Infant clothing

Infant and toddler clothing size is typically based on age.[1] These are usually preemie for a preterm birth baby, 0 to 3 months, 3 to 6 months, 6 to 9 months, 9 to 12 months, 12 months, 18 months, and 24 months, though there is no industry standard definition for those sizes.[1] Most retailers provide sizing charts based on a child's weight, height, or both, and the child's weight and height percentile may also be used for properly sizing clothing for the infant.[1]

In an article in the October 1945 issue of Ladies' Home Journal, B. F. Skinner stated that clothing and bedding "interfere with normal exercise and growth and keep the baby from taking comfortable postures or changing posture during sleep".[2] An infant may stretch, necessitating clothing that is sufficiently loose to allow movement.[3]

Comfort, mobility and ease of access are major aspects of modern baby clothes. In Western countries babies typically wear bodysuits and babygrows (known in American English by various names such as sleepers or footies.) If it is warm enough, these might be sufficient for both daytime and nightwear, supplemented by bibs for feeding time. For cooler weather and more formal occasions, they might become underwear beneath outfits more comparable to those worn by adults. While these outer clothes often feature child-friendly images such as cartoons, for especially formal occasions such as weddings infants might wear scaled down adult styles such as mini-tuxedos.

Snaps or zip fastenings have become more popular because they are easier to use than traditional buttons. Due to babies' soft skin, one of the more important attributes to look for in infant and baby clothing is that the clothes are soft and not rough. Soft baby clothes made from organic cotton or eco-friendly materials are becoming more popular. There are even infant clothes now made with bamboo rayon fibres which are marketed as being breathable and soft to the touch.

Marie Antoinette and her Children by Élisabeth Vigée-Lebrun

A photo of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1884, illustrating typical gender-neutral baby clothing at the time.

In the past centuries, Baby Fashion assumed distinctive features between social classes. Dresses had a powerful potential in displaying social distinction. In general Baby Fashion was exploited by the high classes, or the so-called elite, to traduce symbols of power, wealth, richness. Children's appearance was useful to represent the family's position in society. While, on the other side, the working classes were not involved in this kind of practice, since clothes should have been practical and not expensive. It must be remembered that in the feudal society, as in the industrial society, children worked as well as adults.

The symbolic value of Baby Fashion between high classes and the nobility was not only a western peculiarity. For example, in some African or oriental countries, colors and shapes took particular importance, while Western elites concentrated on fabrics and precious materials. But probably Western European Fashion put a stronger stress on the representation of social position through clothing; in fact, this practice became customary already in the late 13th century. Family paintings and portraits were very common between the European high classes, so today we have plenty of examples of ancient Baby Fashion features. A particular characteristic of ancient Baby Fashion is the absence of marked gender distinctions between young children. After a certain age, girls were painted in big gowns, and boys in trousers, or commonly military uniforms. But before they reached ten years of age, usually, children were represented wearing gowns, no matter if they are boys or girls. The symbols of wealth and power are translated by these rich dresses, with huge gowns full of trims, ornaments, and embroidered details. This kind of style developed in the Spanish Court in the 14th century and became common also in other Catholic Countries like Italy or France. This rich style makes very difficult, almost for a modern observer, to recognize boys from girls. Many examples come from the 17th and 18th century European Court, where family paintings where very important expressions of power. In France, Elizabeth Vigée-Lebrun's paintings represented young Mary Antoinette's children, and the younger Queen's son is dressed in a white, soft, traditional gown and coif.

In the United States, before the 1890s children predominantly wore clothing made by their parents.[4] By 1910, retailers had formed a "publicity structure" toward children for the sale of children's goods, which resulted in a significant increase in the sale of manufactured children's clothing, sportswear, candy, and baby clothing.[4] By 1915, baby clothing had become one of the nation's largest industries.[4]

In the 1980s, infant and toddler clothing fashion design became an increasing source of revenue for US designer labels and fashion design houses, such as Polo Ralph Lauren and Guess.[5] Gap Inc. established Baby Gap in 1990, four years after it had introduced the Gap Kids line.[6]

The age of first-time mothers has been increasing in Western cultures, from 21.5 years old in 1970 to over 25 years old in the early 2000s, and hence they have more disposable income to spend for infant goods, including clothing.[7]

Infant clothing is within the retail and wholesale trade categories of the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). For the 2012 revision, wholesale infant clothing is in category 424330 (Women's, Children's, and Infants' Clothing and Accessories Merchant Wholesalers)[8] and retail infant clothing is in category 448130 (Children's and Infants' Clothing Stores).[9]

Clothes have long been used to hide sexual differences in their strong biological sense and, at the same time, to point up and signal it through assumptions concerning gender in clothing codes. The manner in which an infant is dressed "affects behavior toward the infant".[10] Clothing may be sex-typed by color (e.g. - pink or yellow for girls, blue or red for boys), or by style (ruffles and puffed sleeves for girls).[10] If children's clothes, in the past, were used to differentiate those belonging to rich families from those coming from poor ones, today's clothes are a symbol of gender differentiation.

A 1985 study found that US parents were not "bothered by strangers' mistaking the infant's sex".[10]

Gender is a way in which social practices are ordered. In the gender differentiation process, the everyday conduct of life is organized in relation to biological differences, defined by the bodily structures and processes of human reproduction. Bodies are therefore both agents and objects of practice. Such body-reflexive practices that define the social structure are not internal to the individual, but they involve social relations and shared symbolism.

They may well involve large-scale social institutions. Within this body structured practices, particular versions of femininity and masculinity are materialized as meaningful bodies and embodied meanings. Through body-reflexive practices and through the biological division of human bodies into male and female, more than individual lives are formed: a social world is formed, modeled on the basis of gender stereotypes. [11]

Speaking about baby fashion, it is important to stress the consumerism that is behind all of this. Buying infant clothing is becoming more and more a phenomenon of fashion so that, since they are mainly bought by parents, sometimes the purchasing action is brought to an upper level through the objectification of the child. In fact, it can happen that they are adopted as a means to demonstrate the capability of their family to follow the most recent fashions. When clothes are used in a way that differs from the norm, this can attract attention and provoke reactions.[14] This affirmation is supported by the many practices that define today's society and that highlight a current phenomenon: the sexualization of the child.

Excessive thermal insulation has been associated with an increased incidence of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). The primary causes are an excess of bedding or clothing, soft sleep surfaces, and stuffed animals.[17] The odds ratio of SIDS associated with thermal insulation at least two togs above the lower critical value (after adjusting for the season and confounding factors) was 1.35 in a New Zealand study, which also found that SIDS had some correlation with too little thermal insulation.[18] A 1984 study of 34 infant cot deaths found that for 2/3 excessive clothing and over-wrapping was a contributing cause.[19]

Clothing was responsible for an increased incidence of congenital hip dislocation (CDH) in Japanese infants. By custom, a diaper and clothing had been applied to the infants "with the legs in extension".[20] Before 1965, the incidence of CDH in infants was up to 3.5%, but a national campaign established in 1975 "to avoid prolonged extension of the hips and knees of infants during the early postnatal period" led to a reduction in the incidence of CDH in infants to 0.2% by the early 1980s.[21]

Fire hazard

Close-fitting nightwear is "invariably safer than long, loose nightwear".[22]

Canada prohibits the importation, sale, or advertising of classes of clothing and other consumer products that do not meet the minimum flammability standards.[23] Standards for infant and children's sleepwear were defined in 1971 and amended in 1987 as part of the Hazardous Products Act.[23] Any textile product must also satisfy textile labeling requirements specified in the Textile Labelling Act administered by the Competition Bureau of Industry Canada.[23]

In the United States, textile flammability is subject to the U.S. Flammable Fabrics Act. A study found that children less than five years old had a higher incidence of sleepwear fires than other age groups and that they had an "unreasonable risk of death or injury from fire accidents involving sleepwear".[24] This led to the first flammability standard for infant and children's sleepwear.[24] On 30 April 1996, the Consumer Product Safety Commission relaxed standards for children's sleepwear flammability, allowing retailers to sell "tight-fitting children's sleepwear and sleepwear for infants aged 9 months or younger" that does not meet the flammability criteria.[25]

An infant clothing retail shop in the old town of Čakovec, Croatia.

• Breeching (boys)
• Infant bodysuit
• Shortcoating
• Swaddling clothes

• https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2009/07/baby-clothing-what-to-look-for-and-avoid/index.htm. Missing or empty |title= (help)

• Bailey, Reg. Letting children be children. Report of an Independent Review of the Commercialisation and Sexualisation of Childhood. Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Education by Command of Her Majesty, June 2011;
• Bogt & Rutger C. M. E. Engels & Sanne Bogers &Kloosterman. Shake It Baby, Shake It: Media Preferences, Sexual Attitudes and Gender Stereotypes Among Adolescents. Sex Roles; 63; pp. 844–859; 2010;
• Bragg; Buckingham; Russel; Willet. Too much, too soon? Children, ‘sexualization’ and consumer culture. Sex Education, Sexuality, Society and Learning;
• Callahan, Colleen, and Jo B. Paoletti. Is It a Girl or a Boy? Gender Identity and Children's Clothing. Richmond, Va.: The Valentine Museum, 1999;
• Cherney; London. Gender-linked differences in the toys, television shows, computer games and outdoor activities of 5- to 13-year-old children. Sex Roles 54; pp. 717–726; 2006;
• Connell, Raewyn. Quality of human resources: gender and indigenous – Quality Gender, men and masculinities.
• Connell, Raewyn. Questioni di genere. Il Mulino; 2009; pp. 167–168
• Johnson, Charlotte. An infant's clothing-swaddle, gown, shirt and coif. Atlanta kingdom arts and science festival, March 2006;
• Klepp; Storm-Mathisen. Reading Fashion as Age: Teenage Girls' and Grown Women's Accounts of Clothing as Body and Social Status. Fashion Theory, The Journal of Dress, Body and Culture;
• Leinbach; Hort (University of Oregon); Fagot (University of Oregon and Oregon social learning center). Bears are for boys: metaphorical associations in young children's gender stereotypes. Cognitive development; 12; pp. 107–130; 1997;
• Twigg. Clothing, identity and the embodiment of age. In Powell and Gilbert “Aging and identity: a postmodern dialogue”, Nova Science publisher, New York, 2009;
• Wright, revised by Constance Kratzer. Clothing hints for young children. Mexico State University, department of agriculture operating;

• Barraclough Paoletti, Jo (2012). Pink and Blue: Telling the Boys from the Girls in America. Indiana University Press. ISBN 9780253001177. LCCN 2011039889.
• Reeves, Wilson A.; Barker, Robert H. (1977). "Fire‐resistant apparel fabrics". CRC Critical Reviews in Environmental Control. 8 (1–4): 91–100. doi:10.1080/10643387709381659. ISSN 0007-8999.
• Stanwick, Richard S. (1985). "Clothing burns in Canadian children". Canadian Medical Association Journal. 132 (10): 1143–1149. PMC 1345939. PMID 3995433.
• Wilson, CA; Taylor, BJ; Laing, RM; Williams, SM; Mitchell, EA (December 1994). New Zealand Cot Death Study Group. "Clothing and bedding and its relevance to sudden infant death syndrome: Further results from the New Zealand Cot Death Study". Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health. 30 (6): 506–512. doi:10.1111/j.1440-1754.1994.tb00722.x. PMID 7865263.