Making schoolgirls wear tights' under skirts

Larbre34 · 11-11-2015 11:58AM

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

I remember when I was in school, girls were getting given out to for having skirts that were too long and were tripping hazards.

Oh, the '90s.

Was a bleak time to be a young lad. Long skirts, high jeans, body tops that fastened between the legs under the high jeans and over the underwear. Im pretty sure ill have arthritis of the hands such was the dexterity needed to be a 16 year old lad in 1993.

Re the uniform skirts, when other time do girls wear skirts except going to Wesley or local equivalent on a friday night? Make all school uniforms trousers for girls and lads alike. Then they can dress for the weather underneath and no over the top concerns about pervs around every corner.

whatismyname · 11-11-2015 11:59AM

Medusa22 wrote: »

I was one of those girls who got my skirt taken up and then I rolled it up the rest of the way :pac: Ah, how I pitied the girls' schools in Dublin with the ankle length skirts, I would have been horrified. I was once suspended when they brought in a rule that you could only wear shoes with heels less than an inch and I came in to school in four inch heels Fashion seemed to be important to me in those days.

I always wore tights though, isn't it a bit chilly to be wearing socks in this weather anyway? I don't think it is right to instruct girls to wear tights to ''protect'' their modesty, as this does indicate that the way you dress has some influence on whether you are assaulted or not, and I doubt a pair of flimsy tights are going to save you from a paedophile.

Yep I agree. As an adult, you'd barely ever catch me in a dress or skirt without tights at all, but definitely not in this weather. I'd be frozen!

But the underlying message that what you wear will impact on whether you get assaulted or not... when is society going to get past this?

One eyed Jack · 11-11-2015 12:06PM

whatismyname wrote: »

Can see where you are coming from though, but keeping them responsible for what though?

For example, if the girls were sexually assaulted would it be because they were being provocative by having part of their legs on show? If something happened to the girls, would it be in any way related to not having their legs completely covered?

Clearly not, yet that seems to be what the kids are being taught.

If anything happened to the girls fro that which they need to be 'kept safe from', nobody - be it the girls themselves, the school, parents etc - is at fault because the girls had uncovered legs.

If there is an issue, then yes alternatives such as trousers or ankle length skirts are available, but doing it in any way that gives a message that there are things / people that girls need to be kept safe from, so we need to be responsible by covering up their flesh, as they'll be at risk otherwise, is giving out a very, very wrong message, particularly to the young people.

And that's all fine, in theory. But, the reality is very different. I don't think it's giving out the wrong message at all to young girls that it's a reality that if they dress inappropriately, they're likely to be treated inappropriately.

Clearly what the school is doing here is basically minimising the risk of the girls dressing provocatively. Now we can play dumb and pretend that the school uniform isn't a common sexual trope for girls, or we can acknowledge the fact that the school is putting in place measures that uphold the high standards of the school and these girls are taught to dress appropriately for the school environment.

I don't see that as 'giving out the wrong message' that girls need to learn how to dress appropriately because the reality is that perverts do exist in society who are attracted to young girls and even moreso when those young girls dress provocatively.

I'm all for young women dressing however they like, but then I'm not responsible for their welfare either, the school is, and the parents are, and that's why I feel the parents should be cooperating with the school instead of trying to object to the school having standards that are intended to keep their children safe.

It's not a balancing act at all, it's about teaching the children how to dress and how to behave appropriately.

beyondbelief67 · 11-11-2015 12:07PM

whatismyname wrote: »

You clearly should have had the option, as they were, in my opinion, being ridiculous making you wear socks only, particularly in winter.

But I think the issue here is not that the girls have the option to wear tights, but that they are being forced to or excluded, so a bit different from having the option to wear them.

Yes we were sent home if we wore tights and not socks, so kind of opposite rules to this school ! Some girls tried to get round it by wearing both needless to say didn't work!

whatismyname · 11-11-2015 12:09PM

Here's another school back in July who banned skirts altogether 'because it's

'distracting for male teachers when they walk up stairs or sit down'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3147212/School-bans-girls-wearing-skirts-s-distracting-male-teachers-walk-stairs-sit-down.html

Don't get me wrong, I'm actually quite in favour of both boys and girls wearing the same uniform i.e. all wearing trousers, and this school seemed to have quite a problem with the girls rolling their skirts up, so introducing the trousers for girls seemed like the sensible solution, and I'm all for it.

But still some of this is a bit hmmnnn.

'It's not pleasant for male members of staff and students either, the girls have to walk up stairs and sit down and it's a complete distraction.

'After a while it stops being a uniform issue and starts becoming a safeguarding issue.'

Ooooh the men and boys are completely distracted by the female flesh on show, gotta keep the girls safe from the bad men and boys who won't be able to help themselves cos they're so completely distracted!

This poor boy was so distracted and ended up having the female bum in his mind when he was trying to do his mock exam. It was terrible cos he was particularly easily distracted because he was stressed, so it was pretty unfair on him really.

Edward Burrows told MailOnline: 'This might be a bit crude, but I've seen more modest belts.

'It might be a bit shocking for a teenage boy to say, but you don't really want to be seeing that when you're walking round school.

'The thing about them distracting the male teachers is true. It distracts me so I can understand it distracts them.

'We had mocks preparation not long a go, practising for when we're doing exams next year.

'And you look over, as you do, and you see someone's bum and that's in your mind then.

'When you're stressed you're easily distracted.'

Wanderer78 · 11-11-2015 12:12PM

interesting story:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/1111/741036-japan/

smash · 11-11-2015 12:13PM

whatismyname wrote: »

This poor boy was so distracted and ended up having the female bum in his mind when he was trying to do his mock exam.

Sure that used to happen to me and I was in an all boys school.

Duggy747 · 11-11-2015 12:13PM

Well it could be worse I guess, the school could've asked the boys to wear tights :pac:

whatismyname · 11-11-2015 12:17PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And that's all fine, in theory. But, the reality is very different. I don't think it's giving out the wrong message at all to young girls that it's a reality that if they dress inappropriately, they're likely to be treated inappropriately.

Clearly what the school is doing here is basically minimising the risk of the girls dressing provocatively. Now we can play dumb and pretend that the school uniform isn't a common sexual trope for girls, or we can acknowledge the fact that the school is putting in place measures that uphold the high standards of the school and these girls are taught to dress appropriately for the school environment.

I don't see that as 'giving out the wrong message' that girls need to learn how to dress appropriately because the reality is that perverts do exist in society who are attracted to young girls and even moreso when those young girls dress provocatively.

I'm all for young women dressing however they like, but then I'm not responsible for their welfare either, the school is, and the parents are, and that's why I feel the parents should be cooperating with the school instead of trying to object to the school having standards that are intended to keep their children safe.

It's not a balancing act at all, it's about teaching the children how to dress and how to behave appropriately.

There's certainly a difference between rolling your skirt up so high that you're practically wearing none (which some of these girls may likely have been doing), wearing skirts at knee length, or ankle length.

Dealing with the issue at hand would make more sense, and why not just getting them all wearing trousers in fairness.

You mention that you're 'all for young women dressing however they like, but then I'm not responsible for their welfare either, the school is, and the parents are', but personally I'm not all for young women dressing however they like, but I don't see that as being the issue at all.

'we can acknowledge the fact that the school is putting in place measures that uphold the high standards of the school and these girls are taught to dress appropriately for the school environment.' I don't see anyone disagreeing with that, and I'm certainly not.

A lot of it for me is down to not what they are doing, but the wording behind it, which is potentially very, very damaging.

whatismyname · 11-11-2015 12:24PM

Just thinking back to secondary school - it was quite funny in a way, that you could almost always tell when someone was a first year, as their skirt was full length.

And generally the shorter the skirt was, the more senior they were likely to be.

AgileMyth · 11-11-2015 12:25PM

Menas wrote: »

This is nearly as bad as that 6 year old who got suspended for playing with a violent weapon in a school in the US last week.

The 'weapon' was an imaginary bow and arrow.

How do these nut jobs get employed in our education system?!!!

The story is from the UK. Your example is from the US. Neither have anything to do with our education system.

11-11-2015 12:26PM

whatismyname wrote: »

Just thinking back to secondary school - it was quite funny in a way, that you could almost always tell when someone was a first year, as their skirt was full length.

And generally the shorter the skirt was, the more senior they were likely to be.

Maybe they just had the same skirt since first year, and they had grown a bit :P

Whitewinged · 11-11-2015 12:26PM

whatismyname wrote: »

Dealing with the issue at hand would make more sense, and why not just getting them all wearing trousers in fairness.

Not sure what the cost is for a uniform these days. I remember in a school that my friend went to, those awful hickey ankle length skirts were fairly expensive. Parents have only just bought the skirts for the new school year so tights are probably the easiest thing to ask them to wear.

If they are rolling them up to a point that is revealing and inappropriate then I understand why they are doing it but I agree they didn't need to use the safety reason.

whatismyname · 11-11-2015 12:27PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Maybe they just had the same skirt since first year, and they had grown a bit :P

haha yes hadn't thought of that

The bump at the top of the skirt would usually give it away though, or more likely the unevenness of the skirt at the bottom. That was the one I was always worried about, but nobody probably cared anyway, apart from the teachers.

And I never rolled it up into a mini skirt - I was a good girl me :P

One eyed Jack · 11-11-2015 12:29PM

whatismyname wrote: »

There's certainly a difference between rolling your skirt up so high that you're practically wearing none (which some of these girls may likely have been doing), wearing skirts at knee length, or ankle length.

Dealing with the issue at hand would make more sense, and why not just getting them all wearing trousers in fairness.

You mention that you're 'all for young women dressing however they like, but then I'm not responsible for their welfare either, the school is, and the parents are', but personally I'm not all for young women dressing however they like, but I don't see that as being the issue at all.

'we can acknowledge the fact that the school is putting in place measures that uphold the high standards of the school and these girls are taught to dress appropriately for the school environment.' I don't see anyone disagreeing with that, and I'm certainly not.

A lot of it for me is down to not what they are doing, but the wording behind it, which is potentially very, very damaging.

You'll have someone else then come along and say "Girls should be allowed roll their skirts up high if they want, it shouldn't make any difference", and they're right, it shouldn't, in theory, but in reality, clearly, it does, and we all have our own individual standards on where we draw that line.

The school doesn't have that luxury, and that's why they're imposing the tights rule, and sure, we can all say it's wrong to be sending the message to girls that they should cover up, and it's the perverts should be held responsible for their behaviour, but until such a time as that actually happens, then it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that schoolgirls should dress appropriately for going to school, and outside school the parents can have them dress however they want.

Most girls aren't going to take a blind bit of notice of what 'message' the school thinks it's sending out anyway, and the parents who are getting their knickers in a twist over this, are the people who should be told to cop on.

whatismyname · 11-11-2015 12:30PM

Whitewinged wrote: »

Not sure what the cost is for a uniform these days. I remember in a school that my friend went to, those awful hickey ankle length skirts were fairly expensive. Parents have only just bought the skirts for the new school year so tights are probably the easiest thing to ask them to wear.

If they are rolling them up to a point that is revealing and inappropriate then I understand why they are doing it but I agree they didn't need to use the safety reason.

I'm inclined to agree that tights is the sensible answer.

But enforcing them on a 'be isolated or go home' basis, I have mixed feelings about (one reason being I'm sure there's some students who'd rather be sent home or isolated than be sitting in a class).

But I definitely believe that the 'keeping them safe on the way to and from school' was the wrong message' and could have been handled so, so much better.

whatismyname · 11-11-2015 12:32PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Most girls aren't going to take a blind bit of notice of what 'message' the school thinks it's sending out anyway

Personally I'm not sure if that's true (I've no way of knowing, and can't remember what message it would have given out to me as a teenager - I'm too auld to remember that far back :P - and who knows if I would have been like 'most girls'). My gut instinct is that basically telling girls that they're unsafe going to and from school if having leg flesh on show is a bad message in several ways.

But, to be honest, I'd probably be as concerned (potentially more concerned, not sure) about the message that it would give to boys, than what it does to girls.

ProfessorPlum · 11-11-2015 12:38PM

How about if some of the sixth years wear their ties loose with their shirts unbuttoned to mid cleavage - do they introduce a rule that all girls must wear a polo neck thermal vest under their uniform. No, of course they wouldn't. They would just enforce the uniform standards they already have. In the same way, the solution for the current 'problem' is to have a minimum length of skirt, not to impose restrictions on the entire school. In any case I bet any self respecting teenage girl would have no problem making their uniform appear 'provocative', black tights included, if they really wanted to.
Some kids find tights really uncomfortable and would prefer to wear socks. Some parents find that their kids right big toe is constantly putting a hole in their sock, and won't welcome the further expense of replacing tights. (not to mention that socks are generally harder wearing than tights anyway.)

And then to imply, however loosely, (if you'll excuse the pun) that wearing a short skirt in some way brings a sexual assault on oneself.

Obviously whoever came up with this genius plan didn't think about it very much.

One eyed Jack · 11-11-2015 12:42PM

whatismyname wrote: »

Personally I'm not sure if that's true (I've no way of knowing, and can't remember what message it would have given out to me as a teenager - I'm too auld to remember that far back :P - and who knows if I would have been like 'most girls'). My gut instinct is that basically telling girls that they're unsafe going to and from school if having leg flesh on show is a bad message in several ways.

But, to be honest, I'd probably be as concerned (potentially more concerned, not sure) about the message that it would give to boys, than what it does to girls.

I understand where you're coming from, I really do, and if that's all they were being told, I'd say fair enough, but with tabloid media like the Mirror, they're always going to look to sensationalise a story anyway, and so they're going to rip one statement out of context and of course, when the media spotlight is on them, people who aren't used to it are likely to put their foot in it. But, if you go to the St. Hild's website, they're pretty clear about what they expect from their students -

We have high expectations of our students, not only academically but also socially. We believe that good discipline is essential for students to learn, to make progress and to feel secure in school. It also helps in the creation of a purposeful working atmosphere which encourages students to want to do well. Praise and rewards are built into our teaching, and achievements at all levels are recognised and celebrated.

Our examination results have shown continuous improvement, and our aim is for this progress to be maintained. Students are encouraged to have increasingly high expectations of themselves; 'aiming higher' is not just a worthy-sounding phrase – it is part of our mindset.

Wearing the correct uniform and being neat and tidy in appearance shows that students are proud to belong to St. Hild's and have respect for themselves. Parents support the school by encouraging students to wear their uniform in full, with pride, every day!

Is that still the wrong message?

Whitewinged · 11-11-2015 12:43PM

whatismyname wrote: »

I'm inclined to agree that tights is the sensible answer.

But enforcing them on a 'be isolated or go home' basis, I have mixed feelings about (one reason being I'm sure there's some students who'd rather be sent home or isolated than be sitting in a class).

But I definitely believe that the 'keeping them safe on the way to and from school' was the wrong message' and could have been handled so, so much better.

Actually come to think about it, there was a thread in ah a short while ago where a poster questioned if it was acceptable to be attracted to girls aged 13-18.

Just had a look back at it there and he said "And girls of that age dress innapropriately anyway. I can't help but look". Now i know he was only speaking for himself but maybe the school were more concerned about that possible message.

bodhrandude · 11-11-2015 12:50PM

Limerick must be in the early twentieth century mode though, all the school girls walking about in long dresses, its mad looking.

whatismyname · 11-11-2015 12:51PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I understand where you're coming from, I really do, and if that's all they were being told, I'd say fair enough, but with tabloid media like the Mirror, they're always going to look to sensationalise a story anyway, and so they're going to rip one statement out of context and of course, when the media spotlight is on them, people who aren't used to it are likely to put their foot in it. But, if you go to the St. Hild's website, they're pretty clear about what they expect from their students -

Is that still the wrong message?

Nope, I don't believe so, but they are two different things, and I think it can be possible for both to be said, and for one message to be good, and for the other to be potentially damaging. So pulling out something else that the same school has said that doesn't really give out the wrong message, for me, isn't all the relevant / likely to change my opinion on something different giving out the wrong message.

I couldn't agree more re the sh1tty rag papers, and I think that sensationalism may very likely have played a part, but still was careful to try to focus on direct quotes from the people involved. They may have put their foot in it, but it was still what was said.

whatismyname · 11-11-2015 12:52PM

Whitewinged wrote: »

Actually come to think about it, there was a thread in ah a short while ago where a poster questioned if it was acceptable to be attracted to girls aged 13-18.

Just had a look back at it there and he said "And girls of that age dress innapropriately anyway. I can't help but look". Now i know he was only speaking for himself but maybe the school were more concerned about that possible message.

Yes potentially. It's definitely another way of looking at it.

Although it's got me thinking again, what are they trying to 'keep them safe' from? Is it people 'looking', being 'attracted to them' or is it something more?

For some of the girls, in my experience, part of their aim is exactly for boys to look at them. But probably boys, less than much older men, for example. And there's probably not a hell of a lot we can do to stop teenage girls who want to attract boys, from sexualising themselves.

But is the primary aim in what they are trying to 'keep them safe' from, to keep them safe from men 'looking' at them or from doing something to them?

I've no clue, to be honest, and without them saying, we'd probably just be presuming.

I still hope it's not the latter. As in, obviously I hope they try to keep kids safe, but not that they are thinking that they're more likely to get sexually assaulted if they are not wearing tights.

I'm thinking that the girls are probably almost certainly going to have more guys 'looking at' / attracted to them if not wearing tights, but that ****ers who attack girls / paedophiles are likely to act as such regardless of the kids wearing tights, so it's probably a whole other kettle of fish.

foggy_lad · 11-11-2015 12:55PM

So this school is trying to stop its female students dressing like prostitutes in the hope they can see out their education there without getting pregnant or raped by the local perverts.

smash · 11-11-2015 12:56PM

foggy_lad wrote: »

So this school is trying to stop its female students dressing like prostitutes...

beyondbelief67 · 11-11-2015 01:00PM

foggy_lad wrote: »

So this school is trying to stop its female students dressing like prostitutes in the hope they can see out their education there without getting pregnant or raped by the local perverts.

??? !!! Oh wow, for once I'm lost for words, hope this was sarcasm or bad taste of a joke! But still wow!

Grab All Association · 11-11-2015 01:01PM

Off topic slightly but you see all the time on TV sitcoms (The Big Bang Theory) and on social networking sites women in their 20s-30s dressing up and posting photos of themselves in school uniforms.

It is kinda sick when you think about it. A 20 something year old woman dressing up as a child/teenager to turn on her boyfriend.

OneOfThem · 11-11-2015 01:03PM

smash wrote: »

Uncovered knees - the calling card of the fallen woman.

smash · 11-11-2015 01:04PM

Grab All Association wrote: »

Off topic slightly but you see all the time on TV sitcoms (The Big Bang Theory) and on social networking sites women in their 20s-30s dressing up and posting photos of themselves in school uniforms.

It is kinda sick when you think about it. A 20 something year old woman dressing up as a child/teenager to turn on her boyfriend.

There's also people out there with weird fetishes like wearing nappies. It doesn't mean they want to shag babies. Cop on a bit and stop making an issue out of nothing.

One eyed Jack · 11-11-2015 01:06PM

bodhrandude wrote: »

Limerick must be in the early twentieth century mode though, all the school girls walking about in long dresses, its mad looking.

Is that just a Limerick thing though?

I think it's a national thing, but what's actually going to be more interesting in the coming year is the whole idea of the school uniform itself -

06 October, 2015 - Ministers O’Sullivan and Humphreys host roundtable discussion on transgender children in schools

Schools told make uniform rules for transgender pupils

Making schoolgirls wear tights' under skirts

Comments