‘Modesty’ Pants

Make Me Rant

Where do you stand on those primary schools which have made it obligatory for girl pupils to wear shorts under their skirts, as described in articles such as this:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/local-news/yorkshire-schools-modesty-shorts-policy-20752858.amp

?
I know where I stand, and it involves irritation and anger.

The purpose of the ‘modesty pants’ is to protect little girls from upskirting by boy pupils and unwanted attention from perverts. Really? In the 21st-century, are we proposing that the best way to safeguard girl children from sexual assault and rape is to force them to wear an uncomfortable layer between their knickers and skirts? The move seems inevitable considering the asinine focus on ‘modesty fashion’ in the last few years; another step back to mediaeval times when victims were responsible for ‘tempting’ assailants into sexual crime. It’s a retrograde step in the direction of Judge Pickles, who egregiously blamed a rape victim of ‘contributory negligence’ for her own rape because she was wearing a mini skirt. But surely sexualising little girls is a step too far.

And of course it sexualises them. It forces innocent little children to become aware of their unformed genitalia and, just as harmfully, associate them with shame and anxiety. 

We know that children have an unformed view of the world. We also know that children are capable of blaming themselves in ways that are hard to imagine when you are an adult. We have all heard of kids castigating themselves for their parents’ divorce. And children often keep their deepest, darkest worries secret.

So do we really wish to instil in the minds of our girl children that it is somehow dirty to have a body, and that they need to cover it up in case they ‘tempt’ some hapless male into committing a violent crime against them? Do we want this added burden of guilt and responsibility on the shoulders of children who should be enjoying themselves and cavorting happily with their friends? 

Where the ‘protection’ is intended to be from little boys in the playground, why not reprimand the boys and have lessons on consent, boundaries, and the right of anyone to say no to unwanted physical contact? Bringing a subject into the open is by far the most healthy way of dealing with it. Girls could be encouraged to talk about how they feel when a boy lifts their skirt; boys gently taught that this is wrong and that consent and respect for boundaries are paramount. The lessons could also have another useful purpose; they could be used to stress to children that it is their right to say no to physical touch with which they’re uncomfortable from any child or adult. Children should be given the opportunity to speak in confidence to teachers after class if they wish to share concerns about an adult touching them inappropriately.

These lessons would be useful for later life as well as for unwanted attention in the playground. We know from research that many girls and women experience sexual harassment from teenage years on, throughout their lives. Of course it’s #notallmen , but as with all criminal behaviour, the actions of a minority have a severe impact on the majority, whether it’s the victims of sexual harassment or assault or those men viewed with suspicion in caring roles with the vulnerable as a result.

Even in physical terms, it is not healthy for little girls to wear an extra layer between their knickers and skirts. Close-fitting shorts are often partially made of synthetic fibres. The lack of airflow and heat predisposes to Candida, causing thrush. Itching, scratching, wriggling, feeling ashamed, none of these are conducive to joy, forming friendships, or learning.

Emotionally, too, children should feel carefree; feel the wind in their hair, turn euphoric cartwheels in the playground, swim with their friends. The hijab already robs many girls and women from this basic pleasure. Fitting in is so important in childhood. Shame and guilt are the enemies of openness and joy. We don’t need more fear tactics and emphasis on ‘modesty.’

Of course all children should be allowed to wear the underwear that they want as long as their parents agree. Cotton boxer shorts for girls are an alternative that would allow for somersaults with confidence. Why not simply make it an option for parents and children to choose these? Or indeed for little girls to be allowed to wear trousers or shorts and little boys to be allowed to wear skirts if it makes them happy and if their parents agree?

But making it mandatory for all girls to wear shorts under their skirts in summer places the emphasis for self-protection on the potential victim, and may set the child up for a lifetime of self-consciousness and body-shame.

In any case, whatever happened to common sense? Children playing in a playground should always have an adult overseeing them. It would surely be better practice to dissuade adult loiterers watching through the playground fence by briskly asking them to please move on, followed, if they persist, by a short, sharp threat to call the police.

But most of all, we need the responsibility for crimes to fall squarely on the shoulders of criminals, not on their potential victims. It’s monstrous to inconvenience and worry little girls, and encase them in hot, uncomfortable, unhealthy clothing. It’s also a false premise. If it was lack of sufficient layers of clothing that led to sexual assault, then rape victims would be streakers.

What next, suits of armour for girls and women to protect themselves? 

To anyone advocating ‘modesty’ pants, or indeed, any form of ‘modesty’ clothing to a girl or woman to protect them from unwanted sexual attention, I would say the shame should belong to adult lurkers who look, not children who are glimpsed . Perhaps it’s time for the former to buy themselves a modesty blindfold.

Leyla Sanai 2021.