Let girls be girls campaign is puritanical?

[clemette]

here

padded bras for 7 year olds is a world away from those m&s bras.

am about the reference to M&S......just had a quick look at their "Angel" range......and to me (I don't have girls and am well past the first lingerie phase myself) looks like it's all "normal" lingerie for girls who have just hit puberty and need a bra.....

yes it is a stupid reference to back up a stupid argument

oh good so I'm not being thick then - phew.

Am sat here looking long and hard at the M&S range trying to work out how on earth they could be compared to padded bra's for 7yr olds and wondering whether I'd lost the plot or not

Stupid article. V disappointing as I thought Laurie Penny was quite a decent sort. There are some good comments at the bottom though pointing out how spectacularly she is missing the point!

It's badly argued and badly constructed. She is trying to have it both ways and achieving nothing!

Oh do fuck off Laurie, there's a dear

The comments below are good though - "paedobear seal of approval"

She ties herself up in knots of disapproval.

First she would have loved a padded bra in primary school so that she did not have to use tissues in her cropped top. That way she would not have been teased by boys for being flat chested.

Then in the same paragraph she states that the girls who actually had something to fill a bra with were 'groped, harassed and dogged by cries of "slut" and "slag" '

And she spectacularly misses the point that the M&S bras are for teenage girls who actually have breasts and not for 7yos who do not.

Not that I would buy a padded bra as a first bra, but that it another topic.

Surely the basic issue is that if boys tease girls about being flat chested the boys should be dealt with NOT that the girl should pad out her bra.

And any other sexual teasing should have been stamped on.

She really does miss the point, she cannot even recognise that the boys at her shcool were little shits, and it was not that the girls had something "wrong" with them.

Perhpas we should start a campaign for stopping sexual harassment of young girls as well?

Thats what I mean about badly argued, on one hand she is saying girls should be allowed to explore their sexuality and on the other that she wanted a padded bra because of what BOYS were saying/doing...thats hardly exploring yor sexuality, more like giving in to male perceptions. You can't have it both ways.....

I thought the primark thing was a bikini not a bra - M&S (and asda etc) starter bras/crop tops under clothes are a totally different thing.

I agree Lenin. It is not about paedophiles. It is about how our daughters view themselves and the pressure that we put them under to be pretty, sexy girls from too a young age.

It is not about denying them their sexuality, but that we should not be encouraging our girls to be sexy at such a young age.

There are two prongs to this, I think.

One: Sexy clothes for young girls, such as the Primark bra

Two: Limiting our daughters horizons with "Wag in Waiting" tshirts. ie. suggesting that the only traits that are valuable for a young girl/woman to have is attractive and sexy.

ISWYM Lenin - but what I find so annoying about Penny's article is the way she wheels out the old "if you object to this, you're a Mary Whitehouse anti-sex prude" line. It's bloody depressing to hear that from a feminist.

MmeLindt is spot on.

This pressure to be "sexy" is outrageous.
Sometime I think they'll be telling us girls to put nail varnish on our turds, so they look nicer.

I just sprayed my keyboard with coffee at the comment about varnishing our turds.

Actually, the comment about M&S reminded me that I wanted to order some undies and socks for the DCs and I am having problems finding pants that I would say are appropriate.

My DD is 8yo, I would normally buy age 7 - 8 as she is quite small. The pants in that age range are either wee girls one (Disney Princess/Dora) or shorts, which I don't like for her. I did find some, but was surprised that the nicer patterned ones are all shorts.

I don't want my daughter to be under pressure to dress like a woman and therefore act like one, it's a responsibility that she can wait for.

Holy crap. It's a long time since I've read anything so totally, deliberately and wilfully missing the point as this article.

Wtf are her actual arguments?

She just wants to get a name for herself and lots of comments after her 'article'.

Utter garbage. Not even worthy of unpicking. How does this guff get published? She reminds me of dear Zoe (Williams) just saying stuff, any stuff, that will contradict and outrage the normally held view.

None of it would stand up in any verbal conversation becuase the moment anybody with any common sense said 'yes but...' the whole thing would fall down. This crap just stands as it's the written word and nobody is there to say 'WTF' after the first bloody sentence.

She's garnered some comments, but most of them are on our side