Thoughts on 'modesty' shorts please

[getoffthesofa]

A few girls at my DD2's primary school seem to be wearing these She has asked if she can have some too as she really likes to wear her school summer dresses and is also quite active, running and climbing and leaping and cartwheels etc (also I suspect there may be some karate style kicks going on!).

I strongly object to schools (or anyone) suggesting, or insisting that girls wear these shorts under their dresses, as I do not believe that the knickers of small girls should be funny/sexy/rude/offensive etc (it is essentially victim blaming and the conversation always seems to revert to the excuse that men and boys are able to help themselves being aroused). But she has asked, and if it makes her feel more confident, able to move around as freely and vigorously as she likes, then that can't be a bad thing? My DD1 (yr 8) has also requested them - she wears her skirts short as many of the girls do and now we are out of the tights season I think she too feels exposed (she wears black shortie-knickers anyway).

Yes I know she could just wear, culottes, trousers or shorts, but she refuses too. She loves her summer dresses and I think they are comfortable (the modesty shorts seem rather to defeat the point of feeling cool and breezy round your legs, but there we are)

I hate that they are called "modesty" shorts - what decade are we living in? I hate that small girls can't just dress as they like without feeling looked at and sexualised (though they may not it express it that way). I hate that there is a product cashing on this and I hate that the intention is that girls should cover up instead of men wearing these bloody things on their heads if they can't manage not to objectify or be "offended". And I hate that there is never a suggestion that in a gender neutral uniform boys could wear the dresses too and then everybody's pants would be waving around. But also I want my girls to feel safe and happy.

Do I buy them or do I help my girls blaze a trail for short-free pant freedom? (also do these things go over your usual knickers or do they replace your knickers??)

Just seen that your older girl is secondary age. DD wears gym shorts under the usual too-short skirt and thinks herself better off than the boys, who don't currently have a shorts option of any kind.

One of her friends is at a school that has gone the other way and banned shorts under their equally teeny skirts. Not sure of the logic of that one, and I bet it leads to some, erm, interesting discussions on breaches of uniform rules.

Cycling shorts are padded on the bum, surely?

Do people mean just thigh-length tight cotton shorts (with no padding) when they say cycling shorts?

Sorry for the derail.

Hope we're not going to be advised to wear some modesty blankets to cover our women in next

I know exactly what you mean, OP - my similarly aged DD loves wearing skirts and dresses, but insists on wearing leggings or cycling shorts under them when she's going on the monkey bars or climbing frame.

I've concluded that I would rather that she carried on doing this stuff and not just sit primly at the side of the playground because she doesn't want to flash her knickers. I also remember being desperately embarassed about clothes when I was young and my mum took a "nonsense, you don't need any of that stuff" attitude, and I'm determined - within reason! - not to do the same for my DD

But urgh indeed to the term "modesty shorts"

I don't like the name but I do think they're a good idea. Until a few years ago, I would have said of course girls shouldn't cover up to stop people looking at them. Then I realised that the issue never arises for boys. I have 2 boys & in the summer, at primary school, they wore/wear a polo shirt & knee length shorts. They can move around however they like with no risk or underwear or anything else being on show. The same isn't true for girls.

When I was at primary school, we didn't have a uniform but we did always tuck our skirts into our knickers before doing handstands. At secondary, most of us wore our athletics shorts over our underwear under our skirts. Even today, I am careful when I wear a skirt (not in windy weather!) & careful what I wear underneath.

I also remember being desperately embarassed about clothes when I was young and my mum took a "nonsense, you don't need any of that stuff" attitude, and I'm determined - within reason! - not to do the same for my DD

That is exactly my thinking tbh. She would just go and get her pe shorts anyway. As I said mine lives in them and the extra layer has helped reduce her scratching the back of her thighs where she could feel the carpet through her skirts and it was itchy. And id not have had to throw out multiple jeans cos they rubbed if she'd had them a few years ago

getoffthesofa you (and others) have articulated sentiment on this issue ideally if I may say so.

The name is ridiculous and I think it's rather disconcerting these are being marketed with such a name for young and teenage girls, suggesting as has been said there's the need to be what's termed "modest" and hide underwear if revealed accidentally underneath a school uniform (or anything else). There shouldn't be the need, least of all with a name like that, but it's understandable your daughter would feel more comfortable being free to play as she wishes with them on, unfortunately. Given she loves her summer dresses and would be more confident with these on buying them for her is important. But as you say, "modesty" is something which women and girls are expected to have, the onus is on us to "preserve" this "modesty" and shield ourselves presumably from any men/boys who may look rather than on them not to sexualise women and girls.

Yes to cycling shorts in length but without the padded bum.

Dd is a good cyclist and has a really good pair but always says her bum looks big I'm so careful about the use of language but it's always there lurking under the surface.

Modesty shorts is a shit name, why not call them......shorts. My DD wears shorts under her summer dress as she is a cartwheel queen and doesn't want to flash her knicks! No issue with the wearing of them but the name is ridiculous!

My son's school requires girls to wear modesty cycling shorts under their PE shorts. If I'd had a girl I would have challenged it, but I didn't know about it until later.

I despair at the messages constantly being sent out to children, young girls being made to feel from such a young age they need to ensure their "modesty" and that their underwear is something embarrassing or amusing for boys (they'd not realise the other aspects at a younger age) and that it's their responsibility to hide it from them. As was pointed out earlier in the thread, no-one would say a boy or man's underwear being shown was "immodest" - in fact to some there's a fashion of wearing jeans/trousers low enough to display it so it's not just due to dresses/skirts. Girls and women must hide their underwear and it's worthy of mirth or comment if they don't, boys and men, no such issues.

I don't actually think this is that bad (although certainly will only affect girls until boys can freely wear skirts)
.
My feeling is that this is basically in line with the standard rules of clothing that adults follow without it being oppressive - I'd wear just pants under a maxi skirt, but as the skirt got higher/became a tunic and there was increasing risk of my underwear being visible I'd eventually put leggings on underneath so that no actual pants got flashed. If I were going to be doing an exercise class or crawling around on the floor with children, I'd also wear leggings under a medium or short skirt, as that would also risk pants in public otherwise. I don't feel that is particularly oppressive because all adults follow the general rule of thumb of "no pants visible in public", apart from in very specific circumstances like swimwear whilst adjacent to water.

As the comedian Mitch Benn said "Life would be much better if we spent as much time teaching our boys not to be dicks as we spend teaching our girls how to deal with dicks......."

Umn Lass - how do you know I don't work towards that/live it daily?

And I am saying the opposite of things being worthwhile because they are validated by boys - I am saying that if femininity was genuinely validated and valued, men would do it too. It's not and they don't, as things currently stand and we are more squeamish about feminine boys than we are about masculinised girls (to an extent - tom boys are acceptable). And there is a hierarchy in play here of values that are structurally embedded, to the detriment of women, feminine or otherwise.

"freedom to move" should be "freedom to move without showing your knickers" in the context of this thread.

Also, still not sneering, just that (and it's not really very controversial within feminism?) that things, clothes and behavior gendered as feminine are reductive and restricting to the myriad ways of being female. They are not in themselves bad things - delicacy, prettiness, domestic skills, nurturing characteristics whatever should be valued, but just not limited to one sex and used to objectify, control and limit them accordingly.

I feel like this is feminism 101 here and I am being derailed somewhat. I wanted to work through my issues with this and I have.

This post was relevant about an hour ago, but I made supper and ate it and now there all these others saying good things. Thank you , I think the shorts may in fact be a good thing as pp are saying. Will read through properly as I digest!

I would definately email about the name!! The shorts come in handy for reasons besides covering underwear bit they should he called something else. I think asda changed theirs

Betrand - you are excellent as ever - good Mitch Ben quote!

The only thing I would quibble (and it is a teeny quibble) with is the adult/child comparison. I am really unbothered largely but what adults do, wear etc, but kids need protection, guidance and distance from adult behaviour. What they say and do and wear, however we interpret it , is not the same/ does not nec. have the same intention as adult comprehension/attitudes etc,

Oh and talking about this with OH - weren't children historically gender neutral and in bloomers and dresses until they (the boys) were breached around 7?. I find this interesting as we gender children now from birth (it's a girl/BOY! rather than it's a baby!) and treat them/commercialise them accordingly from that moment on?

Back to the pants issue tho - the general consensus is that they are safe, discreet (very different from modest), comfortable and facilitate wearing what the hell you want and doing what the hell you want -this seems positive to me. But it doesn't address the why the hell are you lokking at small girls pants and worryying/thinkiing about sexy?

HmmOkay

No they were just sold as cycling shorts but with no bum padding. I remember they were a fad in the late 80s.

But it doesn't address the why the hell are you lokking at small girls pants and worryying/thinkiing about sexy?

I completely agree and think the idea of telling young girls they should be "modest" and have a responsibility to ensure their underwear is never visible due to the potential reaction of boys and men is ridiculous. However I'd also say it's not acceptable with women either; there's no age at which I think it becomes acceptable to view women's underwear in such a way unless in a setting where the woman intended it (so very much not if a skirt or dress rode up etc).

Nolove - you could have edited the weird typos out!

I don't like summer dresses for primary girls. They reinforce the idea that girls and boys must look different and they do discourage a lot of activity. Pants-flashing becomes an issue. Anything that involves falling over a lot or jumping to the ground becomes hazardous, either through knee grazing or flashing pants, again. There is a reason that female footballers and women who work outdoors do not wear cotton dresses and smart shoes.
If schools promote active lifestyles, their uniforms should reflect this.

If schools promote active lifestyles, their uniforms should reflect this

Would certainly be sooooo much easier if jogging bottoms or leggings were allowed.

Trousers that fall down, are too long, uncomfortable due to alot of bunching of adustible waist mechanisms, make it more difficult too. And let's face it as uniform is designed to fit everyone it really doesn't fit anyone very well.

I just copied and pasted it directly.

I don't like summer dresses for primary girls. They reinforce the idea that girls and boys must look different and they do discourage a lot of activity.

I agree to an extent. Partly I think at primary school it might be better to have an across the board uniform trousers or shorts for all, though part of me thinks it'd be better to allow dresses for boys as well - which would take quite a shift in cultural attitudes but might be preferable. It does seem that summer dresses discourage activity and add to the feeling amongst some girls they don't want to run around, climb frames and such due to issues such as that outlined by the OP.

I do also think the "flashing underwear" issue shouldn't be one and is only considered embarrassing or "immodest" because it's one girls (and women) face in such clothing.

getoffthesofa I absolutely would buy my children exactly what they want to wear to school. I think that the shorts just correct the defect of short flimsy skirts which are usefuless for covering girls bodies when they do all kind of running, jumpying, gymnastic play. If my son decided to wear a skirt i'd expect him to wear shorts under it too.

I'd just change the name, they are not modesty shorts they are comfort shorts or simply shorts.

NoLoveofMine "I do also think the "flashing underwear" issue shouldn't be one and is only considered embarrassing or "immodest" because it's one girls (and women) face in such clothing."

But, if and when boys wear skirts then to be honest the same thing applies, I wouldn't fancy seeing men's pants flashed up from under a kilt! Most men's 'skirts' or 'dresses' are not so flimsy and tend to be longer (think cassock and sarong).

OP when/if you buy them, write to the company and suggest a name chance, say if another company with a different name comes along you will swap loyalties.

There is nothing wrong with bodies male or female but clothes usually cover them adequately, and dresses and skirts do not do that for girls being active. They should not be penalised for being active.

Grown ups can wear them too but they have nicer names comfort shorts or power shorts, and these adult products are not just for vanity they stop your thoughts running together!

rubbing together!