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

theworriedwell

*tell them that they need to cover their knickers with shorts in case boys/passing men/teachers get turned on by being reminded of what is underneath the knickers.* That is being incredibly rude and judgemental about boys and men. I don't think it is about anyone being turned on by being reminded of what is underneath the knickers it is more about people not wanting to see what is supposed to be underneath the knickers.

I can't think of an occasion when a schoolaged boy has been exposed because of the design of his clothes (many years volunteering in primary schools) and I think girls should get the same dignity so let them wear trousers/shorts/leggings or whatever but let them have the same level of cover as boys get.

So why do people 'not want to see what is under the knickers', if not because these parts of the body have been sexualised?

Otherwise the rest of your post is pretty much exactly what I was arguing for.

trisher

I agree about knickers once being so much more substantial than they are now. My secondary school uniform included "gym knickers" to be worn over the usual white cotton ones, they were maroon and made from a thick cotton material smooth on one side and soft on the other. We were supposed to wear them all the time but mostly wore them for PE. I suppose. they were the equivalent of these shorts.

Mine were navy blue at one school and bottle green at another. I was at a girls grammar with not a male in sight so I don't think it was anything to do with males being "turned on" seeing our white knickers.

Doodledog

theworriedwell

tell them that they need to cover their knickers with shorts in case boys/passing men/teachers get turned on by being reminded of what is underneath the knickers. That is being incredibly rude and judgemental about boys and men. I don't think it is about anyone being turned on by being reminded of what is underneath the knickers it is more about people not wanting to see what is supposed to be underneath the knickers.

I can't think of an occasion when a schoolaged boy has been exposed because of the design of his clothes (many years volunteering in primary schools) and I think girls should get the same dignity so let them wear trousers/shorts/leggings or whatever but let them have the same level of cover as boys get.

So why do people 'not want to see what is under the knickers', if not because these parts of the body have been sexualised?

Otherwise the rest of your post is pretty much exactly what I was arguing for.

Well the convention in the UK (maybe not everywhere) is that in public we do cover those parts other than very young children. Once children are at school we wouldn't think it was normal for children to be running round naked from the waist down, it is normal to wear clothes that cover us. I think the sexualising is more about skimpy clothes part covering part exposing the relevant areas.

Having volunteered in primaries for along time I don't want to see them because I think little girls are as entitled to privacy and dignity as the boys are.

I just hate the term 'modesty' shorts - implying that young girls are being immodest if not wearing them.

Blossoming

Maybe school skirts should become skorts.

Poundland have skorts in school gingham in every colour except the one my DGD wears! I checked yet again this morning.
My DD used to wear shorts under her school skirt in the 1990s for playground activity.

I would have welcomed shorts I remember doing PE in thick navy knickers with moth holes in them.

Is sitting crosslegged for story time contentious, then, or just hanging upside down on the climbing frame?
What about climbing, cartwheeling etc in public parks these days?
When do you draw the line between the sniggers of the 5 year boy at school and the need to protect the modesty of the 8 year old girl?
If you advocate cycling/modesty shorts from an early age, have you not given in to 'body shaming'? Is this wrong?
?‍♀️

My granddaughter asked for cycling shorts to wear under her school summer dress.Sometimes she wears them and sometimes she doesn’t?‍♀️

My younger daughter now in her thirties always wore shorts under her dresses when going on a night out.

Once children are at school we wouldn't think it was normal for children to be running round naked from the waist down, it is normal to wear clothes that cover us.
But nobody is talking about children being naked from the waist down! The OP is about girls not showing their knickers. Which are already covering their bodies.

The very term 'modesty shorts' says it all, surely? It is about the idea that it is 'immodest' to show certain parts of the body - the sex parts. In this case it is taking that a step further (but only for girls). Not only should they not show their bodies (as per custom and for their own protection), but they should not show the clothing that covers them either.

I am not saying that girls should show their private areas - as I said in the first post that you quoted, I think that they should have agency to wear what is comfortable, rather than wear a dress that then needs to have adaptations to ensure 'modesty'.

Four year old girls are unlikely to be bothered about who sees what (unless they have been brought up to feel that way), so of course it is about the attitude/reaction of the adults who can see them.

So don’t children have knickers as school uniform these days?

That would sort it surely?

Unfortunately innocence is fast being lost in the milieu of the very sexualised age we live in. That Pandora's Box has been open for quite a while now. I think schools trying to implement the wearing of modesty shorts are tying to head off any potential harassment of their female pupils. I agree it's an unfortunate aspect of the times we live in. I remember being told by my father to stop doing hand stands in the garden when I was about 8 or 9 and wearing a dress. I was quite puzzled at the time but in retrospect I realise that what he really wanted to say was "stop showing your knickers" but was probably too embarrassed to say so.

I remember taking my young granddaughter to a theatre showing of The Gruffalo when she was about 3 and a class of similar aged, maybe 4 but no older than 5, little Muslim girls filed in all with Hijabs on. My feeling at the time was "how sad that they should be told at that age their hair was something that needed to be covered"

I agree that girls shouldn't be made to feel ashamed of their bodies at any age. Sadly they have to be aware too of potential dangers and whilst we were "stranger aware" it does seem potential sexual abuse is something that can happen in what should be safe environment now.

Is there anything more shaming for a young girl than having her naked image passed around on their male classmates phones? I can't imagine how they are persuaded/pressurised into a state of undress for that purpose. No wonder so many have mental health issues right now. In many ways I feel my generation had far less to contend with.

I have mixed feelings regarding modesty shorts, but want to reiterate the point already made about modern knickers often being rather too skimpy - I have had pre-schoolers sitting cross-legged in front of me, and been able to see rather more than I would like because the crotch part was too narrow!

High Street fashion chain New Look has defended a range of padded bikinis for girls as young as 9, after being accused of sexualising children

WalesonLine 3rd June 2021

Children are taught using the acronym PANTS, part of it being

Privates are private. Your underwear covers up your private parts and no one should ask to see or touch them. ...

I can understand why children want to cover their pants with shorts.

Doodledog

*Once children are at school we wouldn't think it was normal for children to be running round naked from the waist down, it is normal to wear clothes that cover us.*
But nobody is talking about children being naked from the waist down! The OP is about girls not showing their knickers. Which are already covering their bodies.

The very term 'modesty shorts' says it all, surely? It is about the idea that it is 'immodest' to show certain parts of the body - the sex parts. In this case it is taking that a step further (but only for girls). Not only should they not show their bodies (as per custom and for their own protection), but they should not show the clothing that covers them either.

I am not saying that girls should show their private areas - as I said in the first post that you quoted, I think that they should have agency to wear what is comfortable, rather than wear a dress that then needs to have adaptations to ensure 'modesty'.

Four year old girls are unlikely to be bothered about who sees what (unless they have been brought up to feel that way), so of course it is about the attitude/reaction of the adults who can see them.

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.

I always thought that the school skirt should be culottes which would solve a lot of problems. We are on a school rat run and over the years the school uniform skirt appears to have got shorter and shorter, although I remember my DDs 30 years ago turning the tops over and over.

MamaCaz

I have mixed feelings regarding modesty shorts, but want to reiterate the point already made about modern knickers often being rather too skimpy - I have had pre-schoolers sitting cross-legged in front of me, and been able to see rather more than I would like because the crotch part was too narrow!

I think the name is wrong, do schools actually call them modesty shorts or is that just the shops? But yes knickers should do the job of knickers and then there would be no issue. Our school knickers used to be up to the job.

I'm not sure the skimpiness of modern knickers is to do with sexualising children or a clever ploy to save on fabric, might not be much on one pair but if you are producing thousands it must add up.

Look at things from the other end.

I was chatting to my 14 year old DCD over half term and I forget how the discussion got where it did but I asked her quite casually whether she saw any signs of racism at school and her reaction was 'No way?'. On occasions an odd remark has been made but other children have turned on the perpetrator and they haven't repeated the mistake.

She then added that there was a lot of derogatory remarks made by boys to the girls that women were stupid, that they should do what men tell them.

In other words she was experiencing just what yesterday's report described. This behaviour goes backward. The demeaning and sexualising of young teenagers goes baackwards to younger boys seeing younger girls as their playthings and their bodies to be observed in a sexual fashion.

We should also accept that more and more men are becoming itnersted in paedophilia as, at least voyeurs, looking at photographs, watching film and it is probably sensible that girls wear, at least more substantial underwear.

Why not make wearing trousers at school the norm. If all primary children wore trousers, it would give them more freedom of movement and girls could do anything they like in their games without worrying about showing their knickers.

Whitewavemark2

So don’t children have knickers as school uniform these days?

That would sort it surely?

They didn't even have school uniform regulation knickers when I was at school!

CafeAuLait

Whitewavemark2

So don’t children have knickers as school uniform these days?

That would sort it surely?

They didn't even have school uniform regulation knickers when I was at school!

You don't know what you missed. A hefty pair of navy blues (other colours were available) and some came with a pocket for a hanky, I never figured out how you were supposed to access the pocket in public!

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.