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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My brother used to teach elementary school. He quit because of stupid shit like this. If your kid in a dress is trying to sit cross-legged, then thank goodness someone is saying something to her or him. That's extremely inappropriate.

Tights are a kind of undergarment outside the gym IMO and you shouldn't sit cross legged in them unless you are at yoga class.

How about and email in general like "remember if you are wearing dresses or skirts to have clothes like playground shorts, leggings or tights under them for play or sitting during carpet time!"

But to tell my child to sit like a lady? F that. If I was OP, I would be in the office the next day asking why we time traveled back to 1950.

Way to blow things out of proportion.

He should just leave it alone. If they wear a dress and sit so too much shows.. what's it to him?

Maybe it isn't about underwear. Maybe It's about sitting properly in a dress. Leggings/tights or not. Kno

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As an aside (male preschool teacher again), I personally wouldn't have made this rule, as I'd have been fine with tights or shorts underneath, but it's possible he's dealt with issues in the past involving girls and has grown more cautious. If most of my girls in class were busy flashing whenever they sat down on the carpet, I'd almost certainly add a note to a newsletter recommending shorts beneath skirts and dresses for modesty.

"Flashing," "modesty," "sluts" -- you people are assigning a ridiculous amount of sexual agency to very, very pre-pubescent children. TBH, if you think a preschooler or 2nd grader sitting criss-cross applesauce in a skirt and tights is "flashing" you, you probably shouldn't be working with kids at all.

Ah, yet another example of a woman who, at a core level, doesn't think men should work with young girls. There are lots of stupid people like you who contribute to keeping early childhood and elementary school largely men-free zones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As an aside (male preschool teacher again), I personally wouldn't have made this rule, as I'd have been fine with tights or shorts underneath, but it's possible he's dealt with issues in the past involving girls and has grown more cautious. If most of my girls in class were busy flashing whenever they sat down on the carpet, I'd almost certainly add a note to a newsletter recommending shorts beneath skirts and dresses for modesty.

"Flashing," "modesty," "sluts" -- you people are assigning a ridiculous amount of sexual agency to very, very pre-pubescent children. TBH, if you think a preschooler or 2nd grader sitting criss-cross applesauce in a skirt and tights is "flashing" you, you probably shouldn't be working with kids at all.

No-one should want to see your kid's underwear or lack thereof, no matter the gender of the child. Why you insist on assigning some malicious intent to that, I don't know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As an aside (male preschool teacher again), I personally wouldn't have made this rule, as I'd have been fine with tights or shorts underneath, but it's possible he's dealt with issues in the past involving girls and has grown more cautious. If most of my girls in class were busy flashing whenever they sat down on the carpet, I'd almost certainly add a note to a newsletter recommending shorts beneath skirts and dresses for modesty.

"Flashing," "modesty," "sluts" -- you people are assigning a ridiculous amount of sexual agency to very, very pre-pubescent children. TBH, if you think a preschooler or 2nd grader sitting criss-cross applesauce in a skirt and tights is "flashing" you, you probably shouldn't be working with kids at all.

Ah, yet another example of a woman who, at a core level, doesn't think men should work with young girls. There are lots of stupid people like you who contribute to keeping early childhood and elementary school largely men-free zones.

I don't think a man who thinks a preschooler is "flashing" him if he sees her tights should work with young girls, no. I think most non-deviant men don't see a little kid sitting cross legged at story and question her "modesty." They read the frickin' story.

This is some full-on Humbert Humbert territory, this guy thinking a little kid is flashing him, or immodest, if he glimpses her underwear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As an aside (male preschool teacher again), I personally wouldn't have made this rule, as I'd have been fine with tights or shorts underneath, but it's possible he's dealt with issues in the past involving girls and has grown more cautious. If most of my girls in class were busy flashing whenever they sat down on the carpet, I'd almost certainly add a note to a newsletter recommending shorts beneath skirts and dresses for modesty.

"Flashing," "modesty," "sluts" -- you people are assigning a ridiculous amount of sexual agency to very, very pre-pubescent children. TBH, if you think a preschooler or 2nd grader sitting criss-cross applesauce in a skirt and tights is "flashing" you, you probably shouldn't be working with kids at all.

Ah, yet another example of a woman who, at a core level, doesn't think men should work with young girls. There are lots of stupid people like you who contribute to keeping early childhood and elementary school largely men-free zones.

I don't think a man who thinks a preschooler is "flashing" him if he sees her tights should work with young girls, no. I think most non-deviant men don't see a little kid sitting cross legged at story and question her "modesty." They read the frickin' story.

This is some full-on Humbert Humbert territory, this guy thinking a little kid is flashing him, or immodest, if he glimpses her underwear.

LOL. This is grade C trolling.

[Anonymous]

Pp, flashing = showing.

Children ARE immodest, unless someone teaches them otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pp, flashing = showing.

Children ARE immodest, unless someone teaches them otherwise.

No. Both complaining about a lack of modesty and "flashing" underwear are sexual ways of talking about nonsexual behavior. This guy is sexualizing little girls out of one side of his mouth and moaning that parents are worried he'll sexualize little girls out of the other side. And the crazy thing is that the original post was about second graders -- still too young for these worries, but getting closer to an age where the conversation needs to happen. This guy lowered the age of the immodest girls down to preschool and even bragged that his kid has been in an extra layer of undershorts since she was *two* while acting like anyone who doesn't see toddlers' underwear as inherently sexual is naive. This guy is a nut and the fact that he thinks he's the persecuted one is completely laughable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp, flashing = showing.

Children ARE immodest, unless someone teaches them otherwise.

No. Both complaining about a lack of modesty and "flashing" underwear are sexual ways of talking about nonsexual behavior. This guy is sexualizing little girls out of one side of his mouth and moaning that parents are worried he'll sexualize little girls out of the other side. And the crazy thing is that the original post was about second graders -- still too young for these worries, but getting closer to an age where the conversation needs to happen. This guy lowered the age of the immodest girls down to preschool and even bragged that his kid has been in an extra layer of undershorts since she was *two* while acting like anyone who doesn't see toddlers' underwear as inherently sexual is naive. This guy is a nut and the fact that he thinks he's the persecuted one is completely laughable.

You're definitely an example of the crazy that most male teachers go out of their way to avoid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp, flashing = showing.

Children ARE immodest, unless someone teaches them otherwise.

No. Both complaining about a lack of modesty and "flashing" underwear are sexual ways of talking about nonsexual behavior. This guy is sexualizing little girls out of one side of his mouth and moaning that parents are worried he'll sexualize little girls out of the other side. And the crazy thing is that the original post was about second graders -- still too young for these worries, but getting closer to an age where the conversation needs to happen. This guy lowered the age of the immodest girls down to preschool and even bragged that his kid has been in an extra layer of undershorts since she was *two* while acting like anyone who doesn't see toddlers' underwear as inherently sexual is naive. This guy is a nut and the fact that he thinks he's the persecuted one is completely laughable.

You're definitely an example of the crazy that most male teachers go out of their way to avoid.

I'm actually related to a couple of male teachers. They're not clutching their pearls about a four year old in tights. Because they're not perverts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp, flashing = showing.

Children ARE immodest, unless someone teaches them otherwise.

No. Both complaining about a lack of modesty and "flashing" underwear are sexual ways of talking about nonsexual behavior. This guy is sexualizing little girls out of one side of his mouth and moaning that parents are worried he'll sexualize little girls out of the other side. And the crazy thing is that the original post was about second graders -- still too young for these worries, but getting closer to an age where the conversation needs to happen. This guy lowered the age of the immodest girls down to preschool and even bragged that his kid has been in an extra layer of undershorts since she was *two* while acting like anyone who doesn't see toddlers' underwear as inherently sexual is naive. This guy is a nut and the fact that he thinks he's the persecuted one is completely laughable.

You're definitely an example of the crazy that most male teachers go out of their way to avoid.

I'm actually related to a couple of male teachers. They're not clutching their pearls about a four year old in tights. Because they're not perverts.

LOL Suuure you are. I bet you have binders full of male teachers who act just the way you think they should!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp, flashing = showing.

Children ARE immodest, unless someone teaches them otherwise.

No. Both complaining about a lack of modesty and "flashing" underwear are sexual ways of talking about nonsexual behavior. This guy is sexualizing little girls out of one side of his mouth and moaning that parents are worried he'll sexualize little girls out of the other side. And the crazy thing is that the original post was about second graders -- still too young for these worries, but getting closer to an age where the conversation needs to happen. This guy lowered the age of the immodest girls down to preschool and even bragged that his kid has been in an extra layer of undershorts since she was *two* while acting like anyone who doesn't see toddlers' underwear as inherently sexual is naive. This guy is a nut and the fact that he thinks he's the persecuted one is completely laughable.

You're definitely an example of the crazy that most male teachers go out of their way to avoid.

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp, flashing = showing.

Children ARE immodest, unless someone teaches them otherwise.

No. Both complaining about a lack of modesty and "flashing" underwear are sexual ways of talking about nonsexual behavior. This guy is sexualizing little girls out of one side of his mouth and moaning that parents are worried he'll sexualize little girls out of the other side. And the crazy thing is that the original post was about second graders -- still too young for these worries, but getting closer to an age where the conversation needs to happen. This guy lowered the age of the immodest girls down to preschool and even bragged that his kid has been in an extra layer of undershorts since she was *two* while acting like anyone who doesn't see toddlers' underwear as inherently sexual is naive. This guy is a nut and the fact that he thinks he's the persecuted one is completely laughable.

Male teachers must be very careful. You are ignoring that some parents may misinterpret and accuse him. Just look at the threads in the various school and preschool forums, if you don't think a male teacher needs to be careful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp, flashing = showing.

Children ARE immodest, unless someone teaches them otherwise.

No. Both complaining about a lack of modesty and "flashing" underwear are sexual ways of talking about nonsexual behavior. This guy is sexualizing little girls out of one side of his mouth and moaning that parents are worried he'll sexualize little girls out of the other side. And the crazy thing is that the original post was about second graders -- still too young for these worries, but getting closer to an age where the conversation needs to happen. This guy lowered the age of the immodest girls down to preschool and even bragged that his kid has been in an extra layer of undershorts since she was *two* while acting like anyone who doesn't see toddlers' underwear as inherently sexual is naive. This guy is a nut and the fact that he thinks he's the persecuted one is completely laughable.

When I read that he had his daughter wear something under her dress since she was 2, I read that as just starting that early to establish it as a habit - so there wouldn't be battles later. I'm not sure why you jumped to sexualizing a 2 year old. But that's just me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp, flashing = showing.

Children ARE immodest, unless someone teaches them otherwise.

No. Both complaining about a lack of modesty and "flashing" underwear are sexual ways of talking about nonsexual behavior. This guy is sexualizing little girls out of one side of his mouth and moaning that parents are worried he'll sexualize little girls out of the other side. And the crazy thing is that the original post was about second graders -- still too young for these worries, but getting closer to an age where the conversation needs to happen. This guy lowered the age of the immodest girls down to preschool and even bragged that his kid has been in an extra layer of undershorts since she was *two* while acting like anyone who doesn't see toddlers' underwear as inherently sexual is naive. This guy is a nut and the fact that he thinks he's the persecuted one is completely laughable.

You're definitely an example of the crazy that most male teachers go out of their way to avoid.

I'm actually related to a couple of male teachers. They're not clutching their pearls about a four year old in tights. Because they're not perverts.

This will have no bearing on whether or not they will be accused of inappropriate behavior in the future. If you think this will be a valid defense god forbid something bad happens, you are sorely mistaken.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp, flashing = showing.

Children ARE immodest, unless someone teaches them otherwise.

No. Both complaining about a lack of modesty and "flashing" underwear are sexual ways of talking about nonsexual behavior. This guy is sexualizing little girls out of one side of his mouth and moaning that parents are worried he'll sexualize little girls out of the other side. And the crazy thing is that the original post was about second graders -- still too young for these worries, but getting closer to an age where the conversation needs to happen. This guy lowered the age of the immodest girls down to preschool and even bragged that his kid has been in an extra layer of undershorts since she was *two* while acting like anyone who doesn't see toddlers' underwear as inherently sexual is naive. This guy is a nut and the fact that he thinks he's the persecuted one is completely laughable.

Male teachers must be very careful. You are ignoring that some parents may misinterpret and accuse him. Just look at the threads in the various school and preschool forums, if you don't think a male teacher needs to be careful.

I could buy that if he didn't brag about his daughter wearing extra shorts every time she's left the house since before she was potty trained and bring up a lack of modesty and parents "inappropriately" dressing preschoolers by not doing the same. This is a mindset, not CYA.