School bans 'slovenly' mothers from wearing pyjamas when they drop their children off

Brian Foley said:
Burkhas are excepted, no doubt.;)

I agree with this policy.

It used to be that people would not go out in public without being dressed neatly — look at any picture of a public space from the 1940’s, for instance.
Click to expand...
Ah, who cares.
Pajamas, sweat pants
slippers, sandals

Now the school has to become philosophers of fashion.

It's like we're suddenly in a monoculture.
 
phlogistician said:
Let's straighten this phenomenon out for you, largely, these are slovenly welfare queens who can't be bothered to get get dressed, as they plan to go back home and laze about on the sofa watching chat shows all day, instead of looking for work.

Dropping the kids off at school wearing PJ's says 'Fuck you, I'm spending your tax money' to all the parents who got dressed, and are off to work after dropping their kids off.
Click to expand...

You believe these are slovenly welfare queens whose children attend private school? Yah, sure...these are housewives or women who work from home. Even if it were "welfare queens," they are not in a parade, they are dropping their kids off. Why would the other parents be hanging around the school long enough to even notice? They would not.

The principal is just pissed because he likes to believe that the off chance of a mother bumping into him is an "event" and they should be concerned about what he thinks of them in the rare circumstance, and as such should be dressed appropriately for a meeting with him. In short, he's a prick who's whose minuscule grant of power (which, he forgets, is ultimately granted by the parents he now criticizes) has gone to his head and given him delusions of grandeur. He needs to be slapped down and told his place. That place is running the school for the benefit of the students and their parents. This overweening "edict" which he's crazy enough to think he should have the power to enforce does not further that, it furthers his need to feed his ego.
 
phlogistician said:
Let's straighten this phenomenon out for you, largely, these are slovenly welfare queens who can't be bothered to get get dressed, as they plan to go back home and laze about on the sofa watching chat shows all day, instead of looking for work.

Dropping the kids off at school wearing PJ's says 'Fuck you, I'm spending your tax money' to all the parents who got dressed, and are off to work after dropping their kids off.
Click to expand...


LOL welfare queens who send their kids to private school. LMAO. Ah, you're too funny
 
Pandaemoni said:
....This is not very much different than if the prescribed what sorts of music people could listen to on the drive to school.
Click to expand...

yeah, well, I think she would want to control that as well.

"its played too loud and you can hear that crap thump-thump-thumping as they drive by. I wouldn't be caught dead listening to that rap crap" :rolleyes:
 
phlogistician said:
I didn't see the word 'private' mentioned once in the linked article in the OP. Did you?
Click to expand...

No, but I did see that the school was named "St. Matthews", which doesn't sound like a public school to me. Besides that, there is NO evidence that the mothers in question are receiving any sort of public assistance. That appears to be a fact you wrote into the story yourself.

I myself see housewives in pajamas frequently in the mornings, because their primary role in the morning is getting the kids out the door, not glamming it up so that teachers are suitably impressed with their fashion sense. There seem to be some of people who need to have the stick forceably removed from their asses.
 
Last edited:
Kudos to Joe for having some balls.

We need more ostracism and public humiliation as a means of enforcing social mores. It's seriously lacking in a society where every flatulent whim of narcissistic egoism is celebrated as a creative expression of individuality.

~Raithere
 
Raithere said:
Kudos to Joe for having some balls.

We need more ostracism and public humiliation as a means of enforcing social mores. It's seriously lacking in a society where every flatulent whim of narcissistic egoism is celebrated as a creative expression of individuality.

~Raithere
Click to expand...
Public humiliation might have come from confronting people with reactions. Some guy made a rule.

Let's deal with everything social we look down on with rules. Let's outlaw tacky lawn ornaments and football sweatshirts, long hair on men and women wearing too much blush.

Let's micromanage instead of communicating.

We can fix up all these people we look down on.

This will make for a better world.

It's good he needed to make a rule out of his taste.
 
as i said, i suggest EVERYONE wears PJs everywhere to protest this gross stupidity. what right does ANYONE have to determine what another person does or doesnt wear on a public street? Are we now afgainstan under the taliban we suposedly fought to liberate to give women the freedom to wear whatever they liked?

And i LOVE the judgements about what these women do or dont DO. How many of you have worked a night shift in your life? Some of them could well have just come off a 14 hour night shift, laid down for a few hours then had to get up again to drive the kids to school. Or as someone else said they could work from home, or they could be stay at home mums who dedicate more time per capita to vollentry work at schools and sports clubs ect than any other demographic in the community AS WELL as caring for there own children and looking after the house (BTW that goes for stay at home dads too)
 
Doreen said:
Public humiliation might have come from confronting people with reactions. Some guy made a rule.

Let's deal with everything social we look down on with rules. Let's outlaw tacky lawn ornaments and football sweatshirts, long hair on men and women wearing too much blush.

Let's micromanage instead of communicating.

We can fix up all these people we look down on.

This will make for a better world.

It's good he needed to make a rule out of his taste.
Click to expand...
When I started writing my reply I was going to make the same point about rules. But then I realized that he didn't really make any rules, he just sent out a notice calling them "slovenly and rude" which I applaud wholeheartedly.

It was the Tesco store that put up and enforced a rule about a dress code and they have every right to, just as any fine dining establishment or orchestra hall does.

Of course, the simple solution would be to send a handsome, young, immaculately dressed teacher out to greet each of the moms as they drove up with their kids.

~Raithere

BTW... what the hell ever happened to taking the freaking school-bus to school?
 
(chortle!)

Raithere said:

It was the Tesco store that put up and enforced a rule about a dress code and they have every right to, just as any fine dining establishment or orchestra hall does.
Click to expand...

I don't protest the right of a private institution to have a dress code, but it cracks me up to see Tesco in a sentence alongside "fine dining establishment" or "orchestra hall".

Awesome. I mean, normally, if I saw, "Tesco, fine dining, orchestra hall", I would expect the rest of the sentence to be, "which one of these does not fit?"

Carry on, carry on. I'm just having a useless chuckle. But thank you for that.
 
Raithere said:
Kudos to Joe for having some balls.
Click to expand...

I think you mean "Kudos for his making his personal pet peeve a rule that the school should enforce against the people who pay for the school to operate." The narcissism is Joe's, in that he thinks a pet peeve is a rule that all society should follow. There's no other word for that.

If he voiced his preference for parents dressing up when they arrive at school, that would be different. We all have preferences. He thinks his preferences trump those of, by his own testimony, at least 50 parents. The school's rule has all the moral gravitas as a telemarketing company sending you a letter saying you are not allowed to hang up on their calls, save that hanging up on a telemarketer is ruder than what these women did.
 
Last edited:
Pandaemoni said:
No, but I did see that the school was named "St. Matthews", which doesn't sound like a public school to me.
Click to expand...

In the UK, 'Public' schools are private schools, I think you are mixing your metaphors. Either way, it does not state it was a private school, and you cannot discern such just from the name, let alone the flight of fancy you went off on stating these women worked from home! Maybe if you'd simply googled the school name you'd see it got it's name from the local Parish, as many schools in the UK are 'C of E' and church affiliated, while being state funded?

Besides that, there is NO evidence that the mothers in question are receiving any sort of public assistance. That appears to be a fact you wrote into the story yourself.
Click to expand...

Here is a picture of the woman banned from the 'Tesco' store;

article-1248800-080F5BD0000005DC-670_233x507.jpg


Hmm, definite 'Chav'. As the school mums in pyjamas were mentioned in the same context, I rather think those mums fall into the same demographic.

I myself see housewives in pajamas frequently in the mornings, because their primary role in the morning is getting the kids out the door, not glamming it up so that teachers are suitably impressed with their fashion sense.
Click to expand...

Pulling on a pair of jeans is hardly 'glamming it up', and here's a question for you, if these women intend to get dressed at some point during the day, surely it's best done before venturing out? They wear pyjamas to school, because they intend to stay in them, period.

There seem to be some of people who need to have the stick forceably removed from their asses.
Click to expand...

No, it's not a stick, it's the sofa that's stuck to these Chavs' asses that's the issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top