Do you have these "bracelets for sex"-thing?

[[wcip]Angel]

Well I could show you the article, but it's in Norwegian, so I don't think you'd be able to make much of it.

But yes, the victim was harrassed by his/her classmates in school.

[Lord_Olf]

Hail Hammerskjold,

maybe I'm wrong, but wasn't it Doc Martens with white shoelaces? I think that, at least here in Germany, that's what those Skinhead idiots wear...

As for the general Thread. A similar thing is going on here in Germany in the homosexual scene. There, different colored pieces of cloth are used to indicate sexual preferences. Those things are then worn in the back pocket, right side for "active", left side for "passive" or the other way around, I forget.

As for the bracelets, I haven't seen that phenomenon, but now that I know of it, I'll keep my eyes open!

Take care,

Lord_Olf

[Hammerskjold]

>maybe I'm wrong, but wasn't it Doc Martens with white shoelaces? I think that, at least here in Germany, that's what those Skinhead idiots wear...

You're not wrong, white shoelaces also have been associated negatively. Of course as you mentioned, things like this can vary from places to places.

From this site, (it's not my school, but it's close enough in writing.)

http://www.google.ca/search?q=cache:ZtVPbD...&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Page 7, ' Any symbolic attire/item that suggests racial overtones sexual reference, or gang membership is not allowed (ie. inappropriate shoelaces for Doc Martens-red, white, and/or yellow, suspenders hanging down, kerchief hanging out of back pocket, pick in hair, symbols on clothing.)'

I understand their intent. Unfortunately the meaning of those symbols are not always universal. Banning doc martens with white or red shoelaces because they might mean something bad, to me amounts to (pardon the pun) nothing more than a symbolic, knee-jerk, and heavy handed gesture. Address racism, banning coloured\uncoloured shoelaces on boots will not get rid of the real problem.

My biggest beef is these rulings are somewhat arbitrary, and taken out of context. When I read wcip Angel's post, my concern is not so much about the bracelets, as it is about the inappropriate sexual exposure. Not to mention what sounds like an extreme case of bullying. Those things are more disturbing than some jelly bracelets which might or might not symbolize anything. I hope the parents and schools address those problems, not just draft up some ruling banning bracelets.

>Those things are then worn in the back pocket, right side for "active", left side for "passive" or the other way around, I forget

Hehe, that's the problem with fashion and symbols sometimes. Wait 5 minutes - 5 decades and black becomes white, up becomes down and cool becomes hot. Wait, that last one doesn't apply. Oh well don't take any fashion tips from me. ;)

[Freepaperclips]

It becomes moot when you remember some of the other fashion fads:

Sagging because in prison you aren't allowed belts.

Shirtsleves over your forearms to hide trackmarks from heroin.

Etc. Etc. Etc.

As long as I don't see a 5 teared Rasta speaking with a South London accent I'll assume fashion is taking it's course.

[Nystul]

I understand their intent. Unfortunately the meaning of those symbols are not always universal. Banning doc martens with white or red shoelaces because they might mean something bad, to me amounts to (pardon the pun) nothing more than a symbolic, knee-jerk, and heavy handed gesture. Address racism, banning coloured\uncoloured shoelaces on boots will not get rid of the real problem.

But, what does it mean for a school board to address racism? They can't control what happens with these kids after class, so they can only really try to keep the issue from interfering with the learning environment as much as possible. I would say that if some students in class are offending each other with racial slurs, that is a real problem that the school will try to solve as best they can (which amounts to sending the offensive kid to the office, telling him he has to stop doing this, and using whatever school discipline is available to try to enforce that). But let's say instead of directly saying the racial slur and picking fights, the kid wears a t-shirt with the slur written on the front and back. It's still the same problem, isn't it? Now let's say instead of the t-shirt actually having the slur, it just has a big swastika on the front. I don't know that there is really much difference.

By the same token, no third grade teacher I know would let a kid get away with wearing a shirt that says "I Want Oral Sex". If most of the kids have an understanding that wearing a certain type of bracelet means just that, then perhaps those bracelets shouldn't be allowed either.

To adress the deeper problem really has to be the responsibility of the parents. And to all you parents out there I can only say "Good luck with that!"

[Occhidiangela]

People say stuff all the time.

We probably "should not" as often as "we" do, eh?

[Occhidiangela]

Otherwise we might have impeccably dressed children doing drugs, committing violence and having promiscuous sex! ;)

Like, for example, Paris Hilton, absent the violence? :D

[Hammerskjold]

I read (online anyway) some schools already have banned these things. However some of them I actually agree with. One teacher said they were disrupting the class because kids kept trying to snap these things. (Symbols or not this is annoying I agree.) I can see the same thing if someone kept trying to do yo yo tricks in class or bouncing a tennis ball. I still think it could have been re-worked into a more general, 'if you're in class you pay attention.' Heh I can't believe I actually have to write that, but hey I remember I was a kid once too.

>But let's say instead of directly saying the racial slur and picking fights, the kid wears a t-shirt with the slur written on the front and back. It's still the same problem, isn't it? Now let's say instead of the t-shirt actually having the slur, it just has a big swastika on the front. I don't know that there is really much difference.

For me it can be the age range and the context. A kid wearing a swastika on a shirt, is not always the same as someone studying visual symbols (all swastikas, including the pre-nazi ones) from history. That's the problem I see with zero tolerance type policy. It mostly covers the school's own end, and has the potential to throw the baby with the bathwater so to speak. A grade school kid doesn't need to be lectured for 3 hours straight about the historical meaning of the swastika, but I think there is something incomplete if someone simply says,' nazis wore this symbol, therefore its bad because nazis are bad.'. Maybe it's just me, but if I ever have a kid I'd like them to learn that not every bad people wear recognizable badges\uniforms.

>But, what does it mean for a school board to address racism? They can't control what happens with these kids after class, so they can only really try to keep the issue from interfering with the learning environment as much as possible.

That's an excellent question. I wish more schools and parents ask that themselves.

There was a recent example of a high school near my area that I think was quite bold. This happened around February, with Black History month iirc. Instead of the usual bring a costume\food\songs or dance from other countries and culture, the school re-created an experiment. (Unfortunately I forgot who originated the experiment, but she's fairly well known. I might have to google it or search it on pbs.org later.)

At the start of the school day, each student was given 2 different coloured ribbons at random. Say green and red. The greens would have to sit at a designated place in class, drink from designated water fountains, and get different treatments from teachers. If a green raised their hands to answer, the teacher was more likely to ignore them. Greens and Reds were not allowed to sit at the same table in certain places. Certain areas of the school was designated as a neutral zone, if students feel overwhelmed they could go there.

Now I don't see this happening at every school, even this one had major reservations bringing up the idea to the parent\teacher meeting. Fearing some parents\students might not get it, or take it too far. Fortunately it went without trouble.

>To adress the deeper problem really has to be the responsibility of the parents. And to all you parents out there I can only say "Good luck with that!"

With that I totally agree. It does start at home. And if I ever have kids, I can picture my parents laughing at me when karma comes around. ;)

Ah here it is. http://www.magenta.nl/EyetoEye/contraste.html Although I don't agree with everything she says especially in her earlier days, I think anyone has the potential to be a racist. Colour is only secondary. I agree with her last sentence, 'We learn to be racist, therefore we can learn not to be racist. Racism is not genetical. It has everything to do with power.'

[Hammerskjold]

>Like, for example, Paris Hilton, absent the violence?

Yep, although I wouldn't say she's impeccably dressed. Most of the time I can't really say she's even fully clothed. ;)

Man, I'd like to be Paris Hilton rich, so I can afford to be clueless. (Some say I'm already there without the riches.) Anyone up for sponsoring me? :)