Headteacher bans skirts as if too short they 'put girls at risk'

[Northernlurker]

here

I was pretty apalled by this - banning skirts because they give out 'signals' and the girls are putting themselves at risk by wearing them????
Thankfully my daughter doesn't attend that school but I have e-mailed the school address protesting at these comments. What does anybody else think?

I don't mind them saying 'trousers only'. I mind them saying 'trousers only because skirts are unsafe and therefore the girls must change because we can't expect the boys or men too'.

scurryfunge, no I wouldn't blame anyone for being assaulted while wearing a short skirt.

Like I said above, I don't care what girls wear out of school hours, as long as it doesn't go along the lines of So Many Boys, So Little Time, but there is something about school uniform crossed with tiny skirts that gives me a sense of unease.

Just noticed where instead of wear in my previous post. I think my blood sugar levels must be dropping....

LEnght of school skirts has been an issue for ever - we used to roll the waistbands over. Also what can start off as the "right" length at beginning of year can be the wrong length by the end if there is a growth spurt!!!

Trousers will look really awful on some girls. Will they (as dds school did) ban stretchy bootleg trousers??

Sounds like head might e a bit of a religious zealot?

all the girls I know who attend that school are lovely!

Elsewhere on the website the head comments that 'mums at home' are disappointed whne they're children complain the food they've cooked for them isn't as good as school dinners. He meant parents didn't he? He's not actually assuming mum does all the cooking right?

He's a farking twat.

I can't effing believe this level of sexism is tolerated and accepted in school. If it were racism, there would be a bloody outcry, right rightly.

Agree with Orm

DD1's school doesn't have uniform but they have a rule that if a pupil's outfit is considered inappropriate by the teacher they cannot enter the classroom and must go to the office and borrow a hideous housecoat type thing until they can go home and change!

We were told exactly the same thing when I was at school many moons ago. Back when cycling shorts were fashionable (80s for any of you too young to remember or who were lucky enough to miss out on that particular trend) our deputy head tried to ban them on the basis that they were "provocative".

The girls at my local high school have taken to wearing black leggings as their school trousers, which are every bit as revealing as a short skirt. I think that kids at secondary school will always want to push the boundaries regarding their appearance - if it's not one thing it'll be another...

I agree with what Gigantaur said earlier, rape is about power and control.

The implication in the reasons given for the change in uniform policy is that men can't control themselves and we shouldn't expect them to - we ought to change the way we dress. While I'm sure that the Headteacher is acting out of the best motives, I don't think they've thought this one through fully.

an attacker will attack, regardless of dress

the head is an idiot to reinforce the idea that girls are 'asking for it' if they dress in a certain way

Why not make them wear burqas?

Outrageous decision. Implying somehow that 'provocatively-dressed' girls are to blame for inciting men?
This really is taking a step backwards.

DD (yr3) was informed by her teacher that tights/cycling shorts had to be worn under skirts because some of the girls were wearing them so short (teacher reassured me that it didn't apply to DD, who is very definitely pre-pubescent and wears her skirts knee length).

The issue in primary school is a bit different - I imagine secondary school pupils don't much go in for sitting cross-legged in assembly and flashing their knickers.

Well to add another perspective, at my DS school skirts are compulsory.

Given that skirts have a patriarchal history to do with allowing men continuous access to female genitals I find it incredible that we expect our female children to wear them.

I would ban skirts. Not because of 'signals' but because girls should be afforded the same practical clothing as boys. Do their legs need to be uncovered, or is that just how we expect our women to be displayed at all times?

Good gracious! That is my old school!! That is my old headteacher!!!
He was always pretty sensible and non judgementary when I attended there back in the late eighties and early nineties, so goodness knows what happened.

why not give girls a choice though? I would have chosen a skirt.

Where's the school email address or what website is It on?

"Equally daft to assume that short sexy skirts do not give a message"

Really Maam Ruby, what message do they give?

"We have girls in a unit within mainstream who would be vulnerable to inappropriate intentions"

What inappropriate intentions? By whom?

school website here

Maaam - the vulnerability of students with SN is all the more reason to resist the implication that short skirts are an invitation to abuse. Do you really think trousers protect them in a world where the length of a girl's skirt can be judged a safety issue?

Can you please spell out what you think short sexy skirts say to someone, and who you think they're saying it to Maamruby?

You are not speaking very clearly. I'm presuming that you are saying that if a girl dresses in a certain way, a boy or man is justified in believing that he has a right to have sexual access to her, but seeing as you are speaking so obliquely, I'm not sure if that is what you are saying. Is it?