Skip to main content

Home/ Government Diigo/ Group items tagged Information

Rss Feed Group items tagged

davyana

Former CIA chief Michael Hayden slams Feinstein, torture report response - 14 views

shared by davyana on 10 Dec 14 - No Cached
  •  
    I think that the country does some things to keep us safe and that there are even darker things that they keep from us. These actions were all out of action to keep us protected.
  • ...3 more comments...
  •  
    I think that our country shouldn't use torture to get information because it is inhumane. We should find different methods to get information from terrorists.
  •  
    Our country shouldn't use torture to get information because it is inhumane
  •  
    Torture is never okay to use for any reason. There is other ways to get information from people....
  •  
    I feel that we live in a country where we will do anything to protect us from harm. Granted torturing is a form of abuse and we should find a better more humane way to interrogate terrorists, but never the less we can't risk any kind of terroristic behavior.
  •  
    I think that the country does some things to keep us safe and that there are even darker things that they keep from us. These actions were all out of action to keep us protected.
Bryan Pregon

Sony material stolen by hackers. What does this have to do with "The Interview"? - 7 views

  •  
    If you were the CEO of Sony, do you postpone the release of this movie for fear that other hackers will release sensitive information your company doesnt want public?
  • ...2 more comments...
  •  
    On June 25, North Korea's official Korean Central News Agency condemned the film (without naming it), promising "stern" and "merciless" retaliation if the film is released. "Making and releasing a film that portrays an attack on our top-level leadership is the most blatant act of terrorism and war and will absolutely not be tolerated" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Interview_%282014_film%29
  •  
    I think Sony should release the movie anyway. Korea already has the information so what's done is done. Sony spent a lot of money to make the movie so if they just throw away all of the time and money, it would be even more of a loss.
  •  
    I don't understand why it would be a big deal anyway its not like any of their citizens can see the movie only the Korean leader could because of the communism he is running in the country. If it as taken as a form of threat then so be it it was never intended as that.
  •  
    I dont think Sony should be scared. North Korea might release all of there information and financials but the movie isnt really that big of a deal. They should go ahead and release it.
Raj Dhaliwal

Ward 5 Voting Information for New Residents: A Step-by-Step Registration Guide - 0 views

If you recently moved to Calgary, you might be wondering how to vote in your area. This guide is here to help you understand everything about Ward 5 voter information and how you, as a newcomer, ca...

Calgary Ward 5 Voting Information Councillor Raj Dhaliwal

started by Raj Dhaliwal on 08 May 25 no follow-up yet
Bryan Pregon

It's not just Facebook. Thousands of companies are spying on you (opinion) - CNN - 4 views

  •  
    "But for every article about Facebook's creepy stalker behavior, thousands of other companies are breathing a collective sigh of relief that it's Facebook and not them in the spotlight. Because while Facebook is one of the biggest players in this space, there are thousands of other companies that spy on and manipulate us for profit."
  • ...2 more comments...
  •  
    Fun fact: on Facebook, there's a place in the settings where you can actually see what it believes your interests to be, including what it thinks your stance is on American politics.
  •  
    I spoke to a friend who said that she woke up to an email saying her facebook information had been accessed and seen by a large number of other sources, outside of facebook. She said the cause of this was one of her facebook friends downloaded an app and all the friends of this person had gotten the same email about their information. It is just wrong how so many different companies are taking their users for advantage.
  •  
    I found this new information within the article to be very disturbing, and yet, there are some aspects that I'm not surprised about. I have already comprehended the fact that Google can track all of your searches and that causes ads to be related to your own interests but for media to constantly monitor my actions just from my phone? That's disturbing once you think and look into it.
  •  
    I was watching a video actually on Facebook and this couple heard about facebook stalking people so they decided to talk about cat food for 3 days with facebook open and offline then they opened it one day to cat food adds on their facebook which is really creepy to me.
Bryan Pregon

Justices will soon decide whether to take up same-sex marriage appeals - CNN.com - 7 views

  •  
    I'm not sure if we as a society, are prepared for such a big idea to be handled. The Justices are going to, if they take up the case, make some major leaps and bounds for the community, or pretty much end same sex marriage. If the court does take up the case, I am going to want to follow it extremely closely.
  • ...13 more comments...
  •  
    I think that it is time for the Supreme Court to rule on this issue. This is an issue that is important to a minority group that has never really been ruled on by the Supreme Court. I personally want to see how the Court applies the Loving v. Virginia case to one or all of the cases they may hear. I just don't expect anything until after the election in November because it has become an important issue this election cycle. Payton I don't think that the Supreme Court could end same-sex marriage. Marriage licenses are left up to each individual state and I can't imagine any possible outcome that would result in the Supreme Court taking away a State's right to issue a marriage license to whoever they want to grant a license to. I can see them saying there is no right to marry at the federal level or that the Federal Government doesn't have to recognize same-sex marriages but I don't see them telling states that they can't issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple if the state wants to.
  •  
    Jeremy, what I am saying is that same sex marriage, if ruled against, will have almost no chance of reversing the choice for a very long time. Based upon our constitutional values though, I doubt that they will rule in favor of those that oppose same sex marriage though.
  •  
    I'm still like . . . trying to figure out why exactly some people hate the idea of gay marriage so much and want to make sure that it's not legal. I mean, even if it's for religious reasons, like their religion doesn't support gays and lesbians, it's not like they would be getting married in their church or that they even want to. It doesn't affect those against gay marriage at all. It really only affects gays and lesbians and it makes them happy.
  •  
    I think whatever the outcome and effects of the ruling will be a new direction in our lives as Americans. I'm interested in how this will effect us in the future.
  •  
    http://gaymarriage.procon.org/ I know I got a little confused about why some people think same sex marriage marriage is bad and I found this to be very helpful in understanding it.
  •  
    I, myself, do not agree with gay marriage, or being gay at all. But that is my personal beliefs. I don't want people to try to tell me that I'm wrong, because I'm not saying I am right. I know this is a big issue in the U.S and it does need to be addressed, but I do think it is more of a state issue. As for gay marriage, it will probably be passed to be legal, and that's fine because it really doesn't affect me, I am straight. But from a conservative viewpoint, here is why some don't agree with gay marriage, not just because of religion. It is because it defeats the whole sacredness marriage was and still is meant to be. To me it is for man and wife. Not man and man or woman and woman. I am not intending to offend anyone at all, if someone wants to be gay, then be gay. I will not discriminate, I just will not support it, because I don't agree with it.
  •  
    You do realize that times have changed, right? And there are a lot of things that have changed as times have gone on, like gender roles, for example. It used to be that women were raised to do all the housework and mothering and such because "things were meant to be that way". Meanwhile, men were raised to fight and work on the farms because "things were meant to be that way". Now women, while payed less, are allowed to have jobs and have gotten the right to vote, but even so still have to fight to gain and keep other rights. Honestly, unless you're white, straight, and male, you haven't really gotten rights until sometime in the late 19th /20th century, and for some in the 21st century. Also, how would a homosexual relationship ruin the sacredness of marriage? When you really consider it, marriage isn't all that sacred, especially these days because there's money and materialism involved, and then of course sex too. Of course, sex is okay so long as you're married, but if you're not married and you've had sex, it's considered immoral, according to society. And even though people these days marry for love, those things are still involved in it. And if marriage is sacred, then why are divorces allowed? Aren't sacred things supposed to be protected no matter what? Divorce obviously doesn't protect marriage. It just ends marriages. If marriage was considered sacred then divorces wouldn't be allowed, and divorce is necessary at times.
  •  
    I think that if a man and a woman hate each other but still have more rights to get married than two homosexuals who actually love each other, then we should definitely legalize it!
  •  
    Whoa, I never said anything about the roles of men and women, sex or divorce. I was stating my opinion on gay marriage, and I will continue to do so in this comment. Again, not intended to offend anyone, just my take on what I think about gay marriage and being gay in general. Kirstina, you just proved my point for me that being gay isn't right by saying it depends on how people are raised that changes how they will be like when their older. So are the way people are raised now, affecting if they are gay or straight? If someone were told tell me that people are born gay, I would say they are wrong. (I'm bringing this up because that is probably what you and many viewers believe) Here's why, when you're a little kid, you don't think about which gender you like. You think about having friends with whoever and don't even know about how to take friendship further than that, as a child. There is no gene in your body that makes you gay.Plus, no one that says they're gay, knows until they are teens or older. That is because they observe how others are, think about how they are treated by the opposite gender and make their decision. And why are there all of the sudden so many gay people? Why weren't there any back then? Not because it wasn't allowed, because it wasn't not allowed, it was just unheard of. It's (to me) because it isn't natural. It is a life CHOICE that people have made for their OWN reasons. Some for attention, some to fit in, some because they can't find someone of the opposite sex that is interested in them and some for reasons I don't know. People are put on this Earth to make more people, just like animals are here to live, provide for people and make more animals. Two men or two women physically cannot make more people. Man and man and woman and woman are not meant to be together. What is and/or was meant to be can't change. Because whatever is meant to be is just meant to be and you can't change that, no matter what time in history it is. Gay marriage d
  •  
    Gay marriage does ruin the sacredness of marriage because a married couples are supposed to stay together, reproduce, carry on the human race, and be a happy family. I know, sounds a little far fetched in this modern day, but if America could go back to that, this country would be so much better off. I'm not saying divorces don't happen, or are wrong because my parents are divorces and my mom is remarried and that doesn't make them bad people. But I am saying that they made a mistake somewhere and did, in turn affect the sacredness of marriage. Divorces should not be illegal, but people should think twice before getting married. Also, I'm not trying to squash the dreams of gay couples, or tell anyone that I'm right and their wrong, that is not my intention.
  •  
    Alex I would just like to point out a few things you may have over looked or may not have known. The first thing is that there aren't "all of the sudden so many gay people?" There have been homosexual and bisexual people throughout history. One example is the first gay couple to be joined by Civil Union in the world, in Denmark, in 1989 and had been in a relationship 40 years prior to their Union. The reason we don't hear much about homosexuality in history is because it used to be a crime that if found guilty of being homosexual you could be put to death or thrown in jail for it (the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has more information on this particular subject). It is reasonable, then, to believe that homosexuals would keep their homosexuality to themselves as to protect themselves from violence. Another thing you seem to overlook is that there are heterosexual couples who "physically cannot make more people," for one reason or another without using alternative methods such as surrogates and/or in vitro fertilization. that still enjoy the benefits and legal aspects (such as inheritance and the right to hospital visits and end of life decisions for their spouse) of marriage. These same options are also available for Same-Sex couples and they have the option to have children that are the biologic child of one of the parents just like families where one of the parents is infertile. Homosexual behaviors have also been observed in natural populations in a large number of other animals have shown homosexual behaviors while observed in their natural habitats and also in unnatural locations such as zoos. So to say that homosexuality is unnatural ignores that these observations have been made in the "natural" world. The finial thing that you brought up was about when people form, or in your words "choose", their sexuality. The American Psychological Association says that a persons sexual orientation can start to form in middle childhood and early adolescence a
  •  
    Alex . . . you totally missed my point with me saying how people used to be raised. This is what I said: "And there are a lot of things that have changed as times have gone on, like gender roles, for example. It used to be that women were raised to do all the housework and mothering and such because "things were meant to be that way". Meanwhile, men were raised to fight and work on the farms because "things were meant to be that way". Now women, while payed less, are allowed to have jobs and have gotten the right to vote, but even so still have to fight to gain and keep other rights." I was merely giving that as an example of how times have changed and how things have changed. If women and nonwhite races can get rights over time, then why can't homosexual people? That doesn't seem fair. Marriage has now become a legal thing, and even if you don't want to, you have to accept it as it is - a legal thing that's nowhere near sacred. So what's so bad about gays having the the same legal rights to get married and all the legal things that come with it? Also, at dinner tonight, my dad told me that marriage used to be a property thing. Women/wives used to be considered property and not human beings. African Americans became slaves of the American white people, and therefore were also property. Now slavery is illegal, and marriage happens between two people who love each other and are willing/want to be legally bound. Also, therefore marriage has never been sacred. I also agree wholeheartedly with what Jeremy said.
  •  
    Guys, Alex gave her opinion, she even said in her that is her personal belief, and that she didn't want anyone trying to tell her that she was wrong. She stated her opinion, you don't have to kill her through a website, It is her opinion, lay off.....
  •  
    I am glad to see opinions on both side of this issue in the comments (lots of good information in many posts and "food for thought"). Thanks for being respectful in your comments! To continue the discussion, Americans are almost equally divided on gay marriage. Here is the most recent poll data to see how we have changed our opinion since 1996... http://goo.gl/yUIP3
  •  
    In all reality, gay marriage being a possibility to be legalized, is very interesting. Our constitutional founders, from what many anti-gay's claim, say that the founders were all religious, and did not support gay marriage. The problem with that is the constitutional wording, freedom of religion. Another issue is separation of church and state, this the facts Mr. Pregon gave are interesting, but can we say the religion is a reason as to why gay marriage should/should not be legal? Something funny, although probably irrelevant, is the idea of a church for the gay community to worship as they please, and is accepting of gay marriage. Form some sort of religion out of this, and by that, the gay community can simply do as they please, and get married as they want just by the basis of our constitution. I don't know why, but that thought just came to mind.
Bryan Pregon

Google's Driverless Cars Permitted by New California Law- Bloomberg - 3 views

  •  
    That's really cool! I would like to ride in one of these! Although I probably won't be able to for quite some time.
  • ...2 more comments...
  •  
    that sounds cool but what would happen if the car malfunctioned and the driver wasnt able to gain control?
  •  
    it would be a good idea but will take huge amounts of time to make.
  •  
    Personally, I would not want one, for it to run on detailed maps, and be able to override and read every factor of driving, it would require the internet. Assuming it is using google maps, what if it cannot connect to the internet? That's dangerous. To add, like ever machine, there is going to be an error, and this will probably raise accident rates.
  •  
    . . . Google in general honestly kind of scares me. Like, yeah, the Chromes and Docs and stuff are beneficial for school things, but they don't have to try to take over the world. (And Payton brought up a good point with the car needing to be connected to the internet to work.) Also, has anyone heard about how Google asks you for your real name instead of allowing you to use a screen name (or something like that)? I remember, I think it was two days ago, that I was going to post a comment on a YouTube video that I had watched with my YouTube account that I've had since 2007, and then Google was all like, "Oh hey want to show your real name instead of your screen name?" and I was like, "Heck no." And there have been times where they purposely log me out of my Google account, and then when I sign back in, they ask for my cell phone number and I click skip because I'm not giving my number to Google. It's for some stupid information loss thing or whatever. But who knows if they're actually protecting your personal information and your privacy?
Bryan Pregon

'Since Democrats took control of the Senate in 2006, Republicans Have Mounted 380 Filib... - 1 views

  •  
    Although the article has a liberal bias, the information provided (including the charts at the end) are fairly interesting about the frequency of filibusters for the last 20 years.
  •  
    This is nuts. The headline says it all. There has to be some more comprimise in the coming years or the trouble we have will multiply tenfold.
  •  
    I agree with you Blake. The reason why this country is going down hill is because Democrats and Republicans fight over how to fix it, and nothing ever gets done.
Bryan Pregon

Manning plea statement: Americans had a right to know 'true cost of war' - 1 views

  •  
    "Bradley Manning, the solider accused of the biggest unauthorised disclosure of state secrets in US history, has admitted for the first time to being the source of the leak, telling a military court that he passed the information to a whistleblowing website because he believed the American people had a right to know the "true costs of war"."
Bryan Pregon

My Way News - Guardian: Snowden won't return voluntarily to US - 0 views

  •  
    ""Journalists should ask a specific question: ... how many terrorist attacks were prevented SOLELY by information derived from this suspicionless surveillance that could not be gained via any other source? Then ask how many individual communications were ingested to acheive (sic) that, and ask yourself if it was worth it." He added that "Bathtub falls and police officers kill more Americans than terrorism, yet we've been asked to sacrifice our most sacred rights for fear of falling victim to it.""
Bryan Pregon

President Obama Claims He Cannot Pardon Snowden; He's Wrong | Techdirt - 17 views

  •  
    "President Obama Claims He Cannot Pardon Snowden; He's Wrong"
  • ...9 more comments...
  •  
    Obama is claiming he can't and wont pardon Edward Snowden, also known as the most famous whistleblower in our governments history, solely because he hasn't stood before a court. The president CAN pardon him, but decides not to. Snowden would appear before a court if he knew it'd be a fair trial, but he knows that wont happen. He knows how tyrannous the government is and wont even attempt to have a fair trial.
  •  
    I agree with Deven because as soon as Snowden steps foot on United States soil he's getting thrown into federal prison and then going to go on trial and not win because it wouldn't be a fair trial
  •  
    Deven is correct on this one. The thing I find interesting is that Obama said that if Trump pardons Snowden then he will pardon Clinton, the problem with that is Clinton wasn't convicted of anything.
  •  
    Zayne brought up the Clinton situation, I agree with that because you can't pardon somebody who wasn't convicted of anything, so how would he pardon him?
  •  
    Snowden shouldn't be pardoned because what he did was against the government policy, even though he was trying to tell america what our government was doing he still violated the law.
  •  
    In this article, one paragraph says that Obama pardoned three Iranian Americans before they stood trial. So in a way I think Obama is just using his opinion and not giving Snowden a chance. It's truly unfair that if he steps on US soil he will be thrown in jail, when really he just wants a chance to explain himself
  •  
    I agree with the president on forgiving him because we deserve to know this information.
  •  
    I think Obama could have pardoned him but is choosing not to. The fact that he's saying that he's not able to is ridiculous. Though what he did was considered against the law, sometimes we need people to go against in order to uncover hidden truths.
  •  
    I agree with Lauren because Obama had Pardoned people in the past even though they to hadn't been on trial, so his motives don't make since, I believe that his judgement is what is causing this. I don't believe he wants to pardon him, if he did, than this wouldn't be an issue, it already would be done.
  •  
    On the idea of pardoning Snowden, I agree with Nate because although the information he had should have been told to the public, just in a different way, he broke major laws, so there must be consequences. And going off of Devin's idea of no fair trial is inevitable.
  •  
    I agree with Lauren because the president has enough authority to make those decisions.
Bryan Pregon

Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, Facebook and others companies team up to combat email 'phishi... - 4 views

  •  
    Understanding this issue is one big step towards protecting your online information / privacy.  Have any of you had negative experiences with phishing?
Bryan Pregon

France convicts Google Maps for unfair competition - 2 views

  •  
    French courts... "unfair business practice" to give information for free... hmmm.
Bryan Pregon

Sen. Feinstein Says CIA Searched Senate Intel Panel's Computers, May Have Violated 4th ... - 2 views

shared by Bryan Pregon on 12 Mar 14 - No Cached
john cannon liked it
  •  
    "The head of the Senate Intelligence Committee said Tuesday that the CIA searched the panel's computers and that the search may have violated the Constitution."
  •  
    Finally the government knows what it is like when people can get information from you or watch your every move 24/7 without much effort all their personal information can gathered in seconds.
Bryan Pregon

FBI Taps Hacker Tactics to Spy on Suspects - WSJ.com - 1 views

  •  
    "Law-enforcement officials in the U.S. are expanding the use of tools routinely used by computer hackers to gather information on suspects, bringing the criminal wiretap into the cyber age."
Bryan Pregon

Neb. high court nixes teen's request for abortion - Houston Chronicle - 0 views

  •  
    "In a split decision released Friday, the Nebraska Supreme Court rejected a 16-year-old ward of the state's request to waive parental consent to get an abortion, saying the girl had not shown she is sufficiently mature and well-informed enough to decide on her own whether to have an abortion."
nlarsen15

Obamacare Personal Information Leaked - 0 views

  •  
    Isn't this lovely? In California, some folks in California who signed up for Obamacare got their personal information (name, phone #, etc.) shared with insurance agents and people like that WITHOUT their consent... Isn't this a breach of privacy? Let's hear what y'all think!
  •  
    This whole Obamacare crap Is driving me even more insane. When will It finally end!?
candyheyer

U.S. Threatened Yahoo With Massive Fines Over User Data - 0 views

  •  
    Yahoo tried to fight the government's requests for user information The U.S. government threatened Yahoo with a $250,000-a-day fine in 2008 if the tech company did not comply with requests for user information, according to roughly 1,500 pages of newly released legal documents.
desertratt

In the Era of High-Tech Law Enforcement, Who Will Keep Our Privacy Safe? - 7 views

  •  
    While the Western world was watching and grieving over the slaughter in Paris last week, and my colleagues in the media were fomenting a meaningless debate about whether President Obama should have gone to Paris to participate in a televised parade, the feds took advantage of that diversion to reveal even more incursions into our liberties than we had known about.
  • ...2 more comments...
  •  
    I really don't like being watched by other people. We should think that we can talk to someone privately without someone knowing. BUt we can't, I really don't think we are free doing anything in our daily lives.
  •  
    Supposedly law enforcement having access to all of this information is in our best interest. But is it really? I know as well as you that there are some crooked cops out there. Who knows what they could do with that information. It does concern me that there are too many people that have access to everything we do or have on devices. This is a major violation of rights who is to say that they don't start violating our other rights just because it MIGHT keep us safer.
  •  
    I don't think that it's right that the government has a right to see our bills, listen to our phone calls, see our emails, etc. I think that if there isn't something that gives them a reason to suspect you they shouldn't be able to go through our stuff. In my opinion, it is absolutely ridiculous.
  •  
    This problem won't be faced until the populous takes action and that may take to long for the majority to realize the problem and the violation of privacy.
Bryan Pregon

Is this high school dress code sexist? - CNN Video - 45 views

  •  
    "Some people are calling an assembly dress code at an Iowa high school sexist. CNN affiliate KCCI reports."
  • ...57 more comments...
  •  
    I think they may have gone overboard explaining everything the girls need to wear in full detail. I thought some of the comments were disrespectful to girls and I can easily see how they were offended by this.
  •  
    i beleve that it is true that there are more options for women to look less than formal clothing so it is not sexiest
  •  
    I think that this dress code, while definitely explaining what the girls can and cannot wear, has gone too far in some of the wording they use. "Choose and outfit that is pretty enough to show you are a woman, but covered enough to show you are a lady" is not an ok thing to say to a group of high school girls, especially if they are honors students. Yes I do think it is sexist.
  •  
    I believe that this dress code letter had good intent, but it just came off the wrong way. I think if they would have just given a list on what not to wear rather then using saying, "you are a woman and should be covered enough to show you are a lady. With that statement I believe that it is sexist. Your clothes, and how you present your self shouldn't determine on whether you're a lady or not.
  •  
    I feel that the letter is showing the outlook they see girls wear on a daily occurrence. At some points in a girls perspective we feel as if they are more strict on what we wear, They could of been a little easier and worded it differently so it didn't come out so wrong. But I don't think it sexist at all because it asking girls to wear whats appropriate to been seen in public.
  •  
    If the school wishes for such a strict dress code then they should hand out the clothes they feel that are "pretty" enough for their girls to wear. I believe that the dress code is moderately sexist, even considering that there are more options regarding clothing for women. It is appropriate to keep their students looking classy, but not to the point of having no freedom when picking an outfit.
  •  
    It think the dress code it not sexist but it does go a little overboard. It kind of seems like it is going straight for the ladies, and could calm down on all the detail.
  •  
    I do believe that this dress code is sexist. There are lines in the requirements of the female code hat suggest they should be more modest than that of the males, not drawing attention to certain parts of the body and containing a level of ladylike stature that outdoes the gentlemanly requirements of the males. The four paragraphs "needed" for the girls. The two lines that strike me as the most opposite "Be classy." for the boys and "Think modesty." for the girls. It implies that they are letting the boys have more free reign with their opinion of classy and tightening the hold on the girls' idea of modesty, giving them fewer options.
  •  
    This is very upsetting to the whole deal of what is appropriate and what is not. The school is berating the girls on how they choose to dress in a letter. This "dress code" should not be allowed to come trough, as it is limiting how girls want to dress, sure they should dress in something revealing as they should know better, but given them four paragraphs on how they should dress to one event is ridiculous. If the school feels embarrass to the point of giving a dress code to the girls then they should hold an event. It is completely sexist because not every girl owns skimpy outfits, or dresses badly. Every girl is a lady in the first place and should not be limited because someone else believes they dress in revealing clothing. Guys can dress in revealing clothing just as much as girls can.
  •  
    I do not believe it is sexist because they are specifically making men wear a outfit. They are giving girls freedom within guidelines . On the other hand the way they address the first paragraph is a little sexist because they do make it like you have to be pretty to go.
  •  
    The dress code letter my be considered sexist in the eyes of some people, but women tend to push the boundary's of the code to a far more extreme so it is only fair that the school be more strict and draw more attention to the matter of proper dress apparel with females. Men in school get in trouble if they are wearing clothes that are profane and clothes that are not appropriate for school, yet when females get into trouble, it is automatically sexist. It would not be this way if females did wear such revealing clothes to a school and then did not proceeded to after being told and warned by staff and administration. In some cases, schools have to give such strict guidelines to the female population of a school, even if it does not apply to every student.
  •  
    I feel that the generation that were in right now would require a dress code. I personally don't think its sexist because i feel some women under dress, i also feel that it makes the school look more professional.
  •  
    I think that this is sexist because there was no need to have four paragraphs explaining every article of clothing that these girls could wear to this event. But, in another way it is not sexist because there are many styles girls are able to wear, some being more informal and/or more revealing than others. All this letter really would have needed was length of skirts/ dresses and the spaghetti straps, no need for the first and last paragraph.
  •  
    I think that women do tend to show more revealing outfits than men, but it's no exuse to single them out. Men and women both should have fair dress code rules that can give eacother both the same amount of rules, yet reasonable. Certain rules apply to certain genders, but the line was crossed in this sexist act.
  •  
    I believe that it is sexist because it gives the girls more and it list little for the guys. It tells the boys to look classy and tells the girls to look pretty enough to show you are a woman and covered enough to show they are a lady.
  •  
    I think they're making a big deal out of this, This should not be done because students don't deserve to have this dress code.
  •  
    I think that the letter was sexist because it made it look like girls had more possibilities to breaking the guidelines.
  •  
    I think this is sexist because of the difference between the guys and the girls. It told the girls that in order to be a woman they had to be pretty. They told the guys to be classy. It's a Catholic school, those girls know what to wear and what not to wear.
  •  
    I feel this video and letter is some what sexist. I believe that you should be able to wear what you want, but appropriately. If you are told to wear something and have to wear something do it. I agree that schools should have some sort of uniform, because if you dress nicely everyday you feel better about themselves. The reason i feel like this is sexist is because men have two things to wear and while girls have so much to worry about and pay attention to.
  •  
    I believe it is sexist. The writer of this letter automatically assumed stereotype about what girls would wear or draw attention to on their bodies. This letter obviously favors men and is much more strict on women.
  •  
    I feel that the letter was sexist. The letter only said one or two things about how boys should dress and then gave almost a whole essay on how girls should dress.
  •  
    I believe it is sexist to both of them honestly. They went over board on how girls should look and what they should look like. They want them to show off, but they are saying this to high school girls. Than again they are telling the boys they need to shave.
  •  
    I think that this is indeed sexist. They pretty much told the guys, "Hey, wear pants, dress shoes, shave and take out the earrings and you're good." but they they told the girls, "Where this, don't wear that, you can wear this but not that. try not to look like the women of the night. thanks!" i think that that is messed up
  •  
    I think that it somewhat sexist. Telling to dress modestly and respectfully as they did with the guys would've been enough I think. I don't believe they needed to go that far into it if they didn't for the guys
  •  
    I feel this letter is just wrong. I believe that you should be able to choose what you want to wear but by being appropriate. It is a private school so if they assign a school uniform you have to wear it, but the way they are saying and telling you what to wear is not so much sexist but just wrong. Telling students they must dress according to their achievements and to look pretty as if they aren't already isn't right.
  •  
    I wouldn't say this is extremely sexist, it's more like it's just really ridiculous. I understand wanting everyone to look classy and professional, but you do not need that many sentences to basically just say, no flaunting what your momma gave ya.
  •  
    I feel like they went a little over board with this. They may have been a little sexist just because they had so much more information for the girls on what they can and cant wear than they had for the boys on what they can wear. I personally think that there should be no dress codes at all. just because it lets kids express themselves, but in an appropriate way.
  •  
    I think that these guidelines are similar to our school guidelines according to dress code, but I don't think it was right to just blatantly put it out there. Now if this is a huge problem I could understand this but The reactions from students make this seem like dress code violations are not a huge problem at their school, I think the teachers should have trusted the girls at the school to dress appropriately.
  •  
    I believe that this letter is sexist. I think that the school could have easily got their point across on what to wear for girls in a sentence, not four paragraphs. Girls know what is tasteful, and what isn't and if they choose to follow the dress code is a choice not because they were unsure on how to dress.
  •  
    With no context this letter may seem like they care more about what girls look like. This is probably not true, with a guy there is a a lot less you can mess up and look not modest. With guys it's just a shirt and pants, what can really besides them not wearing a nice shirt and pants. It is not unreasonable for a private school to want their kids to dress modestly. I'm also willing to bet at that school and probably every private school there are at least four times as many dress code violations for girls than boys, thus warranting four paragraphs to the boys one.
  •  
    I feel like this letter is sexist. The reason being is because I feel like girls should be able to wear what the want whiten reason. Dress code should be appropriate. However it shouldn't separate between boys and girls.
  •  
    I believe this to be very sexist because of the length and repetition they use. I do agree with Ron Burgundy(anchor man movie), stay classy but this is to extensive. In repeating don't show off and telling them exactly what to wear. They could have left it at dress classy and lady like.
  •  
    I agree with alexander4434 that women have more types of clothes then men do and that it is not sexist. And men don't have much different types of clothes and women have more to choose from and need to cover up and not show so much.
  •  
    I feel like this letter is sexist. Seeing only two sentences for men and four paragraphs for women that would be sexist. I think the school could have worded it better for the women. I also think it is kind of rude to make men shave. I don't see how that matters in high school.
  •  
    I fell like the article is not sexist because some girls don't dress like a lady would, so that would help them look more presentable. The guys didn't have a lot of instructions because they don't have a lot of styles to choose from like the girls do. The school shouldn't tell someone how to dress but if they see something that someone would not wear to a fancy place they should correct them.
  •  
    I think it's a good dress code but had way more expectations for women than it did men. They could have made it just as simple as the mens with less detail as to what they can and can't wear. The men did't have anything listed that they weren't allowed to wear. Something in particular was the shoes comment saying they had to wear dress shoes, then going into detail saying if there shoes they wear to the beach, then they cant wear them to school, also no high heels. But with the mens all they said was "dress shoes" no elaboration or what they can't wear as they did with the women. I can see how people would think it sexist, it has way more expectations and standards for girls which isn't fair. But i also can see where they're coming from because girls express themselves through clothes i think more than men do.. So maybe they needed to be clear on what not to wear, whereas its pretty self explanatory for men.
  •  
    This letter is not "sexist". It may be degrading or offensive, but it's not sexist. In this day and age, it is common knowledge to know girls don't dress to standard. Look around and you will see many examples of this at almost every turn. Short skirts/shorts, tank tops, low cut shirts, and many other revealing articles. The school is trying to be official and you are to abide by their rules and if you are offended by the letter, you might be one of the girls who need to change the way they dress. The only reason the guys did not have as long or in-depth of a letter because they simply don't need it. More often than not, guys are not violating dress code.
  •  
    I think that the letter is sexist. They drag out the girls section which could have been summed up, like the boys was. Most of the time the dress code is followed, sometimes its stretched a bit short. I think that it was like they were being sarcastic almost, in the girls section.
  •  
    This is not a sexist letter. I think many people may find it extreme because they can't wear legging to school , and no leggings are NOT pants. I think the facial hair part for guys is a little much but it's only for the school get over it. The part for ladies I agree had to be a bit more explanatory because people will push any and all boundaries, especially if they are not specified.
  •  
    As we discuss OUR school dress code, do you think Dowling has created a sexist policy for students?
  •  
    I feel like its a little sexist towards women. They have a lot more rules to follow than the boys do.
  •  
    No its not it just needs more explanation for girls because the different things they can wear. The students are making a bigger deal then it is.
  •  
    I feel its kinda sexist that the women have to be explained what to wear in complete detail compared to the men but then again they just want their school to look nice for the ceremony
  •  
    I think this dress code is fine.Staff just want students to be dressed appropriate.
  •  
    I think they went overboard. I think it's sexist for them to say "you are a woman and covered enough to show your a lady". They have a lot more rules for girls then guys. Yes I think it's very sexist.
  •  
    I think this is sexist because, it is telling guys to just be classy but girls have to dress a certain way we either feel pretty or show our achievements. We should be able to wear what we want that makes us feel comfortable in our own skin.
  •  
    I think this is not a sexist letter. The part where it says dress modest enough to be a lady but pretty enough to be a woman. Many girls do dress that should not be so skimpy. But these people are honors students. The code should have just said dress formally and follow the dress code.
  •  
    It's wrong that they treated women like that sexist it very detailed for the women and the men just says be classy so yes it's sexist
  •  
    I think it is sexist because the girls have a lot more rules than the boys do.
  •  
    I feel like the policy was not written equally between Boys and girls. The four paragraphs written for girls seems very excessive. The boys and girls should just be told- "Dress formally"
  •  
    I feel like it is sexist, mostly because of the detail it goes into about the woman's dress code. It would have been much simpler to just say dress nice like they did for the guys, but they blew it out of proportion.
  •  
    I believe its sexist, it does have some lines that are sexist, like the line "Choose an outfit that is pretty enough to show you are a woman and covered enough to show yo are a lady." And it's very detailed, especially when it comes to the skirt.
  •  
    I wouldn't say it is necessarily sexist, but I wouldn't agree with some of the things that were said in the letter. These women know how to dress appropriately for formal events. They didn't need to read a whole book to know how to dress.
  •  
    This dress code letter had good intentions but the way that they gave the boys 2 sentences and the girls 4 paragraphs was not fair to the girls, making them feel like it was sexist.
  •  
    I believe that it intended well, but definitely could have been worded better. That could have easily been summed up as dress professionally. If they are inviting students because of their smarts, surely the students would be able to figure out what that meant. The paragraphs were too excessive.
  •  
    I think that it should be for both genders not just girls. I don't want to see any one's butt or chest.
  •  
    There is no doubt about it being sexist, but that is only because of the excessive "putting down," saying such and such should attract attention to this, and not this. If they would have stopped at a basic "be classy, keep it modest, and make it conservative." Then all would have been fine.
  •  
    There should be standards for both men and women but the remarks in the letter was plain sexist.
  •  
    Is this relevant for a discussion of our dress code or are private schools a different story?
1 - 20 of 63 Next › Last »
Showing 20 items per page