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?

Buffy, in what horrible world is a common sense interpretation of telling a Y7 girl to dress modestly for a school disco, one where the reason for this is so that they aren't raped by Y7 boys?

It's not a common sense interpretation for anyone who works in a school with y7 girls and boys. It would be a complete wtf interpretation.

Nobody actually thinks that year 7 girls are at risk of being raped by year 7 boys at a school disco if they wear immodest clothes.

But if it's is clear to all that 'safety' in this context doesn't mean 'safety from attack', but rather 'health and safety' then why rush to pin rape culture on he school's intentions?

why rush to pin rape culture on he school's intentions? I'm not sure anyone's saying that's what the school intended, but it is the effect they have had. As somebody said upthread rape culture is perpetuated not only by those who deliberately support it, but also by those who fail to think about the consequences of their words or actions.

Surely the devil is in the detail, it's the word "modest". In whose eyes? Why are they boss? Who designated it? The head? Religious aspect?

As mum I might turn up in a bikini and platforms. Just for the hell of it.

Seriously, op, it's not right. You have my support. Petition? I'll sign my real name. No probs.

#everydaysexism

This thread proves that the message isn't clear. If they'd said, "Girls should dress appropriately, in line with school uniform guidelines," it would have been fine (and probably meant that they would be dressed fairly modestly, as I don't suppose the school uniform allows very short skirts, cropped tops or tottering high heels.)

But they imply that dressing immodestly will be unsafe. They don't define how they mean unsafe; they could have said "please make sure that children are dressed warmly coming to and from the disco, as the forecast is for cold weather, and we want to avoid hypothermia." They could have specified no heels that might damage the floor or girls' ankles. They could have specified steel toe-capped boots, hi-vis jackets and helmets, if they really want people to be dressed safely.

Instead, they've made a vague comment about modesty and safety, without telling people what risks there actually are. By linking them together, they are are implying immodest dress compromises your safety, and it will mostly lead people to think about rape myths, rather than fire evacuations (though my mother usually went on about the risk of kidney infections with exposed backs, rather than anything else.)

Giving young girls the message that what you wear will make you more or less susceptible to rape is a damaging lesson to give - there's plenty of evidence that what you wear makes no difference to your risk of being raped - you might still get raped if you're wearing jeans and a heavy jumper - or even a hi-vis jacket, steel toe-capped boots and a helmet. They would be better off teaching them all about consent and what counts as rape (as plenty of people seem to struggle with that), although a letter home about a disco isn't the place for that.

A vague message of "wear immodest clothing, and you won't be safe" is of little use to anyone. It doesn't define what they consider to be modest clothing, nor what the risks actually are. It's about as good as saying, "the bogey man will get you if you don't behave."

"As mum I might turn up in a bikini and platforms. Just for the hell of it."

would you allow your 11 year old to do the same?

Because there's no obvious link between 'modesty' and health and safety. Yes we can all construct a rationale: the school meant to say no high heels, etc. But if the school meant no high heels and other vague clothing related risks for girls, why not say so?

Because I imagine the school had better things to be doing with their time than anticipating every single nitpicking issue that might come out of the letter. They want the kids to dress modestly. The word conveys what they want to see, without listing catalogue numbers and entirely appropriately for a school disco. If they'd said 'appropriately' you can guarantee someone turning up immodestly claiming that was appropriate for a disco.

It's a letter about a school disco, not a dissertation. It is clear that the school doesn't want prematurely sexualised pre-teens turning up, but they've written it in a way (safety and enjoyment) that justifies it, without providing any judgement on the parenting of the kids who normally allow their pre-teen girls to dress like sex objects.

let me give a scenario here..

three 16yo girls walking down the road, in make up, heels, skimpy dresses.. walk past a group of boys of the same age or older and the boys try to chat them up.. 16yo girls can usually handle themselves well enough to say fuck off mate... an 11yo dressed up in clothes more appropriate for a 16yo, and looking as if she is that age, is a lot less streetwise usually, and many girls that age are completely flattered if they think an older boy is taking an interest in them, and not mature enough to realise they could be putting themselves in a dangerous situation.

Of course it wouldnt be the childs fault if anything happened to her, it would be the boys fault, BUT avoiding that situation from being able to arise in the first place is clearly (to me anyway) the preferable option.

"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?"

OP said right up near the top of the thread that she did not know what letter had been sent out to the pupils of the other school.

Springbreaker that is a whole bunch of rape-myth nonsense. Men who are interested in younger girls don't target those dressed 'immodestly'. They target those they think they will be able to abuse and get away with it, however those girls are dressed.

I used to wear make-up, short skirts and go out with older boys to the pub at 14. I was very lucky that those boys were not rapists and I was completely safe with them.

People get raped by people they know, in their own homes, wearing jeans and t-shirts. Dressing modestly DOES NOTHING to protect against being abused.

The school hasn't mentioned boys but "safety". Not sure what that means in this context. I would think the school is more concerned about the public image of the school in terms of being academic and having good behaviour, which they have somehow associated with girls' teenage fashions. (Our headmistress wouldn't let us have wicker baskets and push our sleeves up as it made us look like fisherwomen or something...). They have confused "modesty" with well-behaved scholars. Like an extension of the school uniform.

The bottom line is that immodest dress is inappropriate for school.

"why is being immodest unsafe?"

Because it can cause injuries, especially when you're a 12 year old girl and 12 year old girls should dress age appropriately.

Hmmm, if people's first thought when clothing choices, safety and 11-12 year old girls are put in the same sentence is rape, then perhaps they need to consider their buying into the rape myth linking clothing and rape.

It wasn't in my thoughts at all. Especially not in the context of a school disco.

You can say it its rape myth nonsense. I can say I disagree. Girls of 11 dressing as though they are sexually available gives the wrong signal to the type of boys (and they do exist) who think it's acceptable for them to harass the girls. If you would be happy for this to happen to your daughter "don't worry dear, you wear what you like, you will only be assaulted if you meet a rapist" bullshit..
The reality can be, teenage boy sees teenage girl dressed provocatively and thinks she is up for it. Or Teenage boy sees 11 year old child in age appropriate clothing, and chatting her up wouldn't even cross his mind. Why is this so difficult for people to get??

Which is why it should have been worded differently, because no one on this thread can be sure what their actual intentions were with it the way it is, so we can't be sure if they're on about the risk of sexual assault or cold weather or high heels or what.

And I may be nitpicking, but I do think school communications, whether from the head or PTA, should be aiming to set good standards of clear, unambiguous wording, because every subject and every job needs communication. They should set a good example.

I've figured out it's probably because I'm a teacher. High heels are banned in my school. Reason? Safety. Ditto hooped or dangly earrings. I'm used to kids' clothing being restricted for safety. So when they mention safety, I assume they mean safety.

Someone else reading safety, without a school background might think 'what on earth safety omg they mean rape'

When I tell the kids they can't wear high heels at school for safety reasons, the threat of them being raped if they wear them is nowhere near my thoughts.

So if you went to a school and said 'by safety, you mean rape, right?' I can imagine the reaction would be one of bafflement. Because the school means safety.

But not all parents will be teachers.

That's not the bottom line of this problem. This problem isn't about what's appropriate or not to wear to school, it's about why it's unacceptable to hint vaguely at immodest clothes being unsafe

You are applying your own irrational and extreme ideas to a simple situation.

Girls shouldn't reveal too much in school. Nor should boys but the pupils in the school in question are all girls. And girls' clothing is more likely to be revealing than boys' clothing. Though a few years ago schools had issues with the 'bum out' fashion in boys' trousers.