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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is a hilarious example of how arrogant and ignorant supposedly educated people can be.

I'm a male preschool teacher. As a few intelligent people have noted, we aren't viewed the same way female teachers are, and the straight and narrow is a hell of a lot narrower. The teacher in question is almost certainly saying this as a CYA. If you don't get why, go find a male teacher in the elementary or EC years and ask him.

And in my classroom, I don't have a rule regarding what goes on under skirts and dresses, but believe me that it's quite obvious when parents haven't appropriately dressed their daughters. My rule with my daughter (who's preschool-aged) has been that she always wears shorts under dresses and skirts unless she's in pajamas, no exceptions. This is a rule I've enforced since she turned two.

OK. But in fact it's not going to CHA, is it? Not if he gets in trouble for it. Perhaps he should have asked some colleagues for suggestions for CYA alternatives that wouldn't get him in trouble.

That's why there are not many male teachers at that age level. You really can't win.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is a hilarious example of how arrogant and ignorant supposedly educated people can be.

I'm a male preschool teacher. As a few intelligent people have noted, we aren't viewed the same way female teachers are, and the straight and narrow is a hell of a lot narrower. The teacher in question is almost certainly saying this as a CYA. If you don't get why, go find a male teacher in the elementary or EC years and ask him.

And in my classroom, I don't have a rule regarding what goes on under skirts and dresses, but believe me that it's quite obvious when parents haven't appropriately dressed their daughters. My rule with my daughter (who's preschool-aged) has been that she always wears shorts under dresses and skirts unless she's in pajamas, no exceptions. This is a rule I've enforced since she turned two.

OK. But in fact it's not going to CHA, is it? Not if he gets in trouble for it. Perhaps he should have asked some colleagues for suggestions for CYA alternatives that wouldn't get him in trouble.

Something tells me the principal is used to dumbo parents with these kinds of complaints, as believe me, male teachers in the early grades get all kinds of dung thrown at them by parents (usually moms) who, deep down, simply don't think people with penises should be around young girls. So no, I don't think he's going to get in trouble at all for this.

Anonymous wrote:This thread is a hilarious example of how arrogant and ignorant supposedly educated people can be.

I'm a male preschool teacher. As a few intelligent people have noted, we aren't viewed the same way female teachers are, and the straight and narrow is a hell of a lot narrower. The teacher in question is almost certainly saying this as a CYA. If you don't get why, go find a male teacher in the elementary or EC years and ask him.

And in my classroom, I don't have a rule regarding what goes on under skirts and dresses, but believe me that it's quite obvious when parents haven't appropriately dressed their daughters. My rule with my daughter (who's preschool-aged) has been that she always wears shorts under dresses and skirts unless she's in pajamas, no exceptions. This is a rule I've enforced since she turned two.

OK. But in fact it's not going to CHA, is it? Not if he gets in trouble for it. Perhaps he should have asked some colleagues for suggestions for CYA alternatives that wouldn't get him in trouble.

This thread is a hilarious example of how arrogant and ignorant supposedly educated people can be.

I'm a male preschool teacher. As a few intelligent people have noted, we aren't viewed the same way female teachers are, and the straight and narrow is a hell of a lot narrower. The teacher in question is almost certainly saying this as a CYA. If you don't get why, go find a male teacher in the elementary or EC years and ask him.

And in my classroom, I don't have a rule regarding what goes on under skirts and dresses, but believe me that it's quite obvious when parents haven't appropriately dressed their daughters. My rule with my daughter (who's preschool-aged) has been that she always wears shorts under dresses and skirts unless she's in pajamas, no exceptions. This is a rule I've enforced since she turned two.

I am willing to bet that if a female teacher sat her 2nd grade class down the first week of school and talked about how you must wash your hands before and after lunch and after the bathroom and after you use a tissue, if you are sneezing a lot you can not do the play-doh station that day, you keep your hands and feet to yourself when you are at school, if you are wearing sandals you should not climb on the playground equipment, and if you are wearing a dress you should sit in a chair instead of the floor, you wouldn't bat an eye.

Anonymous wrote:Well, boys are little monsters, so tell them to sit on the floor like the animals they are.

Unless they are wearing dresses, then they need to sit in a chair.

It would bother me a great deal. I always put short/leggings on under my daughter's dresses and wouldn't have a problem if that were a policy. Maybe he should be telling all of the children to sit like ladies and gentlemen, but singling out only the girls would bother the crap out of me. I'm guessing it wouldn't bother my husband though.

Well, boys are little monsters, so tell them to sit on the floor like the animals they are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+100

Y'all are nuts to attack a male teacher about this. And leggings/tights are not pants.

UNDER A DRESS? You are out of your ever loving mind.

What are you supposed to wear under a dress? Pants under a dress? What planet are you from?

Whether you're wearing leggings, tights, or nothing under a dress, you shouldn't sit cross-legged. You know this, you've just lost track of that knowledge somewhere.

Seriously? Do you have children?

I think the PP has children since s/he didn't say seated Indian style.

Unbelievably inappropriate. I would be complaining up the chain.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What I think is inappropriate is teachers (of any gender) making rules about how seven-year-old girls wearing dresses should sit, lest people think thoughts about what's under their dresses.

You are right, it is far more appropriate for your daughter to show her panties to everyone in the room. God forbid she be corrected! I'm sure no one will notice and she has every right to flash the other kids and teacher! My God, people here are so stupid.

Again, READ THE ORIGINAL POST, the child was wearing leggings under the dress. NO PANTIES WERE EXPOSED.

Goodness.

It doesn't really matter about leggings/no leggongs. It is too complex to enforce Larla is wearing leggings so she can sit on the floor, but Larlita is not wearing leggings so she can't. Both Larla and Larlita are wearing dresses and must sit in chair is easier to explain to children. Some of you will take offense at anything. how do manage to function at this level of outrage?

If you're that confused, the simpler explanation is no one sits on the floor, then. Letting boys be comfortable and enforcing "ladylike" behavior on girls, because .... it's too difficult to explain underwear to kids? Again, this is BS.

When was the last time you sat on a floor? The chair is by far more comfortable.

Now you're just being ridiculous. It's fine to add a layer of inappropriate behavioral expectation for the girls in the class "be ladylike!" but not for the boys, because having to follow this extra set of rules is more comfortable than getting to sit on the floor during story time. Okay. Just admit to yourself you're fine with institutionalized sexism limiting girls' educational experience from the earliest age and be done with it. Don't twist yourself into knots to try to pretend it's actually a boon.

$10 says you're a #boymom who will be complaining that schools are biased against boys who can't help that they have "too much energy" in about 3 years, while you're here championing rules that force girls to contain themselves and allow boys to do whatever they want in early elementary.

Nope. I just think you are being ridiculous and looking for a reason to be outraged. If you really think that the cause of exposed crotches is worth championing, have at it ...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What I think is inappropriate is teachers (of any gender) making rules about how seven-year-old girls wearing dresses should sit, lest people think thoughts about what's under their dresses.

You are right, it is far more appropriate for your daughter to show her panties to everyone in the room. God forbid she be corrected! I'm sure no one will notice and she has every right to flash the other kids and teacher! My God, people here are so stupid.

Again, READ THE ORIGINAL POST, the child was wearing leggings under the dress. NO PANTIES WERE EXPOSED.

Goodness.

It doesn't really matter about leggings/no leggongs. It is too complex to enforce Larla is wearing leggings so she can sit on the floor, but Larlita is not wearing leggings so she can't. Both Larla and Larlita are wearing dresses and must sit in chair is easier to explain to children. Some of you will take offense at anything. how do manage to function at this level of outrage?

If you're that confused, the simpler explanation is no one sits on the floor, then. Letting boys be comfortable and enforcing "ladylike" behavior on girls, because .... it's too difficult to explain underwear to kids? Again, this is BS.

When was the last time you sat on a floor? The chair is by far more comfortable.

Now you're just being ridiculous. It's fine to add a layer of inappropriate behavioral expectation for the girls in the class "be ladylike!" but not for the boys, because having to follow this extra set of rules is more comfortable than getting to sit on the floor during story time. Okay. Just admit to yourself you're fine with institutionalized sexism limiting girls' educational experience from the earliest age and be done with it. Don't twist yourself into knots to try to pretend it's actually a boon.

$10 says you're a #boymom who will be complaining that schools are biased against boys who can't help that they have "too much energy" in about 3 years, while you're here championing rules that force girls to contain themselves and allow boys to do whatever they want in early elementary.

Well first -- I'd want to verify that this is what he actually said to the kids (they are only in second grade). If that is what he said -- yes I do find that odd.