• Police believe Joshua Woodward, a restaurateur from L.A., gave his 13-weeks pregnant girlfriend an abortion inducing drug without her consent. She claims just hours before she miscarried, Woodward touched her sexually, leaving white powder in her underwear. • Conseulo Carreto Valencia, 61, has been sentenced to 10 years in prison - the maximum sentence - for forcing girls to work as prostitutes. In this rather tasteless article, the NY Daily News refers to her as a "mini-madam," due to her short stature. •  A Danish political party has fessed up to pasting yellow penis stickers all over the posters for opposing parties. "We admit we did it," said party Vice President Niels Andreasen. But it seems like their hilarious efforts paid off: "At first we figured we'd get around 200 votes. But now we've had 10,000 visitors to our Web site and we have 500 new Facebook friends." • Two cities in California have voted to outlaw the declawing of cats. Beverly Hills City Council and the Los Angeles City Council joined Santa Monica and San Francisco in the recent ban. •  A 20-year-old Somali woman was stoned to death for adultery in front of a crowd of 200 on Tuesday afternoon. She had recently been divorced, and was reportedly dating a 29-year-old man. He received 100 lashes for his part in the affair. • A research team from the UK found that almost 50% of women have a genetic variation which reduces their ability to produce vitamin A from beta-carotene. This may mean that up to half the women in England could be at risk for vitamin A deficiency. • Doctors believe that they may be able to use eggs donated by younger women to increase the chances of conception among older women. A team from Japan removed the nuclei from eggs of women undergoing IVF and injected them into eggs donated by women under 35. • The city of Sacramento, California has presented 18-year-old Margarita Vargas with an official proclamation, calling her decision to call the police after hearing about the brutal gang rape of a teen girl "a bold act of humanity." • Olivia Thomas, the oldest person in the U.S., died this week at the age of 114. Thomas was believed to be the third oldest person in the world at the time of her death. •  A police officer in Arkansas recently tasered a 10-year-old girl when she refused to get into his police car. The report says the stun was "very, very brief" and only used to bring the girl to a youth shelter. • It seems Brian Adams, the photographer who shot the picture of Sarah Palin in shorts for Runner's World violated his contract by reselling the photo to Newsweek. A spokeswoman for Runner's World said the picture was supposed to be under embargo until August 2010, and "Runner's World did not provide Newsweek with its cover image... It was provided to Newsweek by the photographer's stock agency, without Runner's World's knowledge or permission." A Newsweek spokesman responded, "We purchased the photo from an agency and were not aware of any issues with it." • Police say they're not filing any more charges in the murder of 5-year-old Shaniya Davis until it's decided which North Carolina county will handle the case. Her mother, Antoinette Davis, and Mario McNeill have already been arrested and charged with kidnapping and child abuse involving prostitution. • Katherine Sebelius addressed the confusion over new breast cancer screening recommendations saying, "The U.S. Preventive Task Force is an outside independent panel of doctors and scientists who make recommendations... They do not set federal policy, and they don't determine what services are covered by the federal government... The Task Force has presented some new evidence for consideration but our policies remain unchanged. Indeed, I would be very surprised if any private insurance company changed its mammography coverage decisions as a result of this action." • A 13-year-old boy in Alabama was arrested after he asked an undercover officer posing as a prostitute for sex. The officer says she tried to run him off more than once, but he insisted, so she had to arrest him. He was charged with a misdemeanor count of loitering while looking for a prostitute. • In its 2009 state of the world population report, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) says the world's poor are the most vulnerable to the effects of climate change, and most of the 1.5 billion people living on less than $1 a day are women. "Poor women in poor countries are among the hardest hit by climate change, even though they contributed the least to it," said UNFPA executive director Thoraya Ahmed Obaid. • Last month the U.K.'s Law Commission proposed that unmarried couples who live together for two years should be able to claim half of their partner's estate if they die without a will. Baroness Deech, chairman of the Bar Standards Board says, "Cohabitation law retards the emancipation of women, degrades the relationship, takes away choice, is too expensive and would extend an already unsatisfactory maintenance law for married couples to another large category," adding, "Women do not need and ought not to require to be kept by men after their relationship has come to an end." • British hedge fund manager Mark Lowe is being sued for sexual discrimination by female executive Jordan Wimmer because he repeatedly forwarded the office sexist emails. She confronted him when he sent around a dumb blonde joke. He said in court: "I didn't for a moment suppose anyone would take exception to a feeble joke of this sort. It was not directed against [Ms Wimmer]. The thought never occurred to me that she'd be offended." •

We all understand why dress codes exist: lack of distraction, safety, sometimes even to discourage conspicuous economic disparities. To show that school is serious business. Some schools ban gender-bending dress as a means of discouraging harrassment, which however suspect it may seem, at least is rooted in tragedy. (As the Times reminds us, "safety is a critical concern. In February 2008, Lawrence King, an eighth-grader from Oxnard, Calif., who occasionally wore high-heeled boots and makeup, was shot to death in class by another student.")

And then there's what happened at Morehouse last month. As Fox explains,

Recently Morehouse College, an all-male black private university in Atlanta, released its "Appropriate Attire Policy" that banned do-rags, caps, hoods and sunglasses in class and "decorative orthodontic appliances." But it also specified the following — "No wearing of clothing associated with women's garb (dresses, tops, tunics, purses, pumps, etc.) on the Morehouse campus or at college-sponsored events."..."The image of a strong black man needs to be upheld," Cameron Thomas-Shah, student government co-chief of staff, told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution . "And if anyone sees this policy as something that is restrictive then maybe Morehouse is not the place for you."

Dicta like this - and, to an extent, the highly-publicized Ceara Sturgis Tuxedogate - are obviously somewhat arbitrary. As long as the clothing is neither dangerous nor out of bounds (ie, the same length and neckline rules would, one suppo, nor one the ACLU is disinclined to pursue. Should a boy dress like a drag queen for class? Well, neither should a girl - that does qualify as "distracting." An administration might argue that cross-dressing was, by its nature, distracting. I'd say, maybe for the first week. But then you get used to it. High school may be rigid, but young people are also flexible and, as we have read time and again, far more liberal-minded about issues of sexual identity than any prior generation. However insubordinate kids might be, they still ultimately take their cues from an administration - and can tell when something's arbitrary or unfair. Lawrence King, after all, was not shot because of the way he dressed, but because of the ignorance, fear and hatred of his attackers. (And, by the way, we're guessing Chinos wouldn't have guaranteed a blissful school existence.) It may be harder for a school to address this than the clothes - but surely it's also a crucial part of an education.

School Dress Codes Homophobic? [Fox]
Can a Boy Wear a Skirt to School? [NY Times]

Related: "That's Just Who I Am. I Don't Dress Like A Girl. I Don't Even Own Any Girl Clothes."

The middle school bracelet panic has been going on for some time now (I swear this story comes out ever year, with no definitive proof that kids are actually playing this game), and though administrators tell the New York Times that "it's turned out that a lot of the kids, especially the girls, wear them as fashion statements, and some were adamant they didn't have any connotation," they insist that some students were heard discussing the bracelets and the "snap" game that accompanies them, and so the school banned them as a means to keep the fad—and, presumably, the activities that accompany it—out of the school.

But taking bracelets away from students, even from those who are using them for some kind of weird sex game, does nothing to actually address the real fears administrators have. Instead of banning the bracelets, perhaps an open conversation about sexuality—the kind we apparently are not allowed to have in public schools—would serve them better.

I graduated high school in 1999; after Columbine happened, administrators banned all trenchcoats, and started keeping a close eye on any student who had the slightest trace of goth in their wardrobe. It was frustrating and humiliating for many of my classmates, who actually had to say things like, "It's just a cool coat, I don't want to blow up the school," in order to defend themselves.

The panic that strikes adults when stories of lurid or violent behavior break out amongst teens and tweens often causes them to do the easiest thing possible: remove all evidence of such things from the hallways. But no one benefits from hiding the problem, and kids aren't going to stop having sex or being psychopaths like Eric Harris simply because you take their stylistic choices away. The bracelets may be gone, but the issues still remain. The administrators may not be able to see it, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

School Bans Bracelet Used In Sex Game [NYTimes]

South Carolina's Chapin high school has a strict dress code for graduation: dress slacks for boys, dresses or skirts for girls. And Chelsea Sarvis can't graduate, they say, without a skirt - and under a cap and gown, no less. Sarvis, who wore a tux to her school's prom, says, she's "not trying to be direspectful", according to the Wis10 article, and adds "If girls are uncomfortable with their bodies like I am, I just don't like wearing them...Why is it a stereotype that a girl has to wear a dress?"

While it makes us sad that discomfort with her body is a factor in the decision - she shouldn't need a justification for wearing whatever she likes (as she says, "If it looks nice, why can't they wear it?") - we're also just baffled by such retrograde rigidity. Says Feministing's Jessica Valenti, "What really gets me is that the principal of this school is actually enforcing the dress code, and in turn enforcing traditional gender roles." The principal comes off as far more clueless than malevolent, not that that's ever better.
"It's certainly appropriate to ask young ladies to wear a dress or a nice shirt and a nice outfit and young men to wear slacks, a shirt and a tie...If a young man showed up in flip-flops and shorts, and said I wanted to walk, we'd say no you can't."

And in addition to the familiar, trying anility of the knee-jerk position is the utter incomprehensibility of this level of obliviousness. Have they not heard of the ACLU? Of similar rulings in Delaware and Nebraska? That they haven't, as school administrators, is almost as worrisome as an educational philosophy that privileges outmoded views and Inherit-the-Wind rigidity over students' well-being.

Chapin High Student Fights To Wear Pants, Not Dress For Graduation [Wis10]

Enforcing Femininity: SC School Will Ban Pants-Wearing Female Students From Graduation [Feministing]

It's no secret that the clothes on TV tend to be aspirational: we get that. We, after all, know first-hand that a freelance writer who peacocks like Carrie Bradshaw is mere fantasy, and don't begrudge the dame her Manolos. But it also strikes us as a little curious that the spate of prime-time shows whose avowed goal is to portray powerful women (Lipstick Jungle, Cashmere Mafia, Dirty Sexy Money, anything set in a hospital or law-firm) then feel they need to glamorize and sexualize these careers in order to make them interesting.

On a basic level, it's misleading. Says one female exec in a Financial Times piece, “You’ve got to be able to run up stairs and chase down taxis...I see programs like Lipstick Jungle, where the women walk around in 5in heels, with outrageous jewellery and low necklines. That isn’t practical.” Or professional: whenever we see Whitney Port swanning around Manhattan in a 3" skirt we worry uncomfortably how many young women are going to appear for an interview for some summer internship dressed in just as "aspirational" a getup.

While "real-world" ladies are toning down their work wardrobes in keeping with somber times and a shaky job market, the high-powered execs of prime-time corporate America hover ever higher and their clothes shout ever-louder. Says Lipstick's stylist, Amanda Ross, to the FT: “I dressed the characters on the show to look polished and impeccably groomed,” adding that it “goes to extremes with layering and accessorising” but otherwise stays the straight and narrow. While a viewing of the show leads us to respectfully disagree (and by the by, costumes are the least of its problems), no costume designer should have to apologize for upping the ante. Perhaps what seems problematic is the wrinkle as old as Ally McBeal: it's one thing to glamorize for entertainment, but at what point does that veer into disrespect for actual dames?

This is a relatively new issue: professional women have rarely, historically, been the focus of shows and as such didn't require much sexing up. But it does seem like even when professional women were portrayed, it wasn't in a sexualized way: when Melanie Griffith's Working Girl goes corporate, she becomes less sexy, more professional: her clothes are impeccably tailored, but serious. In prior eras, a working gal might be glam, but that was very different from sexy. Mary Richards hardly showed cleavage; acting and writing added the character's allure. Is it good that a character can be both a sexy woman and a career pro? Sure. But why does that require a "sexy" outfit to prove it? A little less showing, more telling, plz.

The Wardrobes Of TV’s Career Women [FT]

So, take this for what it's worth but, a survey conducted by theragtrader.com, based on 3,000 workers, finds that, according to the New York Post, "one in four women think the secret of success is how they dress and are willing to show a little more skin to get ahead," while one in 20 women admitted to dressing in a deliberately provocative way on a regular basis.

This is depressing and lame enough to hardly require further analysis, but it also strains credulity. In my own experience, at one of my jobs someone had to take one woman aside to ask her to dress less provocatively, which was humiliating for everyone and seriously uncomfortable. Or, take Katie on Stylista: her cleavage hardly served to advance her career. Sure, these were women-heavy industries, but in what world does showing skin equal "getting ahead?" I'm not questioning that it gets some male attention, maybe some admiration, but executive material? These seem like some seriously misguided dames.

The rest of the findings were less than revelatory: 78 per cent of women believe the way they dress affects their day at work, feel and perform better when they look "smart," and, presumably, feel at a disadvantage when they're ill-kempt and shleppy. "Even when working from home, it's incredible how clothing can influence your productivity." (Anyone who's had to strategically position cardigans to conceal stains can vouch for this.) In terms of industries, marketing and advertising were found to be the most sartorially competitive, followed, allegedly, by "media workers," presumably of the Devil Wears Prada varietal.

Oh, then there were the humiliations, like the more than a quarter of women who, says the Telegraph, "had to face the embarrassment of someone else in the office wearing the same outfit as them," plus the 63% of workers who deal with "wardrobe malfunctions" like runs in tights and open flies - horrors that make massive worlwide unemployment a palliative indeed! "Fourteen per cent have even split their trousers while in the office."

Women Prepared To Dress Provocatively To Climb Career Ladder [Telegraph]
Third Of Women Happy To Wear Skimpy Clothing At Work To Win Bonuses And Promotion [Daily Mail]
Poll: Skimpy Dress Gets You Ahead At Work [New York Post]

Apparently some people put a ton of thought into Thanksgiving looks: the founders of Juicy are sporting, according to Friedman, "Martha Stewart-tastic" and "Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire" looks, respectively. As Friedman points out, despite the holiday's devotion to gluttony, "it has an oddly ascetic edge, having been initiated by the Pilgrims, who tended to come to the table in their white collars and buttoned-up black dresses." Since we now know that turkey, pumpkin and corn may not have in fact had anything to do with the first Thanksgiving, dressing in John Smith costumes seems unnecessary. As does, for that matter, the purchase of the Miu Miu dress at which the author arrives — "round-necked, with a little white collar; mid-calf, but vaguely cheongsam in silhouette, with narrow three-quarter length sleeves; all in batik-like print."

However true that "a suit seems too professional, but a cocktail dress is too party-ish; jeans and trousers are often too casual, and so on," it seems like unless you're at one of those hyper-fancy catered Thanksgivings surrounded by professionally- crafted wheat sheaths (which screams "skirt and sweater"), you can wear whatever you want. Maybe nothing revealing - relatives! - and maybe nothing too fancy - cranberry sauce! - but for the most part, who's judging? Besides, if your house is anything like mine, it is freezing, your mom will be in sweats, and your very sweet elderly relatives will arrive with a dubious Laura Ashley outfit that you end up having to wear anyway. (The self-sacrifice of which is nothing if not Puritan chic.) Friedman feels that the puritan look is appropriate for the current hard times. You know what else is: not thinking about clothes! So, for the most part, give thanks for not having to worry about it: that's what the next six weeks are for.

Give Thanks For Puritan Values [Financial Times]

On the one hand, it's true — it is trickier for women to know what to wear for work. From the number of queries we've gotten here about appropriate work dress, I know that a workshop like the one at Ernst and Young, however problematic in principle, could actually be a godsend for women in a workplace who just want to be told what to wear for once, rather than trying to figure out what's appropriate. The fact that 400 women showed up could be proof of this — or did the workshop's very existence merely provoke a set of anxieties that hadn't existed before?

Anne Freden, chairman of Ernst & Young's women's network, says, "You don't want to be remembered as the woman with red lips, or leave people wondering, 'How does she walk on those heels?'" Well, sure, but most people probably don't have these reps: it doesn't take a course for most women not to wear a low-cut blouse to the office; it's called common sense. But apparently it is an issue for the company; says Freden: "There is a huge number of capable and talented women at Ernst & Young looking to maximise their achievement in the firm and in their career, and looking for the skills and tips and tools to do that...The firm doesn't view this as something that is nice to have, but as an integral part of the business strategy." Maybe that is what is worrisome about this: the implicit judgment — even threat — behind such policies.

Consider Fashiongate: while there was almost unilateral condemnation of the amount Sarah Palin managed to drop on clothes, many in the public eye themselves came to the governor's defense, talking about the unusual scrutiny placed on women's appearance. The attitude seemed to be, not merely does she need to look okay - she needs to look great. This is both a pressure — and in some dubious lights — advantage that male counterparts simply don't have. While no one wants to make a poor first impression in a professional context, some of what's troubling is the insinuation that a woman can use wiles — work her colors, sport designer — at the expense of those, be it men or other, less savvy females, who are simply professional.

Not to get Cold War on you, but all of this kind of makes me want a uniform — because it's not like we're dealing in self-expression here, anyway. Or at any rate, let's stop pretending "business casual" really allows us any freedom — clearly all these superficial relaxations have just created a hundred new pitfalls for women to look too sexy, not feminine enough, or insufficiently professional. When we're told, 'wear what you want, but what you want is wrong — take this optional class you all need'— well, can we just drop the charade already and bring on the dress codes? Some of that Socialist Chic wasn't half bad!

Female Accountants Sent On Course To Learn How To Dress Appropriately[Telegraph]
Clothes That Add Up: Female Accountants Are Taught To Dress For Success [Daily Mail]

The suspended students were wearing their t-shirts, emblazoned with the words "Julius R.I.P.," in honor of Julius Robinson, an 18 year old football player who was shot to death last summer and whose family did not have enough money to buy him a proper headstone. MSNBC reports that "to officials of the Millard Public Schools, the words “Julius RIP” on the shirts were disruptive. After consulting with Omaha police, they also said the shirts could be considered gang-related."

But Patzy Van Beek, one of the suspended students, disagrees. "“It’s not fair," she told MSNBC, "People can wear ‘rest in peace, Grandma,’ but when it come to Julius, now all of a sudden we can’t have that at our school. I feel like no one cares.” The ACLU, apparently, DOES care, and they are filing a lawsuit on the students' behalf.

Other dress code modifications have sprung up in the past few years, presumably in order to combat the skankification of tweenage clothing. The Sweetwater Union High School District of San Diego has "banned any clothing that reveals the so-called three B’s: breasts, bellies or bottoms," in an attempt to get young women to cover themselves up during the school day. When I was in high school, this was a rule as well, as the Britney Spears belly-shirt fad had taken off and the administration had deemed the exposure of young women's belly buttons "distracting" to the learning environment.

More extreme dress code rules, including the banning of hooded sweatshirts, certain possibly gang-related colors, and hair coloring have been met with anger and outrage from both students and parents, who argue that the extremely limited dress codes stifle children's creativity and expression, as well as provide an extra financial burden for parents who might not be able to go out and buy their child an entirely new set of clothes, which is what happened to Debbie Pua, a single mother from Salinas, California., after her child's school district banned any dark red or blue clothing. "I don't get child support," Pua said, "and I already did my back-to-school shopping."

While officials claim that they are merely trying to create a safe environment that focuses on learning and not fashion, one wonders if certain dress code rules are going a step too far. As Grace Davis, a sophomore at Salinas, wisely states, changing a dress code "doesn’t fix the disease. It just covers the symptoms,” she said. “I think we’re still going to have the same gang problem. We’re just going to be angry at the administration, and I don’t think that’s the way to go.”

Students, Parents Fight Dress Codes [MSNBC]

• Resort Dressy: Think Ralph Lauren, uptight WASPS in movies who need to have their minds blown by free spirits.
• Wild Chic: "Wild" is always horrible code for "cheetah print." Think "Miami divorcee."
• Safari Chic: The hosts may envision 70s YSL, but they'll get Khaki. Animal prints optional. Looking stupid mandatory.
• Ferrari Hot: Red, slits, cleavage. Basically, "Italian mistress."
• International: "It's a Small World"
• Creative Black Tie: "Creative" is code for "stupid vests." Possibly whimsical chapeaux, too.
• Festive: This always evoked those holiday Express-style outfits, like pencil skirts with little red angora sweaters. Sequins may be involved. This also emcompasses "teacher sweaters."

  The following are dress codes we would like to see:

• Monopoly Chic
• Staten Island Festive
• Appalachian Hot
• Munchkin Land

  Uncreative Black Tie, Please: The End of Goofy Dress Codes [Wall Street Journal]

• The dress code at the Black Ball in New York tonight is "dress for Bono." [WWD, final item]
  
• Designer Patricia Field on why she's keeping far away from the set of the Sex And The City movie: "If I was [there] I'd be telling the director what to do — I'd be finding something wrong with everything!" [Fashion Week Daily]
  
• Tim Gunn on how to politely exit a conversation: "It's been lovely talking to you. But I'm needed across the room." We are pretty sure the whole "need" part would not work for us. [WSJ]
  
• More news about Roberto Cavalli for H&M: The designs are primarily pared down replications of dresses from the Cavalli archives. Which means you, too, will soon be able to look like a knockoff Posh Spice. [WWD, sub req'd]

• Speaking of Cavalli, he's having a Halloween party. Replete with "designer vodka," which is the new "premium vodka"! Wake us when people stop referring to vodka as anything but "relatively tasteless and benign." [Fashion Week Daily]
• Memo to hedge fund guys and nerdy philosophy-major types who buy all their clothes at Goodwill: the three-piece suit is back! [WSJ]
• Auditions start next week for Australia's Next Top Model. PS - Anna will be in Australia then. Just a suggestion... [Sassybella]
• Ugh, do not buy a $400 Tory Burch dress to use as a Halloween costume. [FabSugar]

For the record, Southwest doesn't actually have a dress code policy for its passengers, just a hideous uniform requirement for its gang of '70s-throwback stewards, and by the way a-holes, hardcore Mormons don't like to fly.

Southwest Fashion Police Set No-Fly Zone [SignOnSanDiego.com]
Related: Feministing points out an old school ad for the airline, which features stewardesses in hot pants. Skanks! [Feministing]