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.

garlicbutter - on shoes, at the moment I don't have to compromise hugely, because she likes shoes that mean that she can run around easily. She's also getting to understand that I was to spend 50 quid on something bonkers, there would be less money for something else. On other areas we do talk about what is nice and what isn't. Luckily she so far has similar tastes to me. On areas like shoes, though, I am the Grown-Up and she is the Child, and as such, key issues (safety, practicality) just aren't up for negotiation. But I am quite old-fashioned like that...

I've just bought dd1 (aged 5) some rather frivolous multicoloured gladiator sandals & dd2 (aged 3) some canvas shoes with a buckle.

Both feature more pink than I'd choose, but both are suitable for running in - & dd1 changed back in to her scruffy plimsolls earlier because she was tree climbing ('I'll save my new sandals for going to the seaside at the weekend').

There is absolutely no reason I can see for any child of primary age or below to need any sort of heeled shoe. YANBU.

YANBU, good email, those shoes are inappropriate, bad for foot development....and sexualise little girls, as well as reinforcing a very singular view of feminity...they make me very ranty.

Those are horrible. My dd is too small for shoes yet but I hate shopping for ds. I hate all the dull brown and blues. I want some nice bright colours for him.

I my biggest issue is that they sell make- up with them well on type of shoe I've seen on tv

Hmm, now have the manic street preachers if you tolerate this then your children will be next as an earworm after reading this thread. I would love unisex shoes, might be more chance of shops stocking one's to fit ds1's narrow fit, nearly fell over in clarks when they said they did not stock d width for boys. Luckily local indiependant shop stocks geox and many european ranges so far last two winters he has had girls brown lace up boots, do not think this has harmed his sense of self! Though to be fair to the pink sparkly crowd they are the shoes he is always drawn to in the shop, They nearly always are completely unsuitable for children of either sex, no arch support , nothing to protect toe when climbing

Blimey, they've stopped doing unisex shoes? How idiotic! We all used to have Tuf shoes - sold by size, not gender - and some other ones that had animal footprints on the soles :) Iirc, there were some with a little compass in the sole, too - Wayfinders?

Then, of course, there were my unsuitable blue patent shoes ...

"key issues (safety, practicality) just aren't up for negotiation. But I am quite old-fashioned like that..."

I don't think that's old-fashioned, I think that's just sensible. I'm quite soft/liberal and I don't think being the adult automatically means I'm right about everything, but issues like safety and practicality don't always occur to children, so you have to step in and give them the benefit of your age and experience in these cases. Like how a toddler won't necessarily know that walking in the road is dangerous.

Also, on the subject of unisex shoes, I bought DS some muted turquoise and purple ones (the colours are so muted for boys though - I'd love a bright green or orange pair!) with dinosaurs on, and a few weeks later I saw a friend had bought the same shoes for her DD. So I think some can be unisex if you're willing to look in the "wrong" section.

Interesting debate here and one with which I agree in general. I am assuming that these shoes that the OP linked were party type shoes and no intended for everyday wear, otherwise that is a bigger debate!

I agree because my 5 year old daughter has large feet for her age, currently a size 13 and growing. You get to a point in most stores at about a size 12 where they think the child is older and shoes change from being child like to more of a teenage variety. Even Clarks brought out sandals with a heel on them when I went in last week. DD loved them but they would not have been suitable for running, skipping etc so went back.

R & B are not alone here.

I remember having 'party shoes' in the very early 70s, which were white satin shot through with silvery threads, and generally lasted about two wearings.
Mind you I laos remember shoe battles when I was about 11 and all the other girls were allowed to wear those low stack heels on their school shoes and I was still in Clarks....

My daughter has hypermobility and ended up having to buy her boys school shoes as girls school shoes in Clarks and Startrite are all ballerina style and offer no support at all. So pissed off.

My Dd is only 7 as well.

THat was a great e-mail lemonsole, especially this:
"I know that the standard reply in these cases is to limply respond that companies are only providing what the public wants. "

OOh, catching up again...

lockets - I know what you mean about the flowers on Gumdrops. But they are certainly hard-wearing and stand up to tearing around the playground. In a shop rammed full of glittery LK pumps, they are one of only two styles of what I call "school sandals" : not as heavy as a black, winter school shoe, but more robust than an open-toed sandal. And the other style doesn't fit DD. We're on our third pair now. Guess they're the least poor of the grim options, really.

BertieBots - I'd like to think that this was just about being sensible, too, but having overhead enough tantrums negotiations in shops between parents and DCs, that I've come to the conclusion that common sense can be thin on the ground and that, in some families, everything and anything is up for parents caving in to DCs' demands discussion.

One thing that I have noticed about girls' shoes is that, where they are "allowed" by manufacturers to have a gender-neutral style (such as a trainer), that has to be counter-balanced by being white, pink, or otherwise rendered unsuitable for proper scampering through muddy fields.

If the shoe is "girly" enough in its styling (i.e. suitable for little more than watching other people having fun), they are "allowed" to have darker or more neutral colours. Sandals (the subject of my long thread last year) are not, for girls, "allowed" to be as robust as those for boys - contrast the whole racks of sports sandals for boys with the one or two equivalent styles for girls. Geox are the exception to this rule, but R and B only stock them from size 13 onwards, even though they are made in smaller sizes.

I have thought long and hard as to why this riles me so much. I think that it is because I have seen the effects of this state of affairs on children in my DD's Y1/2 class. Girls who cannot run in the playground because of the unsuitable ballet-style pumps that they are wearing. Girls shuffling around in Ugg-style boots - but who don't own wellies. Those same girls unable to play in the snow, to splash in puddles - to be children.

To me, the encroachment of adult fashion into children's footwear is more than part of the sexualisation of childhood, because it not only suggests that girls should modify their behaviour by being calm and demure but it forces them into these roles by limited how they move around.

Excellent email, Lemonsole, and those shoes are vile!

Interesting point about girls' shoes limiting their activities. In 'Little House in the Big Woods' Laura Ingalls envies a young boy's copper-toed boots and his practical clothes, which give him the edge in tree-climbing. Her older sister was happy to sit demurely and to play 'ladylike' games. That was written in the 1930s about life in the 1880s. We haven't come very far, have we?

I feel quite sad now.

You're so right about Laura Ingalls! I've just finished reading that with DD, and it struck me too, in passing about how she couldn't play.

We really haven't moved on at all. Foot-binding in China was carried out on the pretext that smaller feet were prettier and more marry-able feet. The reality was that it was a highly effective limitation on girls stepping over the boundaries.

Good job that we're not as backward as all that, eh?

Heh, remember getting my first pair of DMs - ohh, about 1,000 years ago. The sales person told me about the reinforced toes; I was so excited! Not that I actually intended to have concrete joists fall on my feet from a great height ... just that I could!

No particular message in that - unless, perhaps, that it's a mistake to let preconceptions limit your choice of actions

I mostly buy DD 'boys' shoes and always have, since her first pair. Usually buy Start Rite, though, not Clarks. Their boy shoes are just too boy. Think it's good to complain though. Every time I need to get DD new shoes, I go to Clarks, knowing full well I won't buy shoes there, and complain to the staff, and then write a letter. Not sure if it has any impact. It seems to have made the staff think a bit about what I am saying, but they are not at the top of the company, making decisions...

Great email and I completely agree with everything you've said. This is a particular bugbear of mine, too. Your point about lack of robustness and limiting girls' movements is particularly important IMO. Even when you can buy girl's sandals in a sensible style (e.g. wider straps over ankle and toe area so they don't slip off, rub, or allow the foot to turn in the sandal), it's often counteracted by the presence of a really slippery sole that you just don't ever find on the bottom of boy's sandals.

One of the things that really frustrates me about all this is the lack of quality in girls shoes (despite the fact that they're often more expensive) and what that implies, whether intentional or otherwise. Why does design have to trump quality and practicality? It doesn't in most boys' shoes.

I always bought my children's shoes from Clinkards. They sell every good brand you can think of (Start Rite etc). It may be worth looking on the website to see if they have a store near you. They are brilliant and measure feet etc.

God, from the thread I thought they were going to be stillettos, not some girly shoe with a minuscule heel. I wore bigger heels than that for ballroom dancing/tap dancing as a kid. I had Startrite shoes for school with a bigger heel than that at age 8/9, this was in the mid 80s.

While I don't like them, they don't look anything but shoes for little girls. Frankly I'd be more concerned about my daughter wanting to wear some of the gladiator/cuff sandals I've seen in John Lewis which look like women's shoes, even though they have a completely flat heel.

I agree actually, they do look like 'party shoes' for a little girl. Not saying they aren't horrible! But while they're obviously no use for everyday wear or school, I don't think they're completely inappropriate for a special occasion like a wedding or party or similar.

Not sure what's going on the the 'mobile phone with makeup', that makes no sense to me, and I don't like make up being marketed to young girls.

Of course it is a problem if there's a lack of 'normal' i.e. comfortable, practical, hard-wearing shoes for girls, compared to what boys have, that's inexcusable. It's bad enough finding women's shoes of the same comfort and quality as men's (I'd happily wear men's shoes if they made them in my size!)