To think was a a bit wrong.

[Canthisonebeused]

Not sure why but this doesn't sit right with me, what are others thoughts. It's not a big deal but did bother me a bit.

7 and 8 year old girls doing handstands and cartwheels in the playground at school. Boys being silly laughing at their pants and did not die down after being told not to by playground staff. Therefore girls are sent in to put PE shorts on under their dresses.

I just think they are little girls FFS who care if their pants are showing and the boys should have been delt with. I just don't think it's a good message to sent to girls.

But tabby the girls were wearing shorts because they know you will not permit them to do handstands if they did not. Those without shorts are not allowed to do handstands you already said you stop them from doing handstands of they flash their pants. So the parents are your school are not thinking practicalities at all they are thinking, my dd can't play freely because tabby will not allow it!!!

My dd and her friends did have appropriate attire on, they had appropriate school uniform on which fulfils the requirements of appropriate behaviour and activity in the classroom and the playground. Otherwise shorts under summer dresses would be very clearly a part of the uniform policy.

There is a discussion to be had about school uniform. But in this case, the girls were wearing the uniform they were expected to wear, and behaving like 7 year old children. So, arguably, were the boys- pants are funny. But the key thing is that the group who were not behaving "badly" were told to modify their behaviour - the group that were behaving "badly" weren't. And, as is usually in our society, the group asked to modify were the girls.........

This is what it boils down to well done for summing it up so perfectly well!!!

She's right tabby!

Can I ask what sort of school you work at?

It's a primary, John, and we don't get many sunny warm days .

Canthisone quote
"But tabby the girls were wearing shorts because they know you will not permit them to do handstands if they did not"

Not in this case because it is already part of the school uniform iyswim. Girls who don't wear shorts with summer dresses are the exception not the rule. Many parents at my school routinely send their girls to school with shorts/short skirt combo; it's practical and no-one complains.

But Tabby, is there an overt requirement in the school's rules that girls must wear shorts under dresses and skirts? If not, I don't see how you can possibly stop the girls from acting like children just because they aren't wearing shorts. Again, I suspect it has become normal practice amongst families only because you won't let the girls play normally unless they have shorts on.

Go on, give it a try: make it a policy to allow the girls to play as they want to regardless of whether they're wearing shorts. Point out to them that grown women don't wear shorts under skirts. I suspect you'll see that practice dying away.

It's NOT part of the school uniform though. It's happened because they know there are certain restrictions unless they conform to wearing the shorts skirt combo.

they have learned they can't and won't be permitted to play freely without confirming to some one else's set of values about their clothing and bodies, and so it has become accepted to believe it is practical.

It is NOT any more practical to wear shorts than not to.

You have still not justify why it's not acceptable to see little girls pants when they are doing handstands.

You have still not justified why shorts under a dress a practical.

You have expressed your own values yes, but your own values do not and should not prescribe what is and isn't practical in order to permit other peoples children to play freely.

Tabby - because they don't want to rock the boat and make their DDs stand out. But it's the culture of the school that girls be 'modest', and you are complicit in that.

I really and truly hope there are no teachers at DD's new school with attitudes like yours - they are very damaging to girls. And I am astonished that you don't seem to be able to understand why many people on this thread find it abhorrent. Can you really not see how this attitude with 7 year olds will lead on to older girls and women being told they can't dress in a certain way because they'll be seen as cheap or up for it - and that those who make those judgements will carry on getting away with it.

I had never heard of shit like this until I read it on MN (DD starting school in September) and it depresses me immensely.

It is very depressing rivertam. This week since this happened my dd has either wore shorts under a summer dress or wore her trousers when she otherwise wouldn't have.

When I posted this OP it didn't seem such a big deal, however I think it maybe a bigger deal than I originally gave credit to.

My dd told me at the time she didn't particularly mind the boys, she was able to just get on and ignore them.

Other girls were bothered about them laughing but my dd said she didn't see what purpose the shorts served and that the boys should have been told to buzz off.

So it's quite sad really that she's wearing shorts or trousers without any understanding of why this is even necessary or required yet still she conforms despite my best efforts.

If shorts are so practical an option, why bother having the girls wear dresses or skirts over the top of them at all, why on earth should they have to wear two sets of clothes? Either dresses and skirts are practical uniform clothes for 7 year old girls (who ought to be doing active things like cartwheels and hanging upside down) or they aren't.

As a mother of a son, I would rather that my son not be given the impression that boys are so entitled to stare and laugh at what girls are wearing that they can disobey adults who tell them to stop and the girls will be forced to modify their behaviour. It flies in the face of what I will try and teach him about girls and boys. Quit the slut shaming of 7 year olds which is what it begins to amount to when people start talk about 'flashing knickers'.

On the subject of school uniform: at my daughter's primary school, girls do not have to opt for summer dresses. Instead they may wear grey shorts just as the boys do or remain in winter uniform. I cannot imagine that a state funded primary school would have any legal grounds to object to girls wearing shorts instead of dresses, just as they could not object if the boys preferred to opt for dresses.

I think it may be worth noting that puberty is no longer the preserve of secondary schools and that taller girls as young as 7 years do start developing. It is unsurprising that this provokes curiosity in male pupils.

Instead they may wear grey shorts just as the boys do

So they have to modify their behaviour and wear boy's clothes.........

Ithink it may be worth noting that puberty is no longer the preserve of secondary schools and that taller girls as young as 7 years do start developing. It is unsurprising that this provokes curiosity in male pupils

Not sure where to start with this one. Actually, I think I'll park it and not remotely relevant to the discussion.

Sorry? "Boy's clothes"? Why should there be any distinction? I'm suggesting that shorts might be more practical for doing gymnastics in the playing field and that there are some practical issues in running around in pants once puberty has started.

I think the issue is that children are taught there is something funny and embarrassing about pants. At this age the children will only be laughing and looking because that is what society tells them to do.

Kids who haven't been brought up this way don't see anything to stare at. In other countries kids still to PE in their underwear up until age 8 or so, as they used to do here, I think.

If my sons were laughing at girls (- although it wouldn't happen, they're not the kind of kids who can't control their hilarity or 'curiosity' at girls knickers) I want them to be told that's not acceptable.
What kind of message are they giving the boys here?

"I think the issue is that children are taught there is something funny and embarrassing about pants"

No it's not. The issue is that the boys were being silly, wouldn't stop, and the girls were told to change what they were doing.

I wonld be amazed, by the way, if there is anywhere in the world where kids do PE in vest and pants. It's only talked about the way it is in this country because apparently it was what you were made to do if you didn't have your kit.

There was no public hair, menstrual blood or labias on display. They were doing handstands with knickers on!!!!!

What no one is able to uphold is what exactly is it about the job of shorts that the knickers are failing to do?????

The idea that girls are responsible for the behaviour of boys is incredibly deep seated.

The discussion keeps returning to 'boys v girls' but wearing shorts under a summer dress while playing outside in school is merely practical; it's nothing to do with boys seeing girls underwear, but about being able to play freely without having to show underwear.

If boys wore dresses and wanted to do handstands I would say the same to them.

I repeat that laughing and teasing anyone who shows underwear while playing is a form of bullying and intimidation and should be dealt with.

But why tabby? You keep returning to this without being able to state why!

As I said- there is a discussion to be had about practical uniform for girls. But in this particular case, it was about the boys being silly and the girls being asked to change the behaviour.

I agree with pps that we used to tuck our dresses into our pants to make a kind of leotard for doing handstands in. So it's not a new thing. ..

am gobsmacked that this is still going?

Surely the whole point is that shorts are not part of the official uniform? The summer uniform is a gingham dress in most parts of the country. Girls are being pressured into wearing shorts underneath by their peers (or in OP's and Tabby's schools by staff) - because there is some weird idea that showing pants at primary school age is somehow indecent. And this concept of decency is a new development.

And those of us with daughters are concerned about what other backwards steps our society is taking.

And those of us with sons are unhappy with the idea that they are being given the message that they do not have to think about or modify their behaviour because girls will do it for them.

hakluyt as the mother of four boys (and a girl) I find it offensive that people clearly think so little of boys that they can't behave! My boys have better standards than that! It's offensive that people think boys are incapable of controlling themselves and if anyone tells my daughter she needs to modify her clothing or behaviour because 'boys will be boys'! I will go ballistic!