(Welcome Pandagon readers! Here’s your chance to feel even more self-righteous about how right you are about everything. Even though you cannot answer a single question re this issue, you can call people who do ask questions all kinds of bad names. We are impressed.)
From local6.com. This issue has liberals and pro-homos up in arms, ready to storm the school and shoot down the “asinine” principal (which is the mildest thing they called him). My comment that I left at one of their blogs follows the news excerpt:
GREEN COVE SPRINGS, Fla. — After a spirited discussion over a photo of a girl wearing a tuxedo at Thursday’s Clay County School Board meeting, the principal’s decision to ban the picture from the Fleming Island High School yearbook stands.
Kelli Davis, 18, had her senior class photo taken in a tuxedo top and bow-tie outfit provided for boys rather than the gown-like drape and pearls provided for girls. The school’s principal decided it could not appear in the yearbook because she didn’t follow the dress code.
Kelli, a straight-A student with no discipline problems, is a self-proclaimed lesbian. She said she was uncomfortable to have her chest exposed in the photo.
“Because that’s me, you know. That represents me. The drape does not,” Davis said. “They’re not accepting me, that’s the whole reason we’re here.”
Davis denies it’s about her sexual orientation, just about a student not following the rules.
“There’s a dress code to follow — a dress code expected for senior pictures in the yearbook, and she chose not to follow them. It’s just that simple,” Clay School Superintendent David Owens said.
Pro-homos have taken up this girl as their latest heroine, and they are all clamoring about how horrible the principal is for holding up the “oppressive” male-female dress code for the yearbook.
Yet I did wonder if Kelli isn’t just one big idiot of a kid. Was the photo in the news cropped or is that all of it? Unless her cleavage starts in the middle of her neck, what exactly is the big exposure if she were wearing a dress?
Are the dresses for women in the yearbook pornographic, I mean, so low-cut that taking community standards, they are indecent? Will people now enforce a code that women must cover themselves to the top of their necks or else it means they want to be “exposed” and are being visually “violated?” If 3 inches of one’s neck is so problematic, I suggest a full-body veil for Kelli. That way she doesn’t expose one fraction of an inch of herself. And she could wear it black, ’cause that´s real tough.
There’s another even more important problem here: if one woman showing her neck is a problem, then that’s a problem for all women. A neck is a neck. Now you’ve got me worried. Don’t all women need to be protected from having their modesty violated? And what better way than forcing women to wear tuxedos for every party and yearbook in the future? Then we can all be smart like Kelli. We can’t be women, but we can be man-imitators and cross-dressers. What wonderful progress brought about by you smarter-than-the-rest-of-us people.
And this Kelli doesn’t go to the beach, I suppose, or does she wear a tux to the beach as well? Because God forbid if anyone should see 3 inches of her neck at the beach… her whole orientation might suffer a seizure… her steady psycho health would be at extreme risk.
But she’s big, she’s tough! She’s a lesssbian, and she don’t wear no dresses! Aren’t we impressed? Carry on with the cheering, folks… you people need to show us the way… It’s so effin rebellious! What you’ve been waiting all your lives… the tuxedo revolution. You’re not going to take no dresses in the yearbook anymore! Cross-dressing is the solution. It’s black, it’s powerful, and it has a bow-tie, for Christ’s sake! It’s the smart lesbo against the asinine principal contest!
BTW, is her homosexuality a result of how many psychological problems she has with the standards and roles society has for women?
Oh, I forget, pro-homos can’t ask those questions.
And then, when I looked at the blouse of the woman clad with a low-cut blouse, lying across the banner of Rox Populi, the pro-homo blog where I saw the above, I commented:
And you know what I just noticed!!! The irony of it…
Just where exactly is the cleavage of the banner photo on this blog??? That amount of flesh represents a what? An immodest woman? An exposed woman? It’s barely covering the nipples, for crying outloud! Kelli must have gotten sick when she looked at it… or didn’t she?
You people have me confused… I thought we were up in arms about women having to wear such horrible immodest, or, in street slang, slutty clothing for the yearbook! I thought the principal was a horrible man because he forces young women to expose their freaking necks, which is way less than the banner photo on this Rox Populi blog… you people are so coherent, it makes it difficult for the rest of us to follow…
I also read another article which said Kelli’s mother does not understand what Kelli is going through (her homosexuality problems), but that she thinks she needs to be supportive. Being a supportive parent and clapping at everything your kid does is not the same thing. A parent should help a kid to discern. Kelli’s mom stopped doing that, apparently thanks to activists. This is how a homo-obsessive culture can really hurt a kid. An (op-ed) pro-homo activism article disguised as “news” says:
“I didn’t and still don’t understand what she’s going through,” says Cindi Davis, a registered nurse. “But my job as Kelli’s mother is simply to love and support my child unconditionally, and I do.” For her part, Kelli says her announcement wasn’t about advertising her status or seeking a relationship. It was about coming to terms with her identity. “I didn’t just choose one day to be a lesbian,” she says. “That’s how I was born. My mom taught me my entire life to be honest and true to myself. I just couldn’t keep living the lie.”
Pro-homos just love the homo gene theory, don’t they? Never try to dig deep at Kelli’s own psychology and see what happened from the time she was born until today. Just slap on the homo gene and voilà the “everything I am is justified and legitimate” conclusion. And it came from nowhere, just some inexistent gene.
I think this case also relates to the Australian PC free speech hypocrisy, where I wrote:
The only way pro-homosexuals can dictate homosexuality as legitimate in society is by suppressing every single form of questioning or criticism regarding human sexuality and how dysfunctional it can get. And pro-homos have been very active in that respect legally, under the banner of “anti-discrimination.”
The very great majority of pro-homosexuals, including the ones that are clamoring about how horrible this yearbook female dress code is, don’t give a whit about modesty for women. Generally, they are all very happy with women showing themselves as pieces of meat, of women swearing, of women engaging in all kinds of crude behaviors. So these are major hypocrites that now raise up the “Oh, deliver us from the immodest dress oppression or we are going to faint” banner.
This is not about sexually objectifying women through attire (which is an important issue). This is about shoving homosexuality down everyone’s throats without thinking about where this homosexual behavior is coming from. The most hypocritical statement in all of this, aside from the “dresses are all pornographic,” is that this is not about homo activism.
It is exactly what this conflict is about.
Update feb 28-2005:
Update mar 1 2005:
This is another very important human rights issue, being fought in California.
Update mar 2 2005:
Someone left this comment:
Who gives a crap! Let her wear what she feels more comfortable in, the world won’t come to an end.
I didn’t say the stupid lesbiunnn couldn’t wear a tuxedo. Actually the dress code was voted by the all the students (it was not instituted by me, in case you didn’t notice). And the student-voted dress code was upheld by the principal. But that’s another detail.
I was just asking all you smarter-than-the-rest-of-us people, why does Kelli have such a mental problem with female attire? Why is she so profoundly uncomfortable in a dress?
Why does she have to put on a tuxedo and make a battle of it, and when everyone doesn’t bow to her discomfort with being a woman, she gets mommy dear to hire an attorney to force it down the yearbook?
Aside from James Bond, I didn’t think we had other people who could not live outside a tuxedo.
I haven’t seen you people answer that simple question. In case you didn’t notice, the “modesty” reason stated by Kelli sounds like a circus act from a little hypocritical twit. Buy it if it makes you feel better, but for reasons explained in my posts, I found it a tad unconvincing.