Anyone else spotted these?

[crfriend]

BTW, I dislike the term "gender [EXPLETIVE DELETED].

I dislike it, too, which is why I don't use it unless it's as an example (of how not to do things).

But the fact remains that there's no competing term for the co-opted one of "unisex".

[r.m.anderson]

UK 22 = US 20
UK 20 = US 18
etc

Where's the head-banging-on-desk icon when one needs it? Do the above represent women's (black art) sizes or actual physical dimensions (i.e. circumferences)?

The last time I looked I seemed to be a US women's size 14. However, that may be a bit large for me now as I've managed to lose weight again. (This is why I like elastic waists; I can grow or shrink a size or two over the course of a day (depending, mainly, on how much I've had to eat).)

There was a simple conversion factor of "20" to determine what equals a USA size i.e. US 18=38 - 20=40 and so on - a 14=34 it was presumed to work with misses
sizing 2 thru 16-18 and plus misses sizing 16-18 thru 24-26. Not so much with the junior sizing that are oddly numbered 1-3-5--9--11-13--17-19 etc. but a close cigar !
Beware of the vanity sizing !
And the usual disclaimer YMMV

[Stu]

A number of contributors on here have expressed some doubts as to whether or not the development I highlighted will have any effect from our point of view. They are right to express such doubts: false hopes have been raised before and progress has been agonisingly slow. In the past, unisex movements have basically been females raiding male styles, but never the reverse to any serious extent. We certainly haven't reached the necessary critical mass yet for skirts to be considered a normal option for men in most western societies.

However, this development has not occurred in isolation: there is some context to this which offers a bit more encouragement. First, if we go back just a decade or two, it would be almost unthinkable for a boy to be seen wearing a skirt or dress, yet now we are seeing examples of this all over the place in the media:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... dress.html
http://doineedabiggerplate.blogspot.se/ ... ldren.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... dress.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tles31U48Bk
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-ca ... e-13362586
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-mena ... 78709.html
http://www.naturalchild.org/advice/q59.html

And so on. You regularly read about this in newspapers and magazines. There are columns in parenting manuals which advise mums and dads how to react when their boy dons a dress etc and so on. Plus, there are children's story books talking about when boys put on dresses, the latest of which was made into a short film and shown on prime time TV over Christmas.

NEXT - there has been a growing "unisex" movement of late in relation to children: have you not noticed it? There have been cases where children have been intentionally raised as "gender neutral", like this one:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9028479 ... yping.html

That is just one - there are others. This is occurring at an even greater rate in Sweden, where it is no longer deemed newsworthy. I am not saying I support this, BTW!

On top of that, a movement recently started up about making all toys "unisex" to avoid gender stereotyping:

http://www.lettoysbetoys.org.uk
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/wo ... ur-4453210
http://www.pinkstinks.co.uk

And now we have the campaign to "de-gender" children's clothes:

https://www.facebook.com/letclothesbeclothes
http://www.letclothesbeclothes.org

The website I highlighted is a supporter of this campaign. The company USED TO class its clothes as either "unisex" or "for girls": only very recently has it decided and declared that all its clothes are unisex and the owners have declared that boys should be able to wear dresses and skirts just as their great grandfathers did a century or more ago. This is, apparently, an objective of the "let clothes be clothes" campaign - and it is being supported by some big brands. It is, for example, in contact with (in the UK) Marks and Spencer and John Lewis. A number of other childrenswear firms are also claiming that all their children's gartments are suitable for both sexes - yet, so far, their advertising etc suggests they haven't completely bought into this yet. Personally, I have reservations about the "unisex" notion. I don't see a problem with girls wanting to be pretty or boys wanting to look rugged. However, from the perspective of a “skirtcafe” supporter, I see possibilities here.

Of course, it may all come to nought – it might fizzle out – or we may be witnessing the beginning of a much desired seismic shift. The more exposure this gets, the more cracks will appear in the “males don’t wear skirts” taboo. The big test will be whether these suppliers will put their money where their mouths are and show boys modelling some of these garments.

All I am saying is watch this space.

[pleated]

If you read the website, two things are apparent.

Firstly, the proprietor, in proclaiming her unisex slogan "let clothes be clothes", really means "give girls a wider choice". That is, give them something that is not pink or "princess". So make skirts out of dinosaur print fabric, etc. Apart from declaring that an item is suitable for all children, she does nothing to suggest that any skirt or dress might be worn by a boy.

Secondly, there is not a single customer review which sys that any skirt or dress was bought for a boy.

So still some way to go.

Yes, the marketing of these dresses in "Space", "Science" and "Dinosaur" type prints is to counter the excesses of the "Pink Princess" syndrome currently aimed at girls.
Ironically, the dresses being worn by some boys are the princess type dresses. See here-
https://storify.com/LetToysBeToys/morea ... ndifferent
'Toy marketing rarely shows boys and girls playing together - but real life is a whole lot more fun!'
You will need to scroll down the page - there are five photos that include boys in dresses/skirts

[dillon]

I'm glad to see some rationality applied to the masculinity paranoia that seems so common nowadays. But I wonder when society started thinking that way? My family has a photo of my father at age three, and some of his sisters, and an infant brother. In the photo, taken around 1917, ALL the children were in dresses. It was completely common, and understood very well that for a boy to wear a dress had no influence on the outcome of the boy's sexuality. When did society forget that fact? Or perhaps I should ask why did society forget that fact? I suspect it evolved, as so much else does, from commercialism of children's clothing, probably coinciding with the era when children's clothing began to be store-bought rather than home-sewn. It is sad to think that in such an important consideration, society became misinformed and essentially dumber than it had been just a generation earlier.

[Grok]

Sarongs are not my particular interest. But I took a peek, and it appears that there are online tutorials for making sarongs.

[phathack]

UK 22 = US 20
UK 20 = US 18
etc

So the UK 26 Max size would be a US 24 of I need the Max length and size. Might just order of them an see how it fits.

[r.m.anderson]

UK 22 = US 20
UK 20 = US 18
etc

So the UK 26 Max size would be a US 24 of I need the Max length and size. Might just order of them an see how it fits.

Expect your UK 26 - US 24 to be a 44 inch waist + or - ***
*** remember that with the larger sizes the HIP ratio changes to less and less and may in the end be less than the waist which means
an elastic or belted waist is required to keep a skirt in place or using suspenders (braces in UK) - a dress is different and not dependent
on the waist.
As always YMMV