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

[FedRightUpWithWork]

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?

noble can you really not see the difference between 'girls - dress modestly for safety' and 'children - dress appropriately'?

Also, just a plea to stop talking about 'hookers' and 'crack whores'. I've worked with many women selling sex because of addiction. I feel very sad that these women, real women with feelings, are being used to make a point about how very disgusting these clothes are.

Yep, I am all for both boys and girls to be dressed age appropriately wherever possible (and not shaming children with inappropriate language), but I also see that the school letter is wrong as well. Its a case of 'Two wrongs don't make a right'.

I can sort of see where people are coming from with wanting to avoid victim blaming. But I'm not sure that's what is going on here - otherwise that would be pretty insulting to the boys as well, basically implying they'd be unable to control their predatory sexuality unless the girls cover up.

But OTOH are posters really arguing that 11yo girls should be given free rein at a disco to wear exactly what they like, no matter how skimpy and sexualised? Because if the answer to that is 'no' then surely it must be possible to see where this letter is coming from without it being about victim blaming or sexual assault.

"But OTOH are posters really arguing that 11yo girls should be given free rein at a disco to wear exactly what they like, no matter how skimpy and sexualised"

No. They aren't.

What is so annoying about this sort of thing, is that it darkly hints at unspecified threats ("safety" clearly implies "bad things happen to girls who dress immodestly" - whether the bad things are sexual are not) without saying anything direct about what the threats are, how they can be managed by what you are wearing, how this is the girls' responsibility, and - the most annoying of all - any actual hard guidelines about what you can and can't wear that can be pointed to as empirical things that relate to the physical world (eg "no cleavage" " no short shorts" "no heels higher than x" or whatever they want to stop the girls wearing)

In other words it's all indefensible hand waving flim flam that says "wearing some things is dangerous. we won't tell you what things, or what the dangers are. We'll just hint darkly that Certain clothes cause Certain things to happen that are Your Fault." It just creates and intensifies the paranoia about your physical persona, your safety and security, your general sense of bodily and social unease that you are already hobbled by when you are 11 and 12 and 13. Without any sensible suggestions about how to be safe and confident and secure and in control. We should be teaching young people how to defend, protect, and be proud of their bodies in a state of innocence and confidence, not hinting at DANGER because you have a .... BODY in..... CLOTHES

YANBU.

As Mrs TP says, there is a world of difference between 'for their safety children should dress appropriately' and 'for their safety girls should dress modestly'

I would give them the benefit of the doubt had they said girls should dress appropriately, as they are a girls school and so might not think of saying children because all they have is girls, but using the word modest is very telling.

NobleGiraffe I'm not supporting the right of 11 year old girls to dress like hookers. I'm supporting their right not to be taught that "modest" = safe, and by implication "immodest" = in danger, but it's your own fault for not dressing correctly.

It's badly worded but isn't just saying 'place don't send your girls in looking like something out of bug fat gypsy wedding'. I would just be going to next pta and have an input

YANBU

The oversexualisation of young girls is a separate issue to this. The disgust at hyper sexual clothing sold in small children's sizes isn't about them being raped, or at least it isn't to me.

Could you ask the school to clarify what they mean by dressing modestly? What their perceived safety issues are? Whether the same issues have been raised with parents of children at the boys' school? If it's just the wording that got garbled, then I'm sure they'll send out a written apology for the confusion of safety advice with rape myths.

I really hope it's not, as a PP suggested, that the school isn't worried about boys of her age group being incited to sexually attack them, but 'older men' as they travel to and from the venue

This letter wouldn't bother me.

Safety obviously means no high heels, big heavy earrings or belly rings or dropping wet foundation and eye makeup.

You're all right, they would not be in danger from the boys at the party, and I'm sure the school wouldn't think that either.

I would be bothered by the phrasing.

Challenge it: ask why the girls safety is likely to be compromised by immodest dress.

They should have said; all children to dress appropriately please.

Safety obviously means no high heels, big heavy earrings or belly rings or dropping wet foundation and eye makeup. So why use the word modest? Surely if they really meant this they would have said the girls should dress sensibly, practically or appropriately.

On my non school uniform days some of the girls would wear such revealing clothes (boobs literally falling out, bum hanging out of skirt) that I presume that's what type of clothing the letter was alluding to. I suppose if the current fashion was for boys to not wear shirts their letter would say 'shirts to be worn at all times' like you sometimes see in restaurants abroad. But there isn't anything wrong is asking what the purpose of the letter was.

I hate seeing girls dressed in over-sexualised outfits. I agree with those posters who say children should dress appropriately.

However, I would also strongly object to the wording of the letter. There's a very clear implication that unless the girls dress modestly, their safety can not be ensured. And despite the event being open to both boys and girls, it is the girls who have been singled out- contrast the use of 'students' and 'girls'.

The letter sends out a dangerous message and should certainly be challenged.

Can just make it clear that, as far as I am aware, nobody is objecting to this letter because it is intended to stop 11 year old girls dressing in age- inappropriate over sexualized clothing?

It is the wording of the letter and the heavily weighted word "modesty" which is causing people concern.

Late to the party, but I too think YANBU by objecting to that letter. I hate the word "modest" and hate even more the strong message that is being given both to the girls and to the boys by this.

Nobody is supporting the right of 11 year old girls to dress like hookers

Well, yes they are. We've had at least one person saying that it's fine, and that it's not up to teachers to tell kids how to dress. We've had another teacher questioning whether they did the right thing in sending an unsuitably dressed girl home from such an event. The people banging on about how boys aren't being told how to dress are certainly giving the impression that girls shouldn't be told how to dress either, even though anyone who works with or knows this age group knows that there is an issue specifically with girls' attire in terms of premature sexualisation.

People are trying to read sinister rape-myth motives into a letter from a group trying to do something nice for the kids. I am positive that questioning the school about whether the letter is trying to suggest that girls protect themselves from rape by wearing button-up blouses would be met with utter disbelief and wtf.

The word "modest" can be taken a few ways. One of them is:

Free from showiness or ostentation; unpretentious.

That sounds about right to me, and I bet this is what the school letter means. I would support them whole heartedly from stopping girls dressing ott at a school disco. They wrote this for the girls especially, because I don't think there is anything relating to fashion that is dangerous when concerning boys. High heels are a bitch.

I think there is a lot of conclusion jumping happening on this thread and horrible finger pointing at the school accusing them of supporting rape culture when they most probably don't.....and don't even suspect anything of the sort with 12/13 year old children. Fgs!

I think people are making assumptions about the letter. It's not at all clear from the incomplete quote given what the letter means.

I think the school would ask girls to dress modestly regardless of whether there are boys there or not. Do posters really believe they are asking the girls to dress modestly because they might be at risk from the boys. That simply doesn't ring true does it.

I wouldn't be suprised if a lot of school uniform policies require students to dress modestly. Is that really something to be outraged about?

It's the usual story. Girls WILL be judged on their clothing and everyone seems to think that's how it is (self fulfilling). They're just reinforcing the usual. Modest is pretty subjective (and unhelpful). My grandmother for eg told me as a teenager 'only one sort of woman would wear makeup to work - a marriage wrecker'. (For other reasons) I don't wear makeup to work (at all) and most places have assumed I'm gay/ gender queer/ lazy/ no self esteem.
If the letter isn't specific, then they KNOW there's no substance to what they want (other than to have a good bitch session about the fashiin choices of children).

But how would being Free from showiness or ostentation; unpretentious keep girls safe? How is showiness dangerous?

I wouldn't be suprised if a lot of school uniform policies require students to dress modestly. Is that really something to be outraged about? No. But the singling out of girls, and the conflating of modesty and safety is.

Was the letter sent out only to pupils in the girls school? If so, it is correct to state that 'girls should...' as all their pupils will be girls.

What did the letter to boys' school pupils state?