Why are we dressing our daughters like this

Name:
Instructor:
Course:
Date:
Why Dress Our Daughters Like This?
The author of the article “Why Are We Dressing Our Daughters Like This?” is Lianne George. She is a renowned person for her many published materials that touches the lives of the people for their educative nature most of her materials are published in the New York magazine. The dressing code of school girls is disturbing the author, up to point that she feels it wise to address the issue. She is largely posing a challenge to the parents who are fond of dressing their daughters like dolls. Therefore, the title of the article is more of a question to the parents on this issue. After exploring the dressing code, the author predicts the impact the dressing will have to the children. Consequently, the choice of the topic of her writing is perfect in addressing the issue at hand. Her style of language and use of factual examples enables her express her view about the doll-like dressing code adopted by school girls. She is not comfortable with it.
In “Why Are We Dressing Our Daughters Like This?” the picture of how our modern day girls are overwhelmed by the very meaning of beauty. The author further goes ahead to describe her belief on how the meaning of beautiful has induced ladies to dress in sexually provocative ways, thinking that, that is the definition of beauty. Radio, Television, and all other media sources are all promoting the beauty products which Lianne is speaking of and thus exposing the young ladies to a realm of these beauty products.

Like many others, it is the belief of George that today’s younger generation has started to adopt this cues of developing to womanhood at a very ripe age. This is highly agreed upon since these changes are evident in the current generation. It is hard to imagine the kind of transformation that George has witnessed throughout her lifetime time
Several examples of fashion designers and clothes shops are enlisted in the article and the reason as to why they command a high selling consequently follows. Before this, a brief history of the emergence of the dressing code and goes ahead to give examples of how the same has propagated is given, and it is evident this has highly contributed to this menace of poor dressing. The retailer is busy using enticing titles Tom woo young girls to this clothes, in the process they are marketing the clothes. Words like “Angles” and “pinks” are seen with these retailers trying to attract even the innocent girls to buy them (George 280). Through the use of examples, the author expresses the reality of the problem at hand. This has an effect of calling for the attention of the target group so that they can read in between the lines to get the message. Therefore, the examples used are relevant in capturing the attention of the reader, and this is an effective method.
The issue of women empowerment as a contributor to the ill dressing code among girls is also featured in the article. George is in agreement with the women empowerment issue and recognizes nothing bad in it. However, the way some people take it is the problem. It is clear that simply because the present world has some feminists’ movement, it does not mean that everything that is done is in accordance to the agenda of the feminists organizations. The effects of the misinterpretations of the women empowerment are what she terms as Junior Miss version of raunchy culture, the behavior that is express in the school girls. The freedom bestowed upon women has made marketers and designers come up with clothes that groom the young girls to be promiscuous because their aim is to maximize profit and do not care about the morality of the kids (George 284).
It is also worth noting that, in the current generation reversal of things has taken course compared to the time past. Lianne asserts that in the old days, kids were a smaller version of their parents, who were their role models. Unlike in those years, she adds that the current society does not care much about the kids who want to dress like teenagers, with make-ups of all kinds. He claims that most parents do not see any evil when a kid puts on cloth with inscriptions or photos that are sexually suggestive, arguing that most parents hold that their kids are innocent and do not see a joke in such inscriptions in their clothing. Also, she says even the concerned parents are influenced by their peers, and since everyone is doing it, they subscribe to such kind of dressing for their kids.
However, she does not tell the danger directly, but if one reads keenly between the lines can see it. When a kid is exposed to “sexual jokes” the jokes remains in their subconscious mind, and will finally manifest. These assumptions and don’t care nature of some parents has contributed to moral decadence in the society. The result of all this is getting morally rotten children at the age of below ten which is a serious issue in the society. The main contributor is the choice of the dressing code for these kids. Therefore, it is important for parents and guardians not to be ignorance thinking that if a kid dresses a T-shirt with sexualized slogans has no impact in their lives (George 282).
Another key problem outlined in the article is that the kids are looking up to the adults, and since they believe that the adults have a sense of prestige and are independent, they want to emulate them. The adults are, however, engaged in make-ups and dressing styles that are not good for the kids. Consequently, the kids develop an interest to do what those they look up to do. The result is that these kids end up developing the interest for make ups and such things. The author captures the information by addressing the issue in a respectful way and using facts that cannot be denied, like when he says “what we once regarded as a kind of sexual expression, we now view as sexuality (George 283).”
The article is explicit that nothing bad with feminist organization campaigning for women empowerment but encourages women to look the disadvantages of the same if taken wrongly. She shows the gap between the kids of the old times when there was no feminists and the kids of the present times when women empowerment is the word for world. This way, he brings out the importance of embracing what is right and doing it. Just because there are right for women, wearing clothes that are disrespectful is not the intention of the women rights activists. The freedom should not be misused because it is likely to cost us in future, as seen in the behaviors of young girls who have been groomed to be promiscuous at the age of as young as eight(George 284).
Lastly, the most important identity that the girls ought to cultivate is the identity of themselves as shoppers. For instance, the International playthings which are a toy brand has come up with a product called My First Purse, which was often marketed to girls of age two years going up. This will kill the perception towards girls, of just being linked to ornamentation, which worse still indicates their sexual readiness. Also, this will assist the marketers that the young girls are not yet ready, for this biological turning point.
In conclusion, the author makes her stand clear that time is ripe for the human race to say no to the production of clothing that are deemed too outrageous. In the whole text as discussed, she is so keen to show her audience the origin and result of the production of girls’ clothes that she terms as disrespectful. Moreover, she employs second person tone; so that audience feels she is part of those affected by the issue of girls’ passion for fashion. Additionally, she employs the use of rhetorical questions to engage the minds of the audience to think of the urgency of a need for reform in the way we dress our girls. By use of examples and the views of other authors, she brings out her claim in a way that it cannot be denied. Therefore, she successfully addresses the phenomenon of dress code unfit for our daughters and its impacts to the girls.
Work Cited
George, Lianne. “Why Are We Dressing Our Daughters Like This?” Maclean’s 119 (2007): 53.