Showing posts with label Bratz dolls. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bratz dolls. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Update on Bratz nonsense
In response to the blog post A Message to Little Girls in which I gripe about Slutz...er, Bratz dolls, a friend pointed me toward a watchdog group called Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, specifically their info on sexualizing children. Well worth looking into.
Sunday, June 26, 2011
A message to little girls
When our girls were little, we never allowed Bratz dolls in our home. (Privately, my husband and I called them Slutz dolls.) The exception were a couple of toys that came in a McDonald’s Happy Meal which we allowed them to keep to illustrate our point of why these dolls were so loathsome – and these dolls were invariably the “bad guys” in all the kids’ imaginative games.
Of course now the girls are past the age of dolls, but they’ve grown up recognizing what it is about these dolls we don’t like: the emphasis on inappropriate clothing, the heavy makeup, the extraordinarily sexualized nature of a toy that teaches girls that their bodies are nothing more than tools for prurient purposes.
I don’t pay much attention to the toy market anymore, but for some reason I thought Bratz dolls had been discontinued. That’s why I was surprised to see a headline this morning for a CNN Money video titled Behind the Bratz Revamp. I guess the dolls are back on the market.
The video shows the mildly interesting procedure of how the prototype dolls get their hairstyles, makeup, and clothing. Okay, fine, whatever. But the narrator – who isn’t specified but presumably is one of the executives in the company – concluded with some startling words about the dolls. He said:
“They ARE edgier and we are not going to apologize for that. Actually they are going to become a little more edgier. The reason for it is frankly to give a message to little girls that you can express yourself, you can have self-confidence and do what you want, you’re not a second-class citizen.”
I wasn’t aware that girls were second-class citizens, and/or that to rise from the status of second-class citizen –- or to acquire self- confidence -– or to express yourself –- requires them to "do what they want." Since when does empowering girls mean they should dress like a tramp? Is this what feminism has taught us? Wow, what an accomplishment.
See, this is what I don’t “get” with modern society. The feminist movement has assured us that women are to be measured by their brains, nothing more. So why have these dolls proliferated in the last decade? Why can’t dolls be toys for little girls to practice their mothering instincts? Why are parents buying this crap for their daughters?
Of course now the girls are past the age of dolls, but they’ve grown up recognizing what it is about these dolls we don’t like: the emphasis on inappropriate clothing, the heavy makeup, the extraordinarily sexualized nature of a toy that teaches girls that their bodies are nothing more than tools for prurient purposes.
I don’t pay much attention to the toy market anymore, but for some reason I thought Bratz dolls had been discontinued. That’s why I was surprised to see a headline this morning for a CNN Money video titled Behind the Bratz Revamp. I guess the dolls are back on the market.
The video shows the mildly interesting procedure of how the prototype dolls get their hairstyles, makeup, and clothing. Okay, fine, whatever. But the narrator – who isn’t specified but presumably is one of the executives in the company – concluded with some startling words about the dolls. He said:
“They ARE edgier and we are not going to apologize for that. Actually they are going to become a little more edgier. The reason for it is frankly to give a message to little girls that you can express yourself, you can have self-confidence and do what you want, you’re not a second-class citizen.”
I wasn’t aware that girls were second-class citizens, and/or that to rise from the status of second-class citizen –- or to acquire self- confidence -– or to express yourself –- requires them to "do what they want." Since when does empowering girls mean they should dress like a tramp? Is this what feminism has taught us? Wow, what an accomplishment.
See, this is what I don’t “get” with modern society. The feminist movement has assured us that women are to be measured by their brains, nothing more. So why have these dolls proliferated in the last decade? Why can’t dolls be toys for little girls to practice their mothering instincts? Why are parents buying this crap for their daughters?
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Stupidity never ceases to amaze me
A reader sent this email in reference to my Poor Little Girl post. I thought I would highlight it here as a classic example of how STUPID parents can be.
______________________
I remember one Halloween many years ago taking my children around the large block we lived on dressed as cowboys, kitty cats and the like seeing a little girl, with her mom, dressed as a playboy bunny, complete with ears and tail. Her little body suit was brief and tight and revealing and she couldn’t have been older than 8 or 9 years old. I wonder how she grew up.
______________________
I wonder too. Honest to goodness, don't these parents have any brains?
We have a neighbor who has no children of her own. A few years ago she worked at a local Head Start preschool. (I emphasize preschool. As in, under five years old.) One time just after Halloween she asked me, "Just what are Bratz dolls, anyway?" Turns out a number of mothers had dressed their little darlings like Bratz dolls for Halloween. (Between ourselves, my husband and I used to refer to them as Slutz dolls.)
The wonder about the commercial success of Bratz dolls is not just that they were popular; it's that the parents were buying this crap for their daughters. I don't get it. I absolutely don't get it. Why would parents buy their girls dolls that look like skanks? Much less willingly dress their daughters to look like members of the world's oldest profession?
Ironically some of what I address in The Simplicity Primer is just that - the stupid choices people make that will sabotage the chances of their children growing into stable, productive, balanced adults. Trust me, dressing your little darlings in cone bras or Playboy bunny outfits is not a smart choice. Duh!
Okay. I'll calm down now.
______________________
I remember one Halloween many years ago taking my children around the large block we lived on dressed as cowboys, kitty cats and the like seeing a little girl, with her mom, dressed as a playboy bunny, complete with ears and tail. Her little body suit was brief and tight and revealing and she couldn’t have been older than 8 or 9 years old. I wonder how she grew up.
______________________
I wonder too. Honest to goodness, don't these parents have any brains?
We have a neighbor who has no children of her own. A few years ago she worked at a local Head Start preschool. (I emphasize preschool. As in, under five years old.) One time just after Halloween she asked me, "Just what are Bratz dolls, anyway?" Turns out a number of mothers had dressed their little darlings like Bratz dolls for Halloween. (Between ourselves, my husband and I used to refer to them as Slutz dolls.)
The wonder about the commercial success of Bratz dolls is not just that they were popular; it's that the parents were buying this crap for their daughters. I don't get it. I absolutely don't get it. Why would parents buy their girls dolls that look like skanks? Much less willingly dress their daughters to look like members of the world's oldest profession?
Ironically some of what I address in The Simplicity Primer is just that - the stupid choices people make that will sabotage the chances of their children growing into stable, productive, balanced adults. Trust me, dressing your little darlings in cone bras or Playboy bunny outfits is not a smart choice. Duh!
Okay. I'll calm down now.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)