Same sex couple banned from the ball

[Drolefille]

Source

On the night of her school formal, Hannah Williams found herself all dressed up with nowhere to go.

After inviting friends to her home for ''pre-drinks'', the 16-year-old stood on her doorstep and watched her classmates file into the darkness to attend one of the highlights of the school year.

Instead of joining them, Hannah took off her heels and black dress and went to bed.

A few weeks earlier a teacher had told the year 11 student she couldn't attend the dance with her 15-year-old girlfriend, Savannah Supski. She was asked to bring a male instead. ''It made me very upset. I thought it was unfair so I didn't go,'' she said.

''I put a lot of effort into trying to fix things. I had meetings with principals; looked through the Equal Opportunity Act; all my friends put posters up around the school and the teachers ripped them down. There was an easy solution; they just needed to let me go with my girlfriend.''

So the interesting twist to this, besides the fact that apparently they don't do formals or proms they go to the ball in Australia is that this is an all girl's school. And the school's excuses/explanations were very hung up on how meeting boys was some really important part of this dance, even for a lesbian teen.

''The school kept saying because it is an all-girls school we want to make an event where they can meet boys in a social scenario,'' [her father] said. ''That process is anachronistic and creates feelings of discrimination among girls who are same-sex-attracted.''

Both girls are changing schools to be together.

The principal of Ivanhoe Girls' Grammar, Heather Schnagl, said the event did not discriminate against same-sex couples and was designed to promote a co-educational experience.

''I don't think it's appropriate they feel discriminated against, and I'm very upset they feel that,'' she said.

So we're supposed to feel bad for the principal for being upset that they're upset by something she doesn't think they should be upset about? Riiiiiiight. Ladies and gentlemen, this is why I tell people to fuck off.

As George Takei really and truly said (I love that man):

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Ladies and gentlemen, this is why I tell people to fuck off.

LOL.

They seem to be pretending as though they don't see how "promoting a co-educational experience" can be discriminatory against same-sex couples based on outcome (even if that was not the intent). The students who want to do so will be able to meet boys with or without the presence of same-sex couples.

[Elephant Walk]

Exciting?

I don't know. If you end up worrying about every little injustice you end up disillusioned and illogical. There's injustice everywhere that involves all creeds, nationalities, orientations, etc. Sometimes its smart just to pick what you absolutely can't ignore.

[christiangirl]

So just to clarify, they weren't banned from the ball, one was not allowed to bring the other (who presumably went to another school) so she chose not to come? The thread title made me think that they were both told not to come at all.

The school had a point (and by point, I mean a "point" with the sarcastic quotation marks). It's an all-girls school and we want them to be social with boys. Okay. Why not team them up with an all-boys' school for a joint ball? My own thoughts aside, the school screwed themselves with their inconsistency (saying it was this, then no it was her age, but other girls brought younger boys, etc). If they'd just say "She's a grade younger and therefore not allowed" from the jump, this wouldn't be news and they could have had their social skill building in peace. Instead, everyone is questioning their actions and calling discrimination though that honestly probably was not their intention (and like Phil said, intent and outcome are 2 different things but discrimination is based on the latter).

SN: The article noted that Savannah changed schools to be with Hannah and the comments seemed to regard that as a romantic ending for 2 brave girls. I wonder what the public reaction would be if it were a boy who switched schools and his girlfriend followed him to the new one.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by christiangirl

So just to clarify, they weren't banned from the ball, one was not allowed to bring the other (who presumably went to another school) so she chose not to come? The thread title made me think that they were both told not to come at all.

The girlfriend was a year younger and attended the same school I believe - based on the context. And she was told not to bring her girlfriend to the dance so that pretty much qualifies as "banned" for me. But I just copied the headline. Another source says they've been dating for about 8 months which is forever in teenage terms. Tell me I can't bring my boyfriend to the dance I'm not going either.

The school had a point (and by point, I mean a "point" with the sarcastic quotation marks). It's an all-girls school and we want them to be social with boys. Okay. Why not team them up with an all-boys' school for a joint ball?

And if it had been, to use American terms, Juniors from All Girls Academy and Juniors from All Boys Academy that would be one thing, but it was a dance where the girls could invite their own dates.

My own thoughts aside, the school screwed themselves with their inconsistency (saying it was this, then no it was her age, but other girls brought younger boys, etc). If they'd just say "She's a grade younger and therefore not allowed" from the jump, this wouldn't be news and they could have had their social skill building in peace.

Except they didn't prohibit girls from bringing male dates who were just as young so they're stuck there too. And they also claimed it would be "a disruption." Yes those teens will be so shocked and horrified that their lesbian classmates are dancing together, who knows what could happen.
Oh also the fear that all the female students would bring female partners... really?

Instead, everyone is questioning their actions and calling discrimination though that honestly probably was not their intention (and like Phil said, intent and outcome are 2 different things but discrimination is based on the latter).

When you get down to it their intent is fairly discriminatory even if they're not aware of it. Why do the women need to learn to socialize specifically with men? It's hard to argue that they never have the opportunity outside of school if they're so inclined and it seems like chaperoned dating is the intent.

SN: The article noted that Savannah changed schools to be with Hannah and the comments seemed to regard that as a romantic ending for 2 brave girls. I wonder what the public reaction would be if it were a boy who switched schools and his girlfriend followed him to the new one.

She transferred out of a school that discriminated against her, not just to a school her girlfriend was attending.

[christiangirl]

Ugh. I'm too tired to quote you accurately so I'll number. If I tried to quote, I'd screw it all up.

1. If that says "banned" for you then okay, but not to me since there was a choice involved. Whether or not it was fair for her to have to make that choice is another story.

2. I know. That was the point. If the school claims they wanted the girls to learn how to socialize with boys, then this issue would have been avoided by just pairing them all with All Boys Academy instead of having them bring guests. Being allowed to bring guests would make one assume she could invite whomever she pleased which seemed to be the school's hang-up--if they wanted that level of control over who the girls brought then they should have done a double mixer and been done with it.

3. Again, that was the point. Is my sarcasm not coming through?? They allowed other girls to bring younger guests so them giving that reason to Hannah was total bs.

4. Why do women need to learn to socialize specifically with men? Well, if I'm looking from the school's standpoint, because men are the other half of the population and you'll need to know how to get along with them at some point. That part made sense, but their execution was way off-base. Plus, I'd expect this kind of boy/girl event to be held for 5th graders. If you're 16 and don't know how to interact with a boy, being forced to bring one to a dance won't fix that.

5. The article didn't say that. We assume that. The article said Savannah changed schools so she could be with Hannah, which paints a certain picture. I'm not looking at what the real picture may be, just how that would look if you changed Hannah's gender and left that statement as-is.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by christiangirl

Ugh. I'm too tired to quote you accurately so I'll number. If I tried to quote, I'd screw it all up.

1. If that says "banned" for you then okay, but not to me since there was a choice involved. Whether or not it was fair for her to have to make that choice is another story.

Well the couple was banned even if the individual was not.

2. I know. That was the point. If the school claims they wanted the girls to learn how to socialize with boys, then this issue would have been avoided by just pairing them all with All Boys Academy instead of having them bring guests. Being allowed to bring guests would make one assume she could invite whomever she pleased which seemed to be the school's hang-up.

3. Again, that was the point. They allowed other girls to bring younger guests so them giving that reason to Hannah was total bs.

Agreeing with you here.

4. Why do women need to learn to socialize specifically with men? Well, if I'm looking from the school's standpoint, because men are the other half of the population and you'll need to know how to get along with them at some point. That part made sense, but their execution was way off-base.

I'm looking at the context of the socialization: Dates, dancing, dates, pre-drinking (silly highschoolers), dates. This is clearly not about being able to speak to a coworker.

5. The article didn't say that. We assume that. The article said Savannah changed schools so she could be with Hannah, which paints a certain picture. I'm not looking at what the real picture may be, just how would that look if you changed Hannah's gender and left that statement as-is.

All the articles state that she is Year 10 and do not specify that she went to a different school. Also it's described as both girls speaking to administration about the matter. And in the picture in the article they're wearing the same shirt which looks like a uniform. So that's what I'm basing that on. I think it changes the question that you're asking though if she didn't switch schools purely to follow her girlfriend but also to leave a discriminatory situation. That said, teens have to have parental permission for that sort of thing, at least in the US so while I might think a girl in the abstract was a bit silly for switching schools if her parents agreed to it that's really the important part. And I'd probably assume there was more going on there than just following a boy.

[christiangirl]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

I'm looking at the context of the socialization: Dates, dancing, dates, pre-drinking (silly highschoolers), dates. This is clearly not about being able to speak to a coworker.

Good point. According to the school, via Hannah, it wasn't "supposed" (again, note my sarcastic quotation makrs) to be an event with romantic partners, but all about the socializing. If the school had said, "We appreciate that you want to bring your romantic partner but this event is not about romance or relationships. It is specifically for learning social skills with males and thus requires a male guest," we wouldn't have a lot to question their motives. But the backpeddling, extra excuses, and inconsistencies is what alludes to something more sinister in their intent.

Okay, I've already made that point but I really wanted to use the word "sinister" in a sentence today.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by christiangirl

Good point. According to the school, via Hannah, it wasn't "supposed" (again, note my sarcastic quotation makrs) to be an event with romantic partners, but all about the socializing. If the school had said, "We appreciate that you want to bring your romantic partner but this event is not about romance or relationships. It is specifically for learning social skills with males and thus requires a male guest," we wouldn't have a lot to question their motives. But the backpeddling, extra excuses, and inconsistencies is what alludes to something more sinister in their intent.

Okay, I've already made that point but I really wanted to use the word "sinister" in a sentence today.

But, a ball implies romance. If they truly were trying to get them to socialize with males, they could have had a science fair or a pizza party or a whatever and said "make a male friend and bring him."

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by christiangirl

1. If that says "banned" for you then okay, but not to me since there was a choice involved. Whether or not it was fair for her to have to make that choice is another story.

As the title states, "same sex couple banned...." That is banned. The couple was banned.

Whether or not it was fair for her to have to make that choice is THE point of the entire story. So...yeah........

As for Elephant Walk's post, I don't know where "exciting" came from and why such topics receive such a response from some people. Members of minority groups (which includes same sex couples) do not sit around thinking about oppression and jumping on every single mistreatment and discrimination. But whether they do or do not is up to them. It is not up to members of the majority in power to instill their privilege and give the whole "life happens...roll with the punches and see which you can't ignore" speech. That assumes that members of the minority aren't ALREADY rolling with the punches and only speaking out about things that they absolutely can't ignore.

[christiangirl]

Originally Posted by agzg

But, a ball implies romance. If they truly were trying to get them to socialize with males, they could have had a science fair or a pizza party or a whatever and said "make a male friend and bring him."

Also true.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

As for Elephant Walk's post, I don't know where "exciting" came from

Sarcasm. It's boring.

Members of minority groups (which includes same sex couples) do not sit around thinking about oppression and jumping on every single mistreatment and discrimination.

Maybe they don't, but people of the majority do just to give themselves something to fret about and pretend like they're worried.

Originally Posted by Drolefille

I'm looking at the context of the socialization: Dates, dancing, dates, pre-drinking (silly highschoolers), dates. This is clearly not about being able to speak to a coworker.

You've never been to cotillion, I take it. (minus the drinking)