An interesting read about dress codes: http://groundedparents.com/2015/08/10/the-perennial-problem-of-gendered-dress-codes/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Aren't leggings skin-tight by definition?

No.

Nope. They fit snugly, for sure, but the kid leggings we buy are not skin tight. If they are, they are too small.

Anonymous wrote:I am going to wear leggings as pants today. Just to annoy people who judge women's and girls clothing choices so harshly.

I am going to go out and buy some leggings, then wear them as pants -- i.e., on my legs. I suppose I could wear them as something else, for example as a hat, on my head, but that would be silly.

I am going to wear leggings as pants today. Just to annoy people who judge women's and girls clothing choices so harshly.

Anonymous wrote:

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

Leggings are not pants.

Well I think that's the question. Why do we sexualize 6th grade girls and not elementary. Equally inappropriate, no?

Why don't we teach boys that there is nothing sexy about girls wearing leggings?

What's the difference between tight leggings and tight jeans?
I can't believe this is even an issue.

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.

amen.

+2. WTF is wrong with some of you people? No wonder girls have body image issues.

Look, ideally, leggings would have a long top or tunic over them. But, damn, in ES, it's FINE to wear them with tshirts or whatever. Anyone who judges a little kid for this is a grade A, first-class asshole.

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.

No, no they won't. My DD is ridiculously skinny and I have no problem with ANY ES girl wearing leggings. Don't care if her shirt covers her butt or not. It is none of my business. OP can dress her DD however she wants as long as her DD is comfortable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP here. I don't care if she's skinny or fat, it's not appropriate because she's not wearing pants. A little girl in leggings looks like she's wearing tights and a t-shirt.

No, she looks like she's wearing leggings and a T-shirt.

https://www.jcrew.com/girls_category/leggings.jsp

Sure, if she spends the entire day curled in the fetal position, I guess it's okay. I can guarantee that if she were walking around, you could see the outline of the bones in her skinny little butt. And yes, they look like tights.

Oh no! Or, actually, wait -- not oh no! Rather, so what?

If you don't want your daughter wearing leggings, then tell your daughter that she may not wear leggings. I am fine with leggings, and I am fine with my daughter (or your daughter) wearing them.

Why don't stores start making freaking pants for elementary aged girls?!? Most only sell pants that are essentially leggings.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP here. I don't care if she's skinny or fat, it's not appropriate because she's not wearing pants. A little girl in leggings looks like she's wearing tights and a t-shirt.

No, she looks like she's wearing leggings and a T-shirt.

https://www.jcrew.com/girls_category/leggings.jsp

Sure, if she spends the entire day curled in the fetal position, I guess it's okay. I can guarantee that if she were walking around, you could see the outline of the bones in her skinny little butt. And yes, they look like tights.

Anonymous wrote:NP here. I don't care if she's skinny or fat, it's not appropriate because she's not wearing pants. A little girl in leggings looks like she's wearing tights and a t-shirt.

No, she looks like she's wearing leggings and a T-shirt.

https://www.jcrew.com/girls_category/leggings.jsp

NP here. I don't care if she's skinny or fat, it's not appropriate because she's not wearing pants. A little girl in leggings looks like she's wearing tights and a t-shirt.

Anonymous wrote:

Aren't leggings skin-tight by definition?

No.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Exactly. If they are not skin-tight, they are called "pants".