John Lewis degenderizing kids' clothing labels

General discussion of skirt and kilt-based fashion for men, and stuff that goes with skirts and kilts.
Gusto10
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 928
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 12:07 pm

Re: John Lewis degenderizing kids' clothing labels

Post by Gusto10 »

Back to the original subject, I read that a European chain from Dutch origin, now does the same as JL.
User avatar
Sinned
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 5804
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 5:28 pm
Location: York, England

Re: John Lewis degenderizing kids' clothing labels

Post by Sinned »

I have just googled to see if there are any real updated on this topic and I can't really see anything so I think the phrase with the words teacup and storm in it is applicable here. I did come across this offering which I think is actually brilliant and put at least one bigot in their place. I especially like his response to the caller's, "I hadn't really thought about it".

https://hornetapp.com/stories/unisex-ki ... ohn-lewis/

It shows that asking the right questions can be effective in getting people to THINK, something most people don't do enough of, rather than REACT.
I believe in offering every assistance short of actual help but then mainly just want to be left to be myself in all my difference and uniqueness.
Stu
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1314
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 8:25 am
Location: North Lincolnshire, UK

Re: John Lewis degenderizing kids' clothing labels

Post by Stu »

Don't be fooled by some of these pressure groups supposedly fighting to allow kids more choices in clothing rather than being hidebound by gender limitations. They are often a front for manhating feminist groups. Their only interest is girls wearing things with dinosaurs and trucks on them and no frills etc - they couldn't care less about boys, except preaching their hatred for "toxic masculinity" and their imaginary bogeyman, the "patriarchy".

These people are not our allies.
User avatar
Caultron
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 4122
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2013 4:12 am
Location: Phoenix, AZ

Re: John Lewis degenderizing kids' clothing labels

Post by Caultron »

Stu wrote:Don't be fooled by some of these pressure groups supposedly fighting to allow kids more choices in clothing rather than being hidebound by gender limitations. They are often a front for manhating feminist groups...
Can you cite any specific instances of this?
Courage, conviction, nerve, verve, dash, panache, guts, nuts, balls, gall, élan, stones, whatever. Get some and get skirted.

caultron
Gusto10
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 928
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 12:07 pm

Re: John Lewis degenderizing kids' clothing labels

Post by Gusto10 »

Stu wrote:Don't be fooled by some of these pressure groups supposedly fighting to allow kids more choices in clothing rather than being hidebound by gender limitations. They are often a front for manhating feminist groups. Their only interest is girls wearing things with dinosaurs and trucks on them and no frills etc - they couldn't care less about boys, except preaching their hatred for "toxic masculinity" and their imaginary bogeyman, the "patriarchy".

These people are not our allies.
If so, han they lack historical insight. Looking at official photo's taken more at least a century back you will see boys dresses in dresses ( e.g. the photo of FD Roosevelt circulating somewhere on this forum), similar to girls. only after reaching a age of four or so there will be a change towards trousers or breaches. Why they were dressed similar in first instance, I don't know. A logical explanation would be that it would be easier for the nanny to change diapers.
Stu
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1314
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 8:25 am
Location: North Lincolnshire, UK

Re: John Lewis degenderizing kids' clothing labels

Post by Stu »

Caultron wrote:
Stu wrote:Don't be fooled by some of these pressure groups supposedly fighting to allow kids more choices in clothing rather than being hidebound by gender limitations. They are often a front for manhating feminist groups...
Can you cite any specific instances of this?
If you look at some of the discussion groups of these groups, you will see they talk about "toxic masculinity", "mansplaining", "rape culture" etc while whining about how oppressed they are by the mythical "patriarchy" and "gender pay gap".
Stu
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1314
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 8:25 am
Location: North Lincolnshire, UK

Re: John Lewis degenderizing kids' clothing labels

Post by Stu »

Gusto10 wrote:
Stu wrote:Don't be fooled by some of these pressure groups supposedly fighting to allow kids more choices in clothing rather than being hidebound by gender limitations. They are often a front for manhating feminist groups. Their only interest is girls wearing things with dinosaurs and trucks on them and no frills etc - they couldn't care less about boys, except preaching their hatred for "toxic masculinity" and their imaginary bogeyman, the "patriarchy".

These people are not our allies.
If so, han they lack historical insight. Looking at official photo's taken more at least a century back you will see boys dresses in dresses ( e.g. the photo of FD Roosevelt circulating somewhere on this forum), similar to girls. only after reaching a age of four or so there will be a change towards trousers or breaches. Why they were dressed similar in first instance, I don't know. A logical explanation would be that it would be easier for the nanny to change diapers.
I agree.

I think the Roosevelt example is perhaps not the best, though, as his mother deliberately dressed him as a girl for some weird reason, but certainly it was quite normal to put toddler boys in dresses (dresses designed specifically for boys) and it makes sense in some respects to do that.
User avatar
crfriend
Master Barista
Posts: 14432
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: New England (U.S.)
Contact:

Re: John Lewis degenderizing kids' clothing labels

Post by crfriend »

Stu wrote:I think the Roosevelt example is perhaps not the best, though, as his mother deliberately dressed him as a girl for some weird reason, but certainly it was quite normal to put toddler boys in dresses (dresses designed specifically for boys) and it makes sense in some respects to do that.
It's worth noting that the "Roosevelt example" is not one that depicts a child of the normal classes -- it shows a child of the Elite class, and the Elites have very different standards than mere mortals. It represents an extreme case in the eyes of the plebiscite, but is merely an expression of the excesses that the extremely wealthy display. That outfit likely cost more than the entire collective wealth of many small towns of the time.

Commoners would have dressed their little boys in whatever was handy, and if the previous child was a girl the boy would very likely be wearing the dresses and whatnot that his bigger sister had outgrown. That it gives enhanced access to things like nappies is only part of the equation.

I am inclined to downplay the idea that parents did it to "reduce the risk of kidnapping" (under the notion that boys were more likely than girls to get kidnapped) as that sounds a little bit too much like modern feminist mythology for my tastes.
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!
User avatar
Charlie
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 668
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 8:52 pm
Location: Somerset, England

Re: John Lewis degenderizing kids' clothing labels

Post by Charlie »

crfriend wrote:I am inclined to downplay the idea that parents did it to "reduce the risk of kidnapping" (under the notion that boys were more likely than girls to get kidnapped) as that sounds a little bit too much like modern feminist mythology for my tastes.
Among the English aristocracy boys were dressed as girls for this very reason; girls were seen as being less valuable than boys.
Charlie
If I want to dress like a woman, I'll wear jeans.
User avatar
SkirtsDad
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 897
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 11:03 am
Location: Hampshire, UK

Re: John Lewis degenderizing kids' clothing labels

Post by SkirtsDad »

Charlie wrote:
crfriend wrote:I am inclined to downplay the idea that parents did it to "reduce the risk of kidnapping" (under the notion that boys were more likely than girls to get kidnapped) as that sounds a little bit too much like modern feminist mythology for my tastes.
Among the English aristocracy boys were dressed as girls for this very reason; girls were seen as being less valuable than boys.
Charlie
It's not an argument I have come across. My father was dressed in a dress as a baby (1930s). He told me that as early nappies (diapers) were bulky then it was easier to put a dress over them than trousers. This is backed up here:
http://www.heraldbulletin.com/community ... 96573.html which asks:

"Why did little boys wear dresses? It appears the original decision to place boy infants in a dress was a practical choice to facilitate wearing or not wearing a diaper."

If anyone can find a reference to dresses as an anti-kidnapping device then please share it here.
skirted_in_SF
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1081
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 1:56 am
Location: San Francisco, CA USA

Re: John Lewis degenderizing kids' clothing labels

Post by skirted_in_SF »

Stu wrote: "mansplaining"
I have caught myself being guilty of this. I was training a woman to take my place as administrator of my former employer's accounting system and would be explaining something in detail when I realized I had previously talked about the subject or it was something she knew from previous jobs. I would stop and apologize and she was gracious enough to shrug it off.
Stuart Gallion
No reason to hide my full name 8)
Back in my skirts in San Francisco
User avatar
Sinned
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 5804
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 5:28 pm
Location: York, England

Re: John Lewis degenderizing kids' clothing labels

Post by Sinned »

If John Lewis had amended the labels and signage and said nothing likely nobody would have noticed. Or it would have taken a long time for someone to put two and two together. BTW I've not noticed anything in the press since. No petitions or anything. Seems like it was literally a storm in a teacup.
I believe in offering every assistance short of actual help but then mainly just want to be left to be myself in all my difference and uniqueness.
Post Reply