Buh Bye Baggy Britches

I'm not sure that it will help, yet will be interesting to see.  But, I must say not all who wear the 'baggies' are disinterested in an education.  That's just my opinion based on what I've seen with a couple of young family members.

Make them all wear the same uniform. Instead of outlawing one way of wearing clothing. What about the wanna be ladies of the eve and their short skirts and spagetti strap shirts. This is almost racial profileIng(?) by the government. Targeting one group of underwear showing kids. What about the poor kids that have to wear bigger brothers hand me downs and can't afford a belt?

A few year ago a new prinicipal took a stand against the baggies at his school. Didn't need a legislature decision to do this.

 How in the world are they going to enforce this, when they can't keep the bullying, drugs and sex out of the schools!  

That's the question many people were asking when this story broke.  I picked it up in the Palm Beach Post, 03.11.08.  Two other questions that should be asked are: How were they thinking & WERE they actually thinking?

Has there ever been any generation where the elders did not like something that the youngsters were doing?  Respect, hair style/length, (remember the flap when the Beatles appeared?) dance, (Elvis)  music, clothing & the list goes on.  And this has been historically traced back for over 2,000 years!

It also ties in with my blog on the thinking cap & the decision making process.  Here are a few more examples.

According to a Pew Research poll, approximately 50% of Americans don't accept the theory of evolution.  Why?  The overwhelming reason was that it conflicted with their religious beliefs on biblical creation.  Not that it was science or even bad science.  It was just contrary.

From New England:  Homeowners & some homeowners associations want to legally ban people from hanging their laundry out to dry in their back yards.  Why?  they don't think it looks nice.  Never mind the energy savings & all that goes along with environmental issues.

Until the 20th century, blacks & women were denied some civil rights.  Why??   Because they were thought to be inferior intellectually & socially.

In every one of the above examples, including the one Marsha offered, the thinking processes were conspicuously absent.  Subjective thinking, not objective thinking, along with making invalid assumptions based on little or no evidence was prevelant rather than logic, pragmatic thought processes or even common sense.

Kinda makes you wonder just where society is headed, doesn't it?  JATFUR.

RichK

Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, NAACP and the other "your a racist" groups haven't come crawling out of the woodwork yet yelling "you messing with my people"!!!!!!!!

 In my opinion it is the best thing that could have happened and hopefully the administrators will keep the rule.

Now can we please get the cell phones out of the hands of 17 and under while they are driving!!!!!!!!!!!!!

you see just as many whites as blacks and illegals wearing butt huggers. There's no room for any of it.  It doesn't matter if you want to learn or not.

I'm on role today. Must be feeling ornery. Is it a full moon?

Solo;

You can add that probably less than 50 years ago inter-racial marriage was illegal in a number of states. 50 years ago a city in Southern California wouldn't let Jews own or rent in that city.

CVP;

Did you grow up in a vacuum? Did you never wear clothes that your parents disapproved of or wear them in a manner they didn't like?

Butt huggers in general don't look all that great to me but at least they cover up their butt with underwear.

Have you seen the fat butt, beer gut bubba's walking around out there with their butt cleavage hanging out like a proud Brit Brit?

How about the cottage cheese toting 250 pound fat butt with painted on spandex?

Who sets the standards? The same idiots that whined because they weren't smart enough not leave 'loop hole' in the pension system? The same ones that can't figure out how to pass a law that bans hazing and bullying because they don't want to use the word gay or homosexual in the law? The same ones that gave us FCAT?

I wouldn't want most of these people making a decision about what color socks I should wear let alone how low a kids pants can hang. What's next, have all the girls measured and checked to make sure they are wearing an acceptable size or type bra?

Some of these people crying about the baggy pants are probably the same ones that nearly had a fit when the law started allowing women to breast feed in public places. And I guarantee if they could stop it they would.

Give it a break. The kids wear their pants hanging off their butt. So what? In 5 years it will be something else. In 10 or 15 these kids will be griping about what their kids are wearing.

Get the cell phones out of 17 year olds hands while driving? What of the idiot that thinks eating a burger, drinking a soda and munching fries all while trying to navigate a 2 ton truck back to his work sight is a smart thing to do? Or the one that thinks the sun visor mirror is her mobile salon. Have to make sure that lipstick and eye liner is just right before she kills herself or someone else.

Mike Heemer

MeMaw,

I disclosed that my thought process on one comment about who wears their pants this way was a stereo-typical one which is an acknowledgement that not all who wear pants below their butt cheeks fit what I was saying.

My point is how many more rules and such are we going to come up with where we use throwing kids out of school as a punishment and is that not detrimental to getting an education?  Public Schools are not an exclusive club.

Maxie,

I don't think they're going after just baggy pants but the ones that hang below the bottom side of ones butt.  A belt or piece of line can hold a pair of pants to a more acceptable level if they don't fit properly.  Uniforms would certainly cut out some of the issues over the dress code but this could be a financial hardship on a young famlies with growing kids. 

Mike,

I don't disagree with you either, but acceptable and unacceptable attire in schools was started long ago so all this does is add to that list.  There were things you and I were not allowed to wear too. I overlook a good deal of attire for the sake of it being a phase but underwear hanging out never has and never will be acceptable to me, I complain about a simple bra strap with my girls unless it matches the color they're wearing. 

Rich,

Are you not getting a little self righteous critquing everyones thought process?  I threw a quick blog out there for conversation, I did not spend two hours researching an analyzing and do not believe I should be required to in order to avoid being told that  my thinking process is conspicously absent, is that now an unwritten rule for blogging? Just because a thought process does not match your own does not mean it's absent.  

I hardly think major civil rights issues like equality for all people are comparable.

Bottom line I reported an item I'd heard that had been discussed here previously and MY CONCERN is over the effect this may have on keeping kids in school not constantly adding to the list of offenses where the consequence is to throw them out of school.

My only solid opinion in this matter is that unless a student is putting themselves, others or property at risk that they need to find some other consequence besides tossing them out of school.  It is absolutely bizzare that you get ISS for skipping a class and if you don't show up for ISS they suspend you from school. 

Critque that.

Marsha,

In no way was I commenting on your thought processes.  My comments were aimed solely at the decision making process that went into legislative action.  I agree with you & others that I don't like the way low slung pants look.  But that is our own, subjective, matter of taste OPINION.  I showed the article to my wife & she agreed with me, & by extension, with you, that there will probably be nothing to come of it.  Except maybe some embarrassment.  She also added the thought of how they will word & implement it.  For example, what if you're at the beach or going or coming from a public pool with your swimsuit under your pants.  If part of your swimsuit is showing above the belt, will you be subject to arrest & fine?  And when you get down to it, there really isn't that much difference between underwear & a swimsuit expecially if you compare wearing a thong or string bikini.

As far as thought processes go, they are not only mine & I never said that they were the measure by which other standards should be met.  Therefore, I don't think self righteous is the correct description.  Quite the contrary.  I've shaped my thought processes by the the PROVEN standards that have worked of those much smarter than I am.  Perhaps you read a different or more articles than I have on the clothing issue.  I only read two.  But in neither one was any other reason given except that some people didn't like the way it looked.  Are you saying that a law should be based on nothing more than that?

As far as the connection between baggy pants & education is concerned, I don't know enough @ it & as far as I can remember, haven't commented on it.

As far as my touting a certain kind of thinking & decicision making process, if you would be so kind, would you please be specific & show me which example I provided did not fit what my opinion stated?  I'll be more than happy to help, if you'd like.  Were all of my situations based on nothing more than subjective assumptions?  As far as I can see, yes.  Were they based on logic, understanding, some evidence of a factual nature or even historical facts?  No.  Now unless you want to turn back the clock, give up your property rights, your right to vote along with a few million African Americans, I think that the wrongness of these situations are quite apparent.

Would you want to be held legally liable to arrest, fine & a criminal record solely because someone else got a law passed that would prohibit you from wearing a swimsuit under your jeans, which happened to be showing & they thought it didn't look nice?  Do you think that with all the environmental & energy problems we have that you should be under arrest, fined & have a criminal record because someone didn't think your hanging laundry out in the clean, fresh, free air looked nice?

I'm not sure what else I can say except that you might have read a bit more into it.  I was not attacking your thinking processes at all.  Hope this clears this up.  I'd love to chat more, but I have to get ready.  I have a hot date with the godess tonight.  Wednesday was the 41st anniversary of our first date & we're celebrating with pizza tonight.  Ciao.  JATFUR

RichK

Finder: 

Sorry I don't go around looking for beer bully bubba's or the cottage cheese toting 250 pound fat butt with painted on spandex.  Glad you feel like you need to.  I don't know if you can call that your "on a roll" or not.

In the day your folks got you for wearing your hair to long.  Waists are there to hold up your britches. I see that maybe you're the one thats lived in a vacuum.

I didn't thnk about the hamburgers or soda's but I'm glad you did.  Lot a strange stuff on your mind, Hummmm beer belly bubba's, 250 lbs fatt butts with painted on spandex.  Actually scary.

Is that its hard to have a simple conversation with you at all.  You pick it apart and take it in ten different directions and provide twenty different hypothetical situations.  

If I am not reading it right I am not alone. On my first and second entry I said I was more concerned with the growing list of offenses that can get a kid kicked out of school when everything possible should be done to keep them in school. 

Life is too short to over-analyze everything. 

Other than having to listen to a lispy explanation of why he thought having a hunk of metal jammed through his tongue was a good idea for that two-week experiment, I have to admit I don't have a lot of direct personal experience along this line.  My son, throughout his life, has chosen to maintain a fashion appearance far more conservative than I did around the high school and young adult age.

That was back in the days when the visible butt cheeks didn't belong to guys with baggy pants, but to the girls, courtesy of the mini-skirt fashion of the time.  Coupled with the occasional bra-burning, I've gotta admit that the fashion of my youth was considerbly more pleasing from an aesthetic perspective than what the current era I witness walking the mall has to offer.  Even with that much greater classroom distraction, I managed to graduate high school on schedule.

Each generation, in its own somewhat-offensive way, picks its fashion to shock and seperate itself from the generations before.  It's a collective statement of their burgeoning independence.  Yawn.  As long as their fashion choices don't cause real problems in real classrooms, then government should not be in the fashion police business, in the closets of our children, or substituting its collective fashion taste and discipline for that of parents.

The reality is that politicians often believe the public perception of what they're doing is more important than what is actually being done.  They haven't stopped the bullying, drugs or declining quality of education in overcrowded and underfunded schools. So they waste their time with some meaninless legislation to provide the perception that they're doing something right.  Even if it isn't really right.

Burn the bra!  Bring back the miniskirt!  I hope that comes back into fashion again before my eyes are too old for me to enjoy it.

Michael S. Mann

Marsha, I keep agreeing.  I'll agree with you on this one, kids, offenses & education, even though I stated I didn't know that much @ it & had not commented on it.

As far as being blamed for over analyzing, I find that rather strange coming from someone who, like me, takes the time & effort to research something they think important.  That, plus picking apart a problem, is the first step to understanding the problem, speaking intellingently of the problem & then, possibly, offering a thought based, practical solution to it.  I hate to say it, but you fit that bill.  Don't take my word on it.  Look back at some of your comments & the times you made the effort to study it.  I would venture to say that even though you might not have picked it apart with the computer, I'll bet that for the sake of understanding something better, you did it mentally.  And I find nothing about that process that can be faulted.

We might use different processes, but we still use the same method.  Once again, look back on any number of your comments.  They are definitely NOT a reflection of someone to lazy to think @ something.

Yes, I will also agree that it is sometimes to have a simple conversation with me .  Two reasons.  I love to challenge & to be challenged & nothing really good is easy.  I have no idea who said that, but someone must have.  One more time, Ciao. JATFUR.

RichK

Mike,

I think I'm going to cry just thinking @ that era.  I love nostalgia. Sniff Sniff.

RichK

CVP;

OK, what the heck, I'll be a guppy and take the bait. I've been dissed before. BTW I don't think you really know what era I'm from and what my parents did or did not get on me about.

My point is that the kids aren't the only people that run around looking like they crawled out of a rag bag.

Grownups that are supposed to know better look worse than most of the teen agers. I didn't see this question answered in the article. At what age do we stop subjecting them to the fashion police?

There are a lot more idiots on the road eating (and talking on phones) while driving than there are 17 year olds on the phone. They pretty much learn driving habits from their parents. The point being, if you are going to make phones illegal make eating illegal too. Ever done that? Eat your drive thru meal at the wheel?

Did I grow up in a vacuum? No but I had a heck of a good time tweaking the noses of the crowd that thought they were better than me because they lived in a nicer house, had more money and dressed better than I did.

The more it bent them out of shape the more I tweaked and the more I loved seeing them fret over the way that hoodlum dressed and acted. I would have had a great time with you.  

There are much more important things to worry about than some kid with his underwear showing. To me this is a lot like censorship. Who says what is or is not acceptable?

Mike Heemer

I was a slave to fashion and a smidge rebellious as a teenager.  Daddy didnt approve of short skirts so I would roll them up at the waist once I was out of the house. 

My skirts were so short that most Mothers of the boys I liked didn't like me even though I always behaved like a lady when wearing a dress, I didn't flash anyone.  There was nothing provacative about my behavior, just my style. 

My favorite though was hot pants and white boots with tall heels that I didn't need as I towered over most of the boys anyway.

I still like short dresses, I'm just a bit too heavy now for them to look good anymore, but if I get the weight off I have several in my closet just waiting to come out of retirement!

Rich lets just let it go, some of your comments irked me, I spoke my peace and now I'm over it.   

Marsha,

My wife went to catholic high school & they did the very same thing, rolling up skirts.  AHHH, those were the years.  To the Queens, To the 60's.

RK

This law in opinion will not be enforced, at least not for long, while the administrative politicians may enforce the rule for a while, the teachers probably won't.  And i wouldn't be suprised if the youth resource officer turned a blind eye.  My opinion, unless the boys come in their underwear or the girls come in their string bikinis (although it would have been nice if it was legal in high school, except for the "cottage cheese 250 pound fat butt"), the gov't should have no say in what students wear to school unless otherwise extremely offensive, language clothing among others, this is an area where the gov't should butt out.  For any of you who are for this bill, i can understand where your coming from in regards to decency and distraction in class, but most of you haven't been in high school since the early 20th century and most students don't pay attention anyways regardless of what the student beside them is wearing.  Also, understand that this butt riding is not the majority of students, i would love to see or hear what the losers at your high schools wore back whenever you attended.  This boils down to a family issue, privately.  If the parents say oh honey wear whatever you want, then the parents are stupid, if they actually enforce decency and put into the childs mind that you will look like an idiot and that it will not be allowed in this household or at school, then great.  Government should not be coming into another family discussion, i know there are technicalities and i know that the student is on government property, but i still don;t think they should have a say in this matter.  You can choose to look or you can choose not to look.   

Foxx;

Great post. Nice to hear the opinion on one who has been there recently. I agree, the fashion police really shouldn't have a lot to say about this.

The thing is, the guy that you think looks like a bum today just might have an IQ of 170 and be the inventor of the next line of Hydrogen engines that emit no pollution.

Wouldn't that be a kick in the baggy pants?

BTW I think most of us were at least a bit later than the early 20th century. Only Grandpa not Great Grandpa.   Go Class of 1964!

Mike Heemer

Who's up for banning plumbers (crack showing) pants, now that should be illegal

TRUTHHURTS

This discussion has been interesting and enlightening.  I'm always tickled to see the batting back and forth along with individual opinions even when the talk moves to other areas. 

Marsha, had you not used a stereoptypical analogy, perhaps I would have better understood what you had to say when starting this blog.  It's difficult for me to fill in blanks, but thank you for doing so later in the day.  I respect your opinion and hope that you respect mine as well.  I did state it was "just my opinion". 

Also, I wholeheartedly agree about cell phone usage, eating, putting on makeup, etc. while driving, and that this is not limited to 17 year old kids. I believe this to be a much larger "problem" (resulting at times in loss of lives)  than the showing of butt cracks.  If people don't like that, they can look away.  As someone else said, the 'clothing' issues have been going on forever.  I'm thankful I grew up in a time when skirts were below the knee or you didn't leave the house for school.  The grownups didn't like our music then either, but at least the language was decent and the words understandable.  But, time is what it is, and this is now.  I do wish the politicians would focus on issues that would help save and/or mend lives instead of constantly trying to force ridiculous sanctions on innocent people, especially the kids.  There are so many, many issues that I fear will not be resolved including but not limited to health care and education.

Sorry, I got carried away.

Clayviewpoint.....I agree, but let's not stop at 17 or under.  Cell phones shoud not be used by anyone while operating a vehicle, unless it's an emergency.  Just today, there were 5 vehicles that ran the stop sign at the corner where I live, everyone of the drivers had a phone cell or car phone to their ear.  The last vehicle, trying to keep pace with the others took the turn and came within inches of a head on collision.  This prompted an exchange of words by both drivers, which was loud enough for me to hear and burned my virgin ears .  Before I could get the tag # of the vehicles and call the CCSO, they were off and running.  There were children out playing in yards right where the confrontation took place....thank God the exchange didn't bring about something worse. 

Stryker

Duck tail hair, pegged chino's with baggy knees, Wellington boots with chains, and my favorite powered blue one button zoot suite.

Man I was a sharp looking guy (dude) LOL

Those who give up freedom for security have neither. 

and the guys all had really long hair ( which I am sure they are missing some 30 years later)

I agree with what Foxx said: 

"Government should not be coming into another family discussion, i know there are technicalities and i know that the student is on government property, but i still don;t think they should have a say in this matter."

Sorry Marsha;

about my first response but the no smoking meds are making me cranky and paranoid...I should have hit delete after typing instead of post....

HAVE A GREAT SATURDAY

MAXIE;)

At the risk of annoying or irritating, I thought this subject important enough to add another facet.  In the TU today, the baggy pants issue was included in Ron Littlepage’s column & mentioned in a side bar on page B-5.  In that story, the oft used phrase, “dress for success,” was used again.  My contention is to question whether this philosophy should be used as the benchmark for attaining what most call success.  Like many other endeavors that have not been well thought out, there are many deep exceptions that cast doubt on its use. 

By example, consider these groups.  Politicians.  They are too numerous to list here, but start with Eliot Spitizer, not only well dressed but of high intelligence.  Start with him & run the list back into time as far as you wish.  So many were well dressed for success, conforming to the dictates of societal norms, & yet substance, rather, the lack of substance, not style, proved to be their downfalls.  Malfeasance, breaking of the public trust, sexual behavior, breaking Constitutional laws are among the many crimes they committed.  One can look into the fields of business, religion  or any field of endeavor & find people who were, “Dressed for success,” yet they showed that conforming to societies’ idea of how one should or should not be dressed proved an arbitrary & very possibly false premise from which to start.

On the other hand, there is always the other side of the coin.  The following rarely, if ever, “dressed for success,” according to what society dictated in their time or ours.  Some had long dirty hair, infrequently bathed, if at all.  Some had not the slightest concern or knowlege of basic hygiene, did not wear pants, suits, ties or shoes.  Some males even wore high heeled shoes.  And yet, by any measure, they were considered a success.

Once again, we can start with politicians like Washington or Jefferson.  How about Gandhi, Da Vinci, Ben Franklin, (he of the ugly beaver hat) Galileo, Michelangelo, Newton, Voltaire or a man named Jesus?  People like these have proven that regardless of how one is dressed, success is not based on style, but substance.

If any of the above were to appear in our midst today, they would probably run afoul of the laws solely on the basis of how they were dressed & would not be considered material for “success.”

Point is, we can use all the pithy comments or old sayings we want, such as “dressing for success,” “always act & dress right because you never get a second chance to make a first impression.”  They might sound good & make us all feel warm, fuzzy & righteous.  But they can also prove to be a deck of cards, especially with another pithy saying like, “Never judge a book by its cover.”  See how easy that was?

Do we want to instill good values in children using cute, but questionable pithy sayings or putting style over substance?  I would hope not.  But it seems that that is exactly what we are doing.  Do I have the answer?  Not even close.  I was brought up going to grade & high school in a uniform as some are today.  Some of us turned out successful, some not.  But I hope that we will discontinue basing our thinking, upon which we eventually make our laws, on something more than pithy sayings, or the dictates of current styles of dress.  JATFUR.

RichK

Dress codes for schools are the business of local school boards, not the legislature. Clay and Duval have a comprehensive and specific dress code for students, as I am sure other districts in Florida do. Hopefully, enforcement of the policies are handled appropriately. In both counties, such baggy pants revealing the "arse" are a violation of the code, and dealt with on the spot, with no second, third, and fourth chances for compliance.

I appreciate clearly defined dress codes, as has not always been the case in Clay County. When my oldest child was a student at OPHS in the late 1980's, she was very proud that she had her first job and was able to buy an outfit with her own money. Her choice was a conservative capri and matching shirt that buttoned to the neck. We were quite surprised at her choice of such a conservative outfit, complete with a green bow for her hair.

When she got to school, she was called into the office by the principal for her outfit that did not comply with code. She called me and asked me to bring her a pair of jeans to change clothes. On my way to my own school to teach, I detoured to OPHS to with jeans. At that point, I thought she had just soiled her clothes and wanted to change.

As I walked down the hall, I was astounded at the students in camaflauge outfits, combat boots, shaved heads, spiked mohawks, chains, garish body paint and make-up, etc...As an educator, I knew that such attire was questionable and distracting in a classroom, but I would never have said anything about it until.....

My daughter came up to me, assured me she was fine and just needed to change into jeans because her capri's were not allowed! I immediately asked to speak to the Principal Booth. Booth never rose from his chair, nor did he take his feet off his desk and stop eating his apple. He assured me my conservatively dressed child was inappropriately dressed and the punk attired students in the hall met all code requirements.

If you know Pioneer, you know that Pioneer did not let this rest! To the embarrassment of my daughter, I whipped out my camera, had her stand against the wall and snapped a few pics of her, gave her the jeans to change into and off to work I went. I sent the superintendent and school board members the pictures and a letter. The school board chairman --John Thrasher-- concurred with my angst upon reading my letter and seeing the pictures. Dress code policy was reviewed and changed. Distracting attire such as what I observed in the '80's at OPHS are no longer allowed, just as excessively baggy pants are not today.

Local school boards do not need the Legislature making more laws. Especially when the proposed law on baggy  pants is less restrictive than it should be by allowing up to 4 chances to comply.

Pioneer,

Since my wife & I don't have children, I have no agenda & very little knowlege of the situation compared to parents.  But just going by what you wrote, I have to ask a couple of questions.  Is there a consistency problem in the school system where dress codes are concerned?  How much latitude does a principal have?  Are the rules enforced equally?  It doesn't sound like it.  Is there something else going on that is not well known? 

The point of my replies was what seems to me, an ineffective decision making process.  Judging by my one & only experience with the CC school board, I found that what people told me, what I read & what I saw was correct.  I've never realy taken notice of what the kids were wearing.  I might have to start.  Thanks for the info.

RichK

Solo

I hope someone else with more current knowledge than I have will answer your questions. I gave an example of what happened 20 years ago.

As I am sure you realize, rules may not always be enforced equally from school to school, principal to principal, and teacher to teacher. The dress code, discipline code, and grading system should not differ, but do due to the people in charge and what they expect.

Going green for St Pat's Day, ground down.  In a story from WLTX, Columbia, SC. a high school mentor was sent home because he dyed his hair green for St Patrick's Day.

Michael Rice, a staff sergeant in the US Army Reserve for 14 years, currently serving as a mentor in Lower Richland High School, was sent home by school officials because he dyed his hair green for St. Pat's.  "Rice said he just wanted to give fellow staff members & students a good-natured laugh."

The official reason for this action, at least so far?  He said, "the schoold didn't like the color he dyed his hair."  Home of the brave, land of the free.  JATFUR.

RichK