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!

Your tone, your condescending attitude and your immediate aggressive response says it all. As does your username, I’m not even slightly surprised given your attitude towards women.

Men like you are a problem. Not all men, just the aggressive misogynistic ones.

Nope, I don’t think men shouldn’t be on MN. I think aggressive and misogynistic men shouldn’t be anywhere in a civilised society. Because they’re dicks.

Well I hope it doesn’t sound like I need vindication but my children’s mother died of cerebral aneurysm at the age of 39. I’d been cooting her since were 16 . I have looked after 2 children ages 9 and 11 and 6 months and 1.5 years old at the time her death. You know what that’s why I’m on here. For the help. Not to keep reading how men are vile creatures that mess with kids and beat down women’s opinions. No I’m offended by it simple as that.

When I was a little girl we all wore gym shorts under our pinafores. No one told us to -- we just did it. No one wanted to worry about someone flipping their skirt up for a joke, or about doing cartwheels in the playground.

We adults wear clothes over our knickers and avoid showing them. I don't think it's sexualising a child of either gender to teach them that their private parts are private, and their pants are their own business. It seems like a good idea to me to reinforce the fact that little girls have the same right to privacy as adult women by adopting the same dressing habits, i.e. covering their pants.

I only have boys, but if I had girls and their school made them wear dresses I would complain to the school and ask for a shorts/skort/trousers uniform option for girls. Parents did that at my kids' (very strict Catholic) primary, and the school introduced a sort of tailored grey culotte option, which looks very cute and matches the formality of the grey trousers and pinafore. Most girls still wear the pinafore, but the more active girls all choose the culottes and can hang upside down on the monkey bars all day long without ending up with their dress around their neck.

Yes, a lot of six year olds won't be self-conscious about their knickers showing, but by age 10 I guarantee you they will. I think it's good to be proactive and prevent them giving up their playground gymnastics when they get to that point by normalising a less revealing option from the start.

And there aren’t any legal places that are men only anymore. There aren’t any places that are women only either.

I’m sorry about your partner

I stand by the rest of it. Your tone was out of order, and your aggression in your responses was textbook. And unnecessary.

As I said, I don’t think men shouldn’t be on MN.

Nobody ever says all men do it, but to deny the vast majority of DV, abuse, sexual abuse and violent crime is committed by men is a lie. Women want to change that, decent men do too.

I don’t deny that men are involved. The last one I remember on the news was actually a woman at pre school. She and her partner were both charged.
And no I don’t think I was being aggressive. It was not the impression I wanted to make . It does wind me up.

Did you read the rest of the thread? Because it wasn’t about men, so I’m not sure why you flipped in the first place.

Secondly, I said the MAJORITY of abusers are men. Which is true.

You haven’t experienced misogyny and the low level bullshit (and less low level) that women grow up thinking is normal, or acceptable. I’m angry about that.

I’m angry that 2 women a week are killed by a partner or ex partner, that one in five women experience DV in their lifetime. That rape convictions are woefully low, that a woman’s sexual history can still be used against her.

I did read the original post, I was interested that’s why I clicked. My youngest is DD year 3 primary. Loves a skirt and the gingham dress , doesn’t know why I always put tights on her pile to get dressed. I’m early forties maybe it’s age but I like to think that the tights give her some modesty and the flexibility to play. You might not have previously thought so but I have wondered if she should wear them or not or if I’m being old fashioned. So in answer to your Aibu ? I don’t know.

It was while seeing what other posters were saying that I came across the statement about men. That’s when I replied

And no thankfully I’ve never seen anyone close enough to me suffer from the oppression that I know exists. It’s not supported by myself and indeed I do believe I’d be one of the ones hoping to help if I was privvy to it

My DD wears cycling shorts under her skirts/dresses for the same reason. Mostly because I don’t want her not to be able to play freely without worrying her knickers are on show.

There are pages and pages of this thread, not focused on men, which is why I reacted.

Not RTFT, but no. My daughters prinarty school asks no such thing, in fact, they ask the reverse as the shorts/leggings are often longer than the dress or skirt.

If as a parent you want knickers covered, pop em in school trousers or shorts.

But really, they’re kids, nobody is perving on anyone. Kids are kids!!

And no thankfully I’ve never seen anyone close enough to me suffer from the oppression that I know exists. It’s not supported by myself and indeed I do believe I’d be one of the ones hoping to help if I was privvy to it

With respect, resorting to aggression and name calling when a woman disagrees with me, tells me otherwise.

With you, not with me.

Well as I said I didn’t intend text to be read in a threatening voice . It wasn’t wrote with anger. Frustrated maybe . Keep your eyes and mind open in future posts. It does crop up a lot.

Who defends me if I don’t ?

Keep your eyes and mind open in future posts

I know, and if it’s something labelling all men, I would challenge it. Usually anyway.

Calling someone an idiot and pathetic isn’t meant to be aggressive? I guess we have differing ideas of aggression, it’s rarely pleasant is it?

im in my late 30s and we had to wear gym knickers under our dresses when I was at primary school. We weren't allowed to do handstands and show off our own pants at all.

DD wears cotton shorts under her dresses.. l think its much more practical.

Who defends me if I don’t ?

Er you attacked first? I could argue that if women don’t defend women who does? Because it sure as shite isn’t men.

Look mansplaining was an idiotic statement, I’m not mansplaining , I’ve got the same right as anyone else to be offended by something that I feel is an insult . I thought it was pathetic attempt to lower my right to say I’m offended .

I didn’t attack , I wrote what I wrote. I think you came with the mansplain insults first tho

I didn’t offer any physical violence either. However I did receive a decking threat

Look we’re never going to agree. You did come in stating you’re a man and this is how it is, which is mansplaining. Pathetic was the last word of your original post in which you also expressed belief that some women could have become mothers. Also offensive.

So I would suggest that if you’re going to get so offended, being offensive in response is going to get you precisely nowhere.