Headteacher backtracks after calling for 'gender neutral' uniform

[hellooooooomama]

He was going to ban skirts.

Parental feedback was not sought initially, but they've had plenty of it since the change was announced!

My opinion. Police the children effectively if they're not wearing it properly. Don't punish the girls who are following the rules.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9915zgvjk4o?at_link_id=743ED69C-41D3-11F0-AA25-C9355B601FDF&at_campaign=Social_Flow&at_ptr_name=facebook_page&at_link_origin=BBC_Essex&at_link_type=web_link&at_bbc_team=editorial&at_medium=social&at_format=image&at_campaign_type=owned&fbclid=IwQ0xDSwKuxqJleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHk6aensTQMd06TSswic5MxNQHZ2Ru4bMWTwlqBl_l3XOBjgDph5zvELMd7g9_aem_wrAH7AjLCJqPj7Nn6TwJcg

Girls do these things daily in schools. Any teachers who do would find themselves complained about and disciplined.

It is ok for the Head and governing body, preferably after consultation with students and parents, to set the school's uniform policy. Of course

If they ogle and hawk of course they will and of course so they should.
There is probably a good reason why they were accused, you just don't know that.

But no skirts disadvantages girls and blames them for mens looking so it's done for the benefit of men, so yes they can do it, but it's mysoginist and he should go because mysoginist views aren't compatible with the work he does nor the society he lives in.

I note that you said upthread that you had never seen anybody's arse at work.

Why do you think that is?

That is not what I was talking about! I was talking about you telling me that girls don’t wear skirts that are that short (they do) and that teachers do (they don’t).
I doubt this is in good faith to be honest. We have the right to wear what we want yes? But not to wear it everywhere. I didn’t wear my offensive Nirvana T-shirt to church for instance. Not appropriate. I expect students to be able to comfortably engage in my lessons without feeling self-conscious. That doesn’t happen in schools at the moment.
I’d be in favour of t shirt and joggers to be honest but I’m not in charge of uniform.

I don’t know if you’re being purposefully obtuse or are just plain stupid, but you’re not covering yourself in glory here.

You accused me of being someone who would consider the abused girls in Rotherham of being child prostitutes. I’m still waiting for you to point me in the direction of where I said that or anything like that.

Or was that simply the first of various flailing attempts to accuse me of things I don’t think and haven’t said or even implied?

It doesn’t disadvantage girls. They now have the same options as boys.

Well that can be argued either way. Trousers for girls benefits controlling men. Skirts for girls benefit ogling men. Giving girls a choice benefits the controllers and the oglers.
You need to step back a little and ask 'what benefits the girls, particularly the vulnerable girls, most'.

She didn't burn her bra so we could see her grandchildrens sanitary ware I get people fighting back against modest clothing but it's getting ridiculous school uniform doesn't represent a working environment anymore because if any staff showed up with everything on show they would be jobless and because no-one wants to say sort yourself out to the girls because they might be accused of being a pervert these girls will be unprepared for the world outside

My DD’s school has this uniform - black
trousers and a polo top for everyone. I love it, easy peasy and practical. I don’t get what the problem is.

Edit - quote fail - agreeing with poster saying trousers aren't good on a period.

Agree with this, especially if they force specific uniform trousers. My DD hated them as they just didn't sit well on her curvy frame and were super uncomfortable when she was bloated on her period plus also if you leak under a skirt (when you're wearing tights and black shorts) then only the tights and shorts are stained and it's not visible but in a light grey trouser there's no hiding staining. If prone to flooding this is an issue.

I have been fortunate never to experience flooding before perimenopause and therefore didn't have a lot of problem with trousers up until recently, and didn't appreciate this issue. It's much easier also to layer up with pads, period pants shorts etc under a skirt without it being obvious you're on your period.

If they allow ANY trousers including black then that's better for those with heavy periods, but DD's school only allows light grey uniform trousers that do not fit the typical female body well - hence why 99% of girls in the school wear skirts.

How the fuck is having a search term 'modest' that links to clothes in their normal ranges that just don't have cutouts, deep plunging necklines (and many would have still needed a top underneath to actually fulfil the requirement of no cleavage or spaghetti straps/cut outs/backless) and hems that don't stop at upper thigh a full 'range' that is going to cause the entire company to fail?

I am still waiting for our two posters who are outraged at the thought of girls not being able to go to school in skirts that barely cover their crotch, if they think it should be ok for an eleven year old to turn up to secondary school wearing just a lacy bra on her top half?

By calling other clothes "immodest", once again things we fought against. Do you think I'm immodest for having a cleavage? What's immodest in showing my neckline? By whose standards? Plunging neckline and tight trousers are still "modest" - what does it mean? Is showing an ankle modest? What about some femur? Are the immodest less deserving or something? Do you not understand this is treating women like second class? Where is the modest range for
men? Most people don't want mens dangly parts on display but nobody is targeting men.

They've shown how much they value women who are customers. And proved it once again by giving males access to women's and girl's changing rooms. Because people who think girls skirts are not good enough, the same people also think women are less important.. that's why you are on here defending pervy teachers and putting the blame on girls for men's behaviour and defending the "falsely" accused male teachers. It's not false at all, you'll find if you view women as equal. Read up on feminism, you have no.idea what it means.

Where is the modest range for men?

It's basically the entire men's section. Very few crop tops and tiny shorts for sale in the men's section.

Why is that?

Why couldn’t they just make it so they have to wear floor length skirts?

@Ifpicklesweretickles Going to agree with you here. No women's clothing retailer should have a search function or range labelled 'modest' because it does, indeed, imply everything else is immodest

So are there shorts in the "modest" range then? Because men's clothes are shorts a lot. And are they grey tracksuits that show outlines of male genitalia modest?
And so women's what's modest - how long should my skirt be for you to consider me modest? I think I'm still more modest in my cropped bar and cut out shorts than a man with his balls outline.
If I go to the shops, how do I find out what's for modest women and what's for sluts like me?
You have very wrong ideas about how women should be and what their place in society is.

While I dislike to concept of modest and therefore immodest (though I don’t have an issue with “appropriate for the occasion”), the reason there is no modest section for men, @Ifpicklesweretickles, is because men aren’t groomed from infancy to think that the more flesh they display the better. Little boys’ clothes ranges don’t include, for example, tiny shorts, tight firing T shirts with cap sleeves and crop tops. All of which are completely impractical for young children aside from anything else, though I suppose it works out well for the purveyors of sun cream - gotta turn girls into consumers as early as possible!

So we need to ask ourselves why the western world is so keen for little girls to display flesh in a way they aren’t keen on little boys doing the same.

And you need to bear that in mind when you rail against schools not liking girls turning their skirts into belts.

This is not equality. It is not liberation from the patriarchy.

maybe some of the posters defending skirts would like to try being the teachers wasting precious teaching time policing the length of the skirts

I see no reason why girls should have more (or less) choice than the boys
trousers for all with a polo shirt and sweatshirt
maybe uniform shorts for summer
job done, now lets get back to education

What is it about grey tracksuits that you keep mentioning? Why is grey worse than white?

And if you think it ok for an eleven year old to go to school in just a lacy bra on her top half then why shouldn’t a man wear grey tracksuits neatly delineating his penis and testicles?

Because before that M&S clothes were famously immodest.

You seem to think that young girls wearing crop tops and tiny shorts is liberating and feminist rather than a feature of patriarchy.

And I have no idea what you're talking about with joggers.

Omg it's a completley different point. kids like small comfortable clothes that aren't thick jeans and long canvas t shirts. Which is why leggings and cycling shorts are popular. How many parents would choose to put a boy into comfortable leggings? And of course there is an issue with a lot of girls clothing thats produced and supplied but it's a totally different point and not the point of the thread.
You don't need to borrow a shit thing from men and put women into even more uncomfortbale stuff.
Throughout history little boys wore dresses, girls wore skirts and dresses, typically short, medieval women had breasts out and medieval men had their dicks pretty much out there.
The "modesty" thing on here is spouted by people who grew up in very different cultures and those who don't understand at all why women who wear short skirts and girls wearing short stuff aren't asking for it.