be outraged by the sexism in girls swimwear and underwear

[ZippyPeer]

At the outdoor pool in my town today, it's one for younger kids. All the girl children wearing close fitting costumes that show the shape of their bums all the boys wearing baggy swim shorts. There's a lot of climbing onto inflatables and on a number of occasions have to look away as I'm seeing much more of a girl than I want to.

Then doing laundry, realised that the girl pants are all thin cotton and the boy pants much thicker and with a broader gusset. If my girl kid is sitting cross-legged in the girl pants there is a risk of getting an eye full, whereas the boy pants do a better job of keeping what's in the pants private.

Why is this and what can be done to make clothing manufacturers stop being so sexist?

Totally agree and the fact it been an ongoing campaign for at least the last 10 years with very little change is soul sucking.

Not just swimwear. I was thinking the other day about the existence of bras.

Imagine saying to men that your chest must only be <insert unobtainable shape> and so you must wear this restrictive item of clothing every day until you die.

Oh, and start wearing it towards the end of primary school.

Oh also, we will make sure other men judge you, as well as women, if you don't wear the restrictive item of clothing to have the unobtainable shape for your whole life.

Could we please stop sexualising children by saying swimsuits and leotards are too revealing. They are not revealing anything, there is nothing to see, they are children. I don't believe a bunch of adults really think like this.

Yes and OP's post is exactly why this is. Because the underwear doesn't cover much. And yes you can get shorty style underwear or swimwear but you need to look for it. It is not in every shop, in every size, in every colour etc. I also find that boys tshirts, joggers, school uniform etc is cheaper.

Don't most people wear bras because they are more comfortable? I mean I don't need a bra, good job being flat chested was fashionable when I was a teenager, but I always thought if you actually had boobs it was more about support rather than bouncing about.

I never knew I was being judged so that's a bit of a shocker.

When I was a kid we had to wear navy blue knickers to school, God they were hot and scratchy and I was glad my DD never had to wear them.

As a 54 year old I buy mens briefs because the cotton is still 3 times the quality. A gusset that actually exists etc etc.. I'm also part of the We Do Not Care Generation lol. Don't get me started on prom outfits and the huge pink premium girls pay

I exclusively buy my DD shorts style underwear because she prefers it, it’s wildly available in almost every shop and in way more colours options than boys typically have.

Thanks for the rude response. I don't buy any of these actually, being in my 60s and not having grandchildren. But as a headteacher I've had plenty of discussions with girls who feel they have no choice as they tend to wear the same shorts they wear for PE.
Maybe their parents can't afford, or choose not to buy, a range of pastel shorts matched to their dresses. But good for you.

Not with the wider gusset no you won't find them everywhere

What does the shape have to do with anything? I wear a bra so I can walk quickly without developing chafed nipples and aching breasts.

In the main, it's the mother that does the clothes shop in for children. If women don't like this, women should just stop buying it and clotheing manufacturers wouldn't make it anymore.

All the power here is with the consumer ( as I said, this is very nearly always a woman in the case of clothes for young children). Manufacturers simply won't make what doesn't sell.

I have been known to rant about this and take photos of boys size 1 vs girls size 4. Drives me batty.

But it starts young. Go to any toddler activity where children are wearing "comfortsble" clothing... boys were shorts or trackies and girls are in leggings or hot pants.

And the "oh just buy in the boys section" or "well they wouldn't sell it if people didn't buy it" is bollocks.

One day I am going to make my fortune by ordering plain black boys shoes and "girlifying" them to sell - a pink inner sole, a butterfly applique...I eill be rich. Practical shoes that are still "girly".

Shorts come down the leg, of course the gusset is wider.
I’ve bought them for years and never struggled to find them. If you go on next now there are loads of styles, colours and patterns.

Dd1 used to wear swim shorts (surfer style) but dd3 likes to wear tiny bikinis. I assume there’s some supply and demand going on.

I honestly can’t believe how normalised it has become for girls to wear shorts under their skirts/dresses so that they don’t inadvertently flash anyone at assembly/carpet time/playtime/ any fucking time they actually want to do anything at all except sit primly on a chair with their knees clamped together.

it is so depressing.

I can remember parroting ‘no, you don’t need shorts, you have pants to cover your bottom’ endlessly to my dd when she was younger, because it was seen as weird that she didn’t wear the seemingly obligatory extra layer of clothing (her pants were good bottom covering ones! I found the Disney store ones used to be really good, but this is 15+ years ago!)

and yes, it’s not just pants. It’s t shirts, and shorts, and everything cropped, and shoes that are flimsier, and jumpers/coats that are skimpier, and I and sick of the whole lot.

Saying ‘just buy the stuff from the boys section’ doesn’t always work. My dds both had items from the boys section (and ds occasionally had stuff from the girls section, although this was harder to achieve due to the crap quality/skimpy cut), but once peer pressure and own choice kicks in, it does make everything harder (and I am far from a pushover - neither dd wore anything I deemed u acceptable until they were too old for me to dictate - well into their teens), and why does everything have to be so difficult?

and to a previous poster - it isn’t sexualising children to say that the majority of clothing aimed at young girls is not fit for purpose and likely to end up with them exposing parts of their bodies that should be kept private. It’s highlighting that clothing choices are completely inadequate overall.

Have you always bought them from next?

Shorts are banned under dresses at my DCs school (and girls have to wear the gingham summer dress). But she wears girls boxers under her dresses. DD has a range of stuff that keeps her well covered for swimming on holiday, including rash vest and swimshorts. It's just been a case of shopping around a bit to find suitable stuff or getting unisex stuff. I also wear swim shorts and a rash vest because of my pale, freckly skin and the ability to burn on a cloudy day in early spring, so DD doesn't think it unusual. At swim club both DC are equally exposed as DS wears jammers rather than baggy shorts, and DD has a long legged swimsuit. The disparity between clothing standard is definitely a thing though and it really irritates me. Especially in the summer when all I want is DDs shoulders covered and boy length shorts to keep her skin out the sun.

It's more complicated than that. There are a million messages going to girls (and their mothers( about what to wear. Starting, as I pointed out earlier, with leggings and tight shorts for girls from practically baby age. It's not sexualised at all, it's just "normal" but it sets the tone and it starts this idea that tight ans short is normal and comfortable for girls.

As someone who has been ranting about this and monitoring it for years, and so has been paying attention, I can tell you that it IS better than it was. And there is more choice. Stores like h&m, next, zara are all offering a much wider selection of styles and it's often one OR the other - eg tighter denim shorts might be longer or the shorter ones are thicker cotton and less snug. It does feel like steps in the right direction. The last 2 years dd has managed to get a large selection of tanks that are proper ribbed cotton, and not cropped, which she loves and look good and cover her while still being comfortable and appropriate in hot weather. As a child who has always hated skinny jeans, she has finally been able to buy a few pairs that aren't skinny. And every year she manages to have wide legged trousers which we struggled to find when she was younger.

So it is improving. Probably because of people like the ones on this thread. But its not fast.

This is incredibly naive. Why do you think there is less material on girls/women’s outfits than boys/mens?

That’s not how the patriarchy works

Boys underwear have a wider gusset because it's needed to cover their testicles, the material is thicker because it needs to hold the boys penis and testicles in place. Girls underwear doesn't require the additional room for testicles (girls don't have them) nor do they need to be as strong so the manufacturers can use thinner cheaper material.
You can get swimming trunks for girls btw

That's just making excuses.

The consumer is in control. The marketing departments of clothing companies make what know will sell.

Women throwing their hands up in the air and just saying we are powerless to change this are part of the problem.

Completely disagree. We live in a consumer society if people don't buy things people don't make them. The problem is too many mums want to dress their daughter up like little princesses rather than in practical clothes

If anyone is looking for nice quality girls knickers try Uniqlo, the gusset seems a decent size and they are lovely thick cotton in girly designs.