I'm ready to be flamed as being a harpy who thinks about things toooo much. But I went into Clarks today to look at their summer range - forward planning for Easter holiday shoe-buying fest. And I'm even more dismayed than usual about what they have on offer for girls, as the boys' range was so nice and so fantastically tailored for an active child.
It really struck me that the perennial Mumsnet moans about Clarks and their lack of choice for girls is a political issue. It's about objectification starting young. It's about sending a clear message about how much charging around you can do.
In their catalogue were two shoes - a sandal and a shoe, that had a heel. Starting at size 13. I know 6 year olds in size 13s, and so we aren't talking about sparkly dressing up clothes, we are talking about real shoes that real girls will be wearing while they are still in the infants.
Their staff told me that there is no demand for more rugged shoes. I asked why, for example this could not be made in a purple, or even plum, or even pink, goddammit. There is no demand, I was told. She told me that they expect this and this to be their biggest sellers for girls this summer. The colour of the latter is even called "lipstick" - just in case we are in any doubt.
So, if you have ever ranted about the limitations of Clarks, or their lack of choice, please join me in emailing them.
Disclaimer: I know that many of you like pink. Hell, I'm quite fond of it. What I am objecting to is the lack of choice. Unless I want to pay five gerzillian pounds for imported shoes.
Dear Sir or Madam,
I visited your Annnerville store today to look at what your children's ranges this spring/summer. The contrast between the two sides of the symmetrical display really shocked me.
On the boys' side of the shelves: rugged, supportive sandals and shoes, chunky soles, thick straps, all calling out to be worn to run down hills, tramp across the fields and charge around the school playground.
On the girls' side? White. Strappy. Pink. Even heels (starting at size 13). Nothing that I would consider suitable even for a regular walk into town, never mind the fun and rough wear that I want my five year-old daughter to enjoy as much as my three year-old son.
Just looking at your display showed very clearly the messages that children will draw about what they are expected to do. For the girls? Not to move around too quickly, or with too much dirt. For the boys? Have fun.
I would never try to run in strappy sandals, so why is this all that you appear to offer girls for hot weather?
And as for the trainers? I couldn't see anything that wasn't either white (again), pink, with a plastic toy in the heel, or covered with flowers. The toy in the heel seems to either raise the child's foot up (practice for heels in later life?) with it in place, or throw it back when removed. I have never met a parent with a good word to say about them, and so will not be buying them. By your own admission, Doodles are not suitable for everyday wear, so there is literally nothing that I can buy from Clarks for an active five year old who happens to want more from her sandals than that their white colour matches all her clothes.
In despair I asked the staff why your entire range seems to divide girls and boys not only into their own defined shoes (what would be wrong with a plain red or blue trainer, for example?) but according to what they are able to do in those shoes.
I grew up wearing Clarks shoes. My brother and I used to have the same Cica trainers, and we both had good rugged sandals that stood up to everything that an active childhood could throw at them. She told me that there was no demand for the sort of shoe that I am looking for. Please take this email as being my demand.
Yours,
Annner