In the same week as April 25th, news reached us that there is a supposed ban on “excessive cleavage” and “short shorts” at Liceu Pedro Nunes, in Lisbon.
The email with the new dress code was signed by director Maria do Rosário Andorinha and prohibits “short shorts, excessive cleavage and beach shoes”.
If the rules are not followed during national exams, students may even be banned from taking them.
It is impressive how after 50 years of our liberation from fascism, women continue to be watched for their decorum, or supposed lack thereof. Before the 25th of April, many professions were prohibited for women, particularly in the judiciary, diplomatic career and administrative career. Now, in 2024, short clothes and “excessive cleavage” could prevent young people from taking exams at the aforementioned high school.
Now, I have a lot of questions:
At what point can we, universally, assume that a neckline is “excessive” and shorts are “too short”?
Will there be a specific ruler that dictates the minimum centimeter limit for clothing? Maximum cleavage limit?
Will height differences be taken into account? Because a 10 cm neckline on someone who is 1.5m tall is different than on someone who is 1.8m tall.
Will formulas be created to perform the calculation?
Above all, my question is: Does IQ decrease as the inches of clothing decrease? For every use of a low-cut top, the IQ increases by 2 points, is that it?
Let’s recap what changed with April 25, 1974 for women:
A married woman no longer has the status of dependence on her husband. Regarding parental power, the woman no longer held just a secondary position of mere advisor to full decision-making power on equal terms with her husband. (Women’s Rights Platform).
However, in the year 2024, 50 years later, there are people arguing that girls’ low-cut clothing could destabilize young boys’ exams. As if boys’ sexuality were undeniable and acceptable as naturally present, but women’s bodies, objectified, were always guilty of the attention they receive, and therefore had to be hidden, to ‘guarantee’ that they were not targets of sexual harassment ( as if women have the power to decide whether or not they are harassed) or distracted. So, are young girls’ clothing choices no longer free due to boys’ sexuality? There is no point in using the universal masculine word to say that it is for “the students”, everyone knows that it is about girls and the students themselves say that “clothes control has been going on for several years and that there are distinctions between boys and girls. ” Of course, it doesn’t even surprise me.
There are people who are arguing that this measure protects girls from possible sexual harassment. However, this argument is quickly debunked by easy and effective research into harassed and raped women in burqas. Even more so, recently, in an exhibition entitled “What were you wearing?”, we can see what women were wearing when they were victims of sexual harassment and read the real stories. I guarantee that there were no measurements of necklines or lengths of shorts since the vast majority of the clothes were clothes considered commonplace, with long skirts, trousers, without necklines, and even uniforms. It even includes a diaper. Unfortunately, there are babies who are raped and, guaranteed, it is not because of their ‘clothes choices’.
“I was still in baby diapers when I was raped by a 24 year old. I was raped several times between ages 2 and 5”. — testimony that can be read on the exhibition website.
The victims are never to blame, but the perpetrators are. The clothes are never to blame, or the choice of clothes, but rather the person who attacks and harasses them.
Haunted by this idea of, once again, seeing the existence of women and their lives based on society’s male representations, I thought about how, in fact, there are people who think that dressing more conservatively protects women. It’s because? Because it gives them a feeling of control: “if I’m careful, I won’t be harassed/raped”, “if my daughter is careful, this won’t happen to her”. It was then that I remembered the book “Sexual Revolution” by Laurie Perry, in which the author says that she has a family member who “believes that people who are sexually assaulted should simply have been more careful”. Perry then comments that he suspects this belief is due to the fact that it brings her family member more comfort and a sense of control to think that there is some kind of choice involved: if the victim had been more careful, they would have had the power to stop harassment/rape (page 35).
This type of reasoning is the avid search for a sense of protection and control over one’s own life and the people one loves, wanting to reject as much as possible the real, unpredictable, and uncontrollable possibility of something terrible like rape or harassment happening. I would even dare to say that, from this point of view, it can be considered an exercise in magical thinking: “if I/she doesn’t wear short clothes, I won’t be harassed”. However, this type of reasoning continues to deprive those who actually act as aggressors or rapists of responsibility. This weight placed on the victim is so intrinsic in society that many victims of harassment report that one of the first thoughts they have is: “what could I have done differently?”, “I should have done x and y”, “I should have done x and y”, “ I shouldn’t have gone that way”, …, blaming himself for an act that was in no way his fault or choice.
Therefore, even if they firmly believe that a woman can avoid being harassed, that does not make it true that sexual harassment is a choice. If it were a choice on the victim’s part, it wouldn’t even be harassment. A short dress, low-cut shorts, a bra push upare not invitations to harassment or rape.
To conclude, if you are going to make rules in schools, make them gender-equal and sensible. If a girl can’t wear a top low-cut, neither does a boy. (And don’t forget the formula cm length x height of the student.) If a boy can’t wear a cap, neither can a girl. And so on. Not that I’m a big fan of these restrictions (because having equality without freedom is not the right answer), but if there are them, let’s have them with equality. One thing is right: IQ does not decrease as the inches of clothing decrease. No girl with a cleavage, just for that detail, will get a lower grade than a girl in a high-neck sweater. At most, one of them will be cold and the other hot.
Furthermore, on a final note, I have one last question: Couldn’t this type of compartmentalization of rights according to clothing strengthen the social prejudice that relates the clothing worn to women’s dignity or their right to respect?
