Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, OP if your DD has a big stomach then yes, she needs to wear a dress or tunic. Even at 5 this is unsightly.

Seriously? You think a five-year-old girl is "unsightly"? You're an asshole.

Yes, I seriously believe a five year old with a big stomach it leggings and a shirt that doesn't come down far enough to cover her butt is unsightly. Ask your mom friends with kids who do not have big stomachs. They will tell you the same.

My kid does not have a big stomach and I am nevertheless sure you are an asshole.

Another middle school with an absurd no-leggings rule, and the resulting protest against the dress code:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/03/24/evanston_school_bans_leggings_students_protest_for_the_right_to_wear_them.html

Anonymous wrote:I have never allowed my DD to wear leggings unless she also has a tunic, dress, skirt, or shorts on top. It is about understanding appropriate clothing. If you allow it with your 5 year old, when do you tell that child that they cannot do it? When they are 10 and heading into puberty? If you are lucky, your older child will obediently drop their legging/t-shirt habit. But if they are like most children, they will be habituated to that uniform and then there will be a devil of a time convincing them to dress appropriately for their developing bodies. To me this has nothing to do with sexualizing children but about teaching them appropriate dress codes right from the start. Now get me started on bikinis on 3 year olds and then I'll go forth on sexualizing little girls..

Never. If my teenage daughters want to wear pants-that-are-leggings rather than pants-that-aren't-leggings, that's fine with me.

Anonymous wrote:You have a 5 year old. Please come back when your child is going into 6th grade.

Leggings are not pants.

I never, never understand this. Pants are an outer garment covering each leg separately and usually extending from the waist to the ankle. Leggings

a. are an outer garment
b. cover each leg separately
c. extend from the waist to the ankle

Thus, pants.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, OP if your DD has a big stomach then yes, she needs to wear a dress or tunic. Even at 5 this is unsightly.

Seriously? You think a five-year-old girl is "unsightly"? You're an asshole.

Yes, I seriously believe a five year old with a big stomach it leggings and a shirt that doesn't come down far enough to cover her butt is unsightly. Ask your mom friends with kids who do not have big stomachs. They will tell you the same.

I'm poster 18:58. This is going to sound blunt, but, honestly... even if something is unsightly, why does that matter?

Now, I'm not actually agreeing that a kid, or anyone, is unsightly if they have a big stomach (I disagree somewhat). I'm asking "so what?".

I don't think anyone (including/especially young girls) has any obligation to dress to look good to others. Or even needs to consider it. As long as what must be covered is covered, I'm in favor of supporting people dressing however they are comfortable, in whatever makes them feel good and look the way they want.

If someone wants to consider whether they look conventionally attractive and try to 'look nice', by all means go for it. But if whatever they happen to want to wear isn't "flattering"... who cares? Dress for the situation as required, then dress for yourself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really hate the way girls (and women) are fashion-policed. It is so unnecessary and drives home the message that how you look is THE MOST important thing in public commentary, instead of how you act.

Leggings are fine in a casual dress setting, such as elementary school.

+1 As long as the material is thick and the pants aren't skin-tight, leggings are fine as pants. If you can see the outline or color of someone's underwear, then they are not appropriate as pants.

This, only because visible underwear is generally against the dress code most places. I don't get this obsession with what other people are wearing. My kid's body, my kid's choice as long as it conforms to the laws/rules/policies of wherever they need to be at the time. We discuss fashion, clothing choices, what is generally considered appropriate when, and all of that, so it's not like my kids are trying to wear bathing suits to grandma's birthday lunch, but I seriously don't get why clothes of all things should be a battle.

It's elementary school kids in leggings, not somebody doing something dangerous or harmful.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, OP if your DD has a big stomach then yes, she needs to wear a dress or tunic. Even at 5 this is unsightly.

Seriously? You think a five-year-old girl is "unsightly"? You're an asshole.

Yes, I seriously believe a five year old with a big stomach it leggings and a shirt that doesn't come down far enough to cover her butt is unsightly. Ask your mom friends with kids who do not have big stomachs. They will tell you the same.

I have never allowed my DD to wear leggings unless she also has a tunic, dress, skirt, or shorts on top. It is about understanding appropriate clothing. If you allow it with your 5 year old, when do you tell that child that they cannot do it? When they are 10 and heading into puberty? If you are lucky, your older child will obediently drop their legging/t-shirt habit. But if they are like most children, they will be habituated to that uniform and then there will be a devil of a time convincing them to dress appropriately for their developing bodies. To me this has nothing to do with sexualizing children but about teaching them appropriate dress codes right from the start. Now get me started on bikinis on 3 year olds and then I'll go forth on sexualizing little girls..

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really hate the way girls (and women) are fashion-policed. It is so unnecessary and drives home the message that how you look is THE MOST important thing in public commentary, instead of how you act.

Leggings are fine in a casual dress setting, such as elementary school.

+1 As long as the material is thick and the pants aren't skin-tight, leggings are fine as pants. If you can see the outline or color of someone's underwear, then they are not appropriate as pants.

Aren't leggings skin-tight by definition?

I'm a high school teacher and bought a bunch of leggings for my elementary aged daughter today. They are fine and a non-issue by the time they are teens. I am more concerned over the short shorts and low cut tight shirts. I can't stand it when my students wear those and hate that they make them in my young daughter's size.

My 10 year old has a booty. She has to wear a skirt or dress over her leggings. We have never had a battle over it. I never presented leggings as pants.

Charging $32.50 for a pair of childrens' leggings is the TRUE CRIME here. Who spends that much on freakin' leggings?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, OP if your DD has a big stomach then yes, she needs to wear a dress or tunic. Even at 5 this is unsightly.

Seriously? You think a five-year-old girl is "unsightly"? You're an asshole.

On the other hand, this the kind of person whose sensibilities I don't mind offending.

I think its only the middle schools banning leggings unless worn under shorts or dresses.

ES kids don't need to worry.

Anonymous wrote:I really hate the way girls (and women) are fashion-policed. It is so unnecessary and drives home the message that how you look is THE MOST important thing in public commentary, instead of how you act.

Leggings are fine in a casual dress setting, such as elementary school.

+1 As long as the material is thick and the pants aren't skin-tight, leggings are fine as pants. If you can see the outline or color of someone's underwear, then they are not appropriate as pants.