To be really surprised at these little girls' boots being sold by John Lewis?

[TheBolter]

I mean, they start at size 9 - which means my daughters could have been wearing them at age three??!

here

Personally, I think they are vile. I thought John Lewis were meant to be part of the Let Girls be Girls campaign?

yeah the let girls be girl streetwalkers campaign

Three year olds have heels marketed to them, tight tops, mini skirts etc.

YANBU.

I think £70 for such ugly boots that a 3 year old will scuff and ruin in a few months time is unreasonable!

Yanbu they are nice for a teen or adult not toddlers. I have some similar and the can be uncomfortable when bending or after a while, very impracticle. My catapillar ones only cost 20 pounds, whaaaat £70 what rip off.

I'm surprised JL are selling them in terms of taste as well as anything else. Agree heels repellent in little girls, but not sure if those little heels add to sexualization of children.

Lelli Kelly make horrible shoes. Really nasty.
These could be worse. They could be pink

I say that bearing in mind my 2 year old dd has been given a princess dressing up box which includes revolting plastic wedge heeled/peep toe shoes which she adores and clumps around the house in. I have hidden them as I hate them, but she adores them.

If no-one buys them because they are expensive, tacky and impractical then the JLP buyer that selected them will have a big problem and will know not to stock anything similar again. If, on the other hand, they sell in huge quantities then they are meeting a demand.

Personally, I favour choice when it comes to retailing. Shops are entitled to offer any goods they see fit. Consumers are entitled to say 'no thanks'. I don't think insisting that others share our personal tastes ever works.

these, from woolworths, are just horrendous!

John Lewis is a shop like any other shop. It will stock what sells. If supporting the Let Grils be Girls campaign brings in more customers, they will support it. If the "Dress Girls like Trailer Trash Barbie" brings in more customers then ditto. They are all bastards.

I like them, and there isn't much lelli kelli I do like.

Having said that - not for a 3 year old. Should be starting at age 9, not size 9...

"They are all bastards"

I don't understand why the shops are the 'bastards' rather than the people who respond positively to the 'dress your kid like a hooker' products.

In some parts of the world today, women can be attacked in the street for wearing clothing that doesn't conform to their society's standards of decency. We tend to frown upon such societies. If we ban people from choosing clothing for their children based on our standards of good taste, are we morally any better?

No John Lewis do have pretty ethical policies in general. All employees are shareholders in the company for example. I suspect they would take it seriously if this boot was suggested to be against the Let Girls be Girls campaign.

But the campaign is not based on standards of good taste Chili. It is based on standards trying to prevent sexualization of children, like padded bikinis and playboy clothes, for example.

Eeew.. Vile and tacky. And £70!! I can't stand high heels on pre-teens unless for dressing-up.

It is about taste. Neither you nor I, I strongly suspect, would ever dream of dressing a little girl in a padded bikini. We think it is in poor taste. If only people with our views bought children's clothes then these products wouldn't last beyond one experimental outing.

You will only prevent sexualisation of children if/when the people who think a padded bikini is OK for a 3-year-old are persuaded to change their opinion. Banning clothing doesn't do that.

Well that is like saying that legalizing drugs is fine because people will buy them whether they are legal or not. The point about civilized society is to advance human rights and liberal philosophy. Padded bikinis for little girls sexualize them. definitely.

For these boots it is a little less clear cut and yes you could say a dislike of them is down to taste.

No, changing people's minds is the ultimate aim. But shops are encouraging people to buy these items by stocking them. Brands such as John Lewis, which present a wholesome, family values image (remember the recent advert?) are saying it's OK to dress three year olds in such clothes / shoes. I am really dismayed at JL for this.

FGS, even I wouldn't wear these boots - and I'm in my mid thirties. And not particularly mumsy either!

They are foul. I guessed they would be Lelli Kelly too!

However I don't think heels are necessarily 'sexualised' clothing in the same way a padded bra, or playboy stuff is. As the link is less direct. Just hope nobody buys the damn things.

laweasel - but it's not just the heels. It's the combination of the heels, with the black patent (fine on its own), the cross straps and the studs. They have clearly been designed as an adult style boot for little girls.

But you can buy baby converse - minaturised adult shoes. No one would say those are sexualised.

I don't think it's enough that they are small versions of an adult product. I think the sexuality needs to be more explicit than that. Obviously, that's just my opinion, but I think if we really want companies to listen to us it's important to pick our battles, and go for the stuff that's really inappropriate as opposed to horribly bad taste.

I detest Lelly Kelly shoes and am repeatedly shocked when I see them in JL, it's the poor taste, high price and 'girliness' that makes mr want to vomit and that's before I clapped eyes on these hideous boots.

BTW.. I just looked at the picture. Aren't they just a 'shiny low-heeled boot with twinkly bits'? I was fully expecting to see some thigh-high number with stiletto heels and tassels to warrant the description 'vile'. £70 is ridiculous, of course...

Children like to dress like grown-ups. Maybe grown-ups should set an example and not "dress like hookers".

Although, the way I wear my thigh high patent boots is quite tasteful.