25th Oct 2007
Mean Girls Under 10
Send to a friend:
Read an article this morning on the Wall Street Journal site examining higher end designer’s foray into children’s lines and the effect it’s having socially on the younger set. I have to preface this by saying that I was one of the girls that got picked on for having fashion so gauche that ridicule was an every other day occurrence (cue violins). Having experienced this first-hand, I can say without equivocation that I understand Vanessa O’Connell’s article and where she goes with it. Although designers creating kid’s lines is nothing new, it’s getting to a point where nearly everyone is doing it or have plans to do it. Dolce & Gabbana, Chloe, Marc Jacobs, Armani, Burberry and Dior are all plotting or have plans underway to make kids more stylish. Take a look at the Little Marc collection and you’ll get idea of what’s going on. The kids are adorable and the clothes are wonderful… for those who can afford them.
Which lends itself to the inevitable argument about the microcosmic class system in adolescence and pre-pubescence. The younger set may not be properly prepared to deal with this new thing to be insecure about. So personally, I’m wondering whether a Dior for kids (or any higher end collection for kids) is over the top? O’Connell states that:
“In many schools, the most expensive designer goods, such as those by Chanel or Louis Vuitton, have the highest social ranking among girls. But popular teen brands such as American Eagle, Abercrombie & Fitch and Aeropostale are also important.”
As an aside, while reading the article, I learned that David Beckham named his son Brooklyn, what balls.
The full article is here.
Posted by Eva @ 7:30 am
October 26th, 2007 at 11:43 am
[...] TV series, Gossip Girl. » Papierblog looks at the social implication of high-end designers with collections for children » Second City Style has photos of Sak’s window display of Princess Grace-inspired outfits. [...]
October 26th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
[...] Papierblog looks at the social implication of high end designers with collections for children [...]
October 27th, 2007 at 7:46 am
Hmm. I read the article too and I think it’s just wrong. It’s like exposing consumerism culture to young kids. I mean, lots of young girls have obsessed over these brand names and as the result lots of picking and jeering in high school. Anyway, I think branded items should only be worn by those who can afford them, and kids obviously don’t!
October 27th, 2007 at 11:09 am
This is just so important to a lot of young girls, and I don’t understand why. I guess they just like the whole “cuteness” factor, and being the “most fashionable” in the class. The girls(and boys) shouldn’t worry about all of this because none of it really matters. In addition, they will soon either grow out of their current clothing, and/or get tired of them by next season. As parents, we should guide our children better, and remind them to focus on more important things, such as enjoying their time as a child/preteen/teen, and their studies.
October 28th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
[...] wrote an interesting post today on Mean Girls Under 10Here’s a quick [...]
November 4th, 2007 at 11:27 am
I was a mean girl and still am one. Maybe I was just mad and bitter about being flat chested?
andreemecham@hotmail.com