"Daddy's Little Princess", 'modest and beautiful' clothing for girls...

"Biblical" clothing for sale.. :crazy:

===

"bloomers, pantalettes, and nightwear for the perfect bottom line..."



..'open legged bloomer style is made from light batiste, so they're cool and comfortable even in the heat of summer.'



Secret Treasures ~ Heirloom Nightgown
Exquisite gown features pintucks and lace threaded with ribbon on the bodice, and a double layered skirt of light batiste.


For when "Daddy's Little Princess" has to leave the privacy of her home:


http://www.daddys-little-princess.com

and their ankles......

oh so bad.

:spank:

:rofl:

some of the baby outfits are quite cute!

I see kung fu lessons in her future...

My wife thinks I'm joking when I say that, too.

She'll get info, training AND confidence. Win-win-win.

/ack

Lots of fun for "dress up."

But I'm troubled about other entries at the site. For example, here we are told that prayer is the only cure for Depression. www.daddys-little-princess.com/depression.html

If you're depressed, you just aren't praying hard enough according to the author. It made me think of Andrea Yates.

and I think I'd rather see my granddaughter dressed in some of these outfits than in some of the stuff you I see in the dept stores - the bf calls it clothes for ho's in training. But it's the message behind this that is so disturbing.

...that doesn't involve ankle-length underwear even for nighties??

Both seem wrong -- totally covering up little girls' bodies all the time indicates fear of their "sexuality" just as much as "clothes for ho's in training" creates signals of sexual availability where there should be none.

I wouldn't mind some of these well-made garments for dress-up though.

Hekate

That mental illness didn't really exist and that psychology was a sign of secular America's selfish nature. Now, having been present when a loved one had a breakdown when I was about 8, I knew this was a steaming pile of horseshit. But I wonder how many of the kids I grew up with who didn't have the questioning nature and unreligious parents I did ended up in bad places because they thought their mental health problems were their own fault.

It's like Holly Hobby smut or something!

I find disturbing. Daddy's little girl in a little negligee. Daddy's little girl indeed.

I do think these clothes are better than the ones that over sexualize little girls, though.

Mz Pip
:dem:

I am sure some reasonable NON fundamentalist can come up with a fashion line that is both modest AND fashionable?

long skirts, dark stockings, sensible shoes...cause I WAS going to be a nun after all, till I decided not to be!

sleevless camp shirts, madras mini skirts.

now they probably looked more like daisy duke bloomers cause they seemed to be able to fit any fanny large or small equally..only mine was small!

Then there was the PURPLE three piece suit, including a miniskirt...I musta looked READY for corporate America..fer sure!

to my stomach, I can tell you.

My apologies, lass! :P

No comment.

Victorian era. These are some sick fuggs.

It would make a good Halloween costume.

:)

Goodnight, Jim Bob

:)

His older daughter in the background apparently found a box of stage outfits from Prince and the Revolution, and his son could get detention with Professor Snape for leaving Hogwarts without permission.

TlalocW

I think they sell matching owner/doll dresses...

at least wait until they're old enough to decide if they are barking mad wingnuts for themselves. If they decide to follow in Dad's footsteps then they're fair game. That's the sort of crap that the RW used to sling at Chelsea Clinton. It doesn't reflect well on you, no matter how funny it is.

dressing your children this way.

But this is for the ProWar/ Pro-DP fundies...

that these people are liberal relative to the people who make your clothes.

She is no liberal.

What better job for a religious nut?

Or do you hate them so much that you can't separate the clothes from what they say?

I don't think you would see a princess in that get up. Can you imagine what would happen if you sent your child to school dressed like that.

see princess paris or lady Latoya or whoever the bimbo of the day is wearing that crap?

Please enlighten me.

Sounds a little off color to me.

is prayer. Check out her essay "Depression and the Christian". Hey all you inferior sinners out there suffering from depression, you're just not PRAYING hard enough!

http://www.daddys-little-princess.com/depression.html:puke:

Ignorance abounds.

Still, I'd rather see girls dressing like this than dressing like prostitutes. I don't know about the bloomers, though...Seems a little extreme, unless the kid really likes it.

I hope you know that.

I hope you know THAT.

Remember the Duggars, the family with 16 kids? They have a show now on TLC and I noticed the girls are ALWAYS dressed in these types of dresses. They even wore dresses to go horseback riding.

Anyone able to shed some light on the apparent ban on pants for females?

"The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God."
Deuteronomy 22:5

the book that says if a man loses his balls he can't 'enter the kingdom of the lord'. Nor can 10 generations of his descendent's. (how a deballed fellow has descendants, i'm not sure). But it begs the question - what does 'the lord' want fully balled men for anyway?

Descendants first, deballing later.

can't get 'into heaven' because the guy lost his balls.

thanks in advance ;-)

Parts of the Bible relate history of the times, parts tell you the best way (in the writer's opinion) to live, and still others are designed to scare the living shit out of you.

Deuteronomy is in the third category.

If you knew that not only you, but The Next Ten Generations Of Your Family, would be destined to roast on a spit for eternity if you did something God didn't like, you probably wouldn't do it.

If i'm not mistaken, this 'God' apparently doesn't like all sorts of deformities. I think the folks with missing or 'crooked' limbs are also not permitted into 'the kingdom of the lord'.

God as described in the Old Testament was one mean sumbitch. Witness the Story of Job.

Job was a Good, God-Fearing Man. God whacked his whole family, destroyed his crops, and basically fucked Job's whole life up just to win a bar bet with the Devil.

The OT's full of God having entire civilizations wiped out. This God was not a nice person.

Then came the New Testament. Essentially, God got tired of whacking people, came to earth as a man, got whacked himself and said "if you believe in Me, My death will pay for all your sin." Which was really nice of him.

:shrug:

What if I lose just ONE testicle? Does that mean only 5 Generations?

And I know a guy with THREE testicles. Do his descendants get into heaven any faster, like a fast-track program?

And what if I have a child, then lose a ball, and then have another child? Does that equal 7.5 generations?

And by generation, are they talking years, or actual groups of children?

And what if I took a vow of celibacy as a devotion to God -- say, as a priest -- and THEN lost my testes? Would that still count against me, even though I was already not having sex on God's behalf?

And what if I had a child, then took a vow of celibacy, and then lost my balls? What effect would that have on my future descendants?

Is there some kind of mathematical formula at work here? If the Bible is the only book I need, then why didn't it come with an instruction manual, or at least a good appendix? If it were a self-improvement book on Amazon, I'd have to give it two stars. Yes, it has some rather entertaining personal anecdotes about sex, violence, and betrayal, but it doesn't even have an INDEX.

Oh man, I KNOW it is older than dirt, and I know it is lame, but it still makes me laugh. I am SO sorry, but that joke just slipped out...

-------

Anyhow, I think, (but am not certain) that I recall hearing a discussion one time of some of the dictates in the Old Testament where the theory was put forth that many of those Biblical laws were put forth to try and promote population growth. Just as it was deemed a bad plan for men to masturbate (wasting seed, you see...) it was seen as a bad thing to be castrated. An act that might reduce the chances of offspring was deemed BAD.

I also think there was something lurking there about the whole male cultural abhorrence of castration. Can't prove it, but I think men have been kind of fond of those guys since the dawn of time.



Regards!


Laura

:rofl:

Men's garments in the ancient Near East weren't much different than women's anyway. Trousers were worn by both sexes in Northern Europe for a long time simply because it was comfortable, functional, and guess what, kept you WARM.

saying that women should not wear a man's clothing, should be modest, etc.

Of course, the scriptures in the same books/chapters that say you shouldn't wear certain materials together are completely ignored

as a former UPCer who didn't wear pants, I can tell you that there's no reasoning whatsoever

it's just a way to keep the women in line

Sure, the "Little House on the Prairie" look might strike most of us as a little goofy, and I understand that some of the other content at the website is apparently the work of religious whack jobs.... But as the far-left father of a little girl I think I'd rather see my daughter wearing this oddball stuff than a belly shirt with "FLIRT" or "BOYS SUCK" written across her chest in red rhinestones, or clingy jeans with "HOTTIE" written across the butt. I don't believe in censorship and I don't support holding kids in some sort of artificially-induced naivety bubble, but it sickens me that our society markets the "Slut Power" notion of "empowerment" to even the youngest kids, and that so many parents buy into it.

Not every storebought outfit is slutty and smutty. You can look after what your girls are wearing without putting them in Waltons apparel or "secret lingerie".

but I can't WAIT to get me some of them there fancy pantaloons!!!

:hi:

Complete with matching corset, garter, stockings.... uh never mind.
I may have said too much already. :evilgrin:

Pioneer Stepfords.

Secondly the thread is way over the top since there are plenty of LIBERAL homeschoolers too. And nothing like kicking your OWN DOWN just because you think clothing is yucky.

Next, the girls who are dressed like that often come from Amish families who YES do homeschool!

I think a thread like this at du is absolutely despicable and shows the meaner nastier side of this party. It's a shame that you feel you have to ridicule others to get an ego-boost.

Shame on DU for allowing this ridiculous bullying!

You're a real 'ray of light'.

:rofl:

:wtf: Looks like these issues come with detonators.

One side, I have some bullying to do! :rofl:

:rofl:

I would not have called anyone a bully. But that is what this thread is! It ridicules and picks on people who just think differently than you do.

And do you have any insight as to why they're dressed like that? Perhaps, I can 'enlighten' you.

1. Homeschoolers--they do crafts and unit studies. They study history through many means: sewing, cooking, craftsmanship. They read books they do plays. They even take pride in not being forced to fit a mold.

2. You have no idea if it's not part of their tradition. I was in Target and met an Amish family there. They were dressed exactly like that. Now, I'm not Amish and I doubt I'd have the dedication to their way of life, but that doesn't mean I can't respect their way of life.

3. There was a homeschool family near me who I knew. Their little girl was very much into sewing at the time. She loved to create outfits just like those and yes--even wear them out in public. It expressed her pride in her work and her freedom and it made her feel good about her own skills. Yet as most people do, she grew up. She got into sports. She stopped wearing those outfits and joined the local high school so that she could do track and volleyball. She excelled at it. Her time as an 'oddly dressed' person disappeared and in it's place was a beautiful, athletic, friendly, open young women. Frankly, she was quite popular at school, before anyone thinks she couldn't fit in. She was so popular that guys asked her out. And she went. On one of those times out, a guy raped her. Because she couldn't deal with the pain, she started taking drugs and hanging with the druggies at school. Last I saw her and her mom, she was getting help and was completely regretting that she gave up her carefree life of homeschooling and dressing up to rejoin the school environment.

My point... we can poke fun at what they wear but should we? Don't we have more important things to do? Because like it or not, 'regular' mainstream people get picked on for not wearing designer clothes, homeschoolers get picked on for dressing funny, but no where in there does it address the deeper issues involved in our society. And how we chose to treat people is a big issue as far as I'm concerned. Bullying can lead to events like rape. It can lead to events like Columbine.

So you can pick on me for my nick but frankly, I have been a ray of light to lots of people both in the homeschool environment and the public education environment. I have helped girls who have been raped. I have dealt directly with the ramifications of people knocking other people down. So sorry...I just don't see the humor in your posting a snide comment about other peoples' choice in clothing.

Your message is loud and clear.

Never mind that I think this purveyor is peddling goods in an extremely creepy fashion.

Never mind that she says that you should pray depression away, that determination and prayer will restore your brain chemistry and that sickens me, for I have known people who in their depression took their lives.

Never mind that she excuses her husband from staying out all night, at a "friends", then blames herself that she did not "submit" to him early enough, and that I think this is a horrible message to give to women.

No, by pointing out these things, I'm the bully, I am knocking them down. I cannot tell you how much your words knocked *me* down today, but so be it.

but to convey the creeepyness of sexualizing little girls but I believe the thread took on a different meaning.


The thoughts that person expressed is dispicable as far as I'm concerned too but the majority of posts were about how the girls were dressed and then became an opportunity to pick on homeschoolers. The message is creepy, I would agree with you on that, but read the thread, bluebear. How much of the thread picked on them and how much picked on the aspect that you're talking about here? I can not accept what she said about depression, although there are certainly people who believe that prayer can overcome diseases. To a certain extent, for some people it does over come the disease. For instance, many people turn to religion after they've been raped and it helps them heal. Many don't. But for some people the power of believing helps them change their brain chemistry. Now would I advocate that someone turn to God instead of going to therapy or taking anti-depressants? Not likely. But for some, there is a connection. One should just not force that ideology on all.

Regarding the staying out all night garbage--well it's just garbage. I think it does give a horrible message. But as I said, I believe the thread took on a whole different meaning than you intended.

So for that, I apologize for calling you a bully.

Threads take on a life of their own, I just wanted to make my intentions clear. Be well.

Reading the thread more thoroughly, I'm definatly seeing lots of bends in the road here.

I'm glad you made your intentions clear. I think we're on the same page now.

a one of them are slutty, when she was shorter i had the clothes altered to fit her. normal sized teeshirts, shirts and pants are not difficult to find.

Because back when my children were 12, the clothing was so tasteless that even the schools had to revamp their school policies--too many vamps in school.

My daughters range from 19 - 10 years old. I have nieces that I've shopped for who are as old as 28.

I have never had a problem like this! And I shop at all the regular outlets: Kohls, Target, Gap, Old Navy etc. Granted I live in a cold weather state but even summer outfits were all age-appropriate.

One inch zippers on blue jeans. How far down does that go? Now the tops were all midrift tops...lot of belly and skin showing ala Britney and Christine Augolera (sp). Yet...as I said, it wasn't merely MY OWN tastes that one could question...the fact is that around here, most of the local school districts were forced to enact a dress code.

since my 10 year old is very tall, very slim, so we're shopping Aeropostale and Abercrombie and Fitch (their size 0) depts.... I'm find they are very generously cut. I have never altered a single pair of pants or shirt, ever, for any of my daughters or nieces (and where are you finding midriff shirts at Target/Kohls/Gap etc??! - sorry not where I'm shopping)

My 19 year old had a dress code since she started kindergarten years ago! This isn't recent and it's been around since we were in high school (gulp - I'm in my forties! and remember no strapless gowns at prom!)

The clothes the last year or so have definitely gotten more elegant and classy. I like these styles much better. And you'd be hard pressed to find a 1 inch zipper nowadays. But that was't the case a few years ago--like maybe 8-10 years ago when Hillary and Christina made the one inch pants and the midriff tops the 'rage'.

Sorry, I just don't buy it.

:eyes:

that are not "slutty". Pantalettes and the gingham dress with bonnet is a little over the top and I think you would be setting up a little girl to ridicule if you sent them out like that. To each his own I guess.

Perhaps they made the clothes themselves. Perhaps they're amish and they prefer to dress that way. Why can't all of us just respect THEIR choices as we would like them to respect OUR choices?

And by the way... you said, "I think you would be setting up a little girl to ridicule if you sent them out like that. To each his own I guess."

Well, my response to that point:

1. People should respect other peoples choices. Period!

2. In the area where I use to teach, it was divided by farmers and the rich business owners. The farmers kids came in to school in blue jeans and t's...just what the parent could afford. The rich peoples' kids came in in the Albercombie and Finches and their latest name brands. That's fine right? Well guess who ridiculed whom? Yes! The rich kids ridiculed the farmers kids for wearing the non-name brand clothing. This is why I abhor the thread topic here. Since when is it appropriate for adults to ridicule what one wears or how much one spends? And we wonder why we have no compassion out there.

and be willing to put your foot down to things that aren't appropriate.

The nice thing is that the basics tend to last longer as well, both because they're not painted on and because the material and workmanship is usually better. If all else fails until puberty boys' pants and shirts fit fine.

you just have to weed through the crap.

No one is busting on the Amish, little girls in cotton floral dresses, or homeschooling. I think most DUers are skeeved out by the name, the poses, and the creepy captions. Advertising can be done with kids in an appropriate way, but something about this site makes me think Little House on the Prairie with a twist of Jon-Benet.

Creepy:

http://www.dressygirls.com/index.asp

Not creepy:

http://www.gap.com/browse/category.do?cid=6300

and I SPECIFIED "homeschooling Christian extremists". Was I "bullying"?

I know something about homeschooling Christian extremists, having lived next door to a family like this for many years. I have endured their children lecturing me about what a bad parent I am for allowing my children to read Harry Potter. I was told that my daughter's autism could be cured if I prayed hard enough. They vote straight Republican, they don't believe in evolution or global warming, their son enlightened my son when he was 6 about the gory details of abortion. Their daughter, the "good Christian" has called my disabled daughter cruel names and did everything she could to drive away the only other child on the street that had befriended my daughter.

Personally, when I see kids dressed like this, I steer clear. I've had my fill of that type of "good Christian".

I have homeschoolers in my family but now they're not homeschoolers--they're public schoolers and they do the same exact thing!

It's not the homeschooling--it's the extremism of their religion and their attitude that they have the right to force everyone to believe the same way.

I'm sorry, but I will NOT have tolerance for a group of people who want to force their beliefs on everyone.

My neighbors are part of a large group of home schoolers who are very political and whose goal is to control what you and your children can read and watch on TV, what is taught in your schools under the guise of "science". They want to eliminate the right to a safe abortion, the right to obtain birth control, the right to access to a vaccine to prevent cervical cancer, the right of schools to teach your kids about safe sex.

And DUers who comment on their unusual dress are "bullies"?

I wouldn't want to disappoint them.

"you can't find anything not slutty". Absolutely not true. Walk into Target, JC Penney, or any major department store. There are plenty of options. I think what you're really referring to is: your daughter doesn't want to wear the more modest clothes available. But don't blame the manufacturers or the stores. The clothes are there. Plus, there are even more options online. Yes, there are clothes that are questionable for younger girls. But you're really over-stating when you say you can't FIND anything not slutty. You're 'O'Reilly"ing the subject with exaggeration.
And we DUers have every right to question this preoccupation of turning little girls into objects of Daddy's obsession with prepubescent sexuality.
The photos and the descriptions are creepy.
Our own American Taliban, making the world safe from, gasp, the sight of little girls' legs and arms.
(only Daddy gets to see his little girl's body...and her "hidden treasure")

I can't say the same about nearly everyone else, but it IS quite possible.

kids were 12 I couldn't find anything that didn't look like it belonged on a hooker. We had to resort to a lot of tayloring. But there is def. a difference in style no versus then.

Mine are 19 and 10. I am 40 something. I have also Xmas shopped for my nieces who range in age between 40 and 19 years of age, and I've never had a problem finding appropriate clothing for kids at any major retailer: (Gap, Target, Kohls, Old Navy, Casual Corner etc.).

Where and when did YOU shop that you only found hooker clothing??!! Perhaps you define "hooker" clothing differently than me? Shorts, capris, tees etc.?!

I felt that once the kids no longer fit size 10-12 they were rushed into Juniors styles. The tops were extremely low cut. The bluejeans had a one inch zipper. Measure one inch on you and see how far up that takes you.

very slim and tall so some of her clothing is coming from Aeropostale and Abercrombie and Fitch's size 0 dept - if anything I'm finding they are very generously cut around her bottom.

I have never had a problem finding appropriate clothing. Your statements just don't resonate with me at all and I'm shopping (today) in areas that "should" be sexualized (but aren't).
:shrug:

I even remember seeing an article that spoke about rich women paying megabucks to look like a cheap hooker.

clothes for my (currently 19 year old) daughter at any major retailer.

This clothing line for children featured in the OP is a major step back for girls - it accentuates their helplessness and subservience, it re-creates an era when girls were truly second class citizens, it's not safe clothing.... And this doesn't even mention it's creepy marketing posing the little girls on beds.... Ick.

However, I can find lots of clothes for my "tall for her age" 8 year old daughter that aren't slutty. Still, I don't think it's necessary to make fun of others to make any point.

...only that I found one preferable to the other.

I wasn't sure how DUers might respond to this. I'm about the biggest leftist I know...I'm no prude...I don't insist that everyone "think of the children" as I try to censor their television...and I certainly do not believe that women should repress their sexuality in any way... but even before I became I father I hated the whole "Slut Power" thing. If nothing else...think of how people react if someone marketed parallel merchandise for boys...shirts that say "shut up, bitch" or whatever. People would flip.NO ONE would think it was cute.

It is still possible to dress a young girl so that she's not tarted up like a Bratz doll or looking as if she's ready to churn butter. Surely there's a happy medium.

:spray:

Sorry, just found that imagery so spot on.

and who then want you to feel bad for them because they have no control over their kids. No sympathy for parents who pay for their kids to get tarted up like Bratz dolls and then -- after it begins to look less "cute" and more "trashy" -- whine about what society has done to their kids.

found myself walking through toys r us at Christmas time thinking, "look at the tits on that doll"

And here's a site featuring an entire "LIL' BRATZ COLLECTION" for the young lady of the house.

http://www.dressygirls.com/products.asp?cat=43

No thanks.

For the most part, yeah, they're ugly, but I don't get the nasty remarks. If dressing your kids in crap clothes is the worst thing parents do, then they're pretty good parents. Take issue with their politics, not the way they dress their kids.

JMHO, though.

the Heirloom nightgown is called "Secret treasure". I think it's icky that these clothes are for "daddy's" princess. Just didn't sit right with me.

and it's probably nothing. Nobody knows for sure, but (I assume) you don't have any acquaintance with these people, and your judgment of them is solely based on a piece of clothing?

It was a new concept, but I thanked God and wiped my tears, and when my husband walked in, I was able to greet him with a snile and a kiss, and sincerely ask him how his day had been and whether he'd like something to eat for supper. My husband was so pleasantly surprised.

That was the turning point for me. I started being able to not only submit to my husband, but to truly love him as well. Outward submission that was true heart submission, softened my husband's heart very quickly. He started to stay home more and began to lose his appetite for ungodly interests, and I started learning to lean on God instead of my husband for my emotional strength. In the nearly four years since then, we have grown much closer to each other and to the Lord. I've seen my husband become the spiritual leader of our home and an attentive husband and father. I finally learned what it meant to get out of God's way.

http://www.daddys-little-princess.com/restoration.html

Plus advice that depression is to be "prayed away". I don't think any of this is healthy for females.

But the OP was about their clothes, not their batshit opinions on depression or "a woman's place." Like I said in my first post, take issue with their politics, by all means. This is a political message board. However, what they wear has little-to-nothing to do with it. As long as they kids are dressed in season- and activity-appropriate clothing, it shouldn't be anyone's business what they wear.

:shrug:

It called the Heirloom Nightgown, Secret Treasures is the name of the line.


"Secret Treasures Collection
bloomers, pantalettes, and nightwear for the perfect bottom line..."


Everything on that page is from the Secret Treasures Collection. The pantalettes & bloomers you pictured are also Secret Treasures items.

...is a sick, twisted phucker who sexualizes her daughter for her husband.

I wonder why you didn't attach the "Secret Treasures" label to all the pictures you posted?
You did that for the nightgown only, even though it was repeated with each picture's description.


I do agree that "the perfect bottom line" sounds strange, it's not one I would have chosen to market children's nightwear. However it might just be a play on a common phrase, they wouldn't be the first company to do so.

Oh I don't know, I must have something sinister in mind. Either that or i was distracted about the purveyor's advice to submit to your husband, that when he leaves and stays at a "friend's" house overnight it's the woman's fault, and that depression can be 'prayed away'.

I didn't read the purveyor's advice column. I just looked at the clothes.

That is some pretty sick advice.

:pals:

:pals:

and the incredibly creepy "Secret Treasures" name...and the little hairs on the back on your neck don't rise up in creaturely concern? Have you no parental instincts whatsoever? This whole site reeks of pedophilia. In fact, I bet it's a favorite for men who obsess over little girls. I mean, "hidden treasure"? "Perfect bottom line" And your alarm bells aren't ringing?
Sheesh. What does it take?

:scared:

Why are we so shy of saying, "this line of products appeals to Daddys with incest on their minds."

Because that's what this is. With nice lace trim.

Oh, wait...Carrie on "Little House". Never mind.

Forget about the "beautiful" part, OK?

:( Poor kids. The baby gowns are sweet, but that clothing for the olders kids is pathetic.

there are plenty of pinko commie hippies who homeschool their kids.

And some of the clothes were cute, creepiness of the site itself notwithstanding.

Removed. It wasn't meant as a dig at homeschooling per se, just those who would keep daddy's little princess at home 24/7 in her 'secret treasure' negligee. And the maker of these clothes urge women to pray away their depression and learn anew to submit to their husbands. Creepy.

it's more than a little creepy.

Nothing wrong with modesty for either women or men, but some things just give ya the willies.

I thank you. ;-)


They mention a friend who is teaching her kids to play bluegrass. When I read this line, I had to wonder, though: "Personally, I love the "Suzuki" materials because they have the tapes or cd's, they stay away from music's version of "twaddle","

I'm a professional violinist, and have never heard of "twaddle".

Any ideas?

Actually, Beloved Daughter (10) is going to a California charter school; the school provides the curriculum, and two days per week of school. We then complete assignments the other three days. Everything is part of an individualized program.

We did this because my kid's private school (that we had been sending her to for a year) was driving us all crazy with busywork. It became far too stressful for the family. We found out her close friend was going to this charter school, and it has just turned out to be just the ticket for us. We were already homeschooling her anyway, because of all the homework; it was just at night, when she was SO tired. So, now, we can work with her during the day! It's what works for us! Moreover, I'm raising her to be a great progressive!

It's great to see so many homeschooling options! Especially since the area used to be dominated by fundy wackos. Congratulations on finding a system that's going to work well for all of you!

My 8 year old son just started a 5 week course (once a week for 5 weeks) for homeschoolers at the zoo. They're learning how different animals experience the five senses, and will include topics like synesthesia, echolocation, and vibrissae.

I feel incredibly fortunate to have so many resources practically at our fingertips!

It really gives the family options! We can now go on 'field trips' on Fridays! I can repeat a grammar concept until she gets it. At her prep school, so much of the work was done in class. They wouldn't let the parents know about the nature of the assignment; therefore, you didn't know how to catch up their skill. The teachers were too busy socializing to catch the kid up in terms of skill, so, not much progress was made. Now, I know about every assignment she does, and I can help her progress. There aren't any grades, and there is no anxiety about passing onto the next grade! Our family's stress level went down about 1000%!

On edit:
Maybe I can PM you for some more input. Thanks for being a homeschooling-buddy!

right at home at that site.

I'm no fan of 12 year olds looking like early Madonna videos, neither is Madonna by the way, but this stuff, wow, its out of a different century. Its possible to dress modest, and slightly in style. And no pants for girls? Where is that comming from? And I agree that the nightgown named "secret treasures" is cute, but the name is so wrong.

"Federal law requires me to say that these "nightgowns" are not intended for sleepwear as the fabrics used are not flame retardant"

I dunno... I've had some ex-girlfriends who had "sleepwear" that were not meant for sleeping. I've got "daywear" that I sleep in. It's just clothes for pete's sake-- we buy 'em, then we wear 'em when and how we want regardless of the label or manufacured purpose.

I should have known.

Federal law requires me to say that these "nightgowns" are not intended for sleepwear as the fabrics used are not flame retardant.


If they aren't for sleepwear what the hell are they for?

Somewhere along the line, people started freaking out about sleepwear that wasn't made from flame-retardant materials. It was tough finding 100% cotton pjs for kids.. All I could find was scratchy polyester crap; but I was supposed to be thrilled that it was flame-retardant.

Then they started selling cotton pjs again; but because they were not made of flame-retardant material, we were expected to understand that they fit "snugly". This meant that my kids' size 6 pjs fit more like a size 4. It's tough to get to sleep when you've got a wedgie all night long; so I bought their cotton pjs 2 sizes too big. We don't use space heaters, and I can't remember when the last time was that I held my babies over an open flame. If, heaven forbid, our house caught fire, I can't imagine that flame-retardant pjs would actually help them. In fact, I would think that given the intensity of the heat, the polyester might even melt and burn their skin.

when they were about 2 years old. I liked to sew. What can I say? Even at that tender age they both HATED them. By the time they reached school age, it was jeans and tshirts. Well, both were athletes and detested anything frilly and UNCOMFORTABLE.

They are both in their 20s now and neither owns a dress or a skirt. Still "uncomfortable". It's business casual all the way for them.

At the end of the day though, who cares? People can dress their kids any way they want.

modest clothes for "Mommy's Little Prince". It could feature pantaloons, knickers with knee socks, long Edwardian coats with ruffled shirts, pointy toed shoes with buckles and heels and nightshirts for bed. How big would that go over.

:spray:

with a cutesy saying. I mean lets take them back to the 1800 or early 1900's. See how the boys would react.

What you're talking about has actually happened. Several times. I've heard it called "child aristocrat chic", and it's a fad that's couple hundred years old and periodically comes back to haunt a generation or so of little boys.

The most easily identifiable culprit is the painting The Blue Boy by Thomas Gainsborough from 1770. It inspired a fashion fad that boys endured for decades. The novel Little Lord Fauntleroy by Frances Hodgson Burnett (1885) also popularized the child-aristocrat mystique -- the Wikipedia article on Little Lord Fauntleroy mentions the connection between Gainsborough's painting and Burnett's novel.

Wikipedia points out that there's a band called Blue Boy. A trance-pop musician, Yonderboi (László Fogarasi), once dressed in that style for one of his CDs. (He's an excellent musician, BTW, especially if you like trance.)

Back to the creepiness factor, just the fact that some parents like to dress their children up like living play dolls is creepy enough. Still, creepiness and/or dressing kids up isn't against the law, and it isn't even necessarily bad for the child. I've seen kids dressed up for sci-fi cons that easily rival what some of these Christians have done. I guess it's an individual thing.

--p!

and this doesn't begin to compare with the freakishness in that movie.

My kids made me watch it.

wtf little house on the prairie is alive and well in looney fundyland.

"Daddy's Little Princess" was used long before this line of clothes came along. I daresay there are even DU Dads who have called their girls their "princesses" with perfectly wholesome intent.

I really don't see the difference in these clothes and the Gunne Sax/peasant/prairie dress fad that came along in the 1970s, after the skirts had micro-minnied beyond sensibility. Well, I guess there is one difference....These dresses are being marketed by a small business rather than a fashion corporation.

The prices listed on these outfits are nothing short of amazing, for handsewn work...far less than what you'd see similar quality sell for in a department store.

In looking over the website, I don't see anything that mentions prayer as a cure for depression, though the owner is pretty clearly religious. As long as the proceeds of their sales didn't go toward war efforts, keeping thugs in power, or something along those lines, I really don't see any reason to knock the business.

It comes off as being more than a little creepy.

The outfits are beautiful, but I don't see a child staying in one for long.

as I couldn't access several of their pages earlier.

I didn't see the "purity balls", but it sounds pretty weird.

http://www.daddys-little-princess.com/depression.html

'Chemical balances in the brain CAN be restored, just as a balance in muscle strength can be achieved - through proper exercise (prayer) and determination.'

Fear of hell can make people so very ignorant. :(

And their song "Come to Daddy?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIGvGsNmaQE

That's right, little girl... give up your "Secret Treasures" to Daddy...

When I was a little girl, I wanted to wear long dresses and pantaloons after I saw "Gone With the Wind". I drove my parents crazy for awhile about it. If they are trying to put those on big girls, then I'd worry.

especially for a girly girl which I always was an actually still am. :-) Of course I wouldn't wear stuff like that now (geesh I'm in my 50s) unless I was going to some sort of occasion that called for it.

into an agenda is extremely creepy. Abusive, actually.

it. If she doesn't, then she shouldn't be made to wear those clothes. I have known some four and five year olds who already have a fashion sense and know what they like and don't like.

But the ads are clearly appealing to people who believe they should control those little bodies. :scared:

Levis and flannel shirts for everyday, speaking of being forced to wear something, and drab little cotton dresses with puffy sleeves and a little bow in the back for school. I loved it when I could wear a girly dress with lots of ruffles, ribbons and lace.

But those little dresses on the website really wouldn't be worn on a daily basis I wouldn't think, maybe Sunday school and birthday parties. Even the little fairy baby outfit is a bit pagan for christians.

any little girl could want. I cried when my pre school demanded that I wear jeans to school. Boohoo, yeah, that was me.

What I'm picking up on in these ads is that they're pandering to the buyer, not to the little girl who will wear their stuff. And the ads are very creepy in the way they treat those little controlled bodies. I may not be saying this clearly, but they are selling some fantasy of authoritarian control over our bodies.

I'm glad Bluebear posted this. I have three nieces and I want for them control over their own bodies. I want them to be able to imagine themselves -- not to have someone else's fantasy foisted on them. I don't know if that makes sense.

like all that frilly stuff, why not let them wear it? I've seen some pretty Amish looking stuff on some of those websites for modest clothes for women, but this stuff is a little more like a cute costume and doesn't come across to me as plain clothes for future childbearing cows.

:shrug:

little girls, they are engaging authoritarian parents, or daddys. :scared:

My nieces love dress up. That's different. That's not my brother going on line to find "modest" clothes for his girls. I don't think it's about the clothes but the appeal to control.

At a "friends". Because the wife has not yet learned to "submit" to her husband. And if she gets depressed about it, she can restore her brain chemistry through determination and prayer.

Those thoughts are also put forth by the seamstress selling these "daddy's princess" clothes, and the whole thing smacks of controlling women, and I don't like it.

I can't believe we're having this conversation but, I can be pretty dim sometimes.

Some of the clothes are cute, but I do think dressing little girls exclusively in that sort of clothing and forbidding them from wearing more modern clothing is a bit, uh, extreme.

exclusively in those clothes? I don't really think so. They are probably only worn on special occassions like a party or going to church on Sunday. If there are parents who are dressing them exclusively in those clothes, then they are probably being abusive. I can't imagine most mothers putting expensive little dresses on those children to go play in the park.

However, I have gotten away from being critical about what people wear anymore. If women are more comfortable or willing to dress in clothing that is different from the mainstream, whom am I to judge? I have shopped side by side with nuns, muslim women in hajibs and veils and Amish women in aprons and little bonnets. I myself have my own uniform of jeans, T-shirts, gym shoes and a straw shade hat for everyday.

I say live and let live. When those little girls become teenagers they will rebel quickly enough about what they wear.

Parents can certainly dress their kids any way they want to. Those who insist their little girls wear bloomers instead of underwear probably aren't going to care much what I think. If they are indeed imposing this sort of dress as every day wear on their little girls, I do think it's ridiculous. I just can't help it. Bloomers, for crying out loud. I don't insist everyone has to feel that way, but I don't think I'm crazy or overly judgmental because I do.

ETA that I realize it's probably a very small minority who would do this. I still think they're a little nutty for making their kids dress that way.

Seriously, it's god awful. God bless 'em for trying, but maybe they could take 20 bucks from the clothing profits and buy a damn guitar tuner. And the sample track from the upcoming kids CD...nice hum throughout. Did they record it on a Realistic boom box purchased in 1985?

:rofl:

:scared:

:mad:

Just TRY IT!

:mad:

So petty, some have become around here.

(insert tsk tsk smilie here)

about Muslims dressing their daughters in their version of modest clothing (long-sleeved long dresses and headscarves) or even burquas. It's only Christians who get ragged on here at this supposedly liberal site.

Honestly, dressing little girls like it's the 19th century and forbidding them from wearing more modern clothing is ridiculous, unless they live in an Amish community where that sort of dress is expected and the norm. I don't think it makes someone an intolerant jerk for thinking so. Sure, they're free to dress their kids that way if they want to. We're free to think they're nuts for doing so.

wrong for other Christians to dress their daughters modestly? Why are the latter nuts and the former not? Christians who dress their children modestly tend to homeschool them and to associate only with others of like beliefs. If that's acceptable for the Amish, or for Muslims, why not for any group that chooses to do so? I've taught Pentecostal children who have to dress a certain way, girls can't cut their hair, etc., and they were accepted in public school, as were the Jehovah's WItnesses who couldn't say the Pledge of Allegiance or go to birthday parties.

It's been passed down from generation to generation. They're only doing things the way their community has always done them. It's cultural as much as it is driven by the tenets of their faith. The admittedly very small minority who likely grew up in jeans themselves who are imposing this on their children who belong to the greater community at large are a different matter. I don't think everyone should think it's ridiculous, but I don't think it makes me a bad or judgmental person because I do. Like I just said in another post. Bloomers. There is a reason a vast majority of women in the western world don't wear them anymore.

But there are some liberals who can be ignoramuses too.

Progressives find fault with ANY clothing that controls women. And you know it.

they dress their daughters (and all women)?

You know, since we are all such phony liberals here, I would think you can find something that champions Muslim dress rather easily.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2489835

It's huge but it's one of the smaller burqa/veil threads (most of them are more than 500 posts) - frankly I'm pretty surprised you missed them :eyes: . I'm on dial-up and just retrieving Radio Lady's thread caused my computer to crash twice. You can search for others - there's hundreds!

Radio Lady's thread however makes all the relevant points and you can see MANY DUers who champion Muslim dress on any one of these threads. For the record, I'm not one of them but you can read it yourself.

here on DU about clothing styles that are unsafe for girls/women (Muslim garb), as well as the sexist messages it sends to a culture that needs to swathe females in yards of clothing to "protect" them.

This kind of dress is not safe. The voluminous fabric prohibits a woman's/girl's ability to escape an unsafe situation (kick, run, fight back etc.) Many hijab/burka styles hinder peripheral vision which just screams "prey" for a sexual assault. The extra fabric provides enough material for a sexual predeator to grab and hold their victim.The garb also screams that the woman has been conditioned her whole life to accept a secondary sexual role in their culture, to "submit" to males without complaint or (more importantly) to discourage going to the police whereby their "honor" is immediately compromised.

I'll look up links tomorrow where there have been vicious arguments on DU about ostensibly "modest" clothing and Muslims, and how this clothing actually contributes to their assault. You could find them yourself by looking up any of the hijab or burka threads - especially in GD.

'cause you own them, right?

:crazy:

blech.

am i misinterpreting your post, or were you implying that women wear those by choice? if a girl's parents force her to wear one is it still choice?

And I still find your premise to be amazingly silly in response to my disgust at some people and their intolerance.

(And pssssttttt here's a big smack of reality for ya: Just about all parents force their children to wear things that just maybe the kids don't want to. It's called, ya know, parenting and stuff)

Goodnight. :hi:

Christian clothing? (?!?!?) WTF?

I strongly suspect any kid sent to school dressed like that would get beat up.

And why does the site have to be called "DADDY'S little princess"? Why the constant references to the patriarchal ownership of girls?

Okay, maybe not all of them.



But the first one? That's an adorable outfit, not sexualized in the least (though maybe a little gender stereotyped in design), and it looks warm and comfy. What I find creepy is the nativity-scene action figures. In my kid's action-figure daydreams, Gimli the Dwarf isn't strong enough to take on all the orcs, so Barbie must wield his axe to defend the helpless Aragorn from Sauron's forces. And then put her heels back on. Seriously.

Of course, this is the same kid who cried when Mace Windu bought the farm, and absolutely refused to watch even my ABRIDGED version of "Snakes on a Plane." She can be such a GIRL sometimes! ;)



The second one, the yellow dress, my daughter wore something like it to school today. She picked it out herself, and it looks really cute on her. It's bright, it's festive, it has little flowers all over it and poofy sleeves. She can't wear it on M/W/F, though, because those are PE days, and girls in dresses don't always get to do all the same activities. Also, it doesn't have the pantaloons.



I don't know what that one is. It looks like a slip under a dress? Maybe if it was part of a nightgown it would be okay, especially if it was comfy and warm. Or is that what they call a "slip?" Women still wear those under skirts, don't they? It's not really my area of expertise...



She had several nightgowns that looked like this until she was 7 or 8. The frillier, the better. She begged for the stuff.



She also had an outfit that looked like this one. Of course, it looked a little weird after she was 6 months old.

Of course, my kid isn't forced to wear ONLY these things. She's had a hand in picking her own clothes since she was three (since 8 or so I only have veto power), and is just as comfortable in jeans and a t-shirt. Her favorite jammies are a "Sheetmetal Workers For Kerry" t-Shirt, her favorite outfit is torn jeans and a Green Day t-shirt, and she's equally comfortable in either a ballet tutu or a karate gi.

So maybe what I'm trying to say is that -- like so many things -- it's nto the clothes themselves that are offensive, but the motivations that may be behind them.

I actually do think some of the outfits are cute. But, I do have to wonder at parents who would force their kids to wear such clothes exclusively. They're a minority to be sure, and I doubt this is a trend that will sweep the nation, thank goodness. ETA that it's the bloomers that really got me. Outerwear is one thing, but bloomers?

Do you know how hard it is to find bloomers these days?

It must be some sort of odd fascination. Like watching car accidents or something.

(OK, I confess. I like odd sites too. I like the CtoC Art Bell things. Rotton.com. The whole Traveler thing, ie. Resurrection Auto Parts. And sites about Janet Airways and other Area 51 things...)

:-)

...don't give me any urls to go to, you know I will! lol

Janet Airways:
http://www.lazygranch.com/janair.htm

Resurrection Auto Parts:
http://resurrectionautoparts.com/
(Now, you pretty much have to have read "The Traveler" to get what this fake site is about. Also, the controversy about if the author of "The Traveler" really lives off the grid, etc.)

Heart Attack Grill (one of my favorites, and not a fake site):
http://heartattackgrill.com/

And finally for tonight, "Eyes Wide Shut" tinfoil hat stuff:
http://ellisctaylor.homestead.com/eyeswideshut.html

Enjoy...(but you didn't hear it from me...)
:toast:

Sorry but my alarm bells are ringing big time.

I've worked as a grant writer for living history museums - unless the "Little House on the Prairie" style of clothes is accompanied by an explanation of how this clothing restricted girls/women of the era, I am appalled to see it getting re-created as a valid clothing choice for 2007.

That was only 25 years ago. Admittedly, I was eccentric as a little girl, but I would have ripped off my right arm and beat myself with it for that yellow dress and the *~*~*controversial*~*~* nightgown. And nevermind the Christian/modesty angle, I think the clothes on that site are cute for little girls (while they can still be little girls, anyway -- it actually makes me sad about how status symbols are pushed on kids at a younger and younger age).

If you want to see a hardcore (heh) custom modest clothing site, you need look no further than http://www.modestapparelchristianclothinglydiaofpurpledressescustomsewing.com -- one just has to doff their cap to the domain name alone...

a turd in the punchbowl, in the Texas heat and humuggity we have about 6 months outta the year.

I've seen guys running around in shorts and a windbreaker in the winter!!!

Then there's Halloween.

'Nuff said.

Pagans, sí, Christians, no -- ? I hope not.

Creepy is as creepy does. As long as the parents -- any parents -- aren't messing with their kids' hearts, minds, and bodies, then there's nothing wrong with it. Sexuality and its symbols at any age may seem creepy, but it's really only the involvement of power and/or mental illness that makes them creepy.

One or more of the pattern publishers (like Butterick) used to have a line of patterns that was similar to this line, and one of my childhood friends' mothers made a couple costumes for her daughters. The girls loved pretending they were in Little House On The Prairie. We studly young men couldn't understand it, being worldly-wise as only 4th and 5th graders are, but we accepted it. It was the chivalrous thing to do. And we had been warned that being nice to girls then would have beneficial effects in a few years.

Two and three years later, those admirers of Laura Ingalls Wilder were in hot pants and mini-skirts and wearing high-sheen lip gloss and looking to practice their kissing technique. I recall that there was saturation marketing of a line of cosmetics for scandalously young women called "Love's Baby Soft". We young men were encouraged to cultivate a crop of facial hair and tell our female classmates that they were pretty and smelled good and to avoid begging them for sex.

"It was a simpler time ..."

Those shameless young hussies are in their late 40s by now with kids of their own -- a few have a grandchild or two. Ditto for us one-time young dudes. Oh, yeah, life goes on, long after the thrill of livin' is gone.

:evilgrin:

--p!