To get “girls” stuff when I search for “boys”

[Cocobeau]

This is so fucking annoying.

I get this problem on so many websites. I specifically select the “boys” category and then results show a load of clothes clearly aimed for girls.

This example is from M&S. My exact actions;

Kids tab > 3 for 2 on kids Clothing > Boys (the options are view all, view boys or view girls.

These are the very first results that display. It’s clearly all designed with girls in mind. I get you’re allowed to dress your boy in pink and animal print, but I’d prefer not to for now. He can wear what he wants when he’s old enough to choose.

You might say this is a fly in the system but I have also frequently had this problem previously on Next and H&M.

I messaged Next once about it as I thought it was a glitch on the app. Their response was to tell me to use the web version, which had the same issue.

This is very much first world problems but it’s soooo bloody annoying!

Yes, well we all have eyes don't we? We can see what children are actually wearing.

Where did I say you didn't have eyes? I clearly said in life I don't know anyone who buys that for their boys.

But why do the shops ALSO get to say that I shouldn't be looking for a cat sweatshirt, or blue leggings, or a rainbow with purple, for my DS?

I completely agree that there should be no more boys/girls clothing sections but I also think retailers should be incentivised to make clothes that can be passed down between boys and girls - so much less wasteful if you have e.g. a bright blue sweatshirt with a cartoon cat, not a frilly pink sweatshirt AND a dark brown one with HERE COMES TROUBLE in camo letters.

Yes, I was agreeing with you 😂

Sorry 🤣🤣

Where do shops say that? You can look for whatever you want and in whichever section you want for your child.

So can you though, surely? So this whole argument is a bit moot. Because if someone wants butterflies or pink for their boy, they either click "girls" and search both, OR, they go onto the sites which are showing both and....search both.

Meanwhile, you just continue buying what you want for your child, based on what they like?

YANBU to get miffed by it. To all the people saying "gatekeeping clothes is sexist", lets be honest most little lads wouldn't want to wear pink leopartard trousers and sparkly sequin tops would they?

To be fair though, my youngest DD only wears boys clothes. She also has very short boy hair so if you look at her you will automatically assume she's a little lad. But thats not something Ive enforced, its how she wants to be. Still a girl though.

I do. I look in the boys section for my boy and the girls section for my girl. My girl went through a stage of only liking football kits and dark tracksuits and likewise. I always found those things in the boys section. She then got a bit older and went back to liking lighter brighter things, pinks and purples. I found these in the girls section.

But why do I have to look in both sections for my children when other people are complaining loudly that they are (shock horror) being shown clothes their child won't be wearing in case his willy drops off?

Why do I have to see clothes I don't want to buy but other people don't have to see clothes they don't want to buy?

It's a pain looking at all the clothes in both the "boys" and the "girls" sections for clothes but I don't see how you could get a categorisation system that suits everyone - why should it suit you, but not suit me?

I'd prefer a system that grouped by colour, and then had themes like animals, gaming, plain (I would REALLY like a section that had all the plain colours together!), simple patterns (e.g tie dye, stripes), and then divide up into tops, bottoms etc.

If you are so offended by this you would faint at seeing a skirt in the "plain red bottoms" section then I am sorry, but it would make things a lot easier for me.

Or is it only you that gets to have your life made easier?

Often get skirts and dresses shown under Boys.
It’s wasting my time, just add them to Unisex if it’s so important.

How would your life change if it was just a "kids" section" though? You'd filter to the colour rather than the gender and still find what you wanted. One search per child.

Splitting by gender means if you want pink for boys, you go to girls (cos boys aren't allowed pink and all girls love it). But you also want jeans, so you go to boys cos they're sized for boy shapes (and more practical, girls don't need pockets apparently). Or you want khaki for a girl so you have to go through both genders to see what's there. And you need a dress cos she wants one but jeans cos they're practical. So at least two searches per child.

There's also a need to make sure boys know that it's ok to like pink, butterflies, unicorns. And girls know that it's ok to like a football shirt or diggers. Taking the gender label off helps that. Cos more parents would buy them if they were just cute kids clothes, and didn't have a gender assigned.

@IpsyUpsyDaisyDoos a shop laid out like that would be a pain in the arse if I was shopping for things for my DD but some of it was for her and some wasn't. I honestly just couldn't get worked up over something like this, but we are all entitled to our own opinions.

The current layouts are a pain in the arse for some of us already. That's the point.

There's a TOTAL lack of understanding that not everyone thinks the same on this thread.

"I don't want to find pink stuff. I'm looking for boys' stuff".
But why are you special?
Why are YOU allowed to have the shop laid out the way you want (No pink leggings!) but I don't want camo and I ALSO don't want frills - I can't go to the "no camo and no frills" section.

Or just do what the rest of us have been doing for a decade and look everywhere.

For likely a very small amount of the population. Why would they change layouts to suit a small amount of people who have decided they don't like to shop that way? Is the argument the same for mens and women's sections? How about perfume/aftershave? How about the fact that make up sections are all bright and pink and light, with hearts and flowers? How about lingerie sections, should it be thongs amongst boxer shorts, or are they ok separately?

Women and men have different body shapes. Children don't. And these preferences are given to children rather than developed from what they actually want.

I very specifically told my family "no pink" when I found out I was having a girl. Because I knew we'd be overrun with it. I have nothing against it, but I wanted my daughter to be able to have whatever colour she wanted, rather than what was forced upon her.

But equally, there should be more pink and butterflies available for men and things other than pink and hearts for women. Women should be allowed pockets. Men should be allowed a bag. I know many women who prefer a male scent over a floral perfume. So yeah maybe they should be sorted on scent rather than whether they're male or female. Women should be allowed something like boxers, and as much as it makes me shudder, men should have the option of thongs if they want them.

It's clothes. They don't need to be gendered. Tailored to fit a body shape, absolutely. But gendered? Why?

@IpsyUpsyDaisyDoos I have pockets in loads of my clothes, my DH has a bag, my DM wears aftershave she prefers it over perfume. Oh and I wear boxers! Mens ones. However, not one of us has an issue with how any of this stuff is laid out in a shop, why would we? We know exactly where it all is when we go shopping for it.

And you wouldn't if it wasn't split by male or female and in fact just in sections?

There's also a need to make sure boys know that it's ok to like pink, butterflies, unicorns. And girls know that it's ok to like a football shirt or diggers. Taking the gender label off helps that. Cos more parents would buy them if they were just cute kids clothes, and didn't have a gender assigned

Totally agree with this. It’s really important.

Back in the 70s when I was growing up, all us kids wore orange, purple and olive green, and everything (pretty much) could be handed down to siblings of the opposite sex. It was a hugely regressive step when clothes and toys became over-gendered, somewhere in the late eighties/early nineties.

I was glad when Zara Girls and Zara Boys labels became Zara Kids, because it meant that ds could cheerfully choose the faux fur jackets he loved without being teased at school for the label in his coat. He still wears fluffy jumpers when he can get his hands on them as a tween, although they’re generally cut to be cropped, which is a pain.

And actually, teenage dd doesn’t like cropped either, so she heads to boys sections.

Yeah, I'd just have double the stuff to look through with half of it being useless. So I'd find it pointless. Always been more than happy to nip into the sections as and when I need them.

Missing the point though aren't you. If it had always been the other way, no gender labels, you'd know where everything was and would nip into whatever section to find what you needed. If they then split it up, you'd have double the stuff to look through to find what you needed, with most of it not relevant to you.

But if it wasn't gendered, everyone could just choose what they wanted. Choose what they liked. Be who they are. There would be less pressure to fit a certain look or "type" because of your biological sex. You'd just go to the shop, walk to the "tops" section and pick what you liked.

It's much deeper than the ease of shopping.

Nah I'm not missing the point. I just completely disagree with you. And that's ok.

So you disagree that people should be allowed to wear what they like without it being labelled and therefore feeling like they aren't themselves? Ok.

Good luck to your kids being able to be themselves.

People can wear anything they want. Like I have repeatedly said in all of your examples, including my young DD, they all wore/used things from whichever section they wanted with no pressure whatsoever. My kids have grown up wonderfully thank you, because I have taught them all their lives about being themselves and not just following the crowd. No need to throw digs just because I don't agree with you.