Silver heart charm and glittery sock
It’s everywhere. It’s in shoes – kids’ shoes. (“Ice cream, Mandrake? Children’s ice cream?”) Francesca Cambridge Mallen, chief campaigner for Let Clothes Be Clothes, went shopping for school shoes with her daughter age 8.
Three shoes are available in her size: two pairs are slip-ons which with a knowing look from Grandma we dismiss immediately. After all, these are what Clarks describe as “sophisticated style” which makes me wonder how they could have missed the fact they are selling to kids, not office staff. When my daughter plunges over in a tangle of shoes and playground, I’ll be sure to console her with how classy she looked doing it.
The third pair are the most common style in the girls range, with a bar across the middle. My daughter tries them on, but is not persuaded by the “you’ll wear them in” pitch and points to how the back of the shoe is jabbing her in the heel. “That’s all we have” we’re told with raised hands, but what about the shoes over there I ask, pointing to a huge display of school shoes. Its Clark’s boys section, but aren’t these just shoes too? I get the “oh how quirky” look from a neighbouring parent, but the first pair our of the mysterious backroom are perfect. BINGO.
The back of the shoe is visibly wider with actual padding, despite the sizing being the same. The shoes are enclosed meaning the whole of my daughter’s foot is covered from the elements – a style not offered to girls at all. They are a trainer style, which any podiatrist would swoon at, and as she races past mountains of shoe boxes and meandering children, my daughter is clearly very happy.
Clarks has made it easy for me to go to their website and see what the respective shoes look like.
These girls’ school shoes from our Gloforms collection, complete with toy and torch, use a classic Mary Jane profile with bow detailing, silver heart charm and glittery sock. Black leather with a glossy trim is teamed with a durable rubber outsole with cleats for added grip, while the padded collar, riptape fastening and Agion linings are practical additions.
These boys’ school shoes from our new Gloforms collection, complete with toy and torch, are perfect for being in the playground. Robust black leather, high abrasion band and cleated rubber outsole ensure durability and grip. The double riptape fastening and Agion linings are practical additions, while the Gloforms character on the heel and sole add fun.
It could hardly be any more obvious, could it.
Mallen concludes:
At some point in the last 30 years Clark’s have changed their focus from comfortable and practical children’s shoes, to shoes marred by gender stereotypes. Check out the latest Gloforms campaign, the strong and assertive boy characters, ready for action, opposite the dreamy eyed female ones with heart, floral bow or crown. The latest tagline “lasting comfort so kids can be kids” doesn’t seem to apply to girls. Have they tried to kick a football in slip-on flats? Or walked to school in open bar shoes through mud and rain? Have they seen how girls climb, jump, swing and run too? As my daughter says when we leave, maybe its time Clarks went back to school and looked for themselves.
A friend wrote recently about shopping for an infant and finding that nearly all the “girls'” clothes (there were none for just infants or babies) were pink, while “boys'” clothes were in a range of colors.
Why did we even bother?
And 50 years ago, a lot of little girls really wanted the “Mary Janes” but mum made them wear the sensible lace-up Oxfords instead. I know that kids tend to not walk to school these days in the US and Canada – is that similar in the UK too?
I desperately wanted loafers, and for awhile in the fourth grade I was the only kid wearing the sensible lace-up Oxfords. My mother finally gave in.
Yet the second pair is what grown up women wear shopping in the supermarket and walking to work. Most of the women at my work wear trainers to the office where they change into their ladies’ shoes.
Without the common on the openness of the shoe, I, being from a mild climate, thought those were rather practical girl’s shoes, given an easy to fasten strap, and a nice, grippy tread. And I have a narrow heel, so that didn’t stand out to me, either. But, of course, the problem is not with the shoes themselves, but that they were one of only three options. When I was a child, I remember picking out powder blue running shoes. It seems like that kind of option is hard to find these days.
Oh Good Grief. Sure, back in my day, girls could wear Mary Jane type shoes. However, the vast majority wore practical sturdy footwear. Certainly no freaking bows to be seen. Many of the popular shoe styles were unisex. I seem to remember Clarks had a unisex Nomad style in the late 70’s early 80’s that was hugely popular and available in either black or tan. Other than that it was generally black Oxfords or similar.
This regression is appalling.
If you follow the link, the sports shoes literally come in blue or pink.
I find this interesting in that my unexamined assumption is that girls/women have MORE clothing choices than boys/men. Clearly this is no longer psychologically/emotionally true if everything not specifically marked feminine is automatically assumed to be ‘for boys only’.
Your friend should get to the shop sooner, before stocks run put. Clarks do full cover girls shoes as well as other styles and also non gendered kids shoes. My daughter is happy enough with the black girls brogues with rubber ‘ doc marten’ sole we bought her this term.
guest – even to the extent that this is true (and at one time, during the 50s, for instance, bright colors for men weren’t common), the choices for the boys allow more freedom of movement, and are practical for playing. “Girls” clothes are really only practical for playing house or dress up. I know, because when I was a girl, we weren’t allowed to wear pants. Only skirts and dresses, with shoes to match. This was, by the way, in Maine, where skirts gave you precious little protection against the weather. When we moved to Oklahoma, the prejudice against pants continued until I was in junior high, and even then, we could only wear “matching pantsuits”. No jeans. Boys? Jeans were the normal attire.
So to me it wasn’t so much about how many choices you had (and since we never had enough money, how many choices I had didn’t matter anyway). It was about whether those choices allowed you to be anything other than what society had decided you were by the genitals you were born with.
I’m sure there are PLENTY of ‘choices’ in stilleto-heels and dominatrix boots.