Why this is an issue is because it speaks to the sexualization of girls . There was just that recent study that found that a majority of girls would rather be called "sexy" then "clever". It goes beyond icky.

This makes perfect sense.

Since girls rely on their skills to set up social networks with their friends, their sexuality is all they need for this.

Imagine a woman preferring to go it alone and shun social networks. This is what you are asking girls to do when you tell them they should lean on their intelligence instead of on their sexuality.

Dopamine, serotonin, oxytocin... unlike boys, girls get a sexual high from most regular activity like talking, touching, grooming, moving. Girls sublimate the feelings constantly, but the reality is that the hormonal feedback mechanisms in the female body are the same as they are during sexual intercourse.

You are asking girls to extricate themselves out of their marinated state-- A STATE THEY ARE NOT EVEN AWARE THEY ARE IN. Good luck there.

I now understand why girls think having intellect is useless and icky and they do not bother to try to accomplish anything intellectually significant.

NOBODY SEXUALIZES GIRLS but their own impulses. Impulses backed by 4 billion years of inertia.

Good points, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Thank you.

Junior clothing is cut smaller, narrowers and shorter then Misses clothing. It is more like petites for skinnier people. Now let's just think about who fits that description. Juniors are meant to be a bridge between children's and adult clothing. Most stores only carry girls clothing up to size 14 which in most cases fits the average 10 year old. By age 11/12 my very petite dd was out of kid's sizes and into juniors like all of her friends. Many 9/10 year olds only shop in the Junior department. While there are many young women who still fit into these clothes but the folks I see buying junior sizes are tweens and their mothers.

Why this is an issue is because it speaks to the sexualization of girls . There was just that recent study that found that a majority of girls would rather be called "sexy" then "clever". It goes beyond icky.

lisa

[quoting momesq] Anonymous -- girls, yes GIRLS in middle school and high school wear junior sizes. How do you figure these are not children? Or has our definition of what is a child now been cut off somewhere around "stopped playing with Barbie"?

And sure, this is probably not the most pressing issue on the feminist agenda this year, but the incessant sexualization and commodification of pubescent girls should be pretty high up there, and this is just yet another example of that.

Well, momesq, you know what they say: old enough to bleed, old enough to breed. So if a girl is big enough to be wearing junior sizes (like, say, over the age of eleven) - fair game. If she's got tits 'n ass, she's a sexual being, and she's making non-pedophile dick hard - so of course she's old enough to be "sexualized". And old enough to know exactly what she's doing. (For confirmation, see the story of that promiscuous little ten year old having sex with nine men in Australia. She was well-trained to her sole purpose in life by the age of seven!)

I guess an example of the commodification and sexualization of young girls is just ridiculous for the feminist agenda. We should all be concentrating on something else entirely - like sweatshops, or reform in men's prisons, or the greenhouse effect. Really, anything that isn't female specific - that's divisive and necessary, and only relevant to a teeny tiny fraction of humanity (like no more than 52%).

Christ, every feminist-leaning blog has the same b.s. argument made in every thread: this is too trivial, why are you wasting your time covering it, blah blah blah. It's like saying you can't talk about migraines because people are dying of cancer. Or you shouldn't worry about pesticides, because there's nuclear bombs. Or why worry about the working poor, when there are people literally starving?

Yes, Anonymous, there are bigger issues in the world than Wal-Mart selling creepy underwear. But it's just a website. I doubt the five minutes I've spent reading the posts and writing this would have been spent saving the world. I doubt bringing up the subject of Wal-Mart panties has desensitized me or any other readers to more pressing problems, female-centric or otherwise. I don't see how yet another example of creepy shit marketed to girls or women will tarnish feminism's reputation for anyone not already prepared to utterly dismiss feminist issues.

If this is such a bad thing, why hasn't Broadsheet written about trendy sweatpants with "Princess" or "Sweet" or "Naughty Girl" written across the butt?

I'm no fan of Wal*Mart underwear, but I'd rather my daughter wear this than the aforementioned sweatpants. Ideally, no one else will see it.

I like Salon too much to see it go the way of the dodo.

Just think of how many ad impressions get created in this petty bickering with Brightstar65! It is well known that Salon is barely making it. Please take a moment and support Salon by thanking Brightstar65 for his singular achievement of keeping this site afloat.

Keep up the good work my man!

You know, if we ignore him maybe he'll go away.

(At the very least, we'll stop giving him wood.)

It is only trivial if taken out of context. In other words, if this were found in a sea of Hello Kitty underwear and Geranimals clothing, it would simply be an oddity. However, when it is interpreted in the context of Bratz dolls, the mysteriously scrapped "Pussycat Doll" dolls, and padded bras for tweens, it starts to seem a little more sinister. I have a four year old girl and I see this crap on a regular basis.

Oh, and when a joke or phrase has multiple meanings (one of which is usually sexual) it is called a double entendre.