An American blogger has sparked a viral debate after highlighting the impractical and revealing nature of girls' clothing in popular stores. The creator, known online as Kat under the handle hackorwackwithdnkat, posted a series of videos in August comparing the assortments in children's departments during back-to-school shopping. She found that girls' clothes were often designed in ways that restrict movement, while manufacturers provided boys with comfortable and practical options.
The video series, which Kat titled I am sorry, girl moms, gathered about 120 million views in a single week. Thousands of parents shared their own experiences of buying children's clothing in the comments. Kat explained that her background as a teacher made her notice that girls wore uniforms restricting their freedom of movement, something she said boys never encountered.
In one video, Kat examined denim shorts for five-year-old girls from the American retailer Old Navy. She noted that the shorts were so short they resembled underwear rather than clothing for active play. She contrasted these with significantly longer boys' shorts that did not restrict movement or expose the thighs.
Kat also reviewed the children's swimwear section, finding the girls' assortment surprisingly varied with classic two-piece bikinis resembling adult styles, as well as one-piece swimsuits featuring side or stomach cutouts with no apparent functional purpose. In contrast, the boys' section offered only basic swim trunks, prompting Kat to ask viewers not to forget about the boys due to the limited selection.
Clothing sizes and the inseam test
Some commenters defended the retailers, arguing that boys are naturally larger than girls and therefore require longer and roomier clothing. Kat addressed these claims by showing clothing tags to demonstrate that the specified height and weight ranges are identical for boys and girls. Before puberty, children of both sexes have very similar body sizes, proportions and physical capabilities.
To prove her point, Kat introduced an inseam test to check whether the crotch fabric on children's shorts reached at least the width of an adult hand, roughly the size of a child's diaper and the minimum needed for basic comfort. She found that many girls' shorts failed the test.
Clinical psychologist Shahrzad Jalali explained that uncomfortable clothing can affect a child's self-esteem by sending a signal that they should behave more modestly and move less. Jalali warned that if boys continually receive practical clothes for exploring the world while girls wear items that expose the body and emphasize appearance, children may internalize the idea that a boy's body is meant for action and a girl's body is meant to be looked at.
Many parents agreed with Kat, sharing that they buy clothing for their daughters from the boys' section because the items are cut more practically. One commenter remarked that it was no surprise girls develop complexes about their appearance by the time they are nine or ten years old.
However, some users accused Kat of generating unjustified fear that short shorts present a real danger to children. Critics suggested she held conservative or prudish views for measuring children's shorts, while some parents said the micro-shorts fit their children well due to their slighter builds.
School uniforms and color stereotypes
The design of children's clothing has also been the subject of recent academic research. A 2024 study in Australia surveyed high school students at an elite institution about their attitudes toward school dress codes. Female students described their uniforms as heavy, uncomfortable, cold and scratchy. Male students generally liked their uniforms, feeling the classic dress code highlighted their prestige and status.
The Australian researchers concluded that school uniforms teach children inequality, noting that girls are forced to freeze in skirts while boys remain comfortable. The authors suggested that classic uniforms turn biological facts into social rules, and that girls who opt for male trousers often experience shame for failing to meet standards.
A similar study in China examined everyday children's clothing and confirmed stereotypes regarding color. Researchers found that colors with high cyan content were more frequently associated with boys, while those with high magenta content were linked to girls, with yellow remaining gender-neutral. The study noted that people perceive dark, saturated colors as serious, calm and reasonable, associating them with boys. Light, pastel shades are perceived as tender and soft, traits typically assigned to girls.
Jalali noted that clothing serves as a daily message to a child, and for girls, that message is often about restriction, as skirts and dresses physically hinder running, climbing and sitting comfortably. She concluded that girls should understand clothing can protect their bodies and provide freedom of movement, without feeling that their bodies are shameful or that they are responsible for how others perceive them.
Advertising campaigns face scrutiny
Public scrutiny has also extended to how brands market children's clothing in advertising campaigns. The luxury fashion house Balenciaga faced backlash in November 2022 after releasing holiday campaign photos showing children holding plush bear bags adorned with leather straps, collars and locks in a BDSM aesthetic. Following accusations of mixing children's imagery with adult visual codes, the brand deleted the advertisements, apologized and maintained that the campaign had no double meaning.
In January 2024, the fast fashion retailer H&M removed school uniform advertising banners in Australia. The posters featured two young models in pinafores alongside the slogan Make those heads turn, which critics argued was inappropriate for an advertisement involving children.
The Spanish clothing retailer Zara also drew mixed reactions over a children's t-shirt featuring strawberries and the phrases The perfect snack and Sweet enjoyment. Some consumers found the wordplay ambiguous and inappropriate for children's apparel.
In late August, the packaging design for Conte children's tights sparked anger among potential buyers. Belarusian critic Ksenia Vyatskaya questioned who allowed the brand to name girls' tights imitating stockings with titles like Sweet Girl and Lolita, which commenters found overly sexualized.
Jennifer Fortune, an Irish child rights expert, noted that it is particularly important in children's advertising not to transfer adult ideas about attractiveness, fashion and sexuality onto a child.
