Mock On

I really love Sock Ons. They do what they say on the tin: keep baby’s socks on. (Trust me, this is quite an achievement.) Also, the “Dribble Ons” from the same company make excellent bibs for dribbly babies. Both products are available in a whole rainbow of colours, a cheery change from boring baby pastels. So I was surprised and sad to find that their “Moc Ons” (baby slipper-socks) are only available in two stereotypes:

Screenshot from www.sockons.com showing "Moc Ons" page

Can a baby change its spots?

“Little girls will look super stylish and snuggly in spotty pink Mocc Ons, while blue zebra stripes will give baby boys the trendiest feet around.”

So boys get an active animal print (in blue, of course) while girls get unthreatening, passive, “snuggly” pink polka-dots. Why not a black-and-white zebra print — like, you know, an actual zebra — for boys or girls? If the two colours had to be pink and blue, would blue polka-dots have been too girly for boys? But even asking these questions is buying into the nonsense at one level; what I really want to know is: why does sex have to dictate choice of socks?