Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

I probably am BU, but would this bother anyone else?

256 replies

FedRightUpWithWork · 02/12/2014 20:13

DD goes to a girls only grammar (yr7) there is to be a Christmas disco with the boys grammar years 7 & 8 only. On reading the letter which was sent home it states 'to ensure the enjoyment and safety of the students, we are asking for your support and co-operation. Girls should be modestly dressed. Students arriving unsuitably dressed will be [...] sent home to change.'

This makes me really uncomfortable, and I can't quite verbalise why, I think it's the implication that the way girls dress can cause the boys to misbehave? That at the age of 11 they are being held responsible for how others may act? And who decides what is 'modest'? My DD loves wearing shorts and tights, but they are short so would they be unsuitable, despite no flesh on display? I'm really not explaining myself well, but would it bother anyone else?

OP posts:
TestingTestingWonTooFree · 03/12/2014 03:53

YANBU - I don't like the wording and think you should challenge it.

HumblePieMonster · 03/12/2014 04:37

teaching for decades I saw many female pupils take non uniform days or discos etc as an opportunity to dress inappropriately in sexually provocative clothing exposing a lot of flesh party or not its still school and flesh should be covered

apologies for the lack of punctuation my keyboard is playing up

challenging a perfectly reasonable request would be ridiculous

SpringBreaker · 03/12/2014 05:41

I would have been one of those females sadly.. At the age of 12 I could easily pass for 18. I obviously did not possess the common sense or maturity that an older teen should have though, and that is the danger for young girls who think they know what they are doing. The problems are not likely to arise at this event but before and after it. I am amazed that people on this thread are so determined to try and find "victim blaming" that they can't see how young girls dressing up as much older teens absolutely can put them at risk.

AnonyMust · 03/12/2014 05:45

OP, were it NOT for the mention of 'safety' and the implied connection between immodest dressing and a threat to safety from Y7&8 boys, I'd be fine with it.

What's clothing got to do with am eating disorder? Bizarre connection.

Hakluyt · 03/12/2014 06:57

"OP, were it NOT for the mention of 'safety' and the implied connection between immodest dressing and a threat to safety from Y7&8 boys, I'd be fine with it."

But then it would be a completely different letter.......!

nooka · 03/12/2014 07:20

It's both badly worded and unhelpful. The implication that dressing immodestly (and what precisely does that mean) might mean that safety cannot be ensured is a worrying message to give, and one I'd be unhappy about. It's also completely unclear as to what might be judged unsuitable. Much better surely to give some actual guidance?

My children go to a non uniform school, and the dress code says something along the lines of: no spaghetti strap tops, no high heels, no very short skirts/shorts, and no offensive slogans. This is really easy to follow. Dress 'modestly' means nothing as it's completely subjective, and I'd wonder who wodul be making that judgement.

ShakesBootyFlabWobbles · 03/12/2014 07:48

Being on the PtA for 4 years and running discos, my first thought would be safety reference would come from a 'health and safety' angle, as both the pta insurance and the school requires that the pta carries out a risk assessment for every event. The connotation of sexual safety has never come up four our school discos; considering children's footwear at an indoor event has. If there was a perceived risk of sexual safety it must go on the risk assessment, so why not ask to see that OP? You'll be able to see the safety points in black and white for yourself before treating your own perceptions as truth.
If there was sexual safety as a perceived threat at a children's disco, the event wouldn't be run. The school/pta is hosting an event where another school's pupils and no doubt parent and teacher helpers will be attending; they will want to set standards. Dress codes happen in all walks of life. They are not trying to achieve sexual safety, they are setting standards.

ShakesBootyFlabWobbles · 03/12/2014 07:50

For not four, bloody spellchecker Hmm

SpringBreaker · 03/12/2014 17:46

It doesn't say that the risk of danger is from the boys at the disco. That is just assumption on here.

MoreBonkersThanBonkers · 03/12/2014 18:10

I've seen 11 years dressing inappropriately and I think it's ok to remind parents to make sure their kids are dressed modestly. It would not be ok for the school to expect the kids to dress like nuns though. I suppose it's depends on what they mean by modestly.

11 year olds can really miss the mark when it comes to party outfits, shoes and makeup.

I wouldn't have assumed the letter would have been worded differently if it was a girls only disco but if it was then that's not a good thing Confused.

MiddletonPink · 03/12/2014 18:19

What an odd letter.
I'd like to know where their thinking on this matter came from.

blanklook · 03/12/2014 18:31

I think it was just clumsily worded, but I don't think it justifies the over reaction it's received here.

This event is for 11 to 12 year olds, it's a shame that school have had to point out that age-appropriate clothing is required, but that's all they have asked for, which in itself is reasonable IMO.

MrsTerryPratchett · 03/12/2014 18:50

But they haven't asked for children to wear 'age-appropriate' clothing, have they? If they had, there would be no issue. What they have asked for is for girls to be modestly dressed. There is a MASSIVE difference between those two statements. One is sensible and fine; the other is shaming, sexist and repulsive.

There is a LONG list of traits I hope DD has:

Good sense, kindness, empathy, a work ethic. Modesty is NOT on that list.

YonicScrewdriver · 03/12/2014 19:24

Yanbu.

ShakesBootyFlabWobbles · 03/12/2014 19:33

FFS blanklook called it. Over reactions, hysterical, parallel universe, pick whichever one suits. This thread is pissing me right off, I can't believe the sensible responses are in the minority.

Why don't you all kick off at your pta volunteers and teacher helpers and run to the papers and see where that gets you. They will just stop bothering running events for your children. If a minority of parents didn't let 11 year old children dress like 18 year olds clubbing on a Saturday night there would be no need for these kind of requests. That is what is shocking.

A volunteer or teacher has clumsily worded a letter that was trying to achieve a dress code for an event run by people giving up their time so the children could enjoy themselves. The bastards.

So OP, put us out of our misery, are you appearing in the papers this week? Hmm

noblegiraffe · 03/12/2014 19:42

They don't want the kids to dress like crack whores (or whatever the words the pp used were). They can't write "don't let your daughter dress like a crack whore" (which some may tend towards) so they used 'modest dress' instead, which most will understand to mean the same thing. They also couldn't write "don't let your daughter dress like a crack whore because having girls focus on their appearance as a sex object from a young age is probably something we shouldn't encourage or be seen to condone as an educational establishment, and besides, high heels are dangerous" so they wrote "for the enjoyment and safety of pupils". I don't think rape by y7 boys was on their minds.

Hakluyt · 03/12/2014 19:45

It always makes me laughter that people get so angry about defending their right not to be offended by anything!!!!

ShakesBootyFlabWobbles · 03/12/2014 19:47

Hakluyt laugh away.

ghostyslovesheep · 03/12/2014 19:50

FFS this thread is depressing

YANBU OP

KittyandTeal · 03/12/2014 19:55

It would bother me for the reasons you've said and I say that as a teacher who sent a y6 girl home from a disco to change because it was inappropriate.

I guess the schools implication is, like you say, immodest dress will encourage bad behaviour from the boys.

I sent said girl home because I still hold that heels I could walk in, a mini skirt and her mums boob tube is just not ok for an 11 yo to wear.

I'm now questioning of I did the right thing.

CuriousOranj · 03/12/2014 19:56

YANBU. I'm furious on your behalf. By bringing "safety" into it they are teaching a disgusting rape myth to your child.

noblegiraffe · 03/12/2014 20:01

Fgs, why on earth are people on here supporting the right of 11 year old girls to dress like hookers, yet when there are threads bemoaning shops selling clothes to 11 year old girls that make them look like hookers, everyone complains about the early sexualisation of girls?

Are you for the early sexualisation of girls, or against it?

Zazzles007 · 03/12/2014 20:02

YANBU OP, I would challenge the wording as well, its badly put. Get them to clarify themselves. And give the letter to your local newspaper.

BathshebaDarkstone · 03/12/2014 20:03

YANBU. It does send a message that if girls wear certain clothes they should expect to be assaulted. Sad

Hakluyt · 03/12/2014 20:04

"Fgs, why on earth are people on here supporting the right of 11 year old girls to dress like hookers, yet when there are threads bemoaning shops selling clothes to 11 year old girls that make them look like hookers, everyone complains about the early sexualisation of girls?

Are you for the early sexualisation of girls, or against it?"

Nobody is supporting the right of 11 year old girls to dress like hookers. They are questioning the use of the word modest.