To think that if your feet are small enough to wear these shoes you are too young for high heels?(339 Posts)
I saw these shoes in a branch of Monsoon today. I see plenty of things for little girls which make me roll my eyes but these actually made me stop and stare and then a few minutes later go back into the shop to talk to someone.
The heel on these is a good inch high. My DD is 3 and her feet are size 9. The ones I saw were in a size 7 which I think DD last had when she was 2. She’s not particularly enormous for her age so I think these shoes are definitely for 2 – 3 year olds. I don’t know what size they go down to. AIBU to think that a 2 or 3 year old shouldn’t be walking around in high heels? This isn’t wearing your mum’s high heels this is ‘these are your new shoes’.
And yy I know ‘you don’t need to buy them if you don’t want to’ and I won’t buy them. But I care about the little girls who they are bought for. I don’t think any little girl should be put into shoes like this. Frankly I’d be worried DD would twist an ankle in heels this high. She certainly wouldn’t be able to run or play. And I’m sad that these are on sale for little girls. Not in some weird online place but in a high street shop.
I’m going to complain to Monsoon. I would have liked to have given them the feedback instore today but the sales assistant shrugged and said ‘I’m just a sales assistant’ and the manager was ‘too busy’ to talk to –annoying people who think girls should be allowed to be children-- me.
I cant see anything.
My sister as plastic heels that she likes to wear. Cant see it been any different
They look like 'one off' bridesmaid shoes to me.
I think you need to chill really.
They are marketed as bridal, so they are clearly intended for a special occasion. Children probably wouldn't be able to play or run that much in the dress that would go with them anyway.
they are occasion shoes e.g. for a wedding/other special occasion so it wouldnt bother me really.
Yab a bit u. I don't know if you're daughter has large feet or mine has small feet but my 5 year old is a size 10. I would let her have these as very special party/wedding shoes, not 'wear to the shops' shoes. It also says not suitable for under 36 months so they're specifically not meant for a 2 year old
They're bridesmaids' shoes that are labelled as not suitable for under 36 months. Hardly everyday wear. I can't get a froth on, sorry.
No, because a child of 2 or 3 likes to sit quietly at special events as everyone knows. And not being able to play in the dress that goes with it makes it all fine...
My dd2 has some sparkly pink shoes with heels from h and m as dress up shoes, she can't walk in them so sits on the chair admiring her feet!
What a ridiculously long post over something even more ridiculous.
DD is at 50% percentile for just about everything so it's definitely not a problem with her extraordinarily large feet.
Can't believe people think it's OK for little little girls to wear a one inch heel. Fuck me. What the fuck happened to children being children?
They do say not suitable for children under 36 months. But I agree they are impractical for 3 year olds. Not sure I'd complain though. I can think of many things to get cross about and put my energy into but I don't think a pair of Monsoon shoes is one of those things.
Kids can play while wearing a dress so ai don't understand your last post
It says not suitable for children under 3
I know at the age of 5 dd was a size 6 shoe. Think she was a size 9 at around the age of 8. She was wearing shoes with a similar heel in her dance classes (character shoes)
Fine as a one off wedding type shoe.
She's now age 12.5 & a size 1.5.
They are not meant for everyday wear.
I'm sure my DDs would have been able to do the Macarena at a wedding Do in those shoes.
I think 'she can't walk in them' might kind of be my point...
It also specifically states as unsuitable for under 36 months. I think my dd would probably be ok in those walking down an aisle as a flower girl for an hour before we changed them for better running around in shoes.
From reading your OP I thought they were everyday shoes. They really are not being sold as that.
Woowoo Owl said 'They are marketed as bridal, so they are clearly intended for a special occasion. Children probably wouldn't be able to play or run that much in the dress that would go with them anyway.' That was the point of my post about the dress...
They can still be children in fancy shoes.
Says on the monsoon website 'these shoes are not intended for children under the age of 36 months' and I agree. Yanbu!
In fact, YABU and irrational. You actually went back into the shop to complain about an item of merchandise because you don't like or approve of it? Wow! If all the vegetarians in the country did that you'd wait a hell of a long time to get served with your pork chops. No wonder the manger was too busy to talk to you!
Have a proper look st the words which go with the pictures. "Special occasion" shoes, clearly bridesmaid type. I.E. not likely to be worn on a daily basis. Not the sort of thing you'd put a child in to go to the park so not likely to have any effect on being able to run and play and "not suitable for children under 36 months".
Would I put my daughter in them? No, I don't particularly like to see little girls in heels either. Would I go into a shop to complain that some people might want to buy their daughter a pair of satin white shoes to wear for a special occasion? Do I think it's worth making an issue of?
If they're not suitable for an under 3 that means they are suitable for a three yo. BUT THEY'RE NOT ARE THEY?
How does a shoe with a slight heel worn by a child bridesmaid stop children being children?
Shoes like that have probably played a small part in some people's very special childhood memories.
I don't think anyone saying it would be ok to send a three year old off to pre school every day in shoes like that, but if they're just going to be worn for a wedding ceremony and some pictures and maybe a couple of hours on top of that, I really can't see the issue.
Before I clicked on the link, I thought I was going to see red, sparkled stiletto heels. I think YABU. They look like bridesmaid shoes to me.
They can't be children (running, playing children) in shoes they can't walk in though can they?
As a rule I can't stand high heels on little girls but these really aren't very high.
They're aimed at older children than toddlers I think. All my children had much smaller feet than your dd at the same age. Ds2 is 5 1/2 and is a size 9.
Why does a 3 yo need a high heel to create happy memories?
i mean really. Why?
They're clearly marked as special occassion, not for every day. For a special day like a wedding i wouldnt have a problem.
My sister walks in her pretend heels fine. She can also jump of furniture and kick footballs with them
They were at least an inch high if not more. The photo isn't really doing the full hideusness of them justice tbh...
Why would a child need a high heel. A 3 yo?
Children don't need to run and play every waking minute of the day. Especially during wedding ceremonies.
They don't need the heel, but they don't need pretty dresses either.
DD1 has a pair from monsoon like these in purple. She uses them for dressing up and the odd birthday party.
And me eat, sure i was just preparing myself for adulthood!
They're bridesmaid shoes, not day to day ones.
DD had a very similar pair when she was 8 (same basic shoe; they've been making them continuously for years but update embellishments).
I'd be very surprised if these were bought for toddlers. There are plenty of petite primary age children.
But the title of this thread doesn't make sense. They go up to a size 4, so my feet are small enough for them. I'm 33 so not too young for heels.
<misses point if thread>
<admires dainty size 3 feet>
Why are you assuming a 3yr old couldn't walk in heels as square and wide as that?
If they were stilettos, you would have a point.
These are just run of the mill bridesmaid shoes
I have no girl DC but they look like really nice shoes for a little girl at a wedding or as a bridesmaid. I am not getting the angst. Sorry.
They are hardly high heels.
You are overreacting.
If I were the manager I would have been "busy" too, What were you hoping she would do? She/he will have no choice at all in what stock they sell.
You sound a bit hysterical op. They aren't every day shoes for running and playing in the park. They are one off bridesmaids shoes and look very standard to me.
Well, they go well the generally totally impractical bridesmaid's dress that the little girl would no doubt be wearing them with; you know, the too long, lacy, inappropriately light-coloured and no doubt too expensive dress
I think the disclaimer about not suitable for under 36 months is a bit of a red herring - isn't there something about the legality of selling stuff which IS deemed suitable for under 3s? So they are probably just avoiding that. I don't think they are actually suggesting this is specifically for 3 year olds
They are party shoes. If a little girl of three or four wore them to a wedding they would be off by the reception I imagine and in the dressing up box afterwards. I have no recollection of my dd's shoe size when she was 3. It was simply similar to a small brick - still is
And I am 23 with size 2 feet. I could wear them so does that mean I shouldn't?
Unrulysun they're not high heels though. It's an inch. 2.5cm. For one day with a floaty party dress, that is a lovely memory I have from my childhood.
Going by the posts after mine your daughters' feet are above average
I clicked on that link expecting a 3 inch stiletto!
Clearly YABU as everyone is telling you. Now get down if your high horse. There are better things to get your knickers in a twist about really.
My DD3 was given a pair of size 7 gold Monsoon heels by a family member when she was 3 and they were too small for her (she's quite little). And I wouldn't have let her wear them anyway, although if they'd fitted she would probably have wanted them for dressing up games. I really don't see why 'special occasion' shoes for small children need to have heels.
Do not buy them
I agree kids dont need heels. Would I put my 5 year old dd in heels- unlikley. Would I get myself as worked up as you seem to be because I saw some kids shoes with heels (that dont look very high at all, I was expecting stiletto's!)- definitely no! YABU
DD had a pair of very similar ones from Monsoon last year to be a bridesmaid at the age of 7. She was one of several child bridesmaids, who all had similar shoes. The reception was outdoors in a garden with a play area, they ran around, used the climbing frame etc quite happily in their low heels and calf length big dresses with underskirts. None of them were as young as 3, but as special occasion shoes they were fine. They were also the only ones I could find that fitted properly.
Fuck off Derek, with your daintier feet. You tiny bastard. I'm sure you're half an inch taller than me too. I'm not having it.
My mom can also fit in these shoes. Clearly i didn't take after her with the daintiness.
Burdened its ok because we will never be allowed to wear those shoes Tiny Footed Fucks
3 years and size 9????
That sounds very large, my 3 year old is average height and is size 5.
They say 'not aimed at under 36 months, what about a very petite 5yr old? they could be a size 7 and I don't think these would be inappropriate to go with a bridesmaid dress.
It's down to the parents to be sensible surely.
I think burdened and Derek should both fuck off, as I bet their sizes are still left in the sales, there is nothing decent in my size 6
DS has just turned five and takes a size 10 shoe. I'm not sure if they measure boys and girls sizes the same but I think a five year old in those shoes would be okay for an hour or so while she was being a bridesmaid.
They tend to take off their shoes for the running about and dancing bits of special occasions anyway don't they? And do that Peter Kaye knee-slide thing on the dance floor?
44 and size 3 - do I win the internet?
OP yabu and a bit scary
My orthotic insoles make flat shoes almost that height for me. They're not high heels, they're raised heels.
My DD is 6 and has a pair like that from there in pink....she has them for parties and dressing up fun. Yabu. My 10 year old has been dancing in high heels for two years in her ballroom, lessons! She's fine.
Lulu Who needs the sale when I can buy kids shoes?
<admires size 2.5 converse>
It's okay, we'll just wear our VAT free trainers. We don't need no heels.
No wait... We do if we want to reach 5ft.
Is this thread a wind up?
I'm actually loling at the thought of the op going into the shop to complain to the manager.
They don't look like 'high' heels to me. Perfectly fine imho.
I think you're really getting an gusty about nothing. I too was expecting to see stiletto heels, they're not exactly shocking. My friend has got size 2 feet so she could wear them.
Everything okay, OP? <head tilt>
Warning! Not suitable for children under 36 months.
They are not made for toddlers, they are made for older kids. It warns parents not to put their toddler in these shoes. What's your complaint?
They're hardly hooker shoes.
It's an inch block heel.
4 year old DS was found last week walking around in my 4 inch heels - I think he actually walked better than me in them!
They are intended for every day wear, they are the type most would buy for a wedding then would be dressing up shoes for the few months until they were outgrown.
I have more of an issue with toe post shoes for little feet because I can't see how they can be comfy for a little one!
Noooooooo! I hadn't even though of that you evil pair!
i spent all winter in some boots from a kids shop.
Lovely, warm, and cheap!!!
Dd falls over a lot, but never in play heels or in icy weather.
May just get her a pair to see if it makes a difference
What is better than kids shoes?
Oh yes, when they go on sale!
<admires size 2.5 Lacoste hi tops £15>
I have absolutely no problem with those shoes, they are definitely little girls shoes, but op for your own sake I suggest you don't ever go into a brantano...
I want small feet.
My feet got all wide while I was pregnant with DS2 and never went back to normal.
YABU - it clearly states that these are 'occasion' shoes therefore intended as a one off wear for a special event. As for complaining to the store manager - do you really think he/she has any control over what the shop stocks?
I'm 27, 5' tall & have size 2-2.5 feet. Am I allowed to wear the shoes?
FWIW, my niece was 4 when she was a bridesmaid for me. Her shoes had a similar small heel on & certainly didn't impede her ability to charge around being the centre of attention & demanding everyone pose while she took photos of
the ceiling, their feet, part of their arm them! She also kept the shoes on while dancing at the barn dance in the evening when she was over tired & hyper. Sturdy heels aren't actually that difficult to walk in if the shoes fit well.
I’m going to complain to Monsoon. I would have liked to have given them the feedback instore today but the sales assistant shrugged and said ‘I’m just a sales assistant’ and the manager was ‘too busy’ to talk to –annoying people who think girls should be allowed to be children-- me.
The people who work in the shop will have exactly no say over the stock they sell. They will never get a chance to put your complaint forward to anyone who can do anything. What did you hope the manager would do?
Write to head office if you must.
And DD has enormous feet. Who knew?
I just can't see why a little girl needs a heel. Of any sort. And I don't think anyone's explained that. Wearing heels isn't good for your body at all. So when they're older and want one then fine. But these are for little girls who aren't choosing what they're wearing at all. And I find it sad that they're being given things they can't run around in to wear and look pretty. Because I don't think children should have to worry about that kind of shit. I think that was the point of the whole 'Let girls be girls' thing.
Good gravy Rhonda!
And they don't even come with a warning.
<grabs pitch fork>
They're shoe size, not aimed at a specific age. They aren't being marketed as age three shoes, just sold in a variety, some of which may fit three year olds.
My DD who is six is a size seven in shoes and she'd love to wear these if she was a bridesmaid or something - and I would let her.
It's a bit like the fact that adult shoe shops start at size three (pretty sure I was this size by about 10/11), that doesn't mean that all shoes are appropriate for people with size three feet. It's an odd conclusion to draw.
No one needs a heel. My sister has them as when we go out me and my mum wear heels and she wants to. What's the harm?
Who said they cant run around in them?
Unless you are in fact a child in these and struggling to walk I don't think you can say what they and cant do..
YABU, they're not for toddlers and clearly for a special occasion. And not actually that high
as an aside does any remember those jelly sandals that were popular in the 90s? I'm sure they had huuuuuge heels iirc. I was only ever allowed the flat ones <sniff>
Well, for a start, it's a heel not a high heel and for seconds, children dont need a heel for happy memories just like they dont need chocolate for happy memories or a trip to disneyland. Some get it though.
My little girl will be three at Christmas and next year willbe a flower girl. If she was given these shoes to wear, for one day, provided she could acrually walk in them? I wouldnt think twice.They all take theor shoes off for the nught time parry anyways.
Enor Those shoes are back! Get some now
Oh unless of course she shouldnt be at the nught time because a three year old should be in bed at that time and you dont need an eleven pm bedtime once in your cjildhood to make happy memories.
Clarkes sell shoes with 4 inch heels starting from size 3 (reached by many 12 year olds). In general deparments, rigth next to the displays for smaller children.
Are you going to fume about that too?
Or realise that some adults and children have small feet?
I'm with you OP. I don't get it either.
I think that was the point of the whole 'Let girls be girls' thing
but for a lot of girls (and boys) dressing up is part of their growing up, and often they want to be like Mummy and wear 'big' shoes and whatever. Its not a problem.
I would imagine a lot of the very flat ballerina type shoes are worse for the feet than these anyway
If you don't like them, don't buy them. Who are you to tell a retailer not to stock something because you personally don't like it? If I don't eat sugar (which is probably more harmful to more kids than inch high heels), do I ask Tesco to boycott haribo? Seriously, this really annoys me.
My kids don't wear heels but I have a 9yo with size 11 feet, why should she not have bridesmaids shoes for a wedding because you don't like them?!
I agree totally with you if it's for every day, I hate seeing little girls in playgrounds trying to run and keep ballet flats on at the same time.
However as a one-off for a wedding, when they might like to dress up like the older girls I have no problem with it at all. Same with a little nail varnish and make-up as a one-off, they don't need those either and wouldn't do it normally. DD's went into her dressing up box and she has never worn them again.
Actually, weddings are about the only time I wear heels too.
Don't think I could carry them off derek. At least not without the blue checked dress, matching scrunchie and ankle socks I wore them with the first time.
Actually for children with high insteos a small block or wedge heels better for the feet than totally flat shoes especially the ballerina flats as they don't have enough arch support.
The harm is that they do restrict movement, that you are much more likely to twist an ankle in them, that high heels do all sorts of damanging things to your body, your pelvis, your posture, that they are designed to make grown women look sexy and therefore a bit weird to put on a child...
But mainly that you wouldn't be able to do all the things children should do. Like run and play. And no-one puts boys in shoes like this do they?
One of my colleagues could wear those shoes, she's 25.
Also Derek had no idea you're so young! I say that being all of 25 but you know what I mean!
They are not really heels as such are they?
I was expecting proper spiky ones like they sell in loads of shops. They make me hoik quite a bit.
These are fine IMO. My 6 year old DS has shoes more outrageous than that.
I had pink ones and see through ones. I thought they were the greatest things ever
I don't put DS in them.
He puts himself in them. He has a little stash.
It's a little early to be learning the lesson that looking nice means debilitating yourself though isn't it? Nail varnish etc I'm not keen on but at least it's decorative without taking anything away.
Thanks posthoc - think we may be swimming against the tide
Its barely a heel. What is your issue really? Were you not allowed them as a child or something?
As others have mentioned this size of heel restricts nothing. As mentioned my sister is perfectly capable to run around with ease in her play ones.
The sexy thing would count if the had a high heel or at least looked sext.
Oops you should have posted this in chat unruly
Alisvolatpropiis You are ancient
My issue Derek is that I think children should be children and that girls, in particular, should be allowed to be children without having to absorb the message that prettiness is more important than comfort.
That's my issue.
You are sooooooo NOT being unreasonable OP.
Until a child is 16 or so, the feet are like gristle rather than bone and very mouldable.
It is very irresponsible of this shop to be selling these. I was a bridesmaid at 6 and wore flat ballet shoes, with which I was over the moon.
The badly-made children's shoes on sale generally make me - like those with inflexible soles.
Ooooh. Raw nerve. Grrrrrr. Fight the good fight OP!
Thanks catsize. I knew someone would come along eventually with proper science.
absorb the message that prettiness is more important than comfort
If kids weren't comfortable I'm sure try would have no issue in letting everyone know that. Sister isn't forced into them, she likes wearing them.
Sometimes kids, including girls, like to wear certain things and play grown up. What's the problem? There is hardly any heel on those shoes.
Flat ballet shoes are so bad for your feet to walk in.
You never see a ballerina wearing ballet flats off the stage.
They aren't high. They are also a block heel which the vast majority of people would have no problem walking in. One of my kids went through a prolonged 'clippy cloppy' disney princess type high heel phase when she was about 18-30 months. She could run, play football and climb up the steps to the slide just as well as she could in trainers. It's not as hard as you might think. Also, playing isn't necessarily 'running around'. Plenty of kids are more quiet/introverted and simply do not need to have special running around shoes on, especially at an occasion.
And no-one puts boys in shoes like this do they? Most men don't wear shoes like this.
Yes you can't run and jump in them, but no one is expecting children to in this.
I can see a little girl who is to be a flower girl or a bridesmaid getting very excited to wear shoes like this. It will make you feel all grown up for a day. And I would expect that the parent of the little girl wearing these to a wedding would take a pair of sensible shoes along so she didn't spend the whole day in them if she wasn't comfy.
What did you expect the manager to do?
As said before, write to Monsoon if it worries you so much.
So should the bride wear a nice pair of footgloves then, for comfort?
Yes ballet flats are also shit. Very shit.
As WooWoo said earlier - need doesn't really come into it with something like a party shoe or anything of that ilk whether for adults or children - really the importance is 'what is the likely impact?' - it's just as important for children to play at being grown-up as to play at anything else.
Mind you, it is a bit subjective as I'd have no issue with the shoes you've linked to, but might have at the Brantano ones, simply because, like the padded bikinis in Primark, they imply 'serious, possibly sexualised, grown-up' rather than 'party/playing at grown-up' IYSWIM?
P.S. - if anyone has some tweezers to help with splinter removal due to excessive fence sitting it would be much appreciated!
And no-one puts boys in shoes like this do they?
No, of course they don't.
I'm assuming the bride at this hypothetical wedding will get to choose her own shoes? So she can wear whatever the fuck she wants can't she?
Not the case if you are 3 though.
Men do not wear shoes like this no. I think that is also part of my point...
A shoe for occasional wear with one inch square heel in a round toe she with a strap isn't going to damage feet and won't cause pelvic tilt or sexual display.
If the heel were narrower and maybe twice as high, and the shoe was narrow toed and with no strap then it might cause worrying compression in even a shortish time. But that's not this shoe.
(Is it just me, or is this thread becoming very like the dance shoes one?)
You have lost me unruly. they don't even come in Mens' sizes in any case.
What did you want the manager of the store to do?
I'm going to keep asking as you keep avoiding the question.
These shoes resemble the dance shoes I wore from age 3 (Ballroom and Latin dance lessons from age 3). They have the same size and style heel. Whilst not great for every day wear, the heel was hardly noticeable when wearing them, and they were very comfortable to walk and dance in for a few hours every week. They seem absolutely fine for the intended purpose of bridesmaid / party shoes.
Had they been marketed as school shoes or every day wear, I may have seen your point.
"Men do not wear shoes like this no. I think that is also part of my point..."
Try looking at pix of school shoes from 1950s/60s/70s. You might be surprised by the heel heights for both sexes.
Why is the heel there though? Why should a child that young have heels?
It's just weird.
Very like the dance shoe one.
I absolutely hate heels on little kids. Makes me cross that boys are generally dressed for comfort, but girls often have to put up with uncomfortable clothing for the sake of prettiness.
Mainly this thread has me concerned that my DD actually has flippers instead of feet. She has just turned 10 and is a size 5!
3 year olds are capable of choosing own shoes.
Well my sister and son managed it. Hence why she has play heels and my son has too many pairs of wellys
But you said, 'you don't want girls to get the message that prettiness is more important than comfort'
Therefore you must think that women should always wear comfortable shoes.
So you must think that The bride is wrong to wear pretty shoes.
I'm with you, OP.
I would not put either of my dds in those shoes even now, and they are considerably older than 3.
I hate the thought of little girls being trained (for want of a better word) into thinking it's right that they can't walk/run comfortably or safely. That looking pretty, and oyur outfit shoudl take precedence over what you might want to do all day - so many posters saying 'oh, but they'll all take their shoes off to enjoy the evening anyway' - err, not if they have comfortbale shoes they won't
and no, ballet flats are no better, but then, that's not the point is it? the choice is not between heels or ballet flats (or shouldn't be).
Try looking at pix of school shoes from 1950s/60s/70s. You might be surprised by the heel heights for both sexes.
My dad got married in 3 inch cuban heels.
I'm not avoiding your question - I thought it was rhetorical.
I wanted her to say 'Oh right, yes I'll feed that back'. Because I expect this kind of shit from some places but I think Monsoon is very middle of the road and I think these heels are too high for little little girls.
My DD is almost 5, I try and teach her that it ok to be you.
I don't wear heels often, only to parties.
If DD wants heels to go to a party I would get her some, but also pack a pair of sensible shoes
While I do see the point that perhaps women are putting themselves at a disadvantage by their choice of shoes, eg not able to run in them etc, I also see the counter argument that women have far more choice over what to wear to a wedding than men, who have to conform to a much more rigid dress code. So, not all bad.
The Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists advice. It specifically mentions heel height of no more than 4cm and that fashion shoes are fine once in a while.
Agree with pp that ballet flats equal severs disease if worn too often.
I'm with you OP. It's part of the constant drip, drip, drip message giving a grim message to our children about what society values and it's not gender equality, that's for sure.
I really don't give a fuck what the bride at this non-existent, hypothetical, made up wedding wears. Either on her feet or elsewhere. Sorry to disappoint.
You've never worked in retail have you?
Store managers have very little contact with head office. They will deal with a regional manager. If the manager passes this on it will just get shrugged off. If you write a letter then they will take notice.
I agree that those heels are high for a little girl, but not for just one day. I know some children who get sent to school in shoes like this!
Well send a strongly worded letter of complaint to the CEO of Monsoon if it really offends you?
3 year olds are capable of choosing own shoes
4 year old DS knows exactly what he wants when it comes to footwear. He was very put out by the suggestions made my the lady in clarks last week when they didn't have the one pair of doodles that he approved of in his size!
You think those heels are too high for little girls to wear to be a bridesmaid for one day on a special occasion, but as you can see from this thread, most of us disagree. They aren't that high. Bridesmaid dresses aren't all that practical either, but we accept (on the whole) that being a bridesmaid is one of those 'impractical clothing' occasions.
(mid-30s and a size 2 here)
Thanks Alarmonsnooze and Lilithmoon I knew there were more of us
I'd be even more concerned about the pointy toes than the little bit of heel. The heel probably isn't a lot higher than that in a pair of trainers for a slightly older child (not a 3 yo, which is supposed to be the minimum age), but the shape of the shoe is terrible for
any young feet.
No pipbin, I have never worked in retail Thank you for your advice.
Sirzy My son is the same. He knows what he wants as does my sister. I took them shopping for shoes together once. Never again
Mary, I just don't get why they need a heel, or pointy toes. And no-one has really addressed that...
I think they're a bit grim too, OP. My DD's first shoes at 15 months were a size 4 so a size 7 could easily be for a 3 year old.
I'm sure it's not the most evil crime in the world, but why would you put a preschooler in heels? I think young kids look nicer in pumps.
In fact I still get a bit catsbumface when I go into Clarks and see a slight heel on school shoes and DD is 8 now .
Christ almighty my 14 year old doesn't wear heels. No way would I allow a child to wear those.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Blimey, are brdiesmaids supposed to put up with impractical uncomfortable clothes too?
clearly I was a shit bride, as my bridesmaids chose their own dress style (oddly, they all chose something very similar to the tpye they wore everyday - cotton party dress/simple A line style) and their own shoes (although I think there was input from their mothers on this one, as they had lovely comfy sandals )
I also didn't wear uncomfy shoes, fwiw. I do recall it being very hard to find comfortable bride's shoes though (spent more time searching for those than choosing my dress!)
unruly as you well know they don't need them. You don't like them, and that's fair enough. But many people have pointed out that they won't do any harm for occasional wear, the child might like them and our lives are not (thankfully) bounded by our needs.
I agree with Alarm, and you OP
Heels only cause damage if worn over a long period of time (weeks or months) a special occasion won't hurt them any.
High heels don't make someone superficial. Attitude does. You can teach a child that while it is nice to look good on the outside, and you if you want to look pretty go own it, that inner beauty is more important. Inner beauty and outer beauty aren't mutually exclusive.
Placing more importance on those things than your attitude is what makes someone superficial.
Have you seen the heelson some of the boots available for boys? Timberland Doc Martens and the like. They are no higher than the heel on those shoes. In fact most shoes have a heel higher than the toe, it is bad for developing feet to be constantly flat.
Seriously OP, I understand your sentiment, but you are aiming you gun at the wrong product. There isn't anything wrong wth those shoes.
No pipbin, I have never worked in retail smile Thank you for your advice. Store managers in places like Monsoon are only there to manage the staff. They have no say in what they stock, how it is displayed, what window displays they have, how the store is laid out.
They make sure the shop is staffed, clean tidy and the stock is displayed. They can do nothing about the stock and to be honest most likely wouldn't pass your thoughts on.
However, if you write a letter then you will get so much further.
joking aside, I think part of the reasoning behind this thread is the question - why do little girls need to wear potentially uncomfortable and restrictive clothing to feel 'special' and 'grown up'?
I assume the op only has one pair of shoes as we don't need more than one?
There are plenty of things in life that people don't need but that doesn't make them bad
Alarm I find all dresses uncomfortable and impractical. Where would that leave me in your wedding party? I also don't wear uncomfortable shoes but don't seek to impose my notions of what is comfortable on others. Many shoes I find excruciating others love, and vice versa.
I bought some of them for my dd. She's 9 and is only size 7/8 (really!!)
Also uses a wheelchair and can't stand independently so the walking in heels a non issue here.
I was chuffed to bits to find sommat so tiny and heeled- she seems to think they're pretty stellar too
This seems a very odd thing to get quite so angry about .
Of course they don't need them - but then, they don't need flouncy flowery dresses either. There are lots of things that children don't need (and ever [shock,horror] aren't very good for them) that they like to have occasionally.
After all, adults don't need high heels either, but some like to wear them for special occasions.
I think a piece in the Daily Mail may be in order? Complete with sad face?
My other sister lives in heels. 5 inch and up and walks perfectly and finds them super comfortable. (shes 20)
I could never do that. Doesn't mean she is wrong or is superficial or putting been pretty over been comfortable.
I prefer my converse tbh but love to put on some heels for a night out and love to dress up for rare nights out.
These ones are 2.5 cms, that's well below the 4cms the chiropodists give as their recommended maximum.
OP doesn't seem to get the point that it is not only 3yos who have size 7 feet. And your DC don't need to be a bridemaid at all, so it's not necessary to consent to your child taking that role if they are too young for the proposed attire.
There's a contradiction between a couple of posters saying my dd/niece/sister wears heels all the time and can run and play football in them etc. and those saying it's just a one off, what's the problem? The problem is, if it's just a one off, the shoes are not going to be comfortable, the child won't be able to run and play in them easily, and are therefore restricted by looking pretty and
their parents wanting them to look grown up.
I didn't impose any notions of what I find comfortable on anyone in my wedding party, cardi
I had a colour scheme (just about). And that was it. my bridemaids could have worn trousers, and I would happily have seen them do so. They chose to wear dresses (much as my dd2 does - refuses absolutely to wear trousers/shorts/leggings).
Equally with the shoes - they had absolute free reign to chose whatever they wanted, style-wise. My only concern for the day was that everyone was comfortable, and enjoyed themselves.
I bought my daughter some of these for her third birthday in red. Along with her Dorothy dressing up outfit. She was obsessed with the wizard of oz and absolutely adored them. They have never been worn outside the house, purely as dressing up shoes. I have never once asked her to wear them (asked her to take them off plenty though!). Tbh, much prefer them to the dress up plastic heels you can get, her feet always used to just slip off those and she'd twist her ankle. For the record, never encouraged her to wear those either. And I never wear heels (despite being a midget of 4 ft 10, really don't care enough about how I look and value comfort too much) so she genuinely has decided that that is how she would like to dress up.
Haven't read all of thread but thanks for link op. So hard to get girls shoes with a heel. Dd has to wear heal as very high instep and these should be great.
Aaaaargh! I and many others have said this loads, Alarm. They don't need heels. They don't need any kind of clothing to feel 'special'. Sometimes, though, they might want that - and while I am the last to cave to something just because a child wants it, I don't see anything wrong with wanting this. PrincessBabyCat has it exactly.
YABU there's nothing wrong with them. They're just a bog standard bridesmaid shoe. I'd let my daughter wear them (although she's 20 with hobbit feet so I doubt they'd fit.)
Op, dd has to wear a heel as odd feet which means without a heel she can't walk for any length of time without pain. Does that answer your question?
why do little girls need to wear potentially uncomfortable and restrictive clothing to feel 'special' and 'grown up'?
My little brother hated wearing suits and ties as a kid. They're restrictive. Why do little boys have to wear uncomfortable clothes made for adults?
They don't. Neither do grown women. But sometimes they choose to, and that's ok.
Personally, I find a middle ground. You can find fabulous outfits and shoes that are both stunning and comfortable.
When I was a kid
and as an adult if I didn't like my shoes, I took them right off and walked around church or whatever the occasion in sock feet. Drove my mother nuts, and she never could break me of it. I can't tell you how many shoes I lost at school dances. I did it on my wedding day too.
Your wedding sounds fun, Alarm. I'd have loved it. However, I wouldn't extrapolate from it that that was the correct way to have a wedding and every other way was superficial.
yes, you may have said it. I find it alarming that so many people accept that to feel special, and grown up, and be pretty, and dress up (and all the other phrases which have cropped up on this thread), that practicality (for small children - the ability ot walk, run and jump/skip about without threat of twisitng an ankle) and comfort go out of the window.
I find this equally odd for adults as for children.
And no, I don't accept that children want it off their own backs, tbh. they want it because it is seen as desirable, but then that just comes back to the point that the whole thing is weird,, tbh.
I've got to ask, why ask AIBU if you are so resolute in your opinion?
What's the point? Why not just make the statement?
I mean you're entirely entitled to your opinion of course, but if you weren't interested in other people's opinions then why ask for them?
DD1 (8) had some very nice pink satin monsoon shoes with slight heel for Christmas. DH allowed her to wear them to a BBQ at a neighbours house. Before I joined them (after work) she managed to play football and climb trees in them, so I can confirm that "children can be children" in such shoes.
<DH is yet to be allowed out of the dog house>
That's the thing when you ask AIBU?
Some people will think you are.
I don't think I said anything about being superficial? I'm not sure where that's come from? I'm worried about girls being judged on their apearance.
I also haven't said we should have nothing we don't need. I have asked why you would put a heel on a shoe for a very small child. I can't think of a reason to do that.
where did I say it was the correct way to have a wedding, and that all other ways were superficial? <even more baffled now>
it was the correct way to have our wedding. for us (and there was plenty of dressign up - dh loves any old excuse . he also fulfilled the poncey new shoe quota for the pair of us, although my brother nealry pipped him at the post for that with his sequinned ones!)
Thought I'd given you a reason.
DD had these shoes worn for the wedding and a couple of writes later on. They did not prevent her from running, dancing, fighting with her brother or climbing all sorts of stuff in the playground next to the churchyard. They are low heeled and with a strap.
Now a medium or high heel, or a style with a pointy toe or without a strap might impede movement. But the shoes this thread began about are not like that.
You still haven't read it, though, Alarm. They don't need to dress like that to feel special. I'm sure the owners of those shoes often feel special when not wearing them. What we are saying is they aren't doing any harm and it isn't crime of the century, or denying them a childhood, or discriminating against girls, to allow them to wear a different type of clothing every now and then. The same is true of boys, as others have pointed out. If we went by need and practicality I suspect we would all still be in bare feet with lose fitting trouser type clothing. Much like I dress, on reflection...
I have asked why you would put a heel on a shoe for a very small child. I can't think of a reason to do that.
Because some people think it looks pretty. Why else would you dress them up?
I don't understand your confusion.
Actually I bet the "heel" on the winter boots DS has from clarks is about as big as the heel on these shoes.
("I don't think I said anything about being superficial? I'm not sure where that's come from? I'm worried about girls being judged on their apearance.
I also haven't said we should have nothing we don't need. I have asked why you would put a heel on a shoe for a very small child. I can't think of a reason to do that.")
Haven't we already established that these shoes are not meant for very small children?
No meanderdeander I don't think that your DD's medical need for a heel answers my general question about heels on girl's shoes. If these had been produced to fill just such a medical need they would also have them in the boys' section.
And yes clearly lots of people think IABU. But AIBU is sometimes a good place for a debate...
Reminds me of my Rockport and Kickers boots I had. They had a similar heel and were aimed mainly at boys. I could run like the wind in those
"I have asked why you would put a heel on a shoe for a very small child"
Not all children with size 7 feet are toddlers.
I do nt understand why you don't get this.
unruly and Alarm I used the word superficial (I think others did to). Can't you see that saying you worry about girls being judged on their appearance (and who isn't) suggests that you think those who let their children wear the kind of things you are criticising are prioritising looks over something deeper and are therefore superficial? It's implied in what you are saying and, for shoes/clothes more shocking that those you linked you would be right.
Alarm you definitely implied that bridesmaids shouldn't have to wear 'traditional' bridesmaid dresses. Again, this implied that not expecting that was in some way superior. It could be the lack of tome on a forum, but that's how it came across.
Why would someone put a child in these shoes?
-Because they think they're pretty
- because they match the dress perfectly
- because they want to
- because lots of little girls would kill to have shoes like that
- because not everyone feels the need to suck all the fun out of life.
- and probably for a whole host of other reasons.
Not read the thread, maybe I should, but I agree with you. I looked at similar shoes in monsoon when dd was going to be a bridesmaid, and I just thought of twisted ankles. I chose the flat ones instead. I wouldn't bother to complain though. People make their own choices based on what they know about their kids. Am sure some would be ok with them, probably.
You are not wrong Glaikit.
The podiatrist said I was lucky she was a girl as it's very difficult to get heeled shoes for boys. As I said thanks for link. Will buy a pair.
That's not a heel though is it? It's just a built up sole. The front of the shoe is no lower than the back.
I haven't mentioned anythign aout need, though (other than need to be practical and comfortable - but then I see those as basic needs).
you still haven't read what I have put, though. I haven't ever said that children/people won't ever feel special without heels/sequins/whatever. what a ridiculous exptrapolation.
I have, however, had the unenviable task of trying to find 'special' shoes for small girls which are also practical and comfortable. it is not always easy. and by practical, I don't necessarily mean tree-climbing practical (although I have to say that I don't restrict activities based on what my dc are wearing), just ability to walk/go about your daily life without having to modify your behaviours due to clothing.
I wouldn't ask boys to wear anythign restrictive or uncomfortable either (not really sure why that has been brought into it). iirc, the young boys at my wedding (talking under 5s here, since that is where the thread started out) wore linen trousers and tops...
We all have different tastes. My taste in clothes & shoes is certainly different to my children's
Just because 'you' don't like something doesn't mean that others don't have the right to choose them (having established they are not that bad for your feet for occasional wear.
Interesting that link to the podiatry leaflet identified plimsolls as being bad for your feet if worn everyday - confirms what I've always thought.
You don't want a debate though, you just want everyone to agree with you.
Suck the fun out of life?
Yes. That is exactly what I want to do. That is why I posted about children being able to run around and play, because I want to suck the fun out of life...
And the thing about being superficial is just so far off the point... It's not about that, it's about how we judge girls and women.
Of course I want everyone to agree with me. That's the fucking point of a debate
More shoe nostalgia derek . I'm pretty sure my doc martens (both boots and Mary janes) were about that height too. And they are the height of practicality.
Btw I had purple sparkly jelly shoes.
I find the op incomprehensible. Why cant you use proper measurements. Size 3 for toddlers? What does that even mean?
My four year old is a size 26. And I havent a notion what an inch is. Its the 21st century, where we ude cms.
Anyway, your link sucks, but I cant see any real heeled shoes on that website, they hsve tiny little raised heels that wouldnt stop a kid running or climbing or anyting.
It's it?? Doesn't look like it to me, the sole is clearly thinner towards the toe. You can can also tell by the height of the upper where it would sit on the upper part of the heel/Achilles.
The fabric the shoes are made of also skews the comparison I'll have you, but if you bought the geox ones for dd, they would bloody daft with a pretty dress.
This thread is sucking the fun out of my life that's for sure. I am off to find something less ridiculous.....
If someone is judging a person based on their appearance the problem is with with the judger, not the person wearing pretty shoes.
Why should someone have to wear boring shoes just because you're worried about someone's opinion of her?
YABU, if you saw my 3yo running up and down the stairs in my wedding shoes you'd probably report me to SS!!! :p
cardi - I honeslty don't think my views on children's clothing are superior they are right for em and mine, and I dont understand anyone ever wearing seriously uncomfortable clothing. But superior? No. Just different.
I also didn't ay anythign about 'traditional' bridesmaid dresses. I said I didn't ask my bridemaids to wear anythign specific - they were given a colour scheme, and aksed ot have their clothing/part of made from the same swatch of material, for matching purposes. And that was it. They actually chose very traditional (imo) styles - typical young child cotton dress-style.
maybe I only know people with similar clothing outlook, who knows.
you're right - in one respect I don't think bridesmaids shoudl have to wear 'traditional' dresses - as I said earlier, I would have been happy whatever they wore, as was after comfort and enjoyment. be that traditional dresses, suits and ties for pageboys, or trousers for girls and relaxed linen for boys - I couldn't give a stuff. what I didn't do was dictate what they wore style wise. at all.
It's not about that, it's about how we judge girls and women.
Now I completely agree with you on that. Girls are being sold very short these days and are bing turned into pink princesses when they should be aspiring to become engineers not a 'celebrity'.
However, your first post was about why are they selling a shoe with this high a heel and why wouldn't the shop manager talk to me about it?
Grocklebox if you're going to say you find someone incomprehensible it helps if you don't use the phrase 'ude cms' in your post.
Size 3? Where is that in the OP?
when they should be aspiring to become engineers not a 'celebrity'.
If that's their dream to be a singer or actor, why knock it?
Why do girls have to be engineers? What if they want to be beauticians or fashion designers? Are those not equally valid careers?
Princessbabycat you have missed the point. Quite a lot. The point is that we shouldn't judge people (girls/women) on their appearance. Not that we should and I am worried about people judging DD as superficial.
My dd aspires to be a dancer/singer/actor. She has no desire for celebrity.
I've had a closer look at the shoes & they really are very little different to the styles of some dance shoes.
Princess On MN it is only acceptable for boys to wear pink, be princesses and be stereotypically girly. Girls must not do any of these things though as it means they are princess airheads as that is what pink things do to girls but nor to boys
My four year old is a size 26. And I havent a notion what an inch is. Its the 21st century, where we ude cms.
Sorry you have no idea what an inch is. How debilitating. I find google is usually quite good as a tool to find things out.
I bet the op turns up on another forum in one of those 'retail staff, what do customers do to annoy you' threads.
Redsolocup I said in my OP this isn't about kids wearing mum's high heels. If that reassures you any
OH USE CMS! Right. I get it.
What an unfortunate typo.
The point is that we shouldn't judge people (girls/women) on their appearance.
For someone thinks people shouldn't judge on appearances you certainly are very concerned about a silly pair of shoes.
So what if people thinks you DD is superficial? I don't know her and I could think she's a brat for all you know. Does it matter what I or anyone else thinks about her? If she isn't being judged for her shoes, it'll be for something else.
Perhaps you should sit down and think about why you care so much about someone else's opinion of you or your DD.
I care that girls and women are judged on their looks and appearance. I think you may have missed my point again...
Here in the UK shoes are made & sold in those sizing a, inches are still Commonly in use in clothes measurements.
I have no idea what a size 26 is (other than a 26 in bra back or 26 inch waist skirt)
I have missed no point. I'm saying changing how you dress based on someone else's judgement or opinion is stupid.
Well thanks people. It's certainly been eye-opening. Nighty night.
so, going by your point then, Princess, no small girl shoudl get dressed up to be a bridesmaid, because to wear <oooh, just off the top of my head> shoes with heels on, for one 'special' day, because it is expected, would be a ridiculous thing to do, wouldn't it?
Yes princess you have missed the point.
I am saying what you have just said. That we should not, as women and girls, be overly concerned with our appearance or looks.
And as an extension of that that clothes that prioritise being pretty over being comfy encourage us to do just that.
And that putting a heel on a pair of shoes for a little girl is the epitome of that attitude.
And now I really am off to bed.
I would totally agree with you about high heels if they were high heels. But they arent. So your argument is specious.
Btw, pointing out my typos (my eyesight is v poor and my screen small) doesnt affect your oldfashioned and incomprehensible measurements.
EU shoe size 26 is UK junior 8 or 8.5
An inch is 2 and a bit cms
Aww I thought it was going to be something along these lines. I can see how wee girls would twist their ankles/struggle to walk in these 1.5" kitten heels, but I think that they would be hard pressed to hurt themselves in those shoes. Just had a look at the photos from a wedding I went to last weekend - all three flowergirls were wearing shoes like these, and they were running around non-stop till around 10pm...
They're pretty for a day or so' swear in a year - wedding/Christmas.
Not necessary but it would be a dull world if we only wore necessary clothing.
Wouldn't be too hard to run in either and if they were most kids would take them off.
doesn't affect your oldfashioned and incomprehensible measurements.
Not incomprehensible at all. Educate yourself. It would take about 5 seconds. Instead of being ridiculous and rude about it.
ok - clarification - the flowergirls were wearing Monsoon-a-likes, not turn-your-3-yr-old-into-a-barbie pageant shoes.
OP if you don't want to put much stock in your appearance or looks fine, don't do it. But stop dictating to others what they should do.
You don't like the shoes, fine, don't buy them. But let others make their own decisions.
"... oldfashioned and incomprehensible measurements."
ie the ones in current use in USA?
Chill, these are occasion shoes for bridesmaids of flower girls, not stilletoes. They go up to a size 4, many ladies are of smaller sizes. J
That we should not, as women and girls, be overly concerned with our appearance or looks.
And as an extension of that that clothes that prioritise being pretty over being comfy encourage us to do just that. And that putting a heel on a pair of shoes for a little girl is the epitome of that attitude.
I feel like we're cross communicating.
I have no problem with someone wearing a comfy shoe if they want to. I have no problem wearing pants instead of a dress if they want to. I also have no problem with someone wearing a high heeled shoe if they want to. I am not for putting people in any article of clothing they don't want to be in. But if they want to be in uncomfy shoes or clothes that is their right, and they should be allowed to do that without judgement.
What you're saying is that it's ok to wear shoe A, but not shoe B. I'm saying it's just fine to wear both and that neither should get judgement. I'm for allowing people to choose whatever shoe they want to wear regardless of that reason. You don't want people to judge so you wear shoe A and get rid of shoe B, I'm saying don't judge either shoes and keep both options for people that may want them
No one is forcing anyone to buy high heel shoes for their daughters. It is simply an option. Removing it and getting upset about someone else's choice to wear a shoe because you think they should wear a different type of shoe is just silly.
I never wanted a pair of boots with a heel as a child because i thought id be pretty, i just thought they were cool and they made a cool sound.
I was still able to run around and climb trees.
I clicked on this expecting high tarty stilletos. I don't see anything wrong with them as one off special event shoes.
The comments from the OP and one or two others really annoy me. Banging on about not judging women by their appearance and then doing just that. Making snooty judgemements about pretty clothes. The handwringing about just letting children play and expressing incomprehension that a little girl might get enormous fun out of wearing a pretty dress and these shoes.
Well, no, but I doubt they are made to be worn the whole day, maybe just to walk up the aisle as a flower girl. YABU.
I agree op. I can see why say, 5+ would want to wear them ( as a one off) but for a 3yr old?
No, it isn't suitable.
Not only are they not suitable, but they even bloody necessary!! Little girls look lovely in flats. We don't get heeled shoes for boys so they can be 'page boys' do we?
They're occasion shoes...bridesmaid/flowergirl, First Holy Communion that kind of thing. In which case Id think nothing of it, they are very clearly not for daily wear. Nice shoes, too.
Wow, over 200 posts about what are clearly bridesmaid shoes!
OP you are VVU. My (now 16) DD had a pair like this when she was 4 and my sisters flowergirl. She had to walk very carefully in them and took them off immediately after the photos but she still treasures them as her first "posh" shoes! DSis actually wanted her to wear ballet pumps but didnt have the heart to say no when DD fell in love with what she called her "grown up lady shoes"!
I honestly thought this thread would be about some nasty heeled "school" shoes, which I have seen in shops, or even worse, those baby high heels www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/3526511/Baby-high-heels-collection-launched.html
Google "Heelarious" and go to Images.
I wont post a link but there is a picture a couple of rows down that made my stomach turn. THAT is what you should be complaining about OP. It is sick.
I should add, it is nothing illegal or pornographic, but it is all types of wrong
I used to be a bit like you, OP. I used to think that boys' stuff was intrinsically "better" than girls stuff. I'd secretly applaud my DD for choosing a Nerf gun over a doll, I liked that her fave colour was blue and she'd rather be a knight than a princess.
And then I thought, what exactly does this say about my attitude to women? That the stuff marked as female/girly/pink n' sparkly is somehow worthless because... well, because it's for girls and women and therefore is automatically inferior? Why is that? What's wrong with a bit of glitter and prettiness and why is it considered somehow morally 'less' than the practical and dull? Why when put on a boy does it somehow become better? Because it's a boy wearing it? Why isn't stuff just... stuff? (obviously because, well, Patriarchy, but hey, it's conditioned into us from birth and it's hard to fight!) There's nothing intrinsically wrong with pink n' sparkly and there's nothing wrong with those shoes either - they're not going to damage growing feet and that heel is small and supportive.
If they were the ONLY shoes available for girls and girls were not allowed to do anything that might possibly get them messy whilst wearing them, you would have a point. As most of us on this thread have said that those shoes would not stop our DDs from running, jumping, climbing or dancing I fail to see what the problem is here.
Occasionally I feel sorrier for boys for not having the opportunity to buy sparkly shoes without their masculinity being called into question. Boys' shoes are generally quite grim, aesthetically.
And yes, your DD has big feet. While she could fit into those shoes, they are not aimed at her age and that's kind of down to you as a parent to make that call, rather than throw your toys out of the pram and berate the shop workers.
That's a bit of a leap lovecat. I can't speak for the OP, but I have no problem with my girls enjoying pink and sparkly things. My problem is with a culture that tells little girls that an aspirational part of being a 'grown up lady' is wearing painful and damaging shoes that are difficult to walk in.
Didn't see the shoes but yabu. Your dd does have big feet for her age. Ds is nearly 4 and in a size 7. Dd had bigger feet at the same age and continues to do so.
There are many, many things I see which I wouldn't buy for my dc. But these appear to be shoes for a special occasion, which could go into the fancy dress box to be worn later in play.
Heels like that wouldn't be hard to walk in. They aren't stilettos. Pretty easy to run in as well.
They are pretty. And frivolous. Grief, life is grim enough, can't we let kids be pretty and frivolous sometimes? OP you sound like my mum. She didn't 'get' pretty and frivolously pink stuff. When I was 17 she threw a hissy fit because I varnished my nails, and it was years before she realised I'd had my ears pierced.
Excellent post Lovecat
If anyone is making a leap it's Posthoc with the assumption the shoes will be painful and damaging.It's a low, block heel which is very easy to walk in.
I clicked on the link and waited to be horrified. I saw... a pretty pair of bridal shoes. What's your problem? Sheesh - chill out!
I'm not talking about those shoes, I'm talking about high heels for adult women, which are the inspiration for these shoes.
I concede that these particular shoes may be ok to walk/run in. I'm not convinced, but it's possible (I don't like wearing heels of any kind). I don't like the idea that little girls want to wear high heels to look 'grown up' as if high heels were an essential part of looking grown up.
My DD was 6 when she had size 7 feet. She is small for her age but not weirdly so. At 6 i would and did let her have a little heel for a special occasion. She is 10 now and isnt overly girly, likes a bit of everything and isnt old for her age at all judging by some i have seen. I think you are overthinking it a tad.
I personally wouldn't buy them for my DD but I wouldn't be horrified or judgy if I saw another 5 year old wearing them. My dd is almost 6 and only a size 9 shoe.I'm sure there are plenty of 6 year olds with even smaller sized feet. I can't imagine anyone buying them for a child under three.
They are clearly a special occasion shoe. I'd imagine them being worn by a little bridesmaid who would walk down the aisle in them and and then take them off and run around at the wedding reception venue barefoot.
I really don't see the problem.
And i do get annoyed with the attitude that everything girly or pink or pretty even is wrong. As a pp said, it is an option not something you have to buy so stop the judgements.
And children are probably children for a lot longer now. Did we not used to send them up the chimneys. I dont think the wearing if bridesmaid shoes once is going to make them old before their time.
I think the OP started this thread thinking everyone would nod sagely along and repeat 'let girls be girls' over and over, whilst pledging to never shop in Monsoon again.
Instead, most people have concluded that the OP is, quite frankly, bonkers.
Tap shoes have the same size heel - baby ballet and tap starts at age 2 or 3.
Ballet character shoes needed for rad grade 1 so age 7 have same heel.
Don't get the fuss at all. They are for an hour or so wear at a party.
Dd is 8 and a size 3. She has 2 pairs of the monsoon shoes and another similar white pair for her first communion. Much better IMO than the flat ballet pump style as they have a strap to keep them on.
slight heel? they are 1" high what is wrong with flat shoes for a special occasion that way you could use them again?
these are the same people who sell bras and thongs to children who should be wearing vests and knickers its all part of the sexualisation of children and im not buying it there has been a case in court where a man accused of having (attempting i should say) sex with a child his excuse was she was dressed as an adult so he couldn't see the difference which is nasty as hell totally out of order but it throws the blame to the mom who dressed her that day in a lot of peoples minds (doesn't matter if its true as a mom you blame yourself anyway)
there was a campaign to let kids be kids and not sexualise them in anyway it died a death because people don't see the harm in it i do my daughter cant get bras that are not padded knickers in her age have slut tramp boys only blazed all over them tops are see through etc etc its a struggle to get her into a t-shirt that doesn't drop to the one side exposing her bra strap i think its a shame
the problem here is twofold one the shoes are not really suitable for the age range they will have to walk down the aisle pose for photos go the the party its hard wearing on my feet let alone a child
two you really can't use them again because after all the tottering around they do not want to wear them again so they end up chucked
op yanbu complaining will get you nowhere but it will make you feel better
I completely agree kids should be kids but in this case I think YABU. They're not "high heels" as you say. They're a low court shoe with a sensible band over the top and a broad base. They're in lilac so I don't think they'll be used for anything other than a one-off wedding. After the formal bit the girl might even slip them off and run about the dance floor in her bare feet. Any sensible parent probably wouldn't buy them for a 3 year old or might only put them on them for the church bit for an hour. Any 3 year old that didn't feel comfortable in them would kick a fuss up.
They are no different from the type of shoe sold for similar occasions when I was a kid about 40 years ago. An 8 year old might like the small heel and feel a bit grown up at a wedding wearing them. She might not but they are for a specific occasion so could probably keep them on for the short time she'd have to wear them. I agree let kids be kids and I don't like fashion particularly on kids but these are not everyday shoes.
deakymom how old is your daughter ? Mine is 14, and I've never seen knickers in her age range like the ones you describe, or thongs, or indeed had any difficulty in buying her unpadded bras, or t-shirts that fit properly.
Bloody hell at the big footed kids being mooted here- DD1 is 2 and has size 4 1/2 (with a fair wadge of growing room in them) feet!
For something like being a bridesmaid, which is what those shoes are tagged as for, I'd have no issues in mine wearing those shoes when they're a bit steadier on their feet (DD1 was a late walker). Be buggered if I was buying them myself - but if someone else wanted to, for the whole "look pretty in the photos" before going off to cover yourself in mud part of the day - fine. I'd also be keeping any boy child clean and tidy for wedding photos as well - before anyone starts on that front.
I get MORE pissed off about the fact Clarks refuse to do sensible shoes for the winter for little girls at all and they're all sodding Mary-Jane type or flimsy as fuck ballet pumps and utterly impractical for puddle-plodging (DD1 likes puddles - a lot... especially puddles also occupied by muddy dogs shaking water out of their fur) or those fucking sources of teacher persecution that are the shoes with dolls and cars in the soles. It's a choice between boots which aren't always practical, or shoes and no puddles or running around being active... or - what a surprise - buying both.
I just wish you could get shoes with a heel like that in a size 8. It seems we are all now condemned to wear the fugly duck-walk 4 inch heels, or trainers.
so I'm wearing trainers.
I think yanbu
Children should always have comfy feet.
No high heels ever until 12/13 or so imo
Dd1 always had huge feet. At 14 months old her first pair of shoes were 6.5, when she started school she was a 13.5.
By comparison dd2 is 4 and a half and a size 8 (dd1 was size 8 when she was 22 months old!)
Both ds have average feet (I think) ds1 is 7 and size 1 and ds2 is 2 and a size 6.5
My feet are small enough to fit those shoes, will I have to wait till I am a big girl for me to be allowed to wear heels
My DD has staggered around the house playing dress up in these since she was three www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/partNumber/9331048.htm?CMPID=GS001&_$ja=cgid:7915289327|tsid:41259|cid:162026447|lid:46591534007|nw:g|crid:37839468647|rnd:14959439336772220630|dvc:c|adp:1o2.
I don't see the harm in a 14 year old wearing a thong. They are only to prevent vpl.
Surely a 14 year old fits in adult dress sizes?
knickers in her age have slut tramp boys only blazed all over them
slithytove I still have to buy children's clothes for my 14 year old, even size 6 is too big for her.
Bloody hell. This thread is weird. I can't believe how rude some posters have been. It's perfectly possible to disagree with the OP without being cunty.
I always liked a padded bra when I was young as it covered me up more so that my nipples ( or the shape of them) couldn't be seen through my school blouse. I didn't see it as sexualising - more the opposite!
Fair enough mummy probably far better than being the size 12 I was!
DD wore way higher heels than that when she was a bridesmaid as her dress was too long and very hard to alter.
deaky goodness knows where you're shopping but your post sounds highly exaggerated. And really I thought we would at least agree on one thing, if nothing else, that what a woman or girl wears is never an invitation to rape.
The shoes in question are not high heeled or sexualised.
They are about the same height as a tap shoe heel in that size, they are obviously not for every day use
Dd1 is 11, she has size 13 or possibly a 1 feet. Dd2 is 7 3/4 and she takes a 10.
Not especially helpful but not all girls have big feet!
Dd1 has some wedge heels, she can't walk very far in them - after her school disco she concluded they were very uncomfortable and has gone back to converse and Birkenstocks!!
Those shoes are for special occasions, I really don't see the harm in it. I would be happy for mine to have worn those for a wedding say from about age 5 or 6 (ie they could walk in them!).
They go up to a size 4 - I know many an adult with feet small enough to fit in them.
I allowed DD to have a small heel when she was a bridesmaid aged 8y. She loved it and felt they were a real treat. They were like this: www.felixdancewear.co.uk/proddetail.asp?prod=KatzHollyGirlsSilvr
It was one day. She loved them. They were not uncomfortable or anything. And she could always take them off if she wanted later on.
OP - give your DD another year or so. Bet she will be able to do pretty much any childlike activity regardless of what she is wearing.
I have pictures of DD climbing in a long maxi dress aged 7 or 8y, up a tree in a skirt before that , running around dancing and laughing in mini heeled shoes like the ones shown earlier.... really, nothing much stops them when they want to play!
unrulysun Mon 12-May-14 22:32:52
I don't think I said anything about being superficial? I'm not sure where that's come from? I'm worried about girls being judged on their appearance.
But that is exactly what YOU are doing. You are judging the child based on their appearance - well, the appearance of their feet that is.
On what planet are those "high heels"?
They've got my size in stock. Hope being in my 30s is old enough...
Anyone else now getting adverts for these shoes at the top of the page thanks to Google?!
Think this thread has shown that adults can also fit into these shoes so they may not be just directed at children but those blessed with dainty feet
somepercentagenotcool piss off its not bollocks you rude mare
she is 14 but too small for adult clothing the knickers were in tesco last year
Deaky you said that it was all you could find, that IS bollocks.
If you had said "I saw...." then no one would have disagreed and would have said yes, it is wrong. But you didnt. You implied that you could only find those knickers for her, which isnt true is it?!
My apologies, you didnt say you only find those types, but you did imply it.
daughter cant get bras that are not padded Tshirt bras are my teens bras of choice as they hide their nipples and stops the childish boys in their school taking the piss
knickers in her age have slut tramp boys only blazed all over them Some, very few, do but most dont. Most are plain white or black.
tops are see through again, some are but the vast majority are not. The see through ones are designed to be worn over a vest top.
This takes me back to when my 4 year old came home absolutely victorious as her daddy had bought her a pair of these Monsoon heels, although prettier, multi-colours sequins. She knew I wouldn't have let her have them. I then had the embarrassment of taking her to parties for the next six months with these bloody shoes on and watching all the mums pursing their lips. I was so happy when she grew out out of them.
What, Tesco were selling underwear aimed at 14 year olds with the words 'slut tramp boys only' written on them?
Yes, I am sure that is absolutely true
Well I never thought I'd ever describe a loo brush as the best thing ever (which I've done on another thread tonight )nor that I'd be Googling Tesco underwear, but just have and what do you know- they have a range of very pretty, practical briefs and knickers for girls.
No thongs or slutty slogans in sight, although no doubt the fact some are pink with flowers and pink unicorns will mean they are not suitably utilitarian.
I agree girls shouldn't be trained to value pretty above all else, same applies for everyone with appearance. I don't agree that these shoes would cause it, or that they are harmful/damaging. If you don't like them, don't buy them. They're not so inherently offensive that they warrant a complain to the manager/letter to head office in the way that the supermarket mental hospital escapee fancy dress costume was.
Oh god I was expecting "pole dance platforms"
Over reaction , much.
Ever seen kids at an occasion? They run round bare foot within a couple if hours regardless of what shoes they had on. Occasional use as a bridesmaid out fit is just fine and clearly what they are for.
Testing are girls "trained to value pretty?" I'm fairly certain I wasn't but I like pretty shoes. Given a choice of a pair of say Crocs, Birkenstocks or a kitten heel shoe I'll take the kitten heel every time. I hate ugly shoes and c this idea that unattractive shoes and clothing are somehow more worthy.
Seeing as quite a few 14 year olds would be in adult sized clothes my bet is they were from a range aimed at 18-21 year olds.
I don't see anything wrong with these as occasion shoes for the over 3s.
Either the OP is easily horrified or a savvy member of the Monsoon marketing team...
My daughter is 14 ,she has kids knickers from Tesco (age 11-12) with spots and stripes. They were exactly the same as the ones for age 2-3. As far as I know the range goes up to age 13. Peacocks also stock children's clothes up to age 14.
My daughter has special needs so I have to choose all her clothes for her - I have never once had any problems finding age appropriate clothes for her, in Tesco or anywhere else. In fact, I'm usually spoilt for choice.
Oh yes, about the shoes. I would have been happy for her to wear them from about age 4 onwards. I would have loved to have worn them when I was a little girl but I never had the opportunity.
I don't think there's anything wrong with the shoes for special occasions. My 8 year old has a similar pair from Monsoon, she had no problem Gangnam Style-ing in them at the school disco, or dancing up a storm at a friend's recent wedding.
And as for the posts about "can't get bras that are not padded", I have a 12 year old and I've never had a problem buying her non-padded bras - yes, there are padded bras out there, but there are just as many non padded. I've recently bought her some plain white non-padded bras from Matalan, Primark and BHS.
There may be "slutty" knickers for sale, I've recently bought packs of plain white, stripey, printed with little owls knickers
And see thought tops 1 yes, DD has a few, she loves them, so she wears them with the vest top that comes with it as a set, or I've bought a load of vest tops. She also likes cropped tops, I've bought longer vests to layer underneath.
Those shoes go up to a size 3, which I am. They go from children's sizes 7-13 to smaller adults sizes 1-3.
Where's your complaint? this would look lovely with a lilac floaty dress just for one day. Check out the "rose cascade dress" under it, a little girl would look very pretty in this!
Whats the problem, really?
I'm with you OP - I don't see why any pre-teen needs shoes with heels, it doesn't look pretty, it looks weird.
Admittedly they aren't as bad as the sparkly monstrosities they have in Brantano.
It's perfectly possible to make pretty satin shoes for children which are age appropriate (and not like crappy ballet flats either).
of course they don't need heels. No woman needs heels. Nobody needs shoes other than a flat brown laceup, but since this is isn't North Korea we can all choose the shoes we like.
And if a kid wants the tiniest hint of what is almost a heel on a special occasion shoe, who could really give a fuck?
Caitlin17 trained might be the wrong word, but I think that valuing pretty above all other considerations is pretty stupid. If I'm buying shoes, I'm considering, in no particular order, prettiness, price, fit, comfort, whether I can walk in them, what I can wear them with, whether I have anything similar, durability etc. By all means wear kitten heels and reject crocs, neither are for me, but don't whine if the kitten heels are always giving you blisters or preventing you from walking etc. I agree with you that ugly shoes aren't inherently worthy, they're just ugly shoes.
Tesco website: www.clothingattesco.com/kids/socks+underwear/icat/kids-socks-and-underwear#esp_cf=pdxtproducttype&esp_filter_pdxtgender=Girls&esp_filter_pdxtproducttype=Underwear&esp_filter_pdxtproducttype=Briefs&esp_viewall=y
Pretty much all of these seem NOT to have inappropriate slogans on them.
Most teen bras do have a bit of thicker material or slight padding - this is generally to avoid having nipples showing through as many girls find this difficult/embarrassing. Growing boobs and nipples can also be a bit sore so the extra material helps to protect them.
Yes you can probably buy really thick padded ones but tbh ime they are few and far between - most are just slight padding (see above) and there are some with no padding whatsoever.
And tbh most girls go on to buying just normal range bras within the first few months anyway, especially if using the bra intervention threads - as ften the teen ranges don't cover the required sizes.
Re. see through tops. Yes, 12y has a couple of these - they go OVER a vest top. They are not designed to be worn alone or even with just a bra under ime.
I wish T shirt bras had existed when I was younger.
I bought DD (11) a 5-pack of plain thongs last week.
She dances. They are a standard part of 'under costume' wear for low-backed costumes, where VPL is not acceptable. For higher back costumes she wears a flesh coloured 'body'.
It doesn't mean that thongs shopuld be 'standard' underwear for an 11 year old (bear in mind that they were absolutely plain, white, black or flesh-coloured), but nor does it mean that buying 11 year olds such things should be a source of frothing.
They look like special occasion shoes to me, like for weddings or christenings really, not for everyday/ longterm wear. I think its a bit over the top to go complaining about them - if they aren't to your taste then simply don't buy them but to complain wastes your time writing it and someone elses time reading it because you wont change it.
Okay so don't buy them then - problem solved.
I get the wider point you're trying to make, OP - but I really think you're trying to fight the good fight via the medium of the wrong shoe.
These shoes are not pointy. And they don't have a high heel; they have a heel.
I'd wager there is not a single 3YO girl who, after possibly being delighted to wear these shoes as part of an outfit for a special occassion, would prioritise sitting quietly with the shoes on, over kicking them off and running around, using up energy.
And that's even assuming she couldn't run in them in the first place. The heel is so modest, that I imagine they're perfectly possibly to play and run in.
Would I but them for my DD? Maybe, maybe not. Would my very own 3YO DD love them? Undoubtedly.
Disclaimer in the interest of full disclosure: I identify 100% as a feminist, but wear actual high heels most days.
of course they don't need heels. No woman needs heels. Nobody needs shoes other than a flat brown laceup, but since this is isn't North Korea we can all choose the shoes we like
Totally agree with this.
No, my pre-teens don't need 1 inch heels, they don't need biscuits, icecreams or chocolate either. I don't operate on a strict need basis.
If you don't like them, don't buy them.
1 inch heels for a special occasion are not something I can bring myself to get het up about
"of course they don't need heels. No woman needs heels. Nobody needs shoes other than a flat brown laceup, but since this is isn't North Korea we can all choose the shoes we like"
But we're not talking about women - grown women can choose whatever footwear they want (well not all can, of course, but that's another debate).
The question is whether it's tasteful / appropriate for small children to wear heels. Okay, the shoe in question certainly isn't one of the worst on offer, but it's a step down the road in a wrong, 'mini beauty queen' type direction. In my own opinion, obviously.
These are one of the Brantano monstrosities:
They start in a kids 10, which is definitely pre-teen sizing. (Whether a 15 year old might have size 10 feet is irrelevant).
Just grim. My DD had size 10 feet at 5 years old, and I bet there's no shortage of fuckwits out there that would buy them for a 5 year old.
Just because something is 'feminine', doesn't necessarily mean it is bad.
As a feminine feminist, I really take umbrage with the idea that women should eschew - for want of a better word - 'girly' things.
I do get the arguments about high heels, and I respect other women's right to reject them.
But there is a deeper issue that makes me pretty uncomfortable, around things that are perceived as inherently feminine being seen in a negative light. I think that does a lot of harm. We're effectively teaching our boys and our girls that 'girls' things are lesser.
These shoes are for a special occassion. It's actually OK for girls to want to dress as girls, and to wear a pair of shoes like these (low heel, and with a toe no more or less rounded than any other girls shoes I see out there) as part of a special occassion outfit.
No 3YO girl is going to let her shoes dictate her ability to run and have fun.
No 3 yo girl is going to understand ahead of time that a pair of shoes would inhibit her ability to run and have fun.
MyFeetAreCold firstly these shoes are obviously for a wedding so at many key points no-one is going to be running around having fun.
Secondly at the point that is appropriate she will no doubt take them off-as the vast majority of people of the female persuasion did at the last wedding I was at as dancing an eightsome reel in high heels is not a clever idea
Or do you think that wearing these shoes is going to result in a Hans Christian Andersen Red Shoes scenario where the shoes are welded to her feet?
"But there is a deeper issue that makes me pretty uncomfortable, around things that are perceived as inherently feminine being seen in a negative light. I think that does a lot of harm. We're effectively teaching our boys and our girls that 'girls' things are lesser."
I get that too, I suppose it's a question of what's considered feminine and why. Would you put a Madonna-style corset on a small child in the name of feminine beauty? Personally I think high heels are part of that continuum.
btw I speak as
an idiot child one who wore 4 inch wedges to school as a 13 year old. But I suppose the difference is, it was somehow a rite of passage away from childhood. I'd still happily wear heels on occasion, if I only could without bleeding and falling over.
It could also be argued that dancing an eightsome reel barefoot where everyone is
drunk celebrating and at least four of your eight are still wearing their shoes is also not clever.
I'd rather my wardrobe allowed me to live my life without having to discard it half way through an occasion, thanks. And I'd like my DD to be able to do the same. And I think the existence of these shoes makes that a lot harder.
I get it, as shoes go, they're not that bad, but its just part of that whole 'form over function' continuum that women and girls are expected to embrace that men and boys are not
ties and cummerbunds excepted.
MyfeetAreCold goodness you sound sanctimonious.
I don't even wear particularly high heels but I do like pretty, feminine shoes,in colours other than black or brown worn with dresses.
"Form over function continuum " and here was me thinking I just don't like ugly clothes.
Sanctimonious? Are you for real?
Sorry I used big words. Back to your pretty shoes.
And that is exactly the sort of response I expected.
No wonder young women are put off feminism. That sort of patronising attitude that being interested in clothes equals no brain is extremely tedious.
I rarely wear high heels, MyFeetAreCold but I don't agree with you, I'm afraid. The men at the wedding will take off ties, the women (may) take off shoes. I get your point about bare feet being potentially risky with dancing, but I don't see much difference otherwise. Formal attire is not comfortable for anyone.
I can't believe this thread is still raging 2 days later. What a storm in a teacup. Even the OP has disappeared.
Myfeet why do you think intelligence and a liking for pretty shoes can't go hand in hand?
If you don't want a response about the language you use, don't take issue with the language I use.
Good for you not liking ugly clothes. Nor do I. And I have endless opportunities to dress my son beautifully and occasion-appropriately for any occasion in a way that lets him act like a child, and I find it extremely frustrating that it's hard to do the same for my daughter. I want her to look lovely, I want people to tell her (and me) she's
clever pretty but most of all I want her to be able to act like she's 4.
[putting people off feminism since 1948 emoticon]
I've been at weddings where the men have taken off shoes. Formal men's shoes aren't that necessarily comfortable either.
little bear, I don't think that.
And yet you said
"Sorry I used big words. Back to your pretty shoes."
Yes, she had an issue with my words.
Having an issue with your words does not mean she is stupid
Not following your argument, sorry.
<Repeats>I didn't call her stupid.
I mentioned the language I used, because she mentioned the language I used. But do you know what? I really cba. I'm going to get on with life now. And leave you all to the footwear of your choosing.
"Sorry I used bug words" doesn't imply she is stupid? Nope, sorry, don't believe you. What comment did she make about your language use? I forget and I can't go back and check. Can't have been as offensive as yours.
They look very, "sit still and be on your best behaviour" shoes to me & that makes me feel a bit uneasy.
I can't walk in heels so my experience is that I feel hobbled and vulnerable in them. So I'd stay away from buying DD the shoes on the OP because they look like they aspire to be a type of shoe that I experience as limiting and I don't want that for my daughter.
We are going to a wedding soon, she'll be wearing a floaty dress and tie dye purple & orange hi top converse. I'll be in fitflop kys.
I don't think I wear ugly shoes btw, that is very subjective.
Well, in the post where she called me sanctimonious (sorry, said I sounded sanctimonious - right side of talk guidelines etc...), she then said (quoting me at the start) ' "form over function continuum" and here was me thinking I just don't like ugly clothes. '
So it all depends on what you take offence at really. 'Sanctimonious' was probably where I decided to be offended. YMMV.
ok, so you dont want them for your kid, so you dont want them to exist for anyone to able to choose.
facist extreme, don't you think?I'll say it again, IF this was about high heels for little girls, youd have a very valid point. But these arenot they.
Good argument, very bad footing, as it were. Fail, Im afraid.
The assumption that not thinking that heels are right for small children = not liking pretty clothes is a bit of a leap, surely?
FWIW I'm sitting here wearing a pink flowery dress and pink flip flops.
Saying WTF and expressing an opinion about, er, things that you have an opinion about is what you do in a democracy, surely?
No one is going around ripping them off small children's feet and jailing their parents.
Yes, I don't want them to exist. Their very existence makes it harder for me to not let DD wear them. I never said I was being reasonable.
I'm wearing just some sacking.
I don’t think it's sanctimonious to have a different opinion and not like the shoes.
I personally hate heels because they hurt my feet - even on my wedding day I changed into converse after the ceremony. At a wedding or other formal function, I would want my child to be smart but comfortable, so the shoes aren't for me. I appreciate that people's idea of 'comfortable' differs and everyone has their own preferences, but I'm with Feet on this.
I can remember shouting " high heels are a firm of social control! " at a boyf who wanted me to wear them. I still think this. I think you can have lovely shoes that still enable you to stay balanced and able and not fuck up your feet for an ideal of beauty that I utterly reject.
And on the subject of Feet, isn't she saying that it is what the shoes represent that she doesn't want to exist ( see above).
I think it is unacceptable to say that Feet is fascist, grocklebox, even if you have crossed it out you have put it there for everyone to see. Dreadful.
Ps I think they are a model of high heels, actually.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.