In a culture where fashion is a large part of everyday life, is it beneficial to implement dress codes and uniforms in schools and offices? While some might argue that the implementation of dress codes is an advantageous way to increase productivity and reduce distraction, others counterargue that this implementation involves strict regulation, which further complicates the matter. This leads to the question: Does requiring stricter regulation on women's dress code in the work place and/or in their place of education bring about the controversy of institutionalized sexism while also cause the promotion of rape culture? While women should dress for the occasion, that is, appropriately and respectfully in places of work and education, women still deserve the same treatment as their male counterparts when it comes to dress codes. A woman's body should not fall victim to the gaze of males or be used as means to objectify and sexualize. Dress codes also cause the hyper sexualization of women in the workplace and schools, and promote a culture where what a women wears is subject to judgment by people who don't necessarily hold any jurisdiction, and are certainly not regulated in any way, shape, or form. 

The implementation of codes that cause people to flaunt their sexuality affects all, not just women but men as well. While in many cases women fall victim to sexism in the workplace and places of education based of how they dress men usually must also adhere to similar codes. This problem of dress codes promoting a culture where what happens to a women, like rape, or being viewed as a sexual object falls on her shoulders, is multicultural and crosses country lines, but in recent years eyes have been turned to North America to see how she reacts to these implications. This question about dress code has been long standing. Duncan Kennedy, who holds a degree in law from Harvard and currently works there as a professor, has an article about the relationship between sexual assault and dress. Kennedy looks into how dress is sometimes seen as a "yes" or "no" for sexual assault. He also discusses the different places and times when it is considered "ok" to be dress sexy, and how in context different outfits could be considered more inappropriate at one place and fine at another. He goes on to explain how "dress is sexy for the setting" or in other words where you wear what you wear determines its appropriateness (Kennedy 1344). Also, Kennedy discusses the fact that women choose to dress the way they do in order to get the reaction they want from men. This shows that men hold a power over what women wear in the sense that their reaction drives what women place, or in some cases choose to not place on their bodies (Healey). This also shows that what a woman wears is important and will likely determine how she is treated.

Also bringing light to the matter of what women wear in their line of work is Jack Healey. In his article, "Montana Dress Code Has Female Legislators Sporting New Look: Clenched Jaws," Healey introduces how a state legislator in Montana is instituting a new dress code in the state capital. While this code affects both women and men, women have been especially targeted in the way these new rules are enforced (Healey). The institution of this type of law is unequal for it looks particularly at women, and not women and men. The dress code instituted in Montana has a section for both men and women but the list for women is "a little longer and more detailed, and had many female lawmakers rolling their eyes (Healey)." The women interviewed in this article even go as far as to compare this new dress code to that of Mad Men, a popular television show which doesn't skimp out on the sexism found in the work place in the 1960's (Healey). Healey interviews women who state that they feel like their male counterparts have an edge or power over them now that these people, who are their colleagues, just the opposite gender, are allowed to deem what is too risque for the work place (Healey). The institution of a dress code that has rules like women cannot wear clothing that is too revealing opens the door for men to assert dominance over women (Healey). Another case that is especially weighted toward women is the institution of a law like that in Kansas. Samantha Bee, a TV show hostess, points out the ridiculousness and outright antiwoman aspects of the code in a clip from her TBS show "Full Frontal". In "A Modesty Project" Bee shuts down a senator from Kansas, Mitch Holmes, by attacking his institution of a dress code in the state capital that only applies to women. She states how the legislation he has instituted, like banning abortion and promoting the Boy Scouts of America, have "been spent controlling women and celebrating the groups that exclude them (Modesty)." She also explains the senator's reasoning behind the dress code, which, as he explains in a quote shown from a news report was, " ... to respect the other women in the room and also out of respect for the wives of the men in that room (Modesty)." Bee goes on to explain how messed up and sickening that reasoning is. This clip serves as a source that pokes fun at the senator and his law while also pointing out the antifeminist characteristics of the man who implemented it (Modesty). All of these examples point to the fact that, not only is sexism in the workplace evident, but that it exists, and is continuously allowed to exist with the help of implemented dress codes. These codes look to single out women particularly and make sure they are appropriately dressed as to not be a distraction to, in most cases, men.

Recently, girls have been speaking out about their disappointment in their dress codes at school. There have been strikes, and all types of display of discontent about this over social media. For example, in a Canadian school, girls were being reprimanded for wearing crop tops, so students, including boys, decided they would fight back by cutting their shirts to create crop tops in support of those who had been previously punished (Cole). Especially over social media, girls have been sharing their experience of being sent home from class because their clothing was too revealing, therefore too distracting. By doing this, administrators send the message that a girl's education comes second to that of a males. This promotes a rape culture where women are seen as the problem and therefore the solution is to blame them for being too provocative. An example of dress codes promoting a culture where a girl is the victim and the one at fault, especially in school, is the case of Marcia Stevens (Pomeretz). Shoshanna Pomerantz, a professor at Brock University, looks at the case of Maria Stevens from Canada and asserts how dress codes in schools allow administration to dictate what is too much femininity, and what is enough.  In this case Stevens was sent home for wearing a tank top that was said to have "showed too much cleavage" and was deemed inappropriate (Pomeretz). Steven's father got involved, and this case gained lots of attention in Canada (Pomeretz). Administrators stated that this top would have possibly been in dress code guidelines on girls of a certain body type, but on Stevens, it was too distracting (Pomeretz). Not only does this attack Stevens on an aspect that she isn't in control of how developed her body is, but this also opens her body to criticism on how feminine she is allowed to be (Pomeretz). This type of reasoning allows the administrators to have a power over the dress code, and over how feminine a student can look both of which, with this type of code, have no ability to be regulated (Pomeretz). These examples show just how early on this becomes engrained in the minds of young girls.

This problem of hyper sexualization and being particularly strict with women's dress codes has found a home in schools. One of the most detrimental and dangerous aspects that dress codes bring about it the aspect of turning the girl into the solution of a mainly male problem. This blaming of the victim promotes a rape culture, one that is particularly detrimental to younger girls. In an article by Laura Bates, the creator of The Everyday Sexism Project, she explains how patrolling the way girls dress and sending them home stating they have too short of skirts or are showing too much skin promotes a culture where how sexual a women is portrayed is the victims fault. By doing this, teachers and authorities are telling the victim that she must cover up because boys cannot handle their thoughts, therefore causing this to be the girl's problem, and pinning her as the issue that must be addressed (Bates). Bates also goes on to explain how this mindset, where girls must cover up to protect themselves, is getting them ready for a life where one out of five female college women is sexually assaulted. Instead of combating the fact that one out of five woman is sexually assaulted by addressing the perpetrators, this mindset of a rape culture looks to prepare women for what is likely going to happen to them instead of combating the issue itself (Bates). Another example of the double standard at schools when it comes to girls, boys, and what they wear is an example mentioned in Laura Bates's article where a girl is reprimanded for wearing shorts while her male peer, who was wearing a shirt showing two stick figures having oral sex (along with inappropriate text) was hardly given a moments glance by the school's authority figures. This is yet another piece of evidence that depicts how women's dress is more strictly regulated. In Eliana Dockterman's, a writer for Time, article she gives multiple examples of girls are being "slut shamed" when they are reprimanded for disobeying the dress code (Dockterman). Her article, "When Enforcing School Dress Codes Turns Into Slut Shaming" gives examples of girls being sent home as result of wearing clothing that is said to be too distracting for their male counterparts. One piece of evidence that particularly resonates is a case of a girl who was sent home for wearing leggings (in violation to the school dress code), therefore missing her exam review (Dockterman). This article begs the question of why isn't the dress code being equally enforced on males and females, and why is it that the dress codes are being used to discuss how women's bodies are portrayed instead of showing respect for the school. Dockterman goes on to discuss that dress codes are made for the "male gaze," and that girls should not get the tail end of the bargain when they are reprimanded for wearing something that arouses a boy. Events like these open up the conversation to why girls are particularly targeted when it comes to dress code regulation.

While all the sources, evidence, and claims discussed above are valid in their own right there is still opposition to this argument on dress codes. For example, many people claim that there are institutions and governmental regulations set that protect women from this type of discrimination and hyper sexualization. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sexual discrimination in the workplace, is one of those pieces of legislation that is looked at when it comes to these problems. While this law does look to find equality among the sexes and has been relatively successful it still has its pitfalls when it comes to treating women with equality based on dress in their places of employment. For example, in Robert Robinson et al.'s article "Employee Appearance Policies And Title VII: New Challenges For Sex Differentiated Standards" the authors dive deeper into a case about a woman who is fired from her place of work because she refuses to adhere to dress code guidelines that are connected to women. Darlene Jespersen worked for Harrah's Casino a company that requires both male and female employees to follow a dress code specific to their particular job (Robinson). Jespersen chose to defy a part of her dress code and, although she was offered applications for other jobs inside Harrah's that didn't require her to wear makeup, she refused them and was ultimately fired (Robinson). After losing her job she went on and "filed a sex discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on the grounds that the appearance/grooming policy violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Robinson)." She then filed a case with a court in Nevada where she argued that Harrah's dress code for women had a larger burden then that for men (Robinson). The court struck this down stating that this was not in violation with Title VII (Robinson). She then tried to appeal this but was turned down again (Robinson). This shows that while Title VII is in affect and is looked upon as a monumental piece of legislation that protects the sexes it still does not protect women from unequal treatment in the workplace. Jespersen was fired for not complying with a rule that was only set for women. This is unfair and caused her to lose her job because she is a woman. If she had been a male this would have likely not been an issue since the only thing men were required to do for their physical appearance other than clothing was to have appropriate length hair and clean nails (Robinson). Women on the other hand were required to wear make up, styled hair that must be down, and wear stockings (Robinson). This type of dress policy required women to be extra feminine. For example, Jespersen stated that "she "felt that wearing makeup 'forced her to be feminine' and to become 'dolled up' like a sexual object, and ...  'took away [her] credibility as an individual and as a person'" (Levi)." This shows that Jespersen was being forced to flaunt her femininity in the workplace, an example of over sexualization. While Title VII looks good on paper and like it protects women from injustices in reality, it is not as strongly enforced as it could be, and does not protect women from being over sexualized, therefore making the argument that there are little to no laws and regulations that protect women from being over sexualized in the workplace, and being denied education based on their outfit.

With this epidemic of antifeminism, promotion of rape culture, and institutionalized sexism in offices and schools alike it is important to be aware of one's rights when it comes to these implications. It is also important that women and men realize that equality is a necessity in today's society and that in this case men and women should have the same requirements, or at least ones that are equal in degree. It is also important that institutions stop penalizing girls by sending them home based on dress. These cases and examples exhibit, in a way that is especially detrimental to younger girls, that the needs of a male are more pressing than a woman's, and that while a woman is the victim of this, she is also the one at fault. For that reason it is important that men be raised on a culture that does not hyper sexualize women, and that allows women to wear what they wish to wear without judgment or over sexualization. Although this is a major point, women have some aspects of their dress they need to work on as well. It is important that girls be raised at a young age to respect their bodies and dress for the occasion that is respectful in their place of work and education. By looking deeper into the evidence, cases, and sources about dress codes in schools and offices, it is clear to see that dress codes are an institution that corrals women and allows men to assert a power over them that they should not be able to hold, and for that reason they should be reevaluated. 

