To think telling a child to "cover up" because of male teachers is ewwww?

[FreeeeeeeeFreeFalling]

DD and her mates were wearing fairly standard vest tops at school for an own clothes day. All dressed exactly the same. DD singled out and told to cover up (I suspect because she is slightly larger chested than the others), which she found humiliating. She was told "there are male teachers around" as the reason!
They are 16.
I kind of think if male teachers can't keep their eyes to themselves, they shouldn't be teachers, right?!

AIBU to think this is a bit off?

Yes, it amuses me to think that someone thinks I'm defending men. I'm the last person to do that, and usually get vigorously accused of being a bitter, man-hating misandrist. So this is a nice change of pace.

But you have nothing of substance to say, except to accuse me of nasty language when I used nothing of the sort? Well, alright then. I guess you don't actually have an argument?
(And a girl is a child, fyi.)

I repeat: Schools are a workplace, and educational institution; students of both sexes should wear clothing that covers the entirety of their chests, and their legs to mid-thigh. There's absolutely no reason for them not to.

Ah, the age old cry of, "I do x thing that men and gender non-conforming women don't do because it just feels nicer that way! Not because of patriarchy!"

Sorry. I really don't believe that. If I had a penny for every time a woman said that socialisation somehow magically skipped her, I'd be able to bathe in pennies (ew).

Yes, that went out of fashion when I was a teenager, and hasn't been back, where I live. And the teachers were always snapping at them to pull their trousers up, and giving them detentions if they were repeat offenders.

You can believe what you want. Go bathe in pennies...

I don't have a single pair of high heels, because I hate them. I mostly live in hoodies/t-shirts and leggings/shorts with no make up on cos I just can't be arsed. And that's not because I don't need to attract a partner. I met my husband in my work uniform with no make up on and my hair in a scruffy pony tail, having just finished dragging boxes around a warehouse. I've always just done what makes me feel happy.

But if I like a t-shirt, I'll buy it/wear it, regardless of the neck/sleeves/fit. Mostly they're loose with a higher, round neck but some are tighter with a deeper V neck because that's what they are. But I love me a Snoopy t-shirt so if it's a mens, or a deep V or crew neck, I'm having it.

What you think of women is VERY obvious. And not nice.

That says more about your parenting than you think.

I don't think you have any idea what I think of women.

As someone who has seen the worst of men, I am not a defender of them. But I do reject appealing to the male gaze, and I despise patriarchal norms that sexualise girls and encourage them to sexualise themselves, while trying to cloak it in 'empowerment'.

I'm frustrated by feminists tying themselves in knots to claim that a young girl dressed in highly sexualised and objectifying clothing is just 'expressing herself' and 'exploring', when in fact it's quite clear that she's learning her place in society; as a sexual object, there to be physically desired, instead of a person to be valued for her mind and her personality.

Me too. Female secondary teacher here too. I have told girls to pull down skirts and button up shirts. Yes they look embarrassed when I say something, but they are in school and there have to be standards. Vest tops are not appropriate in school, even on a non-uniform day.
In the case of your daughter it sounds like the teacher was in the wrong for singling her out, and for giving male teacher presence as a reason. She would not be wrong to tell the group of girls that cleavage on show is NOT appropriate at school. Those short shorts and bubble butt leggings are awful too. But if mum is telling them it’s all fine and they should wear whatever they like then what chance do the teachers stand?

But if the rule is "no cleavage" then the exact same item of clothing will be unacceptable on one girl and not on another.

I'm frustrated by feminists tying themselves in knots to claim that a young girl dressed in highly sexualised and objectifying clothing is just 'expressing herself' and 'exploring', when in fact it's quite clear that she's learning her place in society; as a sexual object, there to be physically desired, instead of a person to be valued for her mind and her personality.

This is another interesting one to me, because one of the teachers at the school I have been referencing - not especially young but with a strong focus on appearance - has the lip filler - for some, a little bit sex doll like - changes the colour of her pupils regularly with contacts, and has a notable following on Tik Tok (not presenting there as a teacher at all, apparently as someone championing feminine empowerment).

it's quite clear that she's learning her place in society...there to be physically desired (or an aspirational picture of a woman for those realising they are going to a more adult stage, at the very least), instead of a person to be valued for her mind and her personality.

I'd really like to value her mind and teaching status above all, but the visuals and the alter-ego makes that very difficult.

I agree that outfits should be appropriate for school. Saying there are male teachers around as a reason why is unprofessional. It implies they will all be looking inappropriately. They won't. As for the short skirts- it is shocking to see. It is not appropriate for school. Retailers tout these skirts as school uniform appropriate but really they are not. They will provide what people want. I do not think it is unreasonable to make girls wear skirts that are knee length. If boys chose to wear shorts with their bum cheeks out- yes some skirts are almost that short, there would be an outcry. This is not an exaggeration on the scarcity of material. I am a teacher.

What if they want to feel sexual? It's possible to be both sexual and intellectual. Women don't have to choose. The fact that you think they should only be valued for their intellect and not as a whole person, being who they want to be is telling.

I didn't say 'sexual', I said 'sexualised'. There's a very big difference.

It's also interesting that you think that wanting people to be valued primarily for their personality and intelligence, means they can't be sexual (again, different to 'sexualised').

It's also interesting that you seem to imply young girls should be sexual, and...valued for being sexual? I feel like that must be a miscommunication on your part.

I think the fact that you're deliberately missing reading "women" as "young girls" suggests you've run out of points to attempt to make.

Why are you talking about adult women, when I was very specifically talking about girls in my previous comment?

Additionally, as I said, 'sexual' and 'sexualised' are very different things.

Nowhere did the teacher imply that male teachers would be driven eild with lust, she was talking about making people of the opposite sex feel uncomfortable.

And anyway it was their undercrackers showing, not their buttocks.

Well on here it seems to be when someone is worried about their 16 year olds having sex. The replies come back that they will have sex because they are young adults and all perfectly normal. That doesn't mean I agree. It's what I have read here many times.

There’s a time and place to feel sexual. Workplaces and schools are generally not that place.

A 16 year old is a child, legally. A "minor".

Very disappointing OP. Ten years ago my daughter’s high school banned leggings for PE because they have male teachers. I was hoping things had changed from this culture of ‘girls, don’t tempt the male teachers now’.

While at the same time they changed the uniform of nice candy striped opaque shirts to the nasty white see through ones of my day. And introduced knee high socks. The socks had to sit at a certain point on the leg. Then they subjected girls to literally making them line up and have them measures. Obviously I pulled her out immediately and sent her to a non-uniform school the following week. I wish I was joking

According to your updates OP you would be accepting of your daughter's Teacher wearing skimpy clothes displaying cleavage etc as it would make them more relatable. I assume you have this opinion regardless of the profession being represented. If you were attending court as a member of the jury & the female judge walked in exposing her cleavage in a vest top & wearing micro shorts, in your world this would be perfectly acceptable. The mind boggles at some of the opinions here regarding appropriate attire depending on the circumstances. School is not the place to bare all.

I should add if I was a Head Teacher & a girl arrived to school wearing a top displaying her midriff, cleavage and or a skirt length ending above mid thigh she would be swiftly sent home to change.

Most people understand that there's more to appropriate dress than simply covering the genitals. Most people would think that's a bit of a low bar!

Agree. I can never really understand how it's not obvious when clothing is inappropriate for school.

But if girls do this the male teachers may not react because of arousal. They may simply think it's inappropriate.

And it's not unheard of for the odd mean teen girl to wrongly say a teacher was staring.

This! So many stupid posts on this thread.