Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm with the middle school teacher. This is what she's talking about, and it's not OK for 12 year old minors to look like this, and those odd "anti-shaming" feminist PPs who think this is ok for minor children are really stupid and not using their Oberlin/Kenyon/Bates/Smith thinking caps.

Who are we (or the school staff) to decide what it's appropriate for other people's kids to wear? As long as it's not unsafe (open toe shoes in a science lab, flip flops in PE), mind your own business. Schools take their position of authority too far. Who asked them what our kids should wear?

It's precisely because they're kids, and not adults, that faculty in a public school do get to decide the rules on attire, speech, due process and other areas that adults are subject to. Sometimes, the public school staff "decide" that it's "appropriate" that 100% of the kids wear a uniform. Brent, Hardy, and 100 other DC schools. Sometimes, the staff "decides" that "other people's kids" cannot wear a T-shirt with the words "Fuck You Everybody" on the front. Or a picture of a giant penis. Sometimes, school staff get to "decide" that "other people's kids" cannot wear a thong swimsuit and nothing more to class.

All of these things are easily upheld under current case law. Minors don't have the same freedoms as adults, that's not up for debate, it's settled law.

Ps. From what OP said, leggings are not eliminated. Just need to be under a layer.

Dress codes are very hard. However , so much better to err on the side of modesty and respect for boys and girls than the other way. Believe me, no teacher or administrator is going to get out a ruler - but a tunic, skirt or dress over a right legging is the best road to go down. Thats what is encouraged at my childs school. As to booty shorts etc. - saw so many on vacation. Makes sense in warmer.climes/by the beach. Not in the classroom. Good for DEal. Please let the school create standards for the community, rather than you imposing yours. Administrators and teachers have far more weighty stuff to 'deal' with. Leave it and teach your child an important lesson that sometimes we change for the environment rather than the reverse. Leggings in free time.

Anonymous wrote:

The person in the photo is wearing transparent leggings/tights over a visible thong.

A rule requiring opaque fabric and no visible underwear would make the difference

And how will this determination be made? Will the girl go to the office and bend over in a bright light before a committee of teachers? does that strike you as a workable solution? Or does it (I hope) seem like rape-light?

It's simpler and more detached and matter-of-fact to just ban categories: X (leggings, all of them) Y (boxers that can be seen) and Z (bras as shirts, say. Or ball caps. Or wetsuits).

While I can see that schools don't want to have to have an peekaboo panty committee, that's a poor excuse for eliminating an entire category of basic clothing. I am sure they can craft a rule that works - cannot see underwear seems like a perfectly sane one.

Anonymous wrote:
I'm with the middle school teacher. This is what she's talking about, and it's not OK for 12 year old minors to look like this, and those odd "anti-shaming" feminist PPs who think this is ok for minor children are really stupid and not using their Oberlin/Kenyon/Bates/Smith thinking caps.

Who are we (or the school staff) to decide what it's appropriate for other people's kids to wear? As long as it's not unsafe (open toe shoes in a science lab, flip flops in PE), mind your own business. Schools take their position of authority too far. Who asked them what our kids should wear?

The person in the photo is wearing transparent leggings/tights over a visible thong.

A rule requiring opaque fabric and no visible underwear would make the difference

And how will this determination be made? Will the girl go to the office and bend over in a bright light before a committee of teachers? does that strike you as a workable solution? Or does it (I hope) seem like rape-light?

It's simpler and more detached and matter-of-fact to just ban categories: X (leggings, all of them) Y (boxers that can be seen) and Z (bras as shirts, say. Or ball caps. Or wetsuits).

The person in the photo is wearing transparent leggings/tights over a visible thong.

A rule requiring opaque fabric and no visible underwear would make the difference between that and this:



Jeans can show panty lines too:

I'm with the middle school teacher. This is what she's talking about, and it's not OK for 12 year old minors to look like this, and those odd "anti-shaming" feminist PPs who think this is ok for minor children are really stupid and not using their Oberlin/Kenyon/Bates/Smith thinking caps.

Anonymous wrote:Or (even better) they could focus on educating our children and let parents police these issues. If you don't want your child to wear leggings or crop tops or tank tops handle it yourself. Banning them from schools isn't going to protect anyone - they're going to wear (or see others wearing) these things in other public places.

I am curious what the school's response would be if a parent told them they don't agree with the dress code and won't require their child to comply. Schools have an obligation to educate kids and I really doubt they could get away with suspending a child over this.

Classic republican response. You effin' assume that most parents give a shit.

Or (even better) they could focus on educating our children and let parents police these issues. If you don't want your child to wear leggings or crop tops or tank tops handle it yourself. Banning them from schools isn't going to protect anyone - they're going to wear (or see others wearing) these things in other public places.

I am curious what the school's response would be if a parent told them they don't agree with the dress code and won't require their child to comply. Schools have an obligation to educate kids and I really doubt they could get away with suspending a child over this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the problem - Leggings, unlike say tube tops or crop tops, are now a totally normal part of pre-pubescent clothing these days. To have them be ok on 8 year olds and then suddenly not ok on 13 year olds can mean only one thing- they become "revealing" only when the girls' bodies have changed and matured. By definition we are saying that it's the more mature girls' bodies that are unacceptable -- which is sexist and silly.

Exactly.

You're assuming that they're all opaque an they're not!! I know that some people want to think that it's about a girl's developing body and protecting boys, but it's actually more about the quality of the product. Some leggings are nice and opaque, others are shockingly thin and reveal everything. Most of our kids like shopping at places like H&M, Zara, or Forever 21, and the items from those stores don't hold up in the wash long term. If this was about sexism, I would be up in arms, but I think it's more about girls going to school revealing much more than they intended to.

I think it would be fine to have an opaque-only rule. No problem.

Exactly. The dress code says that no underwear can be visible. They could simply elaborate by saying that includes exposed underwear (above waistband), underwear that is visible through sheer fabric, and possibly visible underwear lines (though I think many teachers in skirts or slacks would get "dress coded" on that one).

Or they could ban sheer or transparent clothing.

Or they could specify how loose the leggings have to be, if what they're concerned about is a sausage casing look (though jeans or slacks on a very overweight person will also be very tight).

It's all silly. I'd never tell my daughter to violate the dress code or show disrespect for her school, but the rule is a silly one, grounded entirely in the false idea that a girl's natural shape is inappropriate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the problem - Leggings, unlike say tube tops or crop tops, are now a totally normal part of pre-pubescent clothing these days. To have them be ok on 8 year olds and then suddenly not ok on 13 year olds can mean only one thing- they become "revealing" only when the girls' bodies have changed and matured. By definition we are saying that it's the more mature girls' bodies that are unacceptable -- which is sexist and silly.

Exactly.

You're assuming that they're all opaque an they're not!! I know that some people want to think that it's about a girl's developing body and protecting boys, but it's actually more about the quality of the product. Some leggings are nice and opaque, others are shockingly thin and reveal everything. Most of our kids like shopping at places like H&M, Zara, or Forever 21, and the items from those stores don't hold up in the wash long term. If this was about sexism, I would be up in arms, but I think it's more about girls going to school revealing much more than they intended to.

I think it would be fine to have an opaque-only rule. No problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the problem - Leggings, unlike say tube tops or crop tops, are now a totally normal part of pre-pubescent clothing these days. To have them be ok on 8 year olds and then suddenly not ok on 13 year olds can mean only one thing- they become "revealing" only when the girls' bodies have changed and matured. By definition we are saying that it's the more mature girls' bodies that are unacceptable -- which is sexist and silly.

My DDs don't have this problem because the leggings as pants look ended when they got potty trained.

Which I find even weirder- diapers are ok to see?

Anyhow, look in any kids clothing catalogue and leggings are a staple item.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the problem - Leggings, unlike say tube tops or crop tops, are now a totally normal part of pre-pubescent clothing these days. To have them be ok on 8 year olds and then suddenly not ok on 13 year olds can mean only one thing- they become "revealing" only when the girls' bodies have changed and matured. By definition we are saying that it's the more mature girls' bodies that are unacceptable -- which is sexist and silly.

Exactly.

You're assuming that they're all opaque an they're not!! I know that some people want to think that it's about a girl's developing body and protecting boys, but it's actually more about the quality of the product. Some leggings are nice and opaque, others are shockingly thin and reveal everything. Most of our kids like shopping at places like H&M, Zara, or Forever 21, and the items from those stores don't hold up in the wash long term. If this was about sexism, I would be up in arms, but I think it's more about girls going to school revealing much more than they intended to.

I don't get the tank top restriction.