This women has gone to Target and picked out examples of boys vs girls clothing with huge discrepancies in sizing between boys and girls sizes that are ostensibly in the same general age/size category. The differences she notes are rather remarkable. The main negative effect she cites is that recommended sizes for girls are often far too short and will lead to too much leg etc. being shown. She is on a mission with this issue.
Comments have noted she could simply pick a bigger size for her kid and get off her hobby horse on this, but she believes there is larger point to make.
On the face of it some of the size discrepancies she notes are pretty astounding and I don’t think that sexual size dimorphism is all that pronounced at those ages. On the other hand as a shopper who has my own challenges getting right sized shoes and pants I kind of sympathize with the people telling her to get over it and just pick a size that works.
Yes, finding clothes for girls that aren’t sexualized is hard. Booty shorts, Daisy dukes, short tops etc are most of the choices we have at those kinds of stores. Bigger sizes don’t help, as they’re just baggy and don’t fit. My daughter vastly preferred longer shorts and tops as a kid, and it was often hard to find her fun clothes. Boys clothes are definitely sturdier, longer, and better suited for active play.
It’s definitely an issue and so systemic that most people don’t even realize it’s happening.
I don’t really understand her rant, but I think it boils down to she’d like longer shorts. That’s fine, I don’t care if she asks Target to sell them.
I don’t really consider short shorts on toddlers “sexual” though-- to me, they just shorts for little kids. I don’t consider a 2-year old’s thigh to be provocative. I don’t really see modesty as a concept that applies to toddlers.
That said, clothing sizes are whack. My little girl (whose admittedly on the tall side) just turned one and she is already wearing 24-month clothing. I’ve always heard it was a conspiracy to make you accidently buy the wrong size clothing and then need to buy more, but I think parents catch on pretty quickly.
Couldn’t she just buy the boys clothes? At least when it comes to the neutral colored shirts and shorts it should accomplish what she’s looking for.
Also, in cases like these, you have to ask if the manufacturers are the problem or if it’s the parents. I’d be willing to bet that if you put out a rack of straight cut pants and tops and a rack of hip hugger pants and fitted tops for kids, the fitted ones are going to go first (for girls). The kids don’t care, it’s the parents. IMO you can’t blame the stores and the manufacturers for selling what the parents are buying. If you want to incite change, convince the parents to buy different clothes and the stores will follow suit. Those endless surveys they want you to take and all that tracking they do of your habits, it’s because they want to make sure they have exactly what you want in the store when you walk in the door. They’re catering to you, not molding your behavior to what they’re planning to have.
I’ve a 16 year old daughter, so I’ve been through this. Wait until your daughter is three or four and all the shorts are at the top of her thighs and say “juicy” across the bottom.
Of course a toddler or preschooler’s thighs aren’t provocative. That’s not the point. The clothes they offer for young girls are like mini-me versions of the sexualized clothes that are appropriate for older teens, if they want it. It’s teaching our very little girls to emphasize body parts that are sexual on adult women. Clothes for a 1-2 year old tend to be cutesy. As they migrate into preschool sizes is when this shift starts to happen, especially at the lower end big box stores.
This is something my friends and I struggled with dressing our daughters.
Wearing bigger sizes just means the clothes are too large and look like hell.
I don’t know why we make little girls look like tiny hookers. But for that reason I’m glad that leggings are back in style for wearing under those stupid very short skirts.
And my daughter didn’t want boys clothes. She liked flowers and kittens and My Little Pony. She wore her share of her brothers tee shirts and shorts, too, but Shem definitely wanted clothes that sparkle too.
It’s not that simple. If shorts and skirts are made to be very short, then unless your kid is either sturdily built or overweight, if you pick a bigger size it’ll be way too wide and keep slipping down. Sure, you can belt in the skirt or shorts or whatever, but then it’ll be bunchy and uncomfortable. (I have a tall, slim five-year-old. I deal with this even with stuff that isn’t intended to be very short.)
I don’t think two-year-olds are the problem. Like IvoryTowerDenizen said, the shift kicks in a couple of years later.
Yes, this. It’s teaching them that there’s no difference between what’s attractive in adult women and what’s attractive in four-year-olds, and that ‘attractive’ is - for all ages - synonymous with ‘showing body parts that have sexual connotations’.
There’s something more complicated at work there, too, which I’m having a hard time putting into words. For my five-year-old, ‘pretty’ means ‘loads of bright colours and ruffles and sparkle and twirl’ - in other words, it’s about what *she *likes to see. Teaching a little girl that ‘pretty’ is synonymous with ‘revealing’ implies that it’s not about what *she *wants to see, it’s about what other people want to see of her. She’s being turned into the object rather than the subject. That bothers me.
Well then what’s the root of this? On a practical basis I would imagine that 90%+ of the demographic in charge of female children’s clothing design, purchases on the store level, and final retail purchase choices are women and often mothers. Why isn’t modesty being considered seriously at the design and wholesale purchase level if it’s antagonizing mothers at the purchase point?
It’s also nit just the amount of fabric/coverage, its the cut and style. There are types of little girl sundresses that are really skimpy, because they are designed to be cool, but they are cute and carefree. Then there are others that are miniaturized versions of adult cuts. . .those sit less well with me.
Personally, I think I and my friends are in the minority. Too many folks I know think it’s just adorable and love how “sassy” their little girls look. I think they’re wrong, but it’s their choice. Also, choices are limited. I had the money to shop at higher end stores, or buy from Lands End, and get hand me towns from friends. Not everyone can do that, so they make the best of a tough situation.
One problem I have with those kinds of clothes is that it can make girls who don’t like that shit to go through mild gender hatred. I have nothing against tomboys, having been one. But a girl doesn’t have to be a tomboy to not want to have to dig her shorts out of her ass every five minutes. If girliness continues to be marketed in this way, you basically force girls who don’t conform to label themselves in a certain way. Which is just ridiculous.
As a woman approaching middle-age, I also have a problem finding shorts. I really wish I could find shorts that weren’t booty, but manage not to look like something Big Mama would wear at the summer picnic.
I noticed this a few years ago shopping for my great niece and step granddaughter. Both were average to slim and to find anything modest in the colors and themes that they liked in the budget range required a lot of effort. Very different than shopping for their brothers.
Part of this is no different than attempting to shop for practical clothing as a woman. The dress code out in the plant where I work requires that shorts or skirts be no shorter than two inches above the knee. Most of the women wear capris or men’s shorts because women’s shorts just don’t come cut like that off the rack. It would make home sewing almost look like a viable option again.
I doubt that it’s antagonizing to most mothers. Most mothers in the US are single parents, especially those who buy clothes at discount department stores. Personal modesty isn’t their main concern, getting attention is.
I dunno. I’m a single parent, but I always preferred modesty in my daughter’s clothes as well as my own. I sometimes dressed her in boys’ T-shirts as a toddler, and at least once people asked me if she was a boy. As she got older she preferred more girly clothes, and it’s been hard to find her skirts that don’t show too much leg. I sometimes lay out bike shorts or tights for her to wear under her skirt, and she’ll wear them willingly. Fortunately her school uniform is jeans and a polo shirt, which makes things easier for most of the week. She’s nearly 13 now, and as she gets taller and fills out, we’re reaching the minefield that is teen-oriented clothing. I’m dreading the day when she starts high school. :eek:
Nice broad brush you just painted there. Most single moms, and especially those who buy at discount stores, don’t care about modesty, only attention getting?