Anonymous: I think that's a good question, actually: are we sexualizing young girls by dressing them in skimpy clothing, or is it assuming that a "skimpily" dressed young girl is sexual that is the problem?

I must say I have an immediate reaction of rolling my eyes at a bikini for girls where the top half is two triangles and a string: why not just go topless? Above the waist, young girls are physically the same as young boys, and have nothing "extra" to cover there (leaving the question of whether women should have to cover their breasts aside). But I don't think there's inherently anything problematical with two-piece suits for girls in general.

Unfortunately, I came to understand well.

Truthfully, I kinda like the "fcuk fashion" one, though if you bought it new, I'm still teasing you mercilessly.

I think the point is well made that not only do we politicize with logos, but also the very clothing we put on our children, logos/words or no: do we only dress our girl-children in pink pseudo-sexy haltertops and miniskirts? Our boys in only camo and jeans? THAT is a political message, just one that is more accepted in our patriarchal society. We get castigated if we go against those norms, and if we are explicit about it (such as this shirt), we run an even higher risk of it.

But, in the end, it might still be worth it. As MftFftF pointed out, it was only one negative comment surrounded by several positive ones. It's up to each of us to choose how much flak we can take in the name of our beliefs, and I don't think there's any one exactly right answer, only whatever answer works for us on any given day (which may be influenced by how many spoons we have, how much other support, what else we're dealing with at the time, etc.)

Great point about the "don't politicize our children" straw argument — because every time we put them in a piece of clothing with a single logo or word on it, we're politicizing in a way.