Also in Sex and Relationships
Is Pop Culture Finally Admitting That Women Like to Touch Themselves?
Jill Filipovic Feministe
Obama and the End of the Military's Ban on Gays
John Ridley Huffington Post
Maddow Fails to Question Huckabee On His Recent Anti-Gay Statements. Update: Maddow Responds
Ali Frick Think Progress
Worried that your baby isn’t hot enough? Here's an enterprising solution: high heels for infant girls (collagen injections for children are apparently still frowned upon?).
The heels -- geared towards babies up to six months old -- come in all kinds of classy designs, including pink satin, leopard and zebra print.
Although the manufactuer's website claims that the shoes are "Not intended to harm children in any way," some parents seem to think that sexually objectifying young girls before they can talk might not be in their best interest.
"Michele Elliot, founder of the children's charity Kidscape, said the heels were ludicrous. 'High heels are meant to be sexy, and are definitely for adults not children.
'They are not cute or cuddly. It is absolutely disgusting to market them for babies. Parents should let babies be babies.
'Not only are the heels distasteful - and no good for a child trying to pull themselves up or begin to toddle - but pink PVC and leopard print are not appropriate fabrics for a baby. All that matters at that age is that they're warm and loved.'
Who would love a plain, unglamorous baby?
Now, this is obviously being marketed as a cute novelty or a gag gift, but ... ugh. There's more than enough time for little girls to absorb harmful societal and media messages about their gender, looks and sexuality. Why gender them so distinctively so early?
Maybe this will all be revealed as a hilarious hoax and deft commentary on our culture's over-sexualization of young girls, and I'll be embarrased for taking it at face value. Hopefully?
What do you think?