Mom Outraged Over Length Of Girls’ And Boys’ Shorts, Gets Support From Fellow Mothers

Link copied!

A mother was shocked to discover just how short the shorts intended for little girls were while shopping for her two-year-old daughter.

Elli Tamar filmed some items from the girls’ section at Kmart in Australia, sharing the video with the caption, “I just want shorts that look like real shorts and not underwear.”

The mother of two first held up a pair of $15 silver “booty” shorts.

“What the f*** is this? What two-year-old is wearing disco booty shorts? Her butt cheeks will actually be hanging out of these,” Elli complained.

She then filmed some denim shorts on the rack before focusing her attention on a color-blocked pair.

Image credits: Anthony Questa

“The crotch is longer than the shorts,” the furious mom pointed out.

Elli then showed a pair of denim shorts she picked up from the boys’ section. “Not even kidding. I’m having to buy boys’ shorts just to make them decent for a child.”

Her video quickly went viral, garnering over half a million views and 45,000 likes since she shared it last Friday (October 11).

“Thank you for saying something. I hope Kmart sees this and makes a change,” one woman commented.

“I agree, struggling so much to find appropriate summer clothing for my daughter this year because everything is so short,” another mom said.

Share icon

Image credits: ellitamar

Share icon

Image credits: ellitamar

“I noticed this the other day!!! I went to get my little girl some summer clothes and was disgusted!” wrote a third user.

“I gasped when I saw the shorts irl. Totally unacceptable,” a separate commenter added.

Other mothers shared that they also shop for shorts designed for boys. “We buy from the boys section for our 4-year-old too. Girls shorts are ridiculous in length!!”

However, some accused the mom of sexualizing the clothing. “They don’t fit as short as they look. The fact that you’re sexualizing them is a bit sad.”

“Probably the scariest part is the parents who defend this kind of insanity like it’s the people who highlight it that are ‘sexualizing’ children,” another said in response to the claim.

Share icon

Image credits: ellitamar

Share icon

Image credits: ellitamar

Elli herself responded to the accusations by comparing the length of a pair of girls’ board shorts with a boys’ pair in the same size (2).

“Girl shorts always end at the crotch, and the boy’s ones are mid-thigh. The same goes for the denim section, and it doesn’t make any sense considering we’re shopping for toddlers, not teenagers.”

Her videos come after another Australian mother, Althea, fumed over the length of shorts intended for little girls compared to those designed for young boys at Kmart.

“I hate this. Why do we make them this short for girls?” she asked in a video that received over 80,000 likes.

Just like Elli, Althea left the store with a pair of boys’ cargo shorts “because her nappy would literally hang out of these.”

Share icon

Image credits: ellitamar

The 26-year-old later revealed that she bought the shorts because she needed “something quick,” but her daughter ended up disliking them and expressed a preference for another pair with flowers.

Althea believes the difference in length between the shorts highlights the sexualization of women from an early age in society.

“A key takeaway for me is that women and girls are sexualized from the moment they enter the world. It’s not just Kmart and these shorts. It’s the crop tops, and it’s the ‘cheeky’ cut swimwear,” she told news.com.au.

A post shared by Elli Tamar (@ellitamar)

For the mom, the issue is not only evident in the length but also in the design of clothing intended for boys and girls.

“It’s a problem that runs far deeper than short shorts. It’s the fact that young girls’ clothes are always decorated with the hunted animals: unicorns, rabbits.

“Then the boys’ clothes are the hunter dinosaurs, lions, etc. Perpetuating the idea that girls and women are helpless and weak, and boys and men are aggressive and strong.”

Bored Panda has contacted Kmart for comment.

Share icon

By entering your email and clicking Subscribe, you're agreeing to let us send you customized marketing messages about us and our advertising partners. You are also agreeing to our Privacy Policy.

Thank you! You've successfully subscribed to newsletters!

Anyone can write on Bored Panda. Start writing!

Follow Bored Panda on Google News!

Link copied!

Writer, BoredPanda staff

Marina is a journalist at Bored Panda. Born in Buenos Aires, Argentina, she holds a Bachelor of Social Science. In her spare time, you can find her baking, reading, or binge-watching a docuseries. Her main areas of interest are pop culture, literature, and education.

Writer, BoredPanda staff

Author, BoredPanda staff

This lazy panda forgot to write something about itself.

Author, BoredPanda staff

This lazy panda forgot to write something about itself.

We need to push back hard against this. No toddler needs booty shorts. Sexualizing baby/toddler/young girls is disgusting and dangerous

I don't see an issue in the length of those shorts for a boy or a girl. They just look like regular shorts. They look shorter until you put them on. I know because I have shorts like that and I do not wear booty shorts. In the 70s and 80s everyone wore shorts even shorter that and I think it's fine. It's hot in summer why wouldn't you want to wear short pants? I don't necessarily like the shiny silver ones because they look plastic but if a 2 year old put those denim shorts on they would look fine unless you find the upper leg unacceptable to show in which case what kinda swimsuit are u gonna buy? It's not like a 2 year old needs to hide their figure because it will distract 2 year old boys. If pedophiles are the concern they aren't looking for the child with shorter shorts, they are looking for the vulnerable child who is alone, or the child who doesn't have a good support system at home. Predators are looking for the child that is easiest to lure. Study after study after study shows that. Lots of toddler boys and girls wear shorts like that. It's just that baggy shorts and long shorts became fashionable for boys in the 90s. I do agree they should have a bigger selection of all short lengths for children just so there's a variety to pick from.

Repeating Killer Kiwi's comment because it got downvoted to oblivion, and because I think it's an important point to make (although I'd not use exactly these words myself): "We need to push back hard against ppl like you. The shorts are not at all in any way sexual. Why can’t small children wear short shorts? It’s just a piece of clothing. Do you also see diapers on infants as sexual?" - Killer Kiwi has a very valid point here, I feel.

Mmm. The way I look at it, it's impossible to "sexualise" young children with clothing selection. Some people with things wrong in their heads see babies/toddlers/young children in a sexual way, yes. But if you're not one of those people, small children always just look like small children whatever they're wearing, including no clothes at all. Other people have different views, of course. As for the shorts being right or wrong - well, I was young in the 1970s (UK) and pretty much everyone's shorts were short shorts of a style similar to the "offending" garments pictured. And finally: if you've got a bunch of little girls playing in the summer wearing normal summer dresses, they're pretty much all going to be occasionally displaying their underwear to any onlookers. Dangerous? No, because the predators will be predators no matter what the girls wear, and those who aren't predators equally won't be predators no matter what.

You‘re missing the point. This is about girls clothes vs boys clothes. Look at these silver booty shorts and tell me anyone would dress a boy in them. This is not just about 'people with things wrong in their heads'. These shorts are inherently sexy, even if you look at them without anyone wearing them. And that by itself is fine - there is a time and place for everything, including sexy silver booty shorts. What is not fine is designing something like that for a TODDLER. By your logic, you could also put a toddler in a negligee.

Boys did used to wear shorts like that. Hip hop became really popular and grunge and music tends to influence fashion so suddenly long shorta and baggy pants became popular. Moreso with boys but there are girls that like them too. So if the argument is that both boys and girls should be able to wear short shorts or long shorts then I agree with you and I think both sizes belong in the children's section. Not the silver ones though but that's just because they look hideous and cheap. I don't see anything wrong with denim or cotton shorts like that though. I grew up in the 80s and both my brother and I wore short shorts.

@Kari Panda: My view is that no clothing is inherently sexy. Adult bodies can be, while the bodies of young children and babies cannot be viewed as sexy unless you've got something wrong with you. If a toddler wanted to wear something like a negligee, why not? I'd probably not let them out of the house dressed like that if it was up to me, but that's just me. As for the cut of those shorts: that was totally normal when I was a young child in the 1970s. Everyone wore shorts that short - although I don't recall anything in shiny silver fabric for very young children (Glam Rock was a thing, so shiny silver clothes were in the shops), and of course the shorts for boys need a slightly different shape.

Wow, you lost the plot. Yes it is possible to sexualize children. Yes, predators actively use words like "she liked it" even if they are below 4 and 5 years old. So don't straw man one with the other. Don't normalize predatory thinking. Putting little girls in outfits that emulate adult sexuality and sexualized posturing is wrong.

I think the point they're trying to make is if any normal person saw a toddler in lingerie we'd think it was weird or we'd be like "wtf" because we know that people wear lingerie to look sexy. A predator is gonna find a child appealing no matter what they are wearing because they're sick. I don't think a predator is gonna see a little girl alone in long shorts and then decide not to groom her because she looks modest...they probably like that because they're disgusting and they want to corrupt the innocent. The only thing you can do is never leave your children alone with people you don't 💯 trust and even then teach them to be assertive and say no! Predators aren't looking for the most scantily clad child they are looking for the most vulnerable child.

@Pyla: I was trying to make the point that only sexual predators say things like "she liked it" and view young children as sexual objects. People who are not sexual predators of children never view young children as sexual objects. Also, people who are sexual predators don't care what their victims are wearing, as their victims keep on pointing out. I stand by my claim that no clothing can sexualise a young child because "sexualised" is all in the head of the viewer.

I agree with you. I'm also disappointed that they don't have more options in the sizes of girls shorts and boys shorts though because I think both are fine for a 2 year old. I don't like the disco shorts though because they look like a cheap costume instead of durable summer clothing but that's my opinion.

I'm with you on that. Shorts which were not what we now think of as "short shorts" were basically not available in the 1970s from what I recall. We could do with a variety of leg lengths and so on available for everyone.

Sorry, son but you have lost the plot. The outrage is about an entire industry dressing little girls differently to little boys. No one in their right mind looks at toddlers and thinks they are sexy. Therefore it makes no sense to produce clothes that are obviously different. If it’s not harmful for female toddlers to wear shorts that are so very much shorter than the boys’ shorts, why are the boys’ shorts longer?

Longer shorts came into fashion for boys in the late 80s early 90s when hip hop became popular. Girls also liked to wear baggy pants and some girls wore longer shorts too. I know I did. I wore both. I think either is fine for either gender. Not every girl wants to dress like a cheerleader or a pop star and not every little boy wants to dress like a football player or a sports star. Let's be honest though, at 2 years old it's the parents that are buying the clothing and because society already has a preconceived notion of what's feminine and what's masculine that's what a lot of people are buying for their children. You wanna make a difference, don't raise your children with gendered stereotypes. Teach your boys that girls are not responsible for their actions and teach your girls that it's good for men to be sensitive and express their feelings too.

Mmm. Boys knew that girls weren't responsible for the actions of the boys when I was growing up. As far as I can tell, that sort of nonsense has always just been an excuse for the inexcusable. Also, I reckon it's mostly boys who need teaching that it's good for boys and men to admit their feelings. Well, boys and their parents including their mothers - who do you think teaches boys not to show their feelings?

@JB, when I was a youngster in the 70s, "son", everyone's shorts were short shorts, and the outrage is partly about clothing that supposedly sexualises little girls; I don't really see your point. There's a big jump between pointing out that no sort of clothing on toddlers can be "sexy" on the one hand and on the other hand considering the full range of issues of sexism in the fashion industry and the myriad of effects it has. All the clothes for boys and girls need a rethink but that's got nothing to do with whether or not the clothes attract sexual predators, because that myth has been debunked a long time ago. https://today.tamu.edu/2019/11/19/what-were-you-wearing-exhibit-explores-sexual-violence-myth/

The very act of dressing children in styles that on an adult would be called "se‍xy" (or even "slu‍tty" by some) is, in and of itself, sexualizing them. You can't tell by looking at someone whether or not they're a ped‍ophile; do you really want your 2-year-old walking around in short-shorts, not knowing whether or not someone is looking at them in an inappropriate way, with inappropriate thoughts in their heads?

@The Other Guest: the thing about sexual predators is that they are unaffected by the clothing of their victims.The thing about those of us who aren't sexual predators is that we're not too bothered either - sexiness is not so much down to the clothes as to who's wearing them. If you've got a paedophile on the prowl, it doesn't matter what the kids are wearing: they're all at risk exactly the same way. The idea that certain clothing makes sexual assault more likely has been proven nonsense time and time again; e.g., https://today.tamu.edu/2019/11/19/what-were-you-wearing-exhibit-explores-sexual-violence-myth/. I say let the kids wear whatever they like, and also ensure that they are protected from predators of all kinds. The two issues are independent of each other.

20191114_W...efault.jpg

- taken from an exhibition of what sexual assault victims were wearing.

I am aware that clothing does not increase the chance of assault. But I still wouldn't want to put my kid's behind on display, knowing there are predators out there with no way to identify them. And clothes cut like that are *intended to draw attention to certain aspects of a person's body;" that alone makes them inappropriate for a child. Some things are just meant for adults, and Daisy Dukes are one of those things.

Those shorts are not gonna look like daisy duke's on a 2 year old. They look shorter on the hanger. No butt cheeks are gonna hang out of those lol.

No butt cheeks hung out of my mother's short shorts either. Then again, I knew just how big her knickers were... No, I was not rummaging through her underwear drawer, I just got told to hang out the washing on the washing line (or bring it in). What's the point of having children if you can't get them to do the housework? 🤨

But shorts cut to Daisy Duke's length were totally normal for all children when I was a child back in the 1970s. My mother also wore shorts that short. When The Dukes of Hazzard turned up on the TV, Daisy's clothes appeared entirely unremarkable. If you know that clothing doesn't attract predators, why worry? I don't follow your idea that clothes cut like that are intended to draw attention to certain parts of a person's body. I'd appreciate an explanation of your thinking on that point, because I don't get it at all.

I grew up in the 70s too, and neither I nor my friends wore shorts that short. And certain types of clothing is absolutely designed to draw attention to certain parts of the body; it's been that way for centuries. Bustles to emphasize the buttocks, neckline ruffles and/or plunging necklines to draw the eye to the breasts, hoop skirts and panniers to broaden hips & make the waist look smaller. Short-shorts are absolutely designed to draw attention to the buttocks, and it's very telling that the boys' shorts cover so much more skin than the girls' shorts do. EDIT - I'm curious about the downvotes, here. I'm not saying any of this makes children sexy, because it doesn't. I'm saying it sexualizes them, which is not the same thing.

@The Other Guest: just repeating an idea doesn't make it true. Bustles hide buttocks, and I can tell you for sure that "short shorts" never have drawn my attention to anyone's backside or anything else (okay, except sometimes legs; in my view they generally ruin the lines of a figure, distracting attention from whatever's really there), hence my scepticism regarding that point. Surely it's just as telling that when I was growing up in England in the 1970s, everyone's shorts were pretty much that short, boys and girls alike? Long shorts were what your granddad wore. I've just watched a few episodes of 1963/64 Doctor Who - oh now, *there* are some outfits displaying some very comely rear ends: high waisted trousers with stirrups to keep them tightly stretched. Meanwhile, whatever a 2 year old child is wearing, I'm mostly looking at their faces and just like any other normal person, I'm not thinking "sexy" under any circumstances, not even if I can see their bare legs. /s

I didn't say that those clothes make children sexy. I said it sexualizes them, which is not the same thing. Perhaps in 70s England, it was the norm; it wasn't where I live. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

This. If somebody thinks a 2 year old is sexualized by putting them in a pair of short shorts the problem is almost certainly in their own head. If you dress a kid up in some outfits I'm going to think *you* are f****d in the head, but even lace panties and makeup isn't going to make me think there's anything sexy or sexual about the kid because I don't get turned on by little kids. And as far as what the customers want and what parents are okay with, has everyone forgotten walking through a mall 10 or 15 years ago and seeing all of the young girls wearing stuff that said "juicy" across their a*s a while back?

What? What kind of a lunatic thinks there's anything so wrong with @Bob Brooce's really very sensible point that it needs downvoting?

Welcome to Bored Panda, Forrest, where outrage is always the correct position to take. What you're saying is exactly right.

Also the fact there is a CLEAR DIFFERENCE between boy and girl shorts in this place... That makes the message clear as F to me that it is about sexualising young girls in this instance... Really f*****g disgusting.If it was the same then i might buy your argument. BUT IT IS NOT!Notice how in some societies and culture in Africa specifically where it is the norm that ppl are topless...THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE between how men and women dress...ALL the men ALL the women wear skirts and some ornamental jewellery and just that...NOBODY THERE bats an eye... To us that would be off right? Because again culture and the perception about certain clothing IS ASSOCIATED with sexualisation!So now i ask you. When you see boys offered short that are worn by everyday ppl and you see girls offered shorts that are worn by nicki minaj or some other sex symbol celebrity... WHAT IS THE MESSAGE I ASK YOU!

Look children should not be sexualised. Look at it this way...-A kid running around naked i just a kid probably being a little demon pissing off their parents or some s**t like that....-A kid wearing clothes that have the "sexy" label on them on all the media produced by a society sends the CLEAR MESSAGE that it is sexualising children.IS it clear now?The context matters.Bikini in the beach is ok...Lingerie is not ok...It is the exact same concept... THE MESSAGE BEHIND IT is what matters.

@Ben Aziza, the point I and others are trying to make is that little children cannot be sexualised because "sexual" is in the mind of the watcher. Little children are innocent of such matters. Only sick adults view children as sexual and clothing has been proven to have nothing to do with it. Put it another way: you say "bikini in the beach is okay, lingerie is not okay." But why? What harm does it do a child to wear lingerie, if they have chosen to do so?

What Bob Brooce said.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

We need to push back hard against ppl like you. The shorts are not at all in any way sexual. Why can’t small children wear short shorts? It’s just a piece of clothing. Do you also see diapers on infants as sexual?

Part of the problem is having "girls" and "boys" sections in general- at that age at least (I know older kids start wanting to dress gender-specific, and the fits are different for teenagers). Toddlers will wear whatever they're comfortable in or sparkles. There's no reason a girl can't wear a "boys" dinosaur shirt, or a boy can't wear a "girls" rainbow shirt, so why have them separated to begin with? Sportchek has done away with genders in kids shoes, and it's so nice. My boys just pick the ones they like best- usually sparkly blue and purple with lights lol

partially. I agree girls miss out on the fun stuff because of all the sexist clothing that runs rampant in girls clothes.

Mmm. In the shops round where I live, the clothing on offer for boys and men is incredibly boring compared to that offered for girls and women. Can I have something in bright colours, please? Apparently not. What girls DO miss out on is decent, sturdy footwear. And pockets.

No one says you can't buy women's clothing. Most tshirts are pretty simple sizinig.

Cut a long story short: I'm a little above average height for a man with rather broader shoulders than average. I'm totally the wrong shape for off-the-peg women's clothes and I don't wear tee shirts for anything except rough work. And that's before we get onto the issues of styling; frankly, I don't want to dress like I'm aiming at drag but failing.

That is why I often shop shorts (and pants, because my daughter wants "the ones with pockets") in the boys' section.

We need to push back hard against this. No toddler needs booty shorts. Sexualizing baby/toddler/young girls is disgusting and dangerous

20191114_W...efault.jpg

- taken from an exhibition of what sexual assault victims were wearing.

Those shorts are not gonna look like daisy duke's on a 2 year old. They look shorter on the hanger. No butt cheeks are gonna hang out of those lol.

What? What kind of a lunatic thinks there's anything so wrong with @Bob Brooce's really very sensible point that it needs downvoting?

Welcome to Bored Panda, Forrest, where outrage is always the correct position to take. What you're saying is exactly right.

What Bob Brooce said.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

partially. I agree girls miss out on the fun stuff because of all the sexist clothing that runs rampant in girls clothes.

No one says you can't buy women's clothing. Most tshirts are pretty simple sizinig.

That is why I often shop shorts (and pants, because my daughter wants "the ones with pockets") in the boys' section.

31653165

Mom Outraged Over Length Of Girls’ And Boys’ Shorts, Gets Support From Fellow Mothers | Bored Panda