Over the past year, we’ve seen an increase in backlash from some students and parents about school dress codes and how they seem to hold girls to different standards than boys.
Not only have these codes attracted criticism for holding girls responsible for the behavior of boys who look at them, but opponents have also cited practical concerns that what schools want don’t often line up with the options that retailers have available.
And while others have pointed out that clothing manufacturers are compacting this problem for younger and younger children, one mom has noted this isn’t the only way they’re making the act of shopping for young girls harder.
For her, a perfect example could be found after comparing the options these companies make available for boys to what she had to choose from for her daughters.
RELATED STORIES
Be advised that a video featured in this article contains explicit language
On March 21, a mom named Meredith Alston uploaded a video to TikTok in which she detailed her experiences shopping for her two daughters at Target.
Pointedly, she mentioned that her search for suitable clothes in the girls’ section yielded “stretchy, very thin leggings” no matter what age she was shopping for.
By contrast, we can see that the boys’ options she found were not only more durable and featured adjustable drawstrings, but also had extra fabric in the knees.
As she put it, “So they don’t fall apart every month.”
And while she usually prefers to thrift shop, the options she identified here are the ones that are available on her budget when those shops don’t have her kids’ sizes or the colors their school requires.
And when a commenter noted that the problems she identified are even worse when it comes to shorts, Alston made a follow-up that showed even more stark examples of the difference in quality between clothes manufactured for girls and those intended for boys.
After showing multiple examples that made it clear the boys’ shorts are always longer and with more fabric than the girls’ shorts, she also noted that the girls’ shorts rarely have usable pockets.
Indeed, she found the idea that girls don’t want to store and collect things as much as boys ridiculous.
She added, “These are the closest and most comparable things I could find and look how many pockets and extra fabric the boys’ shorts have versus the girls’.”
To make matters worse, she found that the boys’ shorts cost $6 while the girls’ shorts that she identified as being lower quality in every way cost $8. And while the price discrepancy wasn’t this exact across various ages, the trend of better quality yet cheaper boys’ clothes remained the same.
In Alston’s words, “This matters because who’s going to get dress coded? Who’s going to be told that their shorts are too short?”
