The Independent's journalism is supported by our readers. When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn commission.

Mother calls out Target for selling boys’ clothes that are more functional than girls’ ones

‘There should be more options for my daughter that are not just skin tight leggings’

Amber Raiken
New York
Tuesday 29 March 2022 00:57 BST

A mother has called Target out for selling girls’ clothes that aren’t as durable, functional, or inexpensive as the company’s clothes for boys.

On TikTok, Meredith Alston, @naptown_thrifts, has posted a series of videos documenting the differences between Target’s clothes for girls and boys.

In one clip, Alston noted how her daughter needs new clothes for school, and when she went to the girls’ section at Target, she found a pair of leggings. She then compared the leggings to a pair of trousers she found in the boy’s section.

However, she thoughts girl’s clothing was “airy” and “thin,” while the trousers for boys had an “adjustable drawstring” and “reinforced knees” on the inside. She also noticed how they weren’t “skin tight” and could be easily tightened, unlike the girl’s leggings.

In a follow-up video, Alston showed a display of clothes a Target and began comparing the boys and the girls section. A pair of shorts for girls could be seen on top of a pair, which are longer in length, for boys.

“These are for the same age group, size medium, ages seven to eight,” Alston said, with her camera directed at the shorts. “I don’t have to tell you which pair was designed for girls and which pair was designed for boys.”

“Just look at the length,” she continued, referring to the shorts for girls. “The tiny little pockets, as if girls don’t have s*** that they want to put in their pockets. Like they don’t collect things.”

She noted how the shorts were an issue as girls are the ones who often “get dress coded” or “told that their shorts are too short.” She zoomed in on a different pair of shorts for boys, which had a lot more “extra fabric” and “pockets.”

Alston discovered a price difference, as a pair of shorts for a boy toddler cost $6 while one for a girl toddler cost $8.

“Don’t say I’m just digging for these comparisons, trust me, you don’t have to dig at all,” she concluded.

As of 28 March, the video has more than 1.9m views, as one TikTok user in the comments  wrote: “the pink tax starts so early.” The pink tax term is a reference to how products marketed to women are have been more expensive than ones intended for men, both of which have similar uses for each gender.

Many people agreed with Alston, emphasising how difficult it can be to find practical clothes for girls.

“Try finding a full top for a girl,” one wrote. “Everything is cropped.”

“Those pockets would not hold enough rocks or pinecones for my daughter,” another wrote.

Many people also said that some clothes for children need to be more gender neutral, calling out some of the language on a girl’s and boy’s shirt.

“I was FURIOUS at Target the other day too – the language on the girls shirt versus the boys ‘be kind’ vs. ‘fearless kiddo’ you can guess which gender,” a comment reads.

“My pet peeve is the messaging on the shirts,” another agreed. “Girls get something like ‘be kind’ and boys get ‘explore.’ Boys can be kind and girls can explore.”

In a different clip, Alston responded to some of the comments that said she should just buy her daughter clothes that are meant for boys, noting how that was “not the problem.”

“The problem is that the clothes that are available for girls that are made and marketed for girls are not as durable, functional or practical as the boys’ clothes are,” she explained. “The point is that there should be more options for my daughter that are not just skin tight leggings.

The Independent has reached out to Alston and Target for comment.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies


Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in