Tights

Although I love picking up clothing for the girls, I often say that the only clothing items I begrudge are tights. Maybe it is the fact that Gracie tears hers to shreds, either by climbing around in them or with her bare hands, but it pains me to buy tights. The purchase immediately adds an extra $10-25 per outfit. I return to the question I have had since the girls were born. Why do tights cost as much as a pair of pants?

Imagine my shock and dismay earlier this week when I saw this Today feature about designer hosiery. The gist of the article is that a pair of designer socks is on the market for $500, while Stella McCartney (lace) and Oscar de la Renta (cashmere/silk) have tights available for $625 and $990, respectively. We are talking about hosiery. We are not discussing a classic suit or a well-made coat that one might own for a decade-plus. TIGHTS! We are talking about tights!

I am aghast by the entire prospect. This is normally how the fashion industry successfully shocks consumers into accepting a $12 pair of tights at Gap (not crazy about the new logo, by the way). Suddenly, if we have knowledge that someone out there might be dropping a grand on hosiery, we might not complain about the cost of children's tights at Target. But, as for me, I will still complain -- bitterly, in fact -- as will everyone I know. I may even fantasize about substituting leggings or jeggings (gasp!) under my children's casual dresses and skirts instead of costly and highly disposable tights*.

*Probably an empty threat.