girls clothing

[ShoeSmacking]

So, I know you all think I'm going to be talking about the overt sexualisation of girls... but actually, I'd like to think that most feminists would agree that's just ridiculous.

Rather, I'm interested in something I've been noticing recently which I think is more subtle. DS is 2.5 and so at nursery, out with friends, at the park etc I see a lot of similarly aged girls. None are wearing, "I'm too sexy" t-shirts which I guess is a relief but I have noticed a distinct difference between what the boys and the girls wear. Most specifically, they always have something tight on their legs - leggings, jeggings, tights etc. While the boys tend to wear just regular trousers or trackies or whatever.

I noticed the same in the summer - DS and his little friends wore plain shorts, often relatively long sitting somewhere above the knee. The little girls all wore skirts or leggings and if they did wear shorts, there were much shorter (not obscene, but still).

It just felt like girls are being taught that they need to define and emphasise their legs from a very early age, even when supposedly they're wearing "practical" clothing? Or perhaps the problem is that boys aren't being allowed to wear tights/jeggings etc which are perhaps more comfortable?

What do you all think?

I think that is the boys not getting to wear leggings. DD, given the choice would wear leggings with a top or short dress. I spend ages trying to find trousers for DS with soft elasticated waistbands which don't fall down and which are a bit more smart than tracksuit bottoms. Leggings and a tunic are attractive, comfortable and practical unless it is very cold.

Leggings are fantastically practical. Little girls can wear them with short tops (a 2y doesn't care about VPL), long tops, dresses and any footwear from sandals to wellies.

They don't fall down (trousers often do), you can climb, ride a bike or crawl on the floor.

They cost no more than good tights and fit much better. They are harder to get holes in.

I'm certain boys would wear leggings if it was the fashion.

You can put tights under them if it's cold.

Also they are very forgiving as to size and length. This years winter leggings become next years and the years after summer cropped ones. DD2 has some that have done about 4 years

Yep I've noticed this. I also agree with other posters that leggings are practical so it seems mad that boys don't wear them. But they do emphasize the legs and obviously that's not what boys are about but girls are Teach them young.

I've also noticed a distinct difference in shoes as well. Boys much more practical.

Now shoes I agree 100%
Very little girls shoes and sandals are great. Jf you choose carefully, but school shoes...

They start bad and as DDs get bigger they are absolutely awful.

Utter sexism, that is totally condoned by the schools. Woe betide any girl who dares wear black trainers or ankle boots that have grips and keep your feet dry.

Not relevant to the discussion, well might be.

When my Nana was still alive, and at least 20 years ago, she went to do 'a talk' at the local primary school. She took her school photo from when she was about 6. There are boys wearing skirts in it. Quite common apparently for small boys, and I suppose in the days before pull ups and automatic washing machines easier to potty train.

Hmmmm. Not sure about this. There are, it is true, very few boys around here in leggings. But there are a lot in skinny jeans. Which are more restrictive and less comfortable.

On the shorts, I think it's that men's shorts have become less revealing over time and boys' have followed suit. Look at football players down the ages.

Shoes though, just don't get me started...

Absolutely agree.

My dm commented the other day that dd was having a boy day (red jumper with pic of a monkey, brown cords)

It got me thinking about mixing up her and my gendered clothes ie baggy trouser and smart blouse, long sleeve dress and waistcoat.

Loads of boys wear skinny jeans

If leggings were being selected for practical reasons, boys would be in them too. But they don't offer any advantage over joggers. So why are these items so often selected on gender lines in small children?

Both sexes wear skinny jeans, so it's clearly not an issue with all forms of leg wear. Or is it? Anywhere selling baggyish chinos in the girls section for say under 8s?

I agree hat a lot goes unnoticed. I had boys first, the a girl and happi handed down items between DC. But some friends who had girl then boy, and had believed they had dressed the girl neutrally, found they were only happy to put one garment in 10 onto a boy - there was always a trim, or a flare or something at would just not fit their expectation of gender or of truly neutral.

I put my DS (3) in leggings sometimes, usually for gymnastics. He doesn't care yet! Now he's out of his big cloth nappies some of his trousers are too big for him at the waist, even joggers. I think they're very practical for running and jumping and easy to fit inside wellies. I had some boy tights for him when he was younger.

I find that if DD is wearing red or stripy things people assume she's a boy.

I've just bought some Peppa Pig pjs for DS2 (yes he is a marketing company's dream) and had to get 'girls'. I was shocked at how body hugging the top was in comparison to all his other pjs. He is small for his age too and at the bottom of end the age range I bought. I had assumed that kids clothes at that age (2) would be pretty much cut the same.

The bow on the neckline does look cute though. But it is that little bit of 'femininity' in an otherwise neutral set of pyjamas.

The main advantages over hosts are that they stay up better on a thin child and they can look smarter.

Joggers don't work under tunics and dresses and they look wrong with non lace up shoes.

DD1 had little blue lace up boots and she wore unisex navy soft trousers a lot.

I hate pink shoes, because you can't wear red or burgundy with them. Because pink doesn't suit my red haired DD we ended up with several outfits pink shoes looked ridiculous with.

As for sizes, I think, on average toddler-preschool girls are slighter than boys the same age.

Certainly a lot of reception girls are, the logo'd jumpers seem to fit the boys.

I can see both sides of this. Leggings are practical and comfortable, but, at the moment, they do sit clearly on one side of a gender divide. And it's true that girls' clothes emphasise the shape of their legs from an early age. Even jeans for quite small girls are cut to "show off" bums and thighs, like adult women's jeans. Even ten years ago, it was getting harder to find straight-leg jeans in the girls' section. However, I also find this true for women's trousers.

Penguins makes an interesting point about men and shorts, too. DH and I found some old pictures, and we were trying to work out when it became socially unacceptable for men to wear short-shorts in public, outside of running, rugby league and certain other sports. We think early 90s, and footballers were one of our "guides". In the 80s, even adult men wore short running-style shorts in summer, although not anywhere remotely smart, obviously.

Interesting one. Girls clothing does follow women's fashion. When my eldest daughter was tiny, I recall there being lots of ordinary jeans, straight or bootcut style, or cargo pants. Now it is all leggings with tunics and skirts but that is what women are also wearing. I agree leggings are clingy but my younger daughter adores them for comfort and will pick them over a pair of jeans any day. I can still find tracksuits quite easily if the girls want them though.

For the boys the fashion seems to be skinnier jeans and I suppose they tend to wear tracksuit bottoms for comfort rather than leggings. Perhaps boys are missing out on leggings but since they are usually worn with a skirt, I can see why they are thought of as female clothing. On the other hand, you do see men in some very figure hugging cycling shorts. In fact, I associate leggings with sport and dance and wonder if they crossed over into the mainstream from there?

Maybe leggings are 'showing off' the shape of the leg but might this not be the reason girls were not allowed to wear trousers at all in days gone by (and still aren't in some cultures)? So it depends how you look at - men wanting to see women's legs and somehow influencing fashion, or women just wanting another form of practical clothing and not wanting their bodies to be 'hidden away'?

Honestly!

My boy wears leggings. They are much more practical, cheaper, fit into wellies better, more colourful than trousers.
He also wears knit sweaters and fleeces from the "girls" section (although an item ceases to be "girls clothes" surely, once a boy wears it)

When people who buy childrens clothes stop falling into the marketing trap of "boys" and "girls" clothes then there won't be a need for clothing segregation.