![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Physics is a harsh mistress
May. 3rd, 2007 09:35 pmPoor K learned a hard lesson about physics at the playground lately. She wanted to play on the big kid swings, and since there was no one else using them I let her go over to explore. I sat her on a swing and swung it very gently, and then she hopped down and started playing with the mulch under the swings. Which is why I wasn't paying enough attention when she went up to a swing, gave it an experimental push and then, in accordance with the laws of physics, it came right back and smacked her in the mouth. Poor baby. It didn't leave any lasting marks, but it was a painful lesson to learn.
I think I've pretty much got K's summer wardrobe set. And I must say a rousing feh to Old Navy. Many people have ranted on the way children's clothing is manufactured, so I won't go into great detail. Suffice to say that if you want to buy clothes for your daughter, you will be buying clothes that are smaller, tighter and much less sturdy than boys' clothes and only available in a limited palette of pastels. I knew this going into it. But Old Navy...oy. The girls' shorts were so tiny that a pair of boy's 2t shorts was larger than a girl's 5t. Are clothing designers not aware that clothes for toddlers will probably have to go over diapers? And don't even get me started on pants for girls that are cut low in the hips and tight in the thighs. isn't 18 months a little early to start sexualizing our daughters? I was at storytime with K the other day, and there was a four-year-old girl with a serious plumber butt problem because her pants were cut so low. I don't consider a little girl showing her butt crack in public acceptable.
So fie on you, Old Navy. I break with thee.
Kohls turned out to be not that bad. I got a bunch of rompers for $5 apiece. I'm pretty sure K won't fit in them by the end of the summer, but I can probably make them stretch with a onesie extender. And the girls' rompers are exactly the same size as the boys', and aren't excessively gendered. Some of them don't even have flowers on them. And while the girls' shorts are a bit shorter than the boys', they at least satisfy the requirements of modesty and fit over a diaper.
And most important, it was all dirt cheap.
I think I've pretty much got K's summer wardrobe set. And I must say a rousing feh to Old Navy. Many people have ranted on the way children's clothing is manufactured, so I won't go into great detail. Suffice to say that if you want to buy clothes for your daughter, you will be buying clothes that are smaller, tighter and much less sturdy than boys' clothes and only available in a limited palette of pastels. I knew this going into it. But Old Navy...oy. The girls' shorts were so tiny that a pair of boy's 2t shorts was larger than a girl's 5t. Are clothing designers not aware that clothes for toddlers will probably have to go over diapers? And don't even get me started on pants for girls that are cut low in the hips and tight in the thighs. isn't 18 months a little early to start sexualizing our daughters? I was at storytime with K the other day, and there was a four-year-old girl with a serious plumber butt problem because her pants were cut so low. I don't consider a little girl showing her butt crack in public acceptable.
So fie on you, Old Navy. I break with thee.
Kohls turned out to be not that bad. I got a bunch of rompers for $5 apiece. I'm pretty sure K won't fit in them by the end of the summer, but I can probably make them stretch with a onesie extender. And the girls' rompers are exactly the same size as the boys', and aren't excessively gendered. Some of them don't even have flowers on them. And while the girls' shorts are a bit shorter than the boys', they at least satisfy the requirements of modesty and fit over a diaper.
And most important, it was all dirt cheap.
