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?

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

But shorts are not currently an option for anyone. That isn't down to me so what you are saying is that lots of girls currently are not at school because neither current option is suitable? Then what are you doing about that? Why aren't there campaigns running now to allow girls to wear shorts because they are suffering physically and mentally right now?

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

Worried I may have unintentionally implied this. If so - apologies - wasn't what I meant!

Pondering how to rephrase...

I think girls can't win on this one without radical change in multiple areas at once.

Yes, we should be able to wear whatever we like without anyone viewing this as a green light to harass or intimidate or assault us. We are not there yet because men, collectively, do not agree with this right.

It needs hammering home to men that women's clothing doesn't justify assaulting us, but I feel we do girls a disservice by telling them they have the absolute right to wear whatever they like when society conditions and pressures them in various subtle ways towards "freely" choosing clothes that predators believe justify assaulting them.

Obviously identifying and effectively dealing with predators is the best long-term solution here. But we're not there yet. In the interim, we could do to be mindful that there's a difference between what we ought to be able to expect based on principles of rights etc, and what we realistically are likely to face based on men exercising their power to deny our rights.

I appreciate my own experiences are perhaps colouring my thoughts here. My own right not to be assaulted was not, in reality, an inalienable and objective truth, but rather a social contract that predators didn't buy into. A bit of honesty about this at an earlier age might have served me well.

'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?'

Because masculine =gender

Get with the program.

Gender codes also differ between societies and over time. For instance, skirt like garments not being the norm for boys and men now is gender. I have a pic of one of my great grandparents in a dress thing, as a toddler. Blue used to be for girls.

Your idea that men do not wear skirt like garments FACT. And then when it's pointed out they do in lots of places, you say it's because they are backwards / it transforms into something else by magic if there is a penis underneath...

I mean anyone reading this thread must be having a blast the posts are so bizarre.

'But shorts are not currently an option for anyone. That isn't down to me so what you are saying is that lots of girls currently are not at school because neither current option is suitable?'

They are an option at dd primary.

You love your absolutes don't you!

No schools allow shorts
No boys or men wear skirt (like garments) anywhere in the world (if they do they're backwards and /or totally different in every way to a laydees skirt)
If boys wore skirts to school they'd forever be showing everyone their scrotums by accident

And etc etc etc

Rufus - "The school concerned did not do this"

They did do this, I've linked to the Lewes Priory school website where you can see the uniform code (shorts are allowed in summer) and the letters to parents going back over a year, as well as the newsletters where people have been asked to make sure they understand the Uniform code.

Tyro I think maybe your experiences have

Thousands of girls in the uk go to school in rolled up arse skimming skirts every day, and have for decades.

Most normal people think wow that's a short skirt and leave it there.

The men and boys who sexually assault schoolgirls will do so irrespective of what they are wearing.

To tell girls that what they chose to wear sends signals to men that they should assault them is a huge no no imo.

And anyway it's not true. It's an excuse made by attackers, and by society in their behalf.

Note I'm not saying that girls or boys should wear skimpy clothes to school.

To tell girls that what they chose to wear sends signals to men that they should assault them is a huge no no imo.

I think this is where my point so frequently gets lost.

I'm not proposing telling girls (indirectly or explicitly) that their clothing choices justify them being assaulted. Clearly, nothing justifies them being assaulted.

A girl implies nothing by wearing a skirt. Refusing to acknowledge that men and boys will nonetheless make erroneous inferences based on that skirt doesn't help anyone.

There's one hell of a mismatch between what we imply and what they infer. Girls and women do actually need to be aware of the inferences because it's the inferences that are fucking us over, not the implications.

(Or we could just go with my current preferred option: quarantine the lot of 'em until they sort their collective shit out. Would solve the problem of victim-blaming overnight, amongst many others, yet curiously has very few takers...)

Because masculine =gender

Get with the program.

I think it is you Fraggling who needs to get with the program. This is what I quoted

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

Clearly says clothes are gendered in so far as only one sex is allowed to wear them. I asked therefore why posters on here have referred bro trousers are masculine. By the above quote, trousers aren't gendered because both sexes are allowed to wear them.

I'm also waiting still for the answer to my question regarding short skirts being more practical than trousers - how come then everyone at the gym/yoga wear trousers and not short skirts?

Your idea that men do not wear skirt like garments FACT. And then when it's pointed out they do in lots of places, you say it's because they are backwards / it transforms into something else by magic if there is a penis underneath...

No that is incorrect. I said that men don't wear skirts as the norm. It was you or other posters who argued that kilts and such like are skirts, now you say skirt like. So you are changing what you said.

In cultures were men wear a skirt like garment they don't wear the self same skirt that women do, do they? They are a different version of a skirt, made for men. Therefore surely that is still maintaining the gender difference of the item of clothing.

If some school boys decided tomorrow that they wanted to wear skirts they would have to wear skirts that are designed, styled and fitted for girls. If girls wear trousers they can easily buy trousers designed, styled and fitted for girls. There's a big difference. If a school uniform dictated that the girls had to wear boys trousers that would not be ok would it? Yet you're quite happy to tell boys and men to wear skirts that are clearly designed for women.

No boys or men wear skirt (like garments) anywhere in the world (if they do they're backwards and /or totally different in every way to a laydees skirt)

Show me where I said any of that? You are making it up and then declaring that's what I said. Pathetic.

And yes, primary school allow shorts but the op is about secondary schools which is what I have been talking about.

A couple of the girls were on GMB today, and, without meaning to sound like a judgemental old granny, the skirts were virtually invisible when they were sitting down. I suspect if the skirts were a decent length (ie longer than their underwear) this issue may not have been raised.

As mentioned I'm not a skirt person - could anyone tell me what major design difference boys need in skirts?

Or have we redefined skirts in some way that I've missed? They're basically a tube covering the lower body. Frequently adjustable at the top, as is eminently sensible for people of all ages and sexes and sizes. Length variable, twiddly fashion wossnames variable, but basically just... a tube. Boys fit in tubes, right?

So why do women need trousers specifically designed for them then? Why don't men and women all just wear the same trousers?

Maybe have a little think about what is different between mens and womens trousers and then apply that to skirts?

Tyro boys and girls can wear the same skirts, just like men and women can wear the same belt.

Skirts don’t have to fit snugly round your bottom, hips and crotch. It’s all good.

lwmommy

The news paper said that the years 11’s were told originally that they didnt have to comply

This was then changed on the last day of term to the yea4 11’s having to comply

The website you posted doesnt seem (and i may have missed it) to mention exactly when they told the year 11s

I am thinking about it, Decomposing. In my personal experience the principal difference between men's and women's trousers lies in the volume of the unbifurcated space at the top - women's are cut to allow for more bum before the garment divides into two tubes. I'm not seeing how that's relevant in a one-tube-only scenario.

If anyone less argumentative could explain it to me in simple words I'd be much obliged, because I'm not disputing it, I'm just not seeing it, which makes it look like an attempt to say "girls need clothes tailored to their shape ergo boys also need clothes tailored to their shape; there are currently no boy-tailored skirts available; we must therefore accept the inevitability that boys cannot wear skirts."

What I'm getting at is, is it actually physically impossible for a few courageous boys to suck up the indignity of a garment tailored to a different body type for a limited time while the market catches on? Genuine question.

But many skirts are fitted to accommodate hips - men and boys don't have the same body shape as women.

Plus boys tend to be bigger and taller than girls and their waist to hip ratios are different to females.

As girls don't have to wear boys trousers why are you so determined that boys should have to wear girls skirts? Again, why are you so determined to not give boys the same options as girls?

Girls have trousers designed for them - different sizes, cuts and styles.

If you insist that boys have skirts as an option why can't they have skirts designed for them?

And I'm rolling on the floor at the idea of my belt fitting my husband. Of course there's a difference between men and women's belts - the size for 1 thing.

What I'm getting at is, is it actually physically impossible for a few courageous boys to suck up the indignity of a garment tailored to a different body type for a limited time while the market catches on? Genuine question.

Have a look at body shapes in post pubescent males and females. Men tend to be straight up and down - waist to hip ratio is very different to a female shape.

And what on earth are you on about - a few courageous boys to suck up the indignity? You'll need more than a few boys to make the market accept the demand for skirts for men and boys. Plus why should these boys have to risk being bullied and mocked just to prove some sort of a point for you?

How do you propose schools should support these courageous boys when their classmates start taking the piss out of them?

Has anyone suggested.....?

If you insist that boys have skirts as an option why can't they have skirts designed for them?

Of course they can have skirts designed for them. No one has disputed that.

But they're not likely to get skirts designed for them if you're not giving them the option of skirts at all, are they? If boys aren't permitted to wear a skirt, then there is zero incentive for any skirt designer or manufacturer or retailer to even consider the possibility of skirts tailored for boys.

The market's never going to catch up with the demand if you're explicitly banning the demand, is it?

The market's never going to catch up with the demand if you're explicitly banning the demand, is it?

Oh of course, it's all within my power. Clearly I am the queen of school uniforms and totally have the power to ban skirts being offered to boys.

I'm not banning anything. I think that for practical reasons there won't be a demand from boys to wear skirts. But, apparently according to some of you skirts, especially short ones, are more practical than trousers. Still waiting for someone to explain why we don't wear skirts for the gym given that they are so practical.

Plus why should these boys have to risk being bullied and mocked just to prove some sort of a point for you?

Never said they have to.

Skirts are already unisex. They'll only become gender-neutral if boys start wearing them, otherwise they remain feminine-coded by default regardless of whether all women wear them or not. Some boys may wish to strike a blow for equality by asserting their right to wear skirts, and be willing to take the risk of social disapproval this entails. If you don't let them do so, they're going to struggle to dismantle the skirt=notman stereotype.

I think that for practical reasons there won't be a demand from boys to wear skirts.

Yes, I suspect you're right.

But you also said that boys not wanting a choice means girls should be denied that choice, in the name of equality.

Which, as no doubt everyone has noticed, pretty much broke my brain.

Do you still stand by that statement, or are you rescinding it?

But you also said that boys not wanting a choice means girls should be denied that choice, in the name of equality

Thats the last 600 posts beautifully summed up