11 year old girl wearing hot pants to school

[MalloryMae]

An article in The Daily Mirror (FYI I don't usually read or take this newspaper seriously but this article caught my attention) is of an upset mum who's 11 year old daughter was sent home from school, on a non school uniform day, on the hottest day of the year, for wearing cycling/sports shorts because they are deemed 'hot pants' and 'inappropriate'

Lots of comments from people who completely agree that a child wearing these shorts are in fact, inappropriate.

I'm having the same issue with my daughters secondary school. They won't let her wear black cycling shorts in PE - not because they might be branded and other children might not be able to afford them - not because of any justifiable reason but because they are apparently 'inappropriate'?

I'm sorry but is this not body shaming young girls? Sexualising yet again another item of clothing that are completely fit for purpose? Surely the only thing that's inappropriate about girls wearing cycling shorts are the perverted minds of those who think such way?

Wear her dance shorts under her uniform PE shorts?

I'm surprised at PE shorts being 'see through'...?

And why shouldn't teachers be protected from false allegations? If pupils wear loose fitting clothes there is nothing to stare at.

Innapproriate in a school setting - from puberty.
So definitely secondary school, and arguable at y5/6.

but how is wearing sports shorts, that are made for sports, in PE, dressing inappropriately?

For the girl in the article - she was allowed to wear said shorts for PE but was sent home because shes wearing the same shorts on a non uniform day, on the hottest day of the year... sounds like they're making the rules up as they go.

To be honest I don't really care either way, and I do think this could be considered a grey area. If the school choose to allow then fine, but also not unreasonable for them not to allow.

For the girl in the article - she was allowed to wear said shorts for PE but was sent home because shes wearing the same shorts on a non uniform day, on the hottest day of the year... sounds like they're making the rules up as they go

Ironically this story just appeared on my face book time line with someone in the comments making an extremely good point, that this is whats available to girls. That from birth shorts aimed at girls are significantly shorter and tighter and without pockets than with shorts aimed at boys.

Either schools need to get their uniform suppliers to design something designed fir the female body thats not so tiny. Or shut up whining that girls wear the clothes that are available to them.

Mixed feelings about this.

i agree girls should be able to wear what they want and I never comment on my teenage DD’s attire, even when I’m inwardly thinking ‘not sure about that!’. I don’t want to shame her or make her feel she has to follow some outdated patriarchal rules about clothing.

BUT, I also work in a school and some of the outfits kids try to get away with on non uniform day are just not appropriate for school. Towering heels, cut-offs that reveal half your arse cheek, low cut tops etc. They won’t be able to wear those clothes in a workplace even on a dress down day, so I don’t think it’s fitting for school.

it’s also depressing how many girls turn up in overly-sexualised outfits and full make up, fake eyelashes, acrylic nails etc. Stripper-chic on a 13 yr old is quite unsettling. I don’t blame the girls, but I also don’t blame schools for having a dress code and sticking to it.

I think a lot of posters are missing one very big point - the school have said the shirts are absolutely fine for her to wear for PE, and have had no issues with her wearing them for PE the whole school year. It's only when they've been told they can wear PE kit for the whole day (due to the extremely hot weather that was forecast) they've suddenly decided that it's no longer suitable.

The school need to be consistent. If they allow it for PE normally, it should be allowed for a day where kids have been told to wear their PE kits. If they don't, they should have said they were unacceptable the very first time she wore them, and not allowed them full stop.

All of that is a complete aside from the fact the school were body-shaming and sexualising a CHILD. What is wrong with them?

It was the hottest day EVER in the history of the UK (as far as records went back) and the kids just needed to be kept cool & comfortable to be able to work. There was nothing wrong with what she was wearing - they were sports shorts. It's not like she was wearing gold hot pants designed for partying!

And why shouldn't teachers be protected from false allegations? If pupils wear loose fitting clothes there is nothing to stare at.

This is akin to linking women's clothing choices to their likelihood of being raped.

No, it is totally different.

In your example you are blaming the girl for the rapists behaviour even though she is the victim.

In my example the teacher is the victim of the behaviour of the student.

Schools do lots of things to safeguard pupils and teachers. Having a dress code is just one of them.

It's not appropriate for school wear. School should be treated as a 'baby' version of dressing for work...would you go to work in hot pant shorts if shorts we permitted on a hot day? No, you wouldn't, you would wear basically any other pair!

The amount of people who haven't read the article...

I didn't read the article because it wasn't linked, and also I was also replying to the OP who has her own complaint.

In my example the teacher is the victim of the behaviour of the student.

In what way is the teacher a victim here? Teachers train to work with teenagers and presumably were teenagers themselves so know teenagers will wear whatever - including short skirts and shorts. While I don’t think short shorts or arse cheeks out is remotely appropriate for school that’s about learning to dress appropriately for their situation, you wouldn’t wear that for any work situation and so not appropriate for school.

Teachers need to work with teenagers and model appropriate behaviour, such watching where they look, averting their eyes etc. They should be able to teach kids without staring, and if they are staring it’s inappropriate behaviour on their part. It’s not a false allegation if a teacher is staring at a child’s arse, whatever they might be wearing.

Yours isn't an example, it's a fabrication.

A girl can't wear sports shorts because she'll probably falsely accuse a teacher of being a pervert....really?

Like all those women who falsely accuse men of rape. If only women and 12 year old girls weren't always making stuff up about innocent men! They should probably all wear a burka, then the teachers would be really safe.

@NuffSaidSam I literally wrote out a near like for like response to yours including the burka analogy. Because seriously - all you need to do to stop the perverts out there is cover up...  If my daughter accuses a teacher of staring at her inappropriately but I sent her in wearing a onesie then she can't possibly be telling the truth!

Scary that still in this day and age people think this way.

They were wearing them at my local secondary school last week, I crawl past every morning going to work (crawl because the little darlings parents think it's ok to stop in the traffic stream to let them out on a main arterial route) couldn't believe a good portion of the girls were wearing essentially pants like athletes wear with polo shirts (some were in skorts, short but respectable). I do think young people need to be given guidance on acceptable clothing, boys as well eg don't take shirts off!

She's 11 and it was a non uniform day! When will this end. If it's ok for the Mums at my school to turn up in bloody Lycra gym wear or the ridiculous cycling wear that their husbands wear then why does it matter if a CHILD, a little girl, wears some comfy shorts. Were they like Daisy Duke's or were they just a pair of cycling shorts which are a little bit shorter. Good grief!

Ive looked at the photo and am actually surprised. Id understand ones that are basically pants but they are school uniform style cycling shorts. The girls at my daughter's primary all wear these for PE.

The point of non uniform that day was to be cooling than shirts/skirts so the pe kit did make sense....

Really don't see why they sent them home. Different if paired with a crop top!

"I teach my daughter not to stare at peoples genitals…Hmm"

And because of this she wouldn't stare at a boys genitals. Come off it. Kids rarely do what parents teach them quite the opposite.

My male teacher friend has explicitly told me he does not attempt to enforce the school dress code wrt skirt lengths precisely so the pupils can't then accuse him of staring at her / eyeing them up / whatever. He says he leaves it to the female teachers.
A teenager deflecting like that (why were you looking) could get a teacher into serious trouble without meaning to, it's not a premeditated malicious allegation, it's a comment to deflect that can have a more serious impact than they realise.
Ad anyone who says teenagers never deflect to try to get themselves out of trouble are living in cloud cuckoo land.

Boys have penis', girls have vaginas - Get over it. My daughter isn't going to be scarred for life because boys are wearing cycling shorts for PE. If it was the case, males wearing speedos or wetsuits when they're swimming shouldn't be allowed too. Seriously pathetic thinking

It should be consistent, so if no cycling shorts, then none for boys or girls. When there is a non-uniform day (should there be?) then spell out what is acceptable.

If it's such a national problem that children are 'falsely' accusing teachers of 'staring at them' for wearing sports shorts then mandate all children to be covered head to toe at all times in school. Then the teachers can live merrily ever after with no worry about being done for sexual harassment.

Jesus wept.

I think there's two ways to look at this;

1. Clothes are not inherently sexual and so putting the most apparently provocative things onto children is not sexual in and of itself but instead necessitates males to not give into sexual urges that come with testosterone etc. (especially during puberty)

1. Some clothes are literally made to be provocative and sexual and therefore putting them onto a child is sexualising that child.

Then two schools of thought:

1. Put anything you like on kids and if men are in any way turned on by the way the clothes look on the body just highlights their own sexual urges towards children or lack of ability to control any of their sexual urges.

-I find this one kind of uses children as bait to test adults’ ability to control themselves. I'm not a fan of this approach.

1. Keep clothes designed to be sexy off children just to be on the safe side.

-I can see a clear criticism of this one being that this implies that females should cover up instead of men controlling themselves; therefore society never improves as men are never learning to control this urge.

I see the logic on both sides of this argument so my focus becomes the short-term safety of my own child, that wins over long-term social change at the possible expense of my child’s safety. This necessitates she not be put into clothes designed to be sexual.

Black cycling shorts are way more appropriate for some sports than skorts or loose shorts. The reason being when you're doing certain stretches the loose shorts slip away to reveal underwear. For example, I used to do a hamstring stretch on my back with one leg in the air. I would NOT feel comfortable doing that in loose shorts whatsoever, but I would be fine doing it in cycling shorts.

There is a difference between hot pants and cycling shorts. Hot pants are short shorts that aren't appropriate for school. Cycling shorts much longer, mid thigh or between mid thigh and knee.

If I was doing the high jump I would much prefer to be in cycling shorts. Same as if I was doing handstands.