I just bought these but they piss me off.

[frogswimming]

They are to go over my dd nappy for under skirts. But the name really pisses me off. Why can't they be called 'under skirt shorts'? There's no need to be judging two year olds on their levels of modesty.

'bleat'?
Yes your examples are things I don't do as well because of common sense
I'll say again, it is a fucking depressing world where it's 'common sense' that those who are subjected to violence/violation/unwanted sexual attention are blamed and made to feel responsible for other people's actions. Why the fuck should a tiny child not fleetingly have their underwear on view? Why the fuck should a person not be able to walk home safely?

@IntermittentParps

'bleat'? Yes your examples are things I don't do as well because of common sense I'll say again, it is a fucking depressing world where it's 'common sense' that those who are subjected to violence/violation/unwanted sexual attention are blamed and made to feel responsible for other people's actions. Why the fuck should a tiny child not fleetingly have their underwear on view? Why the fuck should a person not be able to walk home safely?

Of course it’s a depressing world but what’s the point of railing against it? It won’t change anything. We don’t live in an ideal world, we live in a real one and we have to accommodate what we can’t change.

We can't change society sexualising young children? (and it's not just a minority of 'deviants', BTW; this stuff is insidious and pervasive and happens at a low level as well as the obvious and criminal ones – girls' T-shirts with 'pretty' and suchlike on them spring to mind.)
We can't change society thinking that somehow a woman is to blame if she is groped/assaulted/spiked?

It's a good job not everyone thinks the same as you and some others on here.

@IntermittentParps

We can't change society sexualising young children? (and it's not just a minority of 'deviants', BTW; this stuff is insidious and pervasive and happens at a low level as well as the obvious and criminal ones – girls' T-shirts with 'pretty' and suchlike on them spring to mind.) We can't change society thinking that somehow a woman is to blame if she is groped/assaulted/spiked?

It's a good job not everyone thinks the same as you and some others on here.

So how do you propose changing it? What are you doing to effect this change? Please tell me so I can join in.

We take precautions to mitigate risk in life. That’s reality. Everyone should drive carefully so we shouldn’t need to wear seatbelts but that’s not reality. Reducing personal risk is hardly blaming.

I dont understand how seeing knickers is "immodest" but these shorts is not?

Everyone should drive carefully so we shouldn’t need to wear seatbelts but that’s not reality. Reducing personal risk is hardly blaming.
This is like the 'you wouldn't leave your valuables on show in your window' argument routinely trotted out. Equating people's (women and girls') bodies with possessions.

I would have been at the Sarah Everard vigil had it not been Covid times (I don't condemn those who did turn out). I write to my MP. I vote for politicians who I think care about these issues. I read about women in history and society and try to educate myself so I can form well-informed opinions.

I would have been at the Sarah Everard vigil had it not been Covid times (I don't condemn those who did turn out). I write to my MP. I vote for politicians who I think care about these issues. I read about women in history and society and try to educate myself so I can form well-informed opinions

Thanks for that advice. My MP is a Tory dickhead, I might as well write to the Easter bunny for all the effect that would have, they weigh his votes so my vote is pointless however I cast it. I’ve been a feminist with well informed opinions for getting on for 50 years and in that time it’s got worse for women’s safety. You can read until your eyes fall out, it won’t change a thing.

And it takes some mental gymnastics to equate my seatbelt analogy with female bodies being possessions. There are two ways of living in this world - change what you can and come to terms with what you can’t or whine about not living in utopia. The latter is pointless because the world has never been utopian nor will it ever be.

@Bordois

I dont understand how seeing knickers is "immodest" but these shorts is not?

It depends on the knickers. What the op has bought are knickers and there is nothing 'immodest' about them.

Small children should not be self conscious about showing knickers, etc, but older ones don't want to display their pretty panties to all and sundry.

I quite like the ones shown in the first post and they seem suitable for athletic pursuits. I've not known people put particular types over a baby's nappy, that may be a new thing. If they are wearing a skirt they usually just wear pants that are big enough to cover the nappy.

And it takes some mental gymnastics to equate my seatbelt analogy with female bodies being possessions.
It really doesn't, it just takes a tiny bit of thought. Admittedly, it doesn't map on to women's safety quite as neatly as the 'valuables on show' argument; I suppose it's more like 'we must keep our bodies safe at large in the world (ie out of certain places/dressed in certain ways) just as we must keep our bodies safe in fast-moving cars.'

Your posts seem irredeemably cynical and hopeless. I feel hopeless a lot of the time but I refuse to believe that we cannot make society better.

@Twinkie01

How many pieces of material do girls need between their vulvas and the outside world to feel comfortable these days?

Well at least one I would imagine. The OP wants it to cover a nappy. I think the point of these is so they can be worn instead of pants, which I think is a great idea when little girls are wearing skirts and dresses. I agree withyou though OP. Why do they have to be called modesty shorts. We don't need to call the big anything either, they are just boxers but they have put them in the girls section. We don't call boys boxers, big boxers, or modesty shorts, so why girls? And yes, I do think all children should have their genitals adequately covered, and the flimsy little shoe string pants they make for girls just aren't enough.

@IntermittentParps

And it takes some mental gymnastics to equate my seatbelt analogy with female bodies being possessions. It really doesn't, it just takes a tiny bit of thought. Admittedly, it doesn't map on to women's safety quite as neatly as the 'valuables on show' argument; I suppose it's more like 'we must keep our bodies safe at large in the world (ie out of certain places/dressed in certain ways) just as we must keep our bodies safe in fast-moving cars.'

Your posts seem irredeemably cynical and hopeless. I feel hopeless a lot of the time but I refuse to believe that we cannot make society better.

You’re absolutely right, that’s exactly what my analogy was meant to convey. Are you now seriously suggesting that we don’t or shouldn’t take personal responsibility for the safety of our own bodies? That’s part of the reason Sarah Everard’s death is so awful - because she took every reasonable precaution and the poor woman still ended up dead.

I’m a realist not cynical or hopeless at all but I’ve been on this planet for almost seven decades and in that time it’s become a place where women are less safe. The reality is if you live in a dangerous place it’s sensible to mitigate risk. If not we’ve all completely wasted our time for the last year.

@IntermittentParps

Everyone should drive carefully so we shouldn’t need to wear seatbelts but that’s not reality. Reducing personal risk is hardly blaming. This is like the 'you wouldn't leave your valuables on show in your window' argument routinely trotted out. Equating people's (women and girls') bodies with possessions.

I would have been at the Sarah Everard vigil had it not been Covid times (I don't condemn those who did turn out). I write to my MP. I vote for politicians who I think care about these issues. I read about women in history and society and try to educate myself so I can form well-informed opinions.

Yes but the reality of all of that is it will not stop someone murdering , attacking, whatever if they are so inclined. You write to your MP ? No amount of legislation will stop what you are talking about . Educating yourself ? How will that stop someone attacking ?

And yes, I do think all children should have their genitals adequately covered, and the flimsy little shoe string pants they make for girls just aren't enough.

Hear! Hear!

I don’t like the name either. I think as a stand-alone/one off it’s okay but in reality, it just plays into a sexist rhetoric and is another thing that women are judged on. Like girls are heathens for just wearing normal knickers and need to further behave “modestly”

My school used to call them games knickers and they were apart of the uniform

I remember those too.

There are some religions which exhort both men and women to dress modestly and since we are more multicultural than in the past, shops have adopted this so there is something for all (orthodox Jews have always had it in their own shops). M&S stores and Sports Direct for example have modest swimwear, other stores have modest wedding clothes. They are not shy about using the word 'modest' which seems old fashioned to many of us.

I don't think it is helpful to read too much into one word.

Are you now seriously suggesting that we don’t or shouldn’t take personal responsibility for the safety of our own bodies? That’s part of the reason Sarah Everard’s death is so awful - because she took every reasonable precaution and the poor woman still ended up dead.

I don't get this. My point was that some people said Everard DIDN'T take 'every reasonable precaution' because she was alone at night. Which is not acceptable, obviously.

As to personal responsibility, men aren't generally exhorted to not walk alone/at night and not dress 'provocatively'. Why do they not have to 'take personal responsibility for the safety of their bodies' and women do?

that's a fucking terrible name and would instantly stop me buying them. I'd just buy "girl's shorts" from Amazon's or eBay.

Why do you feel the need to add another layer over your daughters nappy?

Nappies are hot enough in the summer without another layer.

I get having something over the nappy because nappies may not stay secure on an active baby, especially if they are wearing a dress. If she is wearing trousers or shorts she won't need extra underpants. Anyway she will probably stop wearing nappies soon if she is two.

The whole thing is weird.

They are not gong to fit over a nappy. You don't need to cover a nappy and if you do you need the puffy thin cotton variety, these aren't going to fit, they will end up with full nappy crotch pushing out the bottom.

Girls just need good quality knickers that don't gape.

Agreed, fruit, or shorts for doing athletic things. Babies aren't usually climbing trees.