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?

Loads of men around the world wear skirt type garments

Extremely normal in Polynesian men and not just when they perform haka or siva tau! You can watch the Samoan men’s rugby team being given their jerseys for the World Cup by ex all blacks, in ‘skirts’ :)

The vast majority on this board would think a girl going to school in orange and pink striped nail polish was a feminist statement

I suggest that is a rather strange view to hold about what women might think; lacking in nuance and subtlety, certainly.This is not about making 'feminist' statements, but about the lived reality and experience of girls and women.

Throughout history, and in other cultures today, men wear 'skirts' and seem to find them practical and comfortable. The ancient Greeks apparently thought trousers were ridiculous; the Romans considered them the clothes of barbarians - at least , until the empire spread to chillier climes.grin

Indeed, it could be seen that trousers, especially tight fitting ones, or jeans, encase the legs. Waist bands that have no give; no circulation of air on warm or hot days.......and so on.

And to answer someone else's point yes this is the feminist board but why does that mean it can't be pointed out when the discussion is unfair or promoting inequality?

Yes, that was my point. I confess I'm struggling to get my head round the incomprehensibility of your logic, Decomposing, and that's probably shown through.

Still, thank you for clarifying your position.

You believe all boys' needs can be accommodated with two uniform options, and therefore children of both sexes should be limited to two uniform options. The fact that this means one subset or other of girls is never going to have their needs accommodated is immaterial to you. Ensuring all girls and all boys have their needs met is sexist.

Ensuring differing biological needs are met = unequal and sexist. Ensuring everybody has to fit in with the boys' requirements = equality.

And all because you think no boy is ever going to realistically choose shorts and so we shouldn't give them the option to.

Right, now that we've dealt with the school uniforms, shall we turn our attention to the gross injustice that is contraceptive options? The poor lads get to choose between condoms, vasectomy, or abstinence, and obviously abstinence isn't a real choice for them, so they've only got two options really. Which female contraceptive options should we ban in order to achieve equality?

Gah, typo. Obviously I meant to point out that Decomposing believes no boy would ever realistically choose skirts. My brain is insufficiently caffeinated, clearly.

“The vast majority on this board would think a girl going to school in orange and pink striped nail polish was a feminist statement”
I wouldn’t. If it was a school where there was a no nail polish rule I would think she was being a bit of a twit and she should be getting on with getting the best possible education she can.

If you think it is sexist to limit girls to 2 choices then the current situation of limiting to boys to only 1 must be doubly sexist

this idea of yours about limiltation and sexism is entirely self created. It has been suggested that both sexes have a free choice of all types of garment, but it is you who rejects it for boys. It seems it is you who is being 'sexist'.

Clothing items are gendered in so far as only one sex or another is allowed/permitted to wear them. We all recognise that male and female bodies are different, but that doesn't stop girls wearing trousers ( traditionally seen as a male garment in our culture), does it. and there is no reason why boys should not feel free to wear skirts.

My guess is that the vast majority of this board would think much the same as bertrand.

Still, its always useful when a bloke makes up something like that to demonstrate the true depths of his understanding of feminism and feminists.

I don't see how it can be described as not sexist to say that because boys don't want to wear skirts that girls choices should be limited to make it equal.

That doesn't even make sense. If the choices aren't equal to start with it doesn't make it better to have equal numbers of choices.

I'll add my voice to those saying that it would be better for skirts, trousers and shorts to be an option for both sexes. Everyone has a choice then. If boys don't want to wear skirts then nobody will be forcing them to.

It's just odd to see equality reduced to nothing more than numbers. The outcome of those numbers is irrelevant to decomposing.

It doesn't work in lots of other areas either. Contraception, as mentioned above, the number of toilets women require is more than men, undergarments - women require two instead of men's one. I'm sure there are loads more.

Deciding it's all based purely around numbers is both irrelevant and a little odd.

Still, its always useful when a bloke makes up something like that to demonstrate the true depths of his understanding of feminism and feminists. smile

Maybe we can forgive some men for thinking that women are just the same as men, only with different genitals and 'chest arrangements' - because for some time certain strands of feminism have been saying just that.

The facts of our sexed bodies have quite profound consequences and implications.

Of course I sympathise.

How come though, if it is such an issue no one has ever raised it before?

I could go over all the reasons why children with complex trauma find it difficult to acknowledge and assert their own needs, but it would be a derail and I doubt you'd listen anyway.

The short version is I was conditioned to believe that my inability to tolerate female-coded clothing was my problem and mine alone, and that my only option was to suck it up and deal with the consequences. I'm very grateful for the feminist women who took the time, over the years, to make it clear that the fact female-coded clothing is not designed to accommodate the needs of many women is not my personal failing.

And I don't believe you're sympathetic at all Decomposing - because you're telling me it's right that we be unable to accommodate both girls whose physical health is affected by certain clothing styles and girls whose mental health is affected by certain clothing styles because boys don't suffer those particular effects.

You're telling me that acknowledging and accommodating the effects of complex trauma in girls is unfair to boys.

If I were a child at a school with Decomposing's uniform rules I'd be identifying as a boy because of this.

ll add my voice to those saying that it would be better for skirts, trousers and shorts to be an option for both sexes

The poster in question seems to have an issue with people agreeing with the suggestion of shorts being included as an option is a good idea.

Shorts/culottes and skirts could have the same stipulated length too.

Deciding it's all based purely around numbers is both irrelevant and a little odd

Yes . I somehow doubt decomposing will answer the question about whether we should scrap contraception choices so that equal too.

How many boys should we kick out of school to make it even against all the girls who dont get to go?

Has anyone suggested......

Dd wore shorts in infant school, wasn't part of the official girls uniform but no one complained

I think shorts are fine as a uniform, but I honestly can’t see any child in our senior school at least wearing one...would make sense to offer it as an option

But again, ive seen uniform shorts in shops for young children but not for teenagers, maybe they are online only though

Shorts/culottes and skirts could have the same stipulated length too.

Yep - all options available for all students is fine by me. So long as we're acknowledging that the absence of enforced or enforceable rules around the coverage provided with by garment has different consequences dependent on the sex of the wearer, and we're taking steps to mitigate the unintended consequences.

By which I do of course mean: if boys are permitted to wear super-short skirts then some of them are going to use this as a mechanism to intimidate and sexually harass their female classmates. And if girls are permitted to wear super-short skirts then some of the boys are going to jump on this opportunity to intimidate and sexually harass their female classmates. No minimum length leaves girls vulnerable to sexual harassment regardless of whose clothes we're talking about.

Has anyone suggested....

Omg thats an awesome idea bertrand

Looking at this particular school issue : www.priory.e-sussex.sch.uk/396/uniform

• Uniform is trousers and a polo shirts for all
• Shorts can be worn in the summer, but only the approved supplier and style (this stops the fashion element)
• The school sells used uniform at very cheap rates addressing the disposable clothing aspect and the affordability issue
• from the 'letters to parents' section of their website, the uniform was communicated March 2019 and June 2019 so plenty of time to prepare. It was also introduced in 2018 alongside the old policy to support a transition period.

The old uniform policy explicitly stated knee length skirts, and despite several requests in school newsletters on the website to please adhere to the uniform policy, it is evident from the press photos that this wasn't being followed.

I really cannot agree with the stance that the school are being unfair here.

No minimum length leaves girls vulnerable to sexual harassment regardless of whose clothes we're talking about.

Exactly. Women and girls lose out, every which way. Funny that.

the 'letters to parents' section of their website, the uniform was communicated March 2019 and June 2019 so plenty of time to prepare. It was also introduced in 2018 alongside the old policy to support a transition period

The school concerned did not do this

Our local school gave the children a year to move over to the new uniform...though this was pretty much just a change in colour of trousers/skirts(shorts...which they don’t offer)

Did they say it was a trans issue? Are they worried that boys are going to show up 'dressed as girls'.

Because I don't blame them really, if they are worried.

This is what comes of highly gendered clothing.

And the answer would absolutely be to allow skirts for everyone, so that the boy showing up in a skirt wasn't deemed 'a girl'.

Obviously I meant to point out that Decomposing believes no boy would ever realistically choose skirts.

Chatted with DH about this - and I was proud to see even he gets it - no matter what length skirts girls wear, some men are complete arseholes and will sexually harass school girls no matter how regulation-long or rule-breaking-short their skirts.

And as he pointed out, this prudish demand about needing to cover up legs and needing to prevent the least glimpse of knickers is also ludicrous, almost religious in its fervour. Especially given that we have religions galore that demand women and girls cover up.

Strange as it seems now but when I was a little girl, we actually had frilly knickers to wear under skirts and dresses for that exact purpose. Not that I liked them, but still, it was an acknowledgement that girls are active children, too, and may move such that their knickers might be seen now and then. Which was not seen as an issue, especially not a reason to ban the garment altogether.

And it's ridiculous because it projects adult ideas onto children's bodies, sexualising clothing choices when children are merely expressing themselves in complete innocence (it is queer theory that posits there is no such thing as childhood innocence alongside the claim that children can consent to sex).

Anyway, what DH shared with me is the entertaining wee story of his pal who in the 70s at school claimed the right for himself to wear a skirt as part of his school uniform and made it all the way into the local papers with that.

A total of one is all you need to invalidate the claim that "no boy would ever" but I remember a story from last summer, too, reading in the papers about boys wearing skirts during the hot summer against the wishes of their school because it was more comfortable and finding much support for their stance among parents. I cannot recall the outcome of that particular uniform story, but there are and always have been boys who absolutely would wear a skirt.

So, as Bertrand keeps repeating so very patiently: three options for all. Perfectly viable.

Girls and women aren't sexually assaulted due to their clothes.

It is not the fault of a skirt when a man attacks a woman.

I thought we had got away from this.

A short skirt does not = an invitation or asking for assault

Yes there are good reasons to have minimum skirt length, boys underpants not showing due to low slung trousers.

But, not enjoying the idea that girls with short skirts are asking for it. This is the reason for 'modest dress codes' in usa (along with equally sexist idea that it distracts the boys, seeing a bit of shoulder of something, and it is girls responsibilty to manage boys distract ability).

Clothing items are gendered in so far as only one sex or another is allowed/permitted to wear them.

If this is true why have posters on here been claiming that trousers are masculine then?