A Happy Easter thing I saw at K-Mart

[eohiken]

My daughter is 8. Pinkification and licensed (cartoon character) everything hit full swing when she was a toddler. We managed to avoid it entirely by eschewing consumer culture. We didnt buy toys or watch commercial tv. Now, we had lots of toys! And we had a tv! Most toys were gifts, or hand me downs (this provided MORE than enough toys for any child), we allowed her to watch videos or public broadcasting. She watched disney movies, Dora and played with dolls - but she had no feedback that these things were any more or less important that other movies or toys. She was able to decide, on her own, what she liked best.

Her favourite colour is red. can I tell you how hard it is to find girl's clothing in that colour? It's HARD.

I feel very strongly against exposing young children to marketing. Marketing by nature is manipulation, and it requires higher decision making skills to navigate. She is at the age now that we can discuss toy commercials and why the toys featured look amazing and fun, but aren't nearly as interesting in reality. We talk about how toy companies (all companies) have the raison d'etre of making money, full stop.

[gardenvarietycitizen]

Of course they had Disney princesses back than, albeit just Snow, Aurora, and Cinderella, but I was more into playing Mary Poppins or Tinkerbelle.

Disney already had characters in its properties that were princesses, yes.

But what changed in the 90's was the marketing department noticed that kids were playing dress up as princesses and actively repackaged the various princesses together as a single unit "Disney princesses," rather than just happening to have a princess in the Sleeping Beauty line, a princess in the Snow White line, etc. They were unified, loads and loads of new merchandise was dreamed up, and the marketing was turned on full force.

Lately as girls are aging out of the brand they're trying to hold them in a bit longer with "edgy" versions of Tinkerbelle, known as "Dark Tink."

Once that brand was going, they were able to plaster it all over random completely unrelated products, school supplies, sports equipment, clothing, you name it. So you've got your playground balls with Belle on 'em. The two main brands they aim at boys now are "Cars" and "Toy Story." VERY often you can see the parallel line up on licensed plastic kid dishes or whatever at the supermarket, it's Cars vs Princesses.

[Conuly]

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.

Except that they SELL because we don't have any CHOICE. It's either buy the hopelessly gendered stuff or have no toys at all in your home, no clothes for your child, no nothing. If you're willing to look around, pay several times as much, then you may be able to get a few gender neutral toys. Maybe.

It's like pockets. For decades now, women have been demanding pockets on clothes. The majority of women want pockets to put stuff in. (We also want nice, dressy outfits with sleeves so we don't freeze to death in winter.) Designers refuse to make those things, so stores can't stock them, so women can't buy them. If you go and design your own nice clothes with pockets you can have them, or if you're willing to wear schleppy clothes you can have them, but you can't have nice clothes with pockets even though men can.

You simply can't buy what they don't sell, and you have to have clothes. Children's clothes are hopelessly gendered, but you have to buy them SOMETHING. Children's toys, even simple things like balls and jump ropes, are extremely gendered, but few people are so deadset on this issue that they won't let their child have ANY toys.

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

I didn't care to. The person I was replying to had said something confusing and, frankly, absurd. Being on the internet really isn't an excuse for saying silly things.

[theologygeek]

Except that they SELL because we don't have any CHOICE. It's either buy the hopelessly gendered stuff or have no toys at all in your home, no clothes for your child, no nothing. If you're willing to look around, pay several times as much, then you may be able to get a few gender neutral toys. Maybe.

That is just silly. Of course you have a choice. My kids range in age from school age to adults, and I also have a grandchild who I spoil rotten. Your daughter will not be without toys or clothing. Legos, lincoln logs, Tinkertoys, scooter, skateboard, art supplies, music, books, ball, sporting goods, dolls, dollhouse, play kitchen, educational toys, puzzles are just to name a few. You can find all the above mentioned in colors other than pink, it will not cost you a fortune, and your daughter will not be without toys. Choose your toys wisely. Don't buy junk. Toys should stimulate the brain, encourage imagination, entertain, improve fine and gross motor skills, or help with exercise.

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

I didn't care to. The person I was replying to had said something confusing and, frankly, absurd. Being on the internet really isn't an excuse for saying silly things.

You asked this "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*." This is what I said in one of my first posts in this thread "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."

[QAF_Rocks]

Looking at My Pretty Pink Bible Purse again, it's funny how how they manage to incorporate so many different forms of societal indoctrination. First, there's the religious aspect. This product is marketed towards preschoolers, and I highly doubt that the religious content is being presented in an objective way. Second, there's the pink and the flowers on the product, which reinforces the belief that that both the color pink and flowers are for girls. Third, the product is "grooming" even the tiniest of girls to conform to gender expectations by carrying a purse.

It's interesting that there are two purse threads over on "Chatter," and this product shows how girls are socialized from their youngest years to see carrying a purse as not only normal for girls, but expected for women when they grow up, even though men are not encouraged to carry around small bags filled with items. It's the rare woman (apparently) who resists the purse expectation.

[Third]

The idea that we have no choice but to buy something is silly. I call bull on that one. Most of the toys in my house work for either gender. With a little time and effort you can get awesome toys beyond the Walmart\K-Mart stuff. Often times not much more expensive to order online.

I also haven't had much trouble with clothes - yes I will put my daughter in a cute dress or leggings and I wouldn't put my son in said clothes but it's not like I am being forced to. I could also buy her plain jeans and plain tee shirts if I had a mind to.