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?

Really? Shorts are masculine are they? Funny. I thought trousers and shorts were unisex

You never ever make allowances for different posters having different opinions

You never do

You think that two very different posters saying very different things is some sort of gotcha

Really? I'm not your "sweetie"

Oh I know that. Does sarcasm sail over your head as well?

The point is- you have been arguing a ridiculous stance for days. You have had poster after poster pointing that out. Your responses have been absurd- (although the climbing a telegraph pole has given a few of us a good laugh although Rufus is now stuck up one)

You have nit- picked constantly. You have derailed the thread frequently.

You can't formulate any coherent argument why women and girls should not choose skirts, shorts or trousers beyond" 's'not fair to men"

Oh no, I just realised something.

In sex, men often are not keen on being penetrated.

This means that for the sake of equality, women need to stop expecting to be penetrated.

It's sexual equality 101.

I never thought I'd be defending marguerita tbh

Decomposing you are achieving way more than you realise on this thread!

You think that two very different posters saying very different things is some sort of gotcha

I don't think it's a gotcha at all. I just thought it was widely accepted that shorts and trousers are unisex items of clothing.

Clothes coded male have become unisex through pressure from women over decades.

Clothes coded female have not been adopted by men, as to be feminine is to be lesser. To have the piss taken.

This is men's problem.

Culottes are awesome.

I never thought I'd be defending marguerita tbh

Cool beans. I guess using such patronising, belittling terms towards women is also de rigeur on the feminism board is it?

Still waiting for someone to explain why we don't wear skirts for the gym given that they are so practical

i think you need to define what you mean by 'practical', for a start.

Obviously a long, flowing skirt is not ideal or 'practical' if you want to climb over a barbed wire fence; but then long trousers are not particularly 'practical' in summer, or when wanting to take an emergency pee in the woods.

In most everyday situations, a loose fitting, knee length skirt, or even mid thigh ( like shorts) is perfectly practical. They don't prevent anyone from walking or climbing stairs. We can adapt our clothing choices to our activities, surely?

This thread has completely derailed and gone into the realms of absolute ridiculousness.

Does anyone here really want to recommend that teenage girls should be attending school in skirts the same length as tennis players?

My opinion is that yes the school are reasonable. They get to set the uniform, they have said trousers, with approved style of shorts in terms 5 & 6 to cope with summer heat.

They communicated the change on 17th June 2019 with a letter sent out stipulating that ALL ( in bold in the letter) students needed to adhere to the policy from Sept 2019.

Clothes coded male have become unisex through pressure from women over decades

Clothes coded female have not been adopted by men, as to be feminine is to be lesser. To have the piss taken

That is pretty basic theory isn't it?

(Fully expect there will be another derail pointing out that that general theory is wrong because men in Scotland wear skirts)

Cool beans. I guess using such patronising, belittling terms towards women is also de rigeur on the feminism board is it?

She isn’t a feminist so she can pretty much say whatever she wants because she doesn’t give a shit if people say she’s not feministing properly

Apologies for speaking for you marguerita i know you are more than capable

Justhadathought

My own feeling is that skirts, of whatever style, do restrict me. I can't move as freely as I do in trousers or shorts and I don't like having to think through what I might want to do, or need to do, before deciding on what I want to wear.

For me, trousers will cover all eventualities and won't stop me from doing something, whereas wearing a skirt will.

Skirts will be cut in proportion - so a size 14 skirt will be cut accordingly and made so that the waist and hips fit a size 14 body

the truth is we all come in different shapes, sizes and ratios, and most people ( maybe women, especially.../) find it difficult to get a perfect fit.

I have big boobs and hips, but quite a slim back, and my shoulders, whilst equal to the width of my hips are not 'big'. I find it very difficult to get clothes which fit my proportions. If a shirt fits my boobs, it will inevitably make my shoulders look huge. Just because one part of your body is one size, it doesn't follow that all parts are proportionately that size.And getting a skirt or trousers to fit your hips and bum, often means that the waist band is huge.

Does anyone here really want to recommend that teenage girls should be attending school in skirts the same length as tennis players?

Clearly some do, rather surprisingly. Apparently, they give you far more freedom of movement than trousers or shorts!!!

For me, trousers will cover all eventualities and won't stop me from doing something, whereas wearing a skirt will

You see, I don't feel like that most of the time, and when/if i do, then I wear trousers. I wear skirts 95% of the time. I'm a keen and active urban walker, and like, generally, to be physically active. I wear either boots ( in autumn/winter, and Fit Flops in spring/summer - which I can literally walk for miles in, with great comfort and speed).

If I'm going on a hike up a mountain ( which I'm not really into anymore) I'll wear 'walking' trousers, though with my walking boots - especially in winter.

My own feeling is that skirts, of whatever style, do restrict me. ...

And we would all defend your right to that choice.

As we defend marguerita's right to skirts (not that she needs defending)

WTF would anyone want to restrict another woman or girl from either perfectly reasonable choice? Just why?

As for skirts at Wimbledon that has been a bone of contention for years. Many women want to wear shorts or leggings but it's the rules of Wimbledon that prevent it

And the point is women are made to wear skirts at Wimbledon. They don't choose to wear them because they offer more freedom of movement

Oh how very wrong you were there Decomposing

And your response to being wrong is "well, skirts should be banned" (or similar- I'm paraphrasing)

As we defend marguerita's right to skirts (not that she needs defending)

Thank you. And indeed Serena and Venus Williams' right to play tennis in a skirt (not that either of them needs defending either)

As we defend marguerita's right to skirts (not that she needs defending)

Do you also defend her right to put down other women by belittling them with the term "sweetie"? Kind of smacks of love, darling etc doesn't it and had a man said it would be classed as misogynistic.

Really? Shorts are masculine are they? Funny. I thought trousers and shorts were unisex.

Yes, trousers and shorts are generally considered perfectly acceptable for both sexes. All well and good and as it should be.

I don't think anyone's disputing the fact that skirts are not currently widely accepted as unisex in this part of the world, are they? They're clearly perfectly practical but the social pressure of the skirts/females/lesser stereotype means men tend not to want to wear them.

Which means skirts are still being associated with females and not with males. Which is literally gendering them, right? Attach a load of damaging and oppressive stereotypes and boom: you have the seeds of patriarchy.

And males still get unconsciously associated with trousers simply because they're so rarely seen sporting a one-tube, which is, again, literally gendering trousers. It would probably be more accurate to say men as a class are still trying to gender trousers by refusing to be associated with skirts.

Definition of gendering I'm using is here is basically "setting up this unisex option as for girls and that one as for boys." Which definition is everyone else using, out of interest?

Cut out the faux outrage. Try reading back some of your replies on here. I don't mean to just me.

Your tone has been aggressive, sneering and dismissive. There has been outrageous derailing and nit- picking.

You thought you had scored some brilliant gotcha on the (wholly irrelevant) yoga point. As it happened if anyone "fucked up" it was you with your spectacularly wrong point about Wimbledon.

WTF would anyone want to restrict another woman or girl from either perfectly reasonable choice? Just why?

Because there are many occasions where men have more choices or advantages than women do. And when that happens we quite rightly challenge it and attempt to change it. I just don't think that we can hope to be taken seriously when, on the occasions where women are benefiting from the imbalance, that we can honestly argue that it's fine for one sex to have more choices available than the other sex.

For me, if there is inequality it needs to be addressed and that inequality re balanced, regardless of in whose favour that inequality exists.

There are threads currently bringing on MN now - 1 a woman is pregnant with her affair partners baby and is seriously considering continuing to deceive her DH into believing the baby is his despite having had an antenatal DNA confirming the om as the father and telling the om. Then there's a thread where a bf of 2 months has told the gf that, for the time being he wants to cease having a sexual relationship while he sorts out a messy divorce - many posters are telling the op on that thread that it's her right to expect to have an expectation of sex in a relationship and that he is wrong for having initially had sex and now changing his mind. Now, if the roles were reversed there we would be outraged. No one on here would be siding with a man contemplating lying to his wife about his affair partner being pregnant and people would be outraged if someone told a woman that she would be expected to have sex in a relationship or that having had sex she now has no right to say she wants to stop for a while. So, yes, I think we do need to treat men how we want to be treated and we cannot defend women when what they are doing is wrong.

I'm pretty sure marguerita would sarcastically call a man 'sweetie' if she wanted to ... I don't think that response had anything to do with putting down a woman, she's egalitarian scather.

she's egalitarian scather

Yep

I don't think that response had anything to do with putting down a woman, she's egalitarian scather

Really? Only it seems particularly misogynistic to me.