistently shows up wearing jeans instead of the school uniform trousers. She gets called out on it by a teacher, again do you think she is treated as a second class citizen?

You are confusing dress codes with what is going on here. There was nothing wrong with what the girls are wearing in each instance. The reasons for there being an issue with them had nothing to do with looking professional or smart. They had to do with enforcing gender roles. When you are equate forcing a girl to "dress like a girl" or be thrown out of school with wearing jeans I wonder if you are deliberately missing the point.

I would take issue with a work place that insisted that professional attire for a women meant a dress or skirt. It is interesting that you can claim that I am "over-reacting" (what a wonderful term that has been so oft used when women complain that they are being treated unfairly by the status quo. Its one of those "code words" that seem to get thrown at women a lot but I rarely, rarely see it thrown at men no matter how much they actually do over-react).

I'm not over-reacting. You are under-reacting because you think women should dress and behave a certain way and you can't perceive that this is even an issue.

---

Reality Internet Personality

You are confusing dress codes with what is going on here. There was nothing wrong with what the girls are wearing in each instance. The reasons for there being an issue with them had nothing to do with looking professional or smart. They had to do with enforcing gender roles. When you are equate forcing a girl to "dress like a girl" or be thrown out of school with wearing jeans I wonder if you are deliberately missing the point.

A dress code can be used to look professional or smart or indeed it can be used to create a form of social order, which indeed can result in reinforcing gender roles. Do I like that? No, I would not send my child to such a school. But, that is me and I recognize that there are parents that believe in traditional gender roles and who want to raise their child with those gender roles in mind. Its not my thing but those parents have a right to raise their child with that in mind.

I would take issue with a work place that insisted that professional attire for a women meant a dress or skirt. It is interesting that you can claim that I am "over-reacting" (what a wonderful term that has been so oft used when women complain that they are being treated unfairly by the status quo. Its one of those "code words" that seem to get thrown at women a lot but I rarely, rarely see it thrown at men no matter how much they actually do over-react).

You did just claim that someone was being treated as a second class citizen because her parents send her to a school which believes in traditional gender roles and asked the parents to make sure their child complies with them. Sorry but I think that before you can claim that you are being treated as a second class citizen you have to be treated a little worse than that. You know, like losing the right to vote, drive a car, enjoy basic civil liberties. Sorry, but I think that does fall under the category 'overreaction'.

I'm not over-reacting. You are under-reacting because you think women should dress and behave a certain way and you can't perceive that this is even an issue.

No I do not believe that women should behave according to a bunch of gender roles or gender stereotypes. But I also believe private schools have the right to teach children according to their own philosophy. I did not agree with the public school though. Their decision was stupid and wrong and again, those girls are right to protest.

You did just claim that someone was being treated as a second class citizen because her parents send her to a school which believes in traditional gender roles and asked the parents to make sure their child complies with them. Sorry but I think that before you can claim that you are being treated as a second class citizen you have to be treated a little worse than that. You know, like losing the right to vote, drive a car, enjoy basic civil liberties. Sorry, but I think that does fall under the category 'overreaction'.

Oh boy. Thanks for explaining to me what it feels like to be a woman. You've got me there. I would never have known if you weren't there to point it out to me.

I.
Obviously.
Have.
No.
Idea.
How.
Good.
I.
Have.
It.

---

Reality Internet Personality