I really don’t mind working weekends, but I do mind working all weekend, every weekend, ya’know?

asker

Anonymous asked: I've been confused about sexual objectification. I'm completely against sexual objectification and I notice its very common to portray women that way in our media. I noticed its everywhere and hard to avoid, almost all music videos,movies,tv shows. Is it wrong to still watch shows with objectification yet be against it? Most people I know tell me its wrong but they still watch these types of movies and shows and say they enjoy it. I find it a bit hypocritical but I'm not sure. Your thoughts?

It’s complicated and it’s not.

Yes, sexual objectification of women (and other shitty characterizations/tropes, like fridging) happen all the time in media. 
It is VERY common.
That is simple.

What’s not simple is avoiding media where this kind of characterization exists. Because, as stated above, it is VERY common.
And, depending on the individual viewer, the impact this kind of shitty characterization has on them will be different.
It is very possible that a show or movie will have many positive qualities, even if the way it treats women isn’t one of them. 
And, for many people, it feels better to overlook a common flaw (like shitty female characters) so they can go to the movies/turn on the TV without seeing red. 

It isn’t really fair to ask people to swear off the vast majority of media. I mean, some people do that and it’s okay, but it’s not for everyone.

And, really, I don’t care if people enjoy their problematic TV show as long as what they enjoy isn’t the problematic stuff.
There’s a difference between, “I love Doctor Who, but I wish Amy got more consistent character development” and “I love Doctor Who, I’m so glad that after Amy was kidnapped, forced to have a child without her knowledge or consent, and had that child ripped away from her, that her only concern was for Rory’s feelings! She’s so maternal, after holding her surprise baby for 20 minutes!!”
Do you see the difference?

If you consume media, there’s a good chance SOMETHING in it is offensive.
The best you can do — short of forswearing all media — is to be cognizant of what you’re consuming, and not give otherwise-good shows, which you usually enjoy, a free pass when they do something shitty. 

ediamondinthesky:

I hate to contradict the Spice Girls, but getting with my friends is no way to show you wannabe my lover.

princeowl:

teabrittle:

princeowl:

why would you ever idolize cops when firefighters exist

yeah seriously have you ever heard of “corrupt firefighter” 

what would a ‘corrupt firefighter’ even be. he put out that fire with a little TOO much water. he was a little rough with the cat he rescued from a tree for a little old lady

I mean, there are firefighters who are also arsonists… like, firefighters who deliberately set fires just so they can be the hero who turns up in the nick of time to put them out… but that’s still not as bad as having corrupt cops, let’s be real.

(via mahkesis)

liz011:

stfu-moffat:

 said to :

But Peter Capaldi simply looks older. His character didn’t get any older. I understand him being uncomfortable with it, but going from the body of a 31 year old to a 56 year old wouldn’t be that much of a leap for a 1500+ year old Time Lord. Therefor it may not be “nice” to look at or make actors feel uncomfortable, but if it was really wrong, they should’ve started a long time ago.

I think that’s a fair point about his age (although it makes Ten and Eleven seem much creepier), but I think it’s hard not to be influenced by the ages of the actors, especially when the actors who play the companions are so young (and conventionally attractive). Matt Smith isn’t much older than either Karen Gillan or Jenna Louise Coleman, so it looks less creepy. I don’t know really, I think the age of the actors is important, because of how the relationships appear (reinforcing sexist attitudes to relationships), but I know that in the show’s canon th actor’s age has nothing to do with the Doctor’s age.

But it isn’t really fair to say that they should have done something earlier, because Doctor Who has cast a lot of unknowns (especially compared with the popularity of the show), so neither Karen Gillan nor Jenna Louise Coleman would have been able to put a stop to it, whereas Peter Capaldi is better known and probably had more of a say.

- C

Capaldi’s Doctor actually is starting a lot older than Matt Smith’s Doctor.  RTD basically did 1 season=1 Doctor year, so that Nine was 903 when he met Rose and Ten was about 907 or 908 when he regenerated into Eleven.  Moffat has been rapidly aging the Doctor by throwing in lines that suggest we’ve missed a few centuries of his life, so that Twelve is starting at about 2000 years old.  I recognize that in either case it’s a multi-century age gap, but the age gap has more than doubled in size and that scale ought to count for something.

Also, some fans (including myself) have expressed discomfort with implied romantic or sexual tension between Eleven and Clara because of the blatant power imbalance.  In addition to the fact that he’s older and has seen more of the universe and has cooler toys, he tends to make decisions for her without consulting her (which Ten almost never did to Rose, and any time he did there was some kind of negative consequence).  I would say that it’s primarily that imbalance that makes the relationship problematic, and it’s probably much easier to just refuse to flirt with her than to insist that every script treat her like an equal, because people find ways to rationalize unequal treatment as a narrative necessity.

It’s also canon that the companions’ impressions of the Doctor are (1) informed by his physical appearance and (2) affected by his regeneration.

When Nine regenerated into Ten, it was explained to Rose that he would be changing, and the fact of that change (even though he still appeared to be the same age, and arguably became more attractive) severely impacted Rose’s relationship with him.
Rose was not keen on Ten at all when he regenerated.
She did not think of him as the same person.
And even when she warmed up to Ten, it was still a different relationship than she had with Nine. Even though it was still romantic, and she was still in love with him, it wasn’t the same relationship.

So it seems weird to claim that Clara would keep flirting with Twelve just because she had been flirting with Eleven (Because, after all, the Doctor is still the Doctor). That isn’t how it works.

Twelve is a different person, who makes a different impression, and Moffat deliberately cast an older, more severe-looking Doctor (who would, presumably, have a personality to match).
He thought that was a big, revolutionary change: casting an older, less attractive actor as the Doctor.
But what is the point of making that kind of ‘drastic’ change if nothing about how the Doctor relates to his companions/ the universe around him is going to change with it?

Is it good writing to regenerate the Doctor from a hot young guy, who surrounds himself with attractive women who are dying to flirt with him, and then replace him with a less-attractive older guy who inexplicably interacts with the world in the exact same way?
Is the fandom unreasonable for thinking that Moffat’s insistence on trying to make every Doctor a lecherous old dude (because, really, that’s the dynamic) is weird and needs to stop?
Because I don’t think so.
Moffat decides what kind of character the Doctor is going to be, and he’s had YEARS of the Doctor being ManCandy All Teh Ladiez Want (for which he cast an actor Teh Ladiez Would Want).
Why does he still want to push that dynamic when he deliberately cast against it?

asker

sunvapor asked: What the fucks happening in Ferguson?

wocinsolidarity:

clehmentine:

Alright, i’m gonna sit down and basically explain the situation in this ask so everyone of my followers knows why i’m so pissed.

Michael Brown, a 17 - 18 year old african american boy was unlawfully shot (8-10 times supposedly) by police in St Louis, Missouri on saturday, august 9th, 2014. He was unarmed, and had done nothing to attract suspicion other than the fact that he was black. His body was left in the street for 4 hours. (EDIT: i’ve discovered that the Brown family wishes for any and all photos of Michael lying in the streets to be removed. please respect this and do so)

There are several claims from witnesses (see: Dorian Johnson’s account and video [HIGHLY RECOMMEND READING UP ON HIS ACCOUNT, ITS VERY SPECIFIC] — Brown’s friend who experienced the situation first hand, La’Toya Cash and Phillip Walker— Ferguson residents nearby the incident),  that fall together in generally close claims. However, the only one who’s claim seems out of place is the police officer’s who shot Brown. Who, by the way, is put off on paid administrative leave AND who’s name remained under anonymity for his safety (However, attorney Benjamin Crump is looking for a way to force release his name). He claims that Brown began to wrestle the officer for his gun and tried attacking him after he told Brown and his friend Dorian Johnson (22) to “get the f*ck on the sidewalk”.

According to Johnson, after a minor confrontation on the officer’s part where he grabbed Brown by the neck and then by the shirt, the officer pulled his gun on Brown and shot him at point blank range on the right side of his body. Brown and Johnson were able to get away briefly and started running. However, Brown was shot in the back, supposedly disabling him from getting very far. He turned around with his arms in the air and said “I don’t have a gun, stop shooting!” By this point, Brown and the officer were face to face as the cop shot him several times in the face and chest until he was finally dead. Johnson ran to his apartment and by the sound of his account, seemingly had some sort of panic attack. Later he emerged from his home to see Brown still laying in the streets. People were gathered with their cellphones, screaming at the police.

According to msnbc, the police refuse to interview Johnson at all, despite his amazing courage to come forward. They didn’t wanna hear it. They only listened to the cop’s account of it all and were vague with the media on what they thought happened. They’ve also refused to commit to a timeline in releasing autopsy results and other investigation information.

Numerous rumors are sweeping around such as Brown stealing candy from a QuickTrip, the store he emerged from calling the cops on him, Brown reaching for a gun, Brown attacking the cop first, ect. But these have all been debunked. (I know a lot of these have been debunked, but im having a hard time finding sources. if anyone could help out and link some legit ones id be SO grateful)

The event in and of itself was terrible, but now it has escalated beyond belief. Around 100 or more people, mostly black, went to the police station to protest peacefully. Things quickly turned bad as martial law got involved and authorities were bringing in K9s, tanks, heavy artillery, ect. The heavy police presence only made things worse as riots began to break out and looting and vandalism started. [ x ] [ x ] [ x ]

Now, as of very recently, the media has been banned from Ferguson. There is also a No-Fly zone above Ferguson for the reason of “ TO PROVIDE A SAFE ENVIRONMENT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES ” as said on the Federal Aviation Commission’s website. Cop cars are lined up on the borders to prevent people from entering/leaving. Media outlets are being threatened with arrest. It completely violates our amendments and everything.

It’s becoming increasingly scary and difficult to find out whats going on over there. I’m afraid this is all the information I have, though. If anybody else knows anything about the situation, please feel free to add on or correct any mistakes i’ve made as i’m no expert on writing these things.

And as a personal favor, i’d really appreciate anyone to give this a reblog in order to spread the word. I think it’s a shame that this is going on in our own country yet so few people know about it. Help me make this topic huge and get this as much attention as possible.

PLEASE SHARE!!! EVERYONE NEEDS TO KNOW WHAT’S GOING ON.

About Jon’s parentage

ladyaryaofhousestark:

I know the speculation regarding who Jon’s parents are, has been going on for years, but there is one possibility that I’ve never really seen that I’d like to discuss.

Putting the rest, below the cut for potential spoilers:

Read More

That is… a lot of speculation, with not a lot of textual support.

Read More

admiralbutterfly:

I really would like Zaheer to somehow meet his idol, Guru Laghima, in the Spirit World.

Because his master plan is based on a guy who spent the last 40 years of his life hovering above the ground. Which makes me think that either he was some arrogant showoff:

"Hey, check it out guys, I’m 20 feet in the air! I’m the greatest airbender in history! Wheeeeeee!"

"Oh shit, it’s that asshole Laghima. Pretend you don’t hear him. Who the heck made him a Guru anyway"

Or, what I think is more likely, an absolutely insane old crackpot. And not in the cutely eccentric, King Bumi sort of way, in the tinfoil-hat-wearing, “dangerous to himself and others” sort of way.

"The creatures of the ground, they all want to destroy me! The old world must be cleansed so new growth can flourish! Let go your earthly tethers, sheeple! You’re only dooming yourselves!"

"Grandpa, please come down, you haven’t slept in weeks! We’re worried about you!"

Either way, it’d really knock the wind out of his sails in the most amusing way possible. And that’s why I want Zaheer to meet Guru Laghima.

Another possibility is that Guru Laghima would be SUPER DISAPPOINTED in Zaheer.

Like, yeah, Guru Laghima was probably a spiritual extremist, who believed things that would make non-gurus/non-extremists uncomfortable. 
After all, it is technically true that new growth flourishes in the ruins of the old — such as when new forests grow in the highly nutritious ashes of one that’s burned down. And it’s also true that the growth in the ashes of our theoretical burned forest would not be possible if the old forest were still standing. 
That doesn’t mean Guru Laghima is necessarily advocating actually burning everything to the ground.
Given that he was also an Air Nomad, and that Air Nomads are inherently pacifist, he would probably be absolutely horrified by how Zaheer is interpreting and applying his philosophies.

Like, imagine Zaheer meeting Guru Laghima in the Spirit World, and Guru Laghima is there, hovering over Zaheer’s head, completely sane and serene.
And Zaheer feels he’s SO READY for this meeting; he’s been preparing basically his whole life for this meeting; he even spent all those years in prison working on his spirit and perfecting his philosophies, and he is just SO READY.

And then Guru Laghima just tears into him.
What makes Zaheer think he has the spiritual clout to make decisions about what is best for humanity?
What qualifies Zaheer to be the authority on interpreting Guru Laghima’s philosophies?
Does Zaheer not recognize the irony of using Air Nomad philosophy to justify terrorism?
Does Zaheer really think that’s what Guru Laghima intended?
Has Zaheer considered the possibility that Guru Laghima was talking about people’s responsibility to accept and welcome change, to recognize the opportunities present in chaos and destruction, not about encouraging people to foster chaos and destruction for the sake of making the changes they (and their terrorist organization) personally feel are necessary???

I would be WAY more interested in seeing Guru Laghima explain that Zaheer’s interpretation and application of his philosophies are wrong than in seeing Guru Laghima exposed as a madman.

After all, Tenzin is the one who had the Guru Laghima pendant to begin with, and I doubt Tenzin was unaware of Guru Laghima’s teachings.
I’d guess the way the actual Air Nomads interpret Laghima’s teachings is very different from what Zaheer has made them out to be.
And, even if Laghima himself never personally puts in an appearance to smack down Zaheer, I’d like to hear the Air Nomad Party Line on Laghima, because the existence of other interpretations of his work (by his own people, no less) would seriously undermine Zaheer’s credibility as an authority on Air Nomad philosophy.

(via theletdownofkorra)

Rule one: Always post the rules.

Rule two: Answer the person who tagged you and write 11 new ones.

Rule three: Tag 11 people and link them to the post.

Rule four: Tell them you tagged them.

My answers:

  1. If your favorite fictional character were to show up at your door wanting you to show them around town, where is the first place you would take them?
    My library.
  2. What is the number one reason that the universe shouldn’t trust you with superpowers?
    Because I would panic and feel like, having all this power, I should do something great with it, but am not actually qualified to make earth-shattering decisions for the population of my town/country/planet.
    So if I didn’t use my powers, I would feel irresponsible, because think of all the good I could do!
    But if I DID use my powers, I would feel irresponsible because who am I to assume I know what’s best for literally everyone?
    TL;DR Trusting me with super powers would do no good for anyone, esp. me
  3. What is your favorite holiday?
    Yule. 
  4. If you could teleport anywhere on Earth whenever you wanted (with the option to bring friends along if you like), where would you spend most of your free time?
    Standing on the lip of Old Faithful, so I could teleport away just as it erupts. Think of all the tourists I could scare!
  5. What’s your favorite nickname you’ve ever been given?
    "Sam."
  6. Mechanical pencils or wooden pencils?
    Graphite pencils what’s wrong with you
  7.  What’s the most fun you’ve ever had at work?
    One time we installed a tire swing hanging from the ceiling and spent all of lunch swinging around the office.
  8. What two fictional characters from different fictional universes would you like to see meet each other?
    Snape and Littlefinger.
  9. What’s the most exciting thing in your fridge right now?
    PIZZA.
  10. Microwave oven or actual oven?
    Depends on the nom.
  11. What’s your favorite expletive?
    Fuck. 

My Questions:

  1. Have you ever been on tv? Please elaborate.
  2. What is your favorite seasonal food?
  3. WHEN ARE YOU COMING OVER I MISS YOU
  4. Who is your least favorite character in ASOIAF? Please elaborate.
  5. Do you like Yankee Candles? Why don’t I already know this?
  6. If you were a mythical creature, what would you want to be?
  7. If you were a mythical creature, what do you think you would actually be?
  8. You once told me that if you were a [real] non-human animal, you would be a labrador retriever. Have you ever been tempted to get a labrador retriever, and name it after yourself?
  9. If you woke up one day as a labrador retriever, what is the first thing you would do?
  10. What is your opinion of hot air balloons?
  11. Do you want to play Magic sometime, or nah?

And the only person I’m tagging is ediamondinthesky because I don’t do tagging posts ever and she won’t judge me for being a dork.

 

stfueverything:

evelynvincible:

realmisandrists:

steelfemme:

misandry-mermaid:

conservativeatheist:

What are men supposed to do? Shut off the part of them that makes them human? She knows what she’s doing wearing what she’s wearing by posing like that. She knows the cause and effect with those sultry looks she’s showing. She’s sexually objectifying herself and she’s doing it on purpose so we’ll look. She’s fishing. However men are shammed when they take this bait. We’re pigs for checking her out. It could be an 18 year old or a 21 year old, 25 year old, 35 year old, etc dressed while posing like this.That’s sexism against men because you want us to repress our sexuality while teasing us in the process. 

Today’s repugnant opinion of the day is brought to you by professional whiner and potential rapist “conservativeatheist”.

"You’re making me feel bad for not seeing a 16 yr old girl as a human… Sexism against men!!!" - anti-fem logic

"All men objectify women and are physically incapable of respecting women who don’t obey the modesty police. It’s what makes them human."
- conservativeatheist

"Men can’t tell the difference between a child performing sexuality (i.e., trying to look "like a grown up"/"more adult") and actual adult women performing sexuality. Asking men to please not objectify children is sexism against men, because children are more responsible for adult men’s sexuality than actual adult men are."

Expecting men to be able to control themselves and not be pedophiles is sexism against men. #misandry 

stfueverything:

evelynvincible:

realmisandrists:

steelfemme:

misandry-mermaid:

conservativeatheist:

What are men supposed to do? Shut off the part of them that makes them human? She knows what she’s doing wearing what she’s wearing by posing like that. She knows the cause and effect with those sultry looks she’s showing. She’s sexually objectifying herself and she’s doing it on purpose so we’ll look. She’s fishing. However men are shammed when they take this bait. We’re pigs for checking her out. It could be an 18 year old or a 21 year old, 25 year old, 35 year old, etc dressed while posing like this.That’s sexism against men because you want us to repress our sexuality while teasing us in the process. 

Today’s repugnant opinion of the day is brought to you by professional whiner and potential rapist “conservativeatheist”.

"You’re making me feel bad for not seeing a 16 yr old girl as a human… Sexism against men!!!" - anti-fem logic

"All men objectify women and are physically incapable of respecting women who don’t obey the modesty police. It’s what makes them human."

- conservativeatheist

"Men can’t tell the difference between a child performing sexuality (i.e., trying to look "like a grown up"/"more adult") and actual adult women performing sexuality. Asking men to please not objectify children is sexism against men, because children are more responsible for adult men’s sexuality than actual adult men are."

Expecting men to be able to control themselves and not be pedophiles is sexism against men. #misandry 

(via fuckyeahwomenprotesting)

asker

Anonymous asked: if you don't mind me asking about your commentary about that post conservative-atheist made (the one about a provocatively dressed 16 yr old)? I'm not quite sure objectification was the right term to use for criticising him b/c it seems when he talked about "denying (men's) sexualities" it meant that he can't necessarily "turn off" being attracted to her. (as in, one will not act upon any attraction towards a minor, but can still find them attractive anyway?)

Eh, I’m inclined to think of it as objectification, because he’s still perceiving her as a sexual object.
Consider that — in real life — people generally find people they like more attractive than people they don’t like, even if the people they don’t like are objectively more physically attractive.
Knowing about who a person is does affect how you perceive them physically/sexually.
So if he were really thinking of her as a fully-developed person, then the fact that she is, in fact, a child, should override his sexual attraction. 
The knowledge that she’s a child should be sufficient to squelch his sexual ardor.

I’m not arguing whether she’s beautiful or attractive. You can notice that a person is beautiful/attractive while still acknowledging their personhood. But OP, and the people supporting him, are not acknowledging her as a person.

If it were just that she is attractive, or that he was sexually attracted to her before he knew she was only 16, that would be one thing.
But instead of backpedaling away from the underage girl, OP blames her.
OP is looking at a child and saying that, by performing adult sexuality (through her clothes, poses, facial expression, whatever), she has intentionally forced grown men into think of her as a sex object, and now those men are receiving unfair criticism from people who think adult men need to stop sexualizing underage girls.
By dressing and acting in a way that is, frankly, much more normal for teen girls than adult women, OP thinks she has deliberately led men down the path of pedophilia.
Men wouldn’t be pedophiles if teen girls weren’t so damned sexy.
Like, do you see the issue here?
If men can’t turn off being sexually attracted to children — despite knowing that they are children — that makes them pedophiles, and that’s on them.
It is not the job of teenage girls repress their sexualities just because grown men want to assume everything is intended for their consumption.

TL;DR — It’s objectification because sexual attraction is more than just primal animal instinct, so knowing that she’s a child should prevent grown men from viewing her sexually.
If grown men persist in viewing her sexually — and holding her responsible for their sexual urges — they are not viewing her as a whole person, just as a thing they’d like to sex.

Feminists be like:

Don’t make a post mocking feminists for caring about gender inequality, then act like you are any kind of authority on what does and doesn’t reinforce gender roles.

let-me-take-a-pikachu:

that-0ne-random-blog:

that-0ne-random-blog:

let-me-take-a-pikachu:

let-me-take-a-pikachu:

Feminists be like:

Omg instead of teachers telling ME not to come to school with my nipples completely viable maybe THEY should think about why they’re a 40 year-old CIS STRAIGHT…

Aren’t you reinforcing gender roles by claiming that girls “don’t have access” to the same type of clothing? I thought the laws against women buying “men’s clothes” were overwritten at least 5 or 6 years ago.

Not to mention that there are plenty of clothes made specifically for girls within the boundaries of the typical dress code, close to a thousand girls wear them to my school everyday.

Haha wow I just realized, you’re the OP. Wow. Ok, I have words for you.

You made a post mocking young girls, for having bodies society perceives as sexual, and feminists, for pointing out that their bodies ARE NOT inherently sexual. 
You made a post mocking the notion that there’s anything creepy or gross about grown men concern-trolling about the appearance of female students.
You made a post that implicitly supports the idea that feminists are hysterical harpies AND that men are unfairly criticized for sexualizing women’s bodies.
After all, the poor menz are just supporting the dress code — which could never ever be biased against female students — and the mean nasty feminists are just looking for something to hate teh menz about.

BUT I’M THE ONE REINFORCING GENDER ROLES. AHAHAHAHAHA.

Did u know it’s sexist to notice girls’ clothes are different from boys’ clothes?

When u point out that boys’ pants have bigger pockets? Sexism.

When u point out that girls’ shirts are made of thinner material? Sexism.

When u point out that girls’ clothes are almost universally more various in fit and style, which makes it difficult to come up with a uniform set of rules that will ensure all girls have equal opportunities to be comfortable and express themselves under a dress code? Sexism.

But boys’ pants actually having bigger pockets? Not sexism. Girls could buy boys’ pants if they wanted pockets. Fuck fit and style. You can have fit and style or pockets. That’s not sexism. That’s life.

Girls’ shirts actually being made of thinner material? Not sexism. Girls could buy boys’ shirts if they wanted warm, durable shirts. Fuck fit and style. You can have fit and style or quality. That’s not sexism. That’s life.

And if you think there’s anything wrong with telling girls to just buy boys’ clothes, rather than telling schools to adjust their dress codes to account for what is manufactured and sold to girls, you are enforcing gender roles bc there’s nothing wrong with a dress code that makes it more preferable for girls to cross-dress than to let them dress like girls.

let-me-take-a-pikachu:

that-0ne-random-blog:

that-0ne-random-blog:

let-me-take-a-pikachu:

let-me-take-a-pikachu:

Feminists be like:

Omg instead of teachers telling ME not to come to school with my nipples completely viable maybe THEY should think about why they’re a 40 year-old CIS STRAIGHT…

Aren’t you reinforcing gender roles by claiming that girls “don’t have access” to the same type of clothing? I thought the laws against women buying “men’s clothes” were overwritten at least 5 or 6 years ago.

Not to mention that there are plenty of clothes made specifically for girls within the boundaries of the typical dress code, close to a thousand girls wear them to my school everyday.

Pretty sure I’m not reinforcing gender roles by noticing that the clothes marketed to/sold as “girls clothes” are different from the ones marketed and sold as “boys clothes.”
Noticing that the fit and cut of the clothing marketed and sold to girls is often more revealing — shorter, tighter, made of sheerer/less durable materials — is not the problem.
The problem is that the disparity exists.

Suggesting that, if girls’ shorts don’t meet dress code, girls should just buy and wear boys’ clothes, isn’t a real solution. School dress codes should account for what girls actually own and wear. Girls should be able to wear girls’ clothes.

At no point did I say there are no girls’ clothes that meet dress code. That doesn’t mean that dress codes don’t unfairly limit girls’ clothing options, especially considering how comparatively unregulated boys’ clothes are under most dress codes.
This is especially evident in warm weather, which is when most dress code issues for girls arise.
I will never stop thinking it’s ridiculous that appropriate shorts length is measured in distance from the knee, or proportion to fingertips, when in reality it should be by inseam. There is no reason a pair of shorts that is dress code on one girl should be out of dress code on another. That is ridiculous. 
It’s ridiculous that a school that allows athletic wear would outlaw yoga pants. There is no good reason sweatpants should be allowed but yoga pants should not.

The fact that girls’ clothes exist that are in dress code does not mean there aren’t issues with how many dress codes relate to girls’ clothes, or that girls clothes aren’t ever unfairly regulated (for sexist/arbitrary reasons).

I’m happy for you that your school’s dress code is easy to follow and you and your peers get along well with it. But that isn’t everyone’s experience, and stating that your school doesn’t have a dress-code problem doesn’t disprove that other places do.