Skip to content

How much of a cretin is this woman?

As I teach my students, kids’ clothing only became gendered when capitalists realized they could double their money by selling separate clothes for girls and boys,” she tweeted. “Before that, kids wore gender-neutral dresses, which better accommodated growth spurts and toilet training.”

100 children will wear 100 – or 200, 300 whatever – pieces f clothing.

Having to make two different types of 100 – or 200, 300 – pieces of clothing reduces profits, not increases them.

17 thoughts on “How much of a cretin is this woman?”

  1. Gender-neutral clothes could mean buying fewer if you have one boy and one girl, because you can pass them on to the second. Possibly also some saving with a small number of boys and girls, depending on how many children you can pass the clothes through before they wear out.

    But at the time when we started having different clothes for boys and girls, people generally still had lots of children, of both sorts, so there would still be plenty of opportunity to reuse two sets of clothes.

    So she’s still writing drivel.

  2. Kids clothes are cheap as chips now compared to the time shes talking about. I bet she also writes stuff about the ‘throw away’ age we live in blah blah. It fills space between the ads. I suppose.

  3. “The history of the white dress as a gender-neutral staple for children”

    Toddlers… maybe. For practicality. If you can call a long shirt over nappies a “dress”.
    And maybe the United States ( or at least certain snooty parts of it) , and possibly Great Britain during the Victorian Madness.
    For the rest of the western world, and outside that particular period? Ummmm…. no… really not. Clothing was clearly and quite specifically gendered as soon as the rugrat stage ended.

    That particular “upper-class” american/english fashion fad was really the exception to the rule.
    Then again… that particular class of people were …notorious.. for their distinct love for crossdressing and effeminate affectations (and possibly other unspeakable habits hinted at..) worldwide. So not much surprise there..

  4. Checking on Asda “boys” school shirts are 2 for £5.50, and girls shirts are also 2 for £5.50. The bastard capitalists profit margin must be razor thin. I vaguely recall my first shirt for grammar school costing about five quid for just one. So half the actual money, before we even consider 5 decades of inflation.

  5. Before nasty old capitalists came along and improved everyone’s lifestyle, around half of children died before they were 5.

    That would certainly have saved on the costs of buying clothes.

  6. Of all the flawed lines of reasoning Tim has labelled cretinous on here, I think Brittany Wong’s is the first one which genuinely deserves that label.

    I mean, even with Murphy and all his dogma and misunderstandings, you can still see how his brain reaches the conclusions it does. But this …!

  7. “Before capitalism” So…. ten thousand years ago or so?

    Has she never seen pictures from ancient Rome, Egypt, or Han Dynasty China?

  8. Brittany Wong’s previous article was titled:
    Ever Had A ‘Dream Baby?’ Here’s What It Means.

    I think it’s safe to say we can all ignore her.

  9. Then again… that particular class of people were …notorious.. for their distinct love for crossdressing and effeminate affectations (and possibly other unspeakable habits hinted at..) worldwide. So not much surprise there.
    Why the use of the past tense, Grikath?

  10. Jessica McCrory Calarco is an Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and an expert on inequalities in education and family life, with a focus on qualitative methods.

    So she can’t do maths and statistics.

  11. She isn’t a cretin – she is quite clever as may be deduced from her creation of a superficially plausible narrative that will lead some to believe her anti-capitalist lies.

  12. “ but American kids dressed like “sexless cherubs” before capitalism and toxic masculinity took over”

    America existed centuries before capitalism?

    She doesn’t know history.

  13. BiS: “Why the use of the past tense, Grikath?”

    Because I was referring to a specific fashion fad with a limited scope in time. So past tense.
    Any continuation in modern times is left to the observer.

Leave a Reply

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