Would it bother you if your child's teacher said this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would ask all of the students to sit on chairs if underwear-showing is an issue. I used to teach this grade in an all-girls school. I always sent an email to parents asking them to send the girls with shorts under their uniform jumpers. We wanted the girls to be active and shorts helped them to do this modestly.

You can't use that word round these parts, or crazy people tell you you're sexualizing children.

I'm not sure how "modest" came to mean "covers your body, if your body is female".

PP could just as well have said, "We wanted the girls to be active and shorts helped them to do this without their underwear showing," everybody would have known what PP was talking about, and very few people -- perhaps even nobody -- would have objected.

Boys aren't supposed to show their underwear either, and some schools will enforce that dress code. Did you know that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would ask all of the students to sit on chairs if underwear-showing is an issue. I used to teach this grade in an all-girls school. I always sent an email to parents asking them to send the girls with shorts under their uniform jumpers. We wanted the girls to be active and shorts helped them to do this modestly.

You can't use that word round these parts, or crazy people tell you you're sexualizing children.

I'm not sure how "modest" came to mean "covers your body, if your body is female".

PP could just as well have said, "We wanted the girls to be active and shorts helped them to do this without their underwear showing," everybody would have known what PP was talking about, and very few people -- perhaps even nobody -- would have objected.

Boys aren't supposed to show their underwear either, and some schools will enforce that dress code. Did you know that?

Which is exactly why "without their underwear showing" would be clearer than "modestly".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would ask all of the students to sit on chairs if underwear-showing is an issue. I used to teach this grade in an all-girls school. I always sent an email to parents asking them to send the girls with shorts under their uniform jumpers. We wanted the girls to be active and shorts helped them to do this modestly.

You can't use that word round these parts, or crazy people tell you you're sexualizing children.

I'm not sure how "modest" came to mean "covers your body, if your body is female".

PP could just as well have said, "We wanted the girls to be active and shorts helped them to do this without their underwear showing," everybody would have known what PP was talking about, and very few people -- perhaps even nobody -- would have objected.

Boys aren't supposed to show their underwear either, and some schools will enforce that dress code. Did you know that?

Which is exactly why "without their underwear showing" would be clearer than "modestly".

It means the same thing. Neither "without their underwear showing" nor "modestly" is unclear or offensive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would ask all of the students to sit on chairs if underwear-showing is an issue. I used to teach this grade in an all-girls school. I always sent an email to parents asking them to send the girls with shorts under their uniform jumpers. We wanted the girls to be active and shorts helped them to do this modestly.

You can't use that word round these parts, or crazy people tell you you're sexualizing children.

I'm not sure how "modest" came to mean "covers your body, if your body is female".

PP could just as well have said, "We wanted the girls to be active and shorts helped them to do this without their underwear showing," everybody would have known what PP was talking about, and very few people -- perhaps even nobody -- would have objected.

Boys aren't supposed to show their underwear either, and some schools will enforce that dress code. Did you know that?

Which is exactly why "without their underwear showing" would be clearer than "modestly".

It means the same thing. Neither "without their underwear showing" nor "modestly" is unclear or offensive.

"Modestly" and "without their underwear showing" are not synonyms.

Also I've never heard anybody use "modesty" in conjunction with boys/men, in the US. Maybe it happens, but if so, it happens very rarely. And yet boys/men also wear underwear.

[Anonymous]

I think the rule is there because it seems like it would be really uncomfortable for a male teacher to have to explain that those are not really tights, we can still see your underwear, you have a hole, etc. And I know people will say that he shouldn't notice that, but as soon as everyone is in a circle, all the other kids do notice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the rule is there because it seems like it would be really uncomfortable for a male teacher to have to explain that those are not really tights, we can still see your underwear, you have a hole, etc. And I know people will say that he shouldn't notice that, but as soon as everyone is in a circle, all the other kids do notice.

Not to mention the hypocrisy of many women saying a male teacher "shouldn't notice" things they wouldn't think twice of a female teacher noticing, mentioning, and restricting.

[Anonymous]

Because the first time one child goes home and says "Mr. Smith was looking right up Emma's dress today" there would be holy hell to pay regardless of the circumstances.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, I am sure it would be just fine with these crazies if a male teacher was *talking about their daughter's underwear*!!!!! All hell would break loose.