AIBU to challenge the school’s wording about pupils rolling skirts up?

[GreenSalon]

Weekly newsletter today from DC’s secondary school contained a paragraph on uniform including the fact that there have been complaints from the public about “pupils who choose to wear skirts” rolling them up to wear them extremely short. It finishes with asking parents to speak to their children about why this is “not a good idea”.

Now, apart from the fact I assume that they must mean girls, is this not clearly implying that short skirts = making themselves vulnerable and if is, then if anything bad happens as a result it is their own fault? I thought we had moved beyond this kind of nonsense.

I only have boys at the school not girls but want to write to the head to point out how utterly sexist this is. DH agrees with me pov but thinks I shouldn’t write. AIBU?

'Just to be clear, you were the first one to call the men in parks 'sex offenders' - when they're just dressing/adjusting their clothes'

You said

'Does that also apply to the dirty old men flashing in the park'

Dirty old men flashing in the park are sex offenders?

(though struggle to understand why the teachers dont engage their brains and have 'tights or trousers' like the vast majority of schools, probably too busy firing off tedious emails about skirts).

Because many of the girls who insist on wearing skirts that show off their private body parts will, if told they now have to wear trousers, switch defiantly to wearing ultra tight trousers/leggings that still clearly show off the shape of their private areas, even though they are technically covered. That's why.

The girls who will start to wear sensible trousers if the rules change will be the same ones who were previously wearing skirts of a sensible length.

I agree with PP that you must be thinking we're all exaggerating hyperbolically about girls who wear them a bit higher than they technically should - at mid-thigh length. We really aren't talking about that.

'I can't answer for other pps use of the terms you mention. I haven't used them, so please target the correct people'

It's a chat forum we tend to call out misogyny. Some daren't, clearly.

'Tramps' 'sex offenders' and 'whores' all ok by you? Not to be challenged!

Again @Gloriia if your exclusive issue with this entire issue is the language used by posters… report them.

given your daughter strictly followed the uniform code throughout their entire school years AND you live somewhere that you have never seen anything close to what the rest of us have seen… I am intrigued by your impassioned (yet oddly passive) stance on this thread

I personally agree that they are indeed sex offenders... but then I also believe that teenage girls who walk around exposing their bottoms, underwear and worse are also acting inappropriately (to say the least); whereas you seem to believe that men displaying their privates are bad, but young women doing the same are just freely making their own choices.

Is this just the old MN trope that, if a man does something bad, he is bad; but if a woman (or teenage girl) does something that has a similar effect, they're just expressing their individuality and it's sexist, misogynistic and hateful if people point it out or criticise them?

If so, all we're doing is infantilising women (and adolescent girls) by suggesting that men can understand what they're doing and take responsibility for their choices and actions, but the poor little women don't know any better and just can't be expected to make wise, considerate choices. Now, THAT is deeply misogynistic.

I have seen you in other threads call posters and real life “types” awful names.

Why don’t you tell us your thoughts on tattoos. @Gloriia for example?

Gloriia - if you continue to put words into my mouth I will report your posts. I have NEVER used those terms. I haven't even read the posts you must be referring to. Please take that up with the pps concerned.

And don't try to accuse me of being misogynistic. My stance is: no, in 21st century Britain women can't actually wear anything. And neither can men, boys, little girls etc etc. There are cultural and social norms to be taken into account. if that's misogyny, then shoot me.

Ah - thank you.

So you have not in fact had personal experience of what pps here are referring to. If you had, you would be in no doubt.

Well, that explains a lot! If I thought I could get away with googling an image of 'schoolgirls wearing extremely short skirts with buttocks exposed' I would show you what we mean. But I'm clearly not going to do that.

It explains everything, to me. You have no idea what is being criticised here, yet you launch in with personal attacks on people who have.

I agree.
I'm absolutely baffled by those skirts and can't understand why girls do it.

You know what a sensible well reasoned mature response. Thank you

And another point, but a crucial one.

Misogyny means different things to different people. How would you define it, for example? (Don't worry - I don't need you to do that - I'm making a point).

I will call it out when I see it - but that would be only by the light of my interpretation.

It's like people asking 'are you left wing?' or 'are you a feminist?' Well, if you tell me what you mean by those terms, I'll tell you whether I fit the definition.

not one of the small minority saying that essentially we should leave these girls to dress in whatever way they wish actually sayes their daughter wears this attire.

oh no, @Gloriia ’s daughters always conformed to the dress code; the op doesn’t even have daughters; and @JHound doesn’t have any children.

So it’s all fine and dandy saying leave these girls to dress However they wish when it’s all theoretical because you don’t have daughters or your daughters were strict uniform followers!!

I strongly believe women and girls should be able to wear what they like without being called out on it.

That is the diametric opposite to the concept of 'uniform' then isn't it? I am sure that school uniform was in place long before you enrolled your daughter.

oh @Gloriia confirmed her own daughters followed the uniform code throughout their entire schooling!!

No I didn’t. I said few are. That phrase means practically none if any.

but I should say few are wearing skirts so short you can see underwear and the majority wear tights.

But it was YOU that mentioned seeing skirts so short you could see knickers. You! So weird to be so appalled that others followed suit but with perhaps more flesh on the bones!

I think you’ll find that I conceded the point of my AIBU some time ago. However what I take exception to, even if I don’t have girls, is the persistent language that took over the thread quite early on to describe young women in the most negative and insulting framing possible.

And now this from another poster: 'What should they have said instead? Stop your daughters from rolling their skirts up and looking like absolute whores?'

Surely anyone on a site predominantly aimed at supporting women would take exception to this language? It’s unlikely to be a reporting issue as it’s presented as opinion but it’s beyond distasteful.

There are plenty of posters who have come on to say they don’t think girls or young women should wear very short skirts. I don’t agree but that’s their opinion and I respect that especially when they’ve managed to robustly disagree without personal insinuations or using the most derogatory language about other (very young) women and girls.

Yes some of the language has been appalling
but doesn’t look like @Gloriia has reported despite that being her issue with the thread

or perhaps HQ don’t agree

what did your teacher friend suggest when you said you were considering challenging the school about the newsletter?

Oh I see deletions ALL the time that was “opinion” on mumsnet

But if a man wanted to walk around in a jockstrap, we'd find it disgusting. But apparently we shouldn't be allowed to express our disgust we should just police it nicely or something.

Yes I said the word underwear. In the context of you can’t see it. Non issue imo. I still fail to see how that gives some posters an invitation to describe young women girls and young women as whores.

I think they look awful but I'd never call anyone a tramp or a whore for having them?

They said yes go ahead please do.

IMO this thread is no longer about that but whether most posters think it’s acceptable to come on and call young women whores.

Using misogynistic slurs when describing schoolgirls of course isnt breaking TGs. If I called another poster a slur that would be. Probably better to let the awful derogatory sneers stand tbh as it shows up what the actual problem is with appalling judgement and shaming.

'IMO this thread is no longer about that but whether most posters think it’s acceptable to come on and call young women whores'

Exactly. The mask slipped a good few pages ago.