This is just the sort of faux-introspection that is satirized in “Stuff White People Like” blog/book. Christian Landers said that one of the themes/memes in “White” culture is disdaining that which is popular as a sort of “I am more enlightened than you” one-upsmanship. Disdain for Barbies and Bratz-way, way too easy. But, disdain for actually marketing female empowerment-gasp! That gets you half-gainer with a twist, “My consciousness has been raised higher than your consciousness” points.

I don’t know how many forum chats and Salon Broadsheet columns I have seen devoted to the evils of marketing tarted-up trash to young girls. At the end of these columns, the authors/posters often explicitly wish for a corporate antidote. So, here it is. The AG franchise markets dolls/books/stuff using backstories of intelligent, resourceful girls set in a specific historical period (OMG, its educational too!). The outrage is that it is (again) designed to make money and some of it is marketed at an insanely high price point. From my perspective, this puts AG dolls in exactly the same category as a variety of expensive things marketed to boys-like $100 athletic shoes, and guitar hero, and rock band etc and is a damn site more palatable than other expensive things marketed to girls, like the Libby Lou crap.

I also get the sense as I read some of the posts as well as the article that there is some weird perception that AG paraphernalia will become the sole influence on a girl’s development, that she will have no other toys, read no other books, and see no other movies; that parents allow their children to passively consume pop-culture, and are powerless to control their children’s purchases.

It is a parent’s job to help children interpret culture in a way that is consistent with their family’s values. We take steps to minimize my daughter’s exposure to consumer culture. Her TV viewing is limited to Tevod PBS shows like Between the Lions and videos. So, she doesn’t see all the noxious toy commercials. But, you can only fight so many battles. We finally gave into the High School Musical franchise but are careful to help her frame the message appropriately (have the courage to be yourself; mean people suck; kick the boy to the curb if he doesn’t treat you right). Princess stuff is augmented with messages like “and after Cindrella went to medical school, she and the prince lived happily ever after.”

The AG stuff is just a part of the dialog about the world that we have with our 5 year old girl. I am delighted with Kit Kitridge, the movie and the book. My daughter enjoyed both and they offered a safe and gentle way to begin educating her about a rather frightening historical period and offers her some context for stories my parents tell about growing up during the depression.

At this point in time, she does not yet know about the dolls or the accessories and I don’t plan to tell her any time soon. I am sure she will hear about them eventually from a school chum. When and if she wants a doll, her father and I will make the decision about whether we want to spend the money. However, our rule of thumb is just because they make it/market it, does not mean we have to buy it. The word “no” is an amazing and powerful all-purpose word that many/most parents employ to a very good effect.

Reads to me that you're practicing exactly the kind of disdain you're kvetching about.

Female 'empowerment' has been vastly overrated, overdone, and so painfully redundant with it's 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year overexposure. Where and when are these modern 'moms' or women ever trying to empower or promote their SONS or young boys welfare or place in the world? They don't do it; in fact, hold him back and treat him as less valuable than Sissy. Please don't tell me those intangibles are primarily 'Dad's or a man's job', a comment and belief like that is patently sexist. Women have demanded there are 'no gender roles' to be had, ad naseum.

This is not a zero sum game. Ensuring that our girls are strong and assertive in no way takes away from boys.

I don't know who you are talking about (or maybe you are just repeating Bill ORielly blather), but my friends with sons are no less great moms to their sons than to their daughters. They do t-ball, football, lacrosse. They do ballet. They do teenage mutant ninja whatever. Good parents are good parents sons/daughters. Bad parents are bad parents-sons/daughters.

I suppose. It is like the Stephen Colbert picture within a picture. However, my points were that a) If we want companies to market strong female roll models (instead of Bratz), we should not turn up our noses when they do a decent job of it and make a profit and b) Most parents are not or should not be passive victims of culture.

What really frightens me is that nancyh's daughter is going to grow up to be as boring as her parents appear to be......

"And after Cinderella went to medical school, she and the prince lived happily ever after....." yeah, the thought of any sort of fantasy must be rooted out nice and early......kids are not nearly as stupid as their parents think

alittlesense, what would you have her daughter do, buy up all those stupid bratz dolls, lower her IQ 100 notches and focus on being a sexpot?

nancyh has a good point. There's nothing wrong with AG and gosh, letting girls have an outlet that is fun AND educational, give into imagination! I'd never let my daughter go for the low-brow slut dolls out there that are being peddled to girls today.

Kids having kids, sex starting younger and younger, look at the "role model" dolls they have to play with! Kids get the message loud and clear.

Giving them a better forum of play would give them more useful thoughts, and they may think better of themselves and see there is more to being female than the typical sex-pot dolls of today suggest.

but, that's just my two cents

nancyh:

If we want companies to market strong female roll models (instead of Bratz), we should not turn up our noses when they do a decent job of it and make a profit

Nancyh, I'd agree except that I don't think, at $100 a pop (plus accessories), they are doing a decent job of it.

So. My point is buy the book or go to the library. Don't buy the doll.

Just curious, do you have kids? If so, what scintillating, edgy stories do you read? Do tell? I am just a boring mom.

Seriously, again it all reduces to a catty, ego-driven tet-a-tet, huh? How about go home and raise your kid and shut the hell up about it? Time will tell who is the "better mom".

I'm rubber and your glue. What bounces off me sticks to you. No, seriously what is your point and why so hostile. I am merely making the point that parents are not helpless victims.

nancyh:

So. My point is buy the book or go to the library. Don't buy the doll.

Agreed. But I also think that changing what is available in the marketplace goes beyond not buying something, and as parents, I think we have the responsibility to let companies know exactly why we aren't buying.

You've made some great points, thanks.

I am considering what you wrote and have a couple of thoughts. On one level, I think you are clearly right-more information is better and if companies hear specifically that it is the price-point (rather than the product), then they are more likely to make the appropriate corrections. On another level, I will tell you that in my experience corporations don't really care.

If the product is profitable and it does not kill/maim anyone the company will continue to produce it ragardless of whose sensibilities it offends (see for example Hooters). If the product is not profitable, it will be retired no matter how socially redeeming. If we want to convey disapproval of a particular product, it may not be sufficient to educate the company, bu it is necessary.

On another topic. I would like to organize a boycott on overpackaged toys. These days opening a toy requires a pair of scizzors, pliers, and a blowtorch. Anyone else with me?