Teacher telling girls to wear shorts over pants if their dress/skirt is too short

[Justcheckingimnotmad]

Hi,

My daughter's last day of school yesterday (she's 8) and as she was getting dressed in the morning she said her teacher had told her that she had to wear shorts if she was wearing a dress.

I discussed this with my daughter, i.e. would it be ok if she wore swimsuit or tankini bottoms instead? Her pants are covering her private area so why cover up what's already covered up? Did she know why she'd been told this? (She didn't).

Anyway, I gave the teacher the benefit of the doubt as I know innocent comments can be misinterpreted by kids.

After school I talked to the teacher and she said that she had told her class that if, on the last day, they were wearing dresses too short then they should wear shorts so they don't show their pants on the climbing frames. She laughed and said it wasn't school policy.

AIBU to be fuming?

[eightfacesofthemoon]

If an adult woman did a handstand, the last thing I would be shocked about is if I saw her nickers that covered her private parts.

In fact i wouldn’t be shocked if someone was sat opposite me with their legs open and I got a glimpse of some nickers.

The fact is, most people don’t care about seeing bog standard nickers. It’s not like they are wearing a thong.

[eightfacesofthemoon]

I meant in a child
I should have clarified, it doesn’t bother me much in a adult if for example they did a impromptu handstand. But that doesn’t happen much

When did it suddenly become so disgusting to see young kids nickers.

[MaisyPops]

Underwear covers genitals. Underwear goes under clothing.

It's not about misogyny, nor is it anything sexual.

I don't want other people to see my underwear. I don't want to see my colleagues' underwear. I don't want to see students' underwear.

Underwear should be covered (which also includes colleagues who wear sheer tops over their bras and girls a few years bavk who wore neon pink bras under thin white school shirts and boys who loved the trend of low trousers and hugh boxers).

[smallchanceofrain]

If children are wearing sensible pants that cover their genitals then I see no need for modesty shorts - and that's what they are. It seems a strange message to be giving young children - that if they don't wear modesty shorts then they're consigned to playing non-physical games (while the boys dominate the playground).

What message is the teacher giving the girls? That pants need to be hidden because they are rude or dirty? That they should be modest? Why - because 8 year olds are shameless and immoral? What rubbish.

Why are people so concerned about a fleeting glimpse of pants? How do people cope with seeing little girls in leotards and swimsuits, or heaven forbid, half naked on a beach?

OP, I would talk to school and ask them to remind their staff that wearing shorts with a dress isn't uniform policy.

If it was policy then I would want the option for my child to wear tailored shorts, like the boys. More comfy than encumbering an 8 year old with pants, shorts and a dress.

[MaisyPops]

What message is the teacher giving the girls? That pants need to be hidden because they are rude or dirty? That they should be modest? Why - because 8 year olds are shameless and immoral? What rubbish.
Or that underwear goes under clothing and whether you are a boy or a girl or a man or a woman, it's not on view at school.

Why are people so concerned about a fleeting glimpse of pants? How do people cope with seeing little girls in leotards and swimsuits, or heaven forbid, half naked on a beach?
Because leotards are designed for that context.
Swimwear is designed for that context.

How about I go and teach my class wearing a sports crop top. After all, it's just a crop top. Students need to learn to accept some people wear crop tops and bikini tops.
Or, i should wear hipster trousers and a thong and let my thong sit above my trousers whilst teaching. It's just pants. Who cares about a glimsp of pants?

Why are people seeking to turn this into potential victim blaming/modesty debate is beyond me. School is not the place for underwear on show, regardless of age or sex.

[MsBagelLady]

So our girls are wearing three layers in this heat? Skirt/dress plus knickers and shorts too? Think about it, would you layer up this summer or fuck that for a game of not dying of heat stroke? Knickers are worn by most females, no need to hide them or the fact that we wear them.

[eddiemairswife]

We seem to live in an age where no-one bats an eyelid at female entertainers prancing around in their knickers, but we(at least on Mumsnet) throw up our hands in horror at the sight of small girls showing theirs.
Also, as a child I wore dresses(and knickers!), and certainly didn't find it constricting when climbing trees on the local common with my best friend and her two brothers. Some people see problems where there are none.

[smallchanceofrain]

Slight difference between you and the 8 year olds as far as dress codes are concerned MaisyPops - they're 8, you (presumably, if you're allowed to teach) are not. Hence bras and thongs are relevant for you but for an 8 year old not so much.

It's not about any kind of victim blaming / modesty debate for me. I'm old, and perhaps slightly old fashioned, so those kind of debates have passed me by. I just think that young children should be allowed to be young children, without adults projecting their own hang ups onto them and cladding them in layers to protect the world from their pants!

[happinessiseggshaped]

Knickers don't always cover everything, particularly if you are hanging upside down on a climbing frame for example.
Leotards etc are made from thicker material and generally tighter and more likely to stay put as they are designed for sports.
I think the problem is flimsy girls' knickers and the fact that everyone seems to like little girls in skirts. Most adult women don't spend every day in a skirt as they aren't very practical in many situations. Why should little girls who are more active?

[Cauliflowersqueeze]

The teacher didn’t make a big deal out of it by saying it. I think you made a deal out of it by questioning your daughter and speaking to the teacher.

Many years ago I went into a gymnastics lesson with a year 8 class and one of the boys called me over to watch his handstand. A testicle fell out his boxers/shorts as he was upside down and it was the last time I went into a gymnastics lesson. So I think covering up is appropriate for both sexes.

[Cauliflowersqueeze]

For PE a lot of girls now wear “skorts” - like a pair of shorts with a skirt combined. I think it’s a great idea.

[MissLingoss]

If children are wearing sensible pants that cover their genitals.....

But very often when there's a thread like this, a teacher will come on and say that the problem is that many little girls don't wear sensible pants. And so it becomes necessary to have a rule. And school can't say 'Maisie needs to wear shorts under her skirt because her pants are too revealing, but Josie doesn't have to, because her pants cover everything.' There has to be one rule for all.

Back when pe was done in pants, pants did cover everything. Or you had gym knickers, which you wore over pants.

Some schools had uniform pants, big grey or navy knickers, which meant problems like this didn't arise.

[MaisyPops]

But if a female performer is wearing a skimpy costume for their show then that's different to be deciding to prance around Tesco on a Saturday morning in a glittery sexy two piece set.

Only on MN do people repeatedly claim context is irrelevant.

You could have someone ask whether they're ok to buy their child a mini sexy halloween costume compelte with suspenders and heels and someone would turn up saying 'it's fine. Why should girls change how they dress to suit men? If anyone sees something sexy in that costume then they have the issue.'

There's no time during school or work where it's reasonable for anyone to be showing their underwear, unless it's getting changed for PE.

MissLingoss
Very true on the consistency thing. Not all pants cover everything.
Equally, how hard is it to have a basic understanding in life that you don't show your pants in school and work and other environments.

[Basta]

So what about boys? If they wear loose boxers and shorts it is possible that a testicle will be partly visible when they climb but has anyone ever mentioned modesty dress recommendations for boys?

Boys at my secondary school were told not to wear underwear under their shorts for games. I distinctly remember getting an eyeful when talking to a boy who was sitting on a desk at the time.

[Racecardriver]

How is don't flash your underwear the wrong message? No one else should see your pants. Just buy her some bike shorts.

[catkind]

I don't think this is about what's covered or modesty or who sees what as such. It's just about learning manners and appropriate dress for different settings. Appropriate dress for the beach could be a bikini. Appropriate dress for gymnastics is a leotard. Appropriate dress for school is underwear covered. Much easier to have that rule from the start than try to justify that at a certain age (what age?) it becomes inappropriate to flash your pants.

(And yes I'd personally prefer if we must have uniform it's joggers/shorts and polos for all then this would be a non-issue.)

[Apehouse]

@Walkingdeadfangirl:
‘I think we now live in a 'multi-cultural' country and some people find underwear offensive. So its natural to make sure everyone covers up and wears modest clothes.’
Really? Some people find women’s faces and legs offensive, too. Shall we all wear black floor length cloaks?

[MaisyPops]

It's just about learning manners and appropriate dress for different settings
Yes. This x 100

It's not rocket science.

[LittleCandle]

I'd be telling the teacher very nicely to fuck off. Even if it was school policy, I would tell the school very nicely to fuck off. She's a little girl. This kind of thing is bloody ridiculous.

[Yura]

Most girls don’t flash their underwear - they flash their genitals. Loads of girls pants hang an inch or so away from the crotch, and slip to the side if they move. I have boys, so no idea how it happens, but I really don’t like having the girls having everything on show (and i‘ve Seen gaping underwear in most girls in my son‘s class). So a rule for shorts makes sense - who says you need to wear knickers underneath? These shorts are knickers, they just make sure privates stay private.
I wouldn’t let my son run around with his bits on show either

[sirfredfredgeorge]

There has to be one rule for all

One of things schools have to do now, is not give the idea that there has to be one rule for rule, reasonable allowances have to be made, it's perfectly reasonable to have to explain why little timmy gets a fidget toy, little delilah gets to opt out of lessons and sit in the corner some times. If they can't also explain the rule is little kylie can't keep her bum covered so has to cover her bum up somehow, then they're not going to have a hope of the other allowances schools have to make.

[MaisyPops]

One of things schools have to do now, is not give the idea that there has to be one rule for rule, reasonable allowances have to be made, it's perfectly reasonable to have to explain why little timmy gets a fidget toy, little delilah gets to opt out of lessons and sit in the corner some times
But Timmy has a fidget toy and Delilah gets a time out card to ENABLE them to follow perfectly reasonable expectations. They are linked to their needs.

No child needs to have their underwear on show. It's a daft comparison.

It's more like 'in class the rule is children need to concentrate, pay attention to the teacher and listen to instructions so Timmy has a fidget toy, Millie has a 1-1 TA and Harry has printed instructions and Sophie has a visual timetable. All these adjustments allow the children to access education'.

I'm not sure that 'everyone should keep their underwear covered' comes close to altering the education environment to meet children's additional needs.