Girls wear skirts to UK school, headmaster calls police, locks them out

[TSwizzle]

A new "gender neutral" uniform was foist upon the pupils apparently.

Police and teachers have been criticised for locking school gates to schoolchildren who protested a new 'gender neutral' uniform policy this morning, leaving pupils to wander the streets of a Sussex town. Angry pupils and parents protested outside the gates of Priory School in Lewes over the clothing policy for the new school year. But teachers and Sussex Police officers locked the gates on pupils and refused admittance to girls in skirts - and according to one eyewitness officers were actually involved in selecting which students could enter and which would be barred. He said: 'It was like they were bouncers - they waved some through and stopped others.'

DailyMail

I blame Brexit for this.

whose daughter Libby organised a petition against the uniform change said the school is not listening to their concerns. 'They keep changing the uniform and are not listening to the parents. For a lot of the pupils it's about climate change.

and climate change.

 

[Jarhyn]

A new "gender neutral" uniform was foist upon the pupils apparently.

Police and teachers have been criticised for locking school gates to schoolchildren who protested a new 'gender neutral' uniform policy this morning, leaving pupils to wander the streets of a Sussex town. Angry pupils and parents protested outside the gates of Priory School in Lewes over the clothing policy for the new school year. But teachers and Sussex Police officers locked the gates on pupils and refused admittance to girls in skirts - and according to one eyewitness officers were actually involved in selecting which students could enter and which would be barred. He said: 'It was like they were bouncers - they waved some through and stopped others.'

DailyMail

I blame Brexit for this.

whose daughter Libby organised a petition against the uniform change said the school is not listening to their concerns. 'They keep changing the uniform and are not listening to the parents. For a lot of the pupils it's about climate change.

and climate change.

See, this is the problem when you don't let people express themselves as they wish. While I firmly believe a gender-neutral option should be offered to every student, jacket/pants or skirt should both also be available. To all students.

 

[fast]

Hmmm. Let them in and keep them safe, but keep them out of class and away from other students not in violation of school code.

 

[TV and credit cards]

That's a whole lot of yammering about a school uniform.

Anyways, I blame distractions.

This is just about not wanting boys to wear skirts.

They are saying it's about girls rolling up their skirts but they've always done that.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

In unreported news, tens of millions of children went to school today... nothing of note went wrong.

 

[starwater]

Oh the horror! And I thought I had it bad in 8th grade us girls were not allowed to wear patent leather shoes because the boys might see what is under our skirts - they reflected like mirrors apparently. True story.

 

[Toni]

Oh the horror! And I thought I had it bad in 8th grade us girls were not allowed to wear patent leather shoes because the boys might see what is under our skirts - they reflected like mirrors apparently. True story.

Not going to Catholic school or having patent leather shoes, I only heard of this from friends who were Catholic and had patent leather shoes.

I remember very well how hard wegirls fought for the right to wear pants and then jeans to school. I am certain that battle was won only because hemlines kept creeping up and they weren’t going to send every girl home to change. So part of me is: what the heck? Don’t all you girls know how hard we worked so that you could wear pants and have the same freedom of movement and warm legs in winter that boys always had??

The other part of me is thinking: Why is whatever dress code that is developed about restricting what girls can wear?

 

[Keith&Co.]

The other part of me is thinking: Why is whatever dress code that is developed about restricting what girls can wear?

When i was at a school on Norfolk Naval Base, each school had their students parade once aweek, down between the school buildings. Instructors from each school would grade each class on march, uniforms, some other points.

I was a student at Instructor School, so our instructors sat in the air conditioning and had us 'learn' how to grade marchers. There's nothing like bright sunshine on the summer white Navy uniform to let you see the color of the individual's underwear.
The base CO was driving by formation one day and immediately issued a directive that women in summer whites would wear white foundation garments or face consequences.
I was at a table with the two women in my class who asked about the men.
They had certainly noticed the non-Navy-issued colors on male asses during parades. But the ranking officers on base had somehow only noticed female undies... weird, that.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The other part of me is thinking: Why is whatever dress code that is developed about restricting what girls can wear?

Where I live, girls can wear skirts, shorts, or pants (at least one of them).... and shirts are required too (solid color polo)! The leg where just need to be khaki. I like their dress code.

 

[Metaphor]

The other part of me is thinking: Why is whatever dress code that is developed about restricting what girls can wear?

I know you cannot imagine for a moment that boys are allowed to wear skirts and girls are not. The uniform policy restricts both sexes, not just girls.

 

[Toni]

The other part of me is thinking: Why is whatever dress code that is developed about restricting what girls can wear?

I know you cannot imagine for a moment that boys are allowed to wear skirts and girls are not. The uniform policy restricts both sexes, not just girls.

I have no problem with boys wearing skirts if they like. Why would I?

The OP mentioned girls protesting the policy. Why would I be less supportive of boys wanting to wear skirts?

Although, as someone who at first refused to go to school if it meant wearing a dress (my mother quickly convinced me that non-compliance was not an option, nor was non-attendance) and who fought hard to be able to wear pants as they were much more practical and much less restrictive, it’s a little weird to me that girls are protesting a policy that forbids skirts.

I did wonder if the policy wasn’t specifically meant to address the possibility that some boys might prefer skirts. I’m not much in favor of restrictive dress codes, although I understand the practicality if restricting verbiage and symbols, usually on t-shirts. That’s the only time I’ve ever been concerned about what kids wore to school.

 

[Metaphor]

I have no problem with boys wearing skirts if they like. Why would I?

I did not say or imply you had a problem.

The OP mentioned girls protesting the policy. Why would I be less supportive of boys wanting to wear skirts?

I did not say or imply you were less supportive.

You said this:

The other part of me is thinking: Why is whatever dress code that is developed about restricting what girls can wear?

This betrays your mindset: your instinctive response to this issue was to frame it as restricting what girls can wear, when in fact it restricts both genders, not just girls.

I did wonder if the policy wasn’t specifically meant to address the possibility that some boys might prefer skirts.

So in fact the policy could have the intention of restricting what boys can wear (of course, boys almost certainly were not allowed to wear skirts before this policy anyway).

Are there any situations that have ever arisen that you cannot falsely convey the victimhood of girls?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The other part of me is thinking: Why is whatever dress code that is developed about restricting what girls can wear?

I know you cannot imagine for a moment that boys are allowed to wear skirts and girls are not. The uniform policy restricts both sexes, not just girls.

I have no problem with boys wearing skirts if they like. Why would I?

The OP mentioned girls protesting the policy. Why would I be less supportive of boys wanting to wear skirts?

Although, as someone who at first refused to go to school if it meant wearing a dress (my mother quickly convinced me that non-compliance was not an option, nor was non-attendance) and who fought hard to be able to wear pants as they were much more practical and much less restrictive, it’s a little weird to me that girls are protesting a policy that forbids skirts.

I did wonder if the policy wasn’t specifically meant to address the possibility that some boys might prefer skirts. I’m not much in favor of restrictive dress codes, although I understand the practicality if restricting verbiage and symbols, usually on t-shirts. That’s the only time I’ve ever been concerned about what kids wore to school.

My concern is about cost of clothes.

 

[Jarhyn]

The other part of me is thinking: Why is whatever dress code that is developed about restricting what girls can wear?

I know you cannot imagine for a moment that boys are allowed to wear skirts and girls are not. The uniform policy restricts both sexes, not just girls.

I have no problem with boys wearing skirts if they like. Why would I?

The OP mentioned girls protesting the policy. Why would I be less supportive of boys wanting to wear skirts?

Although, as someone who at first refused to go to school if it meant wearing a dress (my mother quickly convinced me that non-compliance was not an option, nor was non-attendance) and who fought hard to be able to wear pants as they were much more practical and much less restrictive, it’s a little weird to me that girls are protesting a policy that forbids skirts.

I did wonder if the policy wasn’t specifically meant to address the possibility that some boys might prefer skirts. I’m not much in favor of restrictive dress codes, although I understand the practicality if restricting verbiage and symbols, usually on t-shirts. That’s the only time I’ve ever been concerned about what kids wore to school.

Whereas, I'm of the opinion that so long as a piece of clothing is not sending a message of exclusion, it is appropriate for wear at school or elsewhere.

That said, I can see the school doing this to prevent atypical gender expression under the guise of neutrality. If they had a skirt/pants/jacket/blouse set of uniforms, it is clear gender discrimination if you restrict who may wear which offering in what combination. The fact is, this policy appears designed to hammer any possibility of self expression out.

 

[Toni]

I did not say or imply you had a problem.



I did not say or imply you were less supportive.

You said this:

The other part of me is thinking: Why is whatever dress code that is developed about restricting what girls can wear?

This betrays your mindset: your instinctive response to this issue was to frame it as restricting what girls can wear, when in fact it restricts both genders, not just girls.

I did wonder if the policy wasn’t specifically meant to address the possibility that some boys might prefer skirts.

So in fact the policy could have the intention of restricting what boys can wear (of course, boys almost certainly were not allowed to wear skirts before this policy anyway).

Are there any situations that have ever arisen that you cannot falsely convey the victimhood of girls?

You have at once an over active imagination when it comes to impugning the motives of others coupled with a complete lack of understanding of the character or experiences of people you don’t like. I don’t appreciate you ascribing to me motives that might more aptly describe your mindset.

I have yet to see any dress code expressed in a way that obviously restricted boys and did not obviously restrict girls’ choices, with the exception of verbiage and logos on t-shirts.

If memory serves me, when my kids were in high school, one or two boys did push boundaries of what was acceptable by wearing a skirt to school. They weren’t excluded from classes nor forced to change their clothing. It probably caused some consternation but not a big deal. One of those boys is straight; the other was gay, although he thought his orientation was a secret—and it was not. With regards to verbiage and logos, school admin. seemed to lag behind trend that they often did not recognize the meaning of some symbols and words they would have certainly found very offensive. It was something more than being a bit clueless that let them overlook white pride t-shirts and obviously racist behavior on the part of some of their students.

Your post would have been an appropriate opportunity to point out that the dress code equally applied to boys who might prefer skirts or to at least have that option instead of losing your point in a senseless and banal personal attack on me.

I thought you were better than that.

 

[Metaphor]

You have at once an over active imagination when it comes to impugning the motives of others coupled with a complete lack of understanding of the character or experiences of people you don’t like. I don’t appreciate you ascribing to me motives that might more aptly describe your mindset.

Your understanding of my mindset is, shall we say, limited, being that you've continually and obstinately ascribed false words and beliefs to me.

I have yet to see any dress code expressed in a way that obviously restricted boys and did not obviously restrict girls’ choices, with the exception of verbiage and logos on t-shirts.

Dress codes must restrict people; they wouldn't be a code otherwise. But I guarantee you there are no dress codes anywhere that allow boys to choose skirts or trousers, that do not also allow that choice to girls.

Your post would have been an appropriate opportunity to point out that the dress code equally applied to boys who might prefer skirts or to at least have that option instead of losing your point in a senseless and banal personal attack on me.

I did point that out, quite explicitly. In fact, I would bet my left testicle that boys were not allowed to wear skirts before this uniform policy change anyway.

I thought you were better than that.

Sure Jan.

 

[Toni]

Your understanding of my mindset is, shall we say, limited, being that you've continually and obstinately ascribed false words and beliefs to me.

No, that's what you have done in this thread, not me.

Dress codes must restrict people; they wouldn't be a code otherwise. But I guarantee you there are no dress codes anywhere that allow boys to choose skirts or trousers, that do not also allow that choice to girls.

Have you ever read a dress code? I have. Many times. Dress codes restrict clothing choices for girls explicitly. They restrict what lengthy of skirt a GIRL can wear, what kind of top a GIRL can wear (must cover her bra straps!) and so on. Other restrictions: cleanliness, free from holes (mostly applied again explicitly to GIRLS), and restriction of words/logos apply equally to all students. The restrictions with regards to skirts and bra straps and in earlier eras: hosiery explicitly say GIRLS, not STUDENTS. I've never seen a dress code state that a boy cannot wear a skirt or dress or makeup or earrings or certain hair styles, etc. or must wear hosiery of any kind at all. Those restrictions might be laid out in some school dress codes but in none that I've read. And I've read quite a few.

Those dress codes may ignore or be unaware that there might be some boys who do would like to wear skirts but those dress codes do not say that they cannot wear skirts or what length they must wear, etc. Any restriction that is applied to boys is equally applied to girls, explicitly by using the words girls and boys or students. Some restrictions were explicitly applied only to girls by using the word GIRL or GIRLS instead of girls and boys or students. Years and years ago, there were sometimes written restrictions on how long a boy could wear his hair. That has since been given up. Now, some schools do try to restrict hairstyles in such a way as to discriminate against students (mostly girls but also boys) of color.

Your post would have been an appropriate opportunity to point out that the dress code equally applied to boys who might prefer skirts or to at least have that option instead of losing your point in a senseless and banal personal attack on me.

I did point that out, quite explicitly. In fact, I would bet my left testicle that boys were not allowed to wear skirts before this uniform policy change anyway.

Your point was, as I wrote, quite lost in your senseless attack on me. I'd bet your left testicle that the subject of boys wearing skirts to school was never considered until it was and that this is the reason for the change in dress code.

I thought you were better than that.

Sure Jan.

So now I know better.

Too bad you don't.

 

[Metaphor]

Have you ever read a dress code? I have. Many times. Dress codes restrict clothing choices for girls explicitly. They restrict what lengthy of skirt a GIRL can wear, what kind of top a GIRL can wear (must cover her bra straps!) and so on. Other restrictions: cleanliness, free from holes (mostly applied again explicitly to GIRLS), and restriction of words/logos apply equally to all students. The restrictions with regards to skirts and bra straps and in earlier eras: hosiery explicitly say GIRLS, not STUDENTS. I've never seen a dress code state that a boy cannot wear a skirt or dress or makeup or earrings or certain hair styles, etc. or must wear hosiery of any kind at all. Those restrictions might be laid out in some school dress codes but in none that I've read. And I've read quite a few.

Are you suggesting that a dress code that talks about the style and requirements of the skirts a girl can wear, but is silent on the style and requirements of the skirts a boy can wear means the writers of the dress code wanted to give boys more freedom to wear skirts? Non. The dress code is silent on the matter because the writers found it inconceivable that boys would wear skirts.

Those dress codes may ignore or be unaware that there might be some boys who do would like to wear skirts but those dress codes do not say that they cannot wear skirts or what length they must wear, etc. Any restriction that is applied to boys is equally applied to girls, explicitly by using the words girls and boys or students. Some restrictions were explicitly applied only to girls by using the word GIRL or GIRLS instead of girls and boys or students.

And no restrictions specifically applied to boys? I remember one from my high school: no hair below shoulder length (and hair that was long enough to be tied back had to be tied back.

Your point was, as I wrote, quite lost in your senseless attack on me. I'd bet your left testicle that the subject of boys wearing skirts to school was never considered until it was and that this is the reason for the change in dress code.

Of course it wasn't considered. The societal stricture against it is so strong it would have been inconceivable that boys would violate it. Dress codes that are "silent" on the kinds of dresses and skirts boys can wear are silent on it because either they are required to something else (trousers and shirt), or it was just so obviously inconceivable the writers of the dress code didn't address it. The latter case does not mean boys were free to wear skirts.

 

[Derec]

They can harp about their "gender neutral" school policy all they want, but as soon as a Muslim female demands to wear a hiijab, they'll toss gender neutrality overboard in the name of not appearing "islamophobic". Just like that kindergarten in Germoney that banned pork because of two Muslim kids.

 

[Toni]

Are you suggesting that a dress code that talks about the style and requirements of the skirts a girl can wear, but is silent on the style and requirements of the skirts a boy can wear means the writers of the dress code wanted to give boys more freedom to wear skirts? Non. The dress code is silent on the matter because the writers found it inconceivable that boys would wear skirts.

I've mentioned multiple times that most school officials until quite recently never considered that boys might wear skirts, except in skits, etc. This is a fairly new phenomenon, recognizing that some boys like to wear skirts. I cannot go back into history and change anything.

And no restrictions specifically applied to boys? I remember one from my high school: no hair below shoulder length (and hair that was long enough to be tied back had to be tied back.

I specifically mentioned hair length restrictions on boys--and that those are a thing of the past. My own son wore his hair down to his elbows with zero comment or censure from the school. He was not alone in his style choices, either.

Your point was, as I wrote, quite lost in your senseless attack on me. I'd bet your left testicle that the subject of boys wearing skirts to school was never considered until it was and that this is the reason for the change in dress code.

Of course it wasn't considered. The societal stricture against it is so strong it would have been inconceivable that boys would violate it. Dress codes that are "silent" on the kinds of dresses and skirts boys can wear are silent on it because either they are required to something else (trousers and shirt), or it was just so obviously inconceivable the writers of the dress code didn't address it. The latter case does not mean boys were free to wear skirts.

Then why are you attacking me? I've said that the fact that some boy might want to wear a skirt to school is likely what prompted the change in the dress code. The idea that boys would want to or dare to wear a skirt to school is very much a modern issue, although it may well have been an issue for individual boys for generations. Unfortunately, I am unable to address or to correct history's understanding of the hearts and minds and fashion preferences of some boys. It is wrong of you to hold me personally responsible for the fact that other people have not considered whether boys wanted to wear dresses.


In my school days, girls were explicitly restricted from taking some classes, such as shop or drafting classes. It is possible that there were boys who wanted to take home economics classes but as a school girl, I never considered that possibility because, frankly, I could not understand why anyone would willingly take such classes and found them insulting and quit taking them the moment I wasn't required to do so. There were no explicit restrictions on what classes boys could take, but I imagine that it would have been difficult for boys wanting to take home ec. Girls did not have the same access to sports opportunities and were expected to drop out of school if they became pregnant, while the fathers of their babies were encouraged to stay in school and even to participate in school extracurricular activities and sports. While I am certain that the gay boys I was in school with faced some nasty tormenters, I only heard the nasty comments about girls whose sexuality was suspect--and those comments all came from boys.


For my children, both boys and girls took home ec classes and shop classes. And you're welcome. People my age are the reason that this change happened. People my age are the reason that it is easier and more acceptable to talk about sexuality and sexual orientation and queerness rather than hide it as the generation before us (and some of my generation) felt necessary.