Sunday, April 20, 2008
Mod, not mode, is choice for real girls
Shanna Flowers
Read Shanna's blog
Recent columns
The pair of sweat pants that Amelia Gaines got as a gift a couple of Christmases ago was well-received -- until she turned them around.
Emblazoned across the backside in broad letters was the word "Cheer."
Amelia's mother, LeVita Washington, didn't have to say a word. She let grandma do the talking.
"I don't want anything across their tail," Washington recounted her mother saying of 11-year-old Amelia and her older sister DeAnna, 12.
With that, Amelia's new pants went to Goodwill.
Parents and their daughters deserve a standing ovation for fighting back over the supersexualized, skin-revealing fashions that gained traction with the young set in recent years.
Just like the women who inspired the look, including Paris and Britney, sexy is so last season. Mod -- as in modesty -- is increasingly in vogue for young girls.
Modest doesn't mean frumpy. Girls can be fashionable without looking like hoochie mamas in training.
"I think it's kind of gross," said DeAnna, who attends Ruffner Middle School. "Why would you want to go around wearing clothes that show all your underwear?"
Shrinking profits recently forced Victoria's Secret executive Sharen Turney to concede that her company has gotten too sexy. She reviewed her company's Pink line, marketed to younger women and girls, and called for a return to a more sophisticated brand.
Fifteen-year-old Miley Cyrus, better known as Hannah Montana, received kudos for her stylish yet age-appropriate gown at the Academy Awards. And a faith-based group called Pure Fashion is cropping up in cities across America promoting modest fashions.
After the shameless politicization of the "faith-based" moniker, the phrase makes me squeamish. But Pure Fashion teaches a message I can get with: self-awareness and self-confidence. More girls need that.
Washington said her youngsters never wanted to wear revealing fashions. Besides, she said, they knew that she and her husband wouldn't allow it.
Until recently, Washington found that shopping for their adolescent daughters was a search-and-rescue mission for practical outfits.
She would buy little tees for the girls to wear under the tops with plunging necklines. Finding jeans with a higher waistband was a tactical mission for a mother who demands her daughters wear belts with all jeans.
"Everything, the stuff was just too revealing," said Washington, the PTA president at Forest Park Elementary School. "I've seen a change in that. Maybe the parents started speaking out."
Apparently, the backlash against sexy is working.
And maybe stores are responding by stocking racks and shelves with more fashions that don't bare all.
The move toward modesty should bring a smile to parents concerned about the sexualization of youngsters. It should satisfy critics who have justifiably complained about the fashion images peddled to young girls. It will remove bare skin from schools that don't need yet another distraction in the classroom.
Schools steer girls toward "showing the inner beauty rather than revealing the body," Roanoke schools administrator Asia Jones told me last week.
Amelia, who also attends Ruffner, added, "If more people would wear more appropriate clothes, then we wouldn't have much of these cliques because of the way they dress or look."
If girls, indeed, are sugar and spice, the recipe for fashion success should be for a dash of spice -- not the whole container.
