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?

Very badly worded.

However, of course there is such a thing as clothing that sexualizes or is inapporpriate for young girls. We wouldn't have had the Let Girls Be Girls campaign if there weren't!

I'm quite old fashioned. But that is just so out of order. They're only children.

So the solution to some young men sexually harassing under-age girls and making assumptions about them based on their clothing is to control the girls? That right Springbreaker? Not to tackle rape culture, misogyny and harassment, but to control what the girls wear. And you believe that will stop harassment...

Because what I believe is that the logical conclusion of that is Saudi Arabia.

So should have said "children" rather than "girls".

Noble I completely agree that high heels and hoop earrings can have associated safety issues. Neither are generally associated with modesty though are they? For adults they are both pretty mainstream and normal, indeed I'd expect some teachers might well wear both, especially if they were at a social event. I doubt anyone would say that they were immodest.

In this context I doubt the school is concerned about children wearing OTT clothes either, if a child turned up with a loud sequined but non revealing outfit I doubt they'd be sent home, and I doubt very much that a safety issue would be identified either.

Also if the school has standard type uniform the idea of telling children to wear something equivalent to the disco doesn't really work - does that mean jeans would be out of the question for example? I can't imagine a disco with a dress code equivalent to suits/ blazers and skirts would be very popular!

It's the modesty = safety inference that is problematic here. Say 'no heels' 'no revealing outfits' 'age appropriate' etc and there is no issue and likely compliance will be better too.

Oh and when I was an 11 year old I had to walk past a secondary school. I got catcalls and whistles most days. for wearing my school uniform. 'Modesty' is no guarantee of anything.

I think they have worded it badly but anyone saying they are 11 No flesh To show how bad could they dress etc is very naive. it's cringe worthy how some of these little girls Go out dressed to discos. maybe the school isn't worried about 11 year old boys but the girls walking around outside the school looking like strippers. not victim blaming at all but why make a flashing target out of your kid allowing them to dress is little more than underwear. there are dangerous people out there it's best to be aware of that and not pretend it isn't the reality of the world we live in. a lot of these girls look much older dressed like this and I have witnessed some myself getting unwanted attention because of it that they didn't know how to deal with

Agree with noblegiraffe. Some people here are reading far too much into it.
They have clearly tried to avoid going into petty details, hence the use of the word 'modestly' instead of a long list of banned clothing which is likely to get more people complaining. 'Safety' is a word schools overuse routinely anyway, on the basis that it is hard to argue with.

Poorly worded but nothing to do with rape culture whatsoever.

"So should have said "children" rather than "girls"."

I went to an all girls school, and letters were always about 'girls' not 'pupils' (not 'children' at secondary).
Any letter issued by the parallel boys school would probably refer to 'boys'.

It's not really the same as specifying sex when talking about pupils at a coed school.

OP has not seen what was sent to the boys' parents.

Not all parents will be teachers but hopefully the vast majority will be able to apply some common sense. A school is not going to send home a cheery missive about a school disco with a dark threat of rape. To complain to the school that they have done so would be incredibly insulting to the staff who have more than enough to do than respond to spurious complaints.

Who, really, as a parent, is going to receive that letter and then inform their 11 year old that the school says they can't wear their heels and miniskirts in case the boys attack them? No one. No 'message' is being sent to young girls except possibly that school is a drag even when they are supposed to be letting their hair down.

Read the threads on why teachers are quitting in droves, then consider whether this distrust of their motives and assuming the worst rather than giving a break is helping the situation in schools.

""So should have said "children" rather than "girls"."

No. It should have said "appropriately dressed" not "modestly dressed"

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.

There is a big difference between saying "high heels are dangerous" and "dress modestly". Dressing modestly basically means not exposing a lot of flesh or wearing skin tight clothing - you could be wearing a burka and still have high heels underneath, thus fulfilling the criteria of "modestly" but still being at risk of falling over.

I do think it is inappropriate for young girls to be dressed in short tight skirts and high heels. As someone else said - why do only females want to go out wearing as little as possible??

I do also find the letter somewhat offensive as a mother of boys with its implication that they are unable to behave appropriately around girls. As a mother of a girl I find the implication that she should dress to avoid enticing these boys equally offensive, although I would advise my DD in the future to wear something she can move freely in.

My son's sixth form issued a similar letter, but better worded, in the summer. He was outraged that it banned all sixth formers from wearing shorts. The problem isn't shorts though is it, it is parents who would allow their child to go out inappropriately dressed for the occasion. Schools have a difficult enough job to do without making mountains out of molehills over stuff like this. Send a short email if you feel strongly about it, and I think it is badly expressed, but I wouldn't get too het up. Do the teachers even get paid for supervising this or are they giving up their time gratis?

The boys letter wouldn't need to say anything about "dressing modestly" because that is the default clothing of males anyway. They simply don't wear skimpy clothing and dangerous footwear.

Hakluyt "appropriately dressed for a disco" is not what the school want them to be wearing. You would probably get some arguing that point. With modestly dressed, the school is clear what the problem is: premature sexualisation.

Ok, so how does premature sexualisation compromise safety?

For those who think that modest and physically safe- as in being able to use a fire escape are synonyms- how about a burkha with high heels heels. Is that modest or safe or both or neither?

Boob tube, short shorts and trainers? Modest or safe?

I would be fucking furious. YANBU.

With modestly dressed, the school is clear what the problem is: premature sexualisation.

I think this thread shows that they aren't being clear at all. Also, they equate female modesty with safety.

....But its NOT possible to say from the incomplete quote given by the OP that the school equates female modesty with safety.

OP, can we please have the exact and complete wording.

If they were going to a church they might be asked to dress modestly.that's not about not being raped.

what else does the letter go on to say.Anything about dropping off and picking up? Not bringing in alcohol?

it's not really about the boys, I would have thought. Most boys of that age are not really interested in girls, however they are dressed.

But I agree with those who have seen some girls of this age dressed - and it is not appropriate. Short shorts where you can see the bum cheeks, lurex bra tops, high heels, age-inappropriate slogans on t-shirts...

I'm sure all MNetter's girls go out wearing some naice JohnnyB outfits, but that is not the case for all and I think the school is correct for making a stand.

I am very old, and I realise that my viewpoint is not that of someone versed in feminism however I do think that there is nothing wrong with teaching girls and young women that different situations have different dress codes. Adults would wear different clothes to go to work, go to a formal dinner party or go clubbing, everyone needs to learn to dress appropriately (there is plenty of angst on MN about what is appropriate dress after all). The school wishes their event to have a dress code which is more, for want of a better word "modest", than what some of the girls will want to wear, for what ever reason, I struggle to see the problem - their event, their choice. Everyone has a right to wear what they want when they want without fear of violence or harassment, but I think we all understand that sometimes there will be things you can't do dressed as you would ideally want. Girls who don't want to conform to the dress code don't have to go to the disco - that is how life actually works.

Wow.

I am happy to have a dress code for kids. But I am not happy for my dd to think her safety depends on dressing modestly.

It is the wording- and therefore the assumptions behind it- that is the issue here.