Good luck with your newsletter. I have to say that this is not a well-informed article.
Little kids (all of them, boys, girls, nonbinary) are taught (or should be taught) that their private parts are for them and for parents and doctors. It's a way to start learning about bodily autonomy and appropriate boundaries. Shame or shaming does not come into this conversation. Just the opposite – not teaching about bodies conveys that bodies are shameful. Play shorts or under shorts (modesty shorts? never heard that term) keep what is private private. There's also a comfort factor. My daughter does not particularly like a vagina full of sand – a much more likely result of not wearing shorts than Candida is of wearing shorts.
Your points are much more applicable when applied to the policing of adolescent and teenage girls' bodies and clothes. Most of what you write is applicable to the ridiculous notion that teenage boys cannot control themselves when they see teenage girls' shoulders or legs. That's where you should be aiming your fully justified outrage.
Andrea thank you for your comments. I’m not talking about nursery age children who play in sandpits and the like. I’m talking about children at school, and the concept that girls have to cover up in order to remain ‘safe’ from sexual perpetrators.
I mention modesty clothing for post-school women in my comment about fashion spreads in women’s magazines harking back to mediaeval times when women were blamed for being victims. As they still are in some strictly Islamic countries.
In any case, Andrea, this post is directed more at primary school heads who have made it obligatory for little girls to wear modesty shorts or pants on top of knickers and under skirts or dresses. Of course if little girls are very active and feel more comfortable wearing shorts, I think that the school uniform should allow for this; for shorts to be worn instead of skirts on top of knickers.
Don’t use Google AMP links. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerated_Mobile_Pages
Good luck with your newsletter. I have to say that this is not a well-informed article.
Little kids (all of them, boys, girls, nonbinary) are taught (or should be taught) that their private parts are for them and for parents and doctors. It's a way to start learning about bodily autonomy and appropriate boundaries. Shame or shaming does not come into this conversation. Just the opposite – not teaching about bodies conveys that bodies are shameful. Play shorts or under shorts (modesty shorts? never heard that term) keep what is private private. There's also a comfort factor. My daughter does not particularly like a vagina full of sand – a much more likely result of not wearing shorts than Candida is of wearing shorts.
Your points are much more applicable when applied to the policing of adolescent and teenage girls' bodies and clothes. Most of what you write is applicable to the ridiculous notion that teenage boys cannot control themselves when they see teenage girls' shoulders or legs. That's where you should be aiming your fully justified outrage.
Andrea thank you for your comments. I’m not talking about nursery age children who play in sandpits and the like. I’m talking about children at school, and the concept that girls have to cover up in order to remain ‘safe’ from sexual perpetrators.
I mention modesty clothing for post-school women in my comment about fashion spreads in women’s magazines harking back to mediaeval times when women were blamed for being victims. As they still are in some strictly Islamic countries.
In any case, Andrea, this post is directed more at primary school heads who have made it obligatory for little girls to wear modesty shorts or pants on top of knickers and under skirts or dresses. Of course if little girls are very active and feel more comfortable wearing shorts, I think that the school uniform should allow for this; for shorts to be worn instead of skirts on top of knickers.