Running head: DRESS CODE'S OBJECTIFICATION

The Sexualization of Girls' Bodies Through Dress Code

Brittney Martin

Arizona State University: Mary Lou Fulton

SED 322: Classroom Leadership/Secondary Schools

Professor Monica Eklund

10 April 2022
 DRESS CODE'S OBJECTIFICATION 2

Abstract

Ersfjkino
 DRESS CODE'S OBJECTIFICATION 3

The Sexualization of Girls' Bodies Through Dress Code

Dress codes are commonly known for targeting women. In most settings the purpose of a

dress code is to keep the environment professional; however, schools' dress codes are enacted to

prevent the students from 'distracting' one another (Fields, 2020, p. 173). What constitutes a

distraction varies between schools, but across the board a dress code emphasizes what women

cannot wear to protect their male counterparts. In addition to this, the women are punished for

being the 'distraction,' which further perpetuates the notion that women's bodies serve more of a

purpose than merely functioning (Fields, 2020, p. 173). Campbell University School of Law

states that "this messaging sexualizes underage girls, forces them to become hyper-cognizant

about their physical identity, and signals a male entitlement to act inappropriate towards the

female body for which the female will be punished" (Fields, 2020, p. 173). However, if dress

codes became gender-neutral then women's bodies would not be hyper fixated upon. Current

dress codes have a tendency to objectify women; therefore, gender-neutral dress codes, with the

collaboration of teachers and students, need to be enforced within high schools in the United

States.

Environment Analysis

Internal Strengths

The greatest internal strength in creating and implementing a gender-neutral dress code

would be facilitating a collaboration between the school board and the students. The school

board serves the purpose of representing the student body in order to create more opportunities

for them to succeed and to better the school as a whole. If the school board works alongside the

student body in creating a new dress code then the students would be more likely to abide by it

(Harmon, 2017). Another internal strength would be teacher involvement. The teachers are
 DRESS CODE'S OBJECTIFICATION 4

usually held responsible for dress coding students, so including the teachers in this process

would clarify what is and is not a dress code violation. This inclusion, along with proper training,

would result in less instances of biased dress coding.

Internal Weaknesses

Unfortunately, there are a few internal weaknesses to address in establishing a gender-

neutral dress code. The first internal weakness would be the challenge to have the school board

and student body work cooperatively. Coming to a consensus may not be easy, but it will be the

most effective way to get the students to abide by the rule (Harmon, 2017). This also addresses

the challenge of student cooperation. Another internal weakness is the need to train teachers on

how to identify a dress code violation and how to dress code appropriately. The teachers may

feel burdened by this training as it will challenge any pre existing biases they hold as well as take

time from their day.

External Strengths

There are also external factors in implementing a gender-neutral dress code. The greatest

external factor in implementing this would be the government's involvement; this could be at a

local, state, or federal level. If the government were to make a law providing minimum dress

code requirements then schools would be obligated to follow them. However, the government

may have a say in dress codes, but solving this issue is not their top priority.

External Weaknesses

As an external challenge, the government typically remains quiet on the topic of dress

codes. Only a few times have dress code violations been taken to court, but this is because dress

codes and the First Amendment occasionally collide. One example of this is the 1969 case of

Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent Community School District when a student protested the
 DRESS CODE'S OBJECTIFICATION 5

Vietnam War by wearing a black armband to school (Carey, 2009). During President Bill

Clinton's State of the Union Address in 1996, he advocated for more appropriate schoolwear (but

in his speech he specifically addressed the implementation of public school uniforms) (Carey,

2009). The government can choose to be involved, but often the government stays quiet on these

topics.

Stakeholder Analysis

Students

Implementing a gender-neutral dress code to prevent the objectification of girls would

require student and staff input and implementation, and thus there are several stakeholders. The

students are the greatest stakeholders being that they are participating in the creation of this dress

code and abiding by it. A gender-neutral dress code would affect students of all genders, but it

would impact female students the most. For example, a gender-neutral dress code may require all

students to go shopping for school-appropriate attire, but girls would have an extra difficult time

shopping because "Girls in the United States are increasingly confronted with a sexualized

culture, including sexualized clothing made especially for pre-teen girls" (Graff et al., 2012).

Clothing stores are selling adult-like clothing to young girls, so finding modest clothing can be a

hassle. In addition to this, girls who wear larger sizes must take even more precaution when

shopping because they are more susceptible to being body shamed (Neville-Shepard, 2019, p. 9).

Boy's apparel on the other hand is not as sexualized by clothing companies, and thus boys do not

"self-surveillance" as much as girls (Graff et al., 2012). Because of the inequality in what is

considered modest for men and women's clothing, students of all genders should be represented

in developing a new, gender-neutral dress code that benefits everyone involved.

School Staff
 DRESS CODE'S OBJECTIFICATION 6

The school staff would have the responsibility of developing this dress code alongside the

students. When students are involved in creating the rules they feel more appreciated and they

have a better understanding of the expectations (Harmon, 2017). In order for a dress code's

implementation to be most effective, the students must have a say in the matter. The dress code

will then be something that they helped to create, and thus they would care about it more than a

rule unwillingly pushed upon them. The staff would also hold the responsibility of training the

teachers about the new dress code.

Teachers

In order to acclimate to this new dress code, the teachers would be required to go through

training to learn what is and is not appropriate as well as how to address dress code violations

(Lim et al., 2021). When a normal dress code is enforced teachers have the power to report any

student who they think is violating it, but when a dress code is clearly unbiased and paired with

an equity statement the teachers' personal opinions will not have any effect on the students (Lim

et al., 2021). The teachers would be obligated to enforce the dress code according to their

training rather than their judgment. This training would be a burden to teachers, but overall it

would have a positive impact on the school environment and students.

Review of Literature

This review of literature analyzes three scholarly articles all pertaining to the

sexualization of girls' bodies found in public school dress codes. These articles examine

quantitative and qualitative data in order to show the overarching and individual impacts that

gender-specific dress codes have on girls. One limitation of these articles is their recent

publication. Addressing the discrimination within dress codes is a fairly new topic which has not
 DRESS CODE'S OBJECTIFICATION 7

had much time to be explored. Very few schools across the United States have attempted to

tackle this problem, so findings are limited but the results are clear across the board.

The first article, written by Martin and Brooks (2020), examines racist and sexist

undertones within school dress codes. This study was conducted in a county with fourteen school

districts in a Midwestern state; however, only nine of the districts were able to participate. The

study displays the results district-by-district, but as a whole concludes that each district studied

has a sexist bias quotient between 5-8 (except for a single outlier of 3). This numerical range

indicates that the dress codes are written to target girls, especially girls of color.

The second article by Lim, Lennon, and Jones (2021) analyzes the experiences that

young girls have had with public school dress codes. This study was conducted within one

school district across four public schools in the southern United States and interviewed thirteen

adolescent girls between the ages of fourteen and eighteen. Three themes emerge from these

interviews: "(1) Dressing as a life skill, (2) experiencing a sexually objectifying environment, (3)

coping with the sexually objectifying environment" (Lim et al., 2021). This study determined

that school dress code inadvertently shows bias against girls and thus cultivates the feeling of an

unsafe environment.

The third article, written by Edwards and Marshall (2018), sought to uncover implicit

biases placed within school dress codes. Through feminist critical policy analysis, this article

evaluated 122 North Carolina public school dress codes and highlighted the common words and

phrases throughout. The results determine that the language used within dress codes discourage

gender-fluidity and promote the objectification of girls, and thus the standard dress code creates

an exclusive environment.
 DRESS CODE'S OBJECTIFICATION 8

Through examining qualitative and quantitative data, these articles share the conclusion

that gender-based dress codes do hold implicit bias against girls. Implicit bias is noticed in the

verbiage of dress codes as well as the specific apparel included. This bias contributes to an

unsafe environment that objectifies girls and promotes gender inequality, and through the

implementation of teacher training this problem can be properly addressed.

Objectification of Girls

Martin and Brooks (2020) analyze the verbiage used throughout school dress codes to

determine if it truly does objectify women. This article directly states that "Moreover, the current

state of public school dress codes does little to protect female students; it targets them through

objectification" (Martin & Brooks, 2020). Due to the several gender-specific remarks made

against girls' attire throughout the dress codes, Martin and Brooks came to the conclusion that it

does sexualize girls. The remarks made against women are disproportionate to the remarks made

against men, and thus the girls are given the responsibility to not distract others with their bodies.

Lim, Lennon, and Jones (2021) use objectification theory to conduct their studies

centered around female objectification through school dress codes. They claim that in addition to

the dress code itself the girls have to operate and cope in an objectifying environment. Giving

special attention to someone's body or making sexual remarks about them constitutes

objectification. For example, Aubrey, one of the girls interviewed for this study, said, "Guys are

not the ones that they're looking out for. So they dress code girls, so guys don't get distracted"

(Lim et al., 2021). This unfairly places the responsibility of others upon the girls.

Edwards and Marshall (2018) determine through an analysis of 122 North Carolina

school dress codes that dress codes have several inequalities, one of which being gender. They

write that "schools use dress codes as ways to institutionalize and reinforce dominant narratives
 DRESS CODE'S OBJECTIFICATION 9

of traditional gender conformity and sexual morality" (Edwards & Marshall, 2018). Some dress

codes go as far as to prohibit unisex clothing, and thus further reinforces the gender-specific

dress code inequalities by permitting boys to wear articles of clothing that girls cannot.

Gender Inequality

Martin and Brooks (2020) describe how the language used throughout dress codes are

targeted toward girls in how it addresses clothing that would not usually pertain to the boys (e.g.

midriff, fishnets, etc.). The authors say, "Dress codes often police female bodies through

different rules for female students, while ignoring similar standards for the heterosexual male

population" (Martin & Brooks, 2020). In general, the guidelines outlined in dress codes show to

be directed toward girls and avoid the trouble of putting the same restrictions and responsibilities

upon the boys.

Lim, Lennon, and Jones (2021) report that the girls are usually seen as the problem

because they are given responsibility for how the boys behave in response to seeing their bodies.

Even if the dress codes do not directly say that a specific rule applies to one gender, the

enforcement of the rule often does. The students interviewed for this study "expressed

resentment of schools’ gender-biased enforcement of the dress code and noted that dress codes

are implemented to regulate mainly girls to control boys’ behavior" (Lim et al., 2021). Overall,

the dress codes are meant to create a safe learning environment for boys at the expense of girls'.

Edwards and Marshall (2018) write that despite the dress codes not overtly stating that

the dress code policies are gender-specific, the "policies depend on assumptions about identity

and acceptable behaviors." The authors go on to explain how the dress code policies make

"assumptions of heteronormativity and centering White, heterosexual males in policy discussions

 DRESS CODE'S OBJECTIFICATION 10

and implementation" (Edwards & Marshall, 2018). Several articles of clothing deemed

"revealing" are girls' clothing, and girls' body parts are singled out in the dress codes as well.

Teacher Training

Martin and Brooks (2020) suggest that having the stakeholders facing this issue combine

efforts to identify the problem and experiment with solutions. They claim, "Our major

recommendation to readers, particularly if they are in positions of advocacy in schools or

districts, would be to create a committee of parents, teachers, and students…[to] determine

problem areas and work toward more inclusive dress code policies" (Martin & Brooks, 2020).

Along with this would come training for those implementing the dress code, and thus the

teachers would be the main recipient of this.

Lim, Lennon, and Jones (2021) recommend having the school administrators, teachers,

and students work together to create a new dress code. Lim, Lennon, and Jones (2021) also state:

To resolve this issue, we recommend that schools develop and present clearly written

dress codes with unbiased reasoning. Also, we suggest that schools present dress codes

with an equity statement (National Women; Law Center, 2018) and train teachers and

administrators to use a clearly defined protocol consistently instead of treating girls’

bodies and dress as distracting objects.

Training teachers to unbiasedly identify a dress code violation is essential to cultivating a safe

learning environment for the entire school. This would also increase the trustworthiness of

teachers in the students' eyes.

Edwards and Marshall (2018) recommend having the school leaders (board,

administrators, teachers, and others involved) partake in training to create a more appropriate,
 DRESS CODE'S OBJECTIFICATION 11

inclusive dress code. Edwards and Marshall (2018) say teachers as well as other leaders would

be responsible to:

Construct highly structured community fora, with brief training modules. After activities

structured around our analysis of dress codes, participants could take on the task of

delineating generic overarching codes and establishing an advisory board for assisting

school site administrators in interpreting these district-specific codes.

Training teachers to self-reflect and access their own biases is necessary to creating and

implementing a dress code that promotes inclusion rather than exclusion.

These three articles' examinations of school dress codes outline the objectification of

girls' bodies, highlight the gender inequalities scattered throughout the policies, and address the

need for teacher training. The amount of regulations that target girls' bodies and clothing

specifically work to create an environment centered around boys' safety rather than girls'. The

inequality in dress codes is not always directly stated in the rules; inequalities can also be

identified in their implementation. With proper teacher training, the teachers can remove their

biases and help the students feel safe expressing themselves modestly through their style.
 DRESS CODE'S OBJECTIFICATION 12

References

Carey, H. F. (2009). The First Amendment Encyclopedia: Dress Codes. Middle Tennessee State
University.
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1208/dress-codes

Edwards, T. K. & Marshall, C. (2018, July 30). Undressing Policy: A Critical Analysis of North
Carolina (USA) Public School Dress Codes. Gender and Education, 32(6), 732-750.
https://doi-org.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/10.1080/09540253.2018.1503234

Fedewa, A. L., Ahn, S., Erwin, H., & Davis, M. C. (2015). A randomized controlled design
investigating the effects of classroom-based physical activity on children’s fluid
intelligence and achievement. School Psychology International, 36(2), 135-153.
https://doi:10.1177/0143034314565424

Graff, K., Murnen, S. K., & Smolak, L. (2012, March 13). Too Sexualized to be Taken
Seriously? Perceptions of a Girl in Childlike vs. Sexualizing Clothing. Sex Roles, 66,
764-775. https://doi-org.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/10.1007/s11199-012-0145-3

Grieco, L. A., Jowers, E. M., Errisuriz, V. L., & Bartholomew, J. B. (2016). Physically active vs.
sedentary academic lessons: A dose response study for elementary student time on task
doi://doi-org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.05.021

Harmon, W. (2017). Create Your Classroom Rules WITH Your Students For a Powerful Start to
the Year. The Art of Education University.
https://theartofeducation.edu/2017/08/08/3-benefits-creating-classroom-expectations-stud
ents/

Johnson, I. & Ortega, G. (2021, April). Diversity and School Boards: An Analysis of Race,
Ethnicity, and Geography in Greater Houston. University of Houston Center for Mexican
American Studies, 2(3).
https://www.uh.edu/class/cmas/publications/report-series/school_boards_report_final-002
.pdf

Lim, H., Lennon, S., & Jones, D. (2021, November 17). Objectification Found Within High
School Girls' Experience With Dress Code Enforcement. Clothing and Textiles Research
Journal. https://doi-org.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/10.1177/0887302X211058434

Martin, J. L. & Brooks, J. N. (2020). Loc'd and Faded, Yoga Pants, and Spaghetti Straps:
Discrimination in Dress Codes and School Pushout. International Journal of School
Policy and Leadership, 16(19), 1-19. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1281939.pdf
 DRESS CODE'S OBJECTIFICATION 13

Neville-Shepard, M. (2019). Disciplining the Female Body: Consequential Transference in

Arguments for School Dress Code. Women's Studies in Communication, 42(1), 1-20.
https://www-tandfonline-com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/doi/full/10.1080/07491409.2019.1573
771