Sexist school uniform policy?

[Bmidreams]

I was just wondering what other's thoughts were on this new uniform policy at a secondary school?

All students can wear trousers but it is fashionable for girls to wear skirts there, and most girls choose to do so.

New policy says that students can now only wear a new type of school skirt that has the school badge on. One skirt costs approximately £20.

Trousers can continue to be any type from any supermarket at approximately £8 each.

Would you consider this policy sexist? AIBU that I think it is?

I'll leave aside the covid 19 issues of not introducing expensive uniform at this time, more uniform probably needed as it will need washing every night etc.

The main advantage is that it doesn't create divisions of the have and have nots. Yes uniforms are expensive in some cases, and people are still bullied because it's too small, has holes in etc; but far more would be if everyone was waltzing around in Nike clothes whilst you had Primark on. Also the regulations would have so many possible infringements it would be a nightmare. Uniform is the fairest way.

@Bbq1

Yeah, totally. Not as bad as ds's school where girls can have hair as long as they like but boys can only have collar length hair. It drives me mad, such a glaringly sexist archaic and unfair rule.

if my DS wants hair down to his ass they can deal with it or get slapped with a lawsuit if thats how they want to play

the uniform issue isnt sexist as its a choice to wear a skirt but telling one sex they have a different regulation to the other (such as only girls can have long hair or only boys can wear trousers) is blatently sexist and wouldnt fly with me at all

but then I'm stubborn, I failed a GCSE simply to make a statement on sexism as in my school girls werent allowed to take wood work etc... as a GCSE choice and where instead forced to do either cooking and sewing as they claimed 'its unfair to make boys do girly subjects' and so I made extra work for them for 2 whole years by refusing to do the classes, it frustraited them but unfortunately they still didnt change their stupid sexist rule

The main advantage is that it doesn't create divisions of the have and have nots. Yes uniforms are expensive in some cases, and people are still bullied because it's too small, has holes in etc; but far more would be if everyone was waltzing around in Nike clothes whilst you had Primark on

Nice victim blaming there. Bullies bully. If it's not clothes its hair if it's not hair it's how you talk, of it's not how you talk it's your feet, what's needed is schools to tackle bullying and to care. Not remove "opportunities " so they can pretend it's not happening and then tell the kid they never should have brought/worn it to school in the first place .

Uniform is used these days as a way of pricing out the "riff raff" cos poor means they wont work hard or behave so they make the tables look bad theres no reason why a pain 10 pound blazer shouldnt be permitted over the 35 pound logo one. They dont want anyone who cant afford it as stereotypically they will be the ones who wont afford the tutors etc to bring the grade average up.

Tackle the bullying. Problem.solved

It’s a unisex uniform? Then no. Even though it is probably just girls wanting to wear skirts they can wear trousers. A pain in the bum but there you go. Presumably to DJ with inappropriate skirts being worn.

I hate policing uniform, it's really not anywhere on my list of priorities, I honestly don't care if my students paint their nails, it's ridiculous
On a personal level, I don't care if schools have or don't have uniform, but whatever rule is chosen has to be followed and I can't stand the whole 'my DC doesn't have to follow rules I don't like' attitude that some parents have.

Speaking to teachers who've been teaching since I was a teen, one thing that stands out is a shift in attitude over time. Whereas 15-20 years ago teens would push the rules a bit, be told to correct their uniform, and if there were any issues then parents would back the school and tell their child the rules apply to them, now there is a much bigger group of parents who think the rules don't apply to their children and this shows in how many deliberately buy stuff that isn't uniform.
It's telling on Mumsnet how many posters are quick to say their child doesn't have to follow uniform or school rules they don't like, falsely equates following school rules to 'blind obedience' and wrongly think their child being rude, defiant and argumentative with staff is them being a critical thinker. 🙄
In reality some of the most open minded, critical thinkers have been students who were capable of intellectual thought and debate, and managed to follow the rules and uniform. I've had many insightful debates with students and they tend to be the ones who follow basic expectations, whereas those who are defiant and know they'll be backed by their parents tend to lack any form of reasoning beyond sulking and saying 'yeah but you can't make me, my mum says...'

My school did this 20 years ago, after girls campaigning to be able to wear trousers. Within a year the majority of girls were wearing the skirt, it was a fucking awful skirt too. Apparently only nerds wore trousers O_o. So there is probably some sexism there given that if you rounded up 100 women from a city centre the majority wouldn't be wearing skirts, but its not from the school.

Boys tend to get their trousers messier than girls skirts as well though. Chatting with pupils at my school, the boys have always had at least 3 pairs of trousers as they need very frequent washing (as a general rule boys get muddy while playing football etc, although there are obviously exceptions), while the girls often make do with just one or two skirts and wash them at weekends because they mostly stay quite clean (again, there are exceptions, but in general trends).

Boys and girls do tend to behave differently (WHY they behave differently is a huge other thread!) If people kick up too much fuss the school may well decide to insist on a specific expensive brand of trousers as well, rather than going back to any skirt allowed. And when they specify brands of trousers, they REALLY don't fit girls' bodies, it's hard enough trying to find just plain black trousers that aren't skin tight to fit a lot of girls, let alone if only one brand is allowable.

Uniform might help hide haves and have nots at primary but in secondary there are signifiers like your phone, clothing on mufti days, holidays, your house and the car that you're picked up in.

And when they specify brands of trousers, they REALLY don't fit girls' bodies, it's hard enough trying to find just plain black trousers that aren't skin tight to fit a lot of girls, let alone if only one brand is allowable.
Yes! Many single supply trousers are awful.

Though I'm not convinced it's that difficult to find a pair of non skin tight skinny trousers for girls. Loads of shops sell school wear and office wear with a range of cuts and lengths. If it's anything like my students the issue is finding a pair of trousers that are skinny enough to be considered cool without being so skinny their break the rules.

For mine it's more finding them narrow enough round the waist but long enough, as she's still too skinny for adult sizes, but kids trousers aren't long enough. I know you can get the ones with the elastic inside to tighten them, but then she ends up with massive wads of fabric round her bum.

Yes the issue is usually the legs are far too long. The crotch threatens to cut you in half lengthwise . Excess material everywhere except where you need it so simultaneously restrictive whilst looking like clown trousers .

And skinny ones arent usually allowed but they are the only ones where the arse isnt half way down the back of the knees trailing across the floor at the bottom. Cant even taken them up either cos the knee is in the wrong place so they dont bend properly.

I wore boy jeans and 2nd hand men's flares all through my teens cos girl ones had wide bits on the hip and thighs. Was a bit of a shock I. My 20s when i suddenly got a waist and hips to realise why women's trousers were cut differentl!

It's a good lesson. Being fashionable costs money, and there are other options.

I wonder if our children attend the same school. I think it's lousy to make girls pay more and their parents.

I would say no, as the girls are allowed trousers. It is a little unfair perhaps.

Not sexist (towards the girls at least) because they have choice.

I’m really surprised at the responses on here. If skirts are what most of the girls want to wear then it’s awful that some girls will be singled out by having to wear the unpopular choice because they’re parents can’t afford It. If there’s a choice it should be an actual choice, not a segregation by wealth which it essentially is if most girls want to wear skirts but only more privileged girls can. If it’s only less privileged girls being singled out in this way, then yes that is a sexist rule. Very badly thought through.

Agghh! Their parents not they’re parents. Cringe ...

Well they can wear the trousers then if they don't want to be the trousers? The problem will be because black/ grey trousers are a standard garment. Skirts are not standard. Lots of teen girls will be in mini skirts and tube skirts if the option is given to them and that unfortunately creates a lot of other issues. The school will want the skirts a decent length so that they actually look like school pupils and to avoid issues like upskirting.

If it’s only less privileged girls being singled out in this way, then yes that is a sexist rule.
No, it's discrimination by wealth - our society is based upon it.

Are the boys allowed to wear skirts if they want?

@Ifailed

If it’s only less privileged girls being singled out in this way, then yes that is a sexist rule. No, it's discrimination by wealth - our society is based upon it.

It’s definitely discrimination by wealth I agree, which is totally unacceptable. But since it is only the girls who are being forced to be segregated by wealth, it’s also sexist.

No strong feelings about the actual question (except pupils can still choose trousers anyway) but I can never see why they don't make the non-trouser option dresses rather than skirts. My school uniform was and it would have been impossible to roll it up, obviously. My daughters' uniform was a pleated skirt, and apart from anything else it looked really awful rolled up because the hem hung skew and the waist looked bulky. There was a trouser option but it was a specific, unflattering design so almost no one wore it. The skirts were great when worn properly.

Single sex school in both cases.

Because of girls' radically different sizes in boobs, that's why.