s/o - elementary girls in leggings
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
If they're not pants, what are they? They're not shirts. They're not dresses. They're not scarves... But overall, I really don't care what a person's opinion is on the "are leggings pants?" question, as long as it's not in the school dress code. |
Anonymous
|
Our rule is that if DD wears leggings or biker shorts they need a skirt or a tunic short over them. To me it does not look appropriate for anything other than around the house or maybe out in the playground behind the house. Basically anywhere I would not have her wear Jammie's to I would not let her wear leggings without a skirt/tunic. Not because her Jammie's are "sexual" at all but because well you just don't go running around like that. Also would not let her wear her swimsuit to the library although it is of course fine at the pool. I see it as enforcing our family's view of appropriate dress.
|
Anonymous
You do realize that this is the same line of reasoning employed by Muslim extremists who make laws requiring women to veil and dress very modestly? No, it's not. (I'm not the poster you're responding to.) I think that the PP is saying that we should acknowledge that adolescents (girls as well as boys, presumably) have sexual feelings and need to learn how to behave appropriately given their sexual feelings. That is certainly not the position of any Muslim extremists I've heard of. Now, in my opinion, society in general is pretty clear on the idea that adolescent boys have sexual feelings but is highly uncomfortable with the idea that adolescent girls have sexual feelings (except for sluts, of course, whom we must shame). |
Anonymous
| ^ pp here. I agree it is not the school's job to police this though. It should be up to each family. |
Anonymous
OK, sure, but following convention just for the sake of following convention makes little sense, means there would never be innovation/progress, and at times has led to doing stupid, unnecessary, or even flat out harmful stuff. Other times, convention has a point and is an excellent guide. I'm trying to teach my kids to decide things based on the merits and logic of the position itself, not just the precedent, so if the only argument against leggings as pants is "they've never been pants" or "everyone says they're not pants", I ask again... Why? Otherwise, that's not really a convincing argument for why I should stop my kids wearing leggings as pants. They seem to fit the "pants" definitions I'm aware of. I guess we'll just have to disagree on this one. |
Anonymous
Why? Why look down on someone for what they wear? How is it relevant to what you think of the person? Also, past about toddlerhood I don't "put" my kid in clothes... they have their own opinions and make their own choices. Judge the individual wearing the clothes if you must, but I can assure you my kid doesn't care what you think of what she wears, she doesn't care about clothes at all as long as she's comfortable. She also won't care what you or your kid wear either, except maybe to notice if she specifically likes something. |
Anonymous
Sure, I'll be conventional and you and your children can be unconventional. As long as we all know what we're doing. BTW, the convention is that leggings are not pants, they go under clothes. Like tights but thicker. Since you don't wear tights as pants, even thick, opaque ones, you don't wear leggings as pants. |
Anonymous
I'm not sure I understand. We're supposed to have no opinions on clothes that people wear? Ever? |
Anonymous
Well, the convention was once that girls didn't wear pants. And then that blue jeans were unacceptable pants. So, I'm not sure convention is the best definition of pants. |
Anonymous
Opinions, sure. Judgments, why? For example, I think all the time, 'oh, that's cute/ugly/a great color/not a flattering color'... but I don't see how that translates into looking down on someone for what they (or their kids) wear. I'm not sure I understand that. It doesn't seem relevant. Unless, I suppose, the outfit has hate speech of some sort or a violent message. To me that would make some sense to judge. |
Anonymous
No, it's not. (I'm not the poster you're responding to.) I think that the PP is saying that we should acknowledge that adolescents (girls as well as boys, presumably) have sexual feelings and need to learn how to behave appropriately given their sexual feelings. That is certainly not the position of any Muslim extremists I've heard of. Now, in my opinion, society in general is pretty clear on the idea that adolescent boys have sexual feelings but is highly uncomfortable with the idea that adolescent girls have sexual feelings (except for sluts, of course, whom we must shame). I think we all need to realize and admit that middle school boys and girls have sexual feelings. But I also think we need to realize that kids need to deal w/ those feelings. If boys have feelings because of the girls are dressed, then they need to deal w/ those feelings and learn to not get distracted, etc. The girls do not need to wear different clothes. And, certainly, schools should not be setting dress policies on this premise. If they are, shame on them, and shame on the parents supporting such policies. What will the boys do in high school or college when there's no dress policy? |
Anonymous
Does this rule apply at any age? Do you look down on 2 year olds in leggings? 8 year olds? 11 year olds? What do your daughters wear and where do they go to school? I look around our NW private, and honestly, it's what the vast majority of lower school girls wear. |
Anonymous
|
Whoa, this thread is crazier than the MS one! I believe these knee-jerk reactions that all dress code policies unfairly affect girls or oversexualize them or punishes them for boys' weakness just muddy the water.
In the Deal policy, girls are allowed to wear tank tops, but boys are not. And yet, we don't have parents decrying their lack of comfortableness and rights. Hmm, I wonder why they banned them for boys: I guess too many girls are distracted by those guns. And, those hats. And, those asses coming out of their pants. Look at his track pants, and ooh his jeans with the ripped out knees. No people! It's not the girls' fault. It's because these educators are trying to get kids to focus on the material, so instead of incorporating uniforms, they are finding that middle ground because too many kids test the extremes and waste peoples' time. Maybe they are trying to elevate the educational experience so some people take it more seriously. |
Anonymous
| Leggings should generally be treated like tights. Who here would let their kid run around in tights with nothing else covering the bottom. That's what it looks like. |
Anonymous
Not exactly what it looks like imo. If you cannot see underwear, whatever is covering the bottom half of the body is probably fine. If you can see underwear through whatever is covering the bottom half of the body, it is likely not appropriate. Some leggings would work fine as pants, others probably not. |