Gender neutral kids clothing

Jack Killian

Shenshen wrote: »

I don't honestly know what the clothes in that original link are, other than very ugly.
But I would be happy to see more colours in children's clothes other than blue and pink again.
Interesting enough, there was an interview on Newstalk yesterday afternoon where someone stated that the whole blue/pink thing really only took off in the 1990s, when some clever manufacturers figured out that this was a way of selling twice the amount of stuff to a family that had one boy and one girl.

Worked a treat - reading some of the posts here people really seem to believe it's the end of Western civilisation if a boy should wear pink trousers.

I personally reckon that no-one should wear pink, and would love to see other colours. The "baby blue" for boys is actually vile too.

But I think the fact that the ****stirr I mean marketer in that article chose pink proves that she was completely uninterested in creating "neutral" colours or adding colours like you mention you'd prefer too.

Shenshen

smash wrote: »

It has been a very long time since children's clothing were exclusively blue or pink so this line needs to stop. I mean, every 2nd young lad I see if wearing pink astro football shoes because the professions have them.

I apologise, I should have been more precise. Small children and toddlers. I've recently been trying to buy baby clothes for a pregnant friend who doesn't know (or doesn't want to tell, we're not sure) what sex her baby will be. I ended up buying something online, as there was nothing neutral to be had in the shops here.

I wouldn't buy that. Sure the late 80's and early 90's were full of mad coloured clothes. It wasn't unusual to see a man wearing bright colours.

It took off in the 90s, not the 80s. And she was refering to children's toys and clothes, not to adult clothing.

osarusan

More pictures of the clothing line:

http://www.gardnerandthegang.com/collections/all#


EDIT: I originally posted a different link to a different site which had a different clothing line, which explains the confusion over the next 8 posts or so.

Shenshen

osarusan wrote: »

More pictures of the clothing line:

https://www.instagram.com/gardnerandthegang/?hl=en

Click on 'load more' at the bottom to..ah...load more.

Way too much pink - I don't see how any of those clothes would be "neutral", to be honest.

Barry Badrinath

osarusan wrote: »

More pictures of the clothing line:

https://www.instagram.com/gardnerandthegang/?hl=en

Click on 'load more' at the bottom to..ah...load more.

Awful!

Looks like Mugatu designed them.

This is more about the "designer" gaining praise and notoriety for being the "first" to branch out and introduce this specific type of clothing line.

Only because it's so "in" right now.

Cha ching!

smash

Shenshen wrote: »

I apologise, I should have been more precise. Small children and toddlers. I've recently been trying to buy baby clothes for a pregnant friend who doesn't know (or doesn't want to tell, we're not sure) what sex her baby will be. I ended up buying something online, as there was nothing neutral to be had in the shops here.

That's surprising. Most children's clothes shops seem to carry endless stock of cream/white/beige clothes.

osarusan wrote: »

More pictures of the clothing line:

https://www.instagram.com/gardnerandthegang/?hl=en

Click on 'load more' at the bottom to..ah...load more.

EDIT: Sorry, that link takes you to the full range of clothes sold by whatever retailer the actress has done her 'collaboration' with, not just to the range in question.

http://www.gardnerandthegang.com/collections/land-of-no-difference-ss2016

"IT IS ALL ABOUT STANDING OUT FROM THE BACKGROUND"

I thought it was about being neutral? :rolleyes:

Bob24

Shenshen wrote: »

Way too much pink - I don't see how any of those clothes would be "neutral", to be honest.

I am not sure everything in that instagram page is part of the specific "neutral" line.

But yeah I don't think sending a kid to school dressed like this would be giving them a service: https://www.instagram.com/p/BGD_G7ZtWiB/?taken-by=gardnerandthegang&hl=en

(disclaimer:I am not saying it should be banned, just that it would likely have a negative impact on the kids's social life)

osarusan

As I said, Sorry, that link takes you to the full range of clothes sold by whatever retailer the actress has done her 'collaboration' with, not just to the range in question.

No idea where to find the actual kids' clothing range in designed by the actress - probably because it isn't on sale yet.

sunny2004

Some look fine some look stupid, bit like going into any shop

YOU DONT HAVE TO BUY THEM haha...

smash

osarusan wrote: »

As I said, Sorry, that link takes you to the full range of clothes sold by whatever retailer the actress has done her 'collaboration' with, not just to the range in question.

No idea where to find the actual kids' clothing range in designed by the actress - probably because it isn't on sale yet.

Is it not the link I posted in reply to yours?

osarusan

smash wrote: »

Is it not the link I posted in reply to yours?

That link is to the Gardner and the Gang website, which is a different company with different lines of clothes - only one of which is the line that is the collaboration with the actress mentioned in the OP.

The pictures there are from all of their different lines and designs, not just the line being discussed in this thread. I'm not sure if some of the pictures are from that line, or none of them are.

I can't find any link to that specific line - just to the website in general.

smash

osarusan wrote: »

That link is to the Gardner and the Gang website, which is a different company with different lines of clothes - only one of which is the line that is the collaboration with the actress mentioned in the OP.

I can't find any link to that specific line - just to the website in general.

The line I linked to is called "LAND OF NO DIFFERENCE" so I assume that's the line. Although the promotional shots from the OP's article are all from their general clothing line.

osarusan

smash wrote: »

The line I linked to is called "LAND OF NO DIFFERENCE" so I assume that's the line. Although the promotional shots from the OP's article are all from their general clothing line.

No, the collection is called 'The Lion’s Heart'.

I am not even sure if any of the photos from either the article linked in the OP or the website itself even contain photos of the line.

You'd assume that the photos in the link in the OP would be (considering the way it's written and even the instagram picture embedded in it - you'd certainly imagine that that photo is from the line), but as you say, they seem to be from the company in general rather than this specific line.

Jack Killian

Another quick question.

Would the "they should wear what they like" brigade be ok with them wearing adult clothes like lingerie, or tattoos, or earrings or tongue and nose piercings ? Even fake tan and makeup ?

Just trying to get my head around the mindset and where this new "line" is being drawn, and whether it's purely pushing the agenda of blurring the line between male and female or whether it's a genuine and consistent "wear what they want" that I just don't understand.

Edit : basically is it as acceptable to those people to "adultise" a child as it is to "feminise" them ?

And if not, why is blurring the lines between male and female more "acceptable" ?

Shenshen

Jack Killian wrote: »

Another quick question.

Would the "they should wear what they like" brigade be ok with them wearing adult clothes like lingerie, or tattoos, or earrings or tongue and nose piercings ?

Just trying to get my head around the mindset and where this new "line" is being drawn, and whether it's purely pushing the agenda of blurring the line between male and female or whether it's a genuine and consistent "wear what they want" that I just don't understand.

You mean you never dressed up in your mom's frilly nightie to play princess when you were a little girl?

As for body alterations, my mom took the pragmatic approach. We were allowed to get anything pierced that we liked, anything shaved off that we liked and anything we liked dyed any colour we liked. But getting a tattoo came with her promise of no more pocket money, ever. So we waited with that until we earned our own money.

I still think it was rather sensible - there's no damage done that won't heal or grow out eventually, a piercing once removed just leaves a small scar. Tattoos are more permanent and should therefore be considered more carefully.

Jack Killian

Shenshen wrote: »

You mean you never dressed up in your mom's frilly nightie to play princess when you were a little girl?

Er, I know the topic is all about blurring lines and all that, but........

Yours sincerely,
Jack

Shenshen

Jack Killian wrote: »

Er, I know the topic is all about blurring lines and all that, but........

Yours sincerely,
Jack

What? I work with a lady in her 50s called Jack - short for Jacqueline.

osarusan

http://www.gardnerandthegang.com/collections/all#

here's a link to all collections. Under each item, it says which collection it's a part of .

If you go to the homepage and bring up the 'Lion's heart' collection and click on 'shop' then all of the items will be from the collection.

Ironically, and bafflingly, the first two items for sale are 'baby sets' that come in both pink and navy.

Jack Killian

Shenshen wrote: »

What? I work with a lady in her 50s called Jack - short for Jacqueline.

Bad enough that I can't wear pink - or even knit - without someone assuming I'm gay or effeminate, now you're saying I can't even use my name ?

Bob24

Shenshen wrote: »

What? I work with a lady in her 50s called Jack - short for Jacqueline.

If that is the way she spells it - it definitely isn't a common form.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacqueline_%28given_name%29#Variant_and_diminutive_forms

The diminutive for Jacqueline is Jacquie, Jackie, Jacque or Jacqui, which also has many variants.

Duggy747

I think that collection looks rank, the clothes look like something the characters from Rocko's Modern Life would wear.

smash

osarusan wrote: »

No, the collection is called 'The Lion’s Heart'.

I am not even sure if any of the photos from either the article linked in the OP or the website itself even contain photos of the line.

You'd assume that the photos in the link in the OP would be (considering the way it's written and even the instagram picture embedded in it - you'd certainly imagine that that photo is from the line), but as you say, they seem to be from the company in general rather than this specific line.

The Lion’s Heart is their general collection.

Shenshen

Bob24 wrote: »

If that is the way she spells it - it definitely isn't a common form.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacqueline_%28given_name%29#Variant_and_diminutive_forms

The diminutive for Jacqueline is Jacquie, Jackie, Jacque or Jacqui, which also has many variants.

That's the way she spells it - she's even got it down that way on the office list. I think really that's here choice, not wikipedia's, no?

osarusan

smash wrote: »

The Lion’s Heart is their general collection.

From the link in the OP:

Jaime King just shared a sneak peek at her upcoming kids’ collection with indie retailer Gardner and the Gang, and it’s all kinds of adorable.

The collection is titled “The Lion’s Heart” and features playful patterns, bright colors and — as you can see from the sweatshirt — a super sweet message. But, TBH, what we’re digging most about the collection is that every piece was designed to be gender neutral.

smash

osarusan wrote: »

From the link in the OP:

And?

There are big banners on the designer's site that says "The Lion's Heart" and it links to their general collection. Or to what appears to be their general collection because it's bloody endless.

Foxhound38

Shenshen wrote: »

That's the way she spells it - she's even got it down that way on the office list. I think really that's here choice, not wikipedia's, no?

I just wish adults from all sides would stop putting their political and social baggage on kids and just allow them to be kids.

If your boy wants to play with a barbie doll, get him a barbie doll. On the other hand, don't freak out about the lack of "gender fluid clothes" for your three year old in the shops, because chances are the kid doesn't really give a s*ite.

People on both sides really need to understand that not everything has to be about them and their issues.

osarusan

smash wrote: »

And?

There are big banners on the designer's site that says "The Lion's Heart" and it links to their general collection. Or to what appears to be their general collection because it's bloody endless.

Keep scrolling down the list of clothing items and the title of the collection eventually changes.

Bob24

Shenshen wrote: »

That's the way she spells it - she's even got it down that way on the office list. I think really that's here choice, not wikipedia's, no?

Sure it is not about her - just saying it is unusual and first assuming someone called Jack was a woman was indeed kind of weird. Nothing else.

Grab All Association

https://joeystylesyou.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/starfleet_uniforms_late_2360s.jpg

Let's all just wear Starfleet uniforms.

ceadaoin.

wakka12 wrote: »

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/11/24/trans-women-could-get-pregnant-within-next-ten-years_n_8627006.html
Hmm maybe not as long as you think. And so what if they can't reproduce, do you think infertile people born as women are less real women just because of this?

Of course not. The definition of female is "of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs" A female who is born infertile still fits that definition. She is of the sex that can bear children, whether she as an individual can or not does not change that.

Transplanting a womb into a female who already has a female reproductive system is different than putting one into a male whose body is not designed for such a thing. It even says in the article that even if a transplant were possible, the amount of drugs needed for a biological male to sustain a pregnancy would have lasting effects on the child. Not to mention the problem of implanting the foetus in the first place given that there would be no vagina or cervix. It would be completely unethical to subject a foetus to that.