18842060-mmmain.jpg
(MLive.com File Photo)
Editor's note: The following is a response to a Press editorial, "School dress codes have a serious sexism problem."
Jim Bazen is principal of Plymouth Christian High School in Grand Rapids.
By Jim Bazen
As a high school principal, the title of your editorial "Dress codes: get the sex out," caught my eye. My heart goes out to our young ladies because they are caught between a rock and a hard place.
Namely, being called to the principal's office (especially a male principal) is not helpful. These students rather need to be taught about modesty in the classroom and at home. And our girls are taught by the media that 'sex' or 'being sexy' will get them attention, especially from boys ... and they get it.
You admit that dress codes exist to limit distraction. I believe you agree that if young ladies are scantily clad, the young men will look at them not as persons, but as sex objects.
However, you say that harping on the young ladies to "cover-up" does more harm than good. To me, that's a double standard because as a female you will never completely understand the male mind:
1. Being wired more visual, males are attracted to shape and skin. Yes, a lot of bare skin or tightly covered (Spandex!) skin is a sexual distraction to a male. He will say, the more skin the better...but this leads him to treat women as 'sex objects' rather than respect her for who she is. So, it would seem to me, that if you do not want women treated as 'sex objects,' you should tell them to cover more skin.
2. A dress-code policy stating "Women, dress how you wish" and at the same time expecting the guys to keep their eyes off young ladies with shirts revealing their cleavage, short skirt, tight pants/leggings, shorty shorts, or tight shirt, is like walking out into the rain and expecting not to get wet.
3. The only way you can help young men not treat young ladies as sex objects is by telling the young ladies to cover up! A young man will not think of a respectfully dressed young woman as a 'sex object' but is more likely to see her for who she is. A young man may have no intention to lust, yet when an immodestly dressed girl passes him in the hall, he will think sexual thoughts.
So when administrators say that girls' athletic wear is sexually provocative, what they mean is: when young men (or not so young) see (young) women in these outfits, they lust. Yes, this is a result of man's total depravity. Our once pure minds are corrupted by the fall (original sin).
By requiring female students to dress modestly, we are not penalizing them. We are protecting them! We do not want the girls to be considered 'sex objects.' God forbid! Their worth is so much greater than that. We don't want them going out with people who want them only for their body (for sex). We desire the best for them. We don't want them to become a statistic (teenage pregnancy), etc.
Women should not be afraid of their sexuality. Women should be afraid of those who admire them only for their "great body". We would like them to preserve this wonderful gift (virginity) for their "one and only". Yes, this is how we spend our educational energy teaching our children to respect themselves and each other. I'm grateful that a little over a year ago, this wasted educational energy was removed from our school by the implementation of uniforms.
To submit a guest opinion to The Grand Rapids Press, email Zane McMillin at zmcmilli@mlive.com