To ask if boys can wear coloured gingham school shorts?

[Makingitupaswegoalong]

DS starting school in September. I’ve never liked the grey boys’ school shorts. I think they’re horrible.

Could a boy wear the shorts version of the summer dresses in the warmer months? The ones like this:
https://direct.asda.com/george/school/shorts/light-blue-girls-gingham-longer-length-school-shorts/G008057152,default,pd.html?redirectFromInt=1&cmpid=ppc--geor-------_-dskwid-_dm&utm_campaign=pla:Fashion-School-_Performance_Max&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&gclsrc=aw.ds&gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=17501196607&gbraid=0AAAAADt8Wcm1oMWVYoBrMZRAaJmY4OxHM&gclid=Cj0KCQjwgIXCBhDBARIsAELC9ZgYG9pdeZibdgD76_xniRBLDqnyyvZArL9DdLA7VsYiWE5zGC1CWE0aAkIFEALw_wcB

The little boys round here wear a lot of brightly coloured patterned leggings.

Why couldn’t they were these shorts? Are they obviously girly? Would people bully him or think we were weird? I just think they’re nicer.

My reaction to the OP (assuming it to be a genuine question) would be the same whether it were

Gingham shorts
A princess dress
A superhero costume
A dinner jacket and trousers
A hand-knitted jumper depicting Postman Pat

or anything else you may wish to name, that isn't on the uniform list.

My view is that school is a community, and uniform gives children a shared identity and makes dressing them easier and cheaper, and removes competition and focus on clothes at school. Basically, the usual reasons why people are pro uniform, which you clearly don't share. (So let's not have a debate about uniform itself).

I also, more strongly, believe parents should work with the school in good faith, and model a constrictive and positive relationship, not dive headfirst into quibbling over petty things like grey shorts. It's a confusing and unhelpful message to send your kid - "You're starting school! It's going to be great! But they want all the boys to wear these grey shorts, and I think these gingham ones are nicer, so I'll see if you can wear those".

I find that young children are generally fine with uniform. I have one child who is very particularly about what they wear and really enjoys choosing clothes. Yet they never had a moment's hesitation about school uniform in the Infants. I mean, standard morning routine whingeing, sometimes yes. Deep-rooted philosophical issues about the clothes, no. I know other parents who were worried whether their Reception starter would accept the uniform, and lo and behold, they all did. They saw that the other girls/boys wear it, and so they also happily wore it.

My kids' school doesn't have variations for the uniform, beyond summer/winter and girls/boys. The school community is generally happy with that. There is no reason for the kids not to be in uniform as there's a plentiful supply of extremely cheap second hand uniform, and I don't notice kids deviating from the uniform.

I know of other schools in the area which have a much more "mix and match" uniform policy, which to me looks like a tremendous ball ache, a recipe for kids being picky and chopping and changing for the sake of it (I know mine probably would, and I don't have time for it in the mornings).

I think it's a bit strong to casually call people bigots, and what you say basically sounds like Bart Simpson slapping Lisa in the back of the car and saying "stop slapping yourself, why are you slapping yourself". And why am I - maybe I will go to bed instead.

You’re right, I don’t share your view on uniform. My community doesn’t come from dressing the same as my peers and I’ve never had a job that’s required a tie or blazer like the ludicrous secondary uniforms I see.

As for calling people bigots - i was repeating the word you used.

But I do think it’s bigoted to divide clothes by gender; I think gender stereotypes are bigoted.

It’s only ever one way - no one bats an eye at girls wearing shorts or jeans or blue or brown. But the idea of a boy wearing gingham shorts has 20 odd pages of people accusing the OP of some sort of political agenda and of using her child to make a statement.

That’s because of bigotry - specifically misogyny - and we should be calling it out, not pandering to a status quo that holds ‘girly’ things - and by extension, girls - as inferior.

don’t know what you mean with the Simpson’s analogy.

yes, that’s definitely what I said.

Or, if you read a little more carefully, you’ll (maybe) understand that I’m saying the idea of insisting some clothes are for girls and some are for boys is rooted in bigotry - specifically misogyny.

It begins with gingham shorts and ends with gender pay gaps and Andrew Tate. Thin edge, dangerous wedge.

Well, we disagree on a lot of things and have different priorities. I don't really see what jobs have to do with it. I don't think there are many useful analogies to be made between school and work. I'll leave it there.

secondary uniform policies are supposedly to ‘prepare kids for work’.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/sep/25/why-do-we-force-our-kids-into-ties-and-blazers-when-not-even-bankers-wear-them-any-more

Which of course is nonsense as no one wears blazers and ties to work anymore.

At My son’s school, they wear formal uniforms 3 days a week and pe uniform 2 days a week, which is essentially the same on top then joggers or soft shorts instead of the durable grey ones your on about. He’s in year 2 now, and I’ve been saying for the past 3 years, especially at ks1 it would be better if they wore pe uniform all the time, must be much comfier for sitting on floor etc. I know this is not the question in your original post, but I agree with the ‘why not wear tracksuits?’ question.

My take on the shorts isn't because they are viewed as girl's shorts but because they are significantly different and won't comply with the school dress code. I'm not getting involved in the gender argument.

We have a dress code at work - not a uniform but just a polite request to look reasonably smart (no ripped jeans, no strappy little tops, no scruffy trainers etc)

DD, when qualified will wear a uniform (scrubs).

"When you adjust for size and weight, superior male strength isn’t a given."

Oh good grief. Are you one of these people who think that men should compete in women's sport?

There's a whole lot of scientific studies that say otherwise.

I'm generally pro uniform. I think uniforms should be modernised, polo's instead of shirts and ties and I'd ditch the blazers. In favour of a uniform jacket.

But generally I much prefer uniform, if it goes then kids end up in their own uniform jeans, t-shirt, trainers but with scope for the correct logos levis and Nike logos. Kids like to be the same as peers and not stand out.

Even as adults how often do you hear women discussing what you wearing for a night out.

No, I’m not. I even wrote down that I’m in favour of sex segregation in certain sports because of course MN would make this about trans.

i’m one of those people who doesn’t blithely accept sexist nonsense like gender stereotyping of ability and clothing.

I don’t think women discuss what they are wearing so they can dress the same. I think they do it because they are socially conditioned to think their dress matters in a way men generally aren’t.

Isn’t wearing the same outfit to an event supposed to be mortifying for women?

You say kids want to fit in but that’s because people say stupid shit like ‘if you wear that, you’ll be bullied’. One of my kids would wear fancy dress every day if they could. Another hates wearing their uniform, even though all their classmates wear it. Look at any non-uniform day and kids wear all kinds of things.

Don't confuse social conditioning for innate desire.

In terms of absolute strength – that is, without regard for body size, weight or composition – the average man tends to be considerably stronger than the average woman. Specifically, the absolute total- body strength of women has been reported as being roughly 67% that of men.

I'm still struggling to find any concrete evidence that states the opposite to the above statement.

Women are stronger in many other ways though.

Oh yay! The ‘woke’ just got all a bit more ‘wokey’

Don’t be the parent that invites bullying for the sake of appearing to be liberal.

School uniform policy is there to stop bullying for being different. It is there for practicality. It is there for a whole host of reasons and not one of them is to do with style, self expression, creativity or fashion.

My DDs are at Secondary. The head banned non uniform days a few years ago as the statistics showed that those on FSM were more likely to have an unauthorised absence or be "ill" on those days.

They're awful and probably not uniform.
Send him in the correct uniform along with the rest of the kids. Why would you want him to be different just so he's not in grey shorts? Ridiculous.
He can wear what he wants to outside if school.

I literally wrote that ‘when you adjust for size and weight’ and you’ve added a quote that says ‘without regard for body size, weight or composition’.

That paper you quoted also goes on to say ‘When assessing gender differences in strength, then, it is important to make comparisons
relative to body weight and/or composition.When these disparities are taken into
consideration, the strength differences between men and women are less appreciable.’

i also said that strength is not just about how much heavy shit you can lift and you say ‘women are stronger in other ways’.

So I’m not entirely sure what you are disagreeing with me on.

Sounds sensible if that’s what the data showed. I wonder what the data says about the pressure on families eligible for FSM when buying £60 blazers and the like?

When you have one or two days a year to express yourself through clothing, wouldn’t that create more pressure than if you could wear what you want every day?

They also have a very cheap uniform. The items from the uniform shop cost less than £50.

£50 is still a lot of money. Presumably they need 2 of some things, so £50 may really be £70.

£70 buys a lot of non-uniform clothes that can be worn anytime.

I’ve never got a pair of school shoes for less than £30 that lasted anytime at all. So we could be at £100 per child already.

I think if he likes them and wants to wear them then it’s fine but don’t humiliate your child because you don’t like grey shorts

The £50 is for blazer, tie and PE top. Separate to that they need shirts, trousers shoes and shorts.
Probably would be cheaper in non uniform but the point was it reduces bullying from not having the right brands.

Some people love a good argument on here don't they?

Don't most schools do second hand uniform sales?

That just doesn't surprise me. I know lots of kids even in primary get stressed out over non-uniform days, trying to decide what to, what not to wear.

Uniform can't remove all the stigma about being poor but it certainly helps.

My kids primary is pretty relaxed, their is a collar and tie but the majority of the time it's polo's. Although recently a message came out about shorts not suitable for school and designer hoodies. So looks like HT is drawing a line!

Women discuss outfits so they know they'll fit in.
How often is the answer black jeans n top or I was thinking about a dress. They might not want to be in the exact same dress but they'll either both end up in jeans n top or they'll both be in dresses.

But don’t you see that it’s circular?

‘Don’t put your kid in those shorts, he’ll get bullied’ is why ultimately kids get bullied for not wearing the right brand.

Reinforcing the ‘correct’ clothing for a particular subset is where all this nonsense comes from.

If we normalised wearing whatever you want to (within confines of practicality/ warmth) then the pressure to fit in wouldn’t be as strong.

And as an aside, why on earth does any child or teen need a blazer and tie?! They are uncomfortable, look ridiculous and no one wears them for work anymore. Every year there are stories on here about some poor kid being forced to wear the blazer in 30C heat.

Loads of countries don’t have school uniforms - including the states where the levels of poverty are astounding for a developed nation.