Walmart pulled a Halloween costume from its shelves. The costume in question was for toddler girls. Everything about the costume was a little girls delight. Lace, sequins, and colorful little ears on a hair accessory. The costume was adorable and it wasn’t the controversy. It was the name of the costume-Naughty Leopard. Parents were alarmed that a child’s costume was labeled in such a manner. Little girls should not have such a rushed entrance into the realm of sexuality. The name, in my opinion, is inappropriate. I do find it ironic that no-one has mentioned how gender expectation is all over this costume. The frilly lace, the sparkly sequins, the hot pink leopard print is all geared to attract a little girl’s attention. Lorber states “Gender signs and signals are so ubiquitous that we usually fail to note them-unless they are missing or ambiguous.” Parents became upset over wording and overlooked the obvious gender stereotype being placed on a toddler. It was automatically assumed that this costume was for a little girl. Not one individual in the public or the media saw the irony that the name more so then the actual costume, clearly aimed at girls, was the “problem”. I did see the irony. I also was amazed at how entrenched in our society gender has become. As a society we aren’t aware of how much gender is played out to each of us and how oblivious we are as it is occurring. I find the costume cute and wonder how many little girls will wear it. I also wonder if any little boys will wear it.