micro mini school skirts in primary school

[foreverwino]

The skirt vs trousers debate was on tws this morning but I was wanting to start this thread before that.

Dd is in an excellent nursery attached to an excellent primary. But when I dropped her off yesterday I was made uncomfortable by seeing several of the older pupils 9/10/11yos, wearing VERY short mini skirts (bare legs). They looked so horribly pornified. It has really put me off the school. Even if I dont allow dd to dress like that I dont want her in the environment where others do.

I am posting in feminism because I am finding it hard to articulate my objections without sounding like someone who thinks women should change their behaviour to 'prevent' rape. I dont believe any of those rape myths but do object to the sexualisation of these pre-teens.

Basically I want advice as to how to approach the school on this. It is v oversubscribed and as dd isnt actually at the main school yet I dont know how much of a voice I will have.

I now have until January to decide if I want to send her there (other options arent up to much tbh).

Ought to add that that aesthetic is more to do with Brazillian waxing and extreme grooming than mini skirts.

Porn culture does harm women. Short school skirts have not come about as a result of porn culture. Girls have worn short skirts in every decade of the 20th century - I've just had a look through children's clothes advertising archive online. It goes back to the 1900s.

To put short skirts into the category of porn culture does need justifying. There is nothing sexualised about the legs of a ten year old and there is nothing anti-feminist about pointing that out.

What has changed is that boys have started wearing longer shorts or trousers all the time. In many decades, boys shorts (and men's shorts for sports) used to stop near the top of the thigh. Now they come to the knee or the mid shin.

You'll never get away from what it is you dislike. My DD has been to a private school since the age of 3 and now at 7 I a moving her to a nice state school...partlyy because what I was trying to protect her from is rife in schools be it private or state. Uber sexxualzed kids, terrible language and a pervading sense of materialism....these kids may have been in knnee length kilts and expensive blazers but they were as crude and rde as any!

Women are sexual, for sure JenaiMarr, but for most people sex is a part of their life not the most important thing/only thing even, in it. So women eating crisps sexily, loading their shopping trollies sexily, whatever, is 'sexualisation', not a reflection of an authentic sexuality. And that is what is sliding down the age ladder, imo. Short skirts are not neccessarily sexual, I totally get that. But they can be. Without seeing what OP saw we can't tell, can we? We only have her perception, and she is clearly uncomfortable about it.

Well then there isn't much point starting a thread about. We cannot know if these girls are sexualised or if the OP has a sexualised perception of children.

Mrsunreasonable- I started this thread to get advice on how to approach the school on this subject but you chose to use it to attack me personally."I'M the cause of the rape/porn culture"- get a grip and stop whining at being allined with the mras/ anti-feminists of the world.

YOU might not see 10yos upper thighs as sexual but paedophiles/porn users/rapists/advertisers/fashion designers and others DO. A big chunk of society sees bare flesh on certain parts of the female body as an automatic invitation to intercourse. That is the way of the world.

There's no point starting practically any thread so in that case MillyR as we only have one side of any story.

My point is OP is entitled to have a view. She may well be wrong, to clarify that is what discussion is for- but her concerns shouldn't be dismissed.

FW, that is the problem of paedophiles and rapists. We shouldn't be bringing that mindset into children's perceptions of themselves and how they behave or dress at school.

You are coming on and asking for advice on how to speak to the school. My advice as a feminist is that I would be furious if you came into my child's school and passed comment on the sexuality or sexualisation of my DD.

I don't think we are dismissing her concerns SS. Some of us are her disagreeing with her.

And I agree with you there MillyR about not introducing that mindset to children.

"I'M the cause of the rape/porn culture". I didn't say that. I said that you were a barrier to it's destruction, though.

If enough people agree that children's legs are sexual, as you seem to, then society will view children's legs as sexual.
If enough people refuse to see children's legs as sexual, as I seem to, then society will not see children's legs as sexual.

"We cannot know if these girls are sexualised or if the OP has a sexualised perception of children."

This is perfect, I wish I was eloquent enough to sum it up like that.

Disagreement is fine, obv, but dismissal is not, imo and there's a bit of that about.

Crumbs.

I think you need to read that again. I can't see where anyone has accused you of being the cause of the rape/porn culture! Just that most people (in my opinion ) don't view a 10 year olds bare legs as sexual.

There are also far too many examples of school girls dressed like old-fashioned school girls which, alas, seem to be a turn-on for some. For some sad and perverted individuals it doesn't seem to be the amount of flesh on show that matters. I really do think you are concentrating on the wrong thing, but that's your prerogative. Have a word with the school about uniform policy - I somehow doubt that they are insisting that all girls wear micro mini skirts.

Having said I disagreed over the short skirt issue, I do think it is the case that attitudes towards gender build up in peer groups, and those peer groups differ between schools. If the OP has wider concerns about the attitudes of the peer group in that school, which are based on something a bit more substantial than skirt length, then I think that is worth considering when choosing a school.

I can understand your discomfort I can remember as a child seeing classmates in boob tubes, micr minis and it is shameful theres nothing wrong with bare legs , why not a cute pair of shoets and a vest top?

or a skirt that is supposed to be 'hugging everything' but....not wanting your daughter is a bit (for lack of a better word) hysterical, Its not there fault there parents have dressed them up like teenagers well before the time, its not going to 'harm' your daughter in anyway, the shame is with the parents.

Short skirts don't bother me at primary school age. I agree with Milly that it's about perception.

My biggest concern is that enforcing skirt lengths on children doesn't seem that different to dictating to women that they should wear longer skirts in case it makes them vulnerable to rape. It places responsibility on the potential victim rather than on the potential abuser. What starts as a well-meant intention to protect ends up being restrictive and controlling and places female children in the role of prey rather than what they are - children.

I was a child of the 70s and there are many photos of me at various ages between 0 and 10 where my skirts were barely skimming my backside. This may be because the 70s were a hideous decade for fashion or my parents were skint (probably both) but there is definitely nothing sexual about it IMO.

Short skirts at teen level worry me more, but that's a different and much more difficult thread...

Human beings are by nature sexual, adults and children. However, imho, "sexualisation" is something different from sexuality. It's about putting pressure on someone women and girls (hypermasculisation is the equivalent for men and boys) to style themselves and behave in a way that will be sexually appealing to men. The underlying message is that a woman or girl's primary purpose is to be attractive and demonstrate sexual attractiveness and availability to men.

In my book, the issue isn't that it's "wrong" for young girls to show alot of leg or wear low cut tops because it is immodest or will attract abuse from adults. My concern is about how the girl feels, why she feels she has show alot of flesh, or wear make up, or wax her pubes or conform to other trends because she believes these will make her appear more feminine and attractive to men.

I worry that at a younger and younger age, girls are absorbing this message that being "appealing" in this way is the be all and end all. It starts with the whole crappy princess "culture" and segues via Bratz to young girls and women's sense of self, purpose and aspirations (or lack thereof.) Also, alot of the sexualised clothing, like short tight skirts and impractical shoes can get in the way of every day activities, let alone active stuff like sports and games. The time girls spend on preening, tucking, and fitting the feminine "ideal" means less time to do other stuff. It worries me that this is happening earlier and earlier.

I tweeted about uniform hell the other day, shopping for dd who is 5 soon to get her first ever school uniform. I thought skirt for PE days, she won't wear trousers, and pinafores for the rest. The skirts (she wears age 7 because she's tall) were so short, a couple of inches above the knee. M&S and John Lewis. I ended up buying pinafores only.

Bit of a tangent, but not pleased to see materials from website being used in schools Being a Girl - article about it and link to P & G site

Perhaps I am coming late to this debate, but I am not that concerned about short skirts. I agree with the poster who pointed out that short dresses and skirts were certainly normal on toddlers and pre-pubescent children (remember baby dresses with matching frilly knickers) in the last 50-60 years, my granny in her eighties had very short (much shorter than we see now) dresses as a child, as did my mum. Perhaps they were saving on material (given they had to make the dresses themselves). I wore terry toweling tight shorts as a child and knicker shorts at school for games (basically a pair of thick knickers, no skirt at all). I felt a bit embarrassed by wearing a large pair of knickers aged 13 on the hockey pitch, but because I was embarrassed about my body, not because anyone was viewing me in a sexual way. Footballers in the 1970's also wore incredibly short shorts, none of this baggy to the knee stuff they have nowadays.

I don't dress my child in mini-skirts because people perceive it to be more sexual now, but I don't personally mind seeing a child's legs in shorts or a short skirt in summer. I think there's a big difference between a short summer cotton dress though, and the pseudo-adult styling of a lot of children's clothes now.

It is ridiculous for girls to wear hot polyester trousers in summer just in case someone sees their legs in a short skirt. Actually, if I were designing a school uniform at primary level, I would put them all in knee length cotton shorts and do away with polyester altogether which is sweaty and disgusting.

MrsR
"If enough people agree that children's legs are sexual, as you seem to, then society will view children's legs as sexual.
If enough people refuse to see children's legs as sexual, as I seem to, then society will not see children's legs as sexual."

I agree with you that legs are just legs and should be seen as such, but the problem is that whilst we may see it that way, there are many others that don't.

Advertisers for example don't see girls legs as functional and used for things such as running, climbing trees, getting dirty etc (as they see boys) but for primping, shaving, and putting in high heels. And they ultimately encourage girls to see themselves as objects of sexual attractiveness. Younger and younger.

And a lot of people do blame girls, however young, for enticing men by wearing "revealing" clothing. Take the case of those 18 men and boys in Texas who gang raped an 11 year old girl. The New York Times said of the victim: " she dressed older than her age, wearing makeup and fashions more appropriate to a woman in her 20s. She would hang out with teenage boys at a playground, some said." Why would the reporter see that as relevant unless girls clothes weren't seen as sexually enticing? There was sympathy in the community for the boys rather than the girl and the way she dressed was no doubt a reason for this.

IMO until the rest of the world stops seeing girls legs as sexual then as feminists we should react against that because that sexualisation ultimately harms girls and their freedom to just be.

Actually I think short skirts are not smart, they are a fashion item. Boys have long, not short, trousers and do a nice below the knee skirt, pleated or kilt style would be nice. It's not coincidence that private, respectable schools do not have short skirts as part of their uniform.

I totally disagree that we should all cover up until sexualization stops: should my children not wear shorts in PE then, in case someone thinks they are a bit sexy?

I see this more as a discipline issue, it's pathetic of schools to say 'we can't get girls to wear their skirts longer' and just make them wear trousers. Of course they can, they manage to regulate haircuts, jewellery, make-up, hair tied back, why not knee length skirts if you feel this necessary for educational purposes?