Girls wearing skirts not allowed into school - could only be Brighton

[Kit19]

www.theargus.co.uk/news/17886600.lewes-priory-gender-neutral-uniform-protest/

Apparently “gender neutral” means trousers aka the male default. This is utterly insane. I mean I wouldn’t have minded the choice of trousers or skirts for either sex but only trousers?

Just and yet presumably poorer children in countries without uniform manage, and haven’t decided that the situation is so bad they should introduce uniform. Why is Britain so different? Oh, that’s, right, it’s not. Just the mindset.

2B there is a big different between occasional non-uniform days, and no uniform at all. At Dd’s School clothing is an absolute non-issue and kids could be dressed in anything from primark to boden and nobody gives a shit.

Uniform is a British obsession.

Aww no, poor men. Do their brains not work enough to tackle issues involving their sex for themselves? I don’t recall men giving a shit about women that were once forced to only wear skirts etc and even still the same rules apply in many schools where I live. Why is their lack of options a woman’s problem? Do they not have voices? Also, skirts are not comfortable or practical to you, you keep forgetting to add that bit.

Great. Men and boys can campaign to wear shorts (as my DH did at work) and if girls want to wear them then they can campaign to wear shorts.

Also, skirts are not comfortable or practical to you, you keep forgetting to add that bit.

But they are impractical. My DH climbs telegraph poles - reckon you could do that in a skirt? No, because it isn't practical. Skirts limit what you can do.

But, this whole thing is clearly just about skirt length and is completely understandable.

I've just checked the uniform policy of every secondary within 10 miles of my house, they all say 'Knee length skirts'. I see girls every day on the way to school with skirts barely covering their bums. The schools have set a clear guideline, if they challenge the kids they get flack from parents, they lose teaching hours, they end up in the press, they waste stupid amounts of teacher time telling the girls off.

Telling everyone to wear trousers removes that.

If they allow shorts, the situation will be that the girls are wearing skin tight hot pants.

My DDs primary, have a very open uniform policy, anyone can wear dresses, skirts, shorts or trousers, nothing needs to be branded. My DD chooses to wear trousers or knee length shorts every day because they are more comfy.

Just look at the protest photos, those girls are wearing too short skirts, they haven't been rolled up, so their parents have bought them too short skirts.

School is not a fashion show or a dating location, it's reasonable that the school should want the children to be dressed in a manner that allows them to fully participate in all activities, with freedom of movement and without risk of indecent exposure. They also don't want for the girls who are not comfortable having their bodies on display to be peer pressured into doing it.

I haven't the remotest need or desire to climb a telegraph pole, so skirts are perfectly practical for me, and I find them much more comfortable.

boys will need to wear longer length skirts plus appropriate underwear

Because boys are generally taller? They will need longer skirts to reach their knees?

Naturally! Skirt designs would take into consideration male and female bodies and shapes

See above-

I assume that women who climb telegraph poles don’t do it in skirts? Nobody is suggesting that skirts become compulsory...

Because boys are generally taller? They will need longer skirts to reach their knees?

But girls don't wear knee length skirts (see post above yours). So why 1 rule for girls and another for boys?

That’s so not true. My DD goes to school with daughters of extremely rich parents, I’ve never seen labels or clothes that look any different to my child. They all sit around using those apps you buy used clothing from, tops for £8, stuff like that

Well, here in Liverpool, quite a few children and parents of certain demographics are very tuned into labels and the like. And even if your are buying cheap clothing then there seems to be a pressure amongst the young to have the latest and next etc.

I remember as a child always having the cheapest version of all the latest trends, and feeling very conspicuous; and being laughed at when I wore a dress my grandmother had adapted for me. That hurt, because I naturally tend towards having a strong aesthetic sense and a feeling for quality.

I haven't the remotest need or desire to climb a telegraph pole, so skirts are perfectly practical for me, and I find them much more comfortable.

I assume that women who climb telegraph poles don’t do it in skirts? Nobody is suggesting that skirts become compulsory...

So skirts do restrict what you can do whilst wearing them then?

My DH climbs telegraph poles - reckon you could do that in a skirt? No, because it isn't practical. Skirts limit what you can do

This is absurd. Climbing telegraph poles is not a school activity.

I climbed trees and cycled wearing a skirt.

If I wanted to climb a telegraph pole I assume I would need some PPE as well as not wearing a skirt. So would wear what I was advised to wear. As this situation won't arise, it's not an issue 🙄

To be honest, what is absurd is that girls were ever made to wear dresses and skirts in the first place for school when they're manifestly less comfortable, practical, warm and versatile than trousers

In your opinion

So I don't give a shit if a school has all of its pupils in trousers

Well some of us do.

Climbing gym bars is a school activity.
Nowadays they all tend to wear shorts but back in the day it was big navy knickers plus a short skirt allowed if you were 'on'.

'My DDs primary, have a very open uniform policy, anyone can wear dresses, skirts, shorts or trousers, nothing needs to be branded. My DD chooses to wear trousers or knee length shorts every day because they are more comfy.'

'If they allow shorts, the situation will be that the girls are wearing skin tight hot pants.'

Your DD is the only girl in the country who doesn't want to don skin tight hot pants given half a chance?

OK.

Attitudes to girls on this thread are grim.

The boys at that school, on the news, had skin tight trousers. Not a word about that from anywhere. Because boys are not primarily viewed as sex objects.

But girls don't wear knee length skirts (see post above yours). So why 1 rule for girls and another for boys?

Where I live there are lots of single sex ( mainly church schools) and the girls in them all wear knee/below knee length skirts.

I also used to teach at the local grammar school which was mixed sex - and cannot really recall any big issues with the length of girl's skirts. All pupils had to buy the standard uniform for the school.

'But girls don't wear knee length skirts (see post above yours).'

Yes they do.

Loads of girls at dd school wear them to knee. Others roll them up, sure.

But suggestion that all girls are red hot keen on making skirts as short as poss is yet another sexist assumption.

The views about girls on here are grim.

I think it would be most boys not wanting to wear a skirt just because they restrict what you can do and aren't comfortable or practical.

I don't disagree with this - but some girls feel the same about skirts. Why are those girls not permitted the shorts options, but all the boys are?

Decomposing you're telling us, very explicitly, that it is MORE IMPORTANT that everybody gets exactly the same number of options to choose between in any given situation, than that everybody has their basic physical and psychological needs met.

Your solution to issues around school uniforms is to meet boys' needs, while at the same time expressly denying girls the opportunity to have their needs met. And you think this is right because it would be UNFAIR TO BOYS if girls had options that would allow their needs to be met.

Please take a moment to think about the fact that you're on the Feminism board putting forth the argument that accommodating girls' and boys' needs equally is unacceptable because it's not fair to boys.

The implication, whether you realise it or not, is that disadvantaging girls is perfectly acceptable in the name of "equality".

You're telling us that we can't wear what boys wear because it's not fair to boys. On the Feminism board.

Fraggling, my DD is in primary and 5 years old so hasn't hit the skin tight hot pants stage yet. I sure as hell wouldn't buy them if she wanted them though!

At secondary shorts are likely to be an issue, hence why I think trousers are the best solution.

I have to assume you're being deliberately obtuse though if you really think that skirt length just below bums is suitable in a school environment.

I think boys in skinny trousers is ridiculous too and have no idea why any parents are buying them for school use, however trousers so tight they cut off circulation to testicals are unlikely to result in genitals actually being in full naked view or underwear being on show.

Where I live there are lots of single sex ( mainly church schools) and the girls in them all wear knee/below knee length skirts

Same here although private rather than church. My son's school was co-ed - girls' kilts were knee length.

Your DD is the only girl in the country who doesn't want to don skin tight hot pants given half a chance?

Who posted that? ^Grim, really grim- go away and have a word with yourself.

you're telling us, very explicitly, that it is MORE IMPORTANT that everybody gets exactly the same number of options to choose between in any given situation, than that everybody has their basic physical and psychological needs met.

I'm saying, at the moment, boys are not getting their basic physical needs met because they are made to wear trousers on baking hot summers days while girls have the option to wear skirts. So, why shouldn't that be the first issue to be solved before giving more choice to those who already have more options?

And yes, if something is wrong it's wrong regardless of what board it's being discussed on. Arguing for even more choices for girls while boys already have fewer choices isn't right. Doesn't matter which way you cut the argument.

At our local school they wear skirts the length of hot pants. The girls don’t particularly like them, many many of them would be happier with longer skirts, but the pressure to conform is huge.

If boys want to have the option of shorts, there's nothing to stop them campaigning for them in the same way that girls have had to campaign for the option of trousers or skirts.

This is what I think ^

I'm saying, at the moment, boys are not getting their basic physical needs met because they are made to wear trousers on baking hot summers days while girls have the option to wear skirts. So, why shouldn't that be the first issue to be solved before giving more choice to those who already have more options?

How difficult is it to offer all three options to all children? It doesn't require any extra work.