It has hit the news today, that the school where Jeremy Forrest taught and then ran away with one of the pupils, have revised or tightened their school uniform policy to say that no tight trousers are to be worn and skirts must be a respectable length and no more than two inches above the knee. No Lycra is to be worn either.
Insert aghast smiley face here.
Now what I don't know is when this policy came in. To me it sounds like pretty standard school uniform policy, BUT, (and like mine, it's a pretty big butt) this is the school where the teacher ran away with one of the pupils, she was was under the legal age of consent, she was a child, he was in a position of trust. Making it wrong, making it illegal.
In my opinion the school may have been better off announcing a policy where the teachers have to wear corduroy jackets with patches on the elbows and trousers that come up to their elbows.
In other words, not concentrate on desexualising the CHILDREN, but making the teachers unattractive.
Because this sure sounds like victim blaming to me.
Teenagers develop crushes on teachers, SOME teachers, not all, overstep the boundaries of what is right, (and legal) who is in the wrong?
Over the last couple of days I've seen too much of children not being protected by those who should protect them.
Including a 13 year old victim of abuse being described as "predatory" and her sexual history being used.
How about we DON'T blame the children? We protect the children instead?
A school uniform policy that makes sure that the children are not wearing tight or inappropriate clothing doesn't seem anything less than another way to victim blame to me.
What do you think?
Let me know.