Old Men---Please don't do this.

[politicat]

237. Have you looked at much portraiture from before about 1825?

Throughout most of human history, once a child was functionally toilet trained and had stopped spilling their soup, they were put in adult-styled clothing. That's not to say that allowances weren't made for their youth (usually in terms of ornamentation -- less -- and fabric -- cheaper -- since they grow quickly) but the styles were similar. And often, those styles were highly sexualized within the terms of the contemporary culture. That seems to be part of human nature.

Here's Walter Raleigh and his son, in 1602.
http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portraitLarge/mw05205/Sir-Walter-Ralegh-Walter-Ralegh
Note that both boy and man are wearing the pigeon-breasted doublet (because barrel chests were signs of virility for the late Elizabethans and early Jacobeans). Those breeches are padded for obvious reasons, and while the boy's fabric is probably indigo-dyed wool twill (because indigo is a relatively cheap dye and wool was the ubiquitous fabric of the time) rather than embroidered wool plush, he's still displaying (masculine, sexualized) power in the form of the sword.

These are the children of Charles I of England (so left to right they are Mary, Princess of Orange, Prince James (yes, he's a boy), Prince Charles of Wales, Princess Elizabeth and Princess Anne); this is from 1637 so the children are ages 6, 4, 7, 2 and 1.
http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portraitLarge/mw00154/Five-Children-of-King-Charles-I
Mary and Eizabeth have the low neckline of the time, though so does James. Charles' hair is long and curled, as was common for men of the time. Mary's gown is almost identical to one her mother wore, and Charles is wearing a suit almost exactly like one of his father's. Note that the older girls are wearing jewelry -- pearls.

This is the Shudi family, from 1742.
http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portraitLarge/mw08477/The-Shudi-Family-Group
Both children are boys, the elder of whom is in breeches, and is probably about 6. The younger, either 4 or 5, is not yet breeched and still wears skirts. The elder son is wearing a much more contemporary suit than his father (robes had somewhat fallen out of fashion.)

This is Christopher Anstey and his young daughter, from 1775.
http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portraitLarge/mw00158/Christopher-Anstey-with-his-daughter
Note that the girl is not yet wearing stays (though she's probably wearing jumps, which are like a cross between an undershirt and a sports bra in function), but her neckline is as low as that of any adult woman of the time. Also, long, full skirt and waist-defining sash. She's wearing a very up-to-the-minute fashion, the robe a la Reine, which was a Marie Antoinette invention (who wore soft, unstructured simple gowns in her private hours.) The child's doll is interesting, in that it's the equivalent of a Barbie -- a fully adult fashion doll, with giganto-wig, stays and feathered cap.

I am not saying that long skirts and low necklines and constrictive corsetry were the pinnacle of human civilization, nor am I dismissing or minimizing the institutionalized sexism and classism of those cultures, nor do I believe those cultures had an optimal child-rearing strategy. I just don't think our construction of childhood is entirely functional, either.

Childhood as we practice it is very much a Victorian invention, and was a status symbol of upper-middle class conspicuous consumption (because UMC Victorians could afford to not send their children to work and support them as a separate class). However, Victorian childhood had well-defined end-points and rites of passage that we don't. (At least for boys -- institutional sexism had the effect of permanently infantilizing women.)

There's a reason that Barbie endures as a toy despite consistent criticism since introduction, and Doctor Who remains popular with children despite being scary and increasingly complex -- children consistently prefer to fantasize about adult people with full agency. They don't like being infantilized. Given a degree of self-determination in their clothing choices, they will generally prefer clothing which carries the contemporary markers of agency, which is why their common response to kids' clothing is "that's for babies."

Nordo I want small children put in three piece suits or heels and cocktail dresses? I think gender-role associated clothing is far more damaging than too mature clothing. I think children -- and all people -- should wear what is comfortable for their climate, safe and non-distracting for their expected daily activity, and ideally, comfortable, easily laundered and fairly manufactured. I don't think an eight year old girl should be wearing stockings and heels, but not because children are a special class who need to be protected from their own need to express individual autonomy and agency. Heels are bad for posture and feet, and stockings are environmentally destructive. It's us -- the adults -- who are the problem, because we have associated $NItem with sexuality. (And because we are unexamined Neo-Victorians with a streak of unreconstructed Calvinism, we associate everything with sexuality.) We're the ones who fetishize, not the children.

I find the modesty movement to be far more disturbing than little girls dressing up with boas (which are soft and pleasant to touch), makeup (which is colorful and therefore attractive to a developing brain), or patent leather purses (which are reasonably sensible, since they're easy to clean.) Modesty teaches girls that their bodies are shameful and to be hidden and wrong. Since children don't develop a strong sense of mind-body separation until middle adolescence, teaching young girls to hide their bodies teaches them that their entire person should be hidden and is not valuable. It hinders their development of self-worth and makes them prey to greater abuse because they don't develop the autonomy to value their own agency.

I don't want to see children placed in the equivalent of a burquah to protect them from the adult gaze. That's not the way to fix either patriarchy, rape culture or abuse and it doesn't protect them. I see no problem with a tween wearing brief shorts and a tank top, especially when the weather is warm. If adult men have a problem with a tween's wardrobe, then it's his problem and he needs to fix that within himself. His discomfort is the result of his brain. (A short skirt on an adult woman does not give an adult man the right to rape, nor the right to slut-shame -- it's the same principle, but even more so for children, because an adult woman has the social context to know that a short skirt may provoke a response, but a child or a tween or a teen lacks the full sense of that context.)

I do believe parents should have veto rights over their child's wardrobe, for safety (no flowing scarves which can tangle in a bike chain, and sensible sun protection, for example), cultural appropriateness (no swim fins or snorkels at a formal wedding), and similar reasons, but that's a parental veto to be made, not one for the larger society to make. But there's also much to be said for natural consequences and learning experiences -- it only took one day of very cold weather for the child I am most responsible for to figure out that yes, sleeves and coats DO have a purpose and no, I wasn't just harshing on her mellow. It's not her job to police the male gazes around her -- it's mine, as her responsible adult -- and believe me, when I see inappropriate behavior from my peers directed at child, they get at least a withering glare, if not an earful about not being a creep. (This is also modeling assertive behavior.)

On the other hand, it is also my job to educate Kidlet on social context, cultural significance and all of the other factors that go into clothing. (Also, geometry -- like the fact that if she wants to minimize the relative size of a body part -- she's at that age -- wearing a garment with writing across said body part defeats the purpose and the longer the word, the more defeated the purpose.) Learning cultural context doesn't come automatically, and unpacking social cues takes experience, guidance and reflection.