As back-to-school shopping kicks into high gear, a vigilante mom has gone viral for exposing what she sees as a major flaw in fast fashion.
Kat, a mononymous mommy blogger and former model, has racked up millions of views on videos that expose stark and alarming differences between clothes made for boys and girls.
“This is what Old Navy thinks your five-year-old little girl should be wearing to go down the slide,” she said in a recent video, holding up a pair of tiny denim shorts that resemble underwear instead of play clothes.
For comparison, she holds up a pair of much longer “quick-dry” khaki shorts created for boys the same age.
Kat also calls out fellow family retailers like Target and Walmart, which sell short-shorts for girls and normal cuts for boys.
In the comments section of Kat’s video, some viewers try to justify the gendered size difference, arguing that boys are naturally bigger than girls, so of course their shorts will be longer.
But Kat notes that when you examine the body measurements printed on the clothing tags, the height and weight ranges for boys and girls are the same — it’s just the amount of fabric they’re given that’s different.
To show off her research, Kat demonstrates an “inseam test” — do the bottoms of the pants cover the width of an adult hand, which has about the same measurement as a kid’s pull-up diaper?
Kat underscored that an adequate inseam ensures kids are comfortable and “not picking and pulling” on too-tight or too-short pieces of clothing.
Licensed clinical psychologist Dr. Shahrzad Jalali agreed that uncomfortable pants can create unnecessary friction between a child and their environment, curbing learning and peer-bonding opportunities and creating stress and anxiety instead.
“A child who is thinking about whether her clothes will ride up, expose her or restrict her movement has less psychological freedom to simply move,” Dr. Jalali told The Post.
The California mental health expert added that freedom of movement supports exploration, which is “fundamental to developing motor competence, confidence and an embodied sense of ‘I can do this.’”
Many commenters shared Kat’s outrage, adding that they routinely buy boys’ clothes to give their girls more coverage, or outfit them with a pair of biker shorts under skirts and dresses.
“Girls deserve play clothes too. Those booty shorts are unsafe for exploring and playing,” said one.
“No wonder girls have body issues by the time they are 9 or 10,” said a second.
Dr. Jalali underscored that while a single pair of shorts does not determine a child’s self-image, repeated cultural messages can have a profound effect.
“If boys repeatedly receive clothing designed to move, explore and get dirty while girls receive clothing that emphasizes appearance or exposure, children can absorb the idea that boys’ bodies are primarily functional while girls’ bodies are primarily visible,” she said.
Translation: Boys get to do things. Girls get to be on display.
“That is a subtle message, but children are very sophisticated observers of those patterns.”
Some critics accused Kat of fear-baiting parents and attempting to promote a puritanical agenda through “inseam policing,” or noted that for their “smaller” children, the micro-shorts fit just fine.
“Don’t feel sorry for us, darling. Teach your son instead that this is not an invitation,” said one commenter, responding to Kat’s “sorry girl moms” tagline.
It’s a lot for parents to consider. While Jalali sympathizes with the desire to shield children from the world’s ills, caregivers should also protect kids’ burgeoning autonomy.
“Parents can say, ‘Let’s find something that lets you move freely and protects you when you’re playing,’ rather than, ‘You shouldn’t wear that because it shows too much.’”
She notes that the distinction has tremendous psychological importance.
“We want girls to understand that clothing can protect their bodies and support their freedom of movement, while also learning that their bodies themselves are not something they need to be ashamed of or responsible for managing around other people’s perceptions.”
While a cause for concern, Jalali notes that parents need not turn a shopping trip into a lesson about sexism.
“They can simply give girls language and choice: ‘Does this feel comfortable? Can you run, climb, sit, and play in it? Do you like how you feel in it’?” she said.
“That shifts attention from how the body looks to what the body can experience and accomplish. Psychologically, that is a much healthier foundation for body confidence,” she added.
The Post has reached out to Kat for comment.
Old Navy, Target and Walmart did not respond to The Post’s request for commentary.
Read the full article here
