Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Narz, Nov 16, 2018.
Overpriced coats are stupid anyway. Typical lazy adults just banning stuff.
I'm glad I grew up in a town where we weren't expected to know what was expensive, and definitely not oriented to think that made someone cooler for wearing something expensive.
Though I'm pretty sure it's a uniforms school in the article to begin with?
I'm 100% in favor of this. As a matter of fact, we should ban Moncler and Canada Goose Jackets, and while we're at it, Ugg boots, too, for every human being in past, present and future. No one deserves to be confronted with this eyesore, this affront to aestheticism, this abomination. Moncler Jackets should have never been invented, rather, there should have been intervention. They are the biggest stain on humanities track record. If you're buying Moncler Jackets.. I'm sorry. We can't be friends.
All I ask is where is the ban on those damned Swedish Fjællræven* backpacks.
*And no, umlauts on those letters are heresy and consumerist swedish propaganda. Especially Ræven has the appropriate norwegian translation of "ass".
If your kids are lil trend chasers no coat banning will protect them. Materialism is not going to be quelled by protecting kids from a few jackets
Nah, but it's already a uniforms school. So the coats will play an extra sized role in clothing "status" if there aren't school mandated coats.
Did you even read the article you linked to?
This is a British school, so it's less a "uniforms" school and more just a school. I think it's an admirable policy though, particularly in a traditionally deprived urban area.
Yeah that's where I got the thread title from
I do not think it is funny to laugh at children because their parents can not afford an expensive coat.
Birkinhead is an urban area so there is no need for a technical coat to go to school.
In my school you wore old hoodies to be cool.
In my school you wore simply refused to wear a uniform correctly. Because screw the man, man.
I wore my uniform correctly, because I honestly didn't care. Naturally, by the time I was 15-16, this had caused a complete switch in priorities, and now I was (briefly) cool because I didn't care about what everyone else thought was cool. This ended quickly when I ignored overtures from the "cool" kids to go to parties. Because, again, I didn't care.
Man, high school was dumb.
Back on topic; it's a school uniform. It should be priced so that anyone can afford it. Having a jacket that expensive is moronic to begin with. The most expensive article of clothing I own is a $16 pair of pants. Hasn't hurt me.
The school would not have specified the coat. So some children and their parents started an arms race.
So you have nothing to lose if you go to Egypt.
Something for the USians to chew on: as far as I can tell, the linked article is about a UK 'comprehensive' school, not a private school.
It will therefore be state-funded (centrally, not locally), and will cater to children from a wide range of income-brackets, from 'upper-middle class parents who can afford expensive holidays abroad twice a year (but can't quite afford to send little Tiffany to private school)' to 'council-estate parents who've been on unemployment-benefit ever since they left school themselves'. Uniforms will likely be compulsory (when I was at secondary school, 'non-uniform days' happened once a year, if that), which itself is not cheap these days (especially when it all has to be replaced after every growth spurt -- or bought 2 sizes too large to start with). Most comprehensive schools in Britain no longer require kids to wear a school blazer as part of the uniform -- because those things really are expensive.
So (apart from the fit of their 'uniforms') one of the major differentiators between the richer and poorer kids will be (the visible cost of) their non-standard accessories: jackets, rucksacks, pencil-cases, phones, whatever. So yeah, the (nastier) rich kids will very likely be giving the poorer kids grief for not having expensive-label jackets, because (nasty rich) kids will always act like (nasty rich) kids, regardless of which continent they're on.
Not agreeing that banning expensive stuff from the school is necessarily the best way of dealing with this, though...
The ban is pretty pathetic but it's the same country with broad interpretive speech laws that will apparently manufacture intent to send people to jail over making videos so it's not surprising.
This one in particular demonstrates cowardice and a lack of actually wanting to address the problem. It's not like rich kids will fail to find a way to out-group/pick on poor kids if lacking their jackets. And it's not like the school in question actually cares enough to take measures that would make a more meaningful difference, like consistent consequences for kids who act problematically. No, we're going to take away one of many tools and pretend something "was done" about the problem, not unlike "common sense knife law".
I don't particularly have an issue with school uniforms. Lets the kids mix around and clique* and pick on each other for different things like who's pretty/ugly smart/dumb funny/awkward athletic/slow. Which they will. On economic class, as well, too. Amazingly enough, I bet the kids are smart enough to figure out who has money at home. But jumbling it around when the outside world uses money for so much of that stuff is educational, at least, I'd guess.
If coats coming in during periods of transition are an issue, then they need to be part of the uniform, right?
I keep reading this threads title as "Goats cause Inequity"
This is actually another symptom of a common problem here and there, especially at schools. The idea that how one student dresses makes them implicitly responsible for another student's reactions and lack of self-control over seeing it. It's a different take on the issue that girls at a school are "responsible" for boys being uncontrollably "tempted" and "distracted" if they don't dress to Puritan Goodwife dress code standards, or students wearing simple religious paraphernalia are "responsible" for other students inability to not be offended. This is ridiculous. If we're not teaching students self-control and self-responsibility for their own actions and feeling by the high school level, but are instead saying passing the buck on the blame for these things on others is acceptable, and the rules will back them back, what monstrous, self-entitled, self-indulgent, unaccountable new generation of hooligans are we churning out here?
New crop is like the old crop, I would guess.
It's the social mores, right? Like, it really matters on what we're talking about, doesn't it? Plunking yourself right next to a soup line and chowing down on gold leaf coated quail, a 24 oz T-Bone, and bottle of bubbly is going to get a lot of people who support your getting decked. Excusing somebody for being sexually violent in response to seeing a belly button is much different. It's way more harmful, monstrous to excuse, and... probably baked in to some extent. Excess hormones are hard to be rational or moral with, that's not the mechanism. But hopefully we can set the stage better than we used to. Being offended by somebody wearing an article of their faith, for that action alone, is also different. That's just an expression of bigotry. Don't overdress it.
Separate names with a comma.