A Happy Easter thing I saw at K-Mart

[Conuly]

Oh goodness gracious, that should go without saying. What odd things to bring up. LOL

Well, I don't know. If you're telling children of any gender to never conform to society's expectations, you're saying something very odd to begin with.

Even aside from that, what if they like society's expectations? What if the way your kid wants to act and things she wants to do happen to coincide in any way with what society expects her to do? Then you're running the risk of sounding like you're falling into that whole stupid line about how "Feminists hate stay at home mothers", which I *also* doubt anybody really does, but which is pretty much what was *said*.

[QAF_Rocks]

That book sounds as bad as the stereotype that quiverfullers convey about how girls should be. It's just the opposite extreme. If little girls want to be princesses and think pink, then they should go for it. If little girls want to watch a monster truck rally and spend their days smashing Tonka trucks on the floor, then they should go for it. I think the purse book is adorable by the way. Doesn't bother me in the least. If a girl wants it, she should have it. If she doesn't want it, then she shouldn't be forced to have it. Real feminism never forces one side.

I've read the book, and that's not the author's point at all. She is criticizing the aggressive promotion of ultra-pink, ultra-glitter, ultra-glam, ultra-princess products towards young girls. Marketing has changed a lot over the past few decades. It's not like it was 20 or 30 years ago. Orenstein's point isn't that girls should be tomboys, but that the presentation of what a girl is/should be/should like has gotten narrower.

I still have my childhood birthday cards, which were given to me in the 1980s. There was a time when all colors were appropriate for little girls. Walk into any Hallmark store today, and it's an entirely different story. The girls' section is dominated by pink and purple, princesses and glitter. Try finding a birthday card for a soccer-loving girl whose favorite color is blue. It's almost impossible.

Girls have more options in real life than ever before, but the media presentation of girls is more limited than it was in 1985, or even 1975.

Could this ad ever run today?

[Minerva]

Could this ad ever run today?

A toy ad geared towards the parents! Also something you never see these days.

[fluttershies]

That book sounds as bad as the stereotype that quiverfullers convey about how girls should be. It's just the opposite extreme. If little girls want to be princesses and think pink, then they should go for it. If little girls want to watch a monster truck rally and spend their days smashing Tonka trucks on the floor, then they should go for it. I think the purse book is adorable by the way. Doesn't bother me in the least. If a girl wants it, she should have it. If she doesn't want it, then she shouldn't be forced to have it. Real feminism never forces one side.

Aggressively marketing passivity as the ideal for girls via princesses is an OK thing? Because that's what pinkification is doing. Like I said upthread, it's not that femininity is bad, but that the parameters of what femininity consists of has got narrower over the years, and in a harmful way.

[changemanagement]

My kid and I noticed the ads while watching cartoons (The Regular Show and anything Cartoon Network. Nerf toys and Battle Bots for boys, poopy dolls (let's play mommy changing a diaper) and Bratz dolls for girls.

Anyway, we chuckle because growing up, my daughter wanted nothing to do with dolls, pink or purple. She wanted Hot Wheels and went to bed with a plastic hammer. She finally waded into girly-dom around age 16. She can look incredibly stylish now or she can rock a kick ass look. Still, pink is not in her wardrobe.

I'm proud of her

[Third]

Sure the aggressive advertizing to children isn't okay but we as parents do have a lot of power in that department. My children rarely see commercials. At least for now while they are really young and mostly with me I can control what they see and how it's presented. I hope so when they are older they will learn to think critically about what they see, read, hear etc. Although sometimes wanting a fad or what is cool isn't always a bad thing.

Nearly everyone got into Harry Potter and I don't seem any worse for my brief obsession with New Kids on the Block.

When we do see an ad [my son asks if he could have bladder control medication] I told him not all the ads are for things he needs\wants etc and it sparked conversation about how advertizing isn't always true or it's presented in such a way to make it seem more awesome than it is.

I took a media class in high school, how to tweak statistics to say almost anything it was really interesting. I hope schools still teach those kinds of things when my kids are teenagers.

If enough parents didn't support the junk products with their dollars then the ads would be replaced with something else.

[gardenvarietycitizen]

Sure the aggressive advertizing to children isn't okay but we as parents do have a lot of power in that department. My children rarely see commercials. At least for now while they are really young and mostly with me I can control what they see and how it's presented.

Sometimes that can change when they start school. Little kids really can be the worst gender police.

But while you're doing the filtering, just in case you've not thought of it yet - you need to get the various gift-givers in your kid's life on board with the plan, too. I think one of the most insidious things about the pinkification is that EVERYTHING is divided into "girl" (pink and glitter, even for things like BALLS) and "not girl" and the mere existence of "girl" CAUSES the other to be perceived as "not girl."

Then you get some well-meaning but older relative who doesn't know your kid intimately as far as likes and dislikes, and they'll pick the pink gift in the store every time, because, well, obviously that's the one for girls, right? So the kid ends up getting all these pink gifts that she might very well NOT have chosen otherwise, but hey, outsiders all think this is what I'm supposed to like...

The Lego ad posted upthread is exactly the one I was thinking of - cool to see someone else posted it here!

It doesn't help that I'm just plain not a fan of pink or pastels. In fact it would be nice if there were more explicitly "girly" clothes (skirts! With ruffles! Flared jeans!) in dark or bright saturated colors. But at least the cheap stuff all seems to be pastels, mostly pink. At least some of the pinks lately are getting darker.

[theologygeek]

You didn't read all my posts in this thread, did you?

[theologygeek]

Aggressively marketing passivity as the ideal for girls via princesses is an OK thing? Because that's what pinkification is doing. Like I said upthread, it's not that femininity is bad, but that the parameters of what femininity consists of has got narrower over the years, and in a harmful way.

It's no big deal if parents teach their kids to be their own people. Just keep the lines of communication open and also use things like this as teaching moments. They'll be fine.

[fluttershies]

It's no big deal if parents teach their kids to be their own people. Just keep the lines of communication open and also use things like this as teaching moments. They'll be fine.

Misogyny is a big deal, even if parents teach kids to be 'their own people' (not that this really exists, because no one lives in a vacuum). It harms both girls and boys.

[theologygeek]

My kid and I noticed the ads while watching cartoons (The Regular Show and anything Cartoon Network. Nerf toys and Battle Bots for boys, poopy dolls (let's play mommy changing a diaper) and Bratz dolls for girls.

Anyway, we chuckle because growing up, my daughter wanted nothing to do with dolls, pink or purple. She wanted Hot Wheels and went to bed with a plastic hammer. She finally waded into girly-dom around age 16. She can look incredibly stylish now or she can rock a kick ass look. Still, pink is not in her wardrobe.

I'm proud of her

I've got a daughter who hates the color pink. I love it. I loathe the color brown and don't have anything brown in my wardrobe. To each her own.

[tropaka]

Who knew the Bible could be so girly!

I have teenaged boys and a 2 y/o girl. My boys were pretty boy like, but did love action figures at a young age (dolls), my daughter now loves all the boys' old Star Wars figures plus her pink princess crap (given by a relative), plus her blocks, plus her cars. My key was never to steer kids clear of stuff, but to offer everything and go with their interests.

One of my best friends was an ardent feminist activist in university and is an engineer and a manager...she loved barbie into her teens

[dawbs]

I'll just start by saying I'm not a mother either.

Back when I was my preteen proto-feminist self, I avoided all things stereotypically feminine because I too considered them air-headed, and I thought gender equality would consist of everyone being tomboyish because then no gender would be relegated to that dumb girly stuff. Looking back, I'd say I was right to be angry about assigned gender roles, but I was also contributing to a long history of degrading women by automatically considering anything "girly" to be of less value. Another problem with that ideal is that I reflexively considered the default human being to be your typical male. If I ever have kids, I think I'd just do my best to make them think critically about gender as our society views it, and try to create an environment where they can express themselves as they wish with as little social pressure as possible.

Minverva said, better than I did, the struggle I'm dealing w/ in acknowleding that my 'anti-pink' stance is sexist and degrading things traditionally female..

But still not wanting my kid to be eaten by Cinderella.

Hell, my kid is 18 months old, not in daycare, and I'm already dealing w/ the marketing and the crappy misogyny. Granted, some of what we're dealing w/ is from family (which sucks) but the difference in adjectives and treatment she gets when people think she's a boy (and they do, because baby girls and baby boys look alike, I dress her 'neutral' most of the time, and even when grandma dresses her head to toe in all pink, her saying 'zoom' and waving around a truck = 'boy' to random strangers) is astounding.

[theologygeek]

I've read the book, and that's not the author's point at all. She is criticizing the aggressive promotion of ultra-pink, ultra-glitter, ultra-glam, ultra-princess products towards young girls. Marketing has changed a lot over the past few decades. It's not like it was 20 or 30 years ago. Orenstein's point isn't that girls should be tomboys, but that the presentation of what a girl is/should be/should like has gotten narrower.

I still have my childhood birthday cards, which were given to me in the 1980s. There was a time when all colors were appropriate for little girls. Walk into any Hallmark store today, and it's an entirely different story. The girls' section is dominated by pink and purple, princesses and glitter. Try finding a birthday card for a soccer-loving girl whose favorite color is blue. It's almost impossible.

Girls have more options in real life than ever before, but the media presentation of girls is more limited than it was in 1985, or even 1975.

Could this ad ever run today?

Sure it could, if the majority demanded it to. If the princess glitter wasn't being bought, it would not be dominated in stores. Sales and marketing run through my veins. I don't share my line of work, but I will say this. If parents weren't buying all that stuff, it would be taken off the shelves faster than you could say Cinderella. If enough parents speak up, things will change. Stores listen to the majority. They also monitor very closely what is moving off the shelves and what isn't. You may be in the minority. Stores carry a little of what the minority wants, but why would a store stock a lot of what the minority wants? It's a waste of money.

[theologygeek]

They wouldn't make these products if they didn't sell.

Exactly.

[Minerva]

Exactly.

No disrespect meant, but I'm curious what you're getting at with your comments about lots of people buying these products.

[Sunnichick31]

Gender neutrality=good

Gender neutrality to the point where you refuse to tell people the gender of your baby=bad

(remember this family? http://palmer.patch.com/articles/baby-s ... troversy-2 )

For the record, I grew up playing with boy toys and girl toys. Barbie loved driving around in her dump truck, and Ken enjoyed cross-dressing (my first Ken doll was from a garage sale, he didn't come with clothes, so I put him in Barbie's dresses until someone took pity on him and bought him clothes. LOL!). After puttig my Barbie's and my dump truck away, my grandfather would take me and my little red bow and arrow set out into the backyard and try to teach me how to shoot. Never was a fan of the bow, I much prefered the more powerful guns LOL.

[Third]

No disrespect meant, but I'm curious what you're getting at with your comments about lots of people buying these products.

Asking me?

These products are in the store because they sell. If they didn't they wouldn't be. Stores don't carry products they can't move.

Barbie sells - lots of them. So obviously enough people don't have an issue with them. If they did the company that makes Barbie or the sparkly Bible purse would cut back on production. If you don't agree with a product don't buy it. If enough people agree with you their sales would reflect that.

As for advertizing I think it's never too early to talk to your kids about thinking about what they see on TV and not just wanting something because the TV says it's cool. Then again my son asked for bladder leakage medication. Same with those Disney Princess movies - sure the songs are fun but how could Ariel truly love a man she's never even spoke to and she married him after what 5 days can you really LOVE someone and know them well enough after 5 days?

Then again I liked Belle better anyway she told off the Beast and he gave her books.

[Minerva]

Asking me?

These products are in the store because they sell. If they didn't they wouldn't be. Stores don't carry products they can't move.

Barbie sells - lots of them. So obviously enough people don't have an issue with them. If they did the company that makes Barbie or the sparkly Bible purse would cut back on production. If you don't agree with a product don't buy it. If enough people agree with you their sales would reflect that.

As for advertizing I think it's never too early to talk to your kids about thinking about what they see on TV and not just wanting something because the TV says it's cool. Then again my son asked for bladder leakage medication. Same with those Disney Princess movies - sure the songs are fun but how could Ariel truly love a man she's never even spoke to and she married him after what 5 days can you really LOVE someone and know them well enough after 5 days?

Then again I liked Belle better anyway she told off the Beast and he gave her books.

I was originally asking theologygeek because they've explained supply & demand in several comments, and I'm curious what their point is, but I appreciate your answering too. Like, I understand how supply and demand works, and but are you guys arguing that we should convince people to "vote with their wallets" or whatever in order to make toys & advertisements healthier for kids, or were you simply pointing out that it can't be that bad if the companies perceive that the stuff is popular, or that it's really shoppers shaping the course of toys and marketing and not the other way around, or...?

I never liked Beauty and the Beast - I think the beast and all that talking furniture scared me. But I too I hated the Little Mermaid because how silly all of Ariel's decisions seemed.

[Stacie]

I'm not a mother so perhaps I shouldn't ask this question at all, but I'm curious.

Is it appropriate to steer daughters away from pretty pink princess, prince charming, dainty, girly girl things? Do feminists worry about letting their daughters idolize fairy tales and internalize the princess rescue fantasy inherent in most fairy tales? Or, is it hypocritical to insist daughters be strong tomboys if we abhor the fundies who insist their daughters be submissive helpmeets in training?

My parents were very disdainful of any girly-girl things. I was not allowed to wear makeup, high heels, have my ears pierced, wear nail polish, etc. before I was 18. I also was not allowed to spend countless hours on the phone, hang out at the mall or date, even in a group. My parents were definitely not fundie; we were raised as atheists. They just believed that I was not to engage in what they considered "air-headed" pursuits such as gossiping about boys, being what they called a "mallrat," or eschewing my homework and academic success for social things. They thought I needed to, first a foremost, have a childhood, be concerned with school, etc. until I grew up. Now, I think one can be, as my parents were, too far in that extreme.

But I'm just curious about how mothers see the pretty pink princess stuff - it seems really, really strong in a way I don't remember in my childhood - especially with the Disney Princesses stuff, the Twilight crap, etc.

Unless kids are specifically not allowed to have one thing or another, they're going to like what they like. As a kid I had my Barbies, my Chrissie doll, and my Breyer Horses. Of course they had Disney princesses back than, albeit just Snow, Aurora, and Cinderella, but I was more into playing Mary Poppins or Tinkerbelle. And yeah, even in the 70's they had all the girlie girl makeup and manicure kits at Disneyland, and I loved them.

Oh yea...by in addition to that stuff, my friends and I played Flinstones, pretended our bikes were our horses or Trans Am's, and went rock and tree climbing. My niece is the same way.

[Third]

I don't know if it's so much vote with your wallet as don't buy stuff you don't want to. I don't see the point in getting upset or offended by a product like this in the store. I don't think a little girl owning this will think she's being forced into gender roles or feel she's less than a boy. Sometimes grown ups over think kid stuff.

[Minerva]

I don't know if it's so much vote with your wallet as don't buy stuff you don't want to. I don't see the point in getting upset or offended by a product like this in the store. I don't think a little girl owning this will think she's being forced into gender roles or feel she's less than a boy. Sometimes grown ups over think kid stuff.

Ok, I see. Analysing this kind of thing is what I'm minoring in, but I can see how it would be less important from a parenting perspective.

[Patsy]

Gender neutrality=good

Gender neutrality to the point where you refuse to tell people the gender of your baby=bad

Why is it bad? If the kid wants to tell someone, they can. Otherwise, why does the person need to know? What right do they have to insist they must know this information (that, after all, you say can be treated as neutral)?

[QAF_Rocks]

Sure it could, if the majority demanded it to. If the princess glitter wasn't being bought, it would not be dominated in stores. Sales and marketing run through my veins. I don't share my line of work, but I will say this. If parents weren't buying all that stuff, it would be taken off the shelves faster than you could say Cinderella. If enough parents speak up, things will change. Stores listen to the majority. They also monitor very closely what is moving off the shelves and what isn't. You may be in the minority. Stores carry a little of what the minority wants, but why would a store stock a lot of what the minority wants? It's a waste of money.

So whose fault is it? Little girls will play with anything that's marketed to them. Don't the companies have an obligation to be socially responsible? A company can create a line of dolls that look like prostitutes, and they will fly off the shelves, but is it ethical for the company to produce those dolls? If the companies did not make those products, then parents wouldn't buy them and children wouldn't play with them.

The media's current insistence on ultra-pink products gives young girls a very narrow and limited definition of femininity. And it's not the majority of parents or the majority of children who are responsible for the current explosion, but rather marketing executives whose only concern seems to be the almighty dollar.

[QAF_Rocks]

I'm not a mother so perhaps I shouldn't ask this question at all, but I'm curious.

Is it appropriate to steer daughters away from pretty pink princess, prince charming, dainty, girly girl things? Do feminists worry about letting their daughters idolize fairy tales and internalize the princess rescue fantasy inherent in most fairy tales? Or, is it hypocritical to insist daughters be strong tomboys if we abhor the fundies who insist their daughters be submissive helpmeets in training?

My parents were very disdainful of any girly-girl things. I was not allowed to wear makeup, high heels, have my ears pierced, wear nail polish, etc. before I was 18. I also was not allowed to spend countless hours on the phone, hang out at the mall or date, even in a group. My parents were definitely not fundie; we were raised as atheists. They just believed that I was not to engage in what they considered "air-headed" pursuits such as gossiping about boys, being what they called a "mallrat," or eschewing my homework and academic success for social things. They thought I needed to, first a foremost, have a childhood, be concerned with school, etc. until I grew up. Now, I think one can be, as my parents were, too far in that extreme.

But I'm just curious about how mothers see the pretty pink princess stuff - it seems really, really strong in a way I don't remember in my childhood - especially with the Disney Princesses stuff, the Twilight crap, etc.

I think I will probably do what my own parents did. I was raised by two lesbian moms, but contrary to stereotype, they didn't particularly concern themselves with checking whether our toys were (or weren't) gender specific. Practically everything I owned as a toddler and preschooler was put out by Fisher-Price, and almost all of it was gender neutral. My brother and I both had dolls, we both had stuffed animals, and we both had a lot of toys that weren't designated for either sex. As I got older, I gravitated more towards items that were marketed towards girls, and my brother towards the ones for boys, but I can't remember ever feeling pressured one way or the other.

It's different now because the current focus on pink and glitter means that there aren't as many toys that are truly gender neutral. Many toys come in a "regular" version and a "girl" version. I think I'd be a little more proactive in seeking out items that aren't stereotypical. I don't mind the color pink, but my concern lies in the fact that it seems to be the only acceptable choice for girls. I'm also massively concerned with the sexualization of toys marketed towards young girls, many of which have a sophistication level that I'm not comfortable with. Even little girls are encouraged to dress and act like teenagers. The whole "I'm a diva!" or "I'm a princess" thing disturbs me, because it seems rooted in consumerism, materialism, and self-centeredness, and it appears entirely unrelated to actual princesses or actual fairy tales.