North Carolina School Deemed Females 'Fragile Vessels'

Monday, January 09, 2023

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday asked President Joe Biden's administration to weigh in on whether the justices should decide whether a publicly funded charter school in North Carolina may have violated the rights of female students - deemed "fragile vessels" by the school's founder - by requiring girls to wear skirts.

Posted by moder8 at 04:31 PM | 28 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry |

END;

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

This is offensive on so many levels. Regardless of what anyone (male or female) says, or believes in, girls are not "Fragile Vessels". And all we do is disempower an entire gender by treating them as such. Traditional values should never be treated as sacrosanct in changing culture with changing norms and expectations.

#1 | Posted by moder8 at 2023-01-09 12:47 PM | Reply

"The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday asked President Joe Biden's administration to weigh in..."

M8, can you explain why that is? What's their basis for seeking his perspective?

#2 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2023-01-09 12:50 PM | Reply

He wants girls in skirts?

Easier to look up, I presume.

Easier to rape as well.

Republicans love raping women.

Both mentally and physically.

#3 | Posted by ClownShack at 2023-01-09 12:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

HC: I suspect that simply on a prima facie level many members of the Supreme Court find this so offensive that they want the stature of the White House weighing in. Basically, they want as much institutional pressure being applied as possible to counter the heavy influence of uber-right wing groups that favor such misogynistic policies.

#4 | Posted by moder8 at 2023-01-09 12:56 PM | Reply

This Supreme Court? Shouldn't I find that a little surprising or is that fairly normal to seek out opinions of non parties? I know many will often file amicus briefs but I didn't realize that the court solicited them.

#5 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2023-01-09 01:01 PM | Reply

The Supreme Court solicits amicus briefs all the time. They often want to hear from many different perspectives when facing a socially controversial issue.

#6 | Posted by moder8 at 2023-01-09 01:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I seriously doubt if the Biden Administration will take them up on their offer to put a thumb on the scale.

#7 | Posted by Twinpac at 2023-01-09 01:07 PM | Reply

That's the second thing I learned today. Thanks.

The first thing I learned was that I should not call a professional bull riding event a rodeo. Hell, it wasn't until I was leaving the event that I realized that PBR didn't stand for Pabst Blue Ribbon. Because it just as easily could have.

#8 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2023-01-09 01:08 PM | Reply

"I seriously doubt if the Biden Administration will take them up on their offer to put a thumb on the scale."

Why?

#9 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2023-01-09 01:09 PM | Reply

So the "Fragile Vessel" at home yelled at me to clean up the cat litter this weekend and spray the room with Lysol. Then the Fragile Vessel sent me to the grocery store, the pharmacy and the dry cleaners. And finally, the Fragile Vessel changed the channel while I was watching the Rams game yesterday because there was something else she insisted she needed to see. (Gave me an excuse to go to a bar though, so that worked out.) The point is, if she gets any more fragile I might as well cut off my own willy.

#10 | Posted by moder8 at 2023-01-09 01:25 PM | Reply

What does "fragile vessel" have to do with wearing skirts?

#11 | Posted by Twinpac at 2023-01-09 01:30 PM | Reply

#11

There was a time when women rarely, if ever, wore pants.

Pretty sure conservatives could easily equate women wearing pants with the dissolving of strict gender boundaries and the corruption of the family unit and society in general

While there were some women who championed pants in the 19th century, pants as an acceptable everyday clothing option for women didn't truly catch on until the mid-20th century. The adoption of pants as a popular item of dress for women in Western society traces its roots to the mid-19th-century dress-reform movement.

www.britannica.com

#12 | Posted by ClownShack at 2023-01-09 07:05 PM | Reply

#11

To further elaborate.

We're destroying our "fragile vessels" by allowing them to wear pants.

Or, to simplify.

Girls want to be independent because they wore pants as children.

#13 | Posted by ClownShack at 2023-01-09 07:08 PM | Reply

I liked girls in dresses.

when I was a boy.

Now I like it when attractive women wear dresses.

I understand private schools have the right to dictate student uniforms but charter schools are not private and there is nothing immodest about girls wearing most pants.

#14 | Posted by Tor at 2023-01-09 07:15 PM | Reply

What year could girls wear pants to school?

In 1972, the Education Amendments of 1972 passed in the United States, which, as part of the Title IX non-discrimination provisions, declared that dresses could not be required of girls. Dress codes thus changed in public schools across the United States. In the 1970s, trousers became quite fashionable for women.

www.thehealthyjournal.com

#15 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2023-01-09 07:19 PM | Reply

there is nothing immodest about girls wearing most pants.

I'd argue pants are more conservative than skirts because the do a better job of covering the body.

#16 | Posted by ClownShack at 2023-01-09 07:29 PM | Reply

best part of dating a woman in a dress is when she decides to show you a bit of leg out of the blue.

#17 | Posted by Tor at 2023-01-09 07:54 PM | Reply

Tell Clarence to take the ----- off his coke can.

#18 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2023-01-09 08:00 PM | Reply

All Adult women wearing pants are lesbians.It was a Fact in the 1950's.

#19 | Posted by Scotty at 2023-01-10 01:06 AM | Reply

Shouldn't I find that a little surprising or is that fairly normal to seek out opinions of non parties?

I think it's fairly normal when the cert. petition involves significant federal interests. Here that interest is non-discriminatory education.

Scroll down a little to "Types of Cases ... Most Likely." www.americanbar.org

#20 | Posted by et_al at 2023-01-10 02:47 AM | Reply

Not that long ago (the 1990's), I worked for a company that required all females who interacted with customers on a face-to-face basis, irrespective of their position in the company, to wear either dresses or business attire consisting a white blouse, black or navy skirt and a matching jacket and heels WITHOUT open toes. Men in similar situations were required to wear black or navy suits, white button-down collar long-sleeved dress shirts, modest neckties and shoes with laces. Now this was a Fortune 500 company and these rules were imposed by the company's founder, who was a Naval Academy Graduate.

A few years after the company's founder left the company, they changed their rules a bit, allowing women to wear dark slacks and men to wear sports coats, non-white shirts and slip-on shoes. They even went a bit further since many employees were assigned to work for extended periods of time at customer sites, in which case on the first day of their assignment they had to adhere to the company dress code, however, subsequent to that, they could dress based on the customer's dress code.

During the 11 plus years that I was with the company, since my role was as a sales and marketing liaison, meeting customers and representing the company at conferences and symposiums around the globe, I continued to comply with the original dress code as it did tend to project the best possible professional image that one could achieve. It was only after our division was acquired by a large European company which had a much more lax dress code, that I started to wear a sports coat and polo shirts (they actually provided us with both polo and short-sleeved dress shirts which displayed the company name).

OCU

#21 | Posted by OCUser at 2023-01-10 02:55 AM | Reply

I mean, I guess it depends on the environment. If you are talking about Natalie Portman being put into a Boxing ring with Mike Tyson, then yes...

#22 | Posted by humtake at 2023-01-10 12:15 PM | Reply

#22
If you are talking about Humtake being put into a Boxing ring with Mike Tyson, then yes...

#23 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-01-10 12:31 PM | Reply

What does "fragile vessel" have to do with wearing skirts?

#11 | POSTED BY TWINPAC

If they wear skirts there is still a good chance you might get a peek at her "fragile vessel".

#24 | Posted by donnerboy at 2023-01-10 12:44 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#21

Those were the rules at Big Blue until the early 90's. Then it became "business casual". By that time, most customers went casual years earlier (except the bankers).

#25 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2023-01-10 12:47 PM | Reply

"In 1972, the Education Amendments of 1972 passed in the United States, which, as part of the Title IX non-discrimination provisions, declared that dresses could not be required of girls."

1972.
Wow.
Modernity is fragile, and Republicans want to destroy it.

#26 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-01-10 12:59 PM | Reply

Vessel? I believe Checkov said the same thing in a Star Trek movie.

#27 | Posted by wolfdog at 2023-01-10 09:19 PM | Reply

"If you are talking about Humtake being put into a Boxing ring with Mike Tyson, then yes..."

Man, I have no idea how you came up with this gem. I have been put in my place. How can anyone recover from a burn like that? I'm calling the Guinness World Records to let them know we've found the master burner of all time.

#28 | Posted by humtake at 2023-01-11 11:56 AM | Reply