Asda, GapKids and Next are among the High Street brands who offer heels for young girls.

Justine Roberts of Mumsnet, the parenting forum, said: “Some of the shoes I have seen on sale look more suited to a lap-dancing club than the feet of a young girl. The items in question are prematurely sexualising young children. We are saying to retailers, ‘Have a look at your range and ask yourselves if these items are appropriate. Some of the school shoes Tesco sells have got a two-inch heel. You shouldn’t have a high heel if your feet are developing.

“It’s not about being Mary Whitehouse. It’s about not sleepwalking into a world where this is normal.”

Mumsnet is running a campaign, Let Girls Be Girls, asking retailers to sign up to a code of practice and given an undertaking not to sell products which prematurely sexualise children.

This is not a first for British retailers:

In April, Primark withdrew padded bikini tops aimed at girls as young as seven following criticism that the items were sexualising children. [P.M.] David Cameron described the clothing as “completely disgraceful” and condemned the “early commercialisation and sexualisation of our children”.

You could make the argument that heels are not as offensive as padded bikinis, which are meant to give pre-pubescent girls the appearance of adult breasts. But high heels’ only purpose is to look sexy or—more euphemistically, glamourous—and attract male sexual attention. Adult-looking sexy clothes are never appropriate for young children. EVER. This applies to high heels, padded bikinis or midriff-baring dance outfits with lacy thigh-highs.

In addition, high heels are just plain bad for the body. Last year the British Trade Union Congress proposed that they be banned from the workplace because of they negatively affect health and safety for women employees (and also that they’re “demeaning to women.”) The New York Times also published a (subtly sexist) article in their Health section cautioning women against wearing heels because of the long-term damage they do to the feet, legs and back. Retailers do not seem to care about this aspect of the problem either.

A spokesman for Asda, which is currently selling a pair of (ed: OMG, vomit) Disney Princess children’s sandals with a 3cm heel,  said the retailer had received no customer complaints. A Next spokesman said: “Their popularity suggests many parents agree we’ve come up with a look that’s special without seeming inappropriately grown up.” GapKids said their child heels had been tested to ensure safety.

Tested by whom, I wonder?

Nicola Lamond of Netmums, another parenting group, said: “I went shopping with my daughter and was horrified by how many shoes came with a high heel in sizes to fit girls as young as three. These shoes will be harder to walk in than flat shoes so I’d be worried my child would injure themselves.”

Gregor McCoshim, a podiatrist, warned that young children should not wear heels. “The fact children can wear these is worrying. Any heel above 2cm increases the risk of twisting an ankle. Wearing them can cause strains in the back which is a potential problem for their growth and development.”

The backlash has not yet forced retailers to take the kiddie heels off the market. There are apparently still enough people buying kiddie heels for retailers to justify selling them—because anyone in the fashion business knows that the only thing that matters is what you can sell, not what you ought to sell.

But if, like me, you didn’t learn to mince around in heels as a child, the Independent also reports in a separate article that:

The six-week “Sexy Heels In The City” course was offered to 16-year-old students at South Thames College in Wandsworth, Tooting and Merton in South London. (ed: The college is similar to a US vocational or community college.) It claims to prepare young women “for the business world and their social lives”.

Your tax dollars at work!  The fact that a school offers classes teaching teens how to look “sexy” for the “business world” flat-out blows my mind. The course’s raison d’ être was explained thusly:

The course is run by Chyna Whyne, a former backing singer, who claims her life was made a misery because she wasn’t taught how to walk in high heels at a young age. (ed:  ”Made a misery” because she couldn’t walk in heels when she was in grade school? Bish plz. Get some real problems.)

She said: “At some point, girls from the age of 15 upwards will start wanting to wear high heels. The point, if it’s going to happen, the earlier younger ladies learn how to walk in heels, the better it’s going to be in the long run – with business and social lives.

“The statistics of women with shoe-related injuries and foot problems are unbelievable high.”

It’s for your own good! So you don’t hurt yourself! Plus, the sooner you learn to work the sexy look, the better your life will be! Of course, it’s unthinkable for women to avoid injury simply by wearing flats or low heels—flats might keep them from looking sexy.

The school defends the course:

A spokeswoman for South Thames College said the course – which was run as an extra-curricular activity – aimed to teach women “how to walk in high heels, improve their posture, walk lighter and improve confidence”.

At the end of the six weeks, the course culminated in a spectacular show at Liverpool Street’s prestigious Broad Gate Tower, with the girls showing off their walking ability in a ‘catwalk style’ performance.”

Because that’s really what continuing education is all about—teaching girls to get ahead in life by walking like models. You can’t have confidence unless you’re sexy!

Let me point out the obvious: No man is ever told that he should look sexy—or re-learn how to walk—in order to be more successful in business. This school is endorsing the message that being sexy is essential to a woman’s professional life and is actually spending taxpayer money teaching them how to look the part.

This school’s attitude reflects what’s happening in the wider culture. When it comes to teens—i.e. older children—there’s no attempt to whitewash the fact that high heels are all about being sexy, whereas there’s at least token denial among retailers selling heels to grade-schoolers. But the fact that high heels are being marketed to increasingly younger girls is proof that, at minimum, our culture is okay with making “sexy” the prevailing look for all females, no matter what their age.

I’m not fond of the girls’ costumes, which resemble something you’d buy at Trashy Lingerie. Simple leotards would have sufficed. But I am sort of surprised this particular video has caused such a controversy. There are countless videos of little kids dancing to “Single Ladies” out there, and plenty of them involve hip-swiveling and the caressing of non-existent curves. The combination of sexy costumes + adult approval + large audience must be what did it.

Still, I’m far more disturbed by the reactions to the performance than I am by the performance itself. Commenters predict that the dancers will become pregnant very shortly and accuse the girls’ parents of failing to protect their daughters from pedophiles. Many invoke JonBenét Ramsey in their freak-outs. Some are calling for the state of California to press charges. Good grief, people! The performance was risque, but responses like these are indicative of rape culture.

Pedophiles are sexually attracted to children, not little people dressed up like adults. Your child in sneakers and overalls is not less appealing to a pedophile than a child “dressed like a prostitute.” Blaming children’s clothing for child sex abuse may make you feel less vulnerable as a parent but it has no basis in reality.

And the JonBenét thing … I don’t even … Talk about scare-mongering. Authorities don’t even know who killed that girl. But speaking of JonBenét, I have never witnessed such outrage aimed at child beauty pageants, which are 100 times more disturbing than the “Single Ladies” dance. Maybe the folks worrying about pedophiles are just as irrationally worried about predators watching pageant girls, though. I can’t say for sure.

Initially, I was horrified, and I still am. FGC is surgical misogyny. So I read the original policy statement issued in 1998, and the May 1 update. The AAP states that it opposes “all forms of FGC that pose risks of physical or psychological harm” to children. I don’t think it’s cool to mess with people’s bodies without their consent even when it’s not physically or psychologically threatening. But physicians in some communities are obviously struggling to deal with parents’ requests to perform FGC.

In the United States, federal legislation prohibits FGC and mandates educational programs for physicians about the harmful consequences of the practice. The AAP is advocating for a change in law that would enable pediatricians to offer a ritual “nick” as a compromise when they are asked to perform more extreme procedures. The document presents strong arguments for and against that approach. Here are some key excerpts from the policy statements:

When parents request a ritual genital procedure for their daughter, they believe that it will promote their daughter’s integration into their culture, protect her virginity, and, thereby, guarantee her desirability as a marriage partner. In some societies, failure to ensure a daughter’s marriageable status can realistically be seen as failure to ensure her survival.

The physical burdens and potential psychological harms associated with FGC violate the principle of nonmaleficence (a commitment to avoid doing harm) and disrupt the accepted norms inherent in the patient-physician relationship, such as trust and the promotion of good health. More recently, FGC has been characterized as a practice that violates the right of infants and children to good health and well-being, part of a universal standard of basic human rights.

Protection of the physical and mental health of girls should be the overriding concern of the health care community. Although physicians should understand that most parents who request FGC do so out of good motives, physicians must decline to perform procedures that cause unnecessary pain or that pose dangers to their patients’ well-being.

It goes on to describe, and illustrate, different types of FGC. It explains the situation that gave impetus to the statement:

Some physicians, including pediatricians who work closely with immigrant populations in which FGC is the norm, have voiced concern about the adverse effects of criminalization of the practice on educational efforts. These physicians emphasize the significance of a ceremonial ritual in the initiation of the girl or adolescent as a community member and advocate only pricking or incising the clitoral skin as sufficient to satisfy cultural requirements. This is no more of an alteration than ear piercing. A legitimate concern is that parents who are denied the cooperation of a physician will send their girls back to their home country for a much more severe and dangerous procedure or use the services of a non–medically trained person in North America. In some countries in which FGC is common, some progress toward eradication or amelioration has been made by substituting ritual “nicks” for more severe forms.

Finally:

Most forms of FGC are decidedly harmful, and pediatricians should decline to perform them, even in the absence of any legal constraints. However, the ritual nick suggested by some pediatricians is not physically harmful and is much less extensive than routine newborn male genital cutting. There is reason to believe that offering such a compromise may build trust between hospitals and immigrant communities, save some girls from undergoing disfiguring and life-threatening procedures in their native countries, and play a role in the eventual eradication of FGC. It might be more effective if federal and state laws enabled pediatricians to reach out to families by offering a ritual nick as a possible compromise to avoid greater harm.

The AAP is supporting a form of ritualistic mutilation on girls in an attempt to prevent potential further harm. But will parents who request FGC be satisfied with–or fooled by–the so-called compromise of a “nick?” I am sympathetic to this complex predicament. However, if doctors suspect that their patients’ parents will sexually mutilate them, they could contact child protective services. What is best for the girls?

WIDKW: Oh, two girls!

MIJM: Yep, but the 4 year old isn’t a girl! She has girl parts, but she’s not a girl! She’s so rough-and-tumble and curious.

WIDKW: I love that! “She has girl parts but she’s not a girl!” Hahah!

MIJM: She’s such a handful, but she’s awesome!

Something tells me MIJM does not have a trans child. She just doesn’t act the way MIJM thinks “girls” act, so he only sort of considers her a girl. It’s touching that thinks so highly of her, but not so touching that he associates physicality and inquisitiveness with boys (or, perhaps more accurately, not-girls).

Last week, Baltimore County Judge Darrell Russell married a domestic violence suspect and his alleged victim, at the suspect’s request. On the same day he was supposed to hear a criminal complaint against Frederick Wood, Russell granted the man’s wish to be married to his alleged victim. When Wood appeared in district court for trial on charges of assault, his lawyer asked for a postponement so the defendant could get married and come back to resolve the case. The lawyer said his client’s new wife would invoke marital privilege, which prevents a person from being required to testify against his or her spouse.

Russell excused the couple to drive to another town to get a marriage license. When they returned, Russell officiated their wedding that very afternoon. The criminal case resumed, and Wood’s new wife invoked her marital privilege. Russell acquitted Wood.

The judge’s parting comment to the defendant was, “Mr. Wood, I found you not guilty, so I can’t sentence you as a defendant in any crimes, but earlier today, I sentenced you to life married to her.” I’m glad the two could get some male bonding in before their busy day was over. Russell has since been reassigned to chambers work.

Mrs. Wood was held hostage in Judge Russell’s court. Russell knew Frederick Wood’s motive for getting married, and played right along. The woman told the officer who responded to her call that she thought Mr. Wood might try to kill her and that he had threatened to kill her and her children in the past. Still, Judge Russell explicitly sided with the alleged perpetrator and made it clear that he had no regard for the victim’s safety. The woman had no choice but to marry Wood. She obviously believed he posed a threat to her and her children. Judge Russell deserves much more than a reassignment.

Then there is the case of the Australian judge who has ruled that two young sisters must spend weekends with their sex offender father. Family Court Judge Robert Benjamin demonstrated a shocking ignorance of sex abuse by ruling that the girls “need some protection from (their father), particularly at night,” but that the chance of sexual abuse was “diminished when they are awake and alert.”

The father was convicted of three child pornography offenses in 2007, including filming images of child pornography on his computer and creating links and shortcuts to child porn sites. Additionally, the Family Court found the father had invited one his daughters into his bed and had “demonstrated affection toward her in a way that was, in all the circumstances, inappropriate for a child of that age.”

Benjamin said there must be a lock on the girls’ bedroom door for protection. The girls must share a room until the youngest (now eight) turns 14, “…so they can have the mutual support of one another.” He is knowingly placing these children in danger whilst putting the onus on them to protect one another. Benjamin also ruled that the father must have an “adult friend” stay with him when the girls sleep over. AN ADULT FRIEND. I’m sure he’ll keep the girls’ best interests at heart when he chooses his own chaperon.

The eldest girl has told counselors that she was afraid to stay overnight with her father. But what does a child’s comfort and safety matter when a man’s “rights” are at stake? In each of these cases, a man’s word, his desires, his freedom, have been privileged above the safety and autonomy of the women and/or girls in his path. This is your courtroom on patriarchy.

Finally, a judge in Ohio has ordered rape victims to submit to polygraphs. I will not even call the polygraph a “lie detector test,” because it does not accurately detect dishonesty. Cuyahoga Juvenile Court Judge Alison Floyd ordered polygraphs on four separate occasions after she found the defendants delinquent (guilty, in juvenile court). The legal grounds for doing this are anyone’s guess. The results would have no relevance to the cases, on which she had already ruled. The only reason to do such a thing is to send victims a message: We don’t really believe you.

All four teens refused the judge’s orders, and the mother of one girl said:

I believe even more damage was done by the judge letting the perpetrator know she was ordering the victim to take the polygraph. He apparently took this to mean the judge did not believe her and he used this to tell their peers that the judge did not believe her and was ordering her take a lie detector test.

Prosecutor Bill Mason’s office has filed briefs in two of the cases so far, asking Floyd to stop ordering rape victims to take polygraphs. At least someone in the system is standing up for those girls.

This one hour special explores several different families extreme forms of parenting. From attachment parenting to raising a child gender neutral to raising child without consequences. In the diverse world we live in there are some pretty extreme ways. (Who writes these things? -ed)

The program featured three “radical” families that don’t operate in a traditional manner: Unschoolers, parents who practice attachment parenting, and parents raising their sons without gender stereotypes. The families themselves occupied the vast majority of screen time, but they were interrupted by short clips of psychiatrists commenting on the families’ philosophies and strategies.

The first family was the Parent family; they have a boy and a girl. As unschoolers, the children do not go to school. Instead, their educations are “experiential-based.” The kids learn through the experiences they have in everyday life. They are allowed to make all their own decisions, such as where to sleep at night and what they eat for breakfast every day. I’m not keen on America’s education system, so the Parents’ set-up appeals to me for that reason. But their days are completely unstructured; I think I’d try to incorporate some lessons into the routine if it were my family. The Parents all seem to be happy and respectful of one another.

The Parise family practices attachment parenting methods, including extended breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby-wearing and training the kids to use the toilet from a very young age. There are five children in the family. They planted one child’s placenta under a tree in the yard. I’m down with a lot of hippie dippy stuff so some things about this lifestyle appealed to me as well. However, I could not handle strict attachment parenting. What struck me is that the parents are constantly attending to the children. A woman who breastfeeds each of her five children for four years each must be breastfeeding all the time.

The show didn’t explain how the parents earn a living. I was sort of distracted by that question during the first two stories because these lifestyles are extremely demanding on the parents’ time. All the families appeared to be comfortably middle class.

The Crosley-Corcorans are raising their two sons without gender stereotypes. Their segment was the last out of the three. The show kept cutting to commercial by previewing allegedly extreme quips from the parents, including one wherein mom Crosley-Corcoran said “Jonas asked for a dollhouse for his birthday and we were fully supportive.” I’m sad – but I guess I should not be surprised – that doing such a thing is shocking.

The mom and dad explained their philosophy, and how they practice it, very clearly. The dad was raised in a strict, traditional household wherein his mother waited on his father. He didn’t want his own home to be that way. The mom was raised with feminist ideals (She has a blog named The Feminist Breeder, which is awesome). They make an effort to socialize their kids with girls and boys equally, so they are comfortable hanging out with both sexes. The boys like to walk around in their mom’s high heels, and why wouldn’t they? Little girls do. They place a lot of importance on making their kids well-rounded, which I think is extremely important. The dad said he thinks their parenting will make the boys better partners in the future. I love this family.

Since I’d been watching the experts describe the pros and cons of unschooling and attachment parenting I grew nervous wondering what they’d say about the feminist minded family (the mother’s words). What cons could there be, besides social ostracism?! One of the therapists reassured the audience that letting a boy play with pink toys will not change his sexual orientation (!). Unfortunately a lot of people actually a.) believe that’s true, and b.) want to avoid making the baby gay.

The only con the psychiatrist mentioned is the fact that the world is not gender-neutral; boys raised to appreciate and participate in “girl stuff” will face ridicule out there. So really, it’s not even a criticism of the family, but the wider world (in my opinion). I’m happy with the way the Crosley-Corcorans were depicted. It was refreshing to hear the word “feminist” spoken on television in a neutral/positive context. I especially enjoyed seeing a man espousing feminist beliefs without being portrayed as “emasculated.” It was radical (in the 90′s slang sort of way).

The boys at recess. Via Gauis Caecilius @ Flickr.

Ivanyi said he was inspired to start demonstrating what he considers proper etiquette after witnessing the coarse behavior that some of the boys in his classes displayed toward the girls.

“Boys treat girls pretty roughly,” he said. “And there was so much disruption, so I decided to do something about it.”

Ivanyi is pleased with the results of the chivalry training.

“There’s a different tenor in the class, a gravity attached to the girls. They’ve been more feminized in the boys’ eyes,” Ivanyi said. “These girls are reading Jane Austen novels in class. For them, chivalry hasn’t gone out of style.”

Oh god this makes me so uncomfortable. They’ve been more feminized? Implementing different sets of rules for girls and boys will draw attention to the fact that the girls are female. I wish the article expanded on what sort of coarse behavior the boys were engaged in. Groping the girls? Calling them sexual slurs? I don’t know. I do know that the answer to sexual harassment is not more sexism. That the boys treated the girls like dirt was the problem; making them treat the girls like delicate flowers is not the solution.

I understand the man’s frustration with rowdy students. I’m not opposed to teaching kids manners and common courtesy; I wish adults would do so more often. But why must the approach be sexist? Girls and women don’t need chivalry. We need men to stop oppressing us. If boys are mistreating girls because they are girls, they need a dose of feminism.

I can't even make a joke about this.

A:  Toledo, Ohio.

Other than Peoria, Illinois, I can’t think of a place more frequently thought of as “typically middle-American” than Ohio.  Which makes the latest report about human trafficking even more disturbing.  And it’s really fucking disturbing to begin with.

According to a study conducted in 2008 with the cooperation of state and federal law enforcement, state agencies, and led by researchers at the local university, Toledo (population 316,000; the metropolitan area more than doubles that figure) is the fourth largest hub in the United States for human trafficking–and the largest, on a per capita basis.

Although the researchers themselves admit that their numbers are soft, they indicate that close to 1100 young Ohioans and nearly 800 foreign citizens were victims of trafficking, either for sex or forced labor, last year.  They also estimate more than 6,000 others were “at risk” of being victimized.  I fear those numbers are low-balls.  While the vast majority of trafficked people are women and girls, boys and young men, often gay, are targeted, as well as transgender people, undocumented workers, and others already at a disadvantage (I realize there’s overlap among these groups).

The study indicates that Toledo’s easy access to and from Canada, and its location at the convergence of a number of major highways, make it a natural “distribution” site for traffickers moving their merchandise throughout the nation.

Weak laws concerning trafficking compound the problem.  Battery and solicitation charges are rarely pursued, except when prostituted women and children are arrested, of course.  Ohio governor Ted Strickland signed an anti-trafficking bill into law last year, but thanks to opposition from the state’s Prosecuting Attorneys Association (why, WHY?),  it doesn’t treat trafficking as a crime on its own, merely as a way to tack on penalties for those charged with “real” crimes, like selling drugs or producing child pornography.  Supercalifragilisticexpialifuckme.

Toledo’s nasty reputation isn’t new news; the city was implicated in an interstate child prostitution ring back in 2005.  I don’t know whether to hope that the data collected in the Ohio Trafficking in Persons Study will lead to better laws–and better enforcement of current laws–to prevent this exploitation and care for those who have already been victimized.

If you’re an Ohioan, you might see what you can do to be part of the solution to this horrible state of affairs (donate, lobby, etc.).  If you’re in the business of paying for sex, you might reconsider that practice.  In any case, you might read up on the facts here (PDF).

Marley shouldn’t have to wonder about things like that, but obviously she and other children of color do. It’s certainly possible that her classmates’ parents explicitly taught them to fear black people. I think it’s more likely her classmates have already absorbed the many implicitly racist messages all around them: on television, in their school lessons, at family gatherings, etc.

Akilah (the mom) says it’s important (and unavoidable) for parents of color to talk with their kids about racism but I wish white parents were doing the same thing. Do the white girls’ parents know about this incident? Would they brush it off? Tell their kids never to mention – or think about – race again?

Have you ever had to have this conversation with your kids? Did your parents ever discuss race and/or racism with you when you were a child? Did they prepare you for or explain the racism you faced?

Maybe it will sit in a storage closet somewhere next to the Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, now that parents in Menifee, California have called its suitability into question. A child discovered the definition of “oral sex,” which reads, “oral stimulation of the genitals,” and hir parents complained to the school. In response, it was removed from the library and the district is forming a committee of principals, teachers and parents who will examine the book and determine whether it’s fit for young eyes.

What the hell is wrong with people? Newsflash: your kids have genitals. No, the devil did not put them there. Is it me or are parents scrambling to sterilize and sanitize and suck the life out of everything their fragile children encounter nowadays? They don’t want to talk to them about gay people, they don’t want to talk to them about private parts, they don’t want to explain a goddamn thing about the world. And they think their own squeamishness is a good reason to restrict everyone’s access to learning material.

Why not just lobotomize your kids so they never exhibit curiosity or ask any challenging questions. If I were a parent I’d be stoked my kid opened a hard copy of the dictionary, you know?