A Mommy Story

Yesterday I received my usual weekly e-mail from Old Navy, offering up the newest batch of deals. This one was focusing on denim for baby. Since Cordy has outgrown all of her spring clothing, and therefore has no long pants, I clicked the link.

And then my brain exploded.

Let me back up for a minute. Before this, I had just read this BlogHer article about Moms for Modesty. While I don’t like their name, I can agree with their cause that we need to stop trying to dress our little girls as if they’re a miniature Britney Spears. Seeing a toddler wearing a “Big Flirt” t-shirt or “Juicy” written across the butt of her pants is inappropriate. It sends a message that our girls are nothing more than developing sex objects, perfecting their place in life with crop tops and skinny jeans while they learn how to push out their chests and suck in their tummies.

Back to Old Navy now. Presented on my screen were over a dozen choices for jeans, and at the top was an explanation of the different cuts of jeans for toddlers. What? My daughter doesn’t need to choose between boot cut and flare jeans – I just want pants for her! Plain pants! She certainly doesn’t need their Special Edition distressed jeans: she will wear them out fast enough on her own, without the help of the manufacturer.

I guess I’m saying that I really don’t like the trend of dressing toddlers just like mini-adults. They don’t need to follow the adult fashions (like Baby Gap’s new skinny jeans). I’m not saying they should be wearing only loose clothing in pastels with cutesy hearts and rainbows, but certain fashion trends aren’t needed. They can be hip without looking like the next reality TV star. More examples:

In the category of useless accessory, these pants are cute, but what’s up with the pockets? Does the toddler on the go need those side cargo pockets to store her Little People?

Seems to me these pockets would only lead to trouble. Nothing like finding half-eaten, two-day old Cheerios in those cute little pockets on laundry day, is there? Or worse: crayons that don’t get noticed before going through the wash. Ugh.

This t-shirt bothers me a lot. I’ll fess up: I do call Cordy a princess, and I know it’s probably not the best thing to do. But I usually add the word “warrior” in front of it.

I have no problem if she wants to play princess when she’s older, but I plan to teach her that princesses or queens can do just fine on their own as well. She’s a tough girl, and doesn’t need a prince charming to come find her. Implying that she does is insulting.

Maybe one of these shirts would be better for her.

Same goes for this shirt as well. “Cowboy Wanted”? For what, may I ask?

The answer had best be a costume-party playdate and nothing more.

Why does a toddler need a shirt that says Cowboy Wanted? Is she incomplete without her man? Can she not be a cowgirl on her own, without the support and guidance of a cowboy?

I know there are far worse examples out there, but I refuse to seek them out, because it would only give me more of a headache. (I won’t even begin to address the Baby Phat phenomena.) And while most of the clothing at Old Navy is generally good stuff, I am disappointed to see them carrying these types of items for young girls.

I’d rather they focus on making the baby girls line of clothing comfortable, cute, maybe a little hip, and when it comes to graphic tees, focus on empowering messages for girls. Hear that, Old Navy? And while you’re at it, could you please burn your skinny jeans?

Next up: After looking through the first round of costumes I’ve seen for Halloween, I’ve got another post brewing about this year’s theme in costumes for young girls. Here’s a hint: the sluttier, the better.