Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Bill Takes Aim at Saggy Pants

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Ok 1st off, It's school, Not the freedom of speech headquarters, It's a place of learning, most kids of which wearing jincos, and other big pants, do it as a form of fitting in or to conceal something like a cellphone, psp, netbook or whatever else they want to keep from people that day.

Now on a second note, I think they need to go a step beyond and use uniforms, It's school again, and well Bullying is a huge issue at school, well take the style away and you eliminate half the issue of what's being harassed.

Again, this is school, not a fashion show, a bar, a nightclub, or a place to socialize about non-school related things. Come on, do you want kids to get smarter, or worry about freedom of clothing?

Kids need to be reinforced and nurtured with reality, not shown they can have their cake and eat it too, with this liberal everyone is good crap.

The baggy pants, were brought about mostly to conceal weapons from other gangs or street robberies. it just carried onwards into every other aspect of life.

Now you don't know of joe schmo is packing heat, or a happy thought.


I wore big pants, I sk8ed, was the fashion, but I never wore the pants that hid my feet, since that's gonna lead to some serious pant to wheel issues... But they were big enuff to be considered " Bad news " by others, yet I am prolly one of the most compassionate guys you'll meet. Why was I considered bad news, well since MsM says such, older people listen due to being out of the loop or being sheep.
edit on 4-4-2012 by Moneyisgodlifeisrented because: To add fire * P.S.* fire cost too much so we used the word " fire " ..... Oooo scary " Fire, Fire, Yeah! "




posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Mr_skepticc
 


Few things i would rather do than beat senseless anyone with their pants worn like that. But while i would like to impose physical violence on them myself, I certainly do not want to see a law created that combats this pure social issue.

This is what you vote for folks: people who make needless laws that do nothing other than create positive sentiment from their targeted constituency.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 09:47 AM
link   
I had to wear a school uniform with tie and blazer,
I don't think it's a bad idea to remove the fashion show element from schools.
Outside of school, there should be no laws dictating peoples dress, beyond public decency.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   
This sounds like an old man law in order to keep young generation down.... Damn you baby boomers. wretched generation, go dig a grave



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 09:55 AM
link   
ahh the land of freedom and liberty /........



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by rom12345
I had to wear a school uniform with tie and blazer,
I don't think it's a bad idea to remove the fashion show element from schools.
Outside of school, there should be no laws dictating peoples dress, beyond public decency.


Removing the fashion show element from schools is just a band aid to keep us from addressing the real issue: the rampant materialism in our culture. If parents can't teach their kids better, the schools certainly won't. They will just create an issue with authority.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   
This is an article i reposted on my blog, written by a local reporter. On the edge of social comfort? Yup...but a good article nonetheless:


As a journalist, there are certain topics you simply avoid from time to time. Some of them are simple, like the difference between the words “effect” and “affect,” which still gives me fits as a professional writer. Others are more volatile, such as the powder kegs known as religion and politics.

Unfortunately, the ostrich method — simply sticking your head in the sand so you don’t have to deal with the issue — does little to help things, and, by most standards, just makes them worse.

So, in the interest of self-help, I’ve decided to write an entire series of columns on topics most of us have absolutely no desire to tackle because of their volatility or “ick” factor. Think of it like Mike Rowe’s television show “Dirty Jobs,” but instead of wading through sewage or getting kicked by a muddy, angry mule, we’ll be discussing today’s “dirty” topics.

And, right off the bat, let’s start with racism and stereotypes.
First of all, despite what you may or may not have heard, racism is alive and well in America. Yes, 2,000 years after Jesus Christ and more than 40 years after the civil rights movement, people are still being judged by the color of their skin.

When it comes to racism, a large component of the monster is simply stereotyping. We’re all guilty of it at some point in our lives, whether we quietly lock our car door as an African-American man walks by or get nervous on a flight because someone of Middle-Eastern descent is sitting nearby.

And while stereotyping is bad — yes, my dear readers, it’s still a cultural no-no — we must all recognize there are aggravating factors involved. For example, let’s look at that African-American male that caused us to lock our car doors.

If the man were older, wearing a suit and carrying a briefcase, how likely do you think we would be to feel threatened? It seems pretty unlikely, right? What if he were younger and dressed like a thug. Yes, a thug, and if you’re unfamiliar with what a thug looks like, just watch a few episodes of “Cops” or music videos.

In both cases, we’re not necessarily reacting to the person’s race, but to what they are wearing and how they are carrying themselves. Take the same situation and make the thug Hispanic. I imagine he would get the same reaction.

In fact, make him Hawaiian. What can I say, it’s the most non-threatening race I can think of, and I know what you’re already thinking. “Thomas, Hawaiian people can be just as violent as everyone else.” Yes, I know this, but I’m envisioning Rob Schneider’s character from “50 First Dates,” so give me a break.

So, we’re reacting more to the way people are dressed or carry themselves than we are to the color of their skin or their ethnicity. OK, so maybe not in the airplane situation, but I think we’re on the right track here.

The question that arises — and I still don’t have a solid answer for — is why people of color choose to reinforce these stereotypes by playing the part, which includes dressing the part. If you’re a young, black man and you don’t want to be discriminated against, why in the world would you dress like a thug? If you’re Hispanic, why dress like a gang banger unless that’s how you want people — and law enforcement, for that manner — to perceive you?

In my mind, it’s the equivalent of putting on a Burger King uniform and walking in to one of their restaurants, and when a customer asks for assistance you look at them and say, “What, just because I’m wearing this uniform doesn’t mean I work here!”

It’s downright confusing.

Each race has its own stereotypes and prejudices to overcome. Not all white people live in trailer parks, eat mayonnaise sandwiches and watch “Wheel of Fortune” all day. However, if you’re going to run around acting — or dressing — like one of these people, don’t act surprised when someone lumps you in with the stereotype you’re portraying.

Each of us needs to attempt to be a credit to our race, religion or whatever group we identify with in our lives. There will always be knuckleheads looking to ruin things for others, and while we can’t simply gather them all up and airmail them to Antarctica, we certainly don’t have to take fashion or cultural tips from them.

In other words, if you don’t want people to think you’re an idiot, don’t wear an idiot’s uniform.


Sourcey Source

For my further thoughts as it relates to this article:

bigfatfurrytexan.wordpress.com...



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by rom12345
I had to wear a school uniform with tie and blazer,
I don't think it's a bad idea to remove the fashion show element from schools.
Outside of school, there should be no laws dictating peoples dress, beyond public decency.


Removing the fashion show element from schools is just a band aid to keep us from addressing the real issue: the rampant materialism in our culture. If parents can't teach their kids better, the schools certainly won't. They will just create an issue with authority.


I would not over estimate the ability of parents to teach their children, especially teenagers.
After a certain age, kids learn the social stuff from their peers.
School uniforms, In my view, limit fashion based segregation, and it would seem that much of the stereotyping is based on fashion.

I am not promoting 'grey suit conformity', but for kids, I think a uniform also asserts a certain level of discipline and cohesive identity.

Basically, instead of singling out saggy pants, reintroduce school uniforms.
edit on 4-4-2012 by rom12345 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 10:29 AM
link   
When I was a lad

I would not dare to wear pants like they do today. Besides some one pulling them down and rendering me unable to have a scrap. There was always some pervert, who would have done more than just pull them down ;(
There again I dont agree with a law on it. Thats a bit over the top.
edit on 4-4-2012 by illuminnaughty because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by illuminnaughty
 


They're not fighters. That would ruin their hair, that is straightened out by irons and arranged to look like music industry as much as possible, for long sessions everyday. And you may not have done that, but if everyone around you did, you might have. Thats the difference, that wasn't our culture.

If you were raised as a head hunter, you'd be a head hunter, unless you were a minority opinion, and then you'd probably be persecuted.

edit on 4-4-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 11:24 AM
link   
In my full and honest opinion, I think this is a good idea. This is for schools, after all, not the general public. I can't tell you how many times my younger sister has told me of the guys wearing their pants like that getting hurt during school hours. Not to mention the fact that there have been incidences where their pants got caught on something and pulled everything down, underwear included.

Dressing like that is a hazard to yourself and other people. I myself have tripped and sliced my arm open on some dudes pants because they were about 5x bigger than the kid was, and this was in Walmart!

Schools are a place of learning, not letting your pants hang down below your knees.

And about the girls wearing sports bras, I think the bill is a good idea for covering them, too. It's not that hard for women to wear tank-tops during sporting events. Sporting events or practices are not the place to wear only sports bras and small shorts.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by rom12345
 


i have a 14 year old and a 19 year old. They both share my general values, as they were taught from day 1. Do not underestimate the ability of strong parenting to set the framework for everything else that comes later in life.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Yes...about god damn time. If they don't want to work for getting respect we'll create a law that will. But here we go again...the race card.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Does these new law also apply to plumbers and builders?


indecent exposure? Really?

come on now thats just silly, sounds like a bunch of old people moaning for moanings sake.

Its not danger or indecent, it just looks really stupid but thats up to the person waring their clothes to decide.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Biigs
 


You ever try playing dodge ball in droopy drawers? Hard to bob and weave with one hand on your pants and your legs getting all tangled up. Now after you get that mental picture out of your head, picture this, the bullies in high school easily yanking your pants down around your ankles while walking down the hall.

Now guess what Americans do if something happens to their precious Baby on school property like say, tripping down a flight of stairs in their baggy pants, THEY SUE! Where would the school get the money to settle or pay up?



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   
People shout freedom and non government intrusion unless they agree with it


Children are still people, they do not need state forced draconian laws on them.
edit on 4-4-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr_skepticc
 


Hooooooooooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy. I'm so tired of seeing kids with their skinny little behinds hanging out....what's worse is seeing a dopey adult doing the same thing..bravo



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ButterCookie
I actually like this law, and wondered when they'd get it going.

sagging pants down past your waisteline is actually indecent exposure...women can't do it.

Why can men?


Your right women should be ale to expose them self in public, it is only fair.

You have made me a supporter for getting rid of those sexiest laws that say otherwise



Every women should expose them self as a sign of protest!
(post pictures here and i'll make sure the president gets a copy)



edit on 4-4-2012 by Bixxi3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   
I have to say, as the police, I like the criminals that wear the baggy jeans. Nothing tickles me as nice as a criminal trying to run from the police that is tripped up by his own pants when they fall around his ankles! I have actually been laughing so hard at times that it was difficult to put cuffs on the guy. Now on a personal level yes I hate them and they disgust me. But then again, being a lover of freedom, I dont think its the governments job to tell people how to dress.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by RealSpoke
People shout freedom and non government intrusion unless they agree with it


Children are still people, they do not need state forced draconian laws on them.
edit on 4-4-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)


I agree with you 100% and am even willing to admit that in this case I may be one of them. I don't want the gov. in my house at all. Never Ever! My children are mine and the way I live my life should be my choice, (as long as there is no harm done).

However, this law is for the school, not Wal-Mart, or McDonald's, or the local park. I believe that dress code at school is appropriate. You have a dress code when you go to work, right? Some clubs have a dress code. I think this is setting up our children for success. The better you are dressed the better you are received in an interview for a job.

Would not the government regulate School dress code? I guess the individual schools could make the choices to enforce the dress code. I say make it state wide and just get it over with. I do have to wonder however if individual principals will enforce the dress code differently.






top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join