Eight-year-old told to put on her top at public pool

43 posts / 0 new
Last post
quizzical
Eight-year-old told to put on her top at public pool

.

quizzical

http://www.therecord.com/news-story/5691006-guelph-mom-shocked-eight-yea...

 

this is absolute bull shit and they just sexualized a 8 year old girl for patriarchy!!!

Unionist

From the article:

Quote:

Scott said the city also wants to ensure that lifeguards are not put in an uncomfortable position if they need to touch someone to save them.

They should issue blindfolds and thick gloves to all the lifeguards. That way, they can save little girls' lives without being unduly aroused or offending against their religious beliefs, etc.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Grow the fuck up.

quizzical

who are you talking to?

 

quizzical

and why would you make a inflammatory comment like you did in the feminist forum?

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

I'm talking about people who look at a human body without clothes and freak out.

They should grow the fuck up.

Inflammatory comment? I beg to differ.

Unionist

Look, you people should sit back, relax, and stop misinterpreting each other's comments. Better yet - write clearly. Why the hell do people take offence when they're allies and all saying the same thing? That's how wars start.

 

Sineed

What the hell?? Gwen Jacobs made it legal for adult women to go topless.

 

Paladin1

For parents, at what age would you deem it inappropriate for a female child to be topless at a public pool?

 

I haven't given it much thought before now but I don't think I would let my 9 year old.  I'm not sure about my 5 year old. That still kinda feels off to me.

Unionist

Poor child.

Paladin1

Unionist wrote:

Poor child.

Cry

 

How old are your daughters Unionist?

Unionist

Old enough to pack heat.

 

Pondering

Paladin1 wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Poor child.

Cry

 

How old are your daughters Unionist?

I think around 4 or 5 was the last time my daughter took her top off at a park to get wet. It's a parents choice, staff shouldn't have interfered.

Having said that, it's kind of silly to claim that girls in our society are not sexualized before puberty.

I don't think it is good for a child to be so sheltered that they are unaware that girls who don't wear a top in public are going to be looked at and judged. If they still want to do it, fine, but they should be armed with the information so they can make an informed decision. If she whips off her top at recess she will be humiliated. She is old enough to experience it so she is old enough to know about it.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Yes, and the best way to discover the fucked up double standards of society is to be shamed by a stranger in a public pool.

Is it possible to have a good discussion about this? I am doubting it.

Pondering

Catchfire wrote:

Yes, and the best way to discover the fucked up double standards of society is to be shamed by a stranger in a public pool.

Is it possible to have a good discussion about this? I am doubting it.

That's my point. The pool rules should be changed. As noted it is not illegal for women to not wear tops in Ontario. We can stop lifeguards from applying double-standards but we can't protect children from the comments of playmates or from being ostracized. My brother-in-law joked about teaching my unborn baby the wrong words for things, like calling a table a chair and vice versa.

Adults, or even teens, know when they are bucking conventions. This little girl didn't know that. She wasn't emotionally prepared. What if she had friends at that pool?

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:

I don't think it is good for a child to be so sheltered that they are unaware that girls who don't wear a top in public are going to be looked at and judged. If they still want to do it, fine, but they should be armed with the information so they can make an informed decision. If she whips off her top at recess she will be humiliated. She is old enough to experience it so she is old enough to know about it.

I think the stressor in the present is modern day technology and the internet.  For example, I used to babysit my friend's girls, and one time I took them to the public wading pool in the park.  Madison was 6 or so at the time, and of course once in the pool she decided that her one piece bathing suit just had to go.  No one said anything, and I didn't notice for a minute or so.  However, when I did, I thought, "shit!"  And I ran out, fetched her, thinking, "great, where the hell is the bathing suit?"  Eventually I found it and got it back on her. 

My main concern wasn't anyone in the immediate vicinity, but rather the prospect that there might be a weirdo somewhere with a camera who has internet access.  In my day (I'm in my 50s) I recall kids (myself included) being naked sometimes and it wasn't a big deal.  Now, however, things are more monitored.

Did I give her shit?  No.  I said, hey, princess anne keeps the suit on so she can kiss frogs and eat ice cream, so keep the suit on!  Everything was fine after. 

quizzical

alan smithee wrote:
I'm talking about people who look at a human body without clothes and freak out.

They should grow the fuck up.

Inflammatory comment? I beg to differ.

ok, thank you, sorry i jumped to conclusions. your comment wasn't very clear. critical thinking appears in short supply in guelph.

Unionist

Good news - Guelph is listening:

[url=http://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/toplessness-at-wading-pool-ok-for-now-as-gue... at wading pool OK for now as Guelph reviews rules[/url]

 

Paladin1

Unionist wrote:

Old enough to pack heat.

 

So like a hunting licence? 14 or so?  Would you object to your 14 year old daughter going topless at a public pool?

I know it's natural for you to be sarcastic, make passive agressive jabs and bring topics you don't like off course. I get that.  But as a newish parent I'm genuinely curious and interested about parenting and how to set my daughters up for success. Is there really a need to bring anti-gun sentiments and arguments from other threads into this one?

Unionist

Paladin1 wrote:

Would you object to your 14 year old daughter going topless at a public pool?

No - unless (a) there were a clear and justifiable policy at the pool requiring all users to cover their tops, or (b) the UV index was high that day and no sunscreen was available (referring to outdoor pools).

That's because I support gender equality and oppose the imposition of "modesty" on women (some call it "sexualization", but I see it simply as subordination, subjugation). The fact that you used the word "daughter" rather than "child" may help people understand where the problem lies.

 

 

quizzical

Quote:
City residents, provincial recreation officials, the Red Cross and the Life Saving Society will be consulted as part of the review, the release said.

what does the Red Cross and the Life Saving Society got to do with this? not like the other 2 entities noted have a right to have a say either.

so they are sexualizing girls from 4 years up. how nice.

unonist, it's all of it. sexualization, subordination and subjugation. because somehow a 4 year old girl's nipples are less decent than a 4 year old boy's.

 

 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Talking about nipples,does anyone else find it odd that breasts can be exposed (whether cleavage,a bikini top or pasties) but the moment a nipple is exposed,people lose their shit?

This hysteria over nipples in our society is embarrassing.And then people complain when women from ultra-conservative cultures are forced to cover up.

It's a nipple,we all have them. And at 8 years old,a girl's breasts are not developed and their nipples are no different from 8 year old boys.

Again,these people really need to grow up. Europeans would laugh their asses off about this.

quizzical

i've always found it odd this fixation on women's nipples being different then men's. i mean wtf?

back to the swim instruction orgs having a say...like do they believe it's dangerous or something to have little girls with no shirts on? or they can't save them? or just wtf is going on with this bs asking the red cross?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Europeans would laugh their asses off about this.

They'd probably have a bit of a smirk at our arbitrary distinction between "toplessness" and "bottomlessness" too.  Evidently, above the waist is all natural and perfectly normal, but below the waist is still Adam and Eve's shame.

voice of the damned

quizzical wrote:

i've always found it odd this fixation on women's nipples being different then men's. i mean wtf?

Well, speaking as a male, if a total stranger came up to me on the street and cupped his or her hands around my breast area, I'd probably be like "Jesus Christ, get away from me you jerk!", but otherwise, probably just forget about it, maybe file it away under "odd stories to tell my friends".

Now, granted, I'm not a woman, but if I was betting money on how many women would evince the same degree of lackidaisicality that I would to having their breasts grabbed by a total stranger, I'd bet on the number being in the low single digits. Very low, in fact.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

I think that has maybe more to do with the sexualization of women's whole bodies.  If someone were to stroke my thigh, I'd probably react the same way you say, or if they grabbed my butt, or stuck my toe in their mouth.  But those things surely have a very different context for women.

I'm not complaining on behalf of men here, but it's also true that our chests have always been fairly commonplace public things.  If anything, we (evidently) need signs at stores and restaurants to discourage shirtlessness.   And even as a kid I remember playing some sports in gym class as "shirts and skins" -- to the best of my knowledge, that was only ever the boys' class.

To be clear, though, while I acknowledge that we have different social attitudes to men's and women's bodies that apparently start with childhood, I'm not suggesting that this 8 year old needed to cover up.  The discrimination in this case is blatant to the point of being written in black and white on a document.

Unionist

At least Guelph isn't challenging anyone's right to bare arms.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Historical sidebar:  Gwen Jacobs was from Guelph. (!!)

Paladin1

Unionist wrote:

 

That's because I support gender equality and oppose the imposition of "modesty" on women (some call it "sexualization", but I see it simply as subordination, subjugation). The fact that you used the word "daughter" rather than "child" may help people understand where the problem lies.

 

 

 

I think you hit the nail on the head and you're absolutely right. People like me are the problem. I wouldn't let my daughter go topless because of a percieved modesty issue. It's not acceptable in the public. I recognize how I'm doing more harm than good and will work on it.

lagatta

I saw a wee lad buck naked at a park nearby with a wading pool and water jets. I confess that I did have a fleeting moment of "I hope there aren't any pervs around", but all the adults seems perfectly normal and blasé about it. There was also a little girl (perhaps his sister) with no top, and nobody saying anything about either child.

Unionist

lagatta wrote:

There was also a little girl (perhaps his sister) with no top, and nobody saying anything about either child.

You don't have to answer this, but... how did you know it was a girl?

Caissa

Historical side-note: I met Gwen Jacobs when she was a delegate to an Ontario Federation Students Annual General Meeting.

lagatta

I think I heard her parents saying her (typically feminine) name. Not that it really matters anyway; I most definitely don't have any pervy interest in small children.

However I was thrilled that a friend has a new kitten, and I could pet him. Hope that isn't pervy.

Unionist

I would definitely not allow kittens in a swimming pool.

One of our cats has a love-hate relationship with water. But that's a story for another thread.

Misfit Misfit's picture

You don't have to answer this, but...how do you know the kitten is a him?

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

Misfit wrote:
You don't have to answer this, but...how do you know the kitten is a him?

Because after permitting her to pet him, he demanded to be waited on - oh no, wait, that is a cat thing, not just a male thing...

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
One of our cats has a love-hate relationship with water. But that's a story for another thread.

Love to drink it.

Hate to be touched by it.

Our previous cat, Ernest, would totally lose his shit if a little water got on him, like the Wicked Witch of the West.

Our current cat, Olivia, goes outside when it's a light rain and comes in all damp and doesn't give a crap.  We think (for other reasons too) that she's part Asian Fishing cat.

Any cat with some Turkish Van in its DNA will probably behave uncharacteristically around H2O as well.

Pondering

I had a dripping faucet in my bathroom and my cat would curl up under it with her head directly under the drip.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Wait though!  Her mouth, or just her head??

Maybe she kind of wanted to be baptized.

Misfit Misfit's picture

I don't think cats would make good fundamentalist Christians though. Fundamentalists tend to dunk during their baptisms. Dogs would seem more appreciative, but I think this is why cats have more liberal views on life.

Pondering

Midnight, she was pitch black, and the drip was right between her eyes just above by about a quarter inch.

One night when I had taken a cab home the driver asked me if she was real because she was posed upright like the statues and her eyes glowed green, I guess from the reflection of the lights. She was a bizarre cat. She liked sitting on top of open doors. Occasionally she would jump down a foot in front of people understandably freaking them out often causing mishaps as people tripped over their feet to avoid her.

A friend used to come over when she was a kitten and tease her by running his hand up the the edge of a doorframe and he never let her "win". He stopped doing it as she got bigger because she would easily have caught his hand. Little did he know she was just biding her time. When she was about a year old, maybe younger, she leaped on his back all claws out and used it as a launch pad to jump over his head.( He had quite naturally bent forward when she hit.) I don't think I have ever laughed so hard or for so long before or since.

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

Misfit wrote:
I don't think cats would make good fundamentalist Christians though. Fundamentalists tend to dunk during their baptisms. Dogs would seem more appreciative, but I think this is why cats have more liberal views on life.

Indeed, I have always thought of cats as being Roman Catholic or High Anglican - in my experience, they demand a lot of ceremony when one is in the position of having to serve them.