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??)

We used to wear cycling shorts under our skirts and dresses when we are at school. Exactly the same as these, just called something different.
Yes the name is shite but you're over thinking it.
Buy normal shorts for them if they want them!
It's not that other people are sexualising their underwear, it's just children who are growing up not wanting to show their underwear!

Loopytiles very much so.

grasspigeons there's a lot of pressure on girls (and women) to appear what's deemed "girly"/"feminine" and this begins so young. This needs to be fought whilst also not dismissing such clothing but it should be worn because that's what someone feels best and most comfortable in rather than pressure to appear "girly". I appreciate that's not something which can happen overnight though and is difficult as it must be done whilst also not devaluing such clothing and clothes choices.

In my day we just had big knickers which went up to the waist and didn't keep slipping down as they seem to on our 4 year old

have been looking for knickers for our four year old that aren't minute and either slip down because they are hipsters or act as a tourniquet if they are briefs. Now going the modesty brief route. Why are there no big knickers that are long enough to reach the waist as we had in my day?

My kid likes the summer playsuit option:

Lots of girls at DDs school wear shorts under their dresses. Naming them 'modesty' shorts is shit, I think shorts would be fine. Essentially wearing a dress over shorts isn't really that different from wearing a polo shirt over shorts just the dress is longer (and in some cases not actually that much longer!).

"Modesty"shorts is a terrible name. But tight-fitting shorts under skirts are practical garments which are handy for physical activity. DD wears cycling shorts under her dresses (as do I, but mine are chub rub related).

Well, I like skirts a lot more than regular shorts, and I'd never wear biking shorts around in public by themselves. So if I was wearing skirts and wanting to climb trees or something, I would absolutely go for some sort of bike sort under a skirt.

If people think its somehow anti-woman to want to wear a skirt they can bugger off, frankly I think it's anti-woman to believe they are somehow a problem.

But about the word modesty. There is nothing wrong with the word and I think its interesting that in GC feminism I see all the ideas behind the idea of modesty discussed pretty openly and in a positive way, but the word itself people refuse to use. Modesty is just about respect for the body, and avoiding reducing people to their bodies as often happens through overt sexualisation. Modest clothing is about choosing clothes that don't do that, including in common usage preventing what might be called wardrobe malfunctions.

Girls clothes in this case are about the latter which is less important, but sometimes it really is about the former as adult trends tend to leak down into children's clothing.

It's really a pretty useful word and feminist discourse misses out by not using it, it ends up dancing around certain issues for want of language.

My DD liked to wear the summer dresses but underneath to wear 3/4 length leggings. This did allow for personal privacy (agree that'modesty'is a loaded term) and looked quite smart but still cooler than full length leggings or tights. I think we were pushing it with the uniform ruled but no comments were made.

I have only heard them called “play shorts”
Or “cartwheel shorts”. They were fantastic when dd who is extremely modest by nature went through a stage where she only wanted to wear dresses, but she also wanted to be able to hang upside from the monkey bars.

Cross posted with Goosefoot
That's a more positive slant on modesty.

Having a DD that insisted on boys clothing she has only ever worn boys shorts/trunks (not boxers). M&S do a nice set that have the advantage of having a cotton waistband (not itchy elastic) plus the panel are the front doesn't have a 'pee hole' (what man/boy ever uses that anyway?) so they seem less obviously gendered. She always got the all white, but now moving into puberty had opted for black and greys.

The thing I don't like about the playsuits being linked above is the problem of practically disrobing when going to the toilet - and school toilets are not the most hygienic of places!

a 'pee hole' (what man/boy ever uses that anyway?)

I used to think none, but then when I was in the military they introduced new unisex underpants, which were like a boxer-brief but with no fly - the older ones were regular boxers with a fly. Quite a few of the older men didn't like them because of that.

I used to wear shorts under my uniform summer dresses at primary school in the 90s. The school didn't require it, but I wanted to be active in the playground, and I didn't want anyone to see my knickers. Yes, small girls' knickers shouldn't be seen as sexy or rude, but if the girls themselves don't want anyone to catch a glimpse of them, I think it's wrong to insist that they can't wear shorts because it shouldn't matter to them if someone sees. If my parents had refused to buy shorts, I'd have stopped doing cartwheels and such in the playground.

The thing I don't like about the playsuits being linked above is the problem of practically disrobing when going to the toilet

Never worn them or got them for Dd because of this. They look really comfy and lovely but that's the only thought that comes in my head - how on earth does one go to the toilet???

UNDER SHORTS

I wear crop leggings under dresses because my job entails me kneeling down looking under units and funriture, reading water meters etc.

I don't even call them leggings any more, they are just under shorts - shorts for wearing under a dress.

I remember seeing these on an American website, long before they became a thing here. So that is where they originated, in the
US, where “modesty” has long been a thing.
Most of the other girls in my class in Primary school, in the early seventies, wore Summer dresses in hot weather. We all still did handstands, went on the monkey bars, down slides, on swings. Occasionally a boy would look up our skirts, or comment on our pants, but we all wore sturdy pants , we were cool and comfortable, and we would tell a teacher or tell the boy to get lost.
Last year in Primary my dd started asking about shorts to wear under her dress. I didn’t buy them, it seemed mad. The whole point of a cotton dress is that it is cool. She wears the same sturdy pants that I did, they fit well, I don’t see an issue at all, but there was social pressure on her to cover up because of boys.
It is tricky. I hate the pressure on girls to cover up, but if all the others in her class wear them, then it would be hard to be the odd one out.

The thing that is objectionable about the word “modesty” is that it isn’t only used to refer to privacy. It covers a whole load of expectations about the way women and girls should act, that don’t apply to men and that are generally intended to keep us quiet, compliant and unthreatening. Like not speaking up if you know the answer or have an idea, particularly if a male is busy being authoritatively wrong. Like not expecting your achievements to be recognised. Like not insisting on getting your fair share of resources and opportunities. Modesty is fucking bullshit and it’s bullshit that little girls in the 21st century even need to hear the word outside a historical context. I don’t care about the shorts, they’re a perfectly practical solution to the permanent problem that girls like doing cartwheels and wearing dresses and don’t like showing their knickers. But let’s not support the horrible misogynistic concept of modesty.

www.amazon.co.uk/Elegance-Ladies-Cotton-Stretchy-Schools/dp/B00D6M8BMS?psc=1&th=1&tag=mumsnetforu03-21

This reminds me too much of hideous navy knickers we wore in primary. Practical, but ugly.

I was so pleased to change school and be allowed to wear pretty underwear.

It was wrong back in the day for schools to tell girls - and it was only girls - what underwear to wear.

It is still wrong in 2019 to suggest (as a pp did) that young girls need to wear underwear to "keep them safe".

And it's wrong in my view, to use the term modesty shorts.

That said, there is nothing inherently wrong in practical underwear, but don't let's go back 45 years and let it become a requirement.

Off topic slightly, but DD wears a version of this. https://www.marksandspencer.com/pure-cotton-checked-playsuit/p/p60091721?extid=psgglplaa_Kids&gclsrc=aw.ds&&gclid=Cj0KEQjw8-LnBRCyxtfMl-Cbu48BEiQA6eUMGiR8T8-Ki0AohEWAhao5YGhaRtNPJ0eZuQTbYDc-g2EaAjpp8P8HAQ&gclsrc=aw.ds

Never heard them being referred to as 'modesty shorts' and I live in the puritanical US of A but my 4-year old does love her summer dresses and I always make sure she wears shorts or capri leggings underneath.

In my view, it's not anti-feminist to ask a girl to wear shorts or leggings or tights under her dress. Who does show their underwear in their daily dress? Adults and boys don't so why should girls? My 7-year old DS wears age-appropriate clothes that cover his body and don't reveal underwear so I just want my DD to follow the same norms as him. He shows no interest in wearing dresses but if he did, I would get him to wear shorts / leggings underneath too. It's just common sense.

I remember seeing this thread first time round

Hate the word "modesty shorts" but my DD wears her PE shorts under her summer dress, it seems to be the fashion for all the girls at her school, because they don't want the boys seeing their knickers when they sit cross-legged, do handstands etc.

Remembering what boys are like, I don't blame them at all. I was at primary in 70s and the boys were obsessed with seeing the girl's knickers. They used to pretend to fall over so they could see under a girl's skirt. What a world we live in. The girls learn the "rules" so very quickly.

Tl;dr but there’s a bloke at my gym who wears such items under his baggy shorts.

It's not a new thing, is it! Just the style is new. At my all-girls school back in the early sixties we had to wear something like this even though our skirts weren't short and there were no males around. We wore ordinary white cotton knickers, which were called knicker-linings, and then bloomers over those; the bloomers were called knickers and they were quite puffy. In summer they were dark green and of some kind of warm thick cotton, and in summer they were thin green cotton. We would wear them for gym class too! Of course they'd be hideous by today's standards but I don't remember anybody complaining. We weren't that bothered about how we looked back in the day.

So all on all I think it's a good thing and though I don't like them being actually CALLED modesty shorts I do believe they are for modesty irrespective of boys.

I'd say let her wear them if she's comfortable. I wear them to stop top of legs charging in hot weather. Change the language though. Modesty shorts - really!
Suggestions - long drawers, granny knickers, panteloons or what's wrong with shorts?