A Queensland mother is angry at Big W over the difference in the length of shorts for boys and girls. Photo: Facebook
Nikita Friedman was so angered by what she believed was inappropriate clothing being sold for young girls by Big W she took to social media to voice her outrage.
"Why on earth does my 1-year-old need to have shorts so short that her nappy is hanging out? Little girls are not sex objects. Gender bias is disgusting," the Queensland mum wrote on the retail giant's Facebook page.
"I couldn't find a single pair of shorts in the girl's section today with an inseam of more than a couple of centimetres. Where is the variety and choice for parents looking to teach their children about sun safety and self respect? Not at Big W this month, that's for sure!"
She also posted a photo comparing size one shorts for girls and boys, demonstrating the clear difference in length.
The post, which now appears to have been removed, received over 60,000 likes and 4,700 comments.
Friedman edited her initial post to add that she believed it was important to let retailers know when customers are dissatisfied.
"The simple fact is that numbers talk and maybe seeing 1600 parents agree with my post after only 5 hours might make Big W stand up and listen for once to what parents want,' she wrote just five hours after she published the popular post," she wrote.
The post attracted a lot of debate about whether the length of the shorts for boys and girls is an issue. Many parents jumped to support Friedman in the comments, with some congratulating her for taking a stand.
"This would probably explain why all the plain boys clothing is sold out - the girls need them too," responded one mother on Facebook.
"Regularly have to shop in boys section for my girls clothing or buy then alter. Our 7-year-old daughter is a child and we don't dress her like she's 7 going-on 30! Go to the boys section for your girls jeans - the girls ones are so tight they look like they've been sprayed on! Good luck," wrote another mum.
However, there were also those who disagreed that the shorts were sexualising young children.
"I have these exact shorts for my 3 year old who is still in nappies. They don't show her nappy nor are they sexual in any sense! She is 3 years old!!!! NOTHING about a 3 year old is sexual! They are some of the only shorts she owns that fit her. I have absolutely no problem with them," one mother wrote in response.
Another reply urged Friedman to "get a life": "Disagree, if you're concerned about your baby being sexualised or discriminated against due to a visible nappy then I feel very concerned for the welfare of that child as it grows up.
"Buy the boys pants if you like them better, heck leave her in a jump suit, maybe stay at home. I personally am glad gender specific clothing exists, as I don't want to wear a dress most days."
Big W responded to the post and thanked Friedman for her feedback and assuring her that they would take the complaint very seriously.
"We will certainly discuss yours and other views posted to this thread with the relevant team, those responsible for buying kidswear and where appropriate respond back to you directly," they wrote.
