"Parents accuse schools of body-shaming as girls are told to wear shorts under skirts"

Doodledog

*The point you don't seem to understand is that very often the knickers that are sold for girls don't always cover the area. If it was covered there wouldn't be an issue. There is also the issue that we aren't just talking about 4 year olds, some girls at primary school will be 11 and already having periods. You might think it doesn't matter, many adults in school think it does.*

The point you don't seem to understand is that I am not saying that it doesn't matter. In fact I have said on more than one occasion that (IMO) the point is that girls (at any age) should have agency over what they wear and that trousers would be a more sensible option than extra clothing to keep them modest when wearing dresses.

You do seem determined to find something to pick up on in all of my posts, however - it started with you disagreeing with my comments about how girls were being asked to cover up to protect them from men - and has moved to you saying that I am not aware that modern knickers are sometimes more skimpy than gym knickers of old, and that many 11 year olds have periods. You move the goalposts each time.

I do understand - what I am saying is that it is the fact that dresses are not suitable for physical play that is the issue, whether worn at 4 or 14. That and the fact that if it were not for predatory men there would be less of a need for 4 year olds to cover up quite so assiduously.

4 year olds are usually quite unselfconscious about their bodies and will, for example, happily run in and out of the sea naked without a second thought. We do have to teach them that to protect them against predators this is not always a good idea, but (again IMO) a better way to achieve this is to dress them in appropriate clothing rather than to insist on inappropriate clothing with additional garments for modesty.

Being unselfconscious about your body on a beach is quite different to in the classroom. The issue in the classroom isn't to do with predatory males, female teachers don't like it and it isn't appropriate.

Girls should have agency within the limits of acceptable behaviour so if girls want to wear no knickers or skimpy knickers then it is reasonable that they save their agency for an appropriate time.

Mentioning girls in primary can be 11 and having periods was because you seem to bring it back to 4 years old and it isn't just about 4 year olds.

Talullah

greenlady102

I think if they were called "action" shorts there wouldn't be a problem.

I think you are right.

CafeAuLait

"a better way to achieve this is to dress them in appropriate clothing rather than to insist on inappropriate clothing with additional garments for modesty."

Exactly. On hot days it's not fair that girls should have to wear two layers when boys get to wear one. Just let them both wear shorts. Or, at the very least, give them the option of either.

Boys do wear two layers don't they? Underpants and shorts.

Shelflife

I had to wear navy blue knickers for hockey in senior school, I hated it ! The boys wore shorts - why not the girls!!!?
For today's children I would suggest they all wear trousers or shorts - problem solved. Dresses are not suitable attire for energetic climbing , running etc. Girls are wearing modesty shorts under their dresses - what's the point. Why not ditch dresses altogether?

Evidently asking girls to wear shorts is some sort of affront.

lovebeigecardigans1955

Surely, the bigger problem of boys' behaviour should be addressed. Why should girls have to change they way they dress when boys can sometimes be so horrible? Presumably because traditionally girls are more biddable and co-operative so it's easier than trying to civilise the boys. I fear for my teenage niece who's at a mixed secondary school when I think of the world she is growing up in.

I think if boys were sitting with their penises on show they would be told very directly to sort themselves out. I honestly don't see how it is a boys fault if the girls are wearing such skimpy knickers that the teachers/TAs/volunteers and boys see more than they want. If the boys are doing something wrong they should be told but the girls should be properly dressed.

Ellianne

Talking of girls' knickers, why do so many of them have to have writing on them?
Plain and simple please.

Oh Ellianne! I loved my pants with the days of the week on them. My poor Mum had t make sure we had the right ones for the day. I could never have worn Wednesday's knickers on a Friday. I don't like the term modesty shorts either. Sounds very Victorian to me.

Ridiculous and so hot and cumbersome totally unnecessary I saw a friend putting her 3 year old in them ….awful

Talking of girls' knickers, why do so many of them have to have writing on them?
Plain and simple please.

It’s very sad and I agree that girls knickers are made to look like women’s now. I found some high waisted pants for my GD which were pretty, just not bikini style when she was 3 . She loved
them because they were comfortable and saved her from KUB. When she started school she kept these for weekends so that her friends didn’t laugh at them.
How do we stop children from being coy about their bodies whilst keeping them safe from voyeurs ? I think the term modesty shorts is dreadful. As others have said , just let them wear shorts in the summer .

Lovebeingcardigans1955

You nailed it.
Girls are more cooperative because they are taught that from such a young age

Surely, the bigger problem of boys' behaviour should be addressed. Why should girls have to change they way they dress when boys can sometimes be so horrible? Presumably because traditionally girls are more biddable and co-operative so it's easier than trying to civilise the boys. I fear for my teenage niece who's at a mixed secondary school when I think of the world she is growing up in.

Isn't this a case of effect being dealt with rather than cause? I realise that older children and teenagers have debates in school about issues of consent and respectful behaviour between the sexes but perhaps conversations on this topic would be useful for much younger children.

I remember seeing a programme in which primary age girls and boys had very stereotypical ideas about the opposite sex. The boys saw the girls as a bit soppy, less strong and less able than themselves - and the girls were quite often accepting of this.

In this age of sexualised imagery, it is important that girls and boys understand issues of consent and respect, and what is and is not acceptable behaviour - and why. It goes far deeper than what a child does or does not wear.

My argument has always been that girls shorts are about 10-15cm shorter in the length of the leg than boys shorts. I try to buy shorts for my DGDs from Mountain Warehouse (other outdoor clothing stores are available) as they at least, are a reasonable length.

My older DGD made the move to wearing cycle shorts under her school skirts years ago after 'l can see your knickers!' comments made by boys. They also had a group of boys who would try to pull up the skirts of the girls so exposing their knickers, something thankfully the school dealt with quite swiftly!

I also, like a few other PPs, object to the name 'modesty shorts'. Does it mean that girls who do not wear them are 'guilty' of being immodest? Will part of any blame for inappropriate behaviour fall on their shoulders because they are not wearing their modesty garment? Where will the focus fall next?

Girls have the choice of wearing trousers or dresses/skirts; boys wear trousers or shorts. I don't know if girls choose to wear shorts as part of school uniform. It is ten years since I retired, but girls were wearing lycra shorts under their skirts then and nothing was made of it. They changed separately for P.E. and male teachers made sure they remained outside the classroom whilst the girls were changing.

I had to wear navy blue knickers for hockey in senior school, I hated it ! The boys wore shorts - why not the girls!!!?
For today's children I would suggest they all wear trousers or shorts - problem solved. Dresses are not suitable attire for energetic climbing , running etc. Girls are wearing modesty shorts under their dresses - what's the point. Why not ditch dresses altogether?

The vast majority of girls used to wear trousers (and sweat shirts) in school. Then the blazer craze came along, leading to obsessive uniform policies in academies and hey ho skirts became the norm.
When my school became an academy, we old lags saw the uniform list and rolled our eyes.

I think if they were called "action" shorts there wouldn't be a problem.

"a better way to achieve this is to dress them in appropriate clothing rather than to insist on inappropriate clothing with additional garments for modesty."

Exactly. On hot days it's not fair that girls should have to wear two layers when boys get to wear one. Just let them both wear shorts. Or, at the very least, give them the option of either.

Thank you doodledog.
Your last two paragraphs answer it all for me!

This is so sad how girls are sexualized from such a young age.

Everybody wears comfortable clothes that let's them play - shorts!

Problem solved.

The point you don't seem to understand is that very often the knickers that are sold for girls don't always cover the area. If it was covered there wouldn't be an issue. There is also the issue that we aren't just talking about 4 year olds, some girls at primary school will be 11 and already having periods. You might think it doesn't matter, many adults in school think it does.

The point you don't seem to understand is that I am not saying that it doesn't matter. In fact I have said on more than one occasion that (IMO) the point is that girls (at any age) should have agency over what they wear and that trousers would be a more sensible option than extra clothing to keep them modest when wearing dresses.

You do seem determined to find something to pick up on in all of my posts, however - it started with you disagreeing with my comments about how girls were being asked to cover up to protect them from men - and has moved to you saying that I am not aware that modern knickers are sometimes more skimpy than gym knickers of old, and that many 11 year olds have periods. You move the goalposts each time.

I do understand - what I am saying is that it is the fact that dresses are not suitable for physical play that is the issue, whether worn at 4 or 14. That and the fact that if it were not for predatory men there would be less of a need for 4 year olds to cover up quite so assiduously.

4 year olds are usually quite unselfconscious about their bodies and will, for example, happily run in and out of the sea naked without a second thought. We do have to teach them that to protect them against predators this is not always a good idea, but (again IMO) a better way to achieve this is to dress them in appropriate clothing rather than to insist on inappropriate clothing with additional garments for modesty.

I totally understand the reasoning behind the trouser option in secondary schools.
What I can't fathom out is what drives the change from those gingham summer dresses to the need to add another layer in the primary school setting.
It is the parent beginning to feel uncomfortable with a daughter's innocence? (As with TerriBull's father). Is it a result of unwarranted attention by a boy at school in the playground?
Do we wait until the child raises the issue? And if so, have we not left it too late?

My DGD is 16 but at primary school she always wore her PE shorts under her dress. The school rule decision. This was for summer. Winter - she wore tights or trousers.

Whitewavemark2 All schools I know do list PE knickers/shorts that are worn over briefs.

I had school uniform regulation knickers as did my daughter.

My local comp has trousers as part of uniform for girls but they can also wear skirts. The skirts got shorter and shorter and tighter and tighter so skirts and trousers were introduced which had the school logo on and the skirts are longer and looser. Girls seem to prefer trousers now.