8yo girls must wear shorts under skirts...

[MyFirstMyLastMyEverythingBagel]

... In order to play on the bars in the school playground?!
My 8yo DD came home from school yesterday upset as she wasn't allowed to play on them - the teacher had said she needed to have shorts on as the boys would see her knickers.
I'm really upset by this, she is 8 years old and has a life time ahead of her to be worrying about modesty/body image without the school instilling it in her at 8. We've had a lovely summer, much of it spent splashing in the river / sea, DD totally in self aware in her knickers and a t shirt.
I'm actually pretty cross and plan to speak to the head about it, but want to know if iabu? How would you feel about it? My child is a child and I don't feel she should be made to feel self conscious about a brief knicker flash when she is playing.

Yorkie I didn't mention racism once but you did mention 'patriochial' cultures - so what else could you have implied? Go on? What other patriochial cultures abound in the UK?

I know my DS school implemented the change (ie shorts under skirts/dresses) because of cameraphones as I've previously said & other schools in the area have also started doing the same. Telescopic lenses were featured as a concern too during the governers meeting. I told you things that I know as fact.

Running, insisting that children cover up because of how some adults might respond if they don't is TOTAL bullshit. It's the thin end of the very nasty wedge that blames older girls and women for what they were wearing or how they behaved if someone decides to rape them. Telescopic lenses and camera phones are a red herring - by that reasoning, children should covered head to toe at all times, even in their own gardens. We can't give in to this madness

You seem to mix up racism with religion and culture.

I dislike all religions as all religions are mysogynistic and controlling and generally treat women as second class citizens.

Cultural norms around the world are open to criticism too as in female/male circumcision which is disgusting to what I would term normal individuals.

Can a woman drive in Saudi Arabia? No! is that ridiculous? yes. Saudi Arabia is a Muslim country.

Can women access free and fast abortions in Ireland no!is that ridiculous? Yes Ireland is predominantly a catholic country.

The Muslim religion is of course patriarchal as are all religions and my point is are the creeping upsurge in requiring girls and women to dress modestly, little girls covering their pants, is this in line with an upsurge in religions attendances now her in the UK?

You see all this bollocks about paedophiles who may have camera lenses and little boys photographing little girls and uploading the pictures on line is quite frankly ludicrous. Not that it could happen but that girls and women need to change their behaviour to stop this crime.

You seem more angry at my questioning this than you do about telling little girls the dreadful message that they need up cover up or else they are basically asking for trouble from men and boys.

Lotta exactly and X post.

We have to resist an argument that because people carry phones girls must cover up. Go back to the 1960s and there would be dirty old men in a big coat sometimes in parks or at school gates and you'd have to avoid them, the police would get on to them. nothing has changed. However our view of what children should wear should not kow tow to a few who are fussing over modesty. We are often naked at home, swim with nothing on in rivers etc. I would hate the English lose their ablity to be free, naked, wild, because a few cultures here (yes both Muswlim, Christian, orthodox jews and others ) want to curtail and control women and how we choose to show our bodies.

Long underwear has huge religious connotations in many religions and we need to fight against it at every turn otherwise it will be force on us eventually as will showing our arms, cleavage etc.

If you have netflix watch Louis Theroux's retun to the the Westboro baptist church - there is a bit on that episode about that fundamentality christian group talking about the 4 Bs which must be covered up (for women of course not men)... bum, boobs, back - I can't remember the 4th.

4th - belly?

I don't have a problem with girls showing off knickers, but would rather argue the point that at about 8 children can be expected not to freely show their underwear in a school setting. It's not normally acceptable for boys or girls outside their homes.
Like I said, boys wouldn't be expected to go about showing off their underwear while in school anyway.
What I disagree with is that girls are thereby limited in what they can do by being forced to wear skirts (not allowed shorts).
The school must choose between allowing knickers on display or allowing shorts, not forcing girls to wear more clothes.

Exactly our women suffragettes suffered and died to kick start the long long road to equality and justice for women and we cannot and must not allow a slip slide back to victim blaming and curtailing women and girls because men and boys may commit sex crimes.

It's a disgraceful state of affairs that little girls are being told to cover their pants because their bodies are somehow disturbing or arousing sexual feelings in assorted adult perverts peering from outside the school gates to 8 year old boys photographing them on the climbing frame.

No no no no no.

If anyone is disturbed by the sight of an 8 year old girl or boys underware momentarily showing during play then they have a massive problem.

Don't know if mentioned before as not read whole thread but the boxer type knickers from H&M are brilliant - they are like little shorts but really comfy. Mine loved them as found they didn't keep going up their but like proper knickers.

Personally I don't see a problem with this.

I have two ds's. The closest real example I have is that we went to a Scottish wedding last year and they were both in kilts. You can't take my two anywhere without them doing cartwheels and I purposely put them in longer-style boxer shorts rather than pants so that they were flashing less.

I expect i'd do the same with a girl of the same age.

Bum even!

But that's choice sunny not a requirement to use equipment during the school day.

It's not exclusionary or discriminatory where forcing just girls to cover their pants with shorts is.

I'm personally wondering when exactly the need for 'such modesty' started ?

We now have a society where perfectly innocent adults feel uncomfortable if presented with a flash of a child's underwear,where men would think twice about helping a lost child,where people think its inappropriate for an 8 year old boy to be in the female changing rooms,where adults would rather look away than smile at a naked toddler enjoying the freedom of running about 'starkers' on a beach.

Like other 70's kids I remember doing PE in my vest and pants and can never remember feeling self conscious or embarrassed that someone may see my knickers and likewise I can never remember any adults expressing a need for children to 'fully covered' at all times.

In the 70's it was quite the norm to see younger children naked at the beach or local outdoor paddling pool .

I think its quite a sad reflection of society's attitudes that there are primary aged girls that now feel more comfortable wearing shorts under dresses - whatever happened to the 'innocence of childhood' ?

It's not exclusionary or discriminatory where forcing just girls to cover their pants with shorts is

Well I suppose if they wanted to be super careful they could avoid the word 'girl' in the policy and just use 'child'. It seems a bit unnecessary considering you rarely see boys wearing skirts to school though.

Under wear is not supposed to be seen - the clue is in the name! I think it is a dignity thing more than a sexual thing.It is kind of degrading to have one's underwear on show after a certain age, and we are not talking about a quick flash with a cartwheel , but a couple of seconds with legs spread wide.
I have a girl of 6 or 7 in one of my gymnastics classes whose leotard is too big expecially arounf the leg holes and I really feel embarrassed for her when her 'tuppence' can be seen!

Degrading?
FFS!
We ask boys and girls to cover their "privates" - penis, vulva, vagina - whatever you want to call them - even 'tuppence' if the mere thought of naming your body correctly makes you faint

So: girls please cover your genutalia.
Fair enough.

There's a handy piece of clothing for that - it's called pants. (aka knickers)

It is ridiculous to sexualise or criticise a young girl for showing her pants.

Ok, underwear not supposed to be seen. Then have a uniform where underwear isn't seen rather than telling girls they can't hang from monkey bars/do a cartwheel.
It is sexist to tell girls they can't do things that the boys are allowed to do when they are wearing the uniform that the school told them to wear

So: girls please cover your genutalia. Fair enough.

Why is that fair enough but covering underwear isn't? There's no objective reason to cover either. Your view of what is appropriate or modest or dignified is subjective, just as everyone else's is. I think lots of people mistake their own subjective view for the objective truth.

Tbh I haven't got a problem with it. My DD is very sporty and loves wear PE shorts under her dresses and skirts. She didn't like the attention she got beforehand, it made her self conscious so she is glad they are allowed to. I suppose it should be optional though. Also, bear in mind that ultimately it is being done to protect them, not necessarily from their classmates but older children or even adults.

Knickers cover genitalia

degrading we are talking about children. Little 8 year old children.

I despair that seemingly educated women cannot see this for what it is.

Telling girls and women they must dress modestly to prevent men and boys becoming sexually excited.

It's simply victim blaming and that's the true motive.

Wearing shorts over knickers is telling little girls cover up or else besides which from a hygiene point of view it's quite silly as little girls prone to thrush and yeast infections thrive in sweaty climates.

It's clearly discrimination as per the equality act to me.

Wants to use playground equipment:
Boy - required to wear shorts.
Girls - required to wear shorts + dress.

The cost of the girls uniform is double, and requires twice the laundry as the boys uniform, whilst the equality act recognises differences between male and female dress exists and may be reasonable. It's very much called out that the cost must be similar. In this instance it's clearly not.

The lack of shorts as a uniform choice without the access to the monkey bars is less clear cut, as it may be reasonable, although it's probably still arguable by a girl who does not want to wear a skirt, or a boy who does.

Incidentally, my exclusively shorts and trousers wearing girl often shows her pants on the monkey bars as she fills her pockets with rocks and they hang down... of course I guess that's only the top of them.

Slarti
Yes it's subjective and actually I enjoy naturist sites.
But I personally think there's an easy distinction to made between covering up a part of the body, and covering up a piece of fabric.
A piece of cloth.

And what is that distinction Cabrinha?

I also find this discriminatory. If the girls need to wear shorts to play, then they don't need the skirt. You don't cover up with an extra layer because the skirt is not appropriate for play. Makes me angry.

Slarti, I'm a naturist (occasional) and I'd be happy if both boys and girls could walk round the school naked if they wished, and be dropped off by naked parents too.

I can accept that I live in a culture where we don't display our genitals. It's unimportant to me to cover them, but it is almost not restrictive to do so.
But this is the critical thing - telling girls not to show their pants restricts them.
For the sake of a piece of cotton which is already covering up the Thing That Shalt Be Hidden.

It doesn't make a lot of sense to me to cover up bodies full stop. But it makes no sense to cover up the covering.