This will just rumble on. There are so many straw man arguments here. Such as, 'do you complain about boys wearing low slung trousers showing their underpants?' Well, it looks stupid to most older people, but it's not actually showing their meat and two veg is it? So no, apart from making themselves look ridiculous to perhaps 70% of the population, no harm done.
Why should little girls have to wear shorts over their knickers? And have two layers instead of one? Well, of course they shouldn't have to, but if they're wanting to stand on their heads all playtime with their skirts possibly covering their eyes, then they need to have proper substantial trustworthy pants on. Why? Because if they don't they will be showing their genital parts in the playground, to their peers and teachers and any passers by. And surely, that's not an ideal situation for the children, their parents, their teachers, and any passers by.
I'd never heard of Petit Bateau, but having googled, they look like the sort of substantial reliable knicker that won't require any extra coverage. However, there are lots of cheap girls' supermarket pants that nowadays have very narrow and undefined gussets, and quickly lose elasticity. These are the pants that require some back up coverage. Teachers are seeing it. TAs are seeing it. I've seen it first hand. It's becoming an issue. And if a school identifies a need to make a rule, they have to make it for everybody.
Five years old is not too young to begin to learn that showing one's genitalia by accident is not ideal, and easily avoidable. Not because it might inflame the desires of others. Or even that it's immodest. It just becomes less dignified the older you get. And the learning has to start somewhere. When children can read fluently by age five, or solve hard sums, their parents are justifiably proud of their child's advanced intellect. But suggest that they might try to begin to instil a modicum of social awareness into their five year old daughter and it's an insult. An affront. She's just a child, after all.
Yes, she's a child now. So start to teach her about the world, not how we would like it to be, but how it is.
A pp hit the nail on the head about this thread. It's about the quality of kids' knickers nowadays. They are flimsy, elasticity goes after a couple of washes. This becomes really obvious when you have a class of 30 cross-legged in front of you. So they 'really' have to do something about it, and make a rule. And the rule has to apply to everybody.
I don't know who the fuck brought 'feminism' into this.
It's absolutely nothing to do with 'feminism' It's got more to do with teaching your child some personal dignity. Son or daughter.
My neighbour's young son had an embarrassing episode at gym when he'd forgotten his sports shorts (which have a little net thing for testicle control) and his testes were on show. He was only eight, but it really upset him. His mates were making fun of him at the time, but fortunately he's a popular boy and he fronted it out so it was soon forgotten.
I'd like to think that all the mothers who think undershorts not necessary are the mothers who buy proper and substantial school-worthy knickers for their daughters. In which case I would agree.
Shorts on top of a pair of good quality knickers would be totally daft.
But not every child has that luxury of knicker. So they have to make a sweeping rule to cover those with inferior knickers.
(Why is it a 'pair' of knickers? A pair of pants? A pair of trousers?
There is only one item of clothing. Why is it a pair?'