To think schoolgirls wearing exposing skirts isn’t a feminism issue but a safeguarding one?!

[Moonicorn]

Following on from the thread about skirt length inspections, AIBU to think stopping underage girls from revealing their underwear and bum cheeks to male teachers (or any teachers) isn’t ‘internalised misogyny’ but basic safeguarding?

Or am I just ‘not enlightened enough’ to understand that underage girls can expose what they want to grown men as long as they’re ‘happy and comfortable’ with it?

Disclaimer: I believe adult women can wear whatever TF they want and are not responsible for men’s reactions to them, but this is about children which is a different ball game.

Interested to know your thoughts!

@WillowBeeT your response to @MrsMurphyIWish has disturbed me as you seem to be saying that it's OK for a young girl to have her labia on show and that only older generations care.
Having witnessed the same thing many times as Mrsmurphy I can assure you it is not something I, or any teacher, wants to see. Just as I wouldn't in a restaurant or play area.
Just because I (or male colleagues) don't wish to see this and it makes us uncomfortable does not mean we should not be teaching. It does not mean we cannot be feminists if we are uncomfortable seeing a teenagers genitalia. It just means it's not pleasant and that, quite frankly, a parent supporting their child displaying bottoms, cheeks, labia etc is really not teaching their child anything.

The problem? No. She’s tall. Criminal. What she wears will NEVER be “provocative” 🤯

@BibbleandSqwauk

You honestly think male teachers would be protected from 'false' allegations by longer skirts?

@TheObstinateHeadstrongGirl

There are multiple examples of she's asking for it on the thread.

I haven’t seen anyone say “A girl in a short skirt is asking to be sexually assaulted”.

And you missed the point about the male teachers. Teachers have a right not to feel uncomfortable in the workplace, their comfort trumps anyone’s inexplicable crusade to wear inappropriate clothes

I am all for skirts being a decent length BUT as soon as you turn that into a “but the male teachers/students” argument then you turn it into a victim blaming thing.

decency says genitalia should be covered. That shouldn’t be a big ask but it also shouldn’t be turned into a victim blaming thing.

I've been a teacher for over 2 decades now, whilst it's nothing new it's depressing girls still feel the need for some bizarre reason to be wildly uncomfortable to fit in with their peers. Rolling a skirt up isn't more comfortable, it isn't more practical, and it isn't really a middle finger up to wearing uniform is it- there would be far better ways to fight the system if that was the aim.

Lots of female staff, myself included, get bored/frustrated/uncomfortable at both the low level disruption- ie fiddling with said skirt to ensure nothing is on show when sat down through to more serious such as ensuring another child isn't taking photos on their phone covertly- have caught more girls than boys doing this interestingly. So I imagine it's the same for male teachers who probably find it all the more awkward than we do to mention it at all.

Its not appropriate for a school environment just as it wouldn't be in a workplace, I would say the same applied to boys but there isn't really an equivalent!

But who is the victim here that people are blaming?

Saying that girls wearing skirts is distracting for males is automatically victim blaming and sets the wheels in motion for the idea that what girls wear means they are “asking for it”

I am actually pleased to see so many male students joining to protest against this because it shows they understand that what a girl is wearing doesn’t matter

I completely agree, but then I’m not a rabid feminist, and I didn’t post those opinions. That is what the rabid feminists posted on the thread. That sort of insane fascism is more damaging than it is good.

Surely the answer is to remove the skirt option from the uniform altogether. Give them a term’s notice and then send home anybody who is not in trousers.

Again, as I have said many times, I agree.
But the rabid feminist ideologues have their opinion and I was explaining what the opinion posted by others was.
I do not have to agree with someone to be able to explain their point of view to others.

Yep, we have a unisex uniform essentially, girls and boys are free to wear trousers or skirts (no boys ever have predictably)- most girls actually choose to wear trousers now. I suspect many are glad of less peer pressure to roll them up further than they are comfortable with as not to be labelled a loser (and much worse).

The problem in our school system is that bod students and their equally bad parents have no consequences. If you exclude bad pupils from schools, bad parents will be inconvenienced. They will likely leave their kids to run feral in the community, in which case it becomes a child services issue, or they well stop working if indeed they worked in the first place, in which case the parent understand the consequence of poor parenting is less income.

But the idea of reducing education to the lowest common denominator is what keeps education in this country poor. A child’s education should not be compromised by bad children and incapable adults.

The girls in my classroom are not victims. They haven't been sexually assaulted (to my knowledge). They will not be protected from predators by a long skirt. However, the teachers and male students are less likely to be falsely accused of "perving" if there is less to see. My colleagues are at risk of this and far more so if they can't deny they saw a girls thigh. Just because many many young girls do get sexually assaulted by many many men, it does not mean we can give everyone on those categories the same label.

Here is another example of how we apologise and brush off inappropriate skirt lengths and justify bad parenting. This sort of attitude puts back women decades. Why is common decency so difficult for some parents to teach their children?

I was gonna type out a post in response to “iTs ViCTim BLamIng” but you have put it far better than I ever could.

I have already said that skirts in schools shouldn’t be very short but from a decency POV not a “but men can’t control themselves” pov.

@Sirzy I agree with you. I'm quite saddened by the attitude of some on here that a man WILL get turned on by the short skirt and therefore is a paedophile, whilst totally ignoring the fact that the vast majority are made uncomfortable, not because they are secretly aroused but because they know they can be accused of it and in the current climate, will stand little chance of exonerating themselves.

Please elaborate on ‘common decency’
😵‍💫

See the problem is that all year assemblies EXPLAIN that the issue with skirts is that that they are provocative. SMT teachers believe that. And say it again and again.

Which is wrong and sends the wrong messages to all pupils.

i am fortunate that DS goes to a school that seemingly doesn’t take that attitude and rightly so as it doesn’t do any students any favours.

ds and two of his (male) cousins are both high school age and fully agree with why female pupils are fighting back and support their reasons. They know that clothes don’t indicate anything ouher

Common everyday courtesy, respect and politeness, in ones dress, conduct and demeanour toward others, that is expected and assumed by societal conventions.

In our society we dress appropriately and conduct ourselves respectfully of others in school. It is not acceptable to ignore school policy or expose oneself, nor is it acceptable to measure a girl’s skirt with a ruler, guilty or not, or humiliate her.

Flouting school uniform with a skirt so short you can see someone’s knickers/lack thereof is deliberately provocative and disrespectful. Presumably that’s why people do it. Sex doesn’t have to come into it for it to be inappropriate, unnecessary and therefore provocative, as in likely to provoke a reaction.

If a boy wore super-short shorts to school, so that you could see his ballsack hanging out, and he sat with legs akimbo in front of a female teacher, this would also be utterly inappropriate. I wonder if a possible sexual motive would be as quickly ruled out in that case? Or whether people would be so quick to defend his freedom of expression and need to keep his testicles cool?

I just think all schools should say trousers only for all pupils. If girls aren't allowed to wear them and boys aren't allowed to wear shorts. Just say no skirts!

Tbh, I also have an issue with incredibly low cut tops in the workplace, but I’ve even seen cabinet ministers in the House of Commons wearing tops exposing large amounts of cleavage while standing at the despatch box. I find it distracting (and a bit ugly) and wonder why the person chose something that takes attention away from the speech and onto their body? Why is this acceptable for women to do, but if a man stood in the House of Commons at the despatch box with a very low cut top exposing his chest hair and a gold medallion, it would undoubtedly attract a lot of hilarity and rude comment, and totally distract attention from his speech? Why does convention allow women to wear clothes that distract both men and women in the workplace, but convention says it is inappropriate for a man to do this? And given that it is only women doing it, why do women then complain when comment is passed on their clothing, not their speech making?

Should men wear short shorts or skirts in the workplace, and low cut tops, too, or would men exposing a lot of flesh make women uncomfortable?