this post was submitted on 08 Jan 2024
30 points (82.6% liked)
Asklemmy
43907 readers
1312 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Not sure if it's necessarily a 'conservative' thing - in the UK (and maybe elsewhere) a lot of schools have uniforms, partly as a way to engender a sense of togetherness/community and partly because if everyone is wearing the same clothing, then socioeconomic differences aren't so visibly contrasted by some kids wearing designer gear while others can only afford the less expensive stuff.
From that point of view you could see it as being quite an egalitarian idea - although the availability of affordable uniform is still a potential issue, and it's important that lower income households are able to get the right clothes within budget.
I've heard the socioeconomic differences thing many, many times, and have kids that wear uniform. But I've never understood that argument.
It conceals socioeconomic differences. Which in the case of economic differences, is probably not egalitarian, strictly speaking? Ditto for social "class" in the sense of whether the family is historically "monied" and has particular dress style. In the case of cultural or ethnic differences, I do not see how the egalitarian logic follows either, as freely expressing your identity is restrained.
In terms of bullying... in my experience bullies will always bully. They will just do it on your overcoat, or how old your uniform is, or your earrings, or your accent, or the colour of your hair. I don't know, maybe the uniform helps a bit...
It doesnt even do that.
These things are actually very easy to see. But you actually dont even have to go that far. Any kinds of accessories can give you away quite quickly but the worst offenders are school uniform shoes. You have to get these from the shoe store and they come at all price points.
Exactly
Fair points and I agree that it only conceals the differences (and as the comment below yours points out, sometimes not even that).
Uniforms certainly don't solve society's inequalities - really all l meant was that they could be seen as an attempt at redress (excuse the pun), which is more than I would expect from conservatives (or Conservatives).
Uniforms don't just conceal socioeconomic diffences they level the playing field for students, particularly at a venerable age with teenagers. Without uniforms and a dress code, there is more pressure to wear trendy designer clothing every day at school. What actually gets concealed is actual poverty instead, where poorer kids will prioritise work and activities outside school to pay for these items to fit in, leading to poorer academic outcomes and prospects for their futures.
A well-designed uniform and dress code system doesn't allow for variations in material and uniform quality as it specifies exactly what must be used and how the uniforms must look and feel. It also specifies things like accessories, makeup etc that can be worn to further even things out.