Gender neutral school uniform = Trousers

Really enjoying your posts Sardines. As well as continuing to be glad that my children went to secondary school in a country that doesn't do uniform except for a very few private schools. The one by where we live now does long kilts and hoodies. They look very hot! dd's classmates were mostly wearing shorts and t-shirts.

"Nice" or "pretty" or "atractive" in our society for women = taking your clothes off.

Who doesn't want to look nice?

The fashions in the shops for girls are mostly skin tight / revealing tummies and things.

There is a whole lot of stuff going on around this.

Girls bodies are in the end just bodies though, I see girls with school uniform and short skirts on the high street and I think oh there's some schoolgirls. The idea that plenty of people seem to think they are sending "signals" to men about their sexual availability is grotesque. Everyone should see that as grotesque. Not buy into it and say, yes that is a real problem, these girls need to cover up. because no covering up will ever be enough, because the "problem" isn't the clothes, it's the bodies underneath.

I guess iceweasel has children that don't grow very much (either up or out).

Making the skirts/kilts so expensive that families can only afford to buy them every two years is likely to lead to overly short skirts. I got abused going to and from school in my last year of primary partly because my summer dress was a bit short. I'm the youngest and tallest girl in my family and was wearing hand me downs. My mum wasn't prepared to buy me new longer dresses for that last summer (of course she wasn't the one walking the gauntlet of the local secondary school boys twice a day).

Of course girsl en masse deciding to roll their skirts up is not unrelated to the sexualisation of girls in society and what men like to look at etc.

The point though is that when an individual girl rolls her skirt up, this is not a definite signal that she wants 50 year old men to try and pick her up on the high street.

For the younger girls especially it's just "what you do". Why it's "what you do" is a good feminist question - because females showing their flesh is approved of in a patriarchal socieyt, but at the same time condemned, because if there's one thing girls and women need to do it's be kept walking that tightrope between "not enough" and "too much".

I was someone who wore what I wore without much of a thought about boys or men at all really - I wore things because I liked them, I rolle dmy skirt up because that was what you did, I chose things that I thought looked nice or good when I was in the 80s or the indie phase or whenever - to be part of that crowd with a nod to my own tastes I suppose. I am heteroseuxal so liked boys BUT I didn't think about "using" my body to lure them seuxally, I mean that didn't cross my mind. I don't think most schoolgirls think in those terms, do they? And yet, that is what men put on them, and adult women too a lot of the time. They put the brain of a woman who is like that - who does dress her body to be generally sexually appealing to the male eye - into the head of a 13 year old girl. Or any girl between puberty and whatever age. Some women think like that, do most? I don't know as I don't. I don't imagine they do. But I do know that it's incorrect to put assumed intentions of a fully mature, sexually active, experieneced woman who enjoys dressing to show her body off, onto a young girl. I think men do that because they like to think, no pretend, that it's true. Because then they feel justified in thinking the thoughts they thinking, or taking the actions they take.

The differences observed in single sex schools sheds some light on the matter, Midge.

you would just need one every two years,

Seriously? do any of you provide your DDs with only school skirt (of a type which doesn't look particularly easy to launder overnight though maybe looks are deceptive) ?

Another fascinating thread.

To paraphrase some of it, there seems to be a line of thought that...we only shortened our skirts because that's what everyone else does/that's what looks best / we wanted to rebel, and this had nothing whatsoever to do with us being compliant with boys or societal sexualisation of girls.

To what extent were our choices free and to what extent do we conform to the norm? And to what extent are those norms about/supporting the degradation of women?

It might sound trivial when talking about uniform, but I think it equally applies to encouraging of girls to study physics. They make a free choice not to. We can't say that there are no brain differences between boys and girls if we simultaneously say that on average girls , unlike boys, fundamentally won't want to study physics. How much of that free choice is really conforming to an implicit expectation? If it is, how can we break that expectation? If it's not the are we then saying there are girl and boy brains?

I just had a quick look ... tartan school kilts seem to run from £30 up. Not a viable option for many.
Similar price to a blazer then, and like a blazer you would just need one every two years, which could be purchased second hand from the school uniform shop. Blazers are £8 at our school.

ITA, Lass. Probably won't catch on in schools but a mid-calf full skirt is perfect for picnics, sitting on a beach without fussing with rugs etc. You can put your legs any darned place you want. I've got a couple of cotton jersey dresses of this style which are as easy to wear as a t-shirt.

I saw that M&S had some 'skater' style school skirts, I'd have thought those might be a good option.

If there is a big community of Hasidic jews near this school they should obviously take that into account.

I often wore skin tight trousers to school that my sister bought me. I wore them coz they looked fashionable and didn't really think about how much they showed my legs and bum. Obviously I got a lot of unwanted attention.

I think it's fine for feminists to point out that while we shouldn't dictate how girls or boys dress (within reason) there is a creeping sexualisation of young girls going on that's so prevalent, its hard to even notice sometimes.

I don't think skirts necessarily mean sexual objectification but I do think it's okay to be aware this is one factor at play in how girls dress.

Someone mentioned sitting cross legged in class.

The most comfortable option for sitting or kneeling is a circle, pleated or half pleated skirt. The material forms a sort of tent inder which you can arrange your limbs however you want.

Unless trousers have a bit of give in them by elastane or similar they will be less comfortable than a full skirt.

Our local Brethren used to be in mainstream schooling when I was a girl but it proved too tricky (they are a more extreme bunch who won't allow any TV radio computer use etc) anyway they built their own school maybe 20 years ago and all go there.

We have a large hasidic jewish populaiton nearby as well and they have some of their own schools but also I believe attend some local ?voluntary aided jewish schools (forget which sort it is where you get less money and have more freedom but are in state sector) so this would be actual for them although I don't imagine many people from outside the community attend (if any) and so this would never come up as they will have the uniform how it suits them.

I have massive issues with religious schools in state sector in UK but that's another point entirely. My part of london most schools are religious of one type of another.

I remember wearing coullots in primary school - look nice and more practical. I still wear them now.

Some idiot on GMB said we need to ban skirts to make girls more active and they're not practical for PE.

She didn't seem to realise snr school girls don't really do running and playing and you don't do PE in your uniform.

Its interesting to focus on the reasons behind this decision.

For decades, many girls have been asking to have the option to wear trousers. I remember back in the 1980's being part of a very respectful but unsuccesful petition to the Headteacher.

Just as recent article described how primary school sports at a Scottish school would no longer have boys and girls races,
"The decision was made following the release of new guidelines for LGBT kids"
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5794361/Primary-school-Inverness-scraps-boys-girls-races.html

discussed here:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3265307-Primary-school-scraps-boys-and-girls-only-races-from-its-sports-day-because-they-exclude-transgender-children

See also recent article about situation in Scotland, 'Schools 'forget' girls in rush to adopt pro-trans guidance campaigners claim' :
(extract)
"A series of Freedom of Information (FoI) requests have revealed that councils have widely backed guidelines produced by organisations campaigning for the rights of transgender people but have not considered how the new approach will affect children – particularly girls.

The new guidelines tell teachers that if a transgender pupil wishes to share a changing room with "other young people who share their gender identity," they should be allowed to do so.

"There is no reason for parents or carers of the other pupils to be informed," it adds.

The guidelines say young people should be able to compete in the sports events for the gender they identify with, and says if other pupils are uncomfortable using changing rooms or toilets with transgender pupils, they should use other facilities or wait until the transgender pupil is done.

However none of the councils involved, nor the children’s commissioner, nor Education Scotland have carried out an equality impact assessment to ensure the rights and wellbeing of other pupils are unaffected. This means the impact on other students has not been taken into account." (continues)

www.heraldscotland.com/news/16311379.schools-forget-girls-in-rush-to-adopt-pro-trans-guidance-campaigners-claim-as-christian-group-threatens-legal-action/

The Brethren do have one, teacup - Hornby in Lancashire. I believe it was a former state school which closed and then they reopened it as a Free School but now it appears to be independent. www.goodschoolsguide.co.uk/schools/focus-school-hornby-campus-lancaster.

Whilst I agree that it is wrong to add to the barriers for religious groups, I think it is more of a theoretical problem, because there are more and bigger barriers to mainstream schooling for them. I think it is very important to keep places like refuges single sex because if these women stray from their community their whole life is cut off and there is no support. If it is only one woman a year it is worth it.

We shouldn't add barriers to children from religious minority families entering mainstream schooling, whether they have their own schools or not. We especially should not add barriers to girls entering mainstream schooling.

you may think there should be no allowances for any religious group, but if you make allowances for one faith you can't then logically or ethically refuse to make allowances for other religious groups
I do not think either brethren or the very strict baptists have their own schools, I know a lot about strict baptists and they don't have their own schools they attend state schools but would not participate in certain things like theatre and some would not do any after school clubs

Do you have any idea how much single-supplier uniforms cost?

I just had a quick look ... tartan school kilts seem to run from £30 up. Not a viable option for many.

Italics fail there, sorry.

it has to be bought from a single supplier.

Do you have any idea how much single-supplier uniforms cost? Do the poor not matter any more. I've just seen the Indy article and I am seeing red: skirts have been banned because they can be “undignified and embarrassing” for staff and visitors when girls sit on the floor in assemblies and drama classes.

It's bloody embarrassing for the girls to have to flash their knickers when sitting on the floor, but they don't count, right? I remember how sitting comfortably cross-legged was impossible in my mandatory school skirt and we all had to sit sideways which bends your back and you have to put one hand on the floor (how hygienic) to support your torso. Give them chairs FFS.

And offer culottes: the right cut looks like an a-line or circle skirt, has a deep crotch for san pro, and has the crotch to give modesty.

we're always being told that feminism isn't about choice,

Are we? More that isn't just about choice. But it sure as heck isn't about removing the choice of a normal form of attire which has good reasons for being preferred by some girls and women,
As far as I can see^ the majority of the feminists on this thread are broadly in agreement with that. Some hadn't thought it through from the POV of other women and are now persuaded, which Is rather the point of debates! And of course, at least some^ of the people in favour of denying choice aren't feminists

My DC went to a school that banned skirts in the era of very short skirts with side split. They decided they were impractical for the modern era. They also had long lessons with plenty of activity and drama classes in all the pre-GCSE years and trousers are less restrictive. They also ditched the ties at the same time for the same reasons. My DC have been all the way through it and the only problem is that they cannot tie ties very well in adult life, which has only really been a problem for DS who is a bit hopeless at anything he would rather get you to do for him..............and even he can do it now.

We also have strict religious groups here. They have their own schools and never, ever go to the state schools. They then go on to get married and support their husband in the business he does not own, and have babies. A few go on to be solicitors etc to be useful to the community. I don't think the uniform situation would make any difference to that.

After reviewing the thread and seeing how women relied on skirts to accommodate the Thames Barrier of sanpro and recognising the religious needs of very orthodox Jews, I'm convinced: girls need the choice of a skirt. YY to previous posters who said that men who see a child's leg and think of sex are perverts: when I was wolf-whistled in uniform, my skirt was not rolled-up but even if it had been, men who see a child in school uniform and think of sex are paedophiles end of.

I too am disappointed to see a choice removed from girls... and dismayed to see feminists supporting it
Yet we're always being told that feminism isn't about choice, so why wouldn't feminists support it if they think the reasons justify it?

I think some feminists just loathe the idea that there are girls and women who like things associated with femininity . They loathe it so much that they will latch on to and support something like this.

In the course of doing so they are happy to ignore the offensive reasons given by the headmaster here about it being for reasons of decency and are happy to ignore and belittle any different opinion.

I think they are hypocrites driven by their own personal dogma and prejudice.

not only hasidic jews but some strict brethern churches and strict baptist churches also disagree with women wearing trousers it may seem daft that they do but if we make allowances for muslim girls to wear hijab for their faith or they were allowed trousers when other girls wore skirts, they must make allowances for jewish/christian girls not allowed to wear trousers

some of these would withdraw their daughters from school, not on this issue but I think the possibility of biological males being in female spaces in schools will also lead to the withdrawal of some muslim/ jewish and christian girls from school especially trips involving overnight stays