# Yeah! The Bratz are banned.....



## gypsyhips26 (Feb 21, 2008)

Not sure if this is where I should post this but hot off the wire....

http://www.commercialfreechildhood.o...edguardian.htm


----------



## Dr.Worm (Nov 20, 2001)

I was sooo happy to hear this and dd will be too..she HATES bratz..thank goodness...wish I could have been a part of the writing campaign but glad all you wise mommies and the wise mommies from commercial-free childhood got it done! today Scholastic..tomorrow..the world!!


----------



## bscal (Feb 13, 2006)

I am so glad that they are not offering Bratz anymore. I personally HATE them and do not allow them in my household. I also don't allow my daughters to wear clothing that is too grownup (which makes it impossible to shop for my almost 6 year old.)

Beth


----------



## Dr.Worm (Nov 20, 2001)

I hear ya on the clothes! I am weird because I want my little girl to look like a little girl







she is 8...I guess it's time to wear makeup and short tight minis to school.


----------



## philomom (Sep 12, 2004)

Thank goodness!


----------



## llamalluv (Aug 24, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gypsyhips26* 
Not sure if this is where I should post this but hot off the wire....

http://www.commercialfreechildhood.o...edguardian.htm

I thought censorship was a BAD thing.


----------



## Mackenzie (Sep 26, 2004)

I am torn on this. I LOATHE that line of doll/books/movies/etc... absolutely loathe it and will not allow them in my house.

But I have a really really hard time supporting any kind of book banning. Reading crap is better than not reading and parents always have the choice ot not allow it, as have many of us. By banning things like that, we are, in effect, taking that choice away from parents and saying "oh we've got this, you don't have to worry about it" I don't think that I can tell a parent that they can't allow their kids to read stuff like this any more than I can fathom telling them they have to let their kids read Harry Potter, if they've decided not, no matter how misguided I think they are









sigh, it's a toughie...


----------



## choli (Jun 20, 2002)

I will never cheerlead for book banning. It's disgusting.


----------



## Minky (Jun 28, 2005)

The "books" banned themselves.

Have you read one of these "books?" They have no literary value at all. The storylines, vocabularly and plot are very limited and they're really just extended commercials for the Bratz dolls.

Is it censorship if Scholastic is discerning about whether or not it gives the stamp of approval to books with no literary value?

It's the same for the movies. They're just commercials for the dolls and I'd sooner let my children watch a Disney movie, which at least has a storyline.


----------



## Mackenzie (Sep 26, 2004)

That very well maybe, and you are probably correct about the content, having not read one myself. However, should we as parents, or Scholastic as a purveyor, make that decision for all? What is different between that and the banning of Rowling, or Blume, or Hemingway, or any number of other greatly challenged books? It all boils down to a matter of opinion and I am just not comfortable with banning of the printed word, no matter if I agree with the subject content or not. Believe me, I wish I could consciously organize a mass pire out of Limbaugh and Dobson for a start...


----------



## 2lilsweetfoxes (Apr 11, 2005)

I do not like the message Bratz sends to little girls. (My daughter has a few, given by grandmas). That being said, I hate censorship more. If my child ever wants to read a "banned" book, I promise I will find it for him/her. I'll likely read it first or together so that we can discuss it.


----------



## Blu Razzberri (Sep 27, 2006)

Well, there's a couple things that come to mind, here. (pro-"ban")

1) Many parents are distantly involved with their kids; and simply figure that it's cartoon-y, and therefore made and meant for kids. I bet most of them don't even open the book to find out what's in it. It's the same with what happens on TV and cartoons, and the message that's sent out to kids (ex: Caillou throwing a tantrum to get his way).

2) Most parents tend to trust the company to carry good books, much the same way you'd trust Disney not to produce an adult film. For example; "Golden Books" has a reputable name and a 'type' of book. Their books are meant for young kids, and have positive-encouragement messages (ie: The Little Engine That Could). "Scholastic" tends to carry a broader selection, but it's tailored to specific age-groups (DS brings home a Scholastic flier from school once a month, and it's all in the j/k-gr2 range of books). Part of this is to help parents distantly-involved parents choose companies that try and filter stuff for them; like Scholastic does.

3) Filtering comes largely by popular opinion, and since the loudest voice was "get rid of Bratz books"; it was the popular opinion. What Scholastic did was take negative press, and make it look like a positive for their company.

4) It's not like this was the government banning the publishing of the book, or whatever. That would be different. Bratz books are still available through the publisher, likely many book stores, and other book carriers (just not Scholastic); so if a parent wants to get it, they can still find it.

5) If Scholastic had been carrying a line of books that encourage pre-teens to have sex, do drugs, make porn, or any and all other inappropriate activities for pre-teens; would you be ok with a "ban" then; or does it still apply that you're against banning books?


----------



## Authentic_Mother (Feb 25, 2007)

:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Blu Razzberri* 
Well, there's a couple things that come to mind, here. (pro-"ban")

1) Many parents are distantly involved with their kids; and simply figure that it's cartoon-y, and therefore made and meant for kids. I bet most of them don't even open the book to find out what's in it. It's the same with what happens on TV and cartoons, and the message that's sent out to kids (ex: Caillou throwing a tantrum to get his way).

2) Most parents tend to trust the company to carry good books, much the same way you'd trust Disney not to produce an adult film. For example; "Golden Books" has a reputable name and a 'type' of book. Their books are meant for young kids, and have positive-encouragement messages (ie: The Little Engine That Could). "Scholastic" tends to carry a broader selection, but it's tailored to specific age-groups (DS brings home a Scholastic flier from school once a month, and it's all in the j/k-gr2 range of books). Part of this is to help parents distantly-involved parents choose companies that try and filter stuff for them; like Scholastic does.

3) Filtering comes largely by popular opinion, and since the loudest voice was "get rid of Bratz books"; it was the popular opinion. What Scholastic did was take negative press, and make it look like a positive for their company.

4) It's not like this was the government banning the publishing of the book, or whatever. That would be different. Bratz books are still available through the publisher, likely many book stores, and other book carriers (just not Scholastic); so if a parent wants to get it, they can still find it.

5) If Scholastic had been carrying a line of books that encourage pre-teens to have sex, do drugs, make porn, or any and all other inappropriate activities for pre-teens; would you be ok with a "ban" then; or does it still apply that you're against banning books?


----------



## Otterella (Oct 13, 2007)

There's a big difference between "banning" a book and declining to market it to an inappropriate audience. You wouldn't expect to see Danielle Steele marketed in Scholastic flyers, would you? It's an inappropriate audience. Nobody is telling the kids "You're not allowed to read these books no matter where you get them." That would be a ban. But I applaud the decision to stop _advertising_ them to children.


----------



## bigeyes (Apr 5, 2007)

Meh.

Are they still pushing Yu-gi-yoh or Pokemon or whatever else is currently popular? (I can't recall what the last junk 'book' was that came home from the book fair)

If so, then what good does it do to ban bratz?









Licensed crapola is licensed crapola. Get rid of all of it or stop patting yourselves on the backs, scholastic.







:


----------



## thisiswhatwedo (Mar 10, 2008)

can I just side track enough to tell you about this birthday gift a boy from my daughters preschool gave her. I think the mom may have been clueless because she has all boys (?) but they gave my 5 year old this Barbie doll that had a real slutty miniskirt and jacket with stiletto heels and a big bag that came with credit cards fashion magazines and a cell phone. It also had a latte with one of those cardboard hand protectors. The best part was her other outfit was a black and pink mesh baby doll nightie.
I kinda think of the bratz as packing less than a punch than that.
I actually thought it was funny, I mean it was like some SNL skit.


----------



## ~Mom2thhts~ (May 18, 2006)

Blu Razzberri that was very well said!

I am totally happy that scholastic sees through bratz and the image they are giving to little girls. From a company such as this I would expect them to *only* sell/market the books with good content, not every crappy book that gets published.


----------



## Oriole (May 4, 2007)

My thoughts:

1. I can't stand Bratz.
2. I would never support a ban.
3. This is not a "ban", it's a company's choice of merchandise they sell or don't sell, just like all other companies choose what they sell or don't sell.
4. If a book was banned (i.e. not allowed in print, or for sale), I would never support that line of thought.
5. Yey for scholastic!


----------



## Freefromitall (Sep 15, 2008)

I don't support book bans, however, this is not a ban. The books are still allowed to be published/distributed. This company just chooses not to be the one doing the publishing/distributing.
Big difference imho


----------



## grniys (Aug 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Oriole* 
My thoughts:

1. I can't stand Bratz.
2. I would never support a ban.
3. This is not a "ban", it's a company's choice of merchandise they sell or don't sell, just like all other companies choose what they sell or don't sell.
4. If a book was banned (i.e. not allowed in print, or for sale), I would never support that line of thought.
5. Yey for scholastic!









And that sums up my thoughts on the subject.


----------



## Blu Razzberri (Sep 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *~Mom2thhts~* 
Blu Razzberri that was very well said!...


Aww, thanks.

And







to the Barbie story. Barbies are SO trashy! And I totally used to play with them as a kid.







:


----------



## choli (Jun 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Blu Razzberri* 

5) If Scholastic had been carrying a line of books that encourage pre-teens to have sex, do drugs, make porn, or any and all other inappropriate activities for pre-teens; would you be ok with a "ban" then; or does it still apply that you're against banning books? [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

Yes, it still applies.


----------



## Jannah6 (Aug 29, 2007)

Oh, I can't stand The Bratz. Who are they supposed to look like? IMO they look gross and their clothes are tacky


----------



## merpk (Dec 19, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Freefromitall* 
I don't support book bans, however, this is not a ban. The books are still allowed to be published/distributed. This company just chooses not to be the one doing the publishing/distributing.
Big difference imho


100% exactly precisely correct.

They're not pushing them to kids on school book lists. That's it.

That's not banning.


----------



## mamamelia (Apr 14, 2005)

choli, i'm genuinely intrigued to know why you would still support a book that encourages pre-teens to have sex, do drugs or make porn? i have my own opinion, but i'd like to hear yours too if you don't mind sharing.

i know that sooner or later they are going to exposed to those subjects and parents will need to be there to talk to the child about making an informed and appropriate decision. but how many parents will actually do that? how many parents leave sex ed's up to the school to teach as it is? how many parents actually realize that thier children are being sexualized at a young age?

THIS is what i take into account when considering that some books are better off restricted in publishing. i don't think "oh poor child, whatever will they read now?"
i'm all for reading, but i'm going to be frank, there is some crap out there that needs to be restricted/banned and anything that encourages CHILDREN to behave as adults fits that category.
for example, i would let my kids read the harry potter books even though we as a family don't believe in wizardry (we're catholic). to me, a 8 year old becoming intriguied in magic after reading HP is a far cry from a 8 year old wanting to dress up in stilleto's and a mini skirt because apparently it's the going thing.. "you know mom, if it's in a book, it HAS to be good right?"

there are so many books that are available to read, restricting where bratz books can be purchased from is not the end of the world.

i'd wish they ban the dolls. i'd cheer then.


----------



## dawningmama (Jan 14, 2003)

I like the Bratz. I wish they had been around when I was a kid.

The Bratz books aren't any less literarily (it's a word, I looked it up) stimulating than the Pokemon, Care Bears or any other book made just to market dolls and such. I think this is a pretty empty move from Scholastic (of whom I am not a big fan anyway).

It always surprises me to hear how objectionable people find the clothes. What's with all the judging a book by its cover? The Bratz outfits are pretty much just what the young women I know wear. I don't use their wardrobe to make assumptions about their morals, behavior or sex lives. Sure, the Bratz do wear some outfits I would not purchase for my young dds, but many of the dolls and figures they play with wear stuff not for young children (armor, uniforms, etc). But most of the outfits that come with the Bratz dolls are really not all that salacious. (Besides, the dolls here generally end up naked and that's how they play. Doll nudist colony, don'tchaknow.)

All this is not to say that I don't have some objections to the Bratz---they are the same issues I take with Barbie and her ilk and have mainly to do with body image and the One True Definition of being a Girl/Woman. I wish dolls out there were a little more diverse in shape, wardrobe and image. In the mean time, I'll take my Bratz over Barbie any day of the week.


----------



## Tinker (Mar 1, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dr.Worm* 
I hear ya on the clothes! I am weird because I want my little girl to look like a little girl







she is 8...I guess it's time to wear makeup and short tight minis to school.

Um I think you are forgetting about the padded bra. Hello how's a girl supposed to look sexy without the bra!

(Total sarcasm there just in case there was any doubt.







)

I HATE the over sexualized things that are marketed for our kids. Fortunately this year the clothing trends seem to have shifted. About time too!


----------



## Tinker (Mar 1, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mackenzie* 
I am torn on this. I LOATHE that line of doll/books/movies/etc... absolutely loathe it and will not allow them in my house.

But I have a really really hard time supporting any kind of book banning. Reading crap is better than not reading and parents always have the choice ot not allow it, as have many of us. By banning things like that, we are, in effect, taking that choice away from parents and saying "oh we've got this, you don't have to worry about it" I don't think that I can tell a parent that they can't allow their kids to read stuff like this any more than I can fathom telling them they have to let their kids read Harry Potter, if they've decided not, no matter how misguided I think they are









sigh, it's a toughie...









I don't think this about banning books or making a choice for what parents are "allowed" to expose their kids to, as much as it's a companies choice not to provide the material. (Unless I've completely missed the mark on this)


----------



## Dr.Worm (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Tinker* 
Um I think you are forgetting about the padded bra. Hello how's a girl supposed to look sexy without the bra!

(Total sarcasm there just in case there was any doubt.







)

I HATE the over sexualized things that are marketed for our kids. Fortunately this year the clothing trends seem to have shifted. About time too!

yeah..how could I forget that?


----------



## mntnmom (Sep 21, 2006)

Personally, I would like to see scholastic stop marketing ALL the cartoon advertising crap literature,(including Barbie and all the little toys etc. they sell at book faires) and live up to their wholesome reputation and the trust so many parents put in them. Bratz is a start. I hate censorship, but can refusing to market commercialistic, low-quality, pseudo-educational products really in the same ballpark as book burning?
I think calling it a ban to start with got us off on an unintended train of thought.


----------



## bigeyes (Apr 5, 2007)

I've been saying that forever. When I send my kids money for a book fair, I want them to come home with real books, not cartoon crapola.


----------



## PGTlatte (Mar 7, 2004)

"One of America's largest distributors of books to schools has stopped listing Bratz books"....

I don't read this as "banned" at all. I read it as this particular company is no longer going to market these particular books to children through the school system.


----------



## choli (Jun 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bigeyes* 
I've been saying that forever. When I send my kids money for a book fair, I want them to come home with real books, not cartoon crapola.

So teach your kids to make intelligent choices, instead of relying on others to make your children buy the kind of books that you prefer.


----------



## bigeyes (Apr 5, 2007)

teaching your kids to make intelligent choices is one thing, getting them to do what you want when they're out of sight and have an attachment disorder is a whole different story.

Attachment disorders equal defiance and doing the opposite of what is expected. Do I give one child money for the book fair and tell the other one she can't have any because she can't be trusted? Or do I keep giving her opportunities to do better and hope the school isn't selling [email protected] this year?







:

A book fair should sell _books,_ yk, volumes with actual _words_ in them?









I don't think that's too much to ask.


----------



## sha_lyn (Jul 27, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *llamalluv* 
I thought censorship was a BAD thing.









It is and I am disgusted that anyone would be happy about this.


----------



## smeisnotapirate (Aug 24, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mackenzie* 
That very well maybe, and you are probably correct about the content, having not read one myself. However, should we as parents, or Scholastic as a purveyor, make that decision for all? What is different between that and the banning of Rowling, or Blume, or Hemingway, or any number of other greatly challenged books? It all boils down to a matter of opinion and I am just not comfortable with banning of the printed word, no matter if I agree with the subject content or not. Believe me, I wish I could consciously organize a mass pire out of Limbaugh and Dobson for a start...









I agree - and don't forget Ann Coulter.









I especially think inane, stupid books should be allowed to speak for themselves.


----------



## kneedeepnkidz (Jul 24, 2006)

I don't think that is banning if scholastic chooses not to offer a particular book. That said, book banning is never a good thing.
Saying that because a parent allows their child to read a book about a trendy toy or tv series does not mean that they are crappy parents or that they don't have the sense to know that it is not on the same level as Mark Twain or Hemmingway is unjust. What if you have a child who has absolutely no desire to read, isn't trying at all, but sees a book that catches their eye that contains cartoon characters or TV series characters and they actually want to read? Some parents may find this an opening to help a child learn to love to read. When my kids have struggled with loving to read, I tell them that when they find a book or series that they really can get into, they will love it.
My kids are really voracious readers. They read a diverse selection of books. When Harry Potter came out, teachers and other adults were soooo against kids reading the books because they might make them believe in magic and could lead them to trying to fly. When my kids came and told me about what these adults had said about the books, I asked them if they knew that the things in the book were not real. They did, and that was all I had to say about it.
The same can be said about cartoon books. Do you talk to your kids and let them know that it is not real? Do they know the difference between imagination and real life? I love to read murder mysteries. It does not mean that I wish to become a murderer.
I am rambling now, sorry.


----------



## tammyswanson (Feb 19, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thisiswhatwedo* 
can I just side track enough to tell you about this birthday gift a boy from my daughters preschool gave her. I think the mom may have been clueless because she has all boys (?) but they gave my 5 year old this Barbie doll that had a real slutty miniskirt and jacket with stiletto heels and a big bag that came with credit cards fashion magazines and a cell phone. It also had a latte with one of those cardboard hand protectors. The best part was her other outfit was a black and pink mesh baby doll nightie.
I kinda think of the bratz as packing less than a punch than that.
I actually thought it was funny, I mean it was like some SNL skit.









I'd love to have one of those...to put it outside our house for Halloween night...very scary!!

I always wonder to myself when I see weird stuff like that, "What do these poor Chinese factory workers think about this stuff when they are making it?"


----------



## savvybabygrace (Feb 15, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Otterella* 
There's a big difference between "banning" a book and declining to market it to an inappropriate audience. You wouldn't expect to see Danielle Steele marketed in Scholastic flyers, would you? It's an inappropriate audience. Nobody is telling the kids "You're not allowed to read these books no matter where you get them." That would be a ban. But I applaud the decision to stop _advertising_ them to children.

ITA. No one is banning these books from all book sellers in the country. Scholastic simply made a good decision not to offer Bratz.


----------



## violafemme (Oct 18, 2004)

Isn't kind of like taking candy bars out of the vending machines at school?


----------

