I bought shoes from a man with one leg
I recently bought a pair of loafers from a man with a prosthetic leg.
How do I know this? Good question. I never met him. I never saw him. I bought the shoes on eBay, used. But I am almost certain he has one leg.
I love finding an old, vintage Brooks Brothers sport coat. One that was made before we landed on the moon.
As soon as I took them out of the box I realized there was something off. The left loafer had natural creases on the top of the shoe. You know, the creases that form as you walk and your foot bends. These were used shoes, and this is normal. The right loafer, however, had none of these natural creases. The top of the shoe looked essentially new.
I put them on, and my suspicions were validated only more. The right loafer fit a bit tighter than the left. It felt like it hadn’t been worn. It felt new. You know that feeling, don’t you? Stiff. Tight. It takes a while for shoes to get broken in. The right loafer hadn’t been broken in at all. I also noticed there was less wear on the very back of the right sole.
All of this corroborated my theory. The right loafer was worn on a prosthetic foot, which wouldn’t be bending the same way a fully functioning foot does. The shoe thusly wouldn’t be broken in. Rolling forward on the back of the heel with all of one’s weight, as you do when you walk, wouldn’t be happening, either.
All of this comes together to perfectly explain the asymmetrical state of the used penny loafers I bought on eBay. They were worn by a man with a prosthetic leg.
I put a shoe stretcher in the right loafer for a day or two. It stretched out enough so that it came fairly close to matching the size of the left. After a few weeks of regular wear, the discrepancy between the left and the right was all but gone.
This whole saga is exactly what I love about thrifting and buying used stuff on eBay. It’s not just the great price. The ability to find incredible deals on clothing you wouldn’t normally be able to afford is a wonderful thing, but what I love about thrifting is more than just the price tag.
It’s not just the vintage element, either. Excavating forgotten styles that are practically impossible to find off the rack is a total gas, but there is still something more.
It’s the story. It’s the unique thing that can’t be bought. It’s what you can’t get when you buy something brand new.
I love that these shoes have some strange backstory. I love that I can’t know it, either. I suppose I could reach out to the seller and ask about this discrepancy and try to pry some information. But how boring would that be? Where is the mystery in that? Where is the fun? It’s much better to try to piece it all together the old-school way. A little mystery is fun.
I love finding an old, vintage Brooks Brothers sport coat. One that was made before we landed on the moon. Standing at my closet, looking at the tag that’s been ripped a little. The wearing around the elbows, the name written on the inside pocket. I stand there and wonder who he was. How often did he wear this jacket? Was this a workhorse, or did it wait in a closet most of its life? Is he alive anymore? Maybe not. Probably not. A dead man’s jacket. Now, my jacket.
When you buy something new, the story starts with you. There isn’t really anything human before that point. Even if the piece was handmade, it’s just business. But the presence of some other story — a story you will never know for certain — wrapped up in the piece adds human depth. Some kind of connection with someone else. Even if you never see him, there is something shared. In our inhuman world of throwaway culture, there is something really refreshing about it.
Maintaining and sustaining something feels good. Deep down, in our heart, it feels right. The old jacket that was sewn long before you were born. The tie that’s as old as you are. Keeping those things alive and carrying them through the decades is humanizing. It feels like we are reaching back into time, grabbing something physical, and then bringing it forward into our world today.
Do I know beyond a reasonable doubt that my loafers were worn by a man with a prosthetic leg? No. I will never know for sure. But I think they were, and that’s the story I am sticking to. It makes them unique. It gives them a backstory. It makes them special in a peculiar little way. It makes me love them more. That’s the great thing about thrifting.
Against women wearing pants
Without a notion of absolute virtue, conservatism is an ideology of relativism. All it seeks to conserve is the latest acceptable standard.
It is the act of drawing a line in the sand. When liberals manage to “wash” that line away, conservatives will “redraw” that line wherever it feels the least painful for them.
Women fought to wear pants, and not because pants make them feel pretty.
We can see this with cross-dressing.
A century ago it was considered "cross-dressing" for a woman to wear pants. No longer.
In one more century, I suspect it will no longer be considered "cross-dressing" for a conservative Christian man to wear a dress. In fact, I doubt the concept of “cross-dressing” will even exist.
Pantsuit nation
Here is why I believe this.
In America, it wasn't legal for women to wear pants in public until 1923, because it was considered wrong for a woman to wear men’s clothing (and vice versa).
This idea was influenced by the Old Testament verse Deuteronomy 22:5: “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.”
The belief that pants are masculine-coded has persisted into the 21st century.
The first woman to wear pants for a portrait in the White House was Hillary Clinton in 2004. The first woman to wear pants in the Senate was in 1989.
Still, women were not permitted to wear pants on the U.S. Senate floor until two female senators defiantly entered wearing pants in 1993 and forced the rule to be amended later that year.
It is still widely considered inappropriate for a woman to wear pants to church, funerals, weddings, and court, although this is slowly becoming less true. Many airlines didn’t drop their requirements for feminine uniforms until 2012-2016. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints only began allowing its women missionaries to wear pants in 2017.
Skirting the issue
The “fight” to wear pants has mostly been pushed by feminist-type personalities. Nonetheless, many women who consider themselves neither liberals nor feminists avoid wearing dresses if they can at all help it.
These women are usually the ones most offended at the idea that wearing pants is inherently masculine. They might argue that such a notion is antiquated, especially now that pants are cut in feminine styles that complement a woman's body. (For them, perhaps; I’ve never found a pair of jeans to flatter my hips.)
They may further argue, in a strange sort of "gotcha," that there's no such thing as cross-dressing at all. "Dress codes" for men and women shift depending on the time and the place.
There are other (non-Western) cultures in which a woman wears pants. Men used to wear tunics. Not only that, men used to wear lace, high heels, and makeup, and now all those things are feminine.
However, women did not fight for the right to wear lace or high heels.
Trouser envy
Women fought to wear pants, and not because pants make them feel pretty. Women wanted to be like men and to wear what men wore, and liberal women have no issue admitting this. This only offends conservative women who want to judge men for wearing dresses.
Even to this day, if a woman wants to look extra feminine, she reaches for a dress. If she is feeling like a “tomboy,” or she just wants to be “practical,” “simple,” and not show off that she’s a woman, she wears pants.
Inherently, we all know that pants are not queenly or princess-like.
I believe what’s most interesting about the how fashion has changed is how default neutral-gendered clothing has morphed. Femininity was once the default neutral gender, while men wore over-the-top fashion statements. Babies wore gowns (feminine).
Now the default neutral-gender clothing is masculine, and babies wear sleepers (masculine) instead of gowns (feminine). Where the default was “robes” for everyone, it’s now “pants” for everyone. Where there might once have been more things that a woman shouldn’t wear, there are now more things that a man ought not to wear if he doesn’t want society accusing him of “cross-dressing.”
One could argue this is a result of progress. Fashion changes. The expectations for the different sexes have changed. Perhaps this is not a bad thing, but it does become a complicated matter when only a man is at risk of cross-dressing but anything a woman wears is beyond reproach.
The same conservative women who think nothing of wearing jeans become quite angry at the sight of a man in a dress. For now.
I speculate that unless we make a full return to femininity, it will be normal for men to wear whatever they want, just as women already do, and that there will be no such thing as cross-dressing.
Perhaps the first step will be rejecting the greatest lie feminism sold women: that femininity is oppressive or restrictive. We find true strength in embracing our womanhood, not rejecting it.
I, for one, will be putting our sons in pants and our daughters in dresses. The differences between men and women are God-given and timeless; I believe in choosing clothing that reflects this.
Dressing clean? How what you wear can drastically improve your health
I've always been skeptical of "fitness."
Health, I understand. When I was single, I never ate out and generally avoided processed foods. And now that I am married, I make our meals from scratch with wholesome ingredients. We walk a lot.
I have friends who believed they were intolerant to gluten until they stopped wearing polyester. Now they can enjoy bread without issues.
In other words, we try to maintain our health — the fundamental well-being of our bodies, minds, and souls.
But to me the word "fitness" often points to just another way to objectify the human body — to see it as a tool. Fit for what? For being a model? For being more attractive as a wife and more efficient as a mother?
We should eat less and exercise more, the books and videos tell us.
Doing so will regulate our hormones and make everybody love us more. We'll get a slimmer waistline and stronger arms. We'll be "sexier" and "healthier," and we'll feel good about it. We'll eat more protein. We'll invest in gym equipment. We'll start taking supplements and maybe selling them — as long as we're achieving peak health, we might as well make a little money off our friends!
And we'll go through diet after diet. The average woman will try around 126 over the course of her life. Why? Because many women just can't make diets work for them. They find that those last few pounds are impossible to lose, or they realize that their obsession with what they can't eat makes them anything but sexy or attentive. Their bodies are stressed, and their hormones suffer for it.
But all this focus on what we put in our bodies leads us to ignore something just as important — what we put on our bodies.
Diet culture is too neurotic to figure out that it needs a simpler, more holistic approach. After the chapter on "The Waist-Friendly Pantry" should come the chapter on "The Hormone Stabilizer Wardrobe."
How you dress affects how you feel perhaps just as much as what you eat. I have friends who believed they were intolerant to gluten until they stopped wearing polyester. Now they can enjoy bread without issues.
Unpleasant, sour body odor is also often the result of wearing synthetic fabrics, which keep your pores from breathing and trap moisture against your skin. Dressing in natural fibers can be a big improvement.
How you dress affects how you feel about yourself -- but it goes well beyond taking pride in your appearance. Wearing synthetic clothes is like eating McDonald's, packaging and all — it's just that it enters your body via your skin instead of your stomach.
The quality of your clothing will influence your hormones, emotions, and overall health. Not only can changing your wardrobe eliminate gluten intolerance and body odor, you might also find yourself having fewer migraines, rashes, and food sensitivities, as well as less bloating.
A wardrobe overhaul doesn't have to be expensive. With a little planning, it can end up costing you less than any prospective diet. Even if you can't sew your own garments, you can find plenty of wool, linen, and cotton clothing at thrift stores and on Facebook marketplace.
And you don't have to do it all at once. You can start with one or two linen dresses — try them for a week and just see how much better you feel. Once you understand the impact a few inexpensive, natural-fiber garments can have on your health and happiness, you'll never look back.
Something Kids Want, Need, Wear, And Read: Your Go-To Guide For Abiding By The Four-Gift Rule
The four-gift rule ensures that the kids in your life receive a wide variety of presents that won’t turn into closet clutter by January.Abercrombie & Filth: Inside a predator’s playground
Some predators hide in plain sight, shocking those around them when their crimes are finally revealed. Others give off subtle — and not-so-subtle — clues that something is deeply amiss.
Former Abercrombie & Fitch CEO Mike Jeffries, arrested on sex trafficking and interstate prostitution charges last week, falls squarely in the latter category.
Victims were reportedly subjected to horrific experiences, including being injected with liquid Viagra by men dressed in Abercrombie uniforms.
During his time at the helm of the iconic American brand, Jeffries pursued a relentlessly hyper-sexualized marketing strategy built around homoerotic imagery and a cult-like worship of half-naked teens.
As this fetishization of youthful innocence intensified, Jeffries' face — like a reversal of Oscar Wilde's "The Picture of Dorian Gray" — seemed to bear witness to his depravity. A nightmarish regimen of fillers and plastic surgery turned the blandly handsome executive into a grotesque parody of the ideal Abercrombie customer.
As one Reddit wag put it, "He looks like he was bobbing for apples in a bucket of bees."
Epstein redux
The revelations surrounding Jeffries mirror the monstrous abuses of Jeffrey Epstein, with the former CEO reportedly using his power to orchestrate a calculated pattern of sexual exploitation. Like Epstein, Jeffries also had a private jet.
The indictment paints a grim picture. Specifically, an international sex trafficking ring as part of which Abercrombie’s brand was weaponized to lure and trap vulnerable young men, exploiting their ambitions with false promises of professional opportunities.
From 2008 to 2015, Jeffries, along with his partner Matthew Smith and employee James Jacobson, allegedly ran this operation with impunity all while exerting tight control over the company.
This was both a full-time operation and a depraved hobby.
Final sale
Witness accounts and legal filings describe a sordid quest for sexual gratification, with Jeffries and Smith luring young men with lavish trips to luxurious destinations in Europe, the Hamptons, and Morocco.
Once there, theses victims were reportedly subjected to horrific experiences, including being injected with liquid Viagra by men dressed in Abercrombie uniforms — agents of Jeffries who served more as enforcers than employees.
One Los Angeles man recounted being coerced into Jeffries’ hotel suite and enduring unwanted sexual advances that escalated to forced acts despite his repeated attempts to say no.
Jeffries headed Abercrombie from 1992 until 2014, turning it into one of the most successful clothing brands of the new millennium and generating massive profits for the company. Given the brazenness of Jeffries alleged behavior, the frantic efforts of current Abercrombie leadership to distance themselves from the scandal ring hollow.
It’s delusional to think Jeffries and his accomplices acted completely under the radar. His predatory actions were fueled by a culture of silence, sustained by a network of enablers who willfully ignored the abuse. As in Epstein's case, powerful people could have intervened and stopped the abuse. They simply chose not to.
J Cruel
Jeffries’ control of Abercrombie extended far beyond the brand’s image. That he even dictated the attire and behavior of his private jet staff reveals a tyrant detached from reality, consumed by his own twisted desires.
Jeffries' dictatorial rule went unchallenged for years — and no doubt would've continued had he continued to deliver. His downfall was not the result of a reckoning for his crimes but a response to declining sales and changing cultural attitudes that made his vision unsustainable.
But the issue, I suggest, goes far beyond Jeffries himself. This is a story of a brand culture that fostered tyranny and silenced dissent, one that thrived on reducing people to their body fat percentages.
Abercrombie’s entire aesthetic — a fixation on youth, beauty, and chiseled abs — was built on a foundation of control and exploitation. The implications of this culture are not isolated to one corrupt CEO but extend to an entire industry, where the commodification of innocence creates an environment ripe for abuse.
More precisely, the abuse of children.
Bait and Fitch
A recent Stop The Traffik report highlights the broader reality of the modeling industry, where hopes and dreams are weaponized by traffickers and predators.
In countries like Colombia, Ethiopia, and Russia, assurances of a glamorous lifestyle are used to bait young, impoverished individuals into exploitative situations. Promises of modeling careers quickly become coercive, trapping victims in cycles of manipulation and sexual exploitation.
The entire industry is run by multi-millionaires and billionaires, people with their own private security and private islands. People who, on the whole, play by a very different set of rules. Or no rules at all.
Dirty laundry
As we reflect on Abercrombie & Fitch’s dark legacy of sexualizing teens, it’s vital to remember that this culture was crafted by an immoral predator. Naturally, the company hopes you’ll forget. In fact, it’s banking on it.
Rather incredibly, retail analysts suggest the brand's campaign to memory hole its sleazy past is working. Newer customers are too young to remember while older ones seem to have accepted Abercrombie's reinvention into something more muted and mature.
But no amount of rebranding can erase the reality that Abercrombie didn’t just enable Mike Jeffries — it rewarded him handsomely. It wasn’t merely a matter of giving a platform to a possible psychopath (and I don’t use that term lightly); Abercrombie empowered and enriched him while turning a blind eye to his behavior.
For all its attempts to exorcise the memory of Jeffries, the company will forever be tied to a man whose degeneracy nearly destroyed it. The exploitation of kids wasn’t an accident — it was the business model. Jeffries was the architect, and Abercrombie was his enabler.
And that’s a legacy you can’t wash away.
Style for mini-men: How to dress little boys
Last week, I wrote about the joy of dressing little girls; this one's for the boys.
The basic principles remain: If Kate Middleton wouldn’t choose it for her George, it’s probably not the best choice. That said, there’s no need to spend a fortune. It’s very easy to find classic silhouettes at affordable stores like the Children’s Place and secondhand stores like Once Upon a Child.
I think part of what makes Catherine’s decision-making so prudent is the ever-present thought of the future: These children will lead the Western world someday.
I wonder how my own decision-making about my kids (in every area) would improve if I more intentionally remembered the promise etched on my children’s hearts the day they were baptized, which is just as real: These children are future members of God’s kingdom.
They deserve to dress with beauty and dignity. Matching their socks is not the most important thing in the world, and it’s certainly not a moral issue, but it’s something I like to do. Maybe you do too.
Jon Jons/smocking
These are the male counterpart to the smocked bishop dress I mentioned for the girls. They are a lot like overalls but are usually a light, cotton fabric and smocked and embroidered across the chest.
I so enjoy picking out Jon Jons (and bishop dresses) with my kids’ favorite motifs. The girls have some with ballerinas, and my George has trucks, for example.
Another great part of these that I forgot to mention: Because they’re cotton, they wash very well! Dawn dish soap is my favorite degreaser and stain removal product. Just rub some in and let it set. Good as new, even for the most boisterous boys!
See: Pleats and Stitches, Feltman Brothers
Socks: Navy, white, or printed
I love calf-length or knee-length socks on boys. For boat shoes and boys’ Mary Janes, especially in the summer, they aren’t totally necessary, but I definitely don’t dress them for church, for example, without socks.
If you go for a patterned sock, make sure the rest of what he’s wearing isn’t too busy in the patterns and that the colors or motifs match.
See: Jeffries’ Socks
Shoes
For shoes for little boys, consider loafers, boat shoes, Oxford boots, or, again, Mary Janes. Oxfords are the most formal and cumbersome option here, but each go very well with Jon Jons, khakis, and the rest. I avoid suede because it simply isn’t resilient enough for my kids. Always match shoes and belts. You can’t go wrong with brown.
Shirts
As I type this, I realize it’s basically a guide for mini-men. There is nothing I like seeing my husband in more than a classic button-down. White, light blue, and stripes all work fabulously. For babies, the buttons may be too annoying, in which case you can find shirts with a Peter Pan collar, linked below.
Aim for cotton in various weights according to the season. Oxford shirts are made of thicker cotton than more formal dress shirts but still look sharp. They work extremely well in the cooler months.
See: Old Navy, The Children’s Place, Little English
Blazers
This is a Southern staple. I remember the day my brother was fitted for his first blazer at 8 years old. Dark navy with brass buttons is the move. I know some as young as 3 who show up to church in their blazer and khakis. Just delightful.
There’s no real need to tailor a 3-year-old’s blazer unless they have strange proportions. Try Poshmark for high-end brands at a discount.
See: J. Crew, Izod, Vineyard Vines
Pants: Chinos
Another classic. Needs no explanation. I love bright colors for the spring and summer. Anything will go with a navy blue blazer, but khakis are standard.
See: Vineyard Vines, Ralph Lauren, The Children’s Place
Sweaters
A winter essential that will make your Christmas card feel catalog-worthy. Baby boys in sweaters make my heart melt.
See: Ralph Lauren, Trotters, Kiel James Patrick
Ties
Is there anything more adorable than a baby in a bow tie? This is another area where I love to include family symbols or motifs that conform to the kids’ personalities. These are the things that end up in memory boxes and passed down to grandchildren. For that reason, I say buy the nice one. Clip-ons and pre-tied are just fine.
I know it’s the age of fashionable minimalism, but sometimes things are more meaningful than we can imagine. When our babies outgrow us, it’s nice to have tangible memories. Legacy lives in these little things; it’s even nicer to pass them on.
See: Land’s End, Izod
A former tomboy's guide to clothes for little girls
I’ve never been a “girly girl.” As a kid, I was the only girl on the baseball team. I preferred playing in the creek to prowling Limited Too.
Had I been born a decade later, and without the blessing of sensible parents, I imagine some meddling gender ideologue would have been more than happy to fix me up with some affirming "health care." A tomboy on the last helicopter out of Vietnam, it seems.
Classic silhouettes, smocking, and the appropriate underwear and outerwear make a solid foundation.
Like so many other girls, I eventually grew out of it and now take a keen interest in fashion. If you’ve been reading me for a while, you know I take a systematic — and frankly obsessive — approach. Now, dressing my kids is one of my favorite things to do. They’re the baby dolls I never played with as a child.
People often ask how I find things for them to wear. I do put considerable thought into this, and considering the inquiries, I thought it merited an essay.
Another reason: There are parts of kids’ fashion that have fallen out of our vocabulary. How are we to know them, let alone find them, if we cannot name them? The following enumerates all the basic elements of a female child’s wardrobe. It got long quickly, so my boys’ edition will follow next week.
This is how I dress my girls for Mass, parties, and nice outings. Not formal, not casual, but the nicer in-between that used to be standard. Southerners still understand, but it appears we may be the last.
The first principle for me, when it comes to basically anything: Would Catherine, princess of Wales, do it? No one dresses her children better. As Target and others have begun to normalize strangely suggestive clothing for children, this has proven a good rule of thumb. Classic silhouettes, smocking, and the appropriate underwear and outerwear make a solid foundation.
I created this image as a shorthand:
Without further ado, here is my guide to essentials for girls.
Bloomers
These are the underwear that go over diapers and regular underwear. They are opaque, often loose, with elastic ends, as well as ruffles. They allow your little one to play freely without exposing herself. I think they suit any young girl in a dress who is young enough to play on a playground.
For more casual wear, you can find “cartwheel shorts,” which are a lot like biker-length leggings. These seem to be a forgotten element of a child’s wardrobe, but I think they’re important. Opt for 100% linen or cotton for breathability and comfort.
See: Little English, Etsy
Tights
Summer is basically the only season my girls aren’t wearing tights. As soon as fall comes, and as long as the spring air is cool, I have so much fun experimenting with colors, patterns, and materials in tights. What may first spring to mind: the classic ballet-like nylon material, which I think are more suitable for children who are not crawling. Otherwise, opt for cotton or wool, depending on the season.
See: Jamie Kay, Little Stocking Company
Socks with ruffles
These are, again, a classic part of a girls’ wardrobe. They add whimsy! I prefer white cotton with lace ruffles.
See: Jeffries’ Socks, Little Stocking Company
Mary Jane shoes
These are the shoes you’d think of when you think “church shoes for girls” but didn’t know what they were called. You could easily get away with two pairs for an entire year: white leather for spring and summer, brown leather for fall and winter. However, I love the look of black patent leather for Christmastime.
See: Maisonette, Felix and Flora
Smocked/'bishop' dresses and 'bubbles'
Whenever my non-Southern friends see pictures of my kids from church, they ask: “What is that kind of dress called?”
Like so many of our traditions, this is distinctly Anglo: In the 18th century, through linguistic and fashion evolution, the word “smocks” was then used to name the large cotton or linen blouses worn as working garments by British peasants and farmers.
By extension, it also described the technique employed to create them. Smocking, that is, the method of meticulously pleating excess fabric (especially at the wrists, necklines, and bust), then fixing those pleats with embroidery, was an efficient way of reducing waste while maintaining elasticity and freedom of movement.
Although decorative, these geometrical or figurative embroideries were first and foremost functional. Peasants had to be comfortable and at ease in their clothes to perform physical tasks on farms and fields.
I like them because they are beautiful, made of natural fabrics, and comfortable to play in. Dresses obviously have open bottoms, and bubbles cinch around adorably chubby thighs. Look also for “Peter Pan collars.” You can often find great small businesses on Etsy.
See: Pleats and Stitches, Rosalina Baby Boutique
Cardigans
Again, a classic: sweaters that button in the front. Opt for white cotton in spring and summer and a deeper color like brown or maroon in fall and winter, in wool or a thicker cable knit.
I love the whimsy of embroidery; if you have any family symbols — such as bumblebees, in our case — this is a great opportunity to find and feature them. Style by buttoning the top two buttons and leaving the rest. Pull any collar on the garment underneath above the sweater and fold over.
Bows
The hair is the crowning element of your child’s outfit!
Some girls can’t stand the feeling of things in their hair, but I always make an effort to brush it, at least.
The cutest thing ever is to tie up their bangs on top of their head in a tiny elastic, then fasten an alligator clip, grosgrain bow onto the ponytail.
For very young babies, you want to make sure the alligator clip is covered in fabric, rather than the naked metal, which can tear their hair out if they pull on it. Grosgrain — a heavy, stiff ribbon of silk or nylon woven via taffeta weave using a heavy weft, which results in distinct transverse ribs — is the classic material for bows, but velvet or satin ribbons look beautiful, too, especially in the colder months.
Again, be sure to use these exact terms in your search, and expect prices to vary wildly. Final note: The bigger the bow, the better. At least where I come from.
Bonnets
This is truly old-school, and the kids grow out of it at about a year old, but there is nothing cuter, in my view, than a baby bonnet. I love lace.
See: Beaufort Bonnet, Feltman Brothers, Amazon
Notes, nice touches, and NO
Monograms are at home in the South, and I think they’re so cute for kids. Anything and everything can be monogrammed: the dress, the bow, the backpack, the sweater.
That said, aside from a monogram, I never buy my kids clothing with text on it, unless it’s a T-shirt or something for sport.
You can easily create a capsule wardrobe by purchasing all of these in the same color family. It may seem like a lot, but you can waste much more money buying things impulsively outside a system, especially when you feel like they have “nothing to wear.”
I like for my kids to match or at least rhyme in color, and nothing feels better than pulling up to a party as a unit. It’s cute.
Smocked dresses can be expensive, but I have found amazing luck in thrift stores like Kid to Kid or Once Upon a Child, which often sell $50 dresses for $10. I always buy shoes new, though.
North Face faces heat over sponsorship of overnight LGBT camp where kids perform in drag, explore sexuality
The North Face is again facing scrutiny, this time over its sponsorship of a non-straight camp where children engage in sexualized activities.
The American athletic clothing company is listed with Toms, Brooks, and Eno among the leading sponsors of Camp Brave Trails, a "fully accredited overnight summer camp specially designed for LGBTQ teens, ages 12-17" with campgrounds located in New York and Southern California.
The North Face has apparently been shelling cash and gear for the camp for years, noting in a June 2021 post that it was donating over $70,000 in LGBT-themed products to the camp.
According to the camp's website, children attending the camp bunk with 9-10 peers of the same age group, never divided by gender. Campers are "encouraged to spread their wings and make their own decisions" and told to anticipate a "strong expectation of maturity, kindness, consent, and compassion."
The Daily Wire highlighted how in an appearance on the "Kelly Clarkson Show," the camp's lesbian founders, Kayla Weissbuch and Jessica Weissbuch, stated, "All of our housing is genderless, bathrooms are genderless, we ask for names and pronouns from campers, and they can change them all they like."
Kayla Weissbuch noted further that the camp has a clothing closet so that children can explore their gender identity and "try and find, like, who they are and what feels good to them."
One camper told Clarkson, "I was able to perform, do drag, I was able to do ... so many activities."
One promotional video for the camp shows children dressing up in drag and putting on performances.
The camp makes no secret of these activities, stating on its website, "We bid farewell to gender-segregated spaces and activities, tossed aside arbitrary dress codes, and ensured our campers wouldn't have to justify or explain their identities."
"Campers also embark on a journey of self-discovery and learn more about the LGBTQ+ community through exclusive programs you'll only find at an LGBTQ+ camp," continued the write-up on the camp's website. "This includes identity-based groups, captivating drag shows and workshops, enlightening queer history lessons, and a fantastic clothing closet where you can explore gender expression or experiment with a new look."
Kayla Weissbuch made clear in a Forbes interview that the camp is not just about isolating children from parents and society in a place where they can stage drag shows and explore their sexual identities. It's also a means of weaponizing children in the culture war. She suggested that non-straight kids are an "overlooked resource" when it comes to fighting for so-called social justice.
"If we can hone in on that, these ripples will start to show," said Kayla Weissbuch. "It's all about creating and starting those ripples."
The North Face, which still categorizes its clothing in accordance with the sex binary, appears keen to continue creating ripples of its own with leftist propaganda.
Last year, the company courted controversy and calls for a boycott with an ad campaign featuring a transvestite inviting viewers to "come out ... in nature with us."
— (@)
Newsweek noted that while Bud Light was taking a financial beating over its marketing partnership with transvestite influencer Dylan Mulvaney, The North Face doubled down, writing, "We recognize the opportunity our brand has to shape the future of the outdoors and we want that future to be a more accepting and loving place."
The clothing brand is not just committed to pushing LGBT propaganda. It is also apparently captive to the strain of identitarianism that predominates on the left.
The Sun reported last month that the company offered customers a 20% discount if they agreed to suffer through an hour-long course on racial inclusion and "the unique challenges that people of color face when accessing the outdoors."
One critic noted that "the irony is that The North Face is implicitly acknowledging here that all its customers are white."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com
thefederalist.com