To think clarks and start rite are sexist when it comes to school shoes

[Balcanoona]

Buying school shoes for DD 9 and 11 yesterday - both walk to school, one along the canal, the eldest has narrow feet. But the only girls shoes on offer from these two companies has very thin soles which would be worn through within a month. The boys shoes had thick soles and far more robust. The extremely helpful shop assistant told me they were "fashion shoes" and companies don't really think about practicalities. We found another brand more suitable, but really, for 9 year old to think they don't run about - AIBU?

But shoes for men and women come gender-based. Why shouldn't children's ? Actually, women have MORE choice than men - flats, high heels, lace ups, straps, sensible and comfy, downright uncomfy etc. Girls actually have more choice too because there ARE shoes v like boys styles - startrite do lace up brogues which could be unisex and if you look at their full range there will be lots of styles for girls - most have thick soles. Its actually the boys with less choice .

Perhaps you need to go to a store with a bigger range. Try the websites to at least see the full range - there is no need to be restricted by your local store which may offer limited choice. Look at john Lewis online to see a range of brands and sensible style for both boys and girls.

For some people, this issue doesn't seem to be about practicality and comfort (and I you can get both in girls startrite) but about there being a distinction between boys and girls shoes. Well why not....we buy women's shoes most of the time, even if in unisex styles sometimes. There is nothing wrong with girls wearing or liking so called girls styles esp as it is incorrect to say others are not avai!able. Surely every parent just needs to look and find what they think is suitable - there are lots of brands and no one brand has to serve the whole market.

A completely agree the boys styles are more practical (used to work there). However there is no difference in the fit between their girls and boys shoes (unlike men's and women's which have different widths usually). I fitted many many girls in school shoes from the boys section with no trouble, so you can always ask for those styles if you prefer.

There were lace up brogues for girls - but if look at the soles, they are much thinner than the equivalent boys shoe and would therefore wear through much more quickly. But still the same price.

It's true girls have more choice, but it's a choice between stars and butterfly patterns, so the choice is cosmetic. There should be a gender neutral range of lace up black school shoes -

We have a Clark's in walking distance (or if we lived a bit further out of town it would be a bus ride). Otherwise it's 30-45 minutes drive to an independent shoe shop. We've tried one of those and were very happy with the selection (DS wanted red shoes for out of school and has very hard to fit feet though we settled for a part red, part blue pair that he actually likes) though with a DD starting school in a couple of years we may not find what we need for her, but we'll try the slightly nearer shops too.

But if I didn't drive we'd be stuffed. Given his feet (very wide, very long for his age/height so some styles are quite grown up, and orthotics mean they need to be even bigger and they must be supportive) I don't trust myself to fit them buying online unless we already have the same shoe/size and it's just a repeat buy.

It's true girls have more choice, but it's a choice between stars and butterfly patterns, so the choice is cosmetic. There should be a gender neutral range of lace up black school shoes

Absolutely OP. The choice we have for "girl's" shoes is purely cosmetic. My daughter is barely 18 months old and I'm already annoyed about it - I'm trying to find her a decent, sturdy pair of weatherproof shoes for the coming Scottish Autumn/Winter and it's ridiculous. She doesn't give a shit what colour her shoes are, and frankly pastel purple/pink with half her foot exposed is just not practical for playing outside in.

Clark's has no moral purpose to push a genda neutral agenda, but to make shoes that sell. And based on sales in previous seasons, people buy who fit their market profile want leather,fitted shoes for under£40, which have some girly features such as flowers, dolls, lights, decoration. They dont aim to supply niche markets who want something else and have no obligation to do so.
Gender neutral style shoes are available, but less widely so because there is less demand. So if you want them you will have to travel or pay more or learn to measure and buy online (and believe me it is really easy -see startrite website). Yes, some people may find travelling difficult or the higher cost not possible etc.....but more choice e is always available to those who will pay more or who can travel further. This is the shoe market which is a profit driven market - not some kind of socialist or gender neutral pressure group.

If you don't like the girls shoes in the mainstream, vote with your feet and don't buy them. Make the trip to the shops with more range or learn to measure and buy online - there is LOTS of choice out there.

Or do people buy them because it's whats easily available and they haven't got time to trawl the internet for an alternative? I think it's a mixture of both, everyone I know with a daughter complains about it.

Also, for me anyway, it's not about shoes being gender neutral but more suitable for purpose. I, as a fully grown woman who doesn't drive, won't wear shoes that aren't fit for walking in the weather conditions we have, so why should I expect my children to?

I'm surprised that anybody buys Clarks trainers. The sports brands like Nike and Adidas do fantastically comfy ones that don't fall apart and are often cheaper.

Clarks and Startrite boys shoes go up to a men's 10 for those asking about larger boys sizes though you may have to order them as they often don't have many/any in stock.

Dd had ricosta brogues last year which had a decent sole and covered her foot. The plainest Lelli Kelly Mary Janes with no bows, writing, changeable straps etc are surprisingly hard wearing and are leather lined with a decent sole. They go up to about a 34/size 2.

Agree that Clarks are awful these days, especially the girls ranges, none of which are suitable for a wet winter walk to school. Luckily dds school allow boots so she wears those in the winter. Which means the school shoes from August are outgrown by the time she needs them again in April after wearing boots from October....

I agree there are loads of very sturdy shoes for girl in Startrite. My DDs last a whole school year. The soles are thick, the cuffs round the heels padded and they come reasonably far up the foot, plus there is a good choice of style, including some which come further up.

Personally I don't rate Clarks. I think their quality is less good, they pander more to fashion and gimmicks such as flashing lights, dolls under soles etc. They are a bit cheaper than Startrite, but Startrite often have excellent sales (although not in August obv). Clarks are aiming very much for the mass market and lights, dolls and embellishments is what many people want, so they provide it, within a sense of fitted leather shoes, which people feel is important and worth paying a bit more for, but without losing fashion. Clarks are essentially a compromise. Notice that increasingly school shoes from there don't have leather insoles or have thinner soles. They are trying to appeal to children who pressure their parents for fashion, whilst also appealing to parents who want to feel their gave their children fitted shoes with half sizes. In my view, on brands from M and S or John Lewis which don't have the width measurements are as good quality or better for less money...and fine for children with fairly standard feet. For those who need an especially wide or narrow fit, Clarks offer very limited choices, but somewhere like Startrite or the specialist continental brands do.

Most of us can learn to measure feet - the training staff in Clarks receive, is pretty basic and certainly not beyond most of us! If we learned to do it and trusted ourselves and got beyond thinking there was some kind of total mystery and divine secret behind it, we would open up more options for shoes.

Don't get me started on sexism in WOMENS shoes! Starting earlier and earlier now.

Heels - bad for health and increase accidents, squashed bones, impossible to walk normally let alone run in.

There should be a gender neutral range of lace up black school shoes

there are - try vans or Nike or converse - all plain black lace up shoes and half the cost of clarks !!'

Not a light doll or butterfly in sight! Or a dinosaur for that matter (small footed 12 year old!)

Except trainers & vans & converse are banned at most schools. (The latter two are not supportive so I'm glad actuslly)

the eldest has narrow feet

As a narrow footed woman (B width with even narrower heels, high street standard is D), she has my sympathy - it'll get worse when she gets older, and getting narrow shoes is a nightmare. I was actually pleased when my feet swelled up during pregnancy, because my shoes actually fitted better - now I've popped the sprog, the swelling's gone and water blisters are back :( It's the only part of my body that I actually wished was wider. -_-

Also, when I was little, I desperately wanted the Clarks princess shoes with the key in the sole, but they didn't do them in the narrow widths. Bastards!

2stripedsocks" The Eliza isn't bad, and the others you mention are more practical than some, but none of the styles you list are available in sizes below a 31 (small size 13).

Rant...
I searched all of Start-Rite for a size 11 and it's all dainty Mary-Janes or slightly more robust t-bars, all with fiddly buckles and girls' names (Delphine, Princess Elza, Alicia, Viola), none looking great for tramping 3 miles a day, or solid robust shoes with velcro called Engineer, Lift Off, Cup Final, Tarantula, Warrior etc.

To be fair the lace-ups would be fine, but trying to get a 4-year-old to get her top on and off is my target for the next week - the teachers wouldn't be happy if I gave her lace-ups!

Clarks, if you look up girl school shoes, show two bland velcro robust shoes in that size, though underneath the icon it says "boys shoes". If I look for boys school shoes, there's another 15 styles that didn't come up, and three of them are Gore-tex lined so waterproof. Clearly they can't be bothered to make any waterproof shoes for girls! And it's a bit rubbish Clarks claiming they don't label their shoes in the shops as being 'girl' or 'boy' if they do online (I've no problem with searches being available for girl or boy shoes, but why are unisex-looking shoes like www.clarks.co.uk/p/26118945 not coming up under girls' shoes?)

Kickers have some nice hi-rise wide-strap shoes and see no need to advertise boy vs girl shoes - no idea where i can try them on though.

Luckily dd can still wear the boots I got from Shoe Zone in March, so will make an expedition to a decent independent shoe shop before they wear out/get outgrown. Maybe I'll go for the Ecco shay or cohen to be like Mummy... (though again if you search for 'girls' rrather than black shoes size 11, they don't come up! And retailers wonder why people don't buy such shoes for their girls...)

Keeping on with the research -
Geox do the lovely Sophia boot (long or ankle) but no other shoes suitable for school apparently.
Ricosta don't let you look for school shoes unless you specify boy or girl. They have four styles of velcro-strap shoes in the boy section, two reasonable t-bars in the girls, though with moulded soles so probably not robust.

Any other brands to look at?

I've looked on their website and there are some sturdy looking shoes in the 'girls' section.

These are sensible.

Doc Martens are the ultimate practical and gender neutral option, surely?

other brands:
elefanten
ecco

I agree the other way around too. Yesterday my DS whonis getting school shoes for the first time spent 5 minutes admiring and trying on those with flowers and pink insoles and shiny ones. I felt sad having to tell him that the boys' ones are those plain black ones over there. At least he can wear his pink crocs and flowery flip-flops at the weekends.

DS won't try on "boring" coloured shoes memememum - we are just going to send him in his normal shoes and see what's available next time he needs new shoes. I'm hoping the school will be okay with this - on visits, the uniform policy didn't seem to be strictly enforced. Tho tbh, at least his shoes don't damage his feet/future health - he can play as he wants in them.