Girls' shoes - sort of "stop pimping our kids" but wider issue than sexualisation...

[Lemonsole]

Around this time last year I started a thread in Politics about the polarisation of children's shoes. Thread

Interestingly enough, I almost apologised for starting it - in those days before the Feminism board I struggled to convince many MNers that it was a political issue.

Today I went into Russell and Bromley inthe quest for DD's school shoes, and there on the shelf were these horrors

It's not only the ShoeZone/ Brantano end of the market producing inappropriate footwear - but now the "higher end" is getting in on the act, too. Incidentally, after my explosion, the assistant tried to suggest that they weren't "real" shoes, but dressing-up shoes. Yes, at fifty quid a pair..

I'm drafting my email to R and B as I type... any thoughts on what on earth we can do about it all?

I'm not daft - I know that Lelli Kellis have ALWAYS been vile, and always will be. The presence of vast quantities of glitter and jewels makes it very clear to young girls that any temptation to fun or activity suggested by the fact that their shoes are pumps should be quickly damped down and limited to watching and looking pretty. But they are now getting into a whole new league with these heels.

Boycott R and B? Where in the bloody hell will I be able to buy Start-rites? In our city it is Clarks (shite) or R and B or nowt. And I'm not ready to just order shoes by trial and error over the internet.

Interestingly enough, after their initial attempts to play down the shoes, the assistants seemed to share my views, particularly on the grounds that a children's shoe department marketing itself as a responsible choice should not be stocking such items.

Here's my email to R and B:
Dear Sir or Madam,

I visited your Lemonsoleville store today to buy new school shoes for my 6 year-old daughter.

I was shocked and disappointed to see these shoes on display. They are completely inappropriate for young feet -that they are available from a size 26 (UK size 8) is chilling.

I am amazed that Russell and Bromley, which enjoys an image as a responsible children's shoe retailer has chosen to stock these shoes. You won't let us leave the store without a senior fitter being happy with a shoe's fit; you are one of the few stockists of StartRite and Geox; you invest heavily in staff training. Yet you appear to be endorsing a shoe which, even if it fits a child's foot in terms of length and width, could cause long-term damage:

"Gregor McCoshim, a podiatrist, warned that young children should not wear heels. "The fact children can wear these is worrying. Any heel above 2cm increases the risk of twisting an ankle. Wearing them can cause strains in the back which is a potential problem for their growth and development." (Source)

Heeled shoes are not only dangerous for young girls, but their availability contributes to a climate in which our daughters are encouraged to dress and then behave as adults and not as children. This issue is being addressed by Mumsnet.com in their "Let girls be girls" campaign and their campaign has been taken up by Channel 4's Sex Education Show (broadcast yesterday) under the banner "stop pimping our kids". As a company that takes a pride in its up-market image, I am sure that you do not wish to be mentioned in the same breath as Primark, Matalan, Shoe Zone and Brantano as irresponsible retailers who contribute to the sexualisation of childhood. However, at least those other companies don't present themselves as being a responsible choice, and for you to stock these shoes while claiming to care about children's feet is hypocritical.

When I complained about the shoe instore, your assistant initially claimed that they were not intended to be a "real" shoe, but were for dressing-up. At £50 a pair, and made of leather, I find that hard to believe. This said, they then did, on the whole, agree with me and the other customer who was in the department at the time that they were were completely inappropriate and irresponsible.

I know that the standard reply in these cases is to limply respond that companies are only providing what the public wants. If you look into the issue of the sexualisation of childhood through the high street, you will see that most parents do not want to see this type of shoe replacing shoes that enable girls to be active, lively children.

I look forward with interest to your comments.
Yours faithfully, Lemonsole

You don't have to buy them though. I was back in UK a month or so ago and bought dd perfectly sensible shoes in Shoe Zone of all places.

You're right and good email.

They were saying on the channel 4 prog just now how companies use the excuse of what the public generally see as OK (this was in relation to music videos) and I have heard before the argument that we should always raise these things as it will eventually shift what is perceived as 'public opinion'. I send emails about all sorts of stuff, usually doesn't do much at that instant, but I do it as lots of little actions chip away at this stuff being 'normal'.

I am aware that I wasn't forced to take them away with my Start-Rites.

But isn't the whole point of Let Girls be Girls that there is more to it than simply not buying? That we have a broader responsibility to young girls that transcends the right of the market to offer whatever tat irresponsible parents will buy? That our girls have a right to grow up without thinking that heels+make-up+tarty clothes = attractive = important?

Retailers who sell themselves as being responsible are asking for complaints on this type of thing. And rightly so.

AliceWorld - thanks! I always feel alone in doing this kind of thing, and rather futile. But I still feel that it needs to be said.

Oh you're so not alone. I have two emails on the go at the moment. I go for shorter but more emails. And most of the time they are in response to things others are emailing about. At the moment 1 is the Green Fair one, the other is a local issue I thought up all by myself.

'Armchair activism' it's called - it even has a name

Lelli kelli's also come with free ' make up phone'. dD2 is mounting a campaign to get some but no bloody way on this Earth am I forking out £50 for those crappy things.

I find it hard to get sensible shoes and also sensible clothing fir my daughters. Plain skirts and dresses, tops which don't have "princess in training" on.

The girls' shoes issue is one that comes around every time I need to buy her shoes, and I find that it gets worse every season. From the first year that the dreaded Lelli-Kellys started to drive the more innocent Doodles from the shelves, to now seeing an entire rack of the things. And now with heels. While at the same time, the problems that I raised last year haven't changed at all.

It's no wonder at all that girls are becoming progressively less active and less healthy when shoes are ornaments instead of something to protect their feet while having fun.

Norman - DD was a tad mortified by my outburst this afternoon. She doesn't like LKs - but that may be because of the tide of vitriol that bursts forth when her mother comes into close proximity of a pair. Quite happy with her school StarRite Gumdrops and last year's Geox sandals. So far.

Good email.
We have a nice independent children's shoe shop which stocks startrite (amongst other ludicrously expensive brands). No silly girly shoes to be seen. Nothing similar near you?

To allow you to boycott R&B I mean

No, we haven't. There is one that stocks a few styles, but they didn't have the two summer sandals (i.e. not open-toed) that we wanted. I don't drive, so I find it harder to get further afield. If there was one, I'd use it, and probably have lower blood pressure.

I was expecting to see stilettos tbh, I don't see the problem really, girls have had party/dress up shoes for decades, they are hardly school shoes. I don't really get the "high end" "responsible" choice angle either, are shoezone irresponsible? do they hand out crack pipes and razor blades with each pair of cheap crocs?

Overracting a bit I think, the heel is tiny, yes they are sparkly, I have seen worse.

I like the way they come in "glittering silver, fuxia or white". There's a bright fuxia ahead for any girl who wears these.

I wonder if they'd order them in if you asked? Mine will - when DD wears out her school shoes at non-approved school-shoe-buying times of year (plus she has freakishly narrow feet so they don't always have anything in to fit her.)

Since I was (and still am) a tomboy I used to go through so many pairs of girls shoes I used to wear boys from aged 9 onwards. I just don't get why they cannot be more unisex after all boys and girls ARE still children.
As for shoes like those LelliKellis the fact that they are on sale means that people will buy them and the end result is that people will see them.

I just feel a little bad that I cannot put those principles into practises myself since I have two boys but I hope that girls I do know will not feel that they have to wear impractical expensive footwear.

For decades? In the 70s we used to wear our ballet shoes with party dresses, or our school shoes. I remember wearing ballet shoes as a bridesmaid in the early 80s, too - so I think that party shoes for children are a more recent phenomenon. We used to dress up in our mums' old shoes, so we couldn't wear them for more than a couple of minutes at a time as they were waaaay too big.

Dressing-up shoes? at 50 quid a pop? Really?

R and B claim themselves, through their branding and pricing to be "high end" and "responsible", as far as children's shoes are concerned. Shoe Zone don't make any claims either way, and so aren't being hypocritical.

It shows how far inappropriate shoes have already encroached towards becoming the norm that you need to see a stiletto to be shocked. A three year-old could be bought these. Does that not bother you at all?

Have you seen the advert too? It's like the kind of thing me and my sister used to make up for pretend adverts on our pretend radio when we were about 9 and 12. Complete with exaggerated, saccharine American accent which for some reason we always used to put on in our games.

I do actually think the shoes are quite cute, but can't they just be presented as another choice of shoes - they don't have to be marketed SO MUCH at girls with this ridiculous slant. It's likely that mainly girls will choose them anyway, without that. You can imagine the conversation they had in the advertising office.

"We need a free gift to come with the Lelli Kelly shoes. It's all the rage. Kids go mad for them."
"Okay. So these shoes are obviously JUST for girls. Let's think about all the things girls like."
"Cute things. Baby animals, they love that. How about a cuddly toy?"
"Nah, too expensive, too big. We need something small. Something plasticky like the other shoe gimmicks."

"They like... make up!"
"And talking!"

"How about a mobile phone with make up in!"
"Oh oh! And we could put pictures of puppies and kittens in the phone."
"Perfect, guys. What little girl in her right mind isn't going to adore that? A make up phone, with pictures of puppies and kittens in it. They won't be able to resist."

"Hey, how about adding a princess charm to the phone?"
"Don't be stupid. That would be overkill."

Good lord, you've got some time on your hands to be composing such a pompous email over such a trivial issue. These shoes are undoubtably tacky and over-priced but I really struggle to see why you've got your knickers in such a twist. If parents are stupid enough to buy them, then of course the shop will stock them, I don't see why that affects you.

Barry - I think that I am going to have to go in a talk to the owner of the inde next time. I bought her sandals today in R and B, as she needs them for school on Tuesday, but I would like not to have to go back, (and to return my store card, explaining why!)

Geeklove - I have one of each, and so experience the other side of the polarisation, too - the impossibility of a boy's shoe that isn't a trainer. Equally limiting and pigeon-holing, but not in quite such a damaging way as it is for the girls and their frills. Found DS some fab Hush Puppies at our independent shop.

Just looked at the link though - agree the heels are awful. Developing feet should have properly supportive shoes if possible. Shoes which force the feet into unnatural positions must be detrimental to this.

yousankmybattleship - why does anything that goes on in the world affect us? I see this as yet another manifestation of how young girls are pigeon-holed into behaving in a nice, demure way from the earliest years. If nobody had got het-up over foot-binding in China it would still be going on...

In this case, the specific impact on me is that looking at an entire wall of glittery crap limits the choice of other shoes. No sensible canvas plimmies without a designer label, only two school sandals, and no sporty sandals if you're a size 9 -11.

BertieBotts - your pastiche advert: so true!

These heels are definitely not just another shoe choice - I know exactly what you mean about the marketing of their plimsole/trainer-shaped shoes; the girlie angle is even more vile than the shoes themselves. I really felt though that these heels took them into a whole new league.

Can I first say that:
a] Armchair activism is A Good Thing and you're definitely not alone!
b] I'm in favour of "stop pimping our kids".
c] I'm also in favour of pink reduction.
d] I haven't got DCs.

Now may I say:
e] At 8yo, I forced my mother to buy me some unsuitable, heeled, patent leather shoes by walking to school in my socks for a week
f] The (very pink) little girls round here are wearing rainbow-striped pumps atm, which strike me as both girly and age-appropriate. They have a sparkly buckle.

I'm not at all sure how one should deal with a strong-willed fashion victim like my young self, but presumably Mum could have tried harder to find & sell me a compromise. The rainbow shoes look like such a compromise to me; surely it's unnecessary to stamp out all girlish tendencies in little girls?

I'm not trying to criticise anybody, by the way. I'm interested in how modern mothers deal with the pink-wash and barmy knickers.

The aspect of Brazilian life that most discomfited me was the sexualisation of young children: I did see several positive aspects to it (extreme self-confidence, for eg), but the sexy part of it all creeped me out. I felt happy we don't do that - but we're getting pretty damn close now!