FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Male Student Wins Fight to Wear Skirt





Soulfire
Comcast wrote:
HASBROUCK HEIGHTS, N.J. - A male high school student can wear a skirt to school after the American Civil Liberties Union reached an agreement with school officials.

The ACLU announced the deal Tuesday. It will allow a Hasbrouck Heights School senior to wear a skirt to protest the school's no-shorts policy.

The district's dress code bans shorts between Oct. 1 and April 15, but allows skirts, a policy 17-year-old Michael Coviello believes is discriminatory.

"I'm happy to be able to wear skirts again to bring attention to the fact that the ban on shorts doesn't make sense," Coviello said in a statement.

The Hasbrouck Heights superintendent, Joseph C. Luongo, did not return telephone messages left Tuesday seeking comment.

Coviello first wore a costume-style dress but high school officials told him to go home and change. The district's superintendent then advised the Coviello to purchase everyday dresses and skirts at a retail store, which Coviello did, the ACLU said.

But after a few days, he was sent home with a note from his principal saying if he wore a dress, kilt or skirt, he could no longer attend school.


Source: Comcast Strange News

I actually think that his idea is a great protest, even if he gets beat up for it. Way to stand up for what you believe in! If girls can wear skirts, then I don't see why guys shouldn't be able to wear shorts - they are practically the same thing!

If shorts are banned from the school, skirts should follow.
picsite
I agree with this dude completely. However, there is an advantege to guys wearing skirts only if they are gay. Nothing wrong with guy people however i am not one of them and would hate to see a guy wearing a skirt. For girls keep them coming, the best part about spring the SKIRTS....oh my god how i love spring. My girlfriend has one of the sexiest skirts in the whole world. Ok now im gettin off topic...so without further adue im done...lol
Vrythramax
It appears pretty clear cut, if girls can wear skirts...boys should be able to wear shorts (they may freeze something important off, but that's thier choice). As far as males wearing skirts....it's not my chosen mode of dress (no pun intended), but it should be an individules choice to wear it if he sees fit (and can take the ridicule and possible beatings that ensue).

The Scots have been wearing kilts for centuries and you don't hear anyone maligning them or thier masculinity, and as far as I know young male Scots are allowed to wear kilts to school.

Maybe it's only cool to wear plaid skirts Confused

Correct me if I am wrong please.
Soulfire
The skirt reminds me of an incident that occured, and is occuring at my school. There is an out gay guy at school, and more power to him, he had the courage to come out, that's pretty brave.

He wore a shirt with two of the male restroom figures holding hands. The thought "is he trying to get killed" kept popping up in my head, but whatever, fight the power I guess.

He also wore the shirt that says "Save a horse, ride a cowboy"
CrimsonStrange
Y'know... if the people in charge of making rules, maintaining order, and "upholding American traditions" exerted half of the energy on truly important, meaningful issues that they do on dumb, pointless stuff, this country & this world would be a much better, much happier place to live in.

As long as you're not doing/wearing something that blatantly insults another race/class/religion/gender/etc....... and as long as you're covered and not indecent, then what difference does it make?!

But I suppose stupid rules are the result of stupid complaints & stupid decisions, huh?

And why is it that people feel the need to make a highly-publicized legal battle over the least little thing that inconveniences them or slightly offends them these days?

(And I don't mean major stuff, like not being hired for a cashier job because you're handicapped, of a certain race or something legit like that.)
Ressurrector
This kid has an excellent point to protest and he's right its not fair what they were doing. This would be like passing a law that states All women have to wear dresses and skirts and never wear jeans(actually that wouldn't be that bad). But hey if the guy is brave enough to wear a skirt to school in front of his male peers then so be it. He ought to wear some really bright yellow pantyhose under it and really piss off the principal. Hehe
picsite
haven't checked here for a while. What is happening with this kid. A friend of mine actually started talking about this guy yesterday at my school. So it sparked it my memory that i saw a thread on that topic here. Anywayz if anyone has any info can you please update this thread with it thanks
CompactHaven
Soulfire wrote:
The skirt reminds me of an incident that occured, and is occuring at my school. There is an out gay guy at school, and more power to him, he had the courage to come out, that's pretty brave.

He wore a shirt with two of the male restroom figures holding hands. The thought "is he trying to get killed" kept popping up in my head, but whatever, fight the power I guess.

He also wore the shirt that says "Save a horse, ride a cowboy"


And if I wore a straight pride shirt, people would be all over me. I have a gay friend, but he doesn't act like an a** about it.

I do however, totally agree with the the kid wearing the skirt. I'd go nuts if I couldn't wear shorts when the girls could wear skirts. Then again, I would just hope they don't ban skirts.
Wouldn't that be ironic? The school could totally win. All they have to do is ban skirts for girls, rather than giving the dudes rights to wear shorts.
Oh wow.
penguinslayer
The guy has got all the rights in his world to whatever he wants to wear..Period
xorcist
Why would he even want to wear a skirt but at least he got his point through.
The Philosopher Princess
penguinslayer wrote:
The guy has got all the rights in his world to whatever he wants to wear..Period

The issue is rights. And that is precisely the problem. When social behavior is regulated in the area of rights, then everyone is forced (literally) to follow one set of rules. You are then bound to have lots of unhappy people.

Instead, social behavior should be a matter of voluntary agreement, in this case, between students (along with their parents) and the schools. Different (private) schools would offer different choices of rules. The students who don’t mind (and even want) a restriction on guys wearing skirts attend the schools that have that restriction. The students who don’t want that restriction attend schools that don’t have it.

This method is called the free market. If you support government schools, then you are opposing the free market, and you are supporting a one-size-fits-all set of rules. And, of course, one-size-fits-all means that one-size-fits-none.
~~~~~~~~~~
Anyone who really and truly wants to solve the problem that girls get to wear skirts but guys don’t get to wear shorts or skirts, will oppose government schools and the one-size-fits-all approach of everyone having the same rights.

If the money stolen from people to run government schools were not stolen, and government schools were abolished, then there would be much more money available for free people to voluntarily pay for private schools. Then there would be competition for the best sets of school rules, rather than one monopoly set.

Different sets of rules are right for different people. Having one set of rules (as is mis-handled in the area of rights) is wrong.
chiragcoolboy
Code:
The guy has got all the rights in his world to whatever he wants to wear..Period

Totally agreed
shaggly
Wow, and there I was thinking that this was a fairly sane old world that we live in...

I guess he can wear what he wants, or should be able to, but then again what guy in their right mind would want to wear a skirt? Whether on protest duty or not....
Soulfire
shaggly wrote:
Wow, and there I was thinking that this was a fairly sane old world that we live in...

I guess he can wear what he wants, or should be able to, but then again what guy in their right mind would want to wear a skirt? Whether on protest duty or not....

Well, the definition of "right" varies from person to person for sure. He may think what he is doing is "right", standing up for his beliefs. Others may think it's wrong. His ultimate goal is to show that the schools dress policy (it would appear) is sexist, and all he wants are shorts.
The Philosopher Princess
shaggly wrote:
but then again what guy in their right mind would want to wear a skirt? Whether on protest duty or not....

What kind of guy, you ask?

A guy who is so comfortable in his masculinity, that he doesn’t need to prove it for others’ benefit. (Another example is a guy who can carry his girlfriend’s {or wife, mother, sister, friend’s} purse for her and he’s not concerned whether others seeing him are going to mistake him for a gay guy, or whatever. I’ll tell you what: that’s a real man in my book!) He’s above others' biases.

And also, like you said, shaggly, a guy in “protest” who believes maybe he can make some progress towards what he believes is discrimination. I admire what’s behind the attempt. But.....

.....as I’ve said, even if he (and his case) wins, he doesn’t really win, because he’ll still be a part of a monopolistic education system. I say he’s fighting the wrong battle; rather than fighting within the monopoly for a few more crumbs of bread, he should be fighting against the monopoly to be in charge of baking his own loaf of bread. (See? A guy can cook too, and still be a guy. Smile )
no_face15
If some school made a ban on clothing altogether I'd be there... Wait, I wonder if there are nudist schools around nudist camps? Well I'm off to check that out.
Garg
Why exactly were they forbidding poeple to wear skirt ?? Isn't it against your constitutinal right ?
The Philosopher Princess
Garg wrote:
Why exactly were they forbidding poeple to wear skirt ?? Isn't it against your constitutinal right ?

There are plenty of ostensible reasons, Garg, but the real reason is to demonstrate who has the power. Males not being able to wear shorts or skirts is just one more arbitrary rule -- one among many.

Those who want power, and want to keep their power, rely on other people -- most people, as a matter of fact -- learning to follow arbitrary rules. Learning to follow and feeling comfortable following arbitrary rules needs to start early in life so that as adults they will be prepared to follow all kinds of arbitrary rules.

So, the no skirts on males is part of a bigger “educational” system to teach people to follow arbitrary rules.

Why do I use arbitrary? Because males wearing shorts or skirts has absolutely nothing to do with learning -- I mean real learning and real education.
diverden
I have had students who tried to outweird each other one year, and came to class wearing women's clothes to see if they could get the attention of the teachers. My only comment was that if they were going to wear women's clothes to class, is that they needed to properly accessorize with a purse, the right shoes, nails done, etc... whatever the proper accessories might be.
The Philosopher Princess
That’s really funny! Laughing

I got in trouble one time in jr. high school for wearing a midriff (a shirt whose bottom doesn't reach the top of the pants or skirt). That inch or so of skin I was showing was so shameless! Razz I was told in no uncertain terms to never wear such revealing clothes! I learned from that experience!

Of course, me being me, I did not change anything about my clothes-wearing habits. What I learned was to scrunch up a bit to not show any skin when that particular teacher was walking by. No big deal! Very Happy
Soulfire
I agree with Philosopher Princess, except I don't generally wear shirts that expose my midriff (lol). This isn't just a simple issue of shorts or skirts, it goes beyond that.

This reminds me of a student who wore a "Straight Pride" shirt to school. He got in trouble for a "hate crime" for wearing the shirt. It went all the way to the Supreme Court, and they declared it constitutional. If a student can wear a gay pride shirt, why can't we wear straight pride shirts? I mean if people are happy with a homosexual sexuality, we can be just as happy with a heterosexual sexuality.
The Philosopher Princess
And, I agree with you, Soulfire. I agree that you “don't generally wear shirts that expose [your] midriff”. kidding kidding I don’t know so I’ll take your word for it. Smile

Here’s just 1 link I found on the case you mentioned, about which I’d not heard before: http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=13974.

“Hate crimes” are figments that should not be written into law. Either something is a crime (does direct harm to a person or their property) or it’s not. Wearing a t-shirt per se can never be a crime.

The Associated Press wrote:
Chambers' shirt says “Straight Pride” on the front and displays a man and a woman holding hands on the back.
Quote:
The judge said the sentiment behind the “Straight Pride” message appeared to be one of intolerance to homosexuality. But he ruled there was insufficient evidence that it would cause a substantial disruption of school activities.
Quote:
”Several of his friends have ordered the shirt and are anxiously awaiting the day when they can wear theirs, too,” she said.

Yeah, I guess we’d have to expect a bunch of followers to come forth. I wish there were more “Thinking Pride” rather than “Following Pride”. But then, what else can we expect from juveniles institutionalized in prisons, I mean, government schools?
r_y_e_20
the protest sounds cool and legal... why do they have to restrict individuals clothings anyway, in our school we can just use slippers, shorts and tees. any problem?
wowz
Whether he knows it or not, he's standing up for more than just the right to wear shorts Smile
Soulfire
I don't want to start anything by the "Straight Pride" shirts. But I am proud to be straight, so I should be able to express myself and my thoughts about it by wearing that shirt.

Just as someone has the right to be proud to be gay, so they can wear the "Gay Pride" shirts.
The Philosopher Princess
What’s there to be proud of?

One’s having PRIDE makes sense when accompanying an achieved goal, i.e., doing something, accomplishing something. But being straight -- or being gay -- is not an accomplishment; it’s just a natural attribute.

If you’re 5’11”, are you proud of that? If you have brown hair, are you proud of that?

If you were “overweight” (using your definition) and you exercised and started eating more sensibly and got your weight down, now that would be something to be proud of -- you actually achieved something. Or, if you ate “right” all along in life and never got “overweight”, that would also be something to be proud of. But being proud of being straight just doesn’t make any sense at all to me.

I can see someone’s being satisfied, or cheerful, or even really really really happy and thankful-to-one’s-maker over being straight (or gay). But using PRIDE associated with one’s natural characteristics seems to be hijacking a meaningful term.
~~~~~~~~~~
However, after having said all that, I’ll add this. Take a person who has felt discriminated against by “society” for some particular natural trait, but this person finally has the confidence to break out of the closet and suppress their tendency to hide that natural characteristic. Well, I can understand their wanting to publicly declare their having overcome being ashamed or being in the closet. And it makes sense to me that these groups would use the PRIDE declaration for that purpose. And, in fact, coming out of the closet is doing something; it is an accomplishment.

So, t-shirts with “Proud to be Black”, “Proud to be Mixed Race”, “Proud to be Polish”, “Proud to be Gay”, “Proud to have a lettuce picker father”, “Proud to have been born in a test tube”, etc. -- all these and many more declaring persons’ natural traits that the wearers are bound and determined to not let others’ discriminations get the best of them -- these make sense to me.
~~~~~~~~~~
I’m tolerant, so even if I see t-shirts saying “Proud to be Male”, “Proud to have been born in America”, “Proud to be White”, “Proud to have a rich mother”, “Proud to be Straight”, “Proud to have been circumcised as a baby” -- i.e., things that the person didn’t have anything to do with -- well, in real life, face to face, I might giggle a little, but I won’t even roll my eyes at such t-shirts. However, inside I would probably have a fleeting thought like, “It’s likely that person is not very smart if they are making such a big deal about something that they didn’t have anything to do with whatsoever. If they were smart, they’d be proud of something they had actually accomplished.”
~~~~~~~~~~
Writing this post does not counter my claim of being tolerant. I instead hope to encourage people to consider improving themselves rather than being proud of things not worthy, in my opinion, of being proud of.
~~~~~~~~~~
Soulfire wrote:
I don't want to start anything by the "Straight Pride" shirts. But I am proud to be straight, so I should be able to express myself and my thoughts about it by wearing that shirt.

Yes, certainly you should be able to. But why would you want to? (This is a rhetorical question, just something to think about, not an actual challenge for you to answer.)
Soulfire
Would I ever wear the shirt? Nah. Because then I would be labelled as a homosexual hater. But you do make a lot of sense in the fact that it happened by nature, we really don't have to go parading around because of it.
The Philosopher Princess
Thanks, Soulfire! Your added notes make sense too.

I thought of another “Proud of...” t-shirt category: humorous. I just invented this, which I’ve not seen before:

Proud to be <don’t ask don’t tell>

I could envision you and me both having some fun with that. Laughing
Subsonic Sound
Interesting twist - one of my old housemates is a transexual. He goes by Vince, or by Emma, depending on how... they are dressed. (pronounds get tricky, excuse me if I flip randomly between the two)

He's recently won a fight with the Student's Union, allowing him to use the Girls toilets on Uni facilities - particularly the pubs and clubs. The logic is that though he is (for now) male, it's safer overall to go the whole nine yards when pretending not to be. If he goes into the Girls, and they notice he is a she, they'll likely be unhappy. If they don't, that's that.

If she goes into the Guys, and they DON'T notice she is a he, they'll be unhappy. If they DO notice, he's liable to get beaten up.
bluedragon
Sexism!

Why can't we see the guys' sexy legs, too?
HoboPelican
bluedragon wrote:
Sexism!

Why can't we see the guys' sexy legs, too?


Ah, to be young again and have women wanting to see your legs Laughing

All I gotta say it is so sweet to see us all agreeing on something like this! Kudos to us all!

Philosopher Princess, I do wonder about a statment you made earlier. You said the real reason for the rules was to demonstrate who has the power. Do you really believe that? I tend to think (maybe hope is a better word) that is more that people have a hard time when some one threatens the status quo. Not worried about exhibiting power, but fear of change.

And you made me laugh with the reference to guys carrying GF/wives purses. That is me all over. I figure if someone sees me with a purse, they can make their own judgement. I just hate it when her purse doesn't have a shoulder strap! It's hard to run around getting different size tops with a one hand clutching a purse. Laughing Laughing Laughing
The Philosopher Princess
I’ve made a note to write up a serious reply to your question to me. In the mean time. . .

HoboPelican wrote:
Philosopher Princess
[...]
And you made me laugh with the reference to guys carrying GF/wives purses. That is me all over. I figure if someone sees me with a purse, they can make their own judgement. I just hate it when her purse doesn't have a shoulder strap! It's hard to run around getting different size tops with a one hand clutching a purse. Laughing Laughing Laughing

Laughing You make me laugh too. Did anyone see that Seinfeld show where someone stole Jerry’s (well, everybody else was calling it a purse, but he insisted it was his) European carry-all? The cop couldn’t understand what he was saying the robber stole, so finally Jerry had to admit it was a “purse”. I thought it was hilarious.
Vrythramax
just some spam for the males out there....ever said in a store "Honey do I like this?"

<snicker>
The Philosopher Princess
Laughing Well, I have said, "Honey, you like that. I know you do!"
HoboPelican
Vrythramax wrote:
just some spam for the males out there....ever said in a store "Honey do I like this?"

<snicker>

If I have to ask, I know the answer Laughing

Philosopher Princess wrote:

"Honey, you like that. I know you do!"


And I bet he did, too!
Vrythramax
guilty as charged...Victoria's Secret can be an evil place Very Happy
The Philosopher Princess
Thanks for the question! Smile

HoboPelican wrote:
Philosopher Princess, I do wonder about a statment you made earlier. You said the real reason for the rules was to demonstrate who has the power. Do you really believe that? I tend to think (maybe hope is a better word) that is more that people have a hard time when some one threatens the status quo. Not worried about exhibiting power, but fear of change.

Actually, there are different reasons for different types of rules. For instance, there are rules for the sake of safety. These are generally somewhat logical, understandable, and one can see a real reason for them. Well-thought-out safety rules are self-evident and self-enforcing, because breaking them is dangerous.

There are other rules that are made for the sake of conformity, social order, or maintaining the status quo. These generally follow a pattern of protecting the institutions of a society and the people within those institutions. They are made for the sake of making sure that no serious challenge to authority, the status quo, or the establishment, will go unpunished. Such rules are often illogical, arbitrary, and serve no useful purpose other than maintaining power over the public (peons).

School rules often fall into the latter category. They are made to force people, who are at the age and temperament to challenge authority, to conform to the status quo, obey authority, and not buck the establishment.

In order to teach this “most important” lesson (to follow and conform), the rules are made more arbitrary than needed, so that any young person who has a tendency toward independent thought and/or rebellion will be irked by the illogical rules. Then, by their rebelling, they give the administration a chance to prove who has the power. After the confrontation has been lost by the “rebellious” youth, he/she has now learned that going against authority is dangerous, and that if you want to succeed, you’d better go along with the rules, no matter how stupid they are.

This is how social institutions (such as schools) brainwash the public (peons) into supporting the establishment.

Yes, HoboPelican, I definitely believe what I stated about demonstrating who has the power. Teaching arbitrary-rule-following must be started with the youth to work well.
HoboPelican
The Philosopher Princess wrote:


There are other rules that are made for the sake of conformity, social order, or maintaining the status quo. These generally follow a pattern of protecting the institutions of a society and the people within those institutions. They are made for the sake of making sure that no serious challenge to authority, the status quo, or the establishment, will go unpunished. Such rules are often illogical, arbitrary, and serve no useful purpose other than maintaining power over the public (peons).

School rules often fall into the latter category. They are made to force people, who are at the age and temperament to challenge authority, to conform to the status quo, obey authority, and not buck the establishment.

In order to teach this “most important” lesson (to follow and conform), the rules are made more arbitrary than needed, so that any young person who has a tendency toward independent thought and/or rebellion will be irked by the illogical rules. Then, by their rebelling, they give the administration a chance to prove who has the power. After the confrontation has been lost by the “rebellious” youth, he/she has now learned that going against authority is dangerous, and that if you want to succeed, you’d better go along with the rules, no matter how stupid they are.


Hmmm. I see where you are coming from now. I might have a different perspective of high schools, since my dad was a Asst. Principal at a big HS. I got to hear some of his conversations with coworkers about stuff at the school (this was during the late 60s and early 70s). The there was often very aniamated "discussions" about rules and rulebreakers. (Paisley pants! lol) I have to honestly say that, in my memory, there were 3 schools of thought. Rules were wrong (even the admins were affected by the times), Rules are rules-OBEY, and Ignore the rules except were it caused distractions in class.

The third seemed to be the more prevalent attitude. So the guy in paisley pants went home. I can see the same rationale at work with a guy in skirts. I am absolutely not siding with the admin. I'm just trying to make the point that some rules falling in the "arbitrary" class, may not be there to beat down the peons, but to enforce the status quo out of fear of change.


I hope I made sense. Doing this in a rush, cause....I gotta job interview!
fingers croosed, friends!
Vrythramax
peon's?

Princess this is a matter I would truely like to debate with you. Those "peons" you casualy dismiss, that have possibly been "brainwashed" as you say, they still show courage and determination under fire, and they will continue to fight and die for your right to speak in such a casual mannor.

This is coming from a Brainwashed person.
Mizzro
I saw something like this on TV.. Only it was a little bit different.

It wasnt 1 kid fighting for his rights, It was actully about half of the school... Its sexist to allow females to wear skirts but not to allow males to wear shorts
The Philosopher Princess
I’m glad you raised this issue, so that I’d have a chance to hopefully straighten things out.

Vrythramax wrote:
peon's?

Princess this is a matter I would truely like to debate with you. Those "peons" you casualy dismiss, that have possibly been "brainwashed" as you say, they still show courage and determination under fire, and they will continue to fight and die for your right to speak in such a casual mannor.

Ahhhh, but it is not I who casually dismiss people as peons. I am just using the historic term for those who are bred and trained to do the bidding of the ruling class.

In medieval times, there were Nobles (the ruling class), Merchants and Craftsmen (the middle class), and Peons (the lower class). The purpose of Peons (also known as pawns, as in the game of chess) was to fight and die for the political power of the Nobles and the economy of the Merchant class. They were trained (or brainwashed) to show courage and determination under fire. They were also trained to follow the rules of the Nobles and purchase the goods of the Merchants. Most importantly, Peons were considered expendable.

Not that much has changed. The words have been changed so that people don’t know the level of their peonage, or servitude, but they are still being brainwashed, ruled over, sent to fight and die, used, and considered expendable. Certainly modern peons are taught that they are fighting for our liberty, for my right to speak, for the flag, democracy, motherhood, apple pie, and the American way, just as previous generations of peons were proud to fight for the Fatherland, the Motherland, the divine right of kings, the right of secession, freeing the slaves, forcing China to buy our opium, and keeping the world safe for democracy.

Unfortunately, these same peons, who supposedly fight for my freedom of speech, would just as courageously shoot me for exercising my freedom of speech, if so ordered by their superiors -- and, while doing so, would sincerely believe that they were heroically fighting terrorism.

Peons believe they are fighting for just causes, when in fact the real reasons they are sent to fight and die are hidden from them. Their leaders tell them that their purpose is to bring democracy to the middle east, when the real purpose is to stop foreign oil merchants from selling us cheaper oil than our oil merchants (one family of whom are current American “Royalty”).

So, I would hope that the word “PEON” might shock some folks into taking a look at the world and understanding who is being sent to fight and die, what the stakes really are, and how they are being trained (brainwashed) to do violent things, with good motives, for sick purposes.

Arrow It gives us a nice fuzzy feeling to think that there are lots of troops willing to fight for our freedoms, UNTIL we realize that most of those troops would just as quickly kill us for exercising our freedoms, if told by their superiors that exercising freedom was an act of terrorism.

Arrow It feels good to have a government that claims to be dedicated to preserving our “legal and civil rights”, UNTIL we realize that their way of doing so includes subjecting us to wiretapping, eavesdropping, spying, incarceration without trial, holding incommunicado, trial without due process, curfews, paramilitary raids, and all sorts of other violations of the Constitution they have sworn to uphold.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Arrow Now let’s go full circle on this thread. Males wearing skirts is such a minor piddly issue in contrast to the bigger picture of brainwashing peons to fight and die for the ruling class. But, forcing arbitrary rules on young people is one method the ruling class uses to train peons to be peons. Those who go along meekly will make good peons. Those who object will be subjected to further training.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Vrythramax wrote:
This is coming from a Brainwashed person.

Me too. I was quite fully brainwashed. But I broke out. You can too. But it takes work. I hope also to have you as a fellow ex-brainwashed person to help encourage others to break away too.
Vrythramax
Princess...

You most certainly know I meant no disrespect towards you in my comment, and you have my apologies if I have done so. I spent 12 years with the military and I come froma military family, so my brainwashing started very young (just for the record, my family lost one boy to war, and had the other two seriously wounded...myself twice).

I won't argue the meaning of the word as I don't know it's origins....but I kinda thought the class you speak of were called "Serfs". It was my understanding that the denogration "Peon" was exactly that...an insult. To classify any group of people as you have is usually called sterotyping and sometimes much worse. In any event it is completely unfair to think that everyone in uniform is a mindless automoton with a weapon aimed at you. I know of many who would, and will fight for your right to free speech..even if they themselves don't happen to agree with what your saying.

Having been in the military, and having lived, fought and bleed with some of those people...I also cannot argue that many of them will blindly follow any order given...and possibly shoot you if so ordered. I feel I must also point out that this is the exception, not the rule. You can get into just as much trouble in the Army for following an order you know to be wrong as for not following an order. Contrary to popular belief, most branches of the services (can't say for sure about the Marines...they are a bit...umm...off the wall shall we say), do not want mindless people with guns in thier ranks.

Believe I am not what would pass for a "Patriot", I don't agree with my governments policies on many things, and it has cost me dearly for doing so. I am, and shall remain, an individule...even though I work for the phone company Sad
The Philosopher Princess
Vrythramax wrote:
(just for the record, my family lost one boy to war, and had the other two seriously wounded...myself twice)

I’m very sorry to hear about that.

Vrythramax wrote:
but I kinda thought the class you speak of were called "Serfs".

That works too. I’m sure that if you looked up those words in a thesaurus, you would find those 2 and all kinds of other slave-related words near each other.

Vrythramax wrote:
It was my understanding that the denogration "Peon" was exactly that...an insult.

This is part of the point. People should consider it an insult to be treated like peons. But one of the problems is that they’re not often recognizing that they are.

People should consider it a great insult to have their tax money stolen to fund a monopoly so-called education system -- and to not then be able to afford to have their kids get a real education. And to be stuck with only that monopoly one-size-fits-all government school system, where there are only arbitrary rules like girls-can-wear-skirts-but-boys-can’t-wear-shorts. But most don’t consider this an insult. They think it’s the way things have to be; they can’t imagine anything better. How do we wake people up? One answer is to not sugarcoat the labels describing how people are being treated.

If you are a parent and your hard-earned income is going to fund government bureaucrats who are making decisions FOR YOU, then you are a peon. If you are a kid of those parents and YOUR BEST educational choice is a monopoly government system, then you are a peon.

Please don’t get stuck on the labels and someone like me calling things and people what they actually are. Instead, get your ire up against the real-life situational insults that monopolists and their supporters and apologists inflict. My use of peon is to throw attention towards monopolists.
elincinerador
i don't inderstand why they put a ban on shorts... anyway, if they done so, they should apply it to skirts also, it's ridiculus!!
skygaia
it's strange news for me.
I have not known the school baned for male student to wear skirts.
I don't care whether they wear skirts or not.
alexcheng
hahahahaha


this guy's got balls to do this in highschool. Gotta give him credit for that.


But he's probably a pretty big problem child or has a huge HUGE problem with authority.

But that relaly sucks though, not being allowed to wear shorts at school, what the heck kind of stupid rule is that:P
Related topics
Laugh out loud
sms jokes
sms jokes
Should we wear uniform to school?
Two dogs better than one?
Greetings from the snowy lands!
Konnichiwa
Americans, are you thankful?
That's what I like about McCain.
Obama wins fight to limit fighter jets
Things only a Republican could believe
What is rape? And rape and politicians ...
The End of Men?
Is Being A Girl Degrading?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.