To think that infant school pupils don't need special cover up knickers?

[DrSeuss]

A local FB seller is flogging gingham over knickers to wear with school summer dresses. Just in case a child of five should do a cartwheel and someone should see her underwear for a brief moment, presumably? My daughter is five. While I would not wish her to run around showing her Frozen themed undies to the world all day, I have no wish to teach her that she must cover herself at all times. Having taught as a peripatetic in primary schools, I always walked a fine line between wishing they could sit on a carpet without flashing me their pants and thinking that their innocence and lack of inhibitions were to be held onto as long as possible since they would be sexualised soon enough.
Would any of you want to buy the chequered modesty preservers?

My dd had a skort at her first primary school - perfect uniform skirt. A kind of flap at the front which made it look like a skirt and shorts at the back. Sounds grim but was great. She was most put out she had to wear a skirt when we came home and has gone to school in the (boring) regulation school trousers ever since.

The uniform policy was also any pair of white trainers and white socks... it was great. Really practical for all. I hate school shoes - no fun for running around in.

I was a prolific cartwheeler when I was a kid and I can't remember having any angst about knicker flashing.

"Overkill.....let little girls be little and without inhibition as long as possible!"

Why just girls? Why aren't people sending their 11 year old boys to the park in just t-shirt and pants if having nothing over one's underwear is such a wonderfully liberating essential to childhood?

My daughter wears trousers to school, not to cover up, just because they are more practical as she is so active

Our DC aren't allowed to do handstands at school any more due to children being too ambitious and accidents happening DD is really annoyed by this but before it was banned, she did wear navy cycling shorts under dress- her own request and she is 6. I don't mind either way- about the shorts under dresses

Can someone explain why girls mustn't do handstands etc without shorts in case the boys see their undies yet, in mostly the same schools, small children are made to change for P.E. in a group with class mates of both sexes.

I think kids that age would want to show the gingham ones even more as special pants! I've worked in a few schools and have seen different solutions to this problem, mostly with much older kids though. If it bothers the child they could wear leggings or shorts under their dress in a colour to match. I've also seen plenty of girls not wear gingham, most schools seem fine with shorts and a shirt or blouse on girls so I'm not sure why people send their kids in dresses if they don't want to.

You were supposed to wear them OVER other knickers ??? Then why did they all have a white gusset inset so you could see when your period had started?

Sorry for derail.

Referring to navy blue knickers there of course, sorry.

God we use to do PE in vest and pants 😁When I told ds 16 he was shocked and when we got to high school if you forgot you ur kit lost property box

Same experience vest and knickers in primary. Big navy OVER the top of knickers full brief pants for PE in secondary school. Polyester/crimpolene type fabric. Lovely. And, oh the walk of shame - sweaty ill fitting lost property kit if forgotten (not that I ever did) - sweat wiped from brow.

My DD wears shorts and a blouse - she feels self conscious doing hand stands in a dress and gets teased. If anyone tries to tell me shorts are for boys I'll lamp them. However silly pant-showing hysteria may be, it's true that girls' summer uniforms are less conducive to physical activity than boys'... just saying.

I really don't think anyone should be wearing cycle shorts all day.
Not sure I have any answers though as I do like dresses and prefer skirts to trouses myself - much more comfortable. I guess the best solution would be girls shorts style knickers, the same as women can get, in a cotton fabric.

The cycling shorts are cotton.

Or maybe more precisely PE shorts - cycling short shape so they're fine

Robinia, my DD's shorts are grey 'boy short' material but a bit more stylish with attractive button detailing ... from Next girls. Comfy and fine to wear all day. I guess as long as girls have the option to wear clothes that allow them to be as physically active as boys, I'm happy .

OhLaVache is anyone dealing with the teasing that makes your DD self-conscious? Because they should be. Presumably if she wasn't being teased then she wouldn't (necessarily) feel self-conscious and wouldn't feel the need for shorts over her pants under her frock.

Girls do wear clothes than allow them to be as physically active as boys, a flared skirt or dress gives plenty of room for manoeuvre. What is stopping some girls is the teasing, not the clothes. So why is the teasing not addressed rather than the clothes?

Last summer we had a note for from the head teacher to the effect that leggings and cycling shorts are NOT school uniform. Girls can wear trousers or shorts.

So why is the teasing not addressed rather than the clothes? This. See also short skirts "distracting" male teachers

Not sure why so many people take it upon themselves to get so uppity about individual decisions about covering up pants or not. For Gods sake if a person decides to cover up a certain part of themselves or item of clothing why is this such a terrible affront to so many?
I believe most parents will tell their DD that her pants area is private. So yes it will be covered and no she doesn't go around in normal life flashing her pants randomly, so what is the big deal with wearing something on top???
I think the real big deal is that boys get to wear shorts or trousers and girls are still stuck in the 1950s with a skirt or dress. Talk about inequality and sexism!

Oh and also re. the primary school kids all getting undressed together for PE and having to do it I their vests and pants - I remember that too and I remember even then hating it. Ridiculous that children should be forced into that situation where they can't choose to wear a t shirt and shorts.

Exactly Illstartexercising. That's my point. Anyone who's ever tried cartwheeling in a summer dress will know it's way more constricting than shorts. It's the underlying sexism that bothers me. Bring on unisex uniform options. Yes RiverTam, the teasing was addressed (not just aimed at my DD) but I wanted to respect her feeling that she was uncomfortable playing on the bars in a summer dress and felt exposed, whether that started with teasing or not. She's 8 and it's developmentally normal for kids to become a bit body conscious at that age. Plus the boys don't have to hang upside down with their pants showing so why should she?

If a person chooses to cover up their genitals more than they are covered up already by their underwear, and that choice is made with zero influence from any person or situation, that's fine. If it's a 'choice' made due to demands to be 'modest' (repellant in young children especially) or because of teasing that is something entirely different. This thread has shown the latter to be the case many times, and has also shown many parents not even considering what a damaging lesson that is to teach/learn.

This situation came to my attention a year or so back reading a thread where 7yo girls has been doing handstands in the playground. Boys start with the stupid behaviour. Playtime assistant tries and fails to deal with boys so tells girls to put on PE shorts under their frocks. Lesson learnt: boys get to make comments about girls with impunity and girls have to alter their dress/behaviour for comments to stop.

And people think that's fine? Really?

river that example is shocking and a terrible way to deal with the situation.

My point is not about modesty per se but it really does annoy me that girls do have to contend with this whilst boys can hang upside down or cartwheel all they like without even having to give a moments thought about pants. There may be plenty of girls who aren't bothered about flashing their knickers. But there are plenty who are. Equally if boys wore skirts I bet the same would apply - some would care flashing their pants, others wouldn't like it

Dresses should be optional at school. Girls should not be backed into a situation where their play and freedom and innocence potentially gets trampled on bcos of a difference in how they dress to the boys. No boy in shorts is ever going to have to face being laughed at for flashing his pants. Why do girls have to be in that situation??? And yes it would be great if all the boys and girls of the world learnt not to be inappropriate but kids are kids and it's often not because it's a girl it's bcos it's someone's- anyone's- pants on show

That's not fine at all Rivertam - clearly handled really badly. I'm not advocating making girls change their behaviour because of teasing from boys. My point (put better by Illstartexercising ) is not to do with 'modesty' - that's a bollocks Victorian throwback... I just think that the difference between girls' and boys' uniforms is fundamentally sexist. Just like when I went to buy eldest DD her first proper pair of shoes only to find all the girls' shoes were flimsy, pale and sparkly and the boys' shoes were to robust and made for running and getting muddy. I bought her boys' trainers!