Tesco School Shoes

[DeleteOrDecay]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/teacher-slams-tesco-sexist-childrens-10980164?ICID=FBmirrorr_main

Thoughts? Personally I think she has a point.

Unless you pay over the odds for specialist Scandinavian type clothing Ive found there are very few (any?) high street shops who don't do this.

Gendering clothes ensures more profits. Can't do hand me downs. And many girls' shoes just aren't robust. For no reason.

Hand on heart, my brother's summer sandals and my summer sandals, decades ago, were identical.

She most definitely has a point. I sometimes go to Clarks as we live near a factory outlet, and I've also noticed that the younger girls' styles are reasonably robust and chunky, whilst the school aged girls are flimsy, designed to get feet wet and thin soled.

DMs or Kickers all the way here.

Yes you're right, i still think she has a point.

Drives me mad taking my dd's shoe shopping and seeing all the 'pretty' style shoes for girls and strong sturdy type shoes for boys. My eldest in particular would choose any of the 'pretty' shoes over what's practical. I don't understand why they can't be both?

I'm going school shoe shopping soon and dreading wading through all the open-top Mary-janes to find something practical and weather appropriate for school.

It's a shame the usual response on social media is that she's a 'feminazi' and should concentrate on more important matters. I think the fact that she's a teacher means she gets a pretty good view of how gender stereotypes affect children on a daily basis and she's pointing this out for a good reason rather than for the sake of it.

I think she has a point too. I've found it very hard over the yrs to get robust good quality girls school shoes. When they can't do laces and have brogues which occasionally give more options for something that is a bit more sturdy, it is virtually impossible to find full foot coverage. And don't get me started about the complete lack of grip on the bottom

Kickers dms are good.

Totally agree. I have a dd and ds. Outside of school they both have trainers, wellies, crocs, and practical Velcro sandals. Comfy and practical. Because they are children and they like to run around a lot, and climb, and jump, and ride bikes.

Then we go school shoe shopping and all the boy shoes are like comfy trainers and all the girl shoes are flimsy and open. I haven't come across any option for girls that is anywhere near as practical and comfy as the boys school shoes. I hate it. (Meanwhile dd is delighted with her pretty school shoes...) I would really like to see better options for girls.

I suppose the trouble with school shoes is related to the school uniform. Style-wise pinafores and summer dresses do call for those open, prettier shoes rather than trainers. Maybe we need unisex uniforms, then the girls would probably wear more trainer-style shoes too?

Gender stereotyping of shoes seems to be a definite "thing" in modern marketing. I think the woman is right to point out in the linked article e.g. how descriptors "comfortable" for boys and "sensitive" for girls feed into this trend.

There seem to be numerous articles on gender stereotyping of shoes at the moment.

Here is an article about Clarks' "Dolly Babe" shoes for girls and "Leader’" shoes for boys:
www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/clarks-embroiled-in-sexism-row-over-dolly-babe-school-shoes-for-girls-a3610541.html

The labelling of the 2 shoes is unjustifiable.

Maybe we need unisex uniforms, then the girls would probably wear more trainer-style shoes too?

What would they be? Trousers for all? That isn't unisex- it is just deciding the norm for boys is better.

"Dolly Babe" and "Leader". That's so obvious it has got to be deliberate..somebody in Marketing won a bet with a friend over that by getting them out on sale called that. It would almost be funny, if it wasn't pathetic, and a drop in the ocean of sexist shite children get exposed to pretty much from birth.

What would they be? Trousers for all? That isn't unisex- it is just deciding the norm for boys is better.

I don't know, I didn't really have a particular answer in mind. I was just thinking about my dd's uniform overall - she is in primary school and always wears dresses - and how it wouldn't necessarily look right with more practical shoes, whereas ds's uniform looks fine with trainers.

I guess I don't see trousers as being just for boys, and in practical terms maybe the option of trousers or shorts is better.

Dd goes in the summer term in a dress, and then doesn't want to jump/climb/cartwheel as much as usual as it would show her underwear. Meanwhile ds is as active as ever in his shorts and tshirt and not giving a toss about what anyone thinks about him.

The sad thing is the amount of people who are willing to just accept it.

My dd is very into pink and lots of stereotypical girly things. She would absolutely love the butterfly print on the bottom of those shoes. It doesn't mean the message behind them is any different, it doesn't take away from the fact that many girls shoes just aren't practical.

One thing I've noticed recently which I don't remember them doing when I was at school are Mary-jane style pe pumps. I don't see how that style is suitable for sports at all.

Its so depressingly blatant. They aren't even trying to hide it.

I don't understand why people don't just buy the 'boys' shoes for their girls. I only have boys myself but that's what my Dsis does. They're just shoes -nothing overtly masculine about them.

Daphnedown sadly I don't think my dd would accept the boys shoes, as they're so clearly marketed to boys. (And certainly any of the ones ds has had would look out of place with her school dress.) She really likes the girls ones, she's not the kind of kid who would wear 'boy' stuff by choice. With most other things there is at least a suitable option amongst the girls things. So for example she wears quite 'girly' clothes but they are leggings/tshirts etc. and practical for whatever we're doing.

We have to go into the shoe shop to have feet measured, so she'd definitely notice!
I might try though :)

These look better... have never seen any girls shoes like this before, maybe the message is getting through?

www.marksandspencer.com/kids-freshfeet-coated-leather-sporty-school-trainers-with-silver-technology-and-scuff-resistant/p/p22449798?image=SD_04_T72_8625B_Y0_X_EC_0&color=BLACK&prevPage=plp&pdpredirect

don't understand why people don't just buy the 'boys' shoes for their girls. I only have boys myself but that's what my Dsis does. They're just shoes -nothing overtly masculine about them.

I do as often as I can but when Clarks will actually say 'no they're for boys' to children it's hard to fight the sexism. More importantly I shouldn't have to make my 6 year old constantly battle every day sexism when it would be far easier for companies to be held accountable for lazy sexism. It's 2017 they know people get wound up about it and no one refuses to buy girl shoes because there aren't enough sexist phrases in the advertising.

how would you feel about blatantly racist advertising? Would that be OK?

Soft for black children who don't like to play!

Clarks in sexism row for Dolly Babe shoe - BBC News
apple.news/AC-QetyhfSY2LeOA1VDxTZA

One thing I've noticed recently which I don't remember them doing when I was at school are Mary-jane style pe pumps. I don't see how that style is suitable for sports at all

My school shoes in primary school in the 60s were Mary Jane style
For sports everyone wore black canvas slip on gym shoes in primary. In secondary , if it was one of the days I couldn't avoid PE I had white canvas lace up shoes. Trainers didn't exist as a shoe for everyone.

No we had the slip on style pumps but now they do ones with an open top and a strap, not really practical for running around in pe.

I've been really surprised since having DD (I had a son first) with regards to the gendering of clothes. It's been a real eye opener, especially when trying to buy her first shoes. I have struggled to find anything that matches the practical trainers my son had, without, as PP mentioned, paying over the odds for imported brands.

What's more worrying is all the women, including those who have young daughters of their own, who don't see it as a problem, and think that people should just shop elsewhere. For some of us outside of major cities that isn't really an option for a start, and it misses the point entirely!

I don't understand why people don't just buy the 'boys' shoes for their girls. I only have boys myself but that's what my Dsis does. They're just shoes -nothing overtly masculine about them.

I researched this, as I am fed up with women's shoes, and read that men's shoes are shaped differently. Since my feet are very typically "female-shaped", this may not be an option for me.

Haven't dared try on men shoes in a shop, yet.

Would absolutely recommend that one tries it, but it might not work for everyone.

Mens shoes start at a bigger size?
I can get away with youth trainer sizes which are generally unisex but mens shoes would drown my size 5 feet.

The company's and shops should care. But then so should the public. And, at the minute , they don't .

Men's shoes ARE different. To get decent and fairly priced steel toe caps ( women's are available but are less durable and £££) I have men's. I'm a size 7- but the men's 7 is too big, wide and long. I wear extra socks to get around this.

Men's shoes ARE different

I love Reef flip-flops. They're beautifully contoured for comfort, robust, thick soled, and come in neutral, but smart, colours. But only the men's. At least in the UK.

The women's are strappy, thinner and downright uncomfortable in comparison.

I have to wear one size up from my regular size, so I can buy the men's, because they start at size 7, and I'm a 6.