» Girl denied yearbook photo in tuxedo.

exactly. pretty much every famous name in history thought outside of the box.

The go to homeschool or to another school that'll do as you want. Nothing like a school ran by children. Best schools ever since they are all about the fair and right.

Why should she change her school to be able to live how she wants? Why should she be forced to choose gender roles or new school (with increased cost), her family probably pays taxes so they help pay the school she CURRENTLY goes to, she deserves her right to be who she wants.

did you have a difficult time with your fellow students in school jammer? because it really seems like you relate more to the administration to the students, especially the outspoken ones. why is it so important to you that no one express themselves creatively , or even just differently, in school? how is stifling that kind of behavior going to help young minds learn to innovate? it can hardly be said that this girl was a distraction to her fellow students, as most of the time she wore boys clothes and was quite possibly even mistaken for a boy, so not very distracting. then by that logic, on yearbook picture day, if all the seniors were running around in their drapes or tuxedos, how could she have proven to be a distraction at THAT point. your logic is deeply flawed. you fail.

How is that more important than learning?

Jammer, there is one huge flaw in your logic. It's a YEARBOOK photo... meaning that most likely it took place on a non-school day and was paid for by her parents. Then she submitted the photo to the yearbook staff that filed it under her name to be put in the yearbook. At no point did any of those things have to do with learning. By your logic she shouldn't have even had the choice to take the photo, cause there should be no yearbooks, or school events, or proms, or social interactions to which people can grow and learn new things based on different types of people surrounding them. I know you are trying to make some valid argument about authority and whatnot, but what it's coming off as is sexist and mysoginistic. Having to read your argument over and over again is a little nauseating, because it feels like you are just trying to make an excuse for your unwelcoming feelings about people that can be "different".
I mean, aren't you one of these people? You are constantly on these boards boasting the different point of view, trying to make people feel stupid and put them down. Beside the fact that you are a bully, you are a lot like this girl... No one wants you here, but yet we put up with you because flagging every one of your comments or trying to get you kicked off of current just isn't the type of people, us hippy-pot-smoking-liberals are.

Not a huge flaw.

The topic has shifted in many comments to take on the entire idea of a way to dress. I was answering accordingly.

Your last sentence isn't tolerant. Check yourself.
Liberal (here on current and probably elsewhere) is nowhere near being tolerant or kind or, for that matter, right in the head.

That goes for everyone in the world....labeling yourself doesn't mean you're who you say.

Actions speak louder than words. Your actions are not stating what you're suggesting of yourself.

As for the yearbook---still part of the school. I already stated that it would be best if the Yearbook and the newspaper were not part of the school and were independent and dealt with like they are dealt with in the "real" world. It would teach them more responsibility for their actions.

And you can't feel stupid unless you allow yourself to be. Someone smart said that one time. I'm sure you know who she was...or maybe not. Then that speaks for itself as well.

What you wear has nothing at all to do with how well you learn . Learning is about focus and determination on the specific subject matter . It is an extension of curiosity . That itself is an extension of an independent mind and awareness . To be an individual in the presence of social pressures exerted by people like yourself ( conformists seek the safety of groupthink or herd mentality as some call it ) is a small act of heroism . All of these small acts have combined in history to bring human cultural evolution along to where it is today . The question is , do you want to stop life changing or can you adapt with it ? Fear based thinking generally tends one way , compassion the other . I believe compassion is a survival trait because diversity is what has helped us adapt to where we are now in the first place .

We've come so far.....still war, still murder, still hate, still anger......please. If evolution existed humans would have died off long ago. Collectively humans are too stupid to exist.

What animal in this world wars against their kind? That's too stupid for them to do. They think about existing and surviving. Humans....screw it every chance they get and then pretend to care about other people in hopes to look good in some social standing.

Humans are so pretentious.

As for what one wears in school....you must not have ever had to go to a school with gangs. It matters then what one wears and it matters elsewhere as well.

If school is to prepare students for the outside world then they need to learn to abide by standards. Because no matter where one works (rare places will be different but not enough for it to be the standard) there will be a dress code. You cannot wear whatever you want....the world is not your home.

Jammer, you're allowing yourself to change the argument so you can't concede to the simple point i made. It's obvious reading the text that you are arguing that she should not be allowed to dress the way she wants, because it will interrupt with learning. None of the institutions she went through were for learning, that's it.
As for you "intolerance" statement, it was sarcasm, you know the literary device where you say one thing and mean another (I hear you're a writer....) I was just reiterating your viewpoint of the people on current as a bundled up reference of how you talk and label people here. So don't give me some BS about labeling people being wrong, because it was a allusion at your name calling here on current.

School is a lot more than just a learning institution, it gives social interactions to people to help them grow in an environment with people's that are different than them. If the school didn't want her to express herself individually through her clothing choice, than it should have been a uniform school, or a more concise dress code...

"If evolution existed..." honestly that statement says it all... and TONS of other species fight each other in brutal and sometimes incomprehensible ways. We're the only ones with the ability to use and make tools and thus expand our ability to fight. Debating the issue of humanity is really trivial...

I'll end this with a story. One of my best friends in high school was a lesbian. She wore masculine clothing everyday, dated girls, and was one of the most popular people at our school. She won Snoball queen her senior year, where she wore a tuxedo... In the yearbook it has her in the tux, sash and crown, and if she weren't allowed to be pictured because of it, I know for damned sure that there would be a huge uproar at our school. She is one of the most talented people I know, and if she weren't as accepted at our school as she was, who knows if she would be as expressive and artistic as she is today. So this whole, gender placement, dress-the-way-I-tell-you-to-because argument really affects people in ways you aren't willing to comprehend apparently. If this is how this girl wants to be remembered, than you have no right to assert some opinionated power over her. It's inconsiderate, misogynistic, and most importantly mean, which in a way summarizes how I think most people on current view your posts.

They fight because of instinct. They don't fight because of hatred.

Humans do. Try again.

I'm not the one that brought up people being able to wear whatever they want during school time. That was someone else...which is why I brought up learning.

You can't blame me for a shift when it was not I that shifted the conversation.

You just want to nail me to the stake and giggle. You're going to have to work harder than that. You wanted to take this on because you thought you could in your conversation with others...by all means go ahead, but don't do it because you think you can. You better do it because you know you can. Don't waste your time.

Debating about what she should be able to wear is essentially trivial.

And your last sentience was why you posted that entire thing. You make it out to see as if you're into informing people, but you just wanted to insult. You're not different than how you view me.

As for your example...guess what? This isn't that school therefore it doesn't fit. But out of respect, which you seem to lack, I'll answer that example: If she was to be hindered by school to grow into what she is now...then she was a weak person to begin with. Anyone needing school to grow into who they are probably didn't have a strong home life and that is sad. Using school as a crutch for your growth isn't a very bright idea since you have no control on how school is. You have more control with how your home life is.

You know what I wanted in high school? I wanted a school that catered to me and what I wanted to do. No school in this world is created to deal with what I wanted to do and I'm pretty sure I am not alone in that. So are you stating that I should have gotten what I wanted in the school that I went to just like your little friend? Ha.

School may have been great for her but it blocked 20 other kids from being who they wanted to be for everyone one that got what they wanted. Your story is special case and she got what she wanted....but did you ever stop and wonder who didn't? No, because you didn't care. Selfish.

The thing is Jammer, I'm sick of you. You add nothing to any conversations other than insults and "controversy". There's no reason for you to take such strong standpoints on issues that you really have no idea about. It pisses me off. If you could possibly have intelligent points or interesting dialogue than you wouldn't be so annoying to me. But then again, it seems as though you find it your job to find new ways to not only disrespect people but to stand by your disrespect as though we should take it as some sort of authority. By pointing out all the flaws in your logic (which for gods sake just reread your posts so you can see what is smacking me and so many others right in the face), I'm trying to push you into submission of not only admitting fault, but acknowledging that these are real people you are talking about. Judging from your profile and how much you post on this site, you have no real life. You find the only pleasure is to waste your days behind a computer screen writing stuff to get reactions from people. Maybe it's the only way you can get people to pay attention to you. Yes I may insult people on occasion, but I don't make it my sole mission here on current. This site is for discussion, so people from all different points of view can not only share their opinions and stories, but learn from others. You don't do that at all. In fact I just read some post of yours where you try to accuse a rape victim of not believing in equality because if she did, she'd think she was equally equipped to protect herself from rape as a man, and that therefore a documentary about women raped in the military is somehow sexist. Are you just dumb? Can you not see how disrespectful that is? I know it's hard for you to imagine these words and icons being associated with actual people, but they are. And some people on this site really do take offense when you say such disgusting things about real people, people that may reflect themselves in some ways. You refuse to retreat from your arguments, which no matter how much logic, how much excellent persuasion the masses present, you turn into rude comments to try to insight more abrupt reactions out of people. Sure I'm starting to feel a little naive or redundant for actually trying to show you how wrong you can be, I know many other posters on this site have given up, but I'm not a quit-er. I see you for what you are, a mean hateful person that is most likely insecure with themselves, so while living alone in their meaningless life decides to show how it's not himself but everyone else that is wrong in this world. Maybe I'm wrong, I mean in your description of me, you are completely wrong. But I'd thought I'd let you know how I view you. Your arguments are flawed and full of fallacies, you don't add anything to these discussions except hurting peoples feelings (if not by making them feel as though you are a good representation of people that hate them), and you are doing it all just get gut bellied reactions from people.

Just stop. Honestly, I'm speaking for myself, but I'm sick of it. I don't want to nail you to the stake to giggle, but to show you that you are fallible and therefore that you shouldn't be so strong and relentless in your arguments, you forget that your commentary is about actual people. No one likes to hear someone constantly play devils advocate to try and make people angry. If you haven't heard this explained to you before, you are a troll. The previous explanation is the definition.

You are a mean person. And out of respect of my friend, I'm going to leave you with this, NO ONE should have to feel the hatred of others for being who they are. Who did my friend hurt when she became ELECTED our snoball queen? Honestly, think about it... If being popular for being who you are is a bad thing, than I don't care. She shouldn't have to conform into what you or anybody else thinks she should be, or else that's what would have kept her from being the talented person she is.

You didn't answer my question.

It is selfish to assume that just because your example was happy that all people are happy in school and totally ignore what they have gone through.

Acting as if only gay and transgendered people are the only ones who have trouble in school.

That is the only articles that get attention.

Guess they are the only ones that have problems.

Your friend's not a real good example if you were to lead by what they have done....considering your first paragraph.

I am not a nice person. Nice is, however, different than good. I would never claim to be nice. Nice is disingenuous.

I answered it. " NO ONE should have to feel the hatred of others for being who they are". This article discusses the issues of sexuality. But I don't disregard the issues others face in high school and elsewhere.

And as a rhetorical question for yourself to think about, what about yourself makes you a "good" person?

Sweeping answers do not answer specific questions.

Example:

"Are you cheating on me?"

"Of course not."

That's not an answer. That's trying to get the person to accept their own view of cheating as the answer to whether or not their loved one is cheating.

Telling me "NO one should feel that way" is a generic way of getting out of answering what I asked. Many people would buy it, but few would point out how it's not an answer.

If you feel that that is an answer then that is an answer for you. I'm just sharing my extensive experience with answers like that.

What makes me "good"?

I would help anyone I can no matter who they are if I am able to do so....even Ahmadinejad. I think he is one of the worst humans on this planet right now...top five. But I would give him water if he were thirsty. I would give him warmth. I would not be the person in movies that would repay vengeance....for it is not mine to pay back.

My strong opinions on what people do does not invalidate my stronger view of how important a human life is--no matter who the human is.

Wayseeker,

I was thinking the exact same thing.

That's not this school.

Schools are not all ran the same or during the same time that is quoted in this thread---blacks wouldn't have been allowed to integrate. Well look others schools aren't doing it.

Stupid motivation to do anything.

It's another atempt at making more out of a NO than necessary.

Pay for the pictures and get them printed and share with people. But the school decides what goes in the yearbook.

That is why I'm all for the yearbook and the school newspaper to be able to do as one pleases without the Principal or the School district's approval.

But that is not what is going on here. So she has to abide by rules of the school no matter if they are written. Not all rules are written.

And what controls you? Parents? Friends? Disappointing someone? Philosophical bs that potheads pander to....whatever it is it is a control.

The principal decided without following the rules, only based on his/her faith. That is hate motivated.

"And what controls you? Parents? Friends? Disappointing someone? Philosophical bs that potheads pander to....whatever it is it is a control."

go on thinking that then.

once you realize that there is no such thing as control you will be free.

There is control. To think you are free in that you have no one's opinions weighing you down is laughable.

You're a puppet who doesn't know who's holding your strings.

as for the the Principal comment--

It's hate motivated to do what you know will get yourself in trouble.

You hate someone in control so you want to make a big stink and so you do.

aww that's so cute! ur lil spirit is broken jammer. i dont hate anyone. how could i possibly hate someone in control? control is an illusion. and by your logic Rosa Parks was hate filled? interesting. my opinions are my own, and i frequently get in moral and philosophical debates over them, even with people in my own political party. you didn't answer my question. who controls me jammer? that scatter shot approach thing just doesn't work, especially in this case. my friends certainly dont control me, nor do my parents, and disappointing someone? that's a rather pathetic one, i could care less about what people think of me. hmmm that last one is interesting indeed. philosophical bs that potheads pander to? naah, i dont think that controls my life one bit. you seem to have a lot of resentment towards potheads, jammer, did one of them steal your girlfriend or something?

Either everyone is controlled by someone or something or no one is controlled.

You're not special. You're just human.

i'll be the judge of that thankyouverymuch.

it is my belief and experience that no one is controlled. there is way too much random shit going on in life to say that control by one thing or person over another has any real substance.

"you're not special, you're just human"

i think humans are pretty damn special, some more than others LOL...but thanks for the compliment.

If you could careless then you wouldn't care that I said you were controlled.

It wouldn't have bothered you at all.

Did you go to school?
Do you go to work?
Do you pay taxes?
Do you steal things?
Do you do drugs?
Do you drink alcohol?
Do you play sports?
Who is your favorite philosopher?

I think you know where I am going with this.

I can prove you are controlled more so than you can prove you are not. Aside from stating you're not you don't have much proof.

I think it is more how you go about your decisions and the way you look at the influences in life and whether or not to see them as control factors.

wow. it doesn't bother me, even though you say it does. i do all of those things in one form or another, and none of them "control" my life, or even my decisions for that matter. yes i pay taxes, not because i have to but because i choose to. i play sports, but i would not consider sports to be a controlling influence, as they're merely a game. at the moment i'm not attending school, but when i do it does not exert control over me, as i attend of my own free will and desire to learn new things. i work, but at an "at will" job, meaning that if i see fit, i can quit at any time. hmm i don't steal things, but that does not mean that if necessary i wouldn't. i do drugs, in the form of prescription medicine, but my medicine does not control my life. i enjoy alcohol, regularly, yet i do not allow it to control my behavior. as far as philosophy, i do not have a favorite philosopher, i tend to think outside the box. some views i agree with others seem to be senseless drivel. i wouldn't let a single philosopher's ideas to dominate my decision making, so, wrong again. even the awnsers to your questions were not a form of control, i simply stated them because it pleases me to do so. you see i do not debate to "win"... i debate to educate the third parties reading these little chats of ours.

i hope for nothing, i fear nothing. i am free.

probably drives you nuts. get over yourself jammer, you'll be a much happier person.

But you allow philosophy to control you. Your philosophy. A imperfect human who has the innate ability of to be wrong more than right.

You trust someone that has a failure rate that is equal to anyone else in this world. You can't be any better at it than the average and even the MOST awesome are not that much better than the average. Mistakes is what happens when humans touch things. No matter how smart they are they have ability to screw up and sometimes just because they are smart (Ie Presidents and world leaders---some) their screw ups are far more damaging.

Spider is so correct. Influence is such a less cruder word to use. Far less offensive as you seem to take control as being. Softer it has a Clockwork Orange feel if you know what I mean.

If people knew their own success rate at being right and knew that it was not any better than someone else's---how much lack of trust would they have in themselves? I suppose that's where the good ol' white lie matters so much.

i think you should ask spider who he/she it is referencing

who is it that i trust that has this failure rate? i don't fail... you assume too much. to correct you, mistakes ARE what happens when people overreach their capacity... usually due to arrogance. while i do not have any faith in religion, i do have faith in human kind, however i do not believe in perfection outside of nature.

i refuse to let outside influence affect me. i make my own decisions. that is all. you can shout out that we have no freedom till you're blue in the face and yet i'll still be here to argue the opposite. control is an illusion, nothing more.

believe in yourself! that is the best advice i could possibly give you!

i am not a world leader, and none of my decisions have come to harm humanity in any significant way. i have faith in humankind simply because i have seen the brighter side of things. it is not all bad. we are capable of great, good things! rejoice in this!

one day you will see it, that control is an illusion, and you will be a greater person for it. i do not mean to demean your character at all, i simply wish that all of humanity could see things the way they are.

it will be all right. do not freak out! if you are so sure about the idea of control, give me one instance in which one human has control over another. even in hitler's concentration camps the nazis could not achieve control over their prisoners thoughts. control is an illusion, otherwise there would be no automobile accidents. test pilots would not be at any risk, and science experiments would never fail. there is no such thing as control.

It's kind of funny, I believe you both are so incredibly right in your basic convictions. It is kind of hard to sort through all the emotional reaction and insults in these replies, but you both have embraceable arguments.

Anyway, yes we are human therefore we are destined to fail and make mistakes. This is a very good thing in our development as children; trial and error with the occasional success makes us try and try again. We reach for the toy as infants with floppy arms and fail, but keep trying, strengthening our new muscles while we do. We eventually grab what it is we were trying for.

I believe that is what life is about. We are finite, we make mistakes and we definitely fail, but we also succeed and that is what makes life worth living. As far as being controled or not...that can be a very harsh and defeatist way of looking at things and can be very discouraging. Whether it is, "I am controled" or "I have complete control".

Lets take traffic lights for instance. The city places them and the State makes the traffic rules. This is a very strong limitation given to us and our driving habits; a major influence, even if it is quite elementary. We don't have to obey the traffic laws, but we choose to because we prefer to be safe. We can choose to get pissed off about it or choose to focus our energy elsewhere. That is were we are completely in control. We are responsible for and in control of our actions, reactions and placement of emotion.

I had a friend who refused to pay taxes, because he felt that the government was controlling him. He sent the IRS what he felt was a reasonable amount and fudged the rest. His wife did not have anything to do with the taxes, but they filed jointly and they both ended up going to jail for two years. I know taxes are tough to appreciate, but this is where he refused to take control and change his attitude toward taxes. He ultimately was controlled and actually confined by the government when he thought he was taking control by not paying them. What was more important to him? Not paying takes and spending two years in prison or doing his fair share and staying close to his wife and living in his own home? He could have had the ultimate freedom if he had chosen to accept that there are more important issues to contend with than paying taxes (which in his case was a fair amount and was not abusive). For the most part, taxes build schools, roads and help those who are in great need of assistance.

Then there are other situations where one is not allowed to marry due to sexual orientation or adopt children. Or like our friend in Mississippi who was told she needed to wear a skirt because she is a girl. These are discriminatory situations that should be addressed. Everyone must pay taxes, yet not everyone can marry or wear pants.

It's all about making the choice to spend time on what is important. That is my opinion, anyway.

lol wow... you're funny jammer. i'll leave you to your tiny little sad world. oh and excellent post spider.

You have to breathe.

You have to die.

You have to have blood.

You have to be human.

Eventually everyone is controlled.

=)

Exactly! We are governed by our own physical limitations, that's for dang sure. Therefore we are the ones who are ultimately in control. We are responsible for our breath, making our blood, adapting to our imperfectness, and as being human is imperfect, we die. That is what I like to define as living. You only know if you are alive because you are not dead. I definitely see what you are saying, Jammer, but I like to define your "controlled" as existing. It just helps me keep positive....I have had a lot of grief in my life and need the extra 'omph'.

Cheers to you both, it has been great banter, I am spent on this topic. Hope to read you around.

-Sarah

lol i still don't allow my physical limitations to control my actions sure i'm going to die someday, who doesn't, but the fact that i will does not control my life or decisions.

Why would that be necessary?

re 'Kylsport': you just did - and once is (more than) ignorant enough.

puhlease... I am homo too. You are completely ignorant to how gays view each other.

Every little incident that you think or anyone thinks is a social revolution isn't the same as Rosa Parks.

And everyone is controlled. They just pick who they want to control them.

This is precisely why this is completely a violation of human rights and bordering on a hate motivated action.

And the yearbook has the right to put in there whatever they want.

What are you trying to do? Control a book you don't even work for let alone go to the same school as...

no im just giving my opinion. im not trying to control anything.

True that. Few stories tug at my heartstrings more than when I meet someone at my stage of life (late 40s) or older who had some kind of gift or talent that they could never quite screw up the courage to share or explore...or even someone who just had a secret, unrequited desire to travel or speak out on an issue and could not overcome their fear or shyness or feeling that doing so would be judged by others to somehow be "improper." They make me feel like they have lived a shadow of the life they could have lived...and there are no "do overs."

So when people are stifled like this -- especially over something as utterly insignificant at the pieces of cloth with which they cover themselves...it frustrates and angers me. Had the choice been a g-string and pasties...that's a different story...but this is just silly.

Yes , my onetime greatest fear . To not have truly lived authentically . To be dying and to realize , I missed something on my list .... Though , now , I wonder if I should not have toned it down a bit ? Nah . Just that one thing ....

It was not stifling.

Everyone is stifled at school. Be yourself outside of school. Learn inside of school. That's the purpose. Want to stroke your ego? Do it on your own time.

What kind of school do you go to ? Knowledge is not stifling , it is liberating . It expands your horizons . Through it you discover yourself , not what mold you can fit into , the one you break . Even you , JJ are one of a kind and no one has the right to tell you different , unless , of course , you do not mind the golden rule .

I discovered myself without a school setting.

School is for learning. If you need it to spark you....you have more problems than most. Apparently not a good family life.

word, artemis6

That comment was judgmental.

Absolutely nothing in the schools handbook forbids this:

""In August, Rodriguez said she received a letter from the school stating that only boys could wear tuxedos. Rodriguez said she met with assistant Superintendent Ronald Holloway who told her he didn't see regulations about the issue in the student handbook.""

It's her principal who has a personal conviction that she not be printed in the yearbook wearing a tux: "But when she talked with Greer, she said he told her it was his "conviction" that Sturgis wouldn't appear in the yearbook in a tuxedo."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,567303,00.html

There is no need for her to do it other than to defy people. She doesn't HAVE to wear it. She wants to. She wants to cause trouble for whatever ego needed reason.

This isn't a necessity. She's not being oppressed by the actual definition.

If she would like to wear a tux then do so when she can, not when she cannot.

You can't wear whatever you want whenever you want. That's a farce.

Actually , you CAN wear what ever you want . What ever you are comfortable with . Someone else was not comfortable with it . So who really has the problem here ? You go to school to learn , not impress others with our lack of individuality . You would not believe what I wore . That was a while ago . One guy called me a devil worshiper . I guess black leather does that to some people . She is actually pretty tame if you ask me . Someone would have to be UNcomfortable with their own sexuality to be set off by this . Beauty is in the eye of the beholder , and so is ugliness .

Someone has to be uncomfortable with laws and being someone that is respectable to go against what is stated as wrong.

Don't play that stupid game with me---must be uncomfortable if .....

such ideas can be twisted right back and therefore are not correct just because you heard it from someone else and found it clever.

It's really simple. You can't wear whatever you want or there wouldn't be dress codes to adhere to. Give me another reason than her need to have her ego stroked.

LOOK AT ME I'M DIFFERENT.

This has nothing to do with comfort or she would have wore such a long time ago.

Damn Rosa Parks, trying to sit were ever she wanted... It's like she was screaming,

LOOK AT ME I'M DIFFERENT!

I completely understand what you're saying, Jammer. Social norms should never be questioned.

Not every social norm is Rosa Parks.

And stating that they are....well...that's stupid.

Pick your battles. You can pick and choose and still win the war. If you don't think so...well failure will be your friend.

She did follow the dress code, she just didn't comply to the sexist aspect of the requirement. I grew up in private school and wore uniforms all my life. Girls were not allowed to were pants and as a result, the sexual harassment from the boy students was out of control and I ended up freezing my ass off. I just started wearing pants one day and the school changed the rule eventually.

So it's about the ego.

Who the fuck are you calling Pandaman "asshole that don't getit" In your mailbox