The parents are also heard taking issue with the fact that the bus driver appears to be dressed in a schoolgirl’s uniform. The bus driver is heard saying that they “do this every week.” “And I don’t think there’s any problem,” they are heard saying to the parents before driving away.
There are times when pushing societal boundaries is fine. Imho driving a school bus isn’t one of them.
Why? Why do we make excuses for people to continue being arbitrarily judgemental of others for inconsequential differences instead of allowing people to just be themselves so long as they aren’t causing harm?
To him, he wasn’t “pushing social boundaries”. He was just doing something fun and sharing his niche interest with others in a fun way.
It is other people who made it a big fuss by placing their assumptions onto him and being judgmental of his actions instead of being accepting of their differences and their right to be different.
Because you can’t be that idiotic and put “Lolita” on a school bus while picking up children.
Go back and reread the first comment on why they most likely thought that wouldn’t be an issue.
Not everyone knows that “Lolita” is associated with a smut book. As I said, there is an entire cultural fashion trend that has absolutely nothing to do with the book under the same name. It is very clear that this individual knows of the term from the fashion trend. What is so wrong with putting the name of a fashion trend on a sign? Would there be a problem if they labeled it “Gothic Line” and dressed in Gothic style clothing?
The idiot is you who judges others by making assumptions
Where did that fashion trend get that name from? Serious question. I wouldn’t be surprised it’s rooted in the same place ergo I can still understand why people are concerned about the driver.
From someone in the 70s who wrote an Alice in Wonderland parody manga that used the word “Lolita” to refer to Lewis Carroll’s obsession with Alice after the term “Lolita complex”, which comes the book of the same name by Russel Trainer written during the same time. Yet, the translation of the book into Japanese was done in a way that lost the sexual connotations and instead tied it to the romanticized girls’ culture (shōjo bunka) in Japan, thus didn’t receive the same stigmatized connotations. From there, other authors and the otaku community just kinda started using the word to refer to fan-favorite cute, female characters from popular shoujo manga.
Few decades later, in the 90’s, it just began being used to refer to a fashion trend which was similar to the way Alice would be presented. FYI, Japanese culture during the 70’s and 80’s was weirdly obsessed with Alice in Wonderland.
Similar to how “Goth” subculture has nothing to do with 3rd century Germanic peoples nor 12th century medieval architectural style.
Edit: love how people are down voting factual history just because it contradicts their biases. Typical.
Hold up. You’re getting fiery while claiming “Lolita” is only a fashion trend, when it is actually a reference to that very book. You have some good points, but you need to admit that there is context here that exists, regardless of if this person wants it to or not.
No, it has multiple connotations, which are completely independent of each other.
The Lolita fashion trend of 90’s Japan has nothing to do with the 1950s book. Period.
Just because the words are the same doesn’t mean they are directly related to each other
Unless you also think Goth subculture and music genre is related with 3rd century Germanic people or the 12th century architectural style just because they also share the same word.
You are saying the fashion trend involving looking like a young girl is only coincidentally called “Lolita”?
Gonna check out of this discussion at this point. 👋
Yes. Go read about how the term Lolita became associated with a fashion trend in Japan. Sorry you choose to remain ignorant.
Removed by mod
It’s a matter of professionalism and optics. I work for an impressively liberal financial institution, but I guarantee you I would be written up at best (probably fired) if I showed up to work in a pink schoolgirl dress and put a sign on my desk that said “Lolita’s Credit Union.”
The driver wasn’t arrested. His identity doesn’t appear to have been shared publicly. The wording in the article implies that he still works for the transportation company but was taken off of the school route. It’s not like it’s a witch hunt. He’s just facing the natural consequence of unprofessional behavior.
If you’re going to be the public face of a company, you shouldn’t comport yourself in a way that anyone with half a brain cell would know is uncomfortable and offensive to your client (in this case, a Catholic private elementary school).
Fuck shitty concepts of “professionalism” and “optics”. I don’t give a shit about pointless things. Those are just excuses for people to be judgmental of others for inconsequential differences. Anyone who uses them as a defense loses all respect from me
He was doing the job, anything else is irrelevant. The way he dresses doesn’t have anything to do with how he drives.
No task exists in a vacuum; optics are part of the job. Nobody can be forced to employ him in the position that he prefers. If he feels strongly about it, he can establish his own transportation company called Lolita’s Bus Line and attempt to win the school district’s contract on his own merit.
P.S. Moderating your own self-expression to accommodate the comfort level of a diverse audience is a healthy, mature part of human social interaction. You aren’t obligated to do so, but you must expect friction and obstacles when you don’t. There are times and places to let your true colors fly. It’s wise to recognize that and seek out those settings.
Yea. Just entirely fuck the logic that this argument is premised on. People should be allowed to express themselves freely and others should learn to cope with others being different. Fuck anyone who says otherwise.
Optics aren’t part of the job. That’s utter bullshit. The only thing that is part of that job is driving the bus. Anything else is irrelevant.
People shouldn’t have to moderate their self-expression based on the arbitrary sensibilities of others. That isn’t “healthy and mature” that’s restricting and oppressive.
What’s healthy and mature is learning to cope with the fact others are different and not judging others based on those arbitrary differences or forcing them to conform to your expectations of them.
If you expect others to conform to make you more comfortable even if they aren’t doing anything other than existing (which is what this driver was doing) in a way that is different from you, you can go get fucked. If you’re uncomfortable, the only person whose problem it is to deal with it is you. You don’t get to force others to change for you.
Oh, absolutely that’s true, and I hope I didn’t imply otherwise. It goes both ways. What’s healthy and mature is learning how to meet people where they’re at and avoid conflict. Sometimes that means overlooking things that make you uncomfortable, and sometimes that means being mindful of how your own appearance and behavior can make others uncomfortable.
Would you be okay about the bus driver being nude too? The answer is probably yes but for most most most of us it’s a no.
They weren’t nude and a dude wearing a dress is not the same as them exposing themselves. Nice try with a false equivalency argument.
Also, shouldn’t matter if you are not okay with it. Sounds like a “you” problem that you need to cope with instead of forcing others to conform to your sensibilities. Again, so long as they aren’t harming anyone, then you can shove off with your judgement of their differences.
If it makes you uncomfortable, stop looking.
I’m inclined to agree with your presumption of idiocy instead of malice; that the driver just didn’t know the connotations of “Lolita”. Yet the word still makes parents think their kids are being preyed on all the same. I’m not judging that this is what the driver meant to do, but it is something that would make parents not trust the bus and harm the children forced either to wake early and walk to school or contribute to the emissions in their air.
It’s still possible the driver is given a second chance at bus driving. And in the worst case I doubt the driver would not be able to find employment in public transportation.
That’s a problem for the parents to solve themselves without forcing their judgment onto someone else who has nothing to do with their assumptions. If that means they have to change their own morning tour then so be it. That’s their decision to make. What wasn’t their decision is to dictate the actions of the bus driver.
I’m directly criticizing the parents for how they handled this. They are in the wrong for what they did.
This man did nothing wrong on his actions and yet was punished due to the shortsighted assumptions of judgmental people.
Just like how the driver probably didn’t know what “Lolita” meant, the parents probably didn’t know about the Lolita fashion trend. You’re also forcing your judgement onto the parents for making the logical decision based on only the information that was available to them here. If one doesn’t know it’s a fashion trend, I don’t see any other likely explanation for putting up a sign saying “Lolita’s Line” other than the driver being a predator or maybe the driver just repeating out loud whatever they hears others say, which isn’t good for children with ears either.
No. I am judging the parents on their actions, not on assumptions made of their intentions and hypothetical scenarios of what they “might do”. That’s the key difference you seem to be missing here.
The parents did not make any logical decisions, because they did use logic to reach their decision. They made assumptions, leaps of logic, out of ignorance and decided to act on them in haste, even though the driver had done nothing wrong. Just because you cannot see any other reason for them to do something doesn’t give you the right to make assumptions and then render judgement based on them.
Judge people for their actions, not for perceived intentions.
So did the driver. The driver made assumptions that there were no additional connotations for “Lolita” the fashion trend out of ignorance and hung a sign they assumed wasn’t disturbing but was for reasons they did not know. If you’re just judging people by their actions, the driver’s intentions you have detailed should hold as little weight as the parents’ intentions. And what the driver did was stupid and caused harm, intentions aside.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
And putting that sticker on a bus full of young girls in catholic school uniforms is paying homage to Japanese culture? Makes sense actually.
He wasn’t “paying homage” to anything.
He was just having a fun time, which happened to be dressing in the Lolita style, and then named his bus line, placing a sign in the window in reference to the fact it was the line with the driver who dresses in Lolita fashion.
But sure, keep trying to make more assumptions and leaps of logic to confirm your biases.