Competing interests/help me think through this?

[AlfredDaButtler]

This is sort of a TAAT, so apologies for that but I've been thinking about it, and I'm struggling with the "grey area" aspects of this (as someone with autism).

There's a thread on the go about mini skirts/crop tops on 10yo girls, and from what I've read, there seems to be two main schools of feminist thought on this:

1. Clothes children wear are by default children's clothes, therefore aren't sexualised. Anyone who sees what is obviously a child wearing wearing a crop top and sees a sexualised being is the person with the problem. Men should control their behaviour/we shouldn't slut shame/women can wear what they like.

2. Clothes aimed at women, particularly items such as crop tops and miniskirts, are often designed from the perspective of the male gaze/patriarchy. Men's/boys' clothes are more often practical in design, allowing them to focus on achieving. Allowing children - particularly girls - to wear clothes that are aimed at grown women is inappropriate because we should be teaching them that their worth is not based on their appearance. There is also a side issue that these clothes are viewed to contribute towards reducing participation from girls who are physically restricted by their outfit choices/more conscious of not wanting to mess them up.

I see the value of both arguments, but I was hoping that other posters would be able to help me think through these/introduce other ideas because as it is I can't reconcile 1 and 2, and I have a feeling that there is probably a grey area situation here that I'm not seeing - and the thought of two right answers that are so different is a bit difficult for me to cope with this morning (see earlier comment re: autism).

So what have I missed here?

I am not sure but you have articulated the 2 arguments well.

Bumping this in hopes of more eloquent posters than I replying.

I think there's a clear difference between everyday clothes, and sexualised clothes. Part of social behaviour is learning appropriate behaviour and context, its what makes society work, its a form of communication and it matters.

Sexualised clothing is not suitable in every situation. I wouldn't wear it to a funeral, or in the office, and I wouldn't put it on a child. But that's not because I think it causes men to assault out of uncontrollable lust. There is a time and a place for each social signal we use.
Sexualised clothing doesn't belong on children any more than a funeral suit in the playground. Its out of context.

At the same time, men should be responsible for their behaviour. Its not the clothing that causes men to abuse children IMO.

I'm with 2, it's what my gut tells me- there's a reason we feel uneasy when we see young girls dressed like 18 yo. But then I feel uneasy when I see young women dressed in sexualised clothing anyway.
But I think articulating 2 in a way that makes sense to a child is hard without straying into making girls responsible for men. Young teenagers (or Y6 kids) aspire to being adult and may say they are adult, so they will want to wear 'adult' clothing. And if it's a school disco, that surely is an appropriate occassion for adult clothing....a 10 year old will know what her big sister wears to go out, she will want to wear the same.

Thanks for replying

There is a time and a place for each social signal we use. I think this might be the root of my struggle to understand some of the viewpoints. I place quite a lot of importance on social signals - I have had to make quite a lot of effort to try and understand them over the course of my life because they don't always come naturally to me. So when I see people saying things like "of course it's ok to wear PJs on the school run" my default reaction is "That's not in Da Rules though".

While playing with DD(3) just now, I've been thinking more about this and how I dress her and DS(5). I do tend to dress her quite practically - leggings/shorts and tshirts/dresses. She's going through a bit of an exploratory phase with her body, so I've spent quite a bit of time reminding her that her privates are private/don't go showing people your bum (I did the same with DS at that age when he went through a "look at my willy!" stage). I want her to be able to wear what she likes to wear, but I do tend to view things through the lens of option 2 - I don't wear provocative clothing myself because I know that it's designed with men in mind, so why would I dress DD in a miniature version of it? But am I wrong in thinking that way?

Before I had a child I hated crop tops on small girls. Now I have one, I actually find them extremely practical for dance class so she doesnt overheat. Maybe that falls under the category of time and place articulated above.

I would never let her wear anything with inappropriate slogans , e.g. sexy or even pretty for that matter.

I should say her usual clothing is tshirt and leggings. Even for parties I make her wear them so she can have more fun climbing and running as opposed to being constricted by a party dress. Even when I do buy her a dress they tend to be loose stretchy fabrics. I hate fixed waistbands on children.

I don't wear provocative clothing myself because I know that it's designed with men in mind, so why would I dress DD in a miniature version of it? But am I wrong in thinking that way?

No, I don't think so. How else are children going to learn complex social signals such as appropriate behaviour, context and boundaries?

We wear a swimsuit when we go swimming, but not in the bath.
We don't wear scuba gear in the supermarket, or high heels when we go running.

A little from row A and a little from row B.

The difficulty with clothing is that often the "problem" is not the clothes but the body underneath. So clothes that are seen as perfectly fine on one girl will be seen as overly sexualised on another girl the same age who has a different body.

Body parts are body parts, a leg on a man with shorts is seen as nothing of anything, a woman's leg in similar length shorts is deemed / read as trying to attract attention esp male attention, "showing off" legs and so on. Again it's not the clothes that are the problem but the rampant sexualisation of the female form from puberty onwards.

In an ideal world a girl could wear a sleeveless top or some shorts on a sunny day and not have half the world think that she is deliberately seeking to show off her body and probably looking for attention from men.

Sad fact is there are a large amount of skeevy bastards out there who think nothing of leering at 11 yo and saying all sorts of shit to them (guessing things haven't changed since I was a girl) and maybe different clothes will help.

Two points though
Do different clothes stop skeevy bastards? No. They go after girls in school uniform. In fact school uniform is frequently sexualised which really does show it's not the clothes but the body underneath
Given that, where do we stop? The reports from schools in USA with ever increasing strict rules (for girls only) with the reason that they "distract the boys" and so must cover is really fuckng damaging. And at the end of that same road and thought process lies the burqua. Girls can cover up and cover up but it won't stop because it really isn't the clothes, it's the body underneath.

Now I have one, I actually find them extremely practical for dance class so she doesnt overheat. Absolutely. I can see DD wanting to do dance or gymnastics as she gets older, and she'll need to wear dance clothes/leotards as part of that. But I wouldn't dress her for dance for everyday wear - much like DS how doesn't go out wearing his Judo gi (although I appreciate that gis haven't quite made it into the whole "active wear" trend yet ).

Most older girls and women are following fashion as well, not dressing "with men in mind". It is men who say this is what women and girls are doing, what they are thinking of every time they dress.

When a girl at school rolls her skirt up she's usually doing what her mates do, she's not thinking "I want to show off my great pins and maybe get some sexual interested from some over 40s".

Men are off the mark when they claim that women and girls dressign in certain ways is always in order to be sexually appealing to any and all men. Some think like that I guess but I never did. Looking hot for random men was never a concern when I was dressing. In fact I hated getting approached / shouted at and all that when I was just going about my business.

Men have stated that certain clothes "signal" stuff. Like skirts that say "I'm promiscuous so why not rape me". No woman or girl has ever put on a skirt thinking yes that's the message I want to send today. They are more likely to be thinking, I'll put this skirt on that I got last week when I was out with my mates and is fashionable at the moment and I think I look OK in it (but it is a bit short so I'll be subconsciously pulling it down all night)".

The problem here is how our society (and every society in the world prob) views girls post puberty,

And also the behaviour of a large minority of men.

Not the clothes. The clothes is a sleight of hand to distract frorm the first 2 things.

Given that, where do we stop? That's exactly it. I have an issue with the de facto policing of what girls wear. But then I go back to my "well they're conditioned to want those clothes, which designed for men and often by men, so are they really making a free choice to wear these clothes and should we support the attitudes towards women that these clothes promote?" - which I guess sort of then ties into the issue of fashion and who designs it (without going into a Devil Wears Prada style cerulean blue sweater speech).

I do think there's a difference between saying "This item was designed to signify sexuality" and "This item invites men to rape it's wearer".

interesting one.

To my mind, a kid in a crop top and mini skirt is just a kid in summer clothing.

A kid in stacked heels, makeup and the same outfit - yeah, sexualised and a bit inappropriate.

I'm with 2

We can sit here debating whether or not something is proactive or not but truth is old ladies in nappies and hospital gowns get abused. I was offered money in a full length coat and hood all done up.

Women are raped in sweatpants and raped in mini skirts.

It's men. It's not the clothes.

Im.all behind restricting what kids wear in regards to is it restrictive, appropriate for activity , comfortable, and doesn't damage or cause pain (high heels and some bras for example are bad for posture etc)

We really should steer clear of giving men any more excuses to abuse girls and women by agreeing with them.

1 that should say.

I'm with 1

There is a man at my work who is very tall and lean and goes running every lunch break in tiny little shorts and a skin tight sleeveless top.

No-one bats an eyelid.

A woman in the office dressed like that for running would certainly make some people think - those shorts are too short for the office, that's a bit much, can't she find anything longer, she fancies herself etc etc

I mean not everyone but BUT I think it's safe to say that a woman appearing in that garb will be taken differently by some people.

Because girls and womens bodies are sexualsied in a way that mens and boys are not. That is the problem and while that carries on we will always be in this confused, impossible to navigate situaiton re our clothes and looks.

The reason there are conversations about it is because there is no "right" answer, it's a bind, and a deliberate one.

My 8yo likes to put makeup and nail varnish on.

I let her (not the makeup for out the house!) and I have to fight my discomfort.

Wearing makeup is not a sign of sexual availability.
Wearing nail varnish is not a sign of sexual availabilty.
They are just decoration, harmless. Why do we put these meaning onto them? WHO puts these meanings onto them?
My mum used to say that if you wore nail varnish on your toes it meant you were a prostitute....????
It's all about us navigating the meanings that men like to take.

Like, words as well. They ruin them. I can't say to my husband "I'm going to get a facial" with a straght face. Other words. DD2 calls DD2 her "sissy". Also has a different meaning.

They take words that women and girls use, clothes that we wear, pornify them, and then throw them back at us. IF DD ever talks about "getting a facial" (not that she would!) in front of some boys at school they'll all be pissing themselves and she won't know what the joke is.

This sort of stuff makes me really pissed off actually. They take our innocent stuff and ruin it. Like also, every word for vulva ever.

I don't have sympathies with viewpoint 2 from an abuse perspective though. I know that clothes make no difference to that, I've probably worded something incorrectly that might have given that impression, so apologies for that.

Hopefully this explains it better - I view fashion as a means of keeping the female sex distracted, for the benefit of men as a class. Fashions are often designed by men, with the socialisation that comes with that and how they view the female form. Men's clothes aren't sexualised to the same extent that women's are, though it still happens (e.g. muscle fit t-shirts, tight trousers) it doesn't translate as much into high street fashion. For girls and women, fashion can often limit your options - e.g. the cliff edge of physical play/sport participation for girls when they enter their teens often coinciding with increased pressure to look and act a certain way. Boys thinking that girls are "silly" for choosing to wear twirly skirts or a more "out there" fashion (an example I've seen as children I know have got older) contributes to an overall impression that girls are, by virtue of their interests, silly. By dressing daughters in clothes that are primarily practical, we give them options and lessen the hold of patriarchy over them. Theoretically...

I really hope that makes some sort of sense, I've never really sat down to try and unpick that thought worm before.

I agree with pretty much everything.

Children should be dressed in a manner that allows them to fully participate in the world around them. There was an online thing about girls school shoes v boys school shoes a while ago - since then I have bought my daughter (6) school shoes exclusively from the boys section, because they allow her to participate in a wider range of playground activities. They give her more options.

Context is useful - crop top good at dance class or on a beach etc. Not in the snow/at a funeral.
I try not to meddle in what my youngest daughter picks out for weekend wear - they spend 5 days a week in uniform so if she wants to wear bonkers combinations of stuff on the other days I let her.

Sometimes I have to actively stop myself from telling her that things don’t go together - much as I’d love to dress her totally to my own taste, she’s a human being, not a doll. I think it’s important to let her have that control over her physical self now, to not undermine her sense of autonomy and to reinforce the message that her body is her own.

Middle daughter is my bonus (step) baby, so she comes with a set of rules designated by her birth mother and while I think a lot of them are pointless (she’s not allowed to look at the boys section, for example) I try to walk a line that respects her autonomy without undermining her mum.

When her dad and I got married, she couldn’t find anything she wanted to wear in a shop. She ended up picking out one of my dresses and I had it professionally altered to fit her.

Little daughter insisted on a ridiculous mother-of-the-bride style hat with ostrich feathers. They don’t come sized for preschoolers so I had to make her one.

Re: sexualisation, well, having once been a phone sex chat line operator (late 90s, before the internet caused a ‘video killed the radio star’ type takeover) I can state with certainty that anything can be sexualised - from Velcro sandals to bursting balloons.

There is a touring exhibit in the US showing outfits women were wearing when they were sexually assaulted. It makes Sardine’s point very starkly.

We should try not to get bogged down in worrying about what signals we send to men via clothing - they don’t receive our messages anyway, they just write their own agenda over the top.

Fashion/clothing experimentation can be a wonderful thing, my mother was incredibly supportive and indulgent of my ridiculous sartorial imagination, enabling ridiculous fancy dress costumes (often made out of boxes) in my early years, and making stuff not had in my head but couldn’t actually find for my teenage nights out. Sometimes at ridiculously short notice.

When my daughter was born I made the conscientious effort to learn to use a sewing machine and dressmaker clothes from simple patterns so I would be able facilitate her future flights of fancy. I wish I’d asked my mum to teach me while she was still around to do so, but instead I remember her whenever I sit down and thread the machine. Fashion, style, what we wear and how we source it doesn’t necessarily have to involve men. I hope!

I view fashion as a means of keeping the female sex distracted, for the benefit of men as a class.

And a means of blaming women for men's decisions to commit sexual assaults. Whatever she was wearing, it was somehow wrong. And as a means of keeping us from living and moving freely (high heels, hobble skirts, crinolines, corsets...).

I have a similar paradox that I can't get straight in my head too

1. I agree with Theresa May that it's not appropriate for one woman to tell another woman what to wear (said in the context of discussions on banning the burka)

2. I believe that the burka is a restrictive clothing choice imposed on women by a patriarchal religion, and there should be no place for in modern Britain and I'd be happy to see it banned

Giles nails it
It's men. It's not the clothes.

(& while we are on Giles I am reminded of him saying "ah testosterone the great leveler - it turns all men into morons" )

My DDs wear what they want but it's all practical, i make nearly all of it & they can climb trees in it my eldest two discusses patterns/fabric/embellishments so they design rather than supermarkets fashion houses etc

Olenna's yes agree with that apart from the banned part.

There are a lot of these irresolvable / quandry / no obviously right answer things around women / feminism and that's no coincidence. If we're kept confused and on our toes it's harder for us to agree and organise.

Offering only impractical decorative clothing for girls sends a very clear message to the children and adults. Pop culture paid promotions of impractical decorative clothing for girls sends the same message.
Poor quality and using less material means more profit but also lower prices, so we can't ignore that aspect of marketing. Nor the fact that the work is done in sweat shops and prisons.
The battle between shoppers and suppliers has been going on now for over twenty years. Some have addressed the problem by shopping in the boys department and others by making clothing for their daughters.
Susan Faludi mentions it in her book "Backlash". The year in the mid eighties when the designers and suppliers tried to take skirt lengths from below the knee to very short, and refused to offer pant suits. The department store buyers despaired and lost a fortune. The designers and suppliers never backed down. They just ramped up the marketing to teens and pre teens.