i n F l e u  (it's beta!)

LOG  IN  OR  SIGN  UP



Daylogs

222
Tue, 19 Dec 2006 at 04:21pm

Non-Uniform

[Brainstormed things from my notepad. One was non-uniform, and though not exactly creative, this is what I came up with. It's not meant to be polished or amazing, but I haven't posted in ages, and I need a starting point at least.]

Today was non-uniform day in the accelerated society known as school. It's always interesting to note how these things ripple throughout the society.

Non-uniform days always seem to bring out the essence of people, or at least enhance them. Dazzling colours are coupled with dazzling personalities, and this shows most obviously with thugs. Today a kid who by many standards looks fairly average was messed around by some idiots. It's almost as if the clothes act like war paint, in fact that's not a bad comparison. They can identify eachother, and once a small crowd exists it's sure to widen, especially when there's fresh meat.

Identification of like minded people seems to be a very important aspect of people's clothing, and not just with thugs. I would imagine that if there was no uniform all the time, then people would be very much boxed in by their clothes. Clothes are your social standing, there's no in-between because then no-one knows where you stand, and therefore you stand nowhere. If you're mainstream, you dress mainstream. If you're alternative, you dress alternative. With uniform most people can mix around, people are judged on their personality rather than their clothes.

There's one crack in this uniform though: hair. I have freakishly long hair, which means I'm not going to be mixing with any popular kids any time soon. The alternative kids tend to be a little more libertarian though, so anyone who wants to can generally come hang around with us as long as they don't threaten people. Some do try to regulate who should and shouldn't be here, but those are generally ignored. A few eyebrows were raised however when recently a guy with quite short and spiked up hair was married into the group (he had a girlfriend who was alternative). It didn't help that he had a square jaw and a very chav-ish look either. He was accepted though.

Once a group of what I presume to be his friends came along and made fun that he was hanging around with alternatives. He obviously didn't enjoy this clashing of the two worlds, and neither did anyone else. The point is, all this would never have happened had their been non-uniform. He'd be dressed in clothes characteristic of his group, and if he tried to come over here he'd have been regarded with such suspicion that it would have been impossible for him to become the permanent fixture he now is. He seems like a nice guy, and I fully admit that if he had been wearing chav clothes, I would have taken the chip on my shoulder and beat him round his proverbial head with it.

Moving on, another incident interested me today. A member of the alternatives brought in a huge bouquet of mistletoe and spread it around a bit. All the girls were kissing one-another as girls seem to do when any excuse comes along. Very few straight kisses though, and one girl who is unsure about her sexuality would only accept kisses on the cheek. Why, you ask, SWEET MERCIFUL JESUS WHY?! Because I didn't have a camera.

But seriously, people seem to place emphasis on the sex in homosexuality. The truth is that the only difference in definition between homosexuality and heterosexuality is which gender you find attractive. The magnitude is a matter of culture, just like it is with heterosexuality. Thus, the explanation: Heterosexual kisses are real to the participants, they mean something. Same-sex kisses also mean something to the homosexual participants. Of course, culture is such that homosexual kisses between men is always serious, so that's why little of that was going on.

Girls are always interesting on non-uniform days. Since they don't seem to care much about clothes, rather the lack of them. I guess a (drunk) feminist would argue that since men have had all the money historically, they haven't been able to afford so much cloth. The more likely explanation is that people think skin is attractive. Of course, not all females dress could be fit into a matchbox. Some wear more clothes, especially in winter. Personally, I find girls (paedophile! What would you call females aged 11-18?) more attractive artistically and otherwise when they're wearing more clothes.

They also seem to polarise. Guys can come in wearing average clothes, and look average. If a girl came in wearing 'average' clothes, they'd be making a statement about how everyone else is attention seeking. Clothes really seem to sort girls into groups on non-uniform days, at least among people older than 13.

The influence of clothing is quite clear, and it has good and bad points. With uniform people are judged by their personality, but without uniform people are able to express themselves with their appearance. Though they may claim other reasons, it's quite clear that uniform is also a method of managing behaviour also. It separates you from those who can deviate (such as teachers), and that makes people easier to manage.

I'd be interested to hear the observations of people who do not have to wear uniform.

Three others like this.
2006-12-19
The commendations this piece recieved in IF1 were: 0 minus votes, 3 plus votes, and 0 astars.

at my school, we don't wear uniforms. trust me, i think sometimes it's lucky that you guys do, because no one can judge you based on the clothes you wear. other times, i think of myself as lucky because i can express myself every week in front of a thousand people. good job!

sold
2006-12-20
social
ironypills
2007-01-18

We are a mufti school. It's not really that big a deal. I mean, it means that groups of people based on interest/music are more obvious, but there is lot's of mixing and stuff. There are also constant fights between the hiphopsters and the bogans. But whatever.

radtastic
2007-04-03

I hate the idea that people can be judged simply by the outfit they choose to wear because there's so much more to them than their clothes. What if you can't afford the Abercrombie & Fitch-type clothing and are forced to shop in cheaper places (over here it'd be something lke Wal-Mart, not sure what it'd be where you are). What's their personality, then? "Poor"? The entire idea is one that just really irks me. You made some interesting observations, though (I *loved* the war paint comparison). Once, I went to a lecture given by a Buddhist monk, who used this example...if you held our your hand, you'd say "my hand is in front of me." but if someone slapped that same hand, wouldn't you say "ow, you hit me?" The Monk pointed out that that made no sense--is that hand YOU, or is it merely something you possess? His point was that you are not in your hand, just like you are not in your nose, or feet, or even your clothes. Your soul, your personality, your character--things that are intangible--truly define who you are. And now this comment has gotten ridiculously long, so I'll shutup. Haha. :)

burning_sands
2008-06-18

we don't wear uniforms, for which i am immensely glad. i am a t-shirt and jeans, simple kind of girl, but i like being able to know how a friend is feeling by what they're wearing. also, i think the whole 'worrying about social class' thing becomes more of a problem when you get out of the suburbs. here, yeah, there are kids that get all their clothes from American Eagle or Hollister, but there are also kids who shop only at department store clothes and then all the mixers. honestly, there's not much difference 'cept for the words on the shirts. but i've friends who truly dress in a manner unique from everyone else and i would not see them constrained by anything.