Marks & Spencer slammed for ‘skimpy and ridiculous’ leopard print girls shorts

Marks & Spencer wrongly listed “tight and tiny” girls pants in its shorts section but the mistake demonstrates a disturbing trend, say campaigners

The leopard print pants were branded “skimpy and ridiculous”

“Skimpy and ridiculous” girls pants sold as shorts by Marks and Spencer illustrates a disturbing childrenswear trend, say parents and campaigners.

The “tiny and tight” leopard print pants appeared in the ‘girls shorts’ section due to an error but campaigners say the fact they didn’t stand out among the numerous unsuitable items demonstrates a bigger problem.

While boys can pick from a range of practical and long shorts with pockets it’s increasingly difficult for girls to do the same, according to Let Clothes Be Clothes.

The group seeks to end gender stereotyping in the design and marketing of childrenswear and shared a photo of the pants next to some boys underpants.

The Facebook post read: “Girls ‘shorts’ opposite boys ‘underwear’ at Marks and Spencer – what is the difference?

It said the retailer needs to rethink its clothing offer, Manchester Evening News reports.

The “tiny and tight” girls shorts were listed in the girls shorts section of M&S’ website


Marks & Spencer)

“If you have a problem with boys wearing just their pants as ‘clothing,’ then you should be asking why it’s acceptable for girls,” it added.

Acknowledging the fact it was probably due to a website error, the post added: “These do seem to be in the wrong section and having checked again, are sold online as shorts AND underwear. The problem is they look perfectly at home in a collection defined by being really short and really tight.

“Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mind either of those things – but I want choice, and I find it disturbing girls choices are defined by showing as much body as possible, the same as women.”

Dozens of parents commented on the post, with many complaining about the styles of shorts marketed at girls.

“My daughter won’t wear shorts from the girls section as they’re always too short to ride her bike or go on the zip line,” said one mum.

“She said it hurts her legs as they always rub on the seat. I don’t understand why they make them so short. My son still fits into his ones from last year. They’re so much longer and have way more room in them, plus pockets.”

M&S said the listing was a genuine error and was immediately corrected


Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Another added: “My daughter is 10 and any ‘girl’ shorts are so short and tight and even regular ones look a bit sexy as she is developing curves. And, probably her biggest peeve is no pockets!!! Why can’t girls get sun safe, comfortable shorts with growing room?”

Francesca Mallen, of Let Clothes Be Clothes, said: “I think Marks and Spencer have added those particular ‘shorts’ to the wrong section, but it raises an important point about how much like underwear some shorts aimed at girls have become.

“Like a lot of parents I want choice, and don’t actually mind short shorts – if there’s a choice. For going down slides and climbing trees, tiny shorts aren’t ideal – plus sometimes kids need extra sun coverage too. We would ask M&S to think again about how they sell children’s clothes and just give the choice to kids of different lengths, colors and designs (with pockets!) for ALL children.”

M&S has now removed the item from the shorts section and explained it was ‘a genuine error’ because the product name contains the word ‘shorts’.

A spokeswoman said it sells ‘a real range of lengths and styles’ within the children’s shorts range.

Read More

Read More

Related Posts

George Holan

George Holan is chief editor at Plainsmen Post and has articles published in many notable publications in the last decade.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *