It seems counterintuitive that many schools across America enforce such strict dress code policies on their students on the premise of creating “a safer educational environment that increases students’ ability to learn.” There’s nothing wrong with that goal except we must ask who the intended beneficiary is? Almost any school board or staff member will answer that these rules and restrictions are geared towards helping all students.
The problem is that this isn’t necessarily the outcome. Most restrictions in the typical middle or high school dress code policy are aimed at the female students. The most commonly enforced rules include restrictions on how much skin can be shown on the shoulders, chest and legs of a student. Many of these restrictions can be, for lack of a better word, overly restrictive.
More important than that is how female students are treated and punished when they violate these policies. Many are often removed from the class room and made to wait to return to class until a parent or guardian can bring them more suitable clothing. Some are even suspended or made to endure a humiliating punishment. One Florida high school student was forced to wear a large neon yellow shirt which boasted the title “DRESS CODE VIOLATOR” over her policy breaking outfit.
If the intention of a dress code policy is to create a healthy learning environment, then why are so many students pulled from class, given unnecessarily harsh punishment and sometimes made to leave school property? Does this not defeat the purpose of the dress code policy altogether? When is a student no longer considered an intended beneficiary of a school’s policies? Meanwhile, the number of rules pertaining to a male student’s attire is typically far less those which pertain to the female counter part. In addition, a common argument for why girls’ dress codes are typically so demanding is that inappropriately dressed female students can cause a distraction for male students, thus hindering their ability to thrive in a conducive learning environment. Now this concept alone is connected to an entirely different argument as to why there is such inequity in the treatment of male and female students.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/soraya-chemaly/every-reason-your-schools_b_8147266.html
I find it counterintuitive that the best way to make money of a new product is to give it away for free. However, there’s far more logic behind this concept than originally meets the eye. When starting a business or releasing a new product, the biggest issue many entrepreneurs face is building a client base. Building a client base requires a certain level of trust on the clients’ part and salesmanship on the merchant’s. They need to convince the client that the product or service is not only something they want but also something they can trust.
In order for a client to invest in a business, they need to have a level of confidence in seller’s ability to provide what they want at a value they can justify. The hard part is convincing them. So rather than sweet talk the client into parting with a chunk of their paycheck, offer the merchandise, with no strings attached, to the client. This will allow them to freely experiment and enjoy the product without risk or worry that it wasn’t actually worth their time and involvement. Once a client realizes that the product is something they enjoy they’ll become attached and form a type of dependency on it. This is where the profit gets made. Once they’ve become convinced that this venture is worth their time, money and attention, they’ll pay for the product. Not only will this allow a salesman to form a client base, but also offering something for free will reach a larger audience because who doesn’t like free?
It seems counterintuitive that some parents choose not to vaccinate their children for life threatening diseases for fear of their child developing arguably far less severe problems. Following the publishing of the infamous and fraudulent Wakefield research paper that claimed the development of autism was somehow linked to vaccinations, many parents decided that they’d rather take the risk of their child contracting diseases such as polio or small pox rather than develop autism. Even though the report has been long since discredited, many people still buy into the fear that autistic symptoms are related to vaccinations, which could save a child’s life.
The real trade off is deciding which disease or disorder you would prefer your child develop. Furthermore, not only are you risking the safety of your child but you’re risking the safety of those around you. Many of these diseases are incredibly dangerous and hard to beat, especially considering that many doctors have no real experience with them so an accurate and early diagnosis may be harder than expected.
http://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/searching-for-answers/vaccines-autism?page=1
Rowan Counterintuitive 