micro mini school skirts in primary school(75 Posts)
The skirt vs trousers debate was on tws this morning but I was wanting to start this thread before that.
Dd is in an excellent nursery attached to an excellent primary. But when I dropped her off yesterday I was made uncomfortable by seeing several of the older pupils 9/10/11yos, wearing VERY short mini skirts (bare legs). They looked so horribly pornified. It has really put me off the school. Even if I dont allow dd to dress like that I dont want her in the environment where others do.
I am posting in feminism because I am finding it hard to articulate my objections without sounding like someone who thinks women should change their behaviour to 'prevent' rape. I dont believe any of those rape myths but do object to the sexualisation of these pre-teens.
Basically I want advice as to how to approach the school on this. It is v oversubscribed and as dd isnt actually at the main school yet I dont know how much of a voice I will have.
I now have until January to decide if I want to send her there (other options arent up to much tbh).
Personally when I see short shorts/skirts on children, I just think "I can see that that child has legs". Sexual thoughts don't enter my mind.
Is this a state school? If it is they cannot dictate the skirt style or length and it is therefore probably a fashion choice. I have an almost 11 yo and she is getting very conscious of not wearing skirts that are too short unless she has tights on. I personally wouldn't make a fuss unless (a) the school insists on these ultra short skirts or (b) trousers are not offered as an alternative.However my objection would be more to do with practicality and /or warmth than anything else.
Are very short skirts really about porn and sexualisation though? I see a lot of young women wearing them, and shorts too, often with bare legs. Lord knows how they don't freeze this 'summer' but that's another question...
I have two daughters now at secondary school. Never gave the shortness of the school uniform skirts when they were at primary school a thought tbh, and certainly didn't think any of the little girls looked like porn stars if they wore short skirts, yuk!
Although I try hard to get my girls (14+15) to look 'right' for school as they leave the house, I am under no illusions that they will likely look quite different when they sit down in form class at 8.40am. I can sometimes see them making "adjustments" further down the street! This happened in primary school too, to a lesser extent. I would not be particularly pleased for someone who did not not me or know my standards, to make judgements.
Don't miss the opportunity to send your kid to the good school beacause of your own predjudicies; you have no idea of the beliefs/parenting etc of the other kids based on that.
I don't view clothing as sexualising children, well the size of it, anyway. I have had this arguement many times as my middle DD, 15 likes fashion clothing.
We were watching Annie with my DD's friends yesterday and it was remarked on how short 'posh' girls clothes were at the time. This led to a discussion about how fashion changed in the 1920's to mini's. I can remember my GM telling me how her DM got the priest to her for daring to wear a shorter skirt and how she got a 'hiding' when she came home two days later will bobed hair.
It does depend on whether there is a choice of skirt length.
We used to have to wear knee length skirts we just used to roll them
Up at the waist.
Short skirts isn't about sexualisation. My
Mum said. When I was little skirts and dresses had to show knickers that's why they were frilly. And can't believe how long some of the dresses skirts are that I put on my dd's I don't think you should approach and if you don't want her mixing with girls that wear short skirts I suggest you book her into a nunnery now.
While I agree that sexualisation can be in the mind of the 'beholder' rather than the clothes themselves, if you follow me, we're living in a much more sexualised culture now than when we were kids in the 70's/80's. The context has changed.
I was brought up very strictly and went to an academic school (all girls, though with the boys' campus next door). We had "uniform" skirts which were supposed to be no shorter than 3 inches above the knee. We ALL rolled them up to be as short as possible because that was the fashion (early seventies). Our summer uniforms were incredibly short. The length of our skirts had nothing to do with the state of our morals. I blush to remember what an outstandingly priggish and judgmental goody two-shoes I was in my early teens...
Surely just because lots of women do something doesn't mean it's not about sexualisation and porn. Look at waxing. Every woman I know under 30 has a full brazilian and I think most feminists agree that comes directly from the porn industry.
<worries I've posted a straw man argument as I have no idea what a straw man is>
IMO baring any part of your body that people are attracted to ("I'm a legs/boobs/arse man") is about female sexuality. Men don't exactly go around in hot pants and vest tops do they?
The question is why do these little girls feel the need to wear micro mini skirts?
OP I wouldn't be happy about it but if it was the best school in the area I'd still choose to send my DC there. Once I was in I would see about uniform policy.
But i feel that we are in danger of over sexualising the female body. I think that it is ridiculous to suggest that any flesh on show is sexual.
I would also suggest that, even if you find a school where the uniform is knee length plaid skirts, a blazer and a little felt hat (and there are quite a few of them round here!), you are likely to find the girls discussing the same things and looking at the same images as those wearing the short skirts. You have to try to help children learn good sense and try to ensure they have the sort of moral compass you want them to have. If you give them this, then they might choose to wear their uniforms in the same way as their peers but they will still be your kids.
Gosh ComradeJing - you have some weird conversations with women. Do you ask, or do all the women under 30 you know volunteer this information?
It's not sexual? Try telling that to a rape defence lawyer (or jury). If these girls are raped they will be blamed for 'enticing the man'. But I dont think girls should have to change their behaviour for this reason.
I think anyone who thinks this isnt related to the pornification of society is naive. These girls looked like porn stars, not Annie.
It is a state school. I dont think the girls can wear trousers. The standard uniform is a knee length skirt but some girls (like these) wear grey skirts instead.
foreverwino frankly, you are part of the problem. You see legs as something sexual that ought to be covered up, lest they excite a passing male. I see legs as a piece of anatomy - there is nothing more inherently sexual about them than my shoulders or my earlobes.
If you want to fight against the 'pornification' of society, then stop seeing porn everywhere. If the sexualisation is ignored or accepted as non-sexual, then it loses all its power.
Verlain it's just one of those things that come up. Not like sitting around having a coffee but certainly drunk. Actually it once came up between friends when a gf of mine who is 35 said that she found men over 35ish didn't expect a wax but men under 30 expected everything off and as she didn't wax she was worried that these men would find her revolting.
OP I agree with you.
Ah. ComradeJing. Your poor gf. I hope she manages to find some men (of whatever age) that don't "expect" anything. There are plenty of them about in my experience.
OP I don't agree with you.
Mrs Reasonable, i do agree with you.
Forevewino - I've just re-read your post. You think that a 9/10/11 year old who is raped will be considered by a jury or lawyer as enticing a man because she was wearing a short skirt?
That is hysterical nonsense.
I do not believe that if 9,10,11 yo olds are raped, anyone is going to blame them for enticing men to do it. They are children, in the eyes of the law they can't agree to sex. They also do not look like anyone could resonably have assumed they were over 16.
If you are concerned for these girls welfare, rather than their morals, why would that stop you from sending your daughter to this school? You can "protect" her by dressing her as a proper "little girl" (though paedophiles are not exactly known for disliking knee length skirts and sensible socks). But you sound like you have an objection to these girls, not just thinking they may be putting themselves at risk of being raped, or objectified by lustful men. Otherwise what is so terrible about your daughter being in an environment where the other girlse wear short skirts?
Well the 6 footballers who raped those 12 year old girls were let off because the girls "wanted it" even though one of the girls only had sex because she was badgered into doing it.
Daily Mail link, sorry
No, they were let off because the girls had told them they were sixteen, and co-operated fully with the investigation, giving full confessions. Saying they were let off "because the girls "wanted it"" is misleading.
So to be clear: 6 adults were cleared of sex with two children because the children wanted it.
Right there is children being blamed for being raped and for enticing the men.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Join the discussion
Please login first.