British School Bans Girls From Wearing Skirts Because It ‘Makes Male Teachers Uncomfortable’


Ms Pashley said: “We have a very simple school uniform, which we enforce strictly.

“On one occasion when a male member of staff challenged a female student on her skirt length, she retorted, ‘You shouldn’t be looking at my legs’.

“The male member of staff was understandably uncomfortable with this and reported it to me immediately. Male staff asked me to share this incident with the governing body when uniform was reviewed.”

But the parents of some of the jailbait schoolgirls aren’t too happy and have complained of double standards :

Another parent claimed that female staff at the school fail to set a good example. She said: “Some female staff wear high heels, short skirts and low-cut blouses.

Are they going to be wearing trousers?” The online protest petition says parents should have the right to buy school trousers or skirts without logos from whichever retailer they see fit.

Some parents even claim that preventing girls wearing skirts is a breach of their human rights.

17 thoughts on “British School Bans Girls From Wearing Skirts Because It ‘Makes Male Teachers Uncomfortable’”

  1. An ‘old school’ teacher [think Jimmy Edwards] might have retorted: “Your legs were obscured by your buttocks, young lady… longer skirt, shorter lunch breaks!”

  2. Jesus… The lunatic inability to admit that teenage girls are attractive, and the contorted lengths to which they will go to avoid this admission, are hilarious.

  3. Actually, it makes me uncomfortable to look at Fat-Troll’s wig-wearing groupies in skirts and dresses (albeit for a different reason). But I’ll bet nobody bans that!

  4. Old hags and their narrow minded crowneys that are fools to the first division making it a crime for men to find young women attractive.

    This insanity isn’t going to end any time soon.

  5. Eric,

    The US has been going down this road for some time, though they’d rather force the men not to look:

    You seem to find some real ‘doozies’ – this one’s un-f…ing-believable, yet 100% TRUE.
    There really IS such a law there.

    I read a few of the comments below the article and this one from a reader calling herself ‘Stephanie’ made me smile, albeit somewhat cynically:

    Stephanie May 10, 2011 at 3:27 am

    Who gets to decide what the difference between “staring at” and “enjoying the antics of”?
    I’ll admit that I’ve “stared” at kids at the beach in Maine- they always seem to be having so much fun- I like to see people having fun.
    Should I not go to the beach anymore?

    Maybe I’ll take my tourist dollars elsewhere…

    I smiled cynically because being a woman she has absolutely nothing to fear from this balmy law, as it clearly applies exclusively to MEN.
    If the commentator’s name happened to be ‘Stephen’, he would have been asking a very good question and making a very good point.
    If they take this one seriously, soon there won’t be any men seen anywhere in the US State of Maine – most will be too afraid to leave the safety and security of their (windowless) homes or workplaces while the remainder will be locked up in some large, purpose-built sex-offender’s penitentiary.
    This is yet another example along with numerous others such as this one theantifeminist recently posted above, offering more undeniable proof that it’s all part of the Orwellian style thought controlled society (and related policing of our thoughts) being advocated by feminists (and sadly: widely accepted by the majority of dumbed-down, paedohysterical sheeople) and typically: where children are used as the easiest and most convenient pawns in their evil campaigns, to criminalize men; simply for being born with a penis instead of a CUNT!

  6. @eric & Alan – and similar to other femihag ‘child protection’ legislation, even if this insane law applied only to looking at ‘children’, it would have the effect of men being too afraid to look at any young female, in case they turned out to be jailbait, wich is of course part of the motivation on the part of the feminists.

    This law would probably result in a lot of needless deaths and injuries of children in accidents. Already as it is men are too afraid to rush to the aid of children in trouble for fear of being branded ‘paedos’. If a man in the US state of Maine notices a small child wandering onto a road, he’ll literally look the other way and let the kid be run over in order to save himself from possible arrest.

    And what about the scope for false accusations? Under this proposed law any evil young cunt wouldn’t just have to claim that you touched her, she could just say that you had been looking at her, and it would be enough to have you locked up.

    I swear there’s already a generation being raised as complete aspies, unable to even hold eye contact with others by the time they are 18 due to adults being afraid to look at ‘children’.

  7. In some states, women can complain about ‘sexual harassment’ if they feel ‘uncomfortable’ with men looking at them. I’ve never heard of anyone being arrested for that (yet); unlike for ‘touching’. However, I have heard of women suing their employers over it and female students suing schools.

    A former policeman I once knew told me that the City Council where I live passed a resolution that staring at woman for longer than 30 seconds was considered grounds for a harassment complaint.

Comments are closed.