Gendered clothing

#letclothesbeclothes is a website campaigning for an end to gendered clothes for children.

www.letclothesbeclothes.org/

LetClothesBeClothes has a thread in the activism section on a simila topic with a petition link, for M&S specifically. It seemed a bit buried there (do we need separate boards??) so here's a link www.mumsnet.com/Talk/feminist_activism/2273478-Why-no-Dinosaur-clothes-for-girls

Agree that gendering clothes restricts choice. That's why they label things isn't it, to appeal to one segmented market in accordance with marketing theory. They don't seem to have realised that it shuts them off from other segments lol. In gender case, in connection with all the other gendering that goes on, it has huge repercussions, specfically giving the impression that boys are these values, aggressive, macho, etc while girls are the silly frilly trivial values. Both empty-headed in their extreme forms. There's lots of research done on this.

It's children's shoes that piss me off the most, especially trainers. Dd needed black plimsolls for PE at school and I bought her some cheap boys black trainers because the canvas thingies just fall off when she is running around and all the girls trainers are white and sparkly.

Apparently some kids at school told her they were boys trainers (not in a nasty way I think but still, scary to think that kids are taking this crap on board at such a young age). I actually lied to her and said I'd bought them in the girls department to make her feel better. If she were a bit older I think I would have taught her to look all over them and then say 'Nope, definitely, no penis present'.

And I sigh whenever Dd is given a T-shirt with sequins on as a present. Yeah right I really have time to hand wash it and no I don't want the rest of my washing/washing machine damaged by the little fuckers thanks.

yes as a thin child ds always fitted the girls ranges much better than the boys. He also looks much better in bright colours than grungy ones (sorry ChunkyPickle but it's been pretty much the same fashion for a while now). dd enjoyed all the pink/pastel and looked lovely, although she wouldn't touch those colours with a bargepole now!

dh and I go to work in pretty similar clothes. I never wear dresses and very very rarely wear skirts, and dh never wears a suit or tie. We are both comfortable in smart trousers and tops.

We've found lots of examples of girls clothes being slim fit, narrower shoes and shorter separates - across the high street spectrum. People don't seem to notice - that's the problem with artificial gender norms. But when you start asking "why not boys" you can see the sexism, the sexualisation and limitations.

For me gender neutral is about not limiting choices for either sex. It really annoys me that DS2 wants a skirt but I don't feel I can let him wear it down to the park etc because of the comments other children and their parents will make - we've had enough grief because my boys have long hair (I made him really baggy trousers as a compromise).

Girls are 'allowed' to wear so-called boyish clothing, although I've noticed a lot more disapproval of it recently, whereas boys aren't allowed to wear skirts/dresses/party shoes because they are too girly (and heaven forbid they should be mistaken for being a girl ) and there is a lot more teasing.

I've never had a problem with 'dressing like a man' (I got mistaken for a boy a lot in my teens) - but if you don't want to though you don't have to. No one is making you. What a lot of people are doing to children is forcing them into very narrow gender stereotypes clothing-wise which can then have a knock on effect on behaviour expectations as people don't want their DD ruining her pretty frilly pale-coloured dress while the boys can run around getting their jeans dirty and no one cares.

The problem as always is of course about how other people respond to the way you dress, whatever age and sex you are, i.e. the assumptions they make about your personality, skills, preferences, intelligence, etc

My boys are really into football & go around wearing leg underwarmers - which are just like leggings - under football shorts all the time. That's OK though because they're sports wear .

I agree that some women's/girls' clothes are very practical and easy. I love dresses too, especially if they don't require ironing. Much more practical than trousers & a shirt & tie. Leggings too are really practical.

Like leggings. Leggings are really practical and comfortable. They protect the legs from scrapes, while allowing a lot of freedom of movement and are not too hot. Leggings for children are sensible attire. So why don't boys wear them? Is it because they are tight (revealing)? And tight clothes are for girls not for boys? If that's the reason it's just really depressing but I can't for the life of me think of another one.

For children having different clothes for girls and boys and labelling them as such is restrictive and limiting IMO. It is also a very early start to putting children into gender roles according to their sex. I don't like it. DD has some Dinosaur slippers that I got in a sale and yesterday she pointed out they said "Boys" inside on the label and we both agreed that was silly as dinosaurs are for everyone. But in children's clothing world dinosaurs are for boys and fairies are for girls. And loads of other stuff. It's bizarre.

For adults, I would prefer a non gendered society where people can wear what they please. So if a woman wants to wear "men's" brogues to work she won't get funny looks on the tube and if a man wants to wear heels he won't get laughed at. At the moment it's that women's stuff is much more ornamental, decorative and revealing, while men's stuff is quite bland and concealing. It hasn't always been that way, fashions change. But there's nothing wrong with adorning yourself and wanting to look colourful or show some flesh - that's always gone on. It's just at the moment gender roles say women will do that, and men mustn't do it at all. It's restrictive for both sexes.

Was just watching a video of David Bowie in the 70s and he was great at adornment

Exactly! If you look at unisex clothing such as the Donna Wilson range for John Lewis is just colourful and fun, there's nothing bland about it. Once you move beyond the constraints of marketing based on for girls or for boys, you just make great children's clothes!

It's easy to say that perceived gender doesn't matter but it might matter to the child. Not babies, obviously, but it seems massively unfair to expect children girls to be brought up in a patriarchal society and then mock them when they make the same predictable choices that adults make. I'm all for the revolution but I'm not sure that we should demand a bunch of 5yos lead it.

When we discuss adult clothes, it generally boiled down to a discussion about dresses and heels i.e. women's clothes. People say they don't want to dress 'like a man' which seem fair enough, but it always seems a bit like men's clothes are the sensible default and women's clothes are the silly, impractical option, even when they are not. Men and women are a different shape so it seems reasonable that trousers and shirts are cut differently but this often leads to accusations that women's clothes are cut more sexually with no acknowledgement that a man with a ripped body can look sexy as fuck in a nicely cut suit. I'm not a big dress wearer but I do have one. It's a stretchy, lacy, body con thing and it's really comfortable and looks really good . I think it's a hugely practical garment. It washes easily and doesn't need ironing but stand me in that next to DP in a dry clean suit and a shirt he's spent 20 min ironing and he will be perceived as the practical one. There is no doubt that women who work in an office environment can get some lovely practical dresses and slip on shoes for work. If men wore these then they would be seen as cross dressing and vilified for it, but we never expect that to happen. They can wear shirts that need ironing, uncomfortable, stiff lace-ups, dry clean only suits, ties (why?) and they are seen as businesslike and practical. It's only women who are expected to narrow the gender gap by ditching the dresses and the heels.

I think by gender neutral we don't mean bland - we just mean the stuff I and my siblings were dressed in as a child - yellow, blue, red, green, dungarees, normal t-shirts (why does everything 'girl' have frills now?)

I have sons, and the supermarkets want them to dress in brown/green (muddy, not bright) and dingy blue. I skip over to the girls section to see if there's anything better and it's all pink and purple with frills.

I hope that it's just that pastels and dingy colours are in fashion at the moment, and it'll swing back to brights soon.

I dress DSes in whatever I like. DS1 fits Zara Girls trousers perfectly (and there's more choice, and they're cheaper in the sales), DS2 looks adorable in bright yellow and pink.

Oh, and who cares if someone mis-genders them? They're toddlers, what possible difference could it make?

That's very fair comment, I agree there are huge issues there - definitely, but the campaign focus is wholly children. If progress is made to encourage positive attitudes to appearance, in particular that girls not feel it is something they will be judged on, then brilliant.

I didn't know about the Donna Lewis range, that's a useful link.

Huptwothreefour yes, the clothes are so gendered that it's quite hard to break out of it. My SIL had a DD after two boys and she tends to mix some very masculine clothes with very feminine clothes which means my niece looks fab, e.g. a lumberjack shirt with a raa raa skirt. She definitely reuses more stuff than I do, even though when dressing DD1 I bought as gender neutral as possible, the old thing of it being OK for a girl to aim up to masculinity but not OK for a boy to aim down at femininity. DS still gets called a girl though, his clothes are still pretty neutral at 2 but he has very fine hair cut in a pageboy style (not enough of it yet to cut in short layers), very similar to my brother in the 70s so is obviously a girl!

The campaign is only focused on children, ams letting children have every option to wear clothes they want - in every color, theme and motif without stigma. Let them decide their own interests. Children after all have very different needs to adults. The campaign is not for banning dresses or skirts :)

Adult clothing is not at all issue for this campaign. I personally believe you can wear what you want and still be a feminist! Feminism for me is equality and often a fight for that equality. I want the same for my children.

Children's clothing is the issue for LCBC - not adult clothing. Adults can determine for themselves what to wear, can be clued up to how clothes are sold etc. This is in no way a campaign for everyone to dress like men and boys! No banning of dresses, no loathing of skirts.

The issue is choice.

Why should children face negativity and bullying for simply wanting to wear their favourite colour or theme? Why berate children for crossing this fictitious girl or boy divide?

Take fit for example, girls predominantly offered slimmer fit, including shoes, regardless of their sizing being so similar to boys? These are also plenty of examples of girls clothing and shoes being highly sexualised from age dot onwards. That needs tackling.

The point of unisex is you free yourself from all the boring and lazy stereotypes - and just provide clothes for children. Fun, practical. Take John lewis and their unisex Donna Wilson range that got split down the middle, and ended up being ridiculous because they had no clear social norm basis for the split!

I don't want clothes to be gendered but I don't want them all to be the same. I want to be able to wear a low cut top, red lipstick and long nails and it mean no more and no less about my "gender" then wearing work boots, tradies pants and a chesty bonds singlet. And I think what we do with childrens clothes helps to enforce what happens with adults clothes
So girls tops with little princess and boys tops with little monster enforce ways of thinking about boys and girls which is limiting. I want that to stop.

I don't really care for gender neutral clothes. Clothes should be made in all colours.

Please, first off, believe I am not picking on you Debbriana, I am simply using the statement you made as an illustration.

Making clothes in all colours would be making them more gender neutral. The problem (as some of us perceive it) right now is that there is basically a single colour, or at least a very restricted colour palette from which 'girls' clothes are made right now. Whereas, if clothes were made in all colours as you suggest, then they would be more gender neutral, because both sexes of child would be able to wear them without value judgments being made.

We went shopping for skiing helmets a couple of days ago. dd (14) picked a black helmet to go with her black ski pants. ds (15) picked up one he liked and I asked the assistant to check they fit properly. The chap looked at ds a bit oddly and asked if he had meant to pick up that colour. ds said yes, he really liked purple and thought it looked cool. I asked the assistant if there was any difference between the male/female ranges apart from colour and he said no. I wondered why there was even a need to differentiate.

Likewise when I last got them trainers ds liked the brightly coloured ones from the women's range and dd liked the black ones from the men's range. They were specialist sports shoes, surely designed for that sport first and foremost, so why the gender crap?

I believe that the perceived gender of a person is unbelievably irrelevant. So you can imagine that I am not a massive fan of sequinned boob tubes for little girls, or little boys dressed head to toe in camo. (

I agree with MrSheen that if something is gendered female it is devalued. On the other hand as I don't live in the UK I didn't only get offered pink for girls clothes and blue/brown for boys. My 14 year old is wearing a bottle green coat this winter and trainers but is very feminine although also very athletic. My 8 yr old son like his sis before him asked for glasses for Christmas (he has no problems with his eyesight) because he wants to see what its like to be someone who wears glasses. I bought him some black framed ones from Claires (she has a brown pair).

Assuming that the OP was referring to [[http://www.lettoysbetoys.org.uk/let-clothes-be-clothes/ this] blog then it seems to me it's more about presenting clothing choices to parents without labeling them 'boy' or 'girl' but rather by form and function. So for example instead of girls/boys t-shirts they just have t-shirts, without pushing the idea that everything girls wear much be pastel and flowery/glittery and everything boys wear must be grungy. Even if the children in question are tiny, or if a bit older that some girls like trucks and some boys like butterflies and that both choices are totally fine.

When my children were babies they wore babygrows for at least the first six months and I wanted them to be mostly unisex a) because I like bright colours, spots and stripes best on babies, b) so that they could be easily reused and c) because I don't think babies need to be identifiable by gender. This seems to have become harder and harder.