to be ? that a teacher told my dd (6yrs) to wear cycling shorts under her summer dress if she was going to be doing cartwheels?

[mulranno]

?

You will rarely find shorts for girls tbh. It's not the done thing at all. Shorts are for boys didn't you know...

Or, "we" could just get a grip.

It's not about "getting a grip" or imagining a world full paedos or putting girls in burkhas.

It's simply as the fact that dresses are no more suitable for young girls as they would be for young boys. Both have to spend a lot of the school day sat on scratchy, heavy-duty carpets, and are encouraged to do physical activity in break times.

The only thing we should "get a grip" about is this absurd insistence on putting our girls in dresses, and while our boys get to wear practical, comfortable clothing.

I notice no-one on here has had a moan about their children - both boys and girls - being expected to change into shorts and trackie bottoms for PE. No-one has said girls should be allowed to do PE in dresses - for obvious reasons.

Those same reasons of practicality and comfort apply throughout the school day as far as I'm concerned.

Shorts are for boys didn't you know...

That's the problem! If schools could ditch the silly gingham dresses and make the uniform shorts and trousers for both boys and girls, then girls would be free to wear them without being accused of "dressing like a boy".

I know - I've been there. DD wouldn't wear "city shorts" for that very reason, she saw the stick other girls got for doing so.

So she stuck to trousers from Y4.

At DD's school, girls can't wear dresses except on special days (usually last day of term). The reason being that if they are wearing skirts it would be more difficult to climb trees, use the outdoor climbing frames, slides, swings, monkey bars or climbing poles. Long trousers are preferred to shorts as they offer more protection.

The decision to create the rule is entirely one of practicality, comfort and common sense.

PS I did link to the M&S Unforms "city shorts" for girls further upthread, but here is is again.

I must tell my dd9 that you can't climb a tree in a loose cotton dress, she's done so every day in the summer term for the past two years (it's on the way home)! And, no-one has remarked on her pants in this time, just as I don't remark on boys pants when they show when their trousers are falling down/shirt untucked/climbing a tree.

mumsy I still climb trees, even at my ripe old age, and it is definitely easier to do it in jeans/trousers than a dress, just like it's easier to do it in proper trainers than it is in summer sandals. No one has said that you can't climb a tree in a dress, just that it's easier in trousers.

Maybe we should bring back bathing and nice little outfit like these

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BathingMachineGals.jpg

that should teach little girls to be modest

Its not about stopping people about being sexually attracted to kids, or modesty, it is about helping kids realise what type of behaviours are inappropriate from adults. This applies to boys and girls.

Telling them your private parts, underwear etc are special and only certain people should see them, is not going to stop peadophiles but might help the kids realise something weird is going on if they are in that situation.

It has nothing to do with paedophiles, underwear is not meant to be seen end of!

if this lesson was taught sooner maybe we would have less teen/adult women walking around with more crack than a Colombian drug lord.

People who say 'end of' never say anything worth listening to.

My DD is only 2, but she has never worn dresses, OK she has to parties and stuff, but they are so inhibiting for her, she won't be wearing dresses for school. There are lovely girls uniform options at DS school, trousers, shorts, skorts, cullots (sp I know!)

For lots of practical reasons, I don't see the point in dresses for school.

squoosh

nailak I completely agree, and said as much upthread.

cantspel Another one missing the point entirely, and claiming that expecting girls to wear practical clothing is some kind of throwback to the pre-feminist Victorian era.

Practical clothing for active girls is hardly a retrograde step, far from it. It's actually the expectation that girls should wear impractical dresses which is a lingering pre-feminist tradition.

You may have noticed, cantspel, that swimwear for both sexes is now more practical. It is appropriate clothing when you are swimming.

School uniforms should also be equally practical for both boys and girls, when they are at school.

So is underwear mean to be seen?

wonders why I've wasted so many years wearing clothes

Honestly I remember becoming self concious at that age, sitting in the circle worrying if you're knickers are showing, get some girls boxers and the job's a goodun' no more discomfort or paranoia.

School uniforms should also be equally practical for both boys and girls, when they are at school.

Why only when they are at school though?
If girls should wear trousers/shorts to go to school for practical reasons, then I would say they should also do so the rest of the time.

That means that dresses will be confined to 'special occasions' such as weddings and no woman will wear dresses anymore. Not the least because if girls are never wearing dresses, they are very unlikely to do so when they are getting older/woman. It will feel weird, uncomfortable and unpleasant as you have to be so careful about how you sit and so on. Which they will not know about as they have never/rarely wear a dress before.

All that because .... oh yes, someone has seen a 6yo pair of knickers (ie seeing just as much as if they have seen that child one the beach or at the swimming pool)

I don't disagree with you olgaga, but dealing with the here and now, where girls are put in dresses by their parents when very young, or choose to wear them when given the "choice", I think the Head is ott. Of course wearing trousers is more practical, and I am well aware of the politics behind the way women and girls are expected and encouraged to dress.

The whole idea of modification of behaviour leaves a nasty taste in my mouth. I can't escape the idea that we should all be good little girls, shut up and get out of sight. And we certainly shouldn't have our reviolting knickers on display!

revolting, obviously.

All that because .... oh yes, someone has seen a 6yo pair of knickers (ie seeing just as much as if they have seen that child one the beach or at the swimming pool)

or equally:

All that because someone has taken offence to a simple and polite suggestion that their daughter may wish to wear a pair of shorts under her summer dress.

Really? Is it really worth getting that het up over something so ridiculously simple? Are people really going out of their way to be offended and up in arms over such a non-issue?

Going on the beach example , women wear bikini's , would it be fine to have bra , kickers showing at work?

knickers should not be on display its underwear!

cantspel, at least in Australia, many children are now wearing bathing suits made of UV protective fabric, which covers them up a lot more. Nothing to do with modesty, but as a sensible, sunsmart protection in a country where 12500 new cases of melanoma a year a diagnosed. It is the norm now to see children in a minimum of a short sleeved shirt and often mid calf or knee length pants made out of this material. It's pretty rare to see children not wearing one these days, and even more and more adults are now wearing at least the t-shirt when out in the sun.

They aren't on display, they're briefly flashed. A clear and obvious difference.

Perhaps we should say that teenagers who are walking with their pants on show and trousers mid bum.

But that doesn't seem to shock anyone. Why?