School and 'rules' re shorts under dress

[oblada]

Before I take this further quick 'poll'; does your school insist that girls wear shorts under their dress if they want to mess about at break time in a way that could involve someone seeing their knickers? Would you expect a rule like this? My daughter is saying that her school and her after school club have told her off for doing gymnastic 'moves' during break time whilst wearing a dress with no shorts or tights underneath. She says she's been told it's 'rude' because people can see her knickers. She is 6yrs old btw. I think this is completely bonkers and she should be allowed to do as she wish as long as she is not actually showing her 'privates' to people on purpose. Underpants are underpants and are not offensive (to me). Of course I don't know yet how much she has actually been told off, or whether it's peer pressure rather than school so I'll go and ask later. But thought I'd gather some views!

And again though is a dress appropriate for hand stands? No its not. It is not designed for that. So for me if you want to do such an activity in inappropriate garments then put a pair of shorts on or at the very least knicks that fit. You wouldnt go to a Gym class in a skirt or hike in heels or go to work in your bikini. Or allow your 13yr old to show her underwear in such a way.

No. You’d go in shorts or leggings (no dress).

@Battleax you seem to be more bothered that children want to wear dresses than you do about them exposing their underwear which is very odd.
It doesn't harm you if some kids choose to wear shorts under their dresses. It really doesn't matter.

No, though DD insists on wearing shorts under her skirts anyway, and I don't feel I should insist that she doesn't. If she doesn't want to flash her knickers, that's her decision (she's 8yo)

No tiger it’s the school uniform policies that irritate me immensely.

If sensible uniforms became widespread and normalised this would all sort itself out without the spread of the so called “modesty shorts” (which I just plain dislike as an idea, on feminist grounds).

BTW, just had a quick google to see if the big shops had stopped calling them “modesty shorts” yet and found these, which might fit the bill as decent coverage knickers;

<a class="break-all" href="https://www.marksandspencer.com/3-pack-santoni-seamfree-shorts-6-16-years-/p/p22439815?extid=ps_gglpla_Kids_1343701638_50688008541&s_kwcid=AL!2750!3!262234089816!!!g!323277257930!EFKW&device=m&cvosrc=ppc%20shopping.google.Kids%20%3E%20School%20Uniform%20%3E%20Girls%20%3E%20Bras%20&%20Underwear&cvo_pid=50688008541servedby.flashtalking.com/click/1/37735;928990;369310;252;0/?ft_section=22439815001&ft_keyword=googleshopping&url=www.marksandspencer.com/3-pack-santoni-seamfree-shorts-6-16-years-/p/p22439815?extid=ps_gglpla_Kids_1343701638_50688008541&s_kwcid=AL!2750!3!262234089816!!!g!323277257930!EFKW&device=m&cvosrc=ppc%20shopping.google.Kids%2520%253E%2520School%2520Uniform%2520%253E%2520Girls%2520%253E%2520Bras%2520%2526%2520Underwear&cvo_pid=50688008541&gclid=CIHEiIrD4tsCFUOOhQoduPkEgA&gclsrc=ds&pdpredirect" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">www.marksandspencer.com/3-pack-santoni-seamfree-shorts-6-16-years-/p/p22439815?extid=ps_gglpla_Kids_1343701638_50688008541&s_kwcid=AL!2750!3!262234089816!!!g!323277257930!EFKW&device=m&cvosrc=ppc%20shopping.google.Kids%20%3E%20School%20Uniform%20%3E%20Girls%20%3E%20Bras%20&%20Underwear&cvo_pid=50688008541servedby.flashtalking.com/click/1/37735;928990;369310;252;0/?ft_section=22439815001&ft_keyword=googleshopping&url=www.marksandspencer.com/3-pack-santoni-seamfree-shorts-6-16-years-/p/p22439815?extid=ps_gglpla_Kids_1343701638_50688008541&s_kwcid=AL!2750!3!262234089816!!!g!323277257930!EFKW&device=m&cvosrc=ppc%20shopping.google.Kids%2520%253E%2520School%2520Uniform%2520%253E%2520Girls%2520%253E%2520Bras%2520%2526%2520Underwear&cvo_pid=50688008541&gclid=CIHEiIrD4tsCFUOOhQoduPkEgA&gclsrc=ds&pdpredirect

"Children aren’t daft. They know that you don’t always/usually wear shorts under dresses. They know that adults don’t."

I have literally never witnessed an adult do cartwheels or hand stands in any environment, wearing a dress flashing their knickers 😂.

So it’s the double layers you object to Battleax? Because those are the exact shorts my DD has in black and white.

I’m really enjoying the dynamics of this thread, but I am wondering SoddingUnicorns whether you would be happier with your own blog, where you can express yourself uninterrupted by people who disagree with you?

This is a Mumsnet thread, which involves a bit of cut and thrust and people taking turns to serve up their opinions on large platters. That’s why we’re all here, I presume. I don’t think these conflicting opinions amount to an attack on you or anyone else...

I’ve got her shorts tbh, and the gingham dresses (that she picked) I’m in no way pushing skirts/pinafores/dresses on her. I just don’t see the harm in adding shorts under a dress. And I really, really don’t see what the fuck it has to do with anyone else!

I can’t see the difference between shorts and substantial knickers. It does the same job, so why either is a problem is beyond me.
Bar some high handed bollocks dressed up as feminism, I really don’t see what the issue is.

I can’t see the differeell showing her genitals in public is hardly being decent is it? Ffs what is your problem with me? Do what you want with your kid, but keep your snide little remarks about mine to yourself. Because what I do with my child is buckshee to do with you.

@PoppyField perspective is a wonderful thing isn’t it. I should fuck off then? Pfft.

Having digs about how I raise my child is absolutely personal, insinuating that I’m sexualising her, or failing her somehow.

And then to top it off the poster who has most had a go posts a link to the exact shorts my DD has! If that’s not ironic I don’t know what is.

But don’t tell everyone else what to do and then get a shock when people tell you they disagree. People disagree with me, fine. But don’t imply I’m failing my child, because that’s offensive and untrue. HTH.

Oh and dressing this up as feminism while attacking women for the choices they make is laughable. Feminism isn’t what you want me to do, it’s being able to make choices unrestricted by men so the last thing I need is women telling me how I can be a proper woman/mum.

Lets reverse this situation and imagine a world where it was the norm for girls to mainly wear trousers and shorts and boys to wear skirts and dresses. Would everyone be ok with a boy doing cartwheels and flashing their pants and possibly quite a bit more?

Children are quite rightly given the message that pants are private. We have had the NSPCC in our school just this week giving this message.

DCs School sent a note out a while back stating that the girls were not to wear shorts under dresses. I agree with them.

They are allowed to wear shorts on their own however - which is fine too

Lets reverse this situation and imagine a world where it was the norm for girls to mainly wear trousers and shorts and boys to wear skirts and dresses. Would everyone be ok with a boy doing cartwheels and flashing their pants and possibly quite a bit more

No, I said the same in response to a similar comment upthread.

My sons are Scottish, do I put shorts underneath? Absolutely, for the same reasons I put shorts on DD.

I have a son and when his pants show above his waistline on his trousers I tell him to put a belt on because nobody wants to see his bloody pants.
It’s no different for my DD. There is a difference between ‘shame’ and keeping some things ‘private’.

That M and S link looks just what I would call gym shorts - soft, stretchy shorts to be worn by girls and boys, over underpants and with vest top or polo shirt, for indoor P.E. Although the style at DD's school favours the baggy nylon football style for all children.

I don't think gingham dresses are just about looking "pretty" - I think they really are the coolest, airiest thing for girls to wear on hot days. (Can't speak for boys as I only have DDs). As I have said my DD plays, climbs and runs just the same in dresses or skirts.

I also think the issue of coverage has something to do with how stingy children's clothing sizes seem to be, for all garments, not just underwear. Even though DD3 is average size for her age, I find I usually have to go an age range bigger e.g. 9-10 years for 8 atm, to get a satisfactory length and coverage of anything e.g. skirts or dresses at knee length.

Sorry underneath a kilt that should have said

"Oh and dressing this up as feminism while attacking women for the choices they make is laughable. Feminism isn’t what you want me to do, it’s being able to make choices unrestricted by men so the last thing I need is women telling me how I can be a proper woman/mum."

I have to totally agree with this.

I think you’ll find the nspcc message is that what’s under the pants is private, not that pants are.

I always encourage my daughter to wear shorts because I do, I don't like skirts and never have. Just a personal choice. She likes a good party dress but for running around shorts are just more practical

SoddingUnicorns

I completely agree, I am Scottish and if my son's were wearing a kilt they would have decent boxers/ shorts underneath to complete cover everything.

I also insist my dad wears pants under his kilt but that’s more for my own sanity since he’s a very enthusiastic ceilidh dancer

@Timeisslippingaway exactly! So why it’s a feminist issue is beyond me. Just another way of women shouting down other women really, which is the absolute opposite of feminism!

I have 2 boys and a girl, I would always make sure their genitals were covered. Not sure why that’s so bloody controversial?

It’s not the covering of genitalia that is controversial, it’s the idea that girls need two layers of fabric to do it.

Underwear is exactly what is says.... underwear therefore by definition shouldnt be seen......

Clearly that isn't the case - allowing bra straps to be seen is more or less standard these days, and some designer clothes are part see-through and designed on the premise that your expensive matching underwear will be discernible. Some schools still have children doing PE in vests and pants. Women tennis players wear dresses which inevitably show their underwear, and they don't all wear shorts - in fact it's not so long since it was the norm for them to wear frilly pants. Why is underwear viewable in those contexts but no others?

It’s not the covering of genitalia that is controversial, it’s the idea that girls need two layers of fabric to do it

See my posts about my sons. And boys (other than kilts) rarely have clothes that expose their genitals.