AIBU to challenge the school’s wording about pupils rolling skirts up?

oh @Gloriia confirmed her own daughters followed the uniform code throughout their entire schooling!!

I strongly believe women and girls should be able to wear what they like without being called out on it.

That is the diametric opposite to the concept of 'uniform' then isn't it? I am sure that school uniform was in place long before you enrolled your daughter.

not one of the small minority saying that essentially we should leave these girls to dress in whatever way they wish actually sayes their daughter wears this attire.

oh no, @Gloriia ’s daughters always conformed to the dress code; the op doesn’t even have daughters; and @JHound doesn’t have any children.

So it’s all fine and dandy saying leave these girls to dress However they wish when it’s all theoretical because you don’t have daughters or your daughters were strict uniform followers!!

And another point, but a crucial one.

Misogyny means different things to different people. How would you define it, for example? (Don't worry - I don't need you to do that - I'm making a point).

I will call it out when I see it - but that would be only by the light of my interpretation.

It's like people asking 'are you left wing?' or 'are you a feminist?' Well, if you tell me what you mean by those terms, I'll tell you whether I fit the definition.

You know what a sensible well reasoned mature response. Thank you

I agree.
I'm absolutely baffled by those skirts and can't understand why girls do it.

Ah - thank you.

So you have not in fact had personal experience of what pps here are referring to. If you had, you would be in no doubt.

Well, that explains a lot! If I thought I could get away with googling an image of 'schoolgirls wearing extremely short skirts with buttocks exposed' I would show you what we mean. But I'm clearly not going to do that.

It explains everything, to me. You have no idea what is being criticised here, yet you launch in with personal attacks on people who have.

Gloriia - if you continue to put words into my mouth I will report your posts. I have NEVER used those terms. I haven't even read the posts you must be referring to. Please take that up with the pps concerned.

And don't try to accuse me of being misogynistic. My stance is: no, in 21st century Britain women can't actually wear anything. And neither can men, boys, little girls etc etc. There are cultural and social norms to be taken into account. if that's misogyny, then shoot me.

I have seen you in other threads call posters and real life “types” awful names.

Why don’t you tell us your thoughts on tattoos. @Gloriia for example?

I personally agree that they are indeed sex offenders... but then I also believe that teenage girls who walk around exposing their bottoms, underwear and worse are also acting inappropriately (to say the least); whereas you seem to believe that men displaying their privates are bad, but young women doing the same are just freely making their own choices.

Is this just the old MN trope that, if a man does something bad, he is bad; but if a woman (or teenage girl) does something that has a similar effect, they're just expressing their individuality and it's sexist, misogynistic and hateful if people point it out or criticise them?

If so, all we're doing is infantilising women (and adolescent girls) by suggesting that men can understand what they're doing and take responsibility for their choices and actions, but the poor little women don't know any better and just can't be expected to make wise, considerate choices. Now, THAT is deeply misogynistic.

Again @Gloriia if your exclusive issue with this entire issue is the language used by posters… report them.

given your daughter strictly followed the uniform code throughout their entire school years AND you live somewhere that you have never seen anything close to what the rest of us have seen… I am intrigued by your impassioned (yet oddly passive) stance on this thread

'I can't answer for other pps use of the terms you mention. I haven't used them, so please target the correct people'

It's a chat forum we tend to call out misogyny. Some daren't, clearly.

'Tramps' 'sex offenders' and 'whores' all ok by you? Not to be challenged!

(though struggle to understand why the teachers dont engage their brains and have 'tights or trousers' like the vast majority of schools, probably too busy firing off tedious emails about skirts).

Because many of the girls who insist on wearing skirts that show off their private body parts will, if told they now have to wear trousers, switch defiantly to wearing ultra tight trousers/leggings that still clearly show off the shape of their private areas, even though they are technically covered. That's why.

The girls who will start to wear sensible trousers if the rules change will be the same ones who were previously wearing skirts of a sensible length.

I agree with PP that you must be thinking we're all exaggerating hyperbolically about girls who wear them a bit higher than they technically should - at mid-thigh length. We really aren't talking about that.

'Just to be clear, you were the first one to call the men in parks 'sex offenders' - when they're just dressing/adjusting their clothes'

You said

'Does that also apply to the dirty old men flashing in the park'

Dirty old men flashing in the park are sex offenders?

If these girls are dressing as they please..... We are just speaking as we please and using our freedom of speech.

Just to be clear, you were the first one to call the men in parks 'sex offenders' - when they're just dressing/adjusting their clothes as they like and presumably also shouldn't be shamed or criticised for doing this - and then, having used that phrase to describe those men, you extrapolated that schoolgirls flashing their private areas at people all day must be being called sex offenders and criticised me for you reaching your own conclusion!!

'seeing someone's backside or rolls of fat in some cases is unpleasant'

I mean I'd lol if it wasn't all so deeply depressing.

We are now fat shaming. Are you slim hun? I hope in this heatwave you won't have any 'rolls of fat' on show at work?

'It's a simple and not a personally intrusive question - have you seen this particular 'fashion'? I suspect not'

For the trillionth time every school I've encountered <and we have moved a bit> girls wear tights or trousers.

I s'pose I have to believe that others have witnessed 'sweaty arse cheeks' on display (though struggle to understand why the teachers dont engage their brains and have 'tights or trousers' like the vast majority of schools, probably too busy firing off tedious emails about skirts).

I have however seen short skirts/tight shorts etc at sixth form and noticed the poor men managed to cope. What is it with secondary school teachers? I can't comment on sweaty arse cheeks as A. I didn't look and B. Why would I?!

The point is you don't talk about school girls like we have seen on here. It is sickening.

Any uniform breach should be dealt with calmly, professionally and without rabid misogyny and body shaming.

This.

I'm female, seeing someone's backside or rolls of fat in some cases is unpleasant. It looks gross. Its a herd like mentality, thankfully some dont follow that particular herd.

I am a parent. These girls are dressing very very inappropriately and it's being rightly called out. What else do you want us to say? Compliment the inappropriate dress choice?

I can't answer for other pps use of the terms you mention. I haven't used them, so please target the correct people.

I haven't mentioned monkeys. You have used it yourself! Why are you using a term you find offensive? If I did mention monkeys, please correct me.

Monkeys generally have tails - that's a quick (maybe not always totally accurate zoologically, but hey) way of identifying them. I think you'll find the primates don't generally have tails, or obvious tails.

Please don't make things up, Gloriia.

And you know what? I find your disrespect for our primate relations rather offensive, so right back atcha!

'Yes, pubescent or nubile young female animals may feel the urge to display their sexual organs - or at least, their erogenous zones, in this case their buttocks. It's nature! Chimps, baboons, all kinds of primates do it.'

You mentioned monkeys.

Any condemnation of the use of 'tramps', 'sex offenders' and 'whore' to describe school girls? Go on I dare you. Maybe language that you approve of or you just darent criticise vile misogyny? Which is it?

In answer to your personal questions, I refer you to my previous posts.

But - please can you clarify and answer my simple question: are we talking about the same thing, because your posts seem odd if you really are aware of what is being discussed here. It's a simple and not a personally intrusive question - have you seen this particular 'fashion'? I suspect not.

You are being silly about what you call 'monkeys'. I haven't mentioned monkeys - only you. I've mentioned primates - which are not quite the same thing (monkeys are primates, but not all primates are monkeys). My point was a serious one, relating human behaviour to primate behaviour, which, since we are indeed primates, is relevant. Why are you upset by a comparison to our primate relatives? I find it fascinating, as anyone interested in science, nature, anthropology etc would.

You seem determined to twist people's words, yet won't answer my simple and non-personally intrusive question, which I think is very relevant to the discussion here. We might all be talking at cross purposes.

We should teach girls to have self respect and not to expose their bodies as so many do with skirts so short you can see their bottom cheeks. The contrast between what boys and many girls wear is so marked, it’s ridiculous.