GEN-XS: Designer Kids

US Weekly ran a recent photograph of Angelina Jolie and her daughter Zahara toting mommy and me matching Valentino handbags (image to the right). Although this is sweetly reminiscent of Laura Ashley or Lily Pulitzer mother-daughter matching dress ensembles, something is awry. If this is not absurd enough in and of itself, what exactly does a three-year-old toddler tote inside of an eleven hundred dollar handbag? A credit card or cell phone seems unlikely, although a diaper seems plausible. We have a child who may not even be potty-trained carrying a bag most adults cannot afford. This trend has attracted many high-end labels including Missoni, Little Marc for Marc Jacobs, Chloe, Alberta Ferreti, D&G and Burberry. Marketers and designers hope they are gaining a young and lifelong loyal customer. While the idea may be profitable and cute, are designers doing youth a favor or causing long-term damage?

Both W magazine and Wall Street Journal have had recent articles about the social repercussions of children wearing designer duds. Dorothy Espelage, a psychologist and professor at the University of Illinois, states having access to designer clothing affords some kids, "the opportunity to become popular and that protects you and gives you social power and leverage over others.” This statement may have some truth, but it also can cause children to lack social skills and lean on fashion as a crutch. It creates a false sense of self-worth based on “what I wear defines who I am.” Related to this are the potential problems of an impressionable psyche. Alexandra Barzvi, a clinical psychologist at NYU points out that, “A girl who starts in a regularly partaking of idea of expensive creations, even on a loan basis, might emerge into adulthood with warped idea of value….The more you're exposed to something, the more accustomed you become to it, the more desensitized to it you become." Children lack the appreciation for the cost of the things they own. As adults we know financial security is not foolproof and we all realize it is easier to upgrade than downgrade. Supplying kids with belongings they may or not be able to afford for a lifetime is setting them up for disappointment. Part of this social repercussion has been titled “the mean girl effect” from Lindsay Lohan’s famous movie Mean Girls about catty high school students. The Wall Street Journal reported, “In one study, more than one-third of middle-school students responded “yes” when asked whether they are bullied because of the clothes they wear.” Kids who should be learning social skills are learning that it is essential to have a closet full of the “right” or designer clothing to be popular. This idea is further being perpetuated by magazines such as Teen Vogue who regularly photograph clothing from designers such as Roberto Cavalli, Dsquared and Marc Jacobs. These labels are intended to be worn by adult’s not middle-school age children.

There are other issues. Children and teens that wear adult clothing are denied a rite of passage to adulthood that comes from reaching physical maturity. Wearing designer clothes at 13 destroys the mystique very early on, so by 35 there is little thrill left. What can be left to look forward to? High-end clothing is a status symbol that implies the adult has earned the means to buy the clothing. It is a reward of sort. Children cannot appreciate the cost of the clothing and or what it really represents although they will get the underlying lesson, entitlement. Children’s clothing should be designed for children because they spill, get grass stains, stomp in puddles, lose things (even purses) and grow. Yes, they are literally your darling spitting image, so they need to be dressed accordingly in something absorbent and washable. There are reasons that cashmere, silk and tight tailoring is not found in children’s clothing. These fabrics cannot handle the stains or wear and tear children inevitably produce and tailoring just plain makes summersaults uncomfortable.

Vanessa Lawrence of W magazine ran a piece, “Underage Fashion,” on young Hollywood starlets and their access to high-end label clothing. The article mentions up and coming stars Emma Watson, age fourteen and sixteen year old Emma Roberts who cite Chanel as their favorite brand. After the article ran, Emma Watson (image to the right) was tapped as the new face of Chanel. Lawrence thinks, “ This might seem ironic to some considering that the label is based on an image and price tags that seem notably aspirational and unreachable to women.” Fashion houses are trying a new tactic that might need rethinking. They are building relationships with young starlets with superstar potential hoping that the loyal star will wear their clothing to premieres and galas throughout their career. While this is good in theory, the problem is wealthy and sophisticated Chanel wearers no more want to see a 14 year wear the label, than a teenager wants to see her mother in low slung jeans and a T-shirt. These young women look their age and appear to be playing dress-up in their mother’s clothes. It’s sad they are missing the clothing choices advisable only during adolescence in favor of dressing as a sophisticated older woman. High-end designer clothing for children or young teens is the most in-your-face form of consumerism. With 14 year olds in Chanel and $250 jeans on five year olds, GenX, will soon be followed by Generation XS (excess).