DH says I 'can't' buy these school shoes for a girl!

[dontyouworrydontyouworrynow]

Opinions please!

Are these shoes ok for a 5 year old girl (going into Y1) for school?.

They come up listed in the girls section on Clarks. My thinking is they look tidy, practical and not likely to cause wet feet when it inevitably rains this autumn. DD insists on pinafores and tights so this is more of a pain to change than socks if she gets wet feet at school (and she won't tolerate wet feet, she has diagnosed ASD with sensory issues).

DH says they are boys shoes and I can't buy them it's mean. I think they're unisex and anyway they're five years old so surely practicality wins out!

I've looked at all the girly shoes but they're nearly all very low at the front or gappy!

Anyway... thoughts? Am I condemning her to being teased?

Kickers or docs with zips
Super cute aesthetically and practical
What’s not to like ! Clarks are so bleugh

The notion that a little girl of 5 or 6 would be ridiculed for wearing comfy, sturdy shoes she can run about and kick a ball in and forced into flimsy fashion girly shoes instead fills me with rage. School should surely be tackling this kind of gender policing from other children, and I'm sure they would if it were reported

I think the issue is - which is clear from this thread - that many parents are reinforcing this gender divide. We’ve had numerous parents here declaring these are boys shoes and even calling young girls ‘divas’ When you’re using language like that about a 5 year old what chance do their kids have of not conforming to sexist ideas? It’s small-minded thinking, luckily I don’t really encounter it here where I live in London at all. Kids just wear what they want. No-one teases them.

That's probably the ones I'm buying for DH.

I hate the open ones. IT'S ENGLAND!!!! Not blooming Spain or wtv! It's cold and rainy. It disgusts me that brands don't do more closed shoes for girls

Oh btw!!! I think they have them is shiny version! We had some from Geox last year and they tend to look nicer

Urgh they are awful.

Its like they thought " ooh let's make a nice comfy train style shoe" then decided to make it "girly" with a heel.

I'd go with one of the nore comfy looking trainer style ones. Dd loved the start right tarantula. Was gutted when she grew out the largest size

Full foot coverage
Sturdy
Comfy

And no heel

They do look a bit heavy and clumpy for a 5 year old. They are more like the kind of show I'd expect an older child to wear with trousers for formal occasion or for secondary school.

They will look odd with a pinafore, not so bad if she will wear trousers.

@Nataliefrances123

My little one wanted these for when she starts school in September, she loves shoes

Beautiful!!! and perfect for about 2 months of the year I don't have enough money to buy 2 pairs of shoes for both my daughters so one nice closed pair is all they get!

They will look odd with a pinafore, not so bad if she will wear trousers

Who cares. If you are gonna have to force your kid to go to school in horrid scratchy polyester then least get them a shoe they can properly play in. Who cares what it looks like.

I have noticed that Clarks have started listing some "boys" shoes in the girl section, which is fine as long as they include some ballet pumps in the boys' section too.

OP, these shoes are traditionally thought of as boys' shoes, but of course a girl can wear them.

@Whatwouldscullydo some schools don't allow trainers....... (haaaaaate uniforms.......)

@Whatwouldscullydo

They will look odd with a pinafore, not so bad if she will wear trousers

Who cares. If you are gonna have to force your kid to go to school in horrid scratchy polyester then least get them a shoe they can properly play in. Who cares what it looks like.

But the point is that she won't be able to properly play in those shoes. They are way to stiff and formal. Ds had some very similar at that age for a wedding and both he and dd wore something similar at secondary school.

Yes I can see that, she choose a couple she liked and they were very similar style to this. Not sure what would happen regarding wet feet etc only that she could have some spare socks in her draw at school

But the point is that she won't be able to properly play in those shoes. They are way to stiff and formal. Ds had some very similar at that age for a wedding and both he and dd wore something similar at secondary school

Ha I agreed they were awful. So close but just not there. They just had to through in the stupid heel etc

Dd2 lucky doesn't give a crap what her shoes look like with play suits or trousers. She wears the trainer style so called "boys" shoes as she has my wonky feet and they are far more supportive and practical.

She did get a few comments in reception but she just told the kids they weren't boys shoes they were everyone who's and and teacher backed her up.

And if any teacher told her they were trainers I told her I'd tell her of they were fine for the boys then they are fine for her (no one ever said anything though(

Imo schools "ban" entirely the wrong items.

I'd like to see the ballet pumps done away with. They are flimsy and dangerous.

Mary Jane's r ok fir the summer but that's about it.

Given the childhood obesity epidemic and the large focus on learning through play in the early years it would make far more sense to normalise and allow trainers and ankle boots.

As opposed to what the ridiculously impractical patent Mary Janes that will leave her with a wet square on her sock the second she walks through a puddle?

Very practical and I think very unisex!

@Yourstupidityexhaustsme

As opposed to what the ridiculously impractical patent Mary Janes that will leave her with a wet square on her sock the second she walks through a puddle?

Very practical and I think very unisex!

This just isn't true though. I honestly can't get past why so many pp's think that you can't run, jump, kick and ball, etc in Mary Janes. Clarks I admit are all pretty revolting, but the solid bottomed Startrites are perfect. Never, ever, had an issue with wet socks.

These are the ones I saw. I think they come in shiny as well

This is when I don't envy parents of girls. School shoes for girls always seem rather impractical. T bars and gaping holes for British autumn/winter.

I stand by toe zone shoes for adventurous shoe destroying DS, they do really last.

I think they do a little Chelsea boot which would look fine with tights and skirts for winter. But again up to you and DD's taste really.

Why do boys get comfortable, practical shoes they can run & play in while girls are falling out of ridiculous little slip ons & strappy dolly shoes, getting wet feet & often slipping over?
Tell your husband he's a dinosaur and he doesn't get to choose what women wear! That kind of crap is why we're in the state we're in.
I'm a teacher and the girls definitely wear much more sensible shoes as they get older - DMs and brogue type shoes. They look cool and are much better for playing football in the playground or playing on the trim trail.

My DD had Hush Puppies like this - hardy flimsy or impractical, and I’m sure her feet didn’t get wet. She could quite easily run and climb in them. I don’t know why people are characterising all “girls” shoes as being princessy, dainty things.

They have to keep wellies at school for wet days so there’s no puddle-splashing in school shoes anyway.

There's still the gap on them though pink

I mean thatsbwhere the sock gets wet.
U kick a muddy ball or wall through some long grass and yeah your feet will get a bit wet.

The fact that actually people say their child's feet don't get wet could actually be a sign of the play restrictions the kids are placing on themselves to avoid it as opposed to the practicality of the shoes.

@pinkflask actually not great example. Can you see where they are bowing in the top? They should be fitting better than that. But the problem is those shoes are made to look pretty and they do!! They're not made to be well fitted and supportive like other more closed shoes with wider (or multiple) velcro.