Do Clarks think girls are not active?

[Timsowter]

As a father of four children between age 17 and 5 we have bought a lot of Clarks shoes over the years. More recently I have noticed that the soles of girls shoes are literally half the thickness of the soles on boys shoes. As a result girls shoes wear out before they are grown out of while boys grow out of shoes with a lot of life in them. Has anyone else noticed this? Any sensible alternatives for girls shoes?

Just to show that it is not just me, these are the last shoes she had, just look at the reviews

www.clarks.co.uk/p/20350526?cm_mmc=criteo--feed--na-_-na

We've given up on Clarks shoes - all about the embellishment but poor quality. Both DDs are now in Startrite or Primigi and they seem to last much better.

Why don't you just buy "boy's" shoes, I'm pretty sure boys and girls don't have different feet based on gender.

OP, FWIW there's a campaign called Let Clothes Be Clothes (spin off from Let Toys be Toys) campaigning against this kind of thing.

Oh ive always found them to be fine - we get DD a pair of Doodles when she grows a size and they are still in good condition when she outgrows them - and she wears them daily to park etc. She walks everywhere. The only difference between the boys and girls doodles is the print on the material (and even then Id just pick the print I like regardless).

Surely its the style of shoe that determines the durability? Their ballet flatsare never going to have robust soles regardless.

I bought my year 1 DD closed in shoes similar to boys but actually from the girls section of an independent shop. She says others in the class have asked why she is wearing 'boys' shoes

I agree it's v frustrating. I'd actually prefer that trainers were allowed.

I'm referring to school shoes BTW.

I would agree with you about the style of the shoe if these were not specifically marketed as school shoes. Anything that is being sold as a school shoe should be able to survive three months of walking to school and playing in the playground. All they need to do is ad a couple of millimetres thickness to the sole

Thank you that's interesting

Clarks are really bad imo for gender stereotyping in their shoes, my dd is very hard on her shoes and the last Clarks ones I bought her lasted 6 weeks

Her most recent ones are Start rite and they have done well so far..... i bought her some shoes that looked slightly more like boys shoes and she was teased at school for wearing them

This issue comes up very often. IME the style and quality of Clark's is poor and their fitting is inconsistent. Check out Happy Little Soles instead for the younger children.

I bought cheap asda ones last year for the summer term (after 2 pairs of expensive non clarks wore out). They lasted ages!

I remember having lace up, closed shoes all through school and in primary school suffered terribly at the hands of bullies for having "boys shoes". Doesn't help that my first name is the same as a character from The Young Ones, and I was in junior school from 84-87.

Boys' shoes, boys' name. I suffered.

For the record, enclosed shoes are now my preference. Makes getting formal shoes to wear to a wedding, etc very difficult.

Sorry, as you were. Thread derailment over.

My DS Clarks shoes last but gave up on them for DD. They are flimsy, open and not up to the hard wear they get. Clarks seem to refuse to listen. There are regular threads on it in here. I had a look in Clarks today on the off chance they had something suitable for my 6 year old dD and walked out in disgust

I suspect Clark's just think we are idiots. I've been recently to get new shoes. Go to John Lewis as they sell Clark's, Start Rite and their own brand, to have the assistant openly tell me Clark's are not the same quality any more, and they don't last as long as they should.

Never again for me, after buying DD a pair in the sale that lasted no more than 6 weeks. Ridiculous.

Flimsy leather, thin soles, open tops thin straps, nothing to stop scuffs. Hardly up to scooter / bike / football