# Children's clothing - you've got to read this



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

Another winner of an article [xx(] from the WP's Robin Givhan, who criticized Justice John Roberts and his family for dressing their children nicely for a public appearance at the White House.

I'm with her on little girls in slutty getups, but this woman seems to be projecting her prejudices about being well-dressed (check out the power reference) onto children in particular. Does she think that they should wear jeans and sneakers to weddings or for Easter Sunday?

------------------------------

Little Tycoons: A Pint-Size Model Of the Lust for Power

By Robin Givhan
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 17, 2006; Page C01

Anyone flipping through current issues of men's fashion and lifestyle magazines will have come across advertisements for Hickey Freeman boyswear in which two 10-year-olds are posed like a couple of jaded GQ models.

The blond boy stands with his hands in the pants pockets of his tan poplin three-button suit. He's wearing a blue striped shirt and a candy-colored rep striped tie. His hair is deftly gelled into a faux hawk, a style that is at once brutish and sweetly juvenile. His pose is studiously nonchalant, like that of a man waiting for the valet to come around with his car -- or, in this case, his scooter -- and there better not be a scratch on it.

The other child, who has exquisitely tousled chestnut hair, wears a navy blazer, tan slacks and a tattersall shirt. He is perched on the arm of a chair, leaning forward with one hand on his knee. He has the body language of someone in the habit of brokering deals and getting his cut off the top.

The boys are adorable in that freckle-faced, clean-cut, preppy way. (And undoubtedly they are well mannered and saving their modeling fees to pay for college.) But there is something discomforting about the manner in which they stare at the reader in their extremely grown-up clothes.

The boys have been starring in Hickey Freeman advertisements since they were 7 years old. And if there is anything unnerving about the photos, it may simply be because "people just aren't used to seeing boys dressed so well," says Julie Beynon, a spokeswoman for the century-old American company known for its traditional men's tailoring. Indeed, the kids are exceptionally spiffy. Both youngsters are even wearing pocket squares. More than a few gentlemen in the public eye could take lessons in style and grooming from them.

But go to any wedding, religious service or musical recital and it's possible to see spit-polished children. It's the unnatural facade of maturity modeled by the Hickey Freeman boys that causes the hairs on the back of one's neck to twitch. The image has a subtle "ick" factor akin to the one evoked by the sight of little girls dressed like women.

Of course, obvious concerns about sexual exploitation arise from images of girls dolled up in slinky gowns or any sort of suggestive attire. But there's also something distressing about girls simply wearing clothes intended for someone much older, wearing lipstick before they're out of elementary school, or wearing hair extensions when they should be in pigtails.

There's a sense that innocence has been lost, perhaps even violated. It's disturbing because girls can't possibly recognize or navigate the cultural maze associated with women's fashions.

For girls, dressing like an adult is inexorably linked to gender, body image and, of course, sex. So much of the fashion industry is dedicated to female sexuality -- celebrating it, exaggerating it, obscuring it. Sexuality is the obsession of womenswear designers. Sex-ed classes should include a subscription to Vogue.

The image of boys dressed like men underscores something else. Menswear designers only dabble in male sexuality. Their most pressing concern -- at least when addressing a predominantly straight male audience -- always has been in expressing power: financial, social, physical and cultural.

*The Hickey Freeman boys are cloaked in that expression of power. They are posed to suggest that they understand the meaning of strength, authority and influence. But they're only little boys. And so the ultimate image leads one to think of power that is reckless, unearned and, perhaps, even infused with playground cruelty.* The advertisement reminds one of the stereotypical indulged child of a corporate titan who threatens the headmaster at his private school with dismissal for some perceived offense.

Hollywood portrays virtually every snot-nosed pre-adolescent antagonist with a navy blazer, an adult stare and a kindergartner's sense of entitlement. These are the kids who terrorize the nanny, take advantage of the housekeeper and hate the way the cook makes a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Fire her, Mommy!

An over-sexualized little girl makes folks want to call child protective services. A boy dressed like a miniature master of the universe makes folks want to watch their back.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

The writer is a ninny. Does she really think the ads are going to cause a stampede to department stores so little Jared and Ezekiel can get in on the powerful and well-heeled look?


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

Gasp! Many of us were dressed by our parents at that age like the two HF models. No wonder that we turned out like we did.

Carpe Diem


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

I dunno. I find them creepy. That's not a natural look for a ten year old.


----------



## Joseph Casazza (Aug 26, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> I dunno. I find them creepy. That's not a natural look for a ten year old.


And that, after all, is her point. "But go to any wedding, religious service or musical recital and it's possible to see spit-polished children. It's the unnatural facade of maturity modeled by the Hickey Freeman boys that causes the hairs on the back of one's neck to twitch." It's not the clothing that is unnerving.


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

The expression on the faces of the boys looks completely uncivilized; these lads are presented like uneducated, spoiled little brats. Admittedly, I like the style of the boy in the navy blazer, but the pocket square is completely over the top and disproportional.

What these boys on the pictures need is a ten-week para-military winter boyscout camp with a water-and-bread diet.


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Joseph Casazza_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Most pictures of models in menswear catalogues are creepy. Anyway, fashion pictures are not meant to look realistic.

In this case, I think the bengal strip shirt is too adult, but the rest looks fine to me. Some allowance has to be made for age.

Anyway, the sooner they get used to being dressed, as distinct from clothed, the better they'll look later on.


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Rich_
> 
> Most pictures of models in menswear catalogues are creepy. Anyway, fashion pictures are not meant to look realistic.
> 
> ...


That's what I think.

The undertone of this article is what I personally find creepy. It's as if the author is afraid that children who are dressed nicely by their parents will end up being, oh gosh, I dunno, neocons or something.

Sometimes a tie is just a tie.


----------



## Wimsey (Jan 28, 2006)

The author's point *is not about the clothes.* It's about the expressions on the faces of the boys. And I think she does have a point; their expressions are creepy. The kid on the left reminds me of that kid on the twilight zone episode whose birthday was everyday.


----------



## Joseph Casazza (Aug 26, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Wimsey_
> 
> The author's point *is not about the clothes.* It's about the expressions on the faces of the boys. And I think she does have a point; their expressions are creepy. The kid on the left reminds me of that kid on the twilight zone episode whose birthday was everyday.


Was that the original show or a later incarnation? I though of "It's a good life" from 1961:

"Tonight's story on The Twilight Zone is somewhat unique and calls for a different kind of introduction. This, as you may recognize, is a map of the United States, and there's a little town there called Peaksville. On a given morning not too long ago, the rest of the world disappeared and Peaksville was left all alone. Its inhabitants were never sure whether the world was destroyed and only Peaksville left untouched or whether the village had somehow been taken away. They were, on the other hand, sure of one thing: the cause. A monster had arrived in the village. Just by using his mind, he took away the automobiles, the electricity, the machines - because they displeased him - and he moved an entire community back into the dark ages - just by using his mind. Now I'd like to introduce you to some of the people in Peaksville, Ohio. This is Mr. Fremont. It's in his farmhouse that the monster resides. This is Mrs. Fremont. And this is Aunt Amy, who probably had more control over the monster in the beginning than almost anyone. But one day she forgot; she began to sing aloud. Now, the monster doesn't like singing, so his mind snapped at her, turned her into the smiling, vacant thing you're looking at now. She sings no more. And you'll note that the people in Peaksville, Ohio, have to smile; they have to think happy thoughts and say happy things because, once displeased, the monster can wish them into a cornfield or change them into a grotesque, walking horror. This particular monster can read minds, you see. He knows every thought, he can feel every emotion. Oh yes, I did forget something, didn't I? I forgot to introduce you to the monster. This is the monster. His name is Anthony Fremont. He's six years old, with a cute little-boy face and blue, guileless eyes. But when those eyes look at you, you'd better start thinking happy thoughts, because the mind behind them is absolutely in charge. This is the Twilight Zone."


----------



## Vladimir Berkov (Apr 19, 2005)

I agree about the expressions, they are just wrong.

The author seemed to be making a more general point though, not just about the expressions and posing of the ads but that children should not be seen as "little adults" in general.

This is of course, contrary to the way children have been dressed for centuries. Little boys used to dress in a similar way to their fathers, and little girls to their mothers. The styles for children were of course a little more relaxed simply due to the nature of children wanting to play and not needing to be quite as formal. However, the older the child, the more they dressed like an adult. But since adults dressed tastefully and sensibly, there never was an issue of impropriety.

Today, grown women dress extremely provocatively, and children want to dress this same way. What works on a 25-year-old is simply disturbing on an 8-year-old.

So really if you want to blame someone for kids dressed inappropriately, we need to blame adult society for dressing so inappropriately.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

I don't find them creepy at all. We live in an age when middle aged men (and older) dress like little boys. Since older men have stolen their style from them, little boys have no recourse except to dress like the grown men of yesteryear.


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Wimsey_
> 
> The author's point *is not about the clothes.* It's about the expressions on the faces of the boys. And I think she does have a point; their expressions are creepy. The kid on the left reminds me of that kid on the twilight zone episode whose birthday was everyday.


I still contend that it's about _both_. This author, judging by previous coverage, wouldn't single out the exact same ad featuring two children in Gap togs.

Then again, I was a serious-looking little kid myself.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Frankly, it just seems to me that everyone is reading way, way too much into a picture of two very nicely dressed little boys. The one on the left has a slightly petulant look about him, it seems to me, but that is not an uncommon state for little boys! They don't look like "power brokers" or spoiled children of privilege or much of anything else besides being good-looking, nicely dressed boys (which is what I thought models of any age and either sex were supposed to be--good looking and nicely dressed). If they do via their modelling acquire the sartorial sophistication to help them get ahead in this world and become "power brokers" or whatever, more power to the lads!


----------



## Jill (Sep 11, 2003)

What cutie pies. I think this article is much ado about nothing. If I'd been the design director, I would probably have directed them to smile and act like they were having fun. But there's absolutely NOTHING wrong with the clothes. They're adorable. And if I had a little guy, I'd be dressing him in a very similar fashion for Easter Sunday at the very least.

Lighten up. What better time to teach the little ones that there is a time and place to dress up, and how, and how to act accordingly, as well.


----------



## Gong Tao Jai (Jul 7, 2005)

The garbage that woman wrote about John Roberts' family showed that she has an antipathy towards well-dressed kids. But I saw the Hickey-Freeman ad before I read this post, and I thought it was creepy, too. They look pompous and arrogant. It's true that most adult male models have the same look, but, like most unsavory attitudes, it is particularly unpleasant on a child.

Edit: but the clothes are great. It's the looks on their faces and the poses that I don't like.


----------



## JBZ (Mar 28, 2005)

Oh, I definitely think these children are posed in a way to make them look adult. I'm not particularly fond of the picture. In reality, boys of that age look uncomfortable in dress clothing because, well, boys of that age *are* uncomfortable in dress clothing. This doesn't mean that it isn't appropriate for children to wear dress clothing on certain occasions, it just means that they're not going to be instantly transformed into little adults (i.e. "boys will be boys" - especially when they actually are boys).

Of course, H-F isn't going to sell much clothing by making their child models look uncomfortable. However, I think there are ways to pose child models in dress clothing which make them look more natural and happy in their clothing without turning them into mini lawyers, real estate brokers, or investment bankers, as we see above.

To be clear, I'm not offended by the picture. I just think it's completely unrealistic and kind of comical.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

It is hugely important to let children be children and not treat them as adults - because they aren't. They grow up quick enough

Those boys are wearing what look to be rather nice clothes - but completely over the top for children of that age. You can dress children smartly without trying to make them into mini-me's.

The expressions on their faces are daft - the male equivalent of the sexualised pictures of pre-pubescent female models. My boy starts pouting for the camera like that and he will be told to smarten up quickstyle.

I disagree with the criticism of the piece. Its clear that the writer does not have prejudices against the well-dressed from this line:
_"More than a few gentlemen in the public eye could take lessons in style and grooming from them."_

------------------


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

Who buys HF children's clothes? Its the parents. Probably from families where the men dress in Hickey Freeman, which are often going to be lawyers, power brokers, etc. 

So the ad is to appeal to the adults. 

I can say that at that age I was wearing a 3 piece suit to church and funerals, though not with a pocket square, and was completely comfortable in it. Not all young boys are uncomfortable in grown up clothes.

---------------------


Beware of showroom sales-fever reasoning: i.e., "for $20 . . ." Once you're home, how little you paid is forgotten; how good you look in it is all that matters.


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

Now THIS is creepy:


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

When I was in the fourth grade in Scarsdale, N.Y., the neighborhood mothers hatched a plan so fiendish, so foul, it makes me cringe to think of it now, 35 years later.

On our Wednesdays (when we had a half day at school for some weird reason) they sent us guys to _dancing school_.

Dancing school! Blue blazers, white shirts, grey pants and what we called "BOCES shoes". (BOCES - Board of Cooperative Educational Services or something - to us was synonymous with "retard" or "spazz.")

We had to walk into the village and learn to fox-trot and so on with the girls, who despite their dresses and lace gloves that smelled like talcum powder were still gross and definitely had cooties.

Well, after two or three of these wasted Wednesdays we revolted, ditched dancing school, and went down to the railroad to pick up discarded mini-bottles and throw them at trains.

When we returned, the Mothers were standing on the corner of School Lane and Overhill Road, tapping their feet. Tap tap tap. As we hove into view, with our duds liberally encrusted with grime and our spazz shoes hopelessly scuffed, we looked the way little boys in nice clothes will invariably look left to their own devices.

Which is a long way of saying maybe Hickey Freeman would have a more successful campaign based on the Great Dancing School Hooky Episode of 1971.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by VS_
> 
> Now THIS is creepy:


 Not as creepy as:


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Patrick06790_
> Which is a long way of saying maybe Hickey Freeman would have a more successful campaign based on the Great Dancing School Hooky Episode of 1971.


No doubt. And that is a very good story. Someone should pay you to turn that into a column. [8D]

Excellent photographic comparison, JLPWCXIII

Does anyone doubt that the real purpose of the Hickey Freeman ads is to get adult men to buy similar clothes? C'mon.

That ad _really_ stands out in magazines.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Patrick06790_
> 
> When I was in the fourth grade in Scarsdale, N.Y., the neighborhood mothers hatched a plan so fiendish, so foul, it makes me cringe to think of it now, 35 years later.


What district were you? Fox Meadow for me-- I think I was about 2 years behind you.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

The Great Dancing School Hooky Episode reminds me of one occasion when my mother had dressed me very nicely for some some occasion--this would have been back in the mid '40s and I would have been in a little short-pants suit--and I went and jumped into the fishpond and slimed around amidst the water hyacinths.

Her response was to beat me and beat me and beat me some more. This being the 1940s, she would have been considered a "severe disciplinarian"; today she probably would be branded a "child abuser." However, I was none the worse for having my little bottom warmed, and I have always been quite respectful of my apparel from that day to this!


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Concordia_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Edgewood, but we got redistricted and my brother went to Fox Meadow for a year.

Then we moved to Northern Virginia and all bets were off.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by VS_
> 
> Excellent photographic comparison, JLPWCXIII
> 
> Does anyone doubt that the real purpose of the Hickey Freeman ads is to get adult men to buy similar clothes? C'mon.


Really?

Would you want to look like a 10 year old male model? I certainly wouldn't.

------------------


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Patrick06790_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Do either of you know a Tom Q. from Scarsdale? He's right in your age range....


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

Not I. But I bugged out to a school in NYC in 5th grade, and moved 4 years later.


----------



## Tom Buchanan (Nov 7, 2005)

VS,

Good thread. Since the Post is my local paper, I regularly disagree with this Robin Givhan's articles, and am generally left wondering her point on most of her articles. 

However, on this article, I think she makes some excellent points that Children should be dressed like Children, not runway models.

What is ironic is that, as you point out, she savaged John Roberts for dressing his children like children. His children looked wonderful at his swearing in, the girl wearing a smocked dress, and the boy wearing a short pants suit with saddle shoes. Very classic, traditional childrens clothes. In that case, she claimed that the children looked too costumed, and inferred that the Roberts family was trying too hard to look Kennedy-esque. I have briefly met the Roberts and I can tell you that they are very classy people. I think Ms. Givhans has no idea generally of what she writes, but rather, makes stream of conscience remarks that are often inconsistent and uninformed. Just my two cents.


----------



## Harris (Jan 30, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by VS_
> 
> Another winner of an article [xx(] from the WP's Robin Givhan, who criticized Justice John Roberts and his family for dressing their children nicely for a public appearance at the White House.
> 
> ...


VS, I wonder if the writer may be making a point about the particular _style_ of the clothing represented in the ad. My parents--generally (and traditionally) well-dressed people who insisted upon their kids being (traditionally) well-dressed when the occasion called for it--would have _never_ forced us to wear the obnoxiously fashionable, overly-stylish, straight off the fashion runway, Hickey-a-la-GQ magazine duds those two kids are sporting. The tragic, lamentable thing is not that they're dressed up. It's _how _ they're dressed up--the "styled" hair and the hip, Vogue-For-Men style. They don't look "grown up" in the sense that gents in their 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s are grown up. They look "grown up" as their Baby Boomer, Jaguar or Beemer driving, wine-tasting, Bobo (see David Brooks book) parents are. And, yes, there is something wrong about that.
-Harris


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

The clothes the kids are wearing are fine (althought the pocket square is a little much for my tastes). I like it.

I don't care much for the apparent attitude these two boys are asked to project, however. I prefer kids to project as kids, afterall.


----------



## Harris (Jan 30, 2006)

As an aside: No prep school worth its $ would hire a headmaster who's willing to take abuse from wealthy, influential parents who wish for their children to receive special treatment. It's best if the headmaster himself has more (inherited, likely) money than God. Preferably old $, of course, so he can tell the market men how and where to shove their newly acquired dinero. Cheers, Harris


----------



## shoefetish (Jan 15, 2006)

They're just two dressed up midgets.

Looks like they are spoiling for a fight....give me a kid with a wonderful wide toothed grin anyday.


----------



## Vettriano Man (Jun 30, 2005)

To me the facade of 'Trad' can be unhealthy at the best of times, but the fact that parents dress their kids this way is serious cause for concern. These are only the clothes, but with such dictatorial parents one can just imagine how brainwashed their kids will turn out to be.


----------



## Daywalker (Aug 21, 2005)

I think its pretty cool. Hopefully, their experience will help them to grow up confident and maybe even a little bit cocky. God knows the current younger generation could use some schooling on maturity and manhood in general. The author of the article is an idiot.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Daywalker_
> 
> I think its pretty cool. Hopefully, their experience will help them to grow up confident and maybe even a little bit cocky. God knows the current younger generation could use some schooling on maturity and manhood in general. The author of the article is an idiot.


You equate cockiness with maturity and manhood?

They look utterly ridiculous and I don't see how that will help them grow up with confidence.

------------------


----------



## I_Should_Be_Working (Jun 23, 2005)

The boy on the right doesn't bother me (in the blue sportcoat).

But that one on the left..Part village of the damned, part bond trader wannabe (though the hair would be slicked back, not up), part "You know, I'll never _have_ to work a day in my life."


----------



## Andy (Aug 25, 2002)

If you would like to write to Robin Givhan here is how:



Be gentle!

Andy


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Andy_
> 
> If you would like to write to Robin Givhan here is how:
> 
> ...


Just sent her a note giving her my full support.


----------



## Daywalker (Aug 21, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My compliments on your masterful mischaracterization of my statement. A healthy dose of attitude along with one's manhood and maturity is a good thing and in short supply, as far as I can see. I know, here in the Land of Gentlemanly Arts, such talked is frowned upon by the bumbershoot and derby bunch. Tough. The "let the children be children" crowd has gone overboard with all the pampering.

Uttterly ridiculous? Lighten up---it is a photograph; it is not who they are. I suppose it would have been better if they had been depicted playing with bunny rabbits and and sitting in their mommies' laps. They will not be damaged for life bacause of posing for a photograph (unless it is the one I described). That photo creates the illusion of two future Alpha-males, and if they grow up being wolves instead of sheep,I'd say it worked out okay.


----------



## TE Hesketh (Nov 19, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> I dunno. I find them creepy. That's not a natural look for a ten year old.


I remember when I was about that age, my father had to go down to London to be presented with an award and of course the family went with him. I was asked what I would like to wear to the presentation and my reply was "a suit like dads". 30 years later I still get this quoted at me at family gatherings (and I still like, and wear, suits).

Rob


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Daywalker_
> 
> My compliments on your masterful mischaracterization of my statement.


Thanks!



> quote:_Originally posted by Daywalker_
> A healthy dose of attitude along with one's manhood and maturity is a good thing and in short supply, as far as I can see. I know, here in the Land of Gentlemanly Arts, such talked is frowned upon by the bumbershoot and derby bunch. Tough. The "let the children be children" crowd has gone overboard with all the pampering.


I'm guessing you don't have children.

Let me explain it for you - many adults try to live vicariously through their children, be that pushing them hard academically to make that Ivy League spot, dressing them up as princesses, being overwhelmingly pushy at sports or dressing them up like Wall Street brokers. It is generally a projection of the frustrated desires of the parent and, I would say, is quite unhealthy.

Letting children be children means letting them learn to ride bikes, fall out of trees, not win at everything, dance with the dog, enjoy Spongebob and The Incredibles, telling them to smarten up when they have an attitude - and a million other little things, all the while letting them know you love them and will be there for them whatever happens. That way, hopefully, they will be equipped to make their own decisions when the time comes.

It isn't easy, I can assure you of that, and it has absolutely nothing to do with pampering, bunny rabbits or sitting in their mommie's lap.

------------------


----------



## Vettriano Man (Jun 30, 2005)

I agree entirely gmac. It is really thoroughly selfish of parents to bring children into the world and then mould them in exactly the same vein as themselves. I felt really sad for those poor kids of Justice Roberts, but it was laughable to see him and his family stand in front of the White House and expect that America could honestly believe his kids were for real, like some 1950's dream!


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Vettriano man_
> 
> I agree entirely gmac. It is really thoroughly selfish of parents to bring children into the world and then mould them in exactly the same vein as themselves. I felt really sad for those poor kids of Justice Roberts, but it was laughable to see him and his family stand in front of the White House and expect that America could honestly believe his kids were for real, like some 1950's dream!


What are children supposed to wear to the White House, though? Those children certainly didn't look overly grown-up, nor were they caught staring at the camera like mini-power brokers, which is the chief criticism of the ad in the original post.

People often dress their children up for Easter and Christmas. Not to mold them into their own image, but because wearing jeans to church isn't done. Sometimes people dress up for special occasions, so why can't children?


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

I don't know about all this "let children be children." The natural state of the child is savagery (think "Lord of the Flies"). As my mother used to say, "Force is the only language they understand." Isn't it the parent's role to cultivate them, guide them away from childishness and turn them toward the path of maturity? I alwsys used to preach to my stepson about acquiring "the dignity of manhood." 

In point of fact, when he was about a year older than the lads in the picture, my wife and I sent our boy off to cotillion dressed not much differently from those boys, although without a pocket square, unfortunately. I rather thought cotillion and that sort of thing was the common experience of many reasonably well brought up young men--all designed to inculcate the social graces, including dressing well, as part of their path to maturity.


----------



## zegnamtl (Apr 19, 2005)

VS,
Great thread.

Firstly, I must confess I have not read all the posts attached to this thread,
time is a most precious commodity of late, so please forgive if I repeat the words of others.

The concept of letting children be children is an absolute.
But part of being a child is also learning what is acceptable and what is not,
part of being a child is learning how to behave and what is expected, respectful and necessary in different situations and how to dress for certain situations.

Dressing your young son in such a manner when the time is right has nothing to do with being a mini me.

Dressing your young son in such a manner when the time is right also spares society from having adult men who know no better than to arrive in front of a princess dressed as such:


----------



## Daywalker (Aug 21, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Whether I do or do not have children is irrelevant. Oh, I almost forgot to thank you for the condescending lesson on child-rearing. You have gotten wrapped around the axle over a stupid photograph and have somehow concluded that those boys' childhood experiences have been stolen from them by their evil parents and the fiendish advertisers. I'll betcha those two boys do all of the things you cited, and then some. My hope is that their professional experience at such a young age will bring them poise and confidence beyond their years. If they end up ruling the schoolyard because of it, more power to them.


----------



## Vettriano Man (Jun 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by VS_What are children supposed to wear to the White House, though? Those children certainly didn't look overly grown-up, nor were they caught staring at the camera like mini-power brokers, which is the chief criticism of the ad in the original post.
> 
> People often dress their children up for Easter and Christmas. Not to mold them into their own image, but because wearing jeans to church isn't done. Sometimes people dress up for special occasions, so why can't children?


VS - Without wishing to harp on about this, since you ask what should those kids have worn then I will add that they should have at least been styled in a contemporary way for today, not the ridiculous nostalgic way which was obviously calculated to reinforce the message that the Roberts' are cozy, safe and conservative - like people used to be in the 1950's - and which I believe was absurd to attempt because it was as though they are trying to relive the so-called 'Kennedy' dream.


----------



## Daywalker (Aug 21, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Vettriano man_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Maybe that is just the way the Roberts family dresses. Unless you know them personally, I think it is wrong, and cynical, to assume that it was calculated to convey a certain image. If anything, in this country you want to avoid any overt indication of conservatism, especailly if you're looking for confirmation from the minority opposition in this particular Congress.

Just once, I'd like to see the same criticism directed toward forum members here who speak of wearing plus fours, bowler hats, tweed Norfolk jackets, etc., and other affected anachronistic looks purposely intended to create an impression of.....I don't know what.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:Without wishing to harp on about this, since you ask what should those kids have worn then I will add that they should have at least been styled in a contemporary way for today, not the ridiculous nostalgic way which was obviously calculated to reinforce the message that the Roberts' are cozy, safe and conservative, like people used to be in the 1950's, which I believe was absurd to attempt and it was as though they were trying to relive the so-called 'Kennedy' dream.


 How would you have dressed the little ones, pray tell? (specifically)



> quote:Just once, I'd like to see the same criticism directed toward forum members here who speak of wearing plus fours, bowler hats, tweed Norfolk jackets, etc., and other affected anachronistic looks purposely intended to *create an impression of.....I don't know w*hat.


 Dignity, in a mad and lost world.


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

My daughters dress pretty much the way Judge Roberts' daughter was dressed for the White House. She's simply dressed like a little girl. My wife would have thrown a big bow on her, though. If I had a son, then he likely would wear things similar to what the Roberts son is wearing. Just as I 'dress up' for events and life, so should my children. When they climb trees, slide, swing and yell outside they are dressed appropriately.

There is a dichotomy going on here. On the one hand, there is the condemning of the sexualization of young girls, a condemnation I will whole heartedly agree with. But that is not what has happened to the Roberts girl. She's dressed like a little girl. But that is also condemned. Apparently unless she is dressed in Bratz or Disney logo gear she's simply a regrettable throwback to the '50s. Her father was being nominated to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court at the White House and she's not supposed to show up well turned out and act her best? If I recall, the Roberts boy did get involved in some harmless horseplay while he was there. Well, that's fine and sounds like he's well adjusted and a typical boy. If he grabbed some keys and started scratching George Washington's favorite rocking chair that would not be okay.

It seems odd to me that a clothing forum dedicated to traditional, classic clothing would show such hostility to classically dressed children. The world would be a better place if every so often kids washed behind their ears and dressed up and behaved themselves.

Yes, the boys in the Hickey ad are over the top, especially the pocket squares (white linen or cotton peeking out would be fine). And the one on the left needs to have his hair combed and that smirk removed from his face, but quite frankly that's the attitude that most kids are allowed to demonstrate these days by those who want to "let kids be kids". Yes, kids should be allowed to be kids, but not smart alecky spoiled brats. They will not raise themselves, and it would be well if a few more parents realized that.


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by AlanC_
> 
> And the one on the left needs to have his hair combed and that smirk removed from his face, but quite frankly that's the attitude that most kids are allowed to demonstrate these days by those who want to "let kids be kids". Yes, kids should be allowed to be kids, but not smart alecky spoiled brats. They will not raise themselves, and it would be well if a few more parents realized that.


I disagree. I don't believe the children of those who want "kids to be kids" display the type of body language or smirks shown in the Hickey ads.

I think the author of the article makes a good point: parents project far too much onto their children and the pose and clothes of the kids in the Hickey Freeman ads illustrates this, assuming parents actually look at those ads and say, "Yeah..that's just the look for my kid." Kids are being treated like product development--the right schools, the right clothes, the right snarling attitude--and all of it has precious little to do with the business of being a kid or of being raised to respect authority, have good manners, and the other social graces which people value. The author isn't being critical of children being well dressed; the author is being critical of trying to make children into something that they are not and treating them as props, as if the external appearance of a child validates the choices parents make. Kids should look happy, not like they're going to go for your throat.


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

How does that tie in to the Roberts children then? They showed no 'attitude', but were simply appropriately dressed for the most important day of their father's career in the home of the most powerful man in the world in front of cameras that would broadcast their image into nearly every home in the country and many throughout the world.


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by AlanC_
> 
> How does that tie in to the Roberts children then? They showed no 'attitude', but were simply appropriately dressed for the most important day of their father's career in the home of the most powerful man in the world in front of cameras that would broadcast their image into nearly every home in the country and many throughout the world.


If you read carefully, you will note I say nothing about the Roberts children. I found the bow tie and shorts a little strange, but certainly not worth making an issue about.


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

Note that I did not endorse the 'look' of the Hickey kids, particularly the one on the left. Woe be it for one of my girls to have that sort of look on her face. And he needs to learn to use a comb.


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by AlanC_
> 
> Note that I did not endorse the 'look' of the Hickey kids, particularly the one on the left. Woe be it for one of my girls to have that sort of look on her face. And he needs to learn to use a comb.


AlanC:

I think you and I both have the same attitude towards raising our girls, which would appear to be diametrically opposed to the attitude being shown by the Hickey boys.


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

When I went to church or to an event that called for it I was dressed in 'dress clothes', which would include dress shoes and perhaps even a tie and sport coat (it was the 70s, so some of those were, well, unfortunate). Were I to go to the White House when my father was being nominated to the Supreme Court I suspect I would not have worn sneakers. Neither should they. Neither should one wear flip flops to the White House or to Downing Street. Certain situations call for certain levels of attire, even for children. Afterward they can go home, put on their jeans and sneakers and play stick ball in the street with the neighborhood kids and get as dirty as they want to.


----------



## Gong Tao Jai (Jul 7, 2005)

Vettriano, 'understated contemporary kids' clothes' are not appropriate for a visit to the white house. I dress my daughters pretty much the way Roberts did for any special occasion, and they love it. It seems that your parents did not understand that kids need (and usually are very happy to wear) dress-up clothes as well as clothes for playing in the sandbox and splashing in mud puddles.


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Gong Tao Jai_
> 
> Vettriano, 'understated contemporary kids' clothes' are not appropriate for a visit to the white house. I dress my daughters pretty much the way Roberts did for any special occasion, and they love it. It seems that your parents did not understand that kids need (and usually are very happy to wear) dress-up clothes as well as clothes for playing in the sandbox asnd splashing in mud puddles.


This is EXACTLY the way I was dressed as a little girl and I treasure those photographs. I remember liking these dresses and shoes at the time as well.

I was little in the 70s, so I thank whatever absolute power is above that my parents didn't dress me in polyester plaid bellbottoms for Christmas photos. That was "contemporary childrens' dress then).


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

Daughter of bosthist, with her best Hickey Freeman model scowl:


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> Daughter of bosthist, with her best Hickey Freeman model scowl:


 Adorable!


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

Oppressed daughters:




























Non-oppressed daughters:


----------



## FlatSix (Feb 23, 2005)

Forcing your children to dress like rude-boy bond traders is far less damaging than exposing them to ten hours of network television a week.

----------------------


"When you wear something like spats, I think you might as well wear your favorite players jersey bc what youre saying is I want to be powerful like the bear and Im wearing its hide to tap into its power." - Film Noir Buff

"First sense of what "normal" good clothes looked like came from my dad, of course, and from Babar books." - Concordia

" I have a related problem in that I often have to chase people. Leather soles are no good for this kind of work." - Patrick06790


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

What cute daughters!

[8)]


----------



## Jonny (Oct 9, 2010)

What is that?


----------



## babycoutureindia (Feb 14, 2019)

Shopping for your kids clothing is an arduous affair mainly because children have their own tastes. Moreover, they grow very fast. However, here are some helpful tips that will guide you while buying your kids' clothes.
It's essential to buy items, which will make the child feel comfortable. Don't go for the clothes, which will stick tight to the body. Purchase the one's that have wide neck and are made up of stretchable material so that the child doesn't have difficulty in putting on and taking off the dress.
The fabric that you opt for your kids should make your little one feel comfortable. Children's clothes are made up of various fabrics ranging from lace to tulle and satin to cotton. However, soft cottons are the most preferred ones for all the seasons, especially the summers. Make sure your kid wears fleece or woolen clothes in winter.


----------

