Several parishes (like the counties, not the Catholic congregations) in Louisiana have banned saggy pants, clothes that leave underwear exposed, and “dress not becoming to his or her sex.” Parishes are proposing fines up to $500 and even jail time for violators of the new laws, which may yet be unenforceable since they’re most likely unconstitutional.
Of course, the numbskulls who support this legislation have already started with the cries of “we’re not racist!”:
Despite concern that enforcement could result in racial profiling, supporters of the ban insisted that the dress code would be applied uniformly.
[Lafourche Council member] Toups argued that this isn’t a black and white issue but said he sees the ban as opportunity to put parents and grandparent back in charge.
“If you are Canadian, Serbian, or Afghan and your pants are hanging low, it doesn’t matter what color you are. We will ticket or arrest you,” Young of Pointe Coupee said.
Oh, that’s comforting. A fashion style that’s typically associated with (though certainly not limited to) Black folks and other people of color is banned, but it has nothing at all to do with race! Next, dreads and cornrows will be banned, but you know, some white folks have those, too. The law will be applied uniformly to any Black folks and folks trying to dress like Black folks! Can’t have those white folks trying to imitate Black people, you know.
However, the part of all of this that I find to be really chilling, personally, is “dress not becoming to his or her sex.” Um, what? Does this mean that people can’t wear clothing that’s typically designated to be worn by a person of the sex to which they weren’t assigned? Man, remind me never to visit those parishes in Louisiana or I will be screwed. KatRose at Pam’s House Blend says that a representative from one of the towns appeared on MSNBC and said that the law wouldn’t be used that way. But, like KatRose, I’m not really willing to buy that. The law will be on the books as such and I don’t see that much is going to stop people from applying it in a way that cracks down on people who aren’t conforming to their assigned gender roles. As if trans and gender non-conforming people aren’t vulnerable enough.
Does this mean that people can’t wear clothing that’s typically designated to be worn by a person of the sex to which they weren’t assigned? Man, remind me never to visit those parishes in Louisiana or I will be screwed. KatRose at Pam’s House Blend says that a representative from one of the towns appeared on MSNBC and said that the law wouldn’t be used that way
I don’t buy that either. Some cop is going to find a way to do it on a slow ticket/jailin’ day.
I think that “dress not becoming to his or her sex” will absolutely end up meaning clothes worn by a person whose gender it was not made for. Women will have an easier time with this since pants are readily accepted and well with this law, baggy ones are already out of the question. A woman can wear men’s clothing and still look like her sex. However, I more specifically think this part of the law will target men in dresses, skirts, high heels, ect… eliminating the chance for any drag activity, cross dressing, or trans gender women. And transphobia is heavily directed at transwomen and not so much transmen.
More scarily though, how subjective is this law. What my mom thinks if unbecoming, my boyfriend certainly might not, and what my grandma finds appropriate stopped being made eons ago. It will give police way too much power, to howl at and turn a blind eye to the outfits they like, and ruin the lives of those they don’t. Sad, very sad.
This is just awful. I’m pretty much speechless with dread. I didn’t know it was possible to pass a law like that, because, as you say, totally unconstitutional. This is so many levels of wrong that I can’t seem to get my head around it.
I think that it’s KIND of a good idea, but when you start putting rules in place for people especially if it affects a small number of people then there’s a problem because it leave the door too wide open for people to abuse their power. I think some of our great “leaders” like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton need to step up their campaign of this so it’s an “unwritten” law instead of one that can be used to frisk people
http://www.thedouble-ushow.blogspot.com
are you serious??? this is ridiculous. i don’t know what’s worse, how racist it is or the “not becoming to his or her sex” part. makes me feel quesy…
That sounds horribly like the Stonewall era ‘three items of clothing’ law. And that was never used in *that way*, oh no.
As for the blatant racism behind this law – isn’t that, like, illegal? Or unconstitutional (that might be more relevant, given it’s a USA issue)? I mean seriously, where do you even start with laws like this?