# I started a Princess battle at preschool



## Kincaid (Feb 12, 2004)

My son's preschool (University model lab where I work) has a policy of NO superheros. No backpacks, lunch boxes, or clothing with superheros on them. No superhero play.

The handbook rationale says Superheros don't use "good problem solving skills". I think they are trying to get around the idea of violence/fighting/aggression. Which I can applaud.

BUT.... little girls have lunchboxes with Cinderella, Barbie, even Bratz Dolls. They wear princess logo t-shirts. The school even has a dress up chest with princess dresses and tiaras!

The preschool just sent out a mass e-mail reminding parents kids were not to have or wear anything Superhero. I wrote back to the entire list serv saying "How about we add Princesses to the policy also? Or simply changing the policy to no licensed characters."

You would think I was asking for Andrea Dworken to be the assistant teacher. No one responded to the e-mail, but evidently dozens of moms have called preschool to say that it is ridiculous, girls will be girls, and there is nothing wrong with princess play. We are now having a school meeting about it - in which people who "are afraid to voice their opinion may send it in a word document and the director will make sure their opinions are represented" (because evidently a lot of the people who like princesses are afraid to speak up in a meeting... maybe some man will rescue them though, and they won't have to speak, LOL).

What you do think?

My point is, what is fair for one gender should be extended to both. It's hard to tell a child "superhero lunchboxes are not allowed" when a girl child has a Barbie lunchbox.
It's hard for me to reason that using beauty for problem solving is any better than using physical power for problem solving... (the girls often play Sleeping Beauty - I'm dead, someone needs to kiss me and bring me back to life, I'm so pretty in my coma.... HAHA)


----------



## attachedmamaof3 (Dec 2, 2006)

I dunno...my barbies were pretty violent!! My sister and I had them fight, and they were kidnapped and imprisoned and had to escape, etc. Plus, doesn't the "hero" in princess stories have to fight??

So, what your preschool wants is for a girl to learn that she needs to be "rescued" .....ridiculous at best.

A better idea would be to allow boys to "play superhero" if they want to, just make sure there's no truly "violent" play....

The whole thing seems kinda ludicrous seeing how my 3 yr old makes a "sword" out of pretty much anything. Including his tooth brush.


----------



## silly_scout (Aug 31, 2006)

My first reaction is:








Our home will be princess/barbie/bratz free when DD is older. I think these toys promote self-esteem through looks, they promote girls to be passive, and are the building blocks for girls to allow themselves to be objectified.
BUT. I think no one should be able to tell me what kind of lunchbox I buy for my child within reason. Like, I don't think it's appropriate for a school-aged child to carry a Nightmare on Elm Street lunch box to school (if it exists) but an Incredible Hulk lunchbox? Dumb, but still falls within the parameters of freedom of speech/expression while being "age appropriate" (I guess).
This is my stance on the princess thing, too. Dumb - I disagree with the principles promoted by princess "stuff" - but it's freedom of expression and the implications in banning it makes me more nervous than the idea of exposing young girls to the images encouraged by princess paraphenalia. As long as this expression isn't harmful to another or overtly offensive (I mean, everyone gets offended by SOMETHING - this is obvious on MDC







) then I don't think it should be banned.
Here's what I mean: I have a peace pin on Hazel's diaper bag. I believe in peace. I might even put something peace-related on Hazel's lunchbox in the future if she likes it. I don't want someone telling me I can't do this. KWIM?
HOWEVER, I think it's great that you opened up a dialogue at your school. I think it's important that women don't just buy these things because "girls will be girls".


----------



## ChristyMarie (May 31, 2006)

I agree that their policy makes no sense. At the meeting perhaps try to focus on WHY they don't allow superheroes but the girly stuff is ok. Make them actually explain it. Using words. Poke holes in their logic.


----------



## boatbaby (Aug 30, 2004)

I think you are doing the right thing!!! Good for you! I would have done the exact same thing... keep us posted and keep your chin up!


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

I personally wouldn't have a problem with superhero play/characters, either (ds1 has always been a huge Spider-Man fan). However, if they're going to ban one, I don't see why there's a problem with banning the other. I'm with you.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ChristyMarie* 
I agree that their policy makes no sense. At the meeting perhaps try to focus on WHY they don't allow superheroes but the girly stuff is ok. Make them actually explain it. Using words. Poke holes in their logic.









:


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *silly_scout* 
This is my stance on the princess thing, too. Dumb - I disagree with the principles promoted by princess "stuff" - but it's freedom of expression and the implications in banning it makes me more nervous than the idea of exposing young girls to the images encouraged by princess paraphenalia. As long as this expression isn't harmful to another or overtly offensive (I mean, everyone gets offended by SOMETHING - this is obvious on MDC







) then I don't think it should be banned.

I tend to agree with this, but it doesn't apply to the OP's situation, as the preschool is _already_ banning what lunchboxes, toys, etc. the kids can have.


----------



## noah's mom (Jan 3, 2006)

I agree with your approach, from the perspective of - if they're going to ban one, they need to ban the other. Or neither. Definitely seems like a double-standard going on there.


----------



## silly_scout (Aug 31, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
I tend to agree with this, but it doesn't apply to the OP's situation, as the preschool is _already_ banning what lunchboxes, toys, etc. the kids can have.

Yeah, I know. I'm just saying that bans in general make me a little nervous.


----------



## ShaggyDaddy (Jul 5, 2006)

If you read batman comics, or even watch the critically acclaimed and widely respected late 1990s batman cartoon, you will see why the original title was "Detective Comics". Batman is a detective first and a butt-kicker second.

Spiderman was the first superhero with real problems. He is a scientist, a teenager, and a super hero. In the comic world he INVENTED the web shooter device and the fluid that gives him web (even though in the movie it is an organic mutation). He is a problem solver who uses his inventions and his powers in an attempt to solve problems without hurting people, people who want to hurt him.

The most appealing heroes are the ones we can relate to. The ones who use their brains to solve problems, and happen to have super powers. In the case of batman, careful planning, problem solving, and inventing ARE HIS ONLY POWER. He is a normal human who uses his brain, determination, and lifestyle to fight crime.

Anyone who does not understand the basic human need for mythology should be against teaching shakespeare, Roman and Greek history and mythology, religion, and basically all fiction. It is disturbing to me that a university research lab lacks basic understanding of human psychology, or at the very least does not care about it.


----------



## Petersmamma (Mar 28, 2006)

Personally, I don't really see the issue with superheroes. We play "superhero" at our house all the time. Which pretty much entails running around as though we are flying. So, no problem solving skills needed!









Since your preschool bans superhero play, I think it IS fair to also ban princess play. How do princesses represent problem solving? Grow your hair long so a man can climb up it (BTW, ouch!)? Go and be a housekeeper for 7 small men? Hmmm. I'm not digging those "problem solving" skills.

It IS hypocritical to allow the one while banning the other. I think the parents who want to keep princess play but ban superhero play need to justify themselves.


----------



## dynamicdoula (Jun 11, 2004)

I would argue that princesses often don't use good problem solving skills- passive aggressiveness, feigned weakness, constantly needing rescue... blech!

What about Xena, would she be allowed?


----------



## Kincaid (Feb 12, 2004)

I am so glad you all understand my point!!

I just want the policy to be fair and consistent. I don't allow either aggressive heros, or passive princesses, in my house.

I'm the only lesbian mommy at the school, so I am *positive* some of the parents are wanting to reply anonymous because they are saying "it's NORMAL for little girls to do this..." etc. As if I don't understand "normal" because my own sense of gender rightness is warped.


----------



## oceanbaby (Nov 19, 2001)

I think you are doing the right thing. I think it is ridiculous to ban superheros in general. If they want to do that, they should ban all characters. You can play violently without superheros, and you can play non violently with superheros. One thing has nothing to do with the other.


----------



## Kincaid (Feb 12, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ShaggyDaddy* 
Anyone who does not understand the basic human need for mythology should be against teaching shakespeare, Roman and Greek history and mythology, religion, and basically all fiction. It is disturbing to me that a university research lab lacks basic understanding of human psychology, or at the very least does not care about it.

I think you have made an incorrect jump in logic. They do NOT ban myth, or fiction. They certainly encourage fantasy play to a huge extent! They do not lack a basic understanding of human psychology because they don't want spiderman backpacks









I think what they tried to get at is a ban on "licensed characters", but they only knew how to rationalize the Superhero ones (blaming "violence").
My suggestion is for them to take it a step further and ban ALL licensed characters. They still offer a rich variety of fables via stories, books, etc. It's just not that marketed stuff that inundates kids.

FYI
Since Disney re-marketed their female characters as "princesses" in 2001, the sales of their girl characters increased from 300 million annually to 3 BILLION. They attribute this to the repackaging and marketing of princesses. Kids aren't even getting the fable of it any more (that Snow White was a housekeeper, not a fairy princess). They are getting the marketing only.


----------



## oceanbaby (Nov 19, 2001)

Kincaid said:


> They do not lack a basic understanding of human psychology because they don't want spiderman backpacks
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Peony (Nov 27, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *noah's mom* 
I agree with your approach, from the perspective of - if they're going to ban one, they need to ban the other. Or neither. Definitely seems like a double-standard going on there.

My thoughts exactly.


----------



## marybethorama (Jun 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kincaid* 
My point is, what is fair for one gender should be extended to both. It's hard to tell a child "superhero lunchboxes are not allowed" when a girl child has a Barbie lunchbox.
It's hard for me to reason that using beauty for problem solving is any better than using physical power for problem solving... (the girls often play Sleeping Beauty - I'm dead, someone needs to kiss me and bring me back to life, I'm so pretty in my coma.... HAHA)

I have to agree with you here. I personally don't mind either but you are right about princesses not modeling good problem solving


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kincaid* 
I'm the only lesbian mommy at the school, so I am *positive* some of the parents are wanting to reply anonymous because they are saying "it's NORMAL for little girls to do this..." etc. As if I don't understand "normal" because my own sense of gender rightness is warped.

How annoying - beyond annoying. I'm not a lesbian, so they wouldn't have that particular piece of asinine "ammo" in my case, and I'm 100% with you on this. I never liked princesses or Barbie or whatever. However, I devoured superhero comics as a kid (ShaggyDaddy - my two favourites were Batman and Spidey - wonder why?). I'd have been soooo upset if I'd been at a preschool where there was a bunch of princess and Barbie play, but I wasn't allowed to have a Batman lunchbox.

I think it's abnormal to think that our gender defines every single thing about us, from what we want to wear to what games we want to play. I mean...I loved dress-up, but I was as likely to dig out a cape and "swordbelt" as a long dress or old pair of high heels.


----------



## mahogny (Oct 16, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ShaggyDaddy* 
If you read batman comics, or even watch the critically acclaimed and widely respected late 1990s batman cartoon, you will see why the original title was "Detective Comics". Batman is a detective first and a butt-kicker second.

Spiderman was the first superhero with real problems. He is a scientist, a teenager, and a super hero. In the comic world he INVENTED the web shooter device and the fluid that gives him web (even though in the movie it is an organic mutation). He is a problem solver who uses his inventions and his powers in an attempt to solve problems without hurting people, people who want to hurt him.


HA! I was JUST going to point this out when I got down to your post!

My DS is a Batman fanatic! He's never seen any Batman TV shows, but instead devours the comic books. Batman is SMART! He has no superpowers, but he invented all this super cool stuff and became an incredible athlete in order to fight crime. He never beats up the bad guys, but rather puts them in jail.

Even cooler - Batman is his real persona; his Bruce Wayne character is fake. He plays Bruce Wayne as a playboy jerk so that no one will suspect that he's Batman.

He has to use his wits alone to figure out whodunit. He's a detective, but one with a cool cape!

We're big Batman fans around here, and IMO, it's absurd to outlaw superheroes!

But I agree with the sentiment of what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If superheroes are gone, then princesses should be, too. I agree 100% with the idea that all licenced characters should be banned.


----------



## Kincaid (Feb 12, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *oceanbaby* 
Question: Do they allow Buzz Lightyear? There is "violence" associated with that character, and as my 6yo exasperately points out to my 3yo all the time, "Buzz Lightyear is not a superhero, he's a Space Ranger!"

I think they did not have time or inclination to sit down and decide which hero uses fists/guns/lasers/swords/intellect... so they just lumped all BOY HEROS together and banned them.


----------



## jenP (Aug 22, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *noah's mom* 
I agree with your approach, from the perspective of - if they're going to ban one, they need to ban the other. Or neither. Definitely seems like a double-standard going on there.









:

Total double standard. Sick.
The waldorf school near us allows no licensed characters of any kind. I applaud that; school should be a commercial-free zone.
It would be cool if they could allow any kind of PLAY and dress-up, as long as they are not using licensed character costumes.

As for the idea that some parents are "afraid to express their views in public" - because they likely think that "big, bad, hairy, man-hating **** is trying to take away princess fun for our girly-girls and indoctrinate them to be gay too," well, that is just too sick sick sick for words, and I would address it openly. Call them on that bulls*&t. Any rational, logical, sane person should be able to see that the policy is unfair and inconsistent and needs to be fixed.

Good luck! I can't wait to see the updates.

Jen


----------



## ShaggyDaddy (Jul 5, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kincaid* 
I think you have made an incorrect jump in logic. They do NOT ban myth, or fiction. They certainly encourage fantasy play to a huge extent! They do not lack a basic understanding of human psychology because they don't want spiderman backpacks









What do you think roman children drew on their wax tablets? Hercules, a super hero, who happens to now be considered a literary figure, and is part of a historically important rich culture, which basically revolved around super hero worship.

Despite marketing SPIDERMAN IS MODERN MYTHOLOGY, spiderman is modern culture. Spiderman, batman, superman, etc etc are just as important as hercules, Huck Finn, Bilbo Baggins, Aslan the Lion, Alice in Wonderland, King Arthur and Beowolf...

Exclusive control of people's play is a low level form of mind control, and attempting to eliminate subculture, ideas, and themes through mind control is historically looked upon in a very poor light.


----------



## 93085 (Oct 11, 2007)

Wow, I'm jumping off the bandwagon here.








:

In general, I'm all about expanding freedoms, rather than contracting them. I'm all about not legislating morality (or whatever it is that the university believes is at stake here). I hate the argument that, "if we allow this, our values will decline." The same has been said in the past about integration, about gay rights, and the list goes on. I realize princess lunchboxes are not in the same category as gay rights, but I do think it falls into the category of a basic human freedom--freedom of expression--and I think it's the same kind of fearful, dictatorial voice that tries to squelch them.

This also goes to the concurrent thread about control in parenting. I can see that there are lots of different layers to that debate, but one thing I am definitely NOT on board with is giving the reins of "control" to some third party, like my kids' daycare. I don't want them hearing that princesses and superheroes are "wrong" or "bad" or "harmful" anymore than I want them hearing that it's bad for Connor to have two daddies. (Which it's NOT, in case I've been in any way unclear about that.







) They're thinking human beings, and they can decide on their own what interests them and what repels them.

The only thing I agree with here is that the current ban is unfair. If I were in this situation, I'd be sending out e-mails too, but mine would be calling for the ban on superheroes to be lifted. But who knows, it may be that your princess e-mail ultimately has that residual effect.


----------



## jenP (Aug 22, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mahogny* 
Even cooler - Batman is his real persona; his Bruce Wayne character is fake. He plays Bruce Wayne as a playboy jerk so that no one will suspect that he's Batman.

Omigosh! I never quite got that until you spelled it out just now! Now it all makes sense...







:

Jen


----------



## wonderwahine (Apr 21, 2006)

good for you!! I think it is rediculious to impose rules on one gender, yet let the other one continue. kids that age don't understand either, they see the girls with their character lunch boxes, why cant they have their one?


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wonderwahine* 
good for you!! I think it is rediculious to impose rules on one gender, yet let the other one continue. kids that age don't understand either, they see the girls with their character lunch boxes, why cant they have their one?

See, imo, it's not even really a rule for one gender...a girl who likes Spidey is still penalized under these rules.


----------



## wonderwahine (Apr 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mahogny* 
HA! I was JUST going to point this out when I got down to your post!

My DS is a Batman fanatic! He's never seen any Batman TV shows, but instead devours the comic books. Batman is SMART! He has no superpowers, but he invented all this super cool stuff and became an incredible athlete in order to fight crime. He never beats up the bad guys, but rather puts them in jail.

Even cooler - Batman is his real persona; his Bruce Wayne character is fake. He plays Bruce Wayne as a playboy jerk so that no one will suspect that he's Batman.

He has to use his wits alone to figure out whodunit. He's a detective, but one with a cool cape!

We're big Batman fans around here, and IMO, it's absurd to outlaw superheroes!

But I agree with the sentiment of what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If superheroes are gone, then princesses should be, too. I agree 100% with the idea that all licenced characters should be banned.

clark kent is also a persona, and the real man is superman. and if your dc is growing up watching smallville, they are seeing even more problem solving with moral choices to be made and human emotions to deal with.

I think its wrong to ban either one in schools, but if you plan to ban one, ban it for both sexes, dont pick on just the boys.


----------



## wonderwahine (Apr 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
See, imo, it's not even really a rule for one gender...a girl who likes Spidey is still penalized under these rules.

very true!


----------



## hhurd (Oct 7, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ShaggyDaddy* 
Despite marketing SPIDERMAN IS MODERN MYTHOLOGY, spiderman is modern culture. Spiderman, batman, superman, etc etc are just as important as hercules, Huck Finn, Bilbo Baggins, Aslan the Lion, Alice in Wonderland, King Arthur and Beowolf...

Exclusive control of people's play is a low level form of mind control, and attempting to eliminate subculture, ideas, and themes through mind control is historically looked upon in a very poor light.

Nicely stated, ShaggyDaddy.

This type of ban seems to support the notion that there's a backlash against boys in educational settings. I'm not saying there is, but...


----------



## 93085 (Oct 11, 2007)

A boy who wanted to wear a tiara would also be penalized under a princess ban, which I think would suck.


----------



## chinaKat (Aug 6, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kincaid* 
I'm the only lesbian mommy at the school, so I am *positive* some of the parents are wanting to reply anonymous because they are saying "it's NORMAL for little girls to do this..." etc. As if I don't understand "normal" because my own sense of gender rightness is warped.

Aw, crap. That's totally what the anonymous thing is about.


----------



## 93085 (Oct 11, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ShaggyDaddy* 
What do you think roman children drew on their wax tablets? Hercules, a super hero, who happens to now be considered a literary figure, and is part of a historically important rich culture, which basically revolved around super hero worship.

Despite marketing SPIDERMAN IS MODERN MYTHOLOGY, spiderman is modern culture. Spiderman, batman, superman, etc etc are just as important as hercules, Huck Finn, Bilbo Baggins, Aslan the Lion, Alice in Wonderland, King Arthur and Beowolf...

Exclusive control of people's play is a low level form of mind control, and attempting to eliminate subculture, ideas, and themes through mind control is historically looked upon in a very poor light.

We posted at the same time. ITA with this. Couldn't agree more. Agreeing, agreeing, agreeing. Did I say I agree?


----------



## wonderwahine (Apr 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jescafa* 
A boy who wanted to wear a tiara would also be penalized under a princess ban, which I think would suck.

yes and so is a girl who likes supergirl or wonderwoman......the rule all around sucks


----------



## Kincaid (Feb 12, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ShaggyDaddy* 
What do you think roman children drew on their wax tablets? Hercules, a super hero, who happens to now be considered a literary figure, and is part of a historically important rich culture, which basically revolved around super hero worship.

Despite marketing SPIDERMAN IS MODERN MYTHOLOGY, spiderman is modern culture. Spiderman, batman, superman, etc etc are just as important as hercules, Huck Finn, Bilbo Baggins, Aslan the Lion, Alice in Wonderland, King Arthur and Beowolf...

Exclusive control of people's play is a low level form of mind control, and attempting to eliminate subculture, ideas, and themes through mind control is historically looked upon in a very poor light.

Roman children were not subjected to the assault of sophisticated global marketing forces aimed at children. Marketing to children is now a heavily oppressive phenomenon. If Disney picks up the rights to Beowolf, puts their own spin on it, and saturates the market with licensed t-shirts, lunchboxes, notebooks, pencils, toys, yadda yadda yadda... it becomes something other than a fantasy. It becomes a marketing force.

Spiderman is NOT the problem. I agree with you, that is our version of a modern myth. I have a problem with the machine that is marketing to our kids. And the fact that one gender in our school is getting to enjoy it, while another can't. Make sense?


----------



## 93085 (Oct 11, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kincaid* 
I have no problem with the heros... I have a problem with the machine that is marketing to our kids. And the fact that one gender in our school is getting to enjoy it, while another can't. Make sense?

Again, neither superheroes or princesses are necessarily gender-specific.

And while I agree it's unfair that kids can enjoy one and not the other, I don't buy (to coin a phrase) that the solution is to make it so that no one enjoys either.


----------



## wonderwahine (Apr 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jescafa* 
Again, neither superheroes or princesses are necessarily gender-specific.

And while I agree it's unfair that kids can enjoy one and not the other, I don't buy (to coin a phrase) that the solution is to make it so that no one enjoys either.

i think that by poking holes in their logic, you can either get the rule reversed, or make it fair on everyone. Its simply not fair to have one group of kids lose out on their fantasy play etc and the other group still have theirs. I would much rather see an all around unfair rule than a onesided one.


----------



## 93085 (Oct 11, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wonderwahine* 
i think that by poking holes in their logic, you can either get the rule reversed, or make it fair on everyone. Its simply not fair to have one group of kids lose out on their fantasy play etc and the other group still have theirs. I would much rather see an all around unfair rule than a onesided one.

I don't think we disagree, I'm just saying the rule sucks and there's no way to make it fair. You outlaw superheroes and princesses, but then...what...Wizard of Oz characters are OK? What about devils? What about Nemo? What about jungle cats? What about Polly Pocket? What about Hello Kitty? What about Betty Grable? What about the OC? What about High School Musical? What about the Rocky Horror Picture Show? What about Malcolm X? What about a "Support the Troops" lunchbox?

If my kids' school had a rule like this, I'd buy all the lunchboxes I could find that had potentially culturally complicated messages and send my daughter with a different one every day. With her permission, of course.


----------



## wonderwahine (Apr 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jescafa* 
I don't think we disagree, I'm just saying the rule sucks and there's no way to make it fair. You outlaw superheroes and princesses, but then...what...Wizard of Oz characters are OK? What about devils? What about Nemo? What about jungle cats? What about Polly Pocket? What about Hello Kitty? What about Betty Grable? What about the OC? What about High School Musical? What about the Rocky Horror Picture Show? What about Malcolm X? What about a "Support the Troops" lunchbox?

If my kids' school had a rule like this, I'd buy all the lunchboxes I could find that had potentially culturally complicated messages and send my daughter with a different one every day. With her permission, of course.

















me and you are on the same wavelength, I would do that to, my mum did a similar thing with me as a young teen. My school had a natural hair colors only rule, so she dyed my hair purple with my permission


----------



## Aliviclo (Jul 3, 2007)

The school isn't trying to ban superheroes because of the marketing factor; it mistakenly assumes that superheroes only use muscle to solve problems.

Quote:

Exclusive control of people's play is a low level form of mind control, and attempting to eliminate subculture, ideas, and themes through mind control is historically looked upon in a very poor light.
I agree with this from ShaggyDaddy entirely, and will take it one step further. To say that my kid wearing his favorite Batman t-shirt has anything to do with marketing to your kid is ridiculous. Batman is out there in the world, and you're going to have a hard time not seeing him. Banning other children from wearing or carrying Batman paraphernalia won't solve it. If you are morally opposed to marketing to children, talk to your KIDS about it. Whenever my kids ask for something they've seen in a commercial, I explain to them that commercials are the way that companies make stupid stuff look cool. It's not that hard.

Forbidding superhero play is developmentally inappropriate. Children learn to feel their power in the world by acting out good v. evil scenarios. It's comforting to create a villain, and then let Batman take him to jail.

OTOH, kids would be fine without princess play. You can still play with dress-up clothes, have tea parties, and do everything princesses do, without having to be a princess, per se.


----------



## stik (Dec 3, 2003)

Children learn problem-solving from the models their parents and teachers provide every day, not from the characters on their lunch-boxes and t-shirts.

When a child acts out a situation in which someone makes a bad decision, teachers and parents can either:
1) recognize the imaginative moment and let the child continue that play while being attentive to safety issues, or
2) use that as a teaching moment and initiate a conversation about choices.
Banning clothes, lunch-boxes, and pretend play doesn't help children learn problem-solving skills either.

My daughter insisted on wearing her Batman shirt and cape to school every day for three weeks when she was three. For her, superhero play consisted of running around the playground as fast as she could, and climbing and jumping over things. It was great for her gross-motor skills, and wore her out so that she slept well at night.

I think the school are being poop-heads. I think they should take a look at some of the great comic literature that's appeared in the last 20 years. And I think they should let all the kids play with the roles they want.

Also, I think the OP should go to the meeting fully prepared for the ugliness that's likely to come through the school director in the form of "anonymous comments." Make a plan to be kind to yourself before and after, and know that we're all on your side.


----------



## Kincaid (Feb 12, 2004)

Well, Jessica, I am sending my son to preschool to learn his letters and numbers and get along. I am not sending him as my bearer of political/social messages. I am happy sending a PLAIN backback, a plain lunchbox, and plain white diapers.

The idea that I would complicated cultural messages daily on my son's person is silly to me. His life is complicated ENOUGH by having two mommies, etc etc etc. Not everything for him needs to be "charged" with a message. He should be able to enjoy school and his three-year-oldness with innocence.

Wonderwhaine, you hit my sentiments exactly. Buy making them consider princesses, I am forcing them to take a closer look at what this policy really signifies. Maybe they will end up with a list of "ok" superheros. Maybe they will ban all licensed characters. I don't know. But I hate seeing the different standard


----------



## katheek77 (Mar 13, 2007)

I just have a problem with it because of the "slippery slope" concept...

OK...superheroes are banned...that's our spidey, superman, batman, etc. Because of the "violence" aspect. Hmmm...how about GI Joe? Is he bad and violent, as well? Can my daughter still wear camo (my husband is in the Army, so, she does have some camo stuff) or is that too much like GI Joe? Does that mean her Daddy is bad and violent? I can just imagine how that conversation would go...What constitutes "princess" play? Can they play "beauty queen"? Is it ok to play "princess" as long as they don't have a tiara? What about pretending to be an unnamed mermaid? Where do you "squash" it, so to speak?

If it's marketing that's a concern...well, are we going to ban all clothes with any logos or all name-brand clothes/shoes (don't laugh...I taught at an elementary-middle school where that IS the policy (except sneakers for sports). Do we just go to uniforms? Another aspect of marketing goes to what the kids eat...do we now ban anything that's pre-packaged? Only literally homemade snacks allowed now...

Yes, I'm playing devil's advocate a bit above, but, honestly, I don't see why someone would want to ban "play". I suppose I could go along with licensed apparel or whatever, but, to tell my daughter she can't pretend to be just like Daddy or can't do a princess tea party because it "doesn't demonstrate good problem solving skills" is kind of off the wall, IMHO.


----------



## Teensy (Feb 22, 2002)

If the school is going to ban licensed characters, or some additional subset thereof, they need to have a discussion about it this year, but not implement it until next year. I'd be none too happy if I let my child pick out a bookbag, lunch box, winter coat, clothing, etc. and THEN found out mid-year that it would not be allowed.


----------



## Kincaid (Feb 12, 2004)

kathee,
The ban is just on the items. Bringing a batman toy, a lunchbox, etc. I do not know how they handle the fantasy play and will definately ask!!

I totally agree with your point about slippery slope. My son has a raincoat that is camo pattern. Does camo signify "violence" in the same way that the batman insignia on a shirt seems to? I know a child was sent home with a note about the batman shirt (on a day where half the girls had on DIsney princess stuff). My son had a camo raincoat on that day.

It's so inconsistent!!


----------



## 93085 (Oct 11, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kincaid* 
Well, Jessica, I am sending my son to preschool to learn his letters and numbers and get along. I am not sending him as my bearer of political/social messages. I am happy sending a PLAIN backback, a plain lunchbox, and plain white diapers.









I wasn't seriously suggesting that you make him a billboard. I was hyperbolizing. Not to say I wouldn't actually do that, as long as DD was on board, but I wasn't telling you to.









Quote:

The idea that I would complicated cultural messages daily on my son's person is silly to me. His life is complicated ENOUGH by having two mommies, etc etc etc. Not everything for him needs to be "charged" with a message. He should be able to enjoy school and his three-year-oldness with innocence.
Here's the thing: MOST three-year-olds do not want to celebrate their three-year-oldness with plain backpacks, plain lunchboxes, and plain white diapers. MOST of them want to express themselves with images that are meaningful to them. If your kid is happy with the plain stuff, that's fab, and maybe that's his own way of expressing himself. That would sure make him unusual though. What I suspect is that the plainness of his school accoutrements actually _is_ actually an expression of your own social/political views. Because I have to say you've clearly put a lot more thought into it than I've put into my daughter's Hello Kitty lunchbox. Which she picked out herself.

Peace.


----------



## katheek77 (Mar 13, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kincaid* 
kathee,
The ban is just on the items. Bringing a batman toy, a lunchbox, etc. I do not know how they handle the fantasy play and will definately ask!!

I totally agree with your point about slippery slope. My son has a raincoat that is camo pattern. Does camo signify "violence" in the same way that the batman insignia on a shirt seems to? I know a child was sent home with a note about the batman shirt (on a day where half the girls had on DIsney princess stuff). My son had a camo raincoat on that day.

It's so inconsistent!!


OK...I just put the stuff about play because in the original post it says "no superhero play" and I was extrapolating that to the other possible scenarios.

And, yes, it does seem inconsistent and there seems like there must be a lot of grey area which could go either way depending on who's looking at the policy.


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

Not only is it a huge double standard, but it's a stupid policy to begin with. First, superheroes are not all "might makes right" clods. Anybody who's ever read Spiderman or Hellboy or Toy Story for that matter knows that there is much going on beyond the fighting, even *gasp* reason. Even assuming that "superheros don't use good problem solving skills", how on earth is having one on a lunch box a threat to learning good problem solving skills? That is totally paranoid, IMO.


----------



## 93085 (Oct 11, 2007)

I keep thinking about my daughter's Hello Kitty lunchbox. She's never even seen a Hello Kitty show. Are there shows? I'm honestly not sure. She picked it because she likes cats, and it was her favorite color (pink) and it was sparkly. I don't know how on earth I'd explain to her that she couldn't use it because it's a "licensed character." Talk about loss of childhood innocence!


----------



## ShaggyDaddy (Jul 5, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kincaid* 
Roman children were not subjected to the assault of sophisticated global marketing forces aimed at children.

Are you kidding me? 25% of the roman economy (and almost 100% of what survived the test of time) was used for worshiping, advertising, following, and diefying super heroes.


----------



## jauncourt (Mar 15, 2007)

If they do ban "superhero play" outright, does that include made-up heroes? My little guy loves superman, spidey, et al, but his favorite hero to "be" is "stripeman!!" who wears a striped baby blanket as a cape, with my striped knit headband for a hat, and pretends to fly and save people. Oh, and his secret identity is a construction worker named Frank (who is kind of like Bob the builder and also drives a train). He used to be "chocolateman" when he was 2 and running nakey through the house with a basket for a hat.

I'm pretty sure that most little kids make up their own pretend people, and I _really really hope_ they are not forbidding a common type of pretend play. Kids should not be restricted to fairytale fantasy and real-life pretend. That defeats the entire point of pretend play.

Oh, I could just go on and on. What I mean is that they shoudl make it a blanket "no licensed characters" policy for everyone and not create an environment of gender descrimination (even if it's also not fair to the non-princessy girls - I played boy games almost exclusively as a girl, only playing princesses with a male friend who later came out as transgendered - the "establishment" often does not even consider the non-girly girls or the non-boyish boys, which is an entirely seperate kettle of Poop).


----------



## Iris' Mom (Aug 3, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dynamicdoula* 
I would argue that princesses often don't use good problem solving skills- passive aggressiveness, feigned weakness, constantly needing rescue... blech!

What about Xena, would she be allowed?









ITA, and that it's a double standard.


----------



## beanma (Jan 6, 2002)

kincaid, my dd1's preschool had a rule about superhero play on the playground. i believe that nobody could be a bad guy (there could only be pretend bad guys) and they could only "rescue" other classmates who wanted to be rescued. at preschool i think they were having some problems with (mostly) the boys getting into "fights" when someone was being the bad guy and someone was being the super hero. i am a little hazy on it because dd1 was not at all interested in that kind of play so she kept her distance. i don't think banning lunchboxes is the answer if they're having behavior problems. they should address the behavior and explain why it's causing problems and work with the kids to develop a solution.

personally, i would be fine with an overall character ban (barbie, bratz, disney), but generic ideas like "princess" are a little harder to deal with. not all princesses are passive. there are some great modern story books and classic fairy tales out there about princesses who save the day. i think "princess" is more generic like "knight" or "wizard".

anyway, i think if you get into a discussion with the powers that be about superheros and princesses if you approach it from the standpoint of identifying the problem (violent play?) then work together to come up with creative solutions to solve that problem (no bad guys) you're going resolve the situation in a more positive manner than if you get into an antagontistic "no superheros, then no princesses" battle.

hth


----------



## lara1828 (Aug 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ShaggyDaddy* 
If you read batman comics, or even watch the critically acclaimed and widely respected late 1990s batman cartoon, you will see why the original title was "Detective Comics". Batman is a detective first and a butt-kicker second.

Spiderman was the first superhero with real problems. He is a scientist, a teenager, and a super hero. In the comic world he INVENTED the web shooter device and the fluid that gives him web (even though in the movie it is an organic mutation). He is a problem solver who uses his inventions and his powers in an attempt to solve problems without hurting people, people who want to hurt him.

The most appealing heroes are the ones we can relate to. The ones who use their brains to solve problems, and happen to have super powers. In the case of batman, careful planning, problem solving, and inventing ARE HIS ONLY POWER. He is a normal human who uses his brain, determination, and lifestyle to fight crime.

Anyone who does not understand the basic human need for mythology should be against teaching shakespeare, Roman and Greek history and mythology, religion, and basically all fiction. It is disturbing to me that a university research lab lacks basic understanding of human psychology, or at the very least does not care about it.

That's what I was going to say much less eloquently!


----------



## RomanGoddess (Mar 16, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ShaggyDaddy* 
If you read batman comics, or even watch the critically acclaimed and widely respected late 1990s batman cartoon, you will see why the original title was "Detective Comics". Batman is a detective first and a butt-kicker second.

Spiderman was the first superhero with real problems. He is a scientist, a teenager, and a super hero. In the comic world he INVENTED the web shooter device and the fluid that gives him web (even though in the movie it is an organic mutation). He is a problem solver who uses his inventions and his powers in an attempt to solve problems without hurting people, people who want to hurt him.

The most appealing heroes are the ones we can relate to. The ones who use their brains to solve problems, and happen to have super powers. In the case of batman, careful planning, problem solving, and inventing ARE HIS ONLY POWER. He is a normal human who uses his brain, determination, and lifestyle to fight crime.

Anyone who does not understand the basic human need for mythology should be against teaching shakespeare, Roman and Greek history and mythology, religion, and basically all fiction. It is disturbing to me that a university research lab lacks basic understanding of human psychology, or at the very least does not care about it.

This is fascinating. Can you please tell me about Superman?


----------



## Smokering (Sep 5, 2007)

As a bit of a geek, I just have to giggle at the 'superheroes don't use good problem-solving skills' thing. Clearly... they don't know ANYTHING about superheroes! There's more to superheroes than 'smash pow zoom'; there has to be, because 'smash pow zoom' frankly isn't that interesting. Certainly not interesting enough to hook millions of people into becoming diehard fans!

PPs have already mentioned the obvious--that Batman is a normal (although very rich and intelligent) human being, that Spiderman enhanced his mutant abilities with his scientific inventions. Many superheroes have their powers thrust upon them without their knowledge or consent (the X-Men by mutation, Spidey by his bite, the Fantastic Four by--what was it, an explosion?), and have to painfully learn to deal with their altered state, and the responsibilities their new condition entails. It's not 'woo, I have superpowers'--ever. It's about learning, and accepting, and sacrificing, and protecting loved ones; pretty noble themes, don't you think?!

Now, let's look at the 'problem-solving skills' of, say, Ariel. Unhappy with what she is (strike one), she doesn't solve her problems by either a) getting over it or b) talking to Daddy, who has the power to make her human. Instead, she repeatedly disobeys him (strike two), but it's okay because she's pretty. After putting herself and her friend in danger (strike three) in this manner, she falls in love with a complete stranger simply because he's good-looking (strike four), and makes a deal with the devil (strike five!!!) in order to seduce the guy. Never mind checking to see if he already has a girl back home, or criminal convictions; that wouldn't be very Disney, now would it! During her time on land Ariel completely blunders communication (strike six)--c'mon girl, how hard is it to use a bit of sign language?--in favour of mooning around and looking kissy. Once everything goes to hell in a handbasket, she relies on Daddy again to both save the day and fix her original problem (by turning her into a human again). Yeah. Great problem-solving skills there. On the plus side, we can only credit Ariel with a little bravery (although saving the life of the guy you're madly in love with, a bit of a given) and certain personal charms. I defy any superhero to come up with character traits worse than that!

I'd be interested to see how they deal with Xena, being as she's both a superhero _and_ a princess.









As regards the OP, I'd be more concerned with lifting the superhero ban than banning the princesses, vapid as they may be. I'm generally anti-censorship; the parents can of course still decide not to choose princesses or superheroes for their children's lunchboxes, if they prefer. Maybe you should show the meeting some well-chosen clips from superhero movies and Disney movies, illustrating the respective character traits of each group and the 'problem-solving skills' demonstrated?

Quote:

This is fascinating. Can you please tell me about Superman?
Superman does have intrinsic powers; he's an alien from the planet Krypton, sent to Earth by his father when Krypton was about to be destroyed, both to save his son and so his son could save the world. Superman was raised by a farmer couple, and was sickly until he discovered his superpowers at around puberty (I'm a bit fuzzy on that). He can see through anything except lead, fly, move incredibly quickly, supercool things with his breath, do something lasery with his eyes... let's just say, he has a lot of moves. TBH, a lot of comic book fans dislike Superman for this reason--he's just too ridiculously powerful. The only thing that can stop him is Kryptonite, radioactive pieces of his homeworld, which (according to various colours) weaken him, turn him evil, kill him etc. Superman pretends to be Clark Kent by day, a mild-mannered and bumbling reporter. Opinions vary as to whether Clark Kent or Superman is the 'real' persona; various shows/movies have taken various angles. Lois and Clark posited that he was 'really' Clark Kent; Superman Returns posited that he was 'really' Superman, or more accurately Kal-El, his 'alien' name.

In other words, he's not the subtlest or smartest of superheroes--he has a lot more brawn than the rest, and does consequently use his strength more than his head. But he's dedicated to saving the world, which is nice; he loves Lois Lane, another reporter, and is always saving her life; he's fond of his adoptive parents, and takes his role of Savior of the World very seriously. In short, he's not a bad guy. Incidentally, the ridiculously powerful Superman has charged Batman (the smart guy with no intrinsic powers) with stopping him, should Superman ever turn evil or get out of control. Batman's the only guy he trusts to do the job, because well... Batman's got the brains! Kinda sweet, I think.


----------



## ShaggyDaddy (Jul 5, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cmlp* 
This is fascinating. Can you please tell me about Superman?

Superman is an alien from a dead planet. His parents Jor-el and Lara Lor-Van sent him as a gift to earth and a last desperate effort to preserve the legacy of a race of people (kryptonians) who got too greedy to powerful to prevent their own planet from being destroyed (kind of like us). Jor-el was an inventor and a scientist, and he placed a great deal of knowledge and responsibility (save the human race) on the shoulders of young Kal-el.

He is tortured and alone, an alien with no family and no real humanity yet he spends his nights and days protecting us from whatever evil we can think of. He has incredible power, yet he is powerless to actually make his own life better. His fight is one of salvation for an entire dead civilization. He is a fascinating Mythological figure, and in my opinion will be studied in school soon enough. He is a perfect being, and still really has a lot to deal with. That makes it an incredible medium for commentary on people, take away all obvious physical frailties, and show how frail we still are even when we can fly, have x-ray vision, and are bullet proof.


----------



## chaoticzenmom (May 21, 2005)

good for you. You're my new hero, er um, I mean Prince







:


----------



## wonderwahine (Apr 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jauncourt* 
If they do ban "superhero play" outright, does that include made-up heroes? My little guy loves superman, spidey, et al, but his favorite hero to "be" is "stripeman!!" who wears a striped baby blanket as a cape, with my striped knit headband for a hat, and pretends to fly and save people. Oh, and his secret identity is a construction worker named Frank (who is kind of like Bob the builder and also drives a train). He used to be "chocolateman" when he was 2 and running nakey through the house with a basket for a hat..

I wonder if supergrover is banned to


----------



## transformed (Jan 26, 2007)

I think it is a bad idea to treat little girls as princesses. Has anyone noticed the onslaiught of "Diva" and "I'm so great" wear marketed to little girls? My SIL bought my baby daughhter of 4 months old a DIVA ONSIE.

I took a photo and then burned the onsie. (LOL, Not really but I did in spirit.)

I cannot imagine what kind of 12 year olds they turn into....or what kind of adults

"The Real World," "My Super Sweet 16" pop into mind.

I really do not encourage princess play at my house, but I wont deny them of it either. (Same with superheros/Army dude games)

It somehow "feels wrong" to my spirit...

I saw a Tshirt today for a young girl at Target, they were selling and it said: (I only remember 2 of them







)

1. I say I want it
2. ???
3. You BUY IT.

On their website there is a T for a preteen that has a cute bunny pic on it and it says







'm Cute, Youre not, wow-I cant belive how well this worked out."

Why is it ok to be a bitc* on a t-shirt?

This is teaching a horrible sense of entitlment to our girls.

Is that what the fight was even about?







I had to rant. Sorry.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *transformed* 
Why is it ok to be a bitc* on a t-shirt?

This is teaching a horrible sense of entitlment to our girls.

If it makes you feel any better, there are lots of "I'm a jerk and proud of it" t-shirts for the preteen boys, too. Some of them make me nuts, and I was one who wouldn't have thought twice about wearing a Van Halen "For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge" shirt to school...


----------



## transformed (Jan 26, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
If it makes you feel any better, there are lots of "I'm a jerk and proud of it" t-shirts for the preteen boys, too. Some of them make me nuts, and I was one who wouldn't have thought twice about wearing a Van Halen "For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge" shirt to school...

I always promised I wouldnt censor my kids like this....but I just cant feel ok about my little baby wearing a DIVA onsie! It makes her little precious self look like a total brat to me.









Or OMG, little girls with words on their butts.

I dont kow what happened to me. I am so not going to be a cool mom.


----------



## LilahsMama (Mar 16, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kincaid* 
Marketing to children is now a heavily oppressive phenomenon. If Disney picks up the rights to Beowolf, puts their own spin on it, and saturates the market with licensed t-shirts, lunchboxes, notebooks, pencils, toys, yadda yadda yadda... it becomes something other than a fantasy. It becomes a marketing force.


ITA. I used to work in a Montessori school that had banned licensed characters and toy weapons. I feel it was an appropriate policy.


----------



## chicagomom (Dec 24, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kincaid* 
The preschool just sent out a mass e-mail reminding parents kids were not to have or wear anything Superhero. I wrote back to the entire list serv saying "How about we add Princesses to the policy also? Or simply changing the policy to no licensed characters."

I like it! And it's kind of silly for them to say that superheroes exercise poorer judgment than any other licensed character. They all have a rather exaggerated sense of themselves, no?

As a mom who lets her dd dress up as a princess (though we don't do the licensed character stuff), my issues with licensed character princess paraphernalia are a) they promote consumerism and consuming for its own sake, and b) the utter lack of imagination. Honestly I wouldn't care if dd wanted to wear a tiara to school every day (or a pirate hat, or a construction worker hat). But licensed stuff is about creating needs to shop, to buy more licensed stuff. There's already so much consumerism in school - school should be an ad-free zone where kids are encouraged to use their minds and imaginations.

So I think banning all licensed character stuff would be a great thing.


----------



## lovingmommyhood (Jul 28, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kincaid* 
I am so glad you all understand my point!!

I just want the policy to be fair and consistent. I don't allow either aggressive heros, or passive princesses, in my house.

I'm the only lesbian mommy at the school, so I am *positive* some of the parents are wanting to reply anonymous because they are saying "it's NORMAL for little girls to do this..." etc. As if I don't understand "normal" because my own sense of gender rightness is warped.

Well, they need to remember that it's also normal for little boys to be aggressive. Instead of remembering that they label them ADD and ban superhero play.







:UGH whatever happened to boys will be boys?!

I'd personally go after them for banning superhero stuff in the first place. Why ban everything?


----------



## hipmummy (May 25, 2007)

I agree with you princesses create their own gender stereotypes and frankly I do not see anything pretty about them. I feel they are kind of flaky and disingenuous. and do not even get me going about Barbie.







:


----------



## lovingmommyhood (Jul 28, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *transformed* 
I always promised I wouldnt censor my kids like this....but I just cant feel ok about my little baby wearing a DIVA onsie! It makes her little precious self look like a total brat to me.









Or OMG, little girls with words on their butts.

I dont kow what happened to me. I am so not going to be a cool mom.









UGH I hate the writing on the butts for little girls. Sorry but I'd rather not draw peoples eyes to my little girls butt.

I wouldn't dress my baby in a diva onesie either. Barf.

Now if my daughter wants to play with Barbies when she's older I will let her happily. I saved all of mine from when I was little. I think people read WAY too much into them. Never once did I think I wanted to look like a Barbie. She's a doll. I never wanted to look like a cabbage patch either.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *transformed* 
I always promised I wouldnt censor my kids like this....but I just cant feel ok about my little baby wearing a DIVA onsie! It makes her little precious self look like a total brat to me.









Or OMG, little girls with words on their butts.

I dont kow what happened to me. I am so not going to be a cool mom.









I don't know if I'm a cool mom, but I don't think so. OTOH, I would probably let ds1 wear a snotty t-shirt - and deal with the backlash - but I absolutely will NOT buy one, and I'll talk to him about my objections if he ever does so himself. He does seem to get my issue with the putdown shirts and stuff, so maybe it won't be a problem.


----------



## sphinxie (Feb 28, 2006)

I like the thread title so much, I think it's particularly appropriate for the subject matter.


----------



## jeca (Sep 21, 2002)

I agree if they ban one they should ban the other. I don't have a problem princess or superhero fantasy personally but the policy should be fair to both genders.


----------



## hippymomma69 (Feb 28, 2007)

My kids go to 2 different preschools - one has a ban on commercial characters of any kind on t-shirts, lunch boxes, etc The other simply has a "no toy weapons" ban....

I fail to see the "superhero" ban...if it's the aggression, then wouldn't their ban make it okay to dress like a pirate or something else violent but non-commercial? If it's "not using good problem solving skills" then they haven't read the same comics I have!

sorry you kicked up such a hornets nest but really, when you have something that is so gender-biased it's kind of inevitable....other schools have managed to address their concerns in a more "equitable" way.
peace,
robyn


----------



## flapjack (Mar 15, 2005)

We had a similar battle when DS1 was in his first year at school: the little ones were spending all of their playtimes playing superman (iow, running around the playground as fast as they can with their arms outstretched and their arms out of their coats) and the girls complained. THEN the play moved on to Power Rangers (which none of the kids involved ever actually watched- apparently it's just planned playfighting- and the school got involved and started actively discouraging the games.







: Ironically enough, the headmaster at the time was a fairly weak head who supported and encouraged playfighting whilst not providing any support for the boys who were struggling socially with the pack rules- basically, if you started playing willingly at the start of playtime, it didn't matter how scared or out of control you got after that







: By keeping out of it and enabling children to play naturally, you are committing yourself to a higher level of social education for those who struggle- especially with the boy games, where bumped knees and cross mummies are a natural consequence for the teachers- and some schools just aren't up to the challenge.
The little boys got their superman games back, btw- they went and spoke to the school governors meeting and the decision was made in their favour.


----------



## RomanGoddess (Mar 16, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ShaggyDaddy* 
Superman is an alien from a dead planet. His parents Jor-el and Lara Lor-Van sent him as a gift to earth and a last desperate effort to preserve the legacy of a race of people (kryptonians) who got too greedy to powerful to prevent their own planet from being destroyed (kind of like us). Jor-el was an inventor and a scientist, and he placed a great deal of knowledge and responsibility (save the human race) on the shoulders of young Kal-el.

He is tortured and alone, an alien with no family and no real humanity yet he spends his nights and days protecting us from whatever evil we can think of. He has incredible power, yet he is powerless to actually make his own life better. His fight is one of salvation for an entire dead civilization. He is a fascinating Mythological figure, and in my opinion will be studied in school soon enough. He is a perfect being, and still really has a lot to deal with. That makes it an incredible medium for commentary on people, take away all obvious physical frailties, and show how frail we still are even when we can fly, have x-ray vision, and are bullet proof.

Wow, I love it! So human and yet not human. He has always been my favourite superhero.


----------



## transformed (Jan 26, 2007)

for the most part, I like superheros because they show the kidss "the good guys win" side....which is exactly what I belive and what I want my kids to belive. But I hate the fact that they are marketed so heavily-consumerism makes me sick! uke


----------



## 93085 (Oct 11, 2007)

There are potential negative associations with almost every type of childhood play. Superheroes are violent; princesses are passive, heard it. Superheroes are also brave, strong, proactive, confident. Princesses can be heads of state. Aren't those positive, empowering models? When we try to X something out of our childrens' lives, we then couch these things in purely negative terms; hampering their ability to approach these concepts in an imaginative way and reap the positive from it.


----------



## transformed (Jan 26, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jescafa* 
There are potential negative associations with almost every type of childhood play. Superheroes are violent; princesses are passive, heard it. Superheroes are also brave, strong, proactive, confident. *Princesses can be heads of state. Aren't those positive, empowering models*? When we try to X something out of our childrens' lives, we then couch these things in purely negative terms; hampering their ability to approach these concepts in an imaginative way and reap the positive from it.

Princesses _can_ be, but I have never seen them presented to children thaat way. Its always all about clothes and looking pretty and telling people what to do. (Thats the only kind of princess play I have witnessed)

But you give me a good idea to start with my little girl and teach her to be a "good kind" of princess!


----------



## 93085 (Oct 11, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *transformed* 
Princesses _can_ be, but I have never seen them presented to children thaat way. Its always all about clothes and looking pretty and *telling people what to do.*

That'd be the head of state aspect.







In my daughter's princess play, requests are often granted. This arguably is a model for good governance.


----------



## transformed (Jan 26, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jescafa* 
That'd be the head of state aspect.







In my daughter's princess play, requests are often granted. This arguably is a model for good governance.









I don't want to teach my dd to be bossy. Of course, I may have issues with the whole politics thing because I cant stand politicians.


----------



## Rivka5 (Jul 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
If it makes you feel any better, there are lots of "I'm a jerk and proud of it" t-shirts for the preteen boys, too. Some of them make me nuts, and I was one who wouldn't have thought twice about wearing a Van Halen "For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge" shirt to school...

My two-year-old has a shirt with a picture of the solar system, only in place of the sun is the word "me." Below the picture, it says, "Center of the Universe."

On a toddler, I think that shirt is funny, because it's such an accurate description of the two-year-old worldview. However: I have also seen a grown man wearing the same shirt. I didn't think that was funny at all.


----------



## CherryBomb (Feb 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Rivka5* 
My two-year-old has a shirt with a picture of the solar system, only in place of the sun is the word "me." Below the picture, it says, "Center of the Universe."

On a toddler, I think that shirt is funny, because it's such an accurate description of the two-year-old worldview. However: I have also seen a grown man wearing the same shirt. I didn't think that was funny at all.


My 6 year old has a shirt that says "Little Girl, Big Attitude" Boy is that ever accurate!! I generally hate the snotty type shirts, but that one doesn't bother me. If she were 13, maybe, but not at 6.

I'm okay with banning violent play, but I disagree with banning superheroes totally.

I'm also not completely anti-princess, though. My daughter will wear her princess necklaces and shoes with her Darth Vader mask and batman cape. I don't buy Bratz crap, or go overboard on the princess thing, but I don't mind Barbie (at least she had careers!) and dressing up.

I think the reverse double-standard in alternative parenting circles kinda sucks. Like if you let your son indulge in princess stuff, your super cool and open-minded, but you're awful if you let your daughter do it.


----------



## marybethorama (Jun 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lovingmommyhood* 
Well, they need to remember that it's also normal for little boys to be aggressive. Instead of remembering that they label them ADD and ban superhero play.







:UGH whatever happened to boys will be boys?!

I'd personally go after them for banning superhero stuff in the first place. Why ban everything?

I kind of have issues with that. My boys (and more than a few girls I've known) are certainly capable of role playing with weapons and even superheros sometimes. That said they've never been really _into_ superheros that much. Just not really their thing though I've never foribidden it or made any comment.

I do know some kids from our playgroup who are IMO more aggressive than average who, depsite being no tv and no character, were _very_ into Power Rangers, etc. They actually picked it up from Montessori school









If my kids went to their school, I think I would prefer that that kind of play be discouraged TBH. Those kids I knew were really mean to my kids and bullied them.

It bothers me to hear "boys are like that" because many boys I know are NOT so much like that. Ironically IME it's the kids who are forbidden more things who really latched onto it in play AND were aggressive towards others.

My kids and their friends (who are not really restricted)tend to play a wider range of things. Toy weapons are sometimes involved as I'm okay with that. But it's a smaller part of the overall play IME and it's not the only thing they do. The other kids I know seemed a bit obesessed TBH.

Anyway my rambling point is that while in our homelife we don't restrict and we've had good results I'm personally okay with "school rules" and having limits there.


----------



## Castle (Aug 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kincaid* 
If Disney picks up the rights to Beowolf, puts their own spin on it, and saturates the market with licensed t-shirts, lunchboxes, notebooks, pencils, toys, yadda yadda yadda... it becomes something other than a fantasy. It becomes a marketing force.

Not sure if this is what you were referring to, but Beowulf is actually coming out as a new movie next month. It's not Disney, but it is animated, and I'm sure they'll have lots of merchandise.


----------



## 93085 (Oct 11, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *transformed* 
I don't want to teach my dd to be bossy. Of course, I may have issues with the whole politics thing because I cant stand politicians.









That makes total sense. But it's food for thought, isn't it--is the princess thing bad because princesses are bossy? Or because princesses are passive? Doesn't one sort of mitigate the other?

And I personally don't think there's a thing wrong with little kids being into fashion and aesthetics and adornment. They might parlay that interest someday into becoming artists, fashion designers, set designers, animators, a whole host of creative careers. Maybe even art historians, like moi.

I should probably admit that I'm sure it's partly because I'm a museum professional that I am so repelled by creative censorship in general.


----------



## transformed (Jan 26, 2007)

I dont see princesses as passive at all. (I guess in cartoons they are portrayed that way....hmmm...) we havent gotten to that age with dd so I only have experience from when I was a girl, I havent had the oppertunity to observe little girls in princess play yet.









You are a museam professional! Holy Cow, that sounds like a good job for me. Sometimes I run into jobs I never even realized existed....but duh, people work at museams.







I, myself, am a bit of an artist. (A crappy one, LOL, but I enjoy myself.)

Sorry OT.


----------



## lovingmommyhood (Jul 28, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *marybethorama* 
I kind of have issues with that. My boys (and more than a few girls I've known) are certainly capable of role playing with weapons and even superheros sometimes. That said they've never been really _into_ superheros that much. Just not really their thing though I've never foribidden it or made any comment.

I do know some kids from our playgroup who are IMO more aggressive than average who, depsite being no tv and no character, were _very_ into Power Rangers, etc. They actually picked it up from Montessori school









If my kids went to their school, I think I would prefer that that kind of play be discouraged TBH. Those kids I knew were really mean to my kids and bullied them.

It bothers me to hear "boys are like that" because many boys I know are NOT so much like that. Ironically IME it's the kids who are forbidden more things who really latched onto it in play AND were aggressive towards others.

My kids and their friends (who are not really restricted)tend to play a wider range of things. Toy weapons are sometimes involved as I'm okay with that. But it's a smaller part of the overall play IME and it's not the only thing they do. The other kids I know seemed a bit obesessed TBH.

Anyway my rambling point is that while in our homelife we don't restrict and we've had good results I'm personally okay with "school rules" and having limits there.

Sorry you have issue with it. It's my opinion. Everybody has one.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

I'm with you Kincaid! Really for the reason that I think rigid gender roles are marketed to children via the selling of princess and super hero toys, and I think that is really, really unhealthy for everyone.

In my own home we have worked hard to avoid those things, and I would really resent dealing with a school or daycare context where my child is picking up those roles via other children's obsessions with the toys.


----------



## Izzy's Mom (Apr 15, 2002)

I haven't even read the whole thread yet but this horrifies me!!! I personally have no problem with superhero play anyway - and if it's about problem solving skills - well princesses are much more of a negative influence - they don't even solve their own problems much of the time!!!!

It should be all or nothing. If the issue is actually about fighting, violence then they need to address that specifically, not just eliminate superheroes.

Good luck - I hope your meeting is successful!


----------



## 93085 (Oct 11, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *transformed* 
You are a museam professional! Holy Cow, that sounds like a good job for me. Sometimes I run into jobs I never even realized existed....but duh, people work at museams.







I, myself, am a bit of an artist. (A crappy one, LOL, but I enjoy myself.)

Sorry OT.









It is a cool job. But re. the topic, we get the parental (and non-parental) thought-control thing all the time. Angry comment cards about the nudes (are we supposed to cover them up when children come through the doors?), the ecumenical holiday decorations (that pretty much pisses of Christians, Jews, pagans, _and_ Eastern religions equally), whether or not we have dealt with artists' biographies (mistresses, homosexuality, whatever) in a candid but sufficiently sanitized way, whether or not we have enough women/non-western/people of color artists up on the walls to offset the dominance of deal white maleness. If my daughters' preschool similarly became a cultural-ideological battleground, I think my head would explode.


----------



## Terabith (Mar 10, 2006)

My almost 4 yr old loves princesses.







I don't particularly like them, but I don't feel like banning them. She hasn't seen the movies, except for a few snippets (like the dr's office that had The Little Mermaid playing in the waiting room). But she has princess dress up dresses and princess panties. She didn't even know their names till dad clued them in. So there is no mythological awareness there. She likes pretty dresses and dancing.









Honestly, I could get behind a "no licensed characters" ban. I understand the preschool's position, in that when I taught preschool I got sick of the boys' only imaginative play involving acting out movies. But not having a superhero backpack or lunch box isn't going to change that.

I agree neither superheroes nor princess stuff help promote an active imagination. And we play "superhero" at our house, but it's not based on a movie, bc we haven't seen them. We just fly around and maybe pretend to save people and call ourselves Supergirl. So yes, either both are banned (as a no licensed character) or neither, I think.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Rivka5* 
My two-year-old has a shirt with a picture of the solar system, only in place of the sun is the word "me." Below the picture, it says, "Center of the Universe."

On a toddler, I think that shirt is funny, because it's such an accurate description of the two-year-old worldview. However: I have also seen a grown man wearing the same shirt. I didn't think that was funny at all.

I wouldn't like that one on an adult, either. It strikes me as a total toddler shirt. I could probably live with ds1 wearing it, because I know it would be tongue in cheek, but we'd also have a conversation about how other people might take it (eg. do you really want everyone thinking you're that stuck on yourself?). I probably wouldn't buy it for him.

The ones I _really_ loathe are the "sister for sale: cheap" and...can't think of very many right now, but there are a lot of them. I just find them totally offensive.

I still can't help having a soft spot for "Earth is full. Go home.", though...just strikes my funny bone, despite being kind of obnoxious.


----------



## ShaggyDaddy (Jul 5, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Terabith* 
I agree neither superheroes nor princess stuff help promote an active imagination.

That statement is very confusing to me. Imagination isn't just isolated thought in a bubble, some of the best stories of any time were built on other people's works. When we bring our imaginations together we create culture.

Shakespeare wrote Julius Caeser based not really on the history, but based on the stories that were part of his culture.

When CS Lewis wrote Grendel, he was building on a small detail in the oldest fairy tale.

When Sam Raimi directed the new spider man movie, he was building on the story and the style and the content of a legend he had nothing to do with.

If we give in to the serial licensing frenzy and allow our kids to be overwhelmed with marketing, we lose. But if we ignore our modern mythology and our modern culture in persuit of some unobtainable "uninfluenced" state, we miss out on a lot too.

There was a lot of useless crap that got performed at the Globe Theatre in the 1590s, performances that were exploitave, trashy, rip-offs, and were cash grabs designed to get people in the seats. It is true that the vast majority of plays were corporate cashgrabs designed to placete the masses. What if we decided to ignore all playwrites because they are just trying to take our money and write the most racey play? Is avoiding that stuff worth missing out on seeing the original run of Hamlet? Our modern culture has a lot of junk, but so did every culture. If there was no bitter in the world, how would we ever know what sweet tasted like?

Teaching my kids to wade through the junk and treasure the gems is my duty and my pleasure.


----------



## wonderwahine (Apr 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ShaggyDaddy* 
Teaching my kids to wade through the junk and treasure the gems is my duty and my pleasure.


----------



## journeymom (Apr 2, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CherryBomb* 
I'm okay with banning violent play, but I disagree with banning superheroes totally. .... I think the reverse double-standard in alternative parenting circles kinda sucks. Like, if you let your son indulge in princess stuff, your super cool and open-minded, but you're awful if you let your daughter do it.

I had this exact experience. My girlfriend's son is the same age as my daughter. I was kvetching with her about how my inlaws gave dd a Barbie gift, even though they knew I objected. However, dh and I had given dd a whole bunch of Star Wars figurines to play with. Girlfriend said they'd had the exact same experience, in reverse. Her mil gave ds a toy gun, knowing that girlfriend objected. But girlfriend didn't think twice when her ds played with Barbie dolls, she figured it was evidence that he's such a well rounded boy. It didn't occure to her think about effect playing with this impossibly built bimbo would have on her son. We had a good laugh about it, and then wondered about it.








:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Izzy's Mom* 
If the issue is actually about fighting, violence then they need to address that specifically, not just eliminate superheroes.

Yes. These day care providers are taking the lazy way out.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ShaggyDaddy* 
Teaching my kids to wade through the junk and treasure the gems is my duty and my pleasure.

And that's it, in a nut shell. Well said. (Though I didn't know Lewis wrote Grendel. I thought it was John Gardner.)

OP, this might all be moot, because the daycare directors/powers-that-be can simply say, 'Obviously you haven't found a good fit with this institution. Perhaps you'd like to try XYZ daycare down the road?'


----------



## ShaggyDaddy (Jul 5, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *journeymom* 
(Though I didn't know Lewis wrote Grendel. I thought it was John Gardner.)

d'oh, no it is Gardner... I have no idea why, but I always seem to get screwtape and grendel mixed up... I think I read them in the same month.


----------



## JamesMama (Jun 1, 2005)

I don't like the 'no superhero' play thing. Why? Okay, primarily it's boys that play superhero...not always of course, but primarily...or at least the more 'active' little girls.

Why are we trying to (for lack of a better phrase) punish little boys? This is why so many little boys are labeled ADD...they take away their active imaginative play and force them into a little box.

My son is BOY. He's the definition of the stereotypical little boy. He likes cars and trucks and trains and crashing and throwing balls and shooting pretend guns. I'm fine with all this because thats HIM. He has stuffed animals that he 'babies' heck he even breastfeeds some of them







but for the most part he is BOY.

If they are just banning the clothes, that is one thing. But if they are going to ban the Spiderman/Batman/Superman shirts they dang well better ban Cinderella and Snow White too. Personally, I'd be FOR banning all character backpacks, lunch boxes and clothes. Dora, Diego, Thomas, Disney Princess, Superman all included. If a little boy wants to wear a shirt with a generic superhero it should be allowed....what about Larry Boy? Is he banned? He's a Superhero...

But banning a specific method of play? Thats ridicules.


----------



## Very Snoofly (Jan 13, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Terabith* 
I agree neither superheroes nor princess stuff help promote an active imagination.

I don't know, my 5-year-old daughter has some Disney princess dolls and I think she plays with them in a very imaginative way. Not once have I witnessed her sit down with her Ariel doll and act out _The Little Mermaid_ step-by-step. Instead, Ariel goes to the park with her friends, or makes dinner for her baby, or flies on a plane to see her grandma, or (yes) gets married to her boyfriend. She plays the exact same way with her princess dolls, in fact, as she does with her generic wooden "Ryan's Room" dollhouse people, or her Groovy girls. I've seen the same thing with her friends -- even when they dress up as princesses it's because they want to "dance at a ball," not for the express purpose of "looking pretty" or to re-enact a Disney movie.

I certainly understand the concerns about marketing to kids and the more vapid aspects of Disney princesses, but I disagree that the "stuff" in and of itself limits or prohibits imaginative play.


----------



## transformed (Jan 26, 2007)

there have always been "heros" Little boys thousands of years ago were playing hero!

I wonder if we have just evolved past being heros. 









We are "too civilized" for heros.


----------



## KBecks (Jan 3, 2007)

Woo hoo! You go drama princess!









Actually, can it be proven that princesses and Bratz dolls do use "good problem solving skills?" I don't think so.









It sounds like gender bias to me too.


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *KBecks* 
Woo hoo! You go drama princess!









Actually, can it be proven that princesses and Bratz dolls do use "good problem solving skills?" I don't think so.









It sounds like gender bias to me too.

Sure, if they're fashion problems.







:


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

I agree that it is dumb. Either ban characters all together or don't ban any. It seems a bit sexist and even a bit strange. I am not generally into micro-managing little children, but if I were a preschool teacher, I would be tempted to ban all character stuff just so I would not have to look at it all of the time. It is all so hard on the eyes.

I really get irritated with the whole consumerist mindset that character stuff encourages. Not so much from the money standpoint but filling the world with more and more cheap crap. And it is all so ugly and tacky. We do not "ban" anything but dd has no idea this stuff is out there and that is fine with me. We do not have TV and never shop in the sorts of stores that have aisles filled with this sort of toy or clothing. We do not eat fast food and we do all of our food shopping at the co-op which does not have the infamous cereal aisle. She has seen many of the movies but has just not been exposed to the marketing surrounding them. That was not a specific goal of ours but it just worked out that way. I am sure that will change as dd gets older, but at the tender age of 4, at least I do not have to look at that stuff in my house. I was pretty irritated at the dentist office this week when dd got her Sponge Bob toothbrush. Is it really so hard to just have plain old toothbrushes for children? Does this crap HAVE to be everywhere? Grrrrrr.


----------



## calidarling (Jul 14, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GuildJenn* 
Sure, if they're fashion problems.







:











My ds is not at this age yet, however, I am enjoying this thread. You have all given me much to think about.


----------



## 93085 (Oct 11, 2007)

Hey, very intelligent, successful women (and men) have built empires out of solving fashion problems.







Wait--are empires bad? Have we established that?


----------



## Karry (Apr 10, 2002)

There is a similar ban on "violent" characters at my ds2's preschool. It is a Christian preschool if that matters. They allow characters like Dora, Diego, Thomas and princesses, but not Batman, Spiderman, Power Rangers, etc. I guess I never even considered it was unfair to allow the princesses and just ban the superheroes, but everyone is right it is unfair to the boys. Nik has a Diego backpack, but I'm sure if he would have had his pick he would have picked something that is on the banned list. Thanks for making me think more about this issue.


----------



## transformed (Jan 26, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Karry* 
There is a similar ban on "violent" characters at my ds2's preschool. It is a Christian preschool if that matters. They allow characters like Dora, Diego, Thomas and princesses, but not Batman, Spiderman, Power Rangers, etc. I guess I never even considered it was unfair to allow the princesses and just ban the superheroes, but everyone is right it is unfair to the boys. Nik has a Diego backpack, but I'm sure if he would have had his pick he would have picked something that is on the banned list. Thanks for making me think more about this issue.

I wonder if they teach the Bible. Some pretty violent parts of it. Also history in general.









Oh, I just bought my kids dora and sponge bob toothbrushes.







Last night at toothbrishing time I said "Who wants to brush biters with our new toothbrushes" All I heard were screams of joy ":YEAAAAA!!!" Usually what I heaar at tooth brushing time is "NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!" Because they know bedtime is soon to follow. I was so excited.







:


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Yooper* 
I was pretty irritated at the dentist office this week when dd got her Sponge Bob toothbrush. Is it really so hard to just have plain old toothbrushes for children? Does this crap HAVE to be everywhere? Grrrrrr.

Yes - it is that hard. The toothbrush thing is one of my pet peeves. It's SO hard to find a plain, ordinary toothbrush for kids. To add insult to injury, when I can find a plain brush, it's about 1/3 the price of the licensed ones...and I don't want them, anyway.


----------



## marybethorama (Jun 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lovingmommyhood* 
Sorry you have issue with it. It's my opinion. Everybody has one.


I'm sorry. You are entitled to your opinion. I really have an issue with certain kids. That's why the whole character issues pushes so many buttons with me.

The kids I'm referring to aren't allowed characters but they learn about them anyway and they use them in very aggressive play. Often people will say "oh they're just boys". My personal opinion (and I've had plenty of people agree with me) is that certain kids are overly aggressive and bully other kids. So it's not because they are boys and IMO not because of whatever character they are acting out. It's an issue with that child.

But I often hear how terrible it is that kids are allowed to watch certain shows or play with certain things because _some_ kids act out. I find myself defending kids I know who are overall pretty mellow despite the fact that they are allowed to play and watch a wide range of things.

My personal experience is that the kids at our school (almost all of who aren't media restricted)aren't so big on acting out characters. BUT the kids at a certain school I know (almost all of who ARE restricted) are obesessed with character-based violent play and TBH are often unpleasant because they are so rough. So, though I am against censorship, I do kind of wish that they would be stopped.


----------



## wonderwahine (Apr 21, 2006)

I like the character toothbrushes, ds saw them and picked them out himself off the shelf, even from cartoons hes never seen, and they have encouraged him to brush his teeth, he doesnt fight as much, asks for the brush so he can try it himself.

and i dont know where you guys are shopping, but I have found it very easy to find childrens toothbrushes that are plain and cheaper than the character ones. I use them on myself because adult sized heads always hurt my mouth.


----------



## WhaleinGaloshes (Oct 9, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ShaggyDaddy* 
If we give in to the serial licensing frenzy and allow our kids to be overwhelmed with marketing, we lose. But if we ignore our modern mythology and our modern culture in persuit of some unobtainable "uninfluenced" state, we miss out on a lot too.









Very well put; you're on a roll!


----------



## Terabith (Mar 10, 2006)

Okay, I should have been clearer. It's not that I think all superhero or princess stuff stifles an imagination, exactly. Of course literary elements build upon one another; fairy tales in particular (superheroes included). That's part of why a knowledge of the literary and cultural canon helps promote imagination; it gives you building blocks for creative works. And I agree that my dd plays with her princess dress up clothes the same way that she does with the play silks. But then, she hasn't seen the movies. I do know I have seen lots of little kids who role play the exact same script from movies or tv shows. Over and over and over. And get mad if another child isn't following the correct script. When a kid is stuck in that sort of rut, it *does* stifle the imagination. They aren't taking a theme or a character and extrapolating; they're mimicking. They don't even seem particularly fulfilled by the play. But I'm not sure that's exactly the product of having a superhero lunch box or costumes. (I can't really imagine a classroom for small kiddos without capes of some sort, really. Even if they're scarves tied as capes.) There's more to it than just commercial representation of the characters that causes that sort of repetitive play. I think as a preschool teacher, my preference would be for no character play. Otherwise, it is totally sexist and discriminatory and anti-boy.


----------



## melixxa (May 20, 2003)

This thread is making me mad and cracking me up at the same time. If the Bratz dolls are *successfully* solving fashion problems, then I guess I am a lot more out of touch than I thought I was. Ew. And: ha!

Personally, I find the princess stuff annoying and offensive but have my great love of superheroes (and Jedi and Xena and all that). Mulan, however, is one 'Disney princess' I truly love - though I have to say I've no idea if she's been officially included in Disney's pantheon of princesses. I know Tinkerbell recently was, to much fanfare and discord, and she's no more a 'Princess' than Mulan is.

Anyway, Mulan disobeys her father too (all these Disney girls seem to have daddy issues), but in this case to protect him. She's physically and mentally brave and she takes initiative. She finds the stereotypical girl stuff uninteresting and is struggling to find herself, to be herself in a restrictive culture. And along the way shows great ingenuity and heroism - for family and for country. What could be better than that? She is neither a princess nor a superhero: she is a straight-up hero. But she's a licensed character, that much is indisputable. I agree that it seems wrong for a school to ban some but not others, especially when the boys (and the girls like me) are just using these heroes to act out their battles of good against evil. I'm proud of my 4-year-old for always wanting to be a hero.

Well, add me to the list of people who are more horrified about the merchandising of princesses than superheroes. OK, I accept that Mattel does want to move as many plastic Spiderman backyard swimming pool units as possible. But the Bratz dolls, all they do is talk on their cell phones while shopping at the mall with their friends and/or putting on makeup. They come with cell phones, boutique shopping bags, etc. as accessories. I know because I see this on their commercials, which are shown between acts of 'Power Rangers: Generations,' which I happily watch every day with two small boys!


----------



## marybethorama (Jun 9, 2005)

My kids aren't so much into the superheroes aside from the Adam West Batman whom we still watch on DVD.

They are more into anime.

When they were younger we used to talk a lot about hitting and fighting as depicted in the shows.

We also used to say that the stories (meaning plot and characters) were really good even though we didn't like the hitting. Not in a heavy handed way just as we were watching.

As for the new superhero, youngest ds (6) was playing with a friend and the new character he invented is Archbishop O'Brien (the archbishop of Baltimore).







He made a big impression on my son obviously.


----------



## ktbug (Jul 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Karry* 
There is a similar ban on "violent" characters at my ds2's preschool. It is a Christian preschool if that matters. They allow characters like Dora, Diego, Thomas and princesses, but not Batman, Spiderman, Power Rangers, etc.

So, I've been wondering while reading this thread: Where do the Wonder Pets fit in? They're superheroes, but they're nonviolent. Sure, they're not as ubiquitously marketed as, say, Spider-man, but the merch is out there.

I guess it's a stupid question; most grade schoolers would be worried about getting beat up if they wore a Wonder Pets shirt to school. But the philosophical question stands. Where do they fit into this scheme?

I know, I'm obsessed with the Wonder Pets.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ShaggyDaddy* 

If we give in to the serial licensing frenzy and allow our kids to be overwhelmed with marketing, we lose. But if we ignore our modern mythology and our modern culture in persuit of some unobtainable "uninfluenced" state, we miss out on a lot too.

Disney princesses is not a part of modern 'culture' that I am particularly concerned with preserving, nor do I feel it would offer my daughter anything good. In fact I think it would offer a LOT that is bad.

I hardly see it as a disservice to children to avoid that kind of over-marketed, rigidly gendered propaganda.

We do not have to simply consume our culture. We can create it.


----------



## wonderwahine (Apr 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ktbug* 
So, I've been wondering while reading this thread: Where do the Wonder Pets fit in? They're superheroes, but they're nonviolent. Sure, they're not as ubiquitously marketed as, say, Spider-man, but the merch is out there.

I guess it's a stupid question; most grade schoolers would be worried about getting beat up if they wore a Wonder Pets shirt to school. But the philosophical question stands. Where do they fit into this scheme?

I know, I'm obsessed with the Wonder Pets.

supergrover is another problem solving nice non violent character whos a superhero. I wonder how they come up with their list of yes and nos.


----------



## wonderwahine (Apr 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
Disney princesses is not a part of modern 'culture' that I am particularly concerned with preserving, nor do I feel it would offer my daughter anything good. In fact I think it would offer a LOT that is bad.

I hardly see it as a disservice to children to avoid that kind of over-marketed, rigidly gendered propaganda.

We do not have to simply consume our culture. We can create it.

what about the fact that most of the disney "princesses" are fairy tales that have been around since the turn of the century.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wonderwahine* 
what about the fact that most of the disney "princesses" are fairy tales that have been around since the turn of the century.

They are fairy tales that have been plastic-ed up and mass marketed. Not cool. If you want to read turn of the century fairy tales (which I don't particularly as they reflect a very misogynist culture and seek to indoctrinate little girls into that), have at it. But Disney is not equivalent to an old fairy tale in its real form.


----------



## transformed (Jan 26, 2007)

Disney is









(She wrote, as her and the kids watched peter pan.)


----------



## wonderwahine (Apr 21, 2006)

I love disney.......I think its all in how you explain things to your kids and how you raise them.


----------



## Karry (Apr 10, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ktbug* 
So, I've been wondering while reading this thread: Where do the Wonder Pets fit in? They're superheroes, but they're nonviolent. Sure, they're not as ubiquitously marketed as, say, Spider-man, but the merch is out there.

I guess it's a stupid question; most grade schoolers would be worried about getting beat up if they wore a Wonder Pets shirt to school. But the philosophical question stands. Where do they fit into this scheme?

I know, I'm obsessed with the Wonder Pets.

I would think the Wonder Pets would be allowed, but I'm not sure. I can always ask. His school also does not celebrate Halloween. Instead they have pajama day, and they are not allowed to wear superhero pajamas. He'll be wearing Diego pajamas to school, and when he goes trick-or-treating he'll be dressed up as the blue power ranger.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *melixxa* 
This thread is making me mad and cracking me up at the same time. If the Bratz dolls are *successfully* solving fashion problems, then I guess I am a lot more out of touch than I thought I was. Ew. And: ha!









:







:

Quote:

Personally, I find the princess stuff annoying and offensive but have my great love of superheroes (and Jedi and Xena and all that). Mulan, however, is one 'Disney princess' I truly love - though I have to say I've no idea if she's been officially included in Disney's pantheon of princesses.
Yes - Mulan is part of the official Disney Princess pantheon. I didn't know about Tinkerbell (thought they had a separate "fairies" lineup), but the official pantheon as of a few months ago was:

Snow White
Cinderella
Aurora (Sleeping Beauty)
Ariel
Jasmine
Belle
Mulan
Pocahontas


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wonderwahine* 
and i dont know where you guys are shopping, but I have found it very easy to find childrens toothbrushes that are plain and cheaper than the character ones. I use them on myself because adult sized heads always hurt my mouth.

The stores sell them, but so much of the dental hygiene aisle is taken up with character brushes that they don't stock that many. When I'm shopping, the cheap, plain brushes are often sold out.


----------



## IndigoRayne (Feb 8, 2007)

It seems quite unfair to allow princesses but not superheroes, I mean who is going to save them from evil spells.


----------



## wonderwahine (Apr 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
The stores sell them, but so much of the dental hygiene aisle is taken up with character brushes that they don't stock that many. When I'm shopping, the cheap, plain brushes are often sold out.

must be regional then, my stores the character ones are nearly always sold out







I like winnie the pooh







:


----------



## Animal_Lady (Sep 25, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kincaid* 
...(because evidently a lot of the people who like princesses are afraid to speak up in a meeting... maybe some man will rescue them though, and they won't have to speak, LOL).


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wonderwahine* 
must be regional then, my stores the character ones are nearly always sold out







I like winnie the pooh







:

I'm guessing it's because even people who like the character brushes don't want to spend $3.49 when they can get one for $1.00.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wonderwahine* 
I love disney.......I think its all in how you explain things to your kids and how you raise them.

And... I do not think it's *all* in that. I also think it's what we expose them to in terms of media, especially at such young ages.

I also think we create our culture, we don't have to just sit by and passively consume it. I find it pretty funny/sad that people are arguing that Disney and princess obsession are an important part of cultural mythology without which children would be missing out! We are agents here, just because a giant corporation spams our environments with something in an effort to embed it into our psyches, doesn't mean we are participating in 'culture' in a positive way by allowing it to infiltrate our children's minds and lives.

I am not a purist by any means, my child is watching Treehouse right now. But the argument that this is our culture, or that the negative effects of messages that communicate rigid and very seperate gender role expectations for boys and girls can be easily neutralized by some parental explanation, is a scary one to me.


----------



## meowee (Jul 8, 2004)

Some of the barbie movies where she is a princess/ fairy show her being extremely clever and brave, and unwilling to use violence.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *meowee* 
Some of the barbie movies where she is a princess/ fairy show her being extremely clever and brave, and unwilling to use violence.

But, does she have to be a freaking barbie princess to do those things? The princess thing is freaking everywhere. We have managed to avoid most of it, but it has been challenging. I resent that large corporations seek to fill my beautiful girl child's head with such garbage about what being a girl/woman is about. Honest to god, I can't believe we take this crap lying down, and then minimize how absolutely sh!tty it is.

Sheeple, that is what we are. Gah.


----------



## wonderwahine (Apr 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
But, does she have to be a freaking barbie princess to do those things? The princess thing is freaking everywhere. We have managed to avoid most of it, but it has been challenging. I resent that large corporations seek to fill my beautiful girl child's head with such garbage about what being a girl/woman is about. Honest to god, I can't believe we take this crap lying down, and then minimize how absolutely sh!tty it is.

Sheeple, that is what we are. Gah.

princesses were idolezed before the invent of tv...... its an age old thing, its not going to be squelched by banning tv and characters.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wonderwahine* 
princesses were idolezed before the invent of tv...... its an age old thing, its not going to be squelched by banning tv and characters.

Yes, that might be true. However, we now have media saturation via the television and all the characters that come with it and get dragged to school by the children who are indoctrinated. I have no way to know how avoidable the princess thing was before tv, but I am not pleased with how unavoidable it is now.


----------



## meowee (Jul 8, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
But, does she have to be a freaking barbie princess to do those things? The princess thing is freaking everywhere. We have managed to avoid most of it, but it has been challenging. I resent that large corporations seek to fill my beautiful girl child's head with such garbage about what being a girl/woman is about. Honest to god, I can't believe we take this crap lying down, and then minimize how absolutely sh!tty it is.

Sheeple, that is what we are. Gah.

My girls are not sheeple, and their heads are not filled with garbage. They spin wonderful fantasies and stories drawing from the movies they've seen, we tell each other princess and fairy stories every night... your attitude is really arrogant and condescending







:!


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *meowee* 
My girls are not sheeple, and their heads are not filled with garbage. They spin wonderful fantasies and stories drawing from the movies they've seen, we tell each other princess and fairy stories every night... your attitude is really arrogant and condescending







:!

I did not call your girls sheeple, I suggest you read my post again. I said *we* are sheeple, and I do believe we are when we internalize marketing by large corporations, in this case particularly marketing that encourages young impressionable children to identify with such rigid gender roles. Girls are helpless yet beautiful princesses, and boys are all powerful one dimensional superheros who save everyone and never feel vulnerable themselves... this is not healthy.

We need to wake up, IMO. Call that arrogant if you want, I call it plainly obvious.


----------



## wonderwahine (Apr 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
I did not call your girls sheeple, I suggest you read my post again. I said *we* are sheeple, and I do believe we are when we internalize marketing by large corporations, in this case particularly marketing that encourages young impressionable children to identify with such rigid gender roles. Girls are helpless yet beautiful princesses, and boys are all powerful one dimensional superheros who save everyone and never feel vulnerable themselves... this is not healthy.

We need to wake up, IMO. Call that arrogant if you want, I call it plainly obvious.

i think the real people who need to wake up are the people with veiws like this. not every princess is helpless and not every superhero is never vunerable. maybe you should re-read the thread and educate yourself.

one such superhero/princess is wonderwoman, who has very vunerable humanistic moments and is also a superhero princess.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wonderwahine* 
i think the real people who need to wake up are the people with veiws like this. not every princess is helpless and not every superhero is never vunerable. maybe you should re-read the thread and educate yourself.

one such superhero/princess is wonderwoman, who has very vunerable humanistic moments and is also a superhero princess.

Yes, wonderwoman is *one* female superhero. I wouldn't call her a princess. Wonderpets are non-violent, not tough superheros and I like them, and so does my kid.

What I am talking about are the majority of superhero/princess images, like Batman and Cinderella etc etc. The ones you see in Disney movies. You are taking smalltime exceptions to the rule and trying to make a case that this is what most of the superhero/princess propaganda is about.

It most emphatically is not. If children carried wonderwoman and wonderpets on their school lunchboxes, I would not have a problem. Let's not use a red herring to derail the actual issue.

I know little girls of age 4 and 5 who are caught up in princess play. Along with that play, for the children I know IRL, has come an early over-focus on appearance and an ostracization of boys from their social groups simply based on gender. This is not normal child behaviour, and it is not present to nearly the same degree in children who have not been indoctrinated into rigid understandings of and over-identification with their gender. IME, IRL. And yet we have normalized it, you will see people asserting that this overly gendered behaviour is normal. It is not normal, it is the result of marketing and gender indoctrination, of which the princess/superhero imagery plays no small part.


----------



## wonderwahine (Apr 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
Yes, wonderwoman is *one* female superhero. I wouldn't call her a princess. .

then you are misinformed on her mythology and going by your own assumptions, because she is a princess


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wonderwahine* 
then you are misinformed on her mythology and going by your own assumptions, because she is a princess

Whatever, it does not matter. Wonderwoman is not a character most children know very well, in this generation, sadly. I have one friend whose child knows Wonderwoman well, and it is because she is a conscious feminist and has gone out of her way to find the old movies and teach her child about Wonderwoman.

Poll a group of children about princesses, or children's characters in general, and Wonderwoman will not be on the radar for most of them.

I find it frustrating when people use red herrings to derail conversations.


----------



## yokosmile (Apr 22, 2007)

I hate the princess/superhero crap, but bans make me very nervous.


----------



## wonderwahine (Apr 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
I know little girls of age 4 and 5 who are caught up in princess play. Along with that play, for the children I know IRL, has come an early over-focus on appearance and an ostracization of boys from their social groups simply based on gender. This is not normal child behaviour, and it is not present to nearly the same degree in children who have not been indoctrinated into rigid understandings of and over-identification with their gender. IME, IRL. And yet we have normalized it, you will see people asserting that this overly gendered behaviour is normal. It is not normal, it is the result of marketing and gender indoctrination, of which the princess/superhero imagery plays no small part.

i never had any barbie etc, or watched disney movies or princess movies or even read anything more than the grimms fairy tales, and I was a tomboy, yet I spent hours playing as a pincess and dressing up in my mums dresses pretending they were big gowns.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wonderwahine* 
i never had any barbie etc, or watched disney movies or princess movies or even read anything more than the grimms fairy tales, and I was a tomboy, yet I spent hours playing as a pincess and dressing up in my mums dresses pretending they were big gowns.

Good for you, and I am not prepared to do a chronicle of your history to see where/why you would have picked up ideas about princesses and enough interest to engage in hours of play about it.

Princess play, as part of a larger trying on of roles and possibilities, is not nearly so damaging as obsession with it. What I see is the vast majority of 'grown up role model' type toys marketed to girls are princesses. And, that sucks. It is really one dimensional, and teaches our girls to associate only certain qualities (a particular type of physical beauty, helplessness) with womanhood. And then there is this over focus on it. The OP suggests that many of the girls come to school with princess icons on their lunchboxes. That is obsession and over focus. It is not one type of image among many that are accessible to girls. It is *the* primary image of femininity that our girls are internalizing.

That is my problem with it.


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

Yes, I can buy toothbrushes with no characters on them. In fact, we use an electric toothbrush so that is not the issue. My issue is that at dd's first ever dentist appointment she was given a Sponge Bob tooth brush, Blue's Clues toothpaste, and a Winnie the Pooh floss thing. Doctor Tony (the dentist) is dd's new idol and I am irritated that they are promoting this crap. Up until now, dd happily brushed her teeth with a regular toothbrush. She probably will in the future, but I do not want to be backed into a consumerist corner because the freaking dentist office cannot just order some red and blue toothbrushes. You know, the ones with the dentists name and number printed on them? My complaint is that it has to be EVERYWHERE. Nothing is sacred anymore.

And for those of you singing the praises of disney and character stuff, doesn't all of that loud, plastic, tacky stuff mess with your calmness level in your house? I want to be able to go into my bathroom and pee without looking at a neon green Sponge Bob toothbrush (that is also HUGE for some reason.....). Maybe I am just too picky? I ventured into the toy aisle of a discount store while on the rare by-myself shopping trip last week. I had not been in a toy aisle like that in probably 10+ years. The overload of tacky loudness nearly gave me a panic attack. I am fully aware that the day might come when dd will want some of that stuff. For now I am counting my blessings that I do not have to have any of that crap in my house. Yuck. Why does it have to be so so so ugly?

I knew the world was coming to an end when it took real effort to get a freaking slip-n-slide that did not have Barbie or Cars on it. WTH? Don't get me started on Candyland.......


----------



## wonderwahine (Apr 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
Good for you, and I am not prepared to do a chronicle of your history to see where/why you would have picked up ideas about princesses and enough interest to engage in hours of play about it.

Princess play, as part of a larger trying on of roles and possibilities, is not nearly so damaging as obsession with it. What I see is the vast majority of 'grown up role model' type toys marketed to girls are princesses. And, that sucks. It is really one dimensional, and teaches our girls to associate only certain qualities (a particular type of physical beauty, helplessness) with womanhood.

That is my problem with it.

but its only that way if that is all they are exposed to. and im sorry, but much more thn a few dolls and cartoons are making our girls focus on beauty and other qualitys. The whole culture around us does that, and ad on tv, any ad in print, the diet industry, even books.


----------



## ShaggyDaddy (Jul 5, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
I also think we create our culture, we don't have to just sit by and passively consume it.

Or sit by and arbitrarily doubt its merit.

For the record I have been fighting FOR super heroes in this thread, not necessarily for or against pricncesses. I want my daughter to know first hand that one of the many reasons she is worth so much to this world is because she understands why children like Princesses® and why those stories are appealing to young girls, and why she is above all that. If you wanted to write ground breaking strong female lead Fiction, you would almost certainly look at the Princess® phenomonon for inspiration on what you do not wish to become and why these girls fall head over heals for this concept. If you did not, you would likely fail to reach your audience.

If you stand there spinning around in a circle you could probably be able invent the wheel, but the team who invented the Prius could not have done it if they hadn't stood next to a gas guzzling pollution people mover.

If every generation had to invent the wheel we would never get anywhere.

If every generation had to start from scratch creating their own culture we would never get anywhere.

You can't rebel and innovate if you don't have anything to overcome.


----------



## wonderwahine (Apr 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Yooper* 
And for those of you singing the praises of disney and character stuff, doesn't all of that loud, plastic, tacky stuff mess with your calmness level in your house?

calm ..........in my house?







there never was calm, in fact, the character stuff has brought calm moments to my SN ds.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wonderwahine* 
but its only that way if that is all they are exposed to.

So, is that all these girls at the OP's child's preschool are exposed to? Because it seems a great many of them come with princess characters on their stuff. And IRL the girls I know who are encouraged to focus on princesses play in very rigid ways, as I said with an overfocus on appearance, and a trend toward playing only with each other and excluding boys. Like, the first thing they notice is gender, and bond based on that, not based on the character of each individual child.

That, IMO, is weird. My child does not do that. Unfortunately it is becoming increasingly hard to have her avoid picking that up as a norm in her peer group.

Quote:

and im sorry, but much more thn a few dolls and cartoons are making our girls focus on beauty and other qualitys. The whole culture around us does that, and ad on tv, any ad in print, the diet industry, even books.
Yes, sadly I very much agree with you. Based on my own observations of the girls in my child's peer group, however, princess imagery is the primary vehicle for communicating those messages to very young girls, who are shielded from print media, adult television, and the grown up world. Well, apart from the messages they get from their mothers, which all too often contain these ideas about femininity and womanhood.

I do not want my child indoctrinated with crap messages about womanhood. And I simply do not see how anyone can argue that the 'princess' messages about focus on physical beauty, helplessness, and overindulgence in material things, do not indoctrinate girls with crap messages about womanhood.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ShaggyDaddy* 
If you stand there spinning around in a circle you could probably be able invent the wheel, but the team who invented the Prius could not have done it if they hadn't stood next to a gas guzzling pollution people mover.

Who is spinning around in a circle? I find it absolutely bizarre that you are asserting that avoiding the whole princess/superhero one dimensional gender role dichotomy, anyone is spinning wheels or existing in a vacuum.

My child's imaginative life is rich, not devoid. Her ideas about what girlhood and womanhood mean are also rich and developing with as little undue 'girls are pretty and helpless' influence as possible. That does not mean she has no ideas about what it is to be a girl. It simply means her ideas are not bogged down in one dimensional gender stereotyping.

Children IMO lack the capacity to really take in these messages about gender, which are so pervasive, and criticize them without internalizing them. Hell, *I* lack that capacity. Critique is my defence but it doesn't mean they don't infiltrate my psyche in unhealthy ways. It doesn't mean I wouldn't rather be free of those ideas altogether, and that my mind and imagination wouldn't be freer for it. Because it most certainly would. How could I expect better psychological defence to such insideous imagery from my child? Much better to not expose a developing mind to them at all, than to let them in and give her a defence with which to attempt to repel them and minimize the damage. That is simply nuts.


----------



## wonderwahine (Apr 21, 2006)

i think the more they have lack of exposure, the harder it is for them to process and overcome it when they are no longer children.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wonderwahine* 
i think the more they have lack of exposure, the harder it is for them to process and overcome it when they are no longer children.

Absolutely not. You think that early indoctrination makes it *easier* for a person to look at an ideology objectively??? That is patently false. It is clear that the younger a child is indoctrinated in something, the less able they are to step back from it and critique it. That has been proven in psychological theory time and time again.


----------



## wonderwahine (Apr 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
Absolutely not. You think that early indoctrination makes it *easier* for a person to look at an ideology objectively??? That is patently false. It is clear that the younger a child is indoctrinated in something, the less able they are to step back from it and critique it. That has been proven in psychological theory time and time again.

no, i think letting your child grow up in a censored bubbled hurts them when they are left in the real world without your little bubble to protect them, it does not have to be indoctrination as you call it, it is the real world we live in, and if they never are exposed to it, then when they are no longer under your thumb/wing they can get hurt more by the harsh reality.


----------



## dallaschildren (Jun 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wonderwahine* 
i think the more they have lack of exposure, the harder it is for them to process and overcome it when they are no longer children.

Absolutely disagree.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wonderwahine* 
no, i think letting your child grow up in a censored bubbled hurts them when they are left in the real world without your little bubble to protect them, it does not have to be indoctrination as you call it, it is the real world we live in, and if they never are exposed to it, then when they are no longer under your thumb/wing they can get hurt more by the harsh reality.

So... I assume you are anti-homeschooling for the same reasons then? And anti-AP? Coz after all, it's a cruel world out there. They ain't gonna be able to nurse when they are 50, and if they are crying at work ain't nobody going to pop them in the sling.

Childhood is childhood for a reason. They should be under our wings, under our protection. That is called parenting.


----------



## dallaschildren (Jun 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
Absolutely not. You think that early indoctrination makes it *easier* for a person to look at an ideology objectively??? That is patently false. It is clear that the younger a child is indoctrinated in something, the less able they are to step back from it and critique it. That has been proven in psychological theory time and time again.

Agreed.


----------



## wonderwahine (Apr 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
So... I assume you are anti-homeschooling for the same reasons then? And anti -GD? Coz after all, it's a cruel world out there. They ain't gonna be able to nurse when they are 50, and if they are crying at work ain't nobody going to pop them in the sling.

Childhood is childhood for a reason. They should be under our wings, under our protection. That is called parenting.

patenting and childhood are two tottaly different things from censorship. I refuse to censor my child, weither it be with tv, his chosen play either princess, pirate, or something alltogether and even his clothing, toy and toothbrush choices. to me its just not an importat issue, if you make an issue out of it on either extreme, it becomes an issue.

and you can disagree all you want, because i will always disagree with your extremist side as well.


----------



## FancyD (Apr 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wonderwahine* 
i think the more they have lack of exposure, the harder it is for them to process and overcome it when they are no longer children.

No way this is true.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wonderwahine* 
patenting and childhood are two tottaly different things from censorship. I refuse to censor my child, weither it be with tv, his chosen play either princess, pirate, or something alltogether and even his clothing, toy and toothbrush choices. to me its just not an importat issue, if you make an issue out of it on either extreme, it becomes an issue.

and you can disagree all you want, because i will always disagree with your extremist side as well.

To me it is very much an important issue, the gender indoctrination that girls (and boys) receive and how that affects their developing psyches. I consider it one of my most important jobs as a mother to protect my child from the extreme amount of propaganda out there, so she can develop as fully and normally as possible.

Look around you... I have said my problem with princess propaganda is the over-focus it encourages on a particular brand of physical beauty, learned helplessness, and overindulgence in material things. How many grown women struggle with some or all of these issues? A lot. And damn, wouldn't we be fuller, healthier, more alive people if we didn't? I know that as I have examined and let go of my internalized beliefs about myself as it relates to those issues, I have become a richer and more self-directed person.

I want that freedom from internalized misogyny for my child, minus the 20 to 30 years of struggle. It is about evolution. I think it is outrageous how we encourage girls to immerse themselves in toys that communicate such crap messages about womanhood, and we pay no mind to what they are internalizing and how that is going to prevent them from being more free, in themselves, than were women of past generations.

Those messages have done none of us any damn good.


----------



## wonderwahine (Apr 21, 2006)

and there are plenty of women who had all that and came out fine without any issues. blanket statements dont make it the truth. sure, some women have body issues, and if you ask alot of them, it didnt come from a princess or barbie, it came from their familys, their peers, adult television and marketing and the diet industry.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wonderwahine* 
and there are plenty of women who had all that and came out fine without any issues. blanket statements dont make it the truth. sure, some women have body issues, and if you ask alot of them, it didnt come from a princess or barbie, it came from their familys, their peers, adult television and marketing and the diet industry.

Plenty of women came out with no issues? Please! Look around at our consumerist culture. Buy buy buy, it's what we do, especially women. Women + shopping is a cliche at this point! And what, 12% of women are comfortable with how they look in a bikini? That means what, 88% are not? That is not 'plenty' of women with no issues.

If you ask them, they may well cite adult sources. But that does not mean women were unaffected by the way those exact messages were communicated to them as little girls, via princess mythology et al. What we internalize in childhood is much, much less examined than what we internalize in adulthood. Just because we do not as adults necessarily cite the damage it has done, does not mean it has not done damage.

Princess mythology communicates very similar messages as the diet industry and adult television. Only it communicates those messages to children, not adults. Please do not tell me children are somehow immune, but lose that immunity in adulthood? Because that makes no sense.


----------



## wonderwahine (Apr 21, 2006)

I for one never looked at a barbie or princess and said "i want to be like that and look like that" and neither did any of my friends. But they did end up growing up saying "i want to look like janet jackson/britney spears/current starlet in movies" and they got negative images about their bodies from tabloids and their peers.


----------



## dallaschildren (Jun 14, 2003)

thismama.







Thank you for your insightful posts and thorough explanations in this thread.


----------



## malibusunny (Jul 29, 2003)

My small boy wouldn't mind at all if no superheros were allowed (he is uninterested in them) but would be crushed if you took away the princesses.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dallaschildren* 
thismama.







Thank you for your insightful posts and thorough explanations in this thread.









: Thank you! I've been much more able to articulate my position on this issue tonight than I have in discussions past. I guess I get smarter when I'm procrastinating on essay writing.









Now I gotta go feed my little screamer...


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wonderwahine* 
I for one never looked at a barbie or princess and said "i want to be like that and look like that" and neither did any of my friends. But they did end up growing up saying "i want to look like janet jackson/britney spears/current starlet in movies" and they got negative images about their bodies from tabloids and their peers.

Has it occurred to you that perhaps we play out in adulthood the dynamics we learned in childhood? Perhaps celebrity women and starlets are the grown up princesses...


----------



## dallaschildren (Jun 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
Has it occurred to you that perhaps we play out in adulthood the dynamics we learned in childhood? Perhaps celebrity women and starlets are the grown up princesses...


----------



## the_lissa (Oct 30, 2004)

thismama you freaking rock. I love your posts on this thread.


----------



## chaoticzenmom (May 21, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wonderwahine* 
and there are plenty of women who had all that and came out fine without any issues. blanket statements dont make it the truth. sure, some women have body issues, and if you ask alot of them, it didnt come from a princess or barbie, it came from their familys, their peers, adult television and marketing and the diet industry.

So, you're saying that you know where this comes from, but that you refuse to sensor it for your child? I don't let my children watch the news because it's an unrealistic concentration of the negatives of the world. It's not reality at all, it's "be afraid, be very afraid" so I sensor it. I try to sensor as much commercialism as possible for the the same reasons. I don't want my children to be victimized by it. I don't want negative outside influences having free and open access to my children. Those things are our responsibility to sensor. We can't expect anyone who makes money off our children to put the children before their pocketbooks, so it's up to us as parents.

Lisa (mom to 3 wonderful children)


----------



## ktbug (Jul 8, 2006)

I don't know about any responsibility to censor, but what about behavior modeling and gentle nudging? There's a way to let kids know that certain things exist which we don't approve of, but acknowledging their existence and talking about why we don't want to emulate them is IMO much more effective than simply saying those things don't exist. I don't like Barbie and I don't like Disney Princesses (or any princesses, frankly, who don't try to put on their own capes and save their own damn selves), but I don't plan to try to wipe their existence from the face of the earth with my (not-yet-born) daughter - I will instead strive to teach her why I think they suck. Just like with my (born) son - I don't like GI Joe, but I'm not going to censor the existence of soldiers and super-macho role models. I'm just going to provide him with discussion opportunities and alternatives. And I'm going to make the alternatives look cooler.









To me, censorship or outright forbidding is a surefire way to make a kid curious about something.


----------



## water (May 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wonderwahine* 
i think the more they have lack of exposure, the harder it is for them to process and overcome it when they are no longer children.

This is patently false.


----------



## Inci (Apr 22, 2005)

I don't have time to write much at the moment, but I wanted to say THANK YOU, thismama, for all of your eloquent words in this thread. ITA with pretty much everything you've said. And this, in particular, bears repeating:

"I also think we create our culture, we don't have to just sit by and passively consume it. I find it pretty funny/sad that people are arguing that Disney and princess obsession are an important part of cultural mythology without which children would be missing out! We are agents here, just because a giant corporation spams our environments with something in an effort to embed it into our psyches, doesn't mean we are participating in 'culture' in a positive way by allowing it to infiltrate our children's minds and lives.

I am not a purist by any means, my child is watching Treehouse right now. But the argument that this is our culture, or that the negative effects of messages that communicate rigid and very seperate gender role expectations for boys and girls can be easily neutralized by some parental explanation, is a scary one to me."

And this:

"Children IMO lack the capacity to really take in these messages about gender, which are so pervasive, and criticize them without internalizing them. Hell, *I* lack that capacity. Critique is my defence but it doesn't mean they don't infiltrate my psyche in unhealthy ways. It doesn't mean I wouldn't rather be free of those ideas altogether, and that my mind and imagination wouldn't be freer for it. Because it most certainly would. How could I expect better psychological defence to such insideous imagery from my child? Much better to not expose a developing mind to them at all, than to let them in and give her a defence with which to attempt to repel them and minimize the damage. That is simply nuts."

So, so true.


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

Well, we do not censor. But I am also not going to go out and purposely expose her to these things either. If dd told me that all she wanted for Christmas was a bubble gum pink Barbie McMansion complete with the tanning bed, Botox room, and optional plasma screen TV, we would likely try our best to accommodate that (assuming we had the budget for it). But dd (4 yo) does not know Barbie exists. I am not going to drag her into Walmart to show her everything she is missing when she is currently quite happy with her non-branded baby dolls and other simple toys. If I could just keep the freaking DENTIST from flashing all that, then I would be a much happier mom. I fully expect her to pick this stuff up from other kids (although so far none of her friends seem to be in the know either) and from just generally living in the world. I did not expect my neighborhood dentist to be the messenger.

Should I be worried that she will have trouble "processing it as an adult" because our values and lifestyle do not lead us to even see this stuff in the normal course of our day? Should we start taking field trips to Wallyworld to see all the flashy plastic crap in an attempt to keep her out of therapy as an adult? I think not. I am not worried at all. I am just wallowing in my blissful days of being Dora-free while the getting is good


----------



## aran (Feb 9, 2005)

thismama

Just because a corporation produces it, doesn't mean my family must consume it - as if all video media were instantly "culture" just because it is ubiquitous. Why does it seem to me that so many MDC moms look at media images differently than, say, food or medical choices. I mean, yeah, my supermarket is filled with trans-fat and high fructose corn syrup, but I don't buy it. Am I censoring my kids? Will they not be able to recognize the goodness of whole foods unless I let them eat that crap for comparison? Maybe if I feed them some trans-fat and then talk to them about why it is bad for them, it will negate its artery clogging badness? Shall I give them the new rotovirus vaccine just because big pharma produced it and the peds are pushing it? Mothers here "censor" all sorts of stuff that our kids would probably "tough out," and seem just fine after experiencing, but for some reason, the moms who think it's OK to exclude characters with questionable moral character often get flamed. To me, this seems to be







:


----------



## ledzepplon (Jun 28, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kincaid* 

What you do think?

My point is, what is fair for one gender should be extended to both. It's hard to tell a child "superhero lunchboxes are not allowed" when a girl child has a Barbie lunchbox.
It's hard for me to reason that using beauty for problem solving is any better than using physical power for problem solving... (the girls often play Sleeping Beauty - I'm dead, someone needs to kiss me and bring me back to life, I'm so pretty in my coma.... HAHA)

I think you have a great point. I think the current policy sounds unfair to boys.


----------



## Kincaid (Feb 12, 2004)

thismama, thank you so much for GETTING it. It's probably no coincidence that here we are, two queers, who are railing against the Barbification of little girls.

Sleeping Beauty is crap! I don't care how much anyone is a devotee of pop culture or whatever. She was in a COMA, out of it, sealed shut in a GLASS coffin (why a glass coffin you ask? Why, so that her silent comatose beauty could shine through). And a man comes and kisses her. She comes to life. She is then devoted to him. She marries and has babies. She gets to be princess and others bow down to her.

Sleeping Beauty is one of the "top" selling Disney Princesses. There are more lunchboxes and tee shirts and backpacks of her than any of the others. Why is she a fave? Maybe it's because she has the pink dress. Maybe it's because she's the WHITE Blue-Eyed blonde. A lot of the moms I know say their daughter likes Sleeping Beauty best because she's "the prettiest one" - she's the most white/blonde of all the dolls. Doesn't that make you sick? Come on!

Want to hear what Disney itself has to say about Sleeping Beauty? Here ya go! This is straight off the Disney Princesses web site *
""By the time sleeping Beauty is awakened from her slumber by the prince, she has been transformed from a sheltered girl into a mature young woman ready to become a bride."*"
see for yourself:
http://disney.go.com/princess/html/main_iframe.html

What brought about this amazing transformation of the preferred Aryan princess? Being kissed. By a Prince. She transforms from a comatose sheltered girl, to a "mature young woman ready to be a bride."


----------



## katheek77 (Mar 13, 2007)

Not to go off topic, but, in the older versions of Sleeping Beauty, wasn't it, um, a bit more (rape) than a kiss that woke her up? Must look this up now.


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kincaid* 
thismama, thank you so much for GETTING it. It's probably no coincidence that here we are, two queers, who are railing against the Barbification of little girls.

Sleeping Beauty is crap! I don't care how much anyone is a devotee of pop culture or whatever. She was in a COMA, out of it, sealed shut in a GLASS coffin (why a glass coffin you ask? Why, so that her silent comatose beauty could shine through). And a man comes and kisses her. She comes to life. She is then devoted to him. She marries and has babies. She gets to be princess and others bow down to her.

Sleeping Beauty is one of the "top" selling Disney Princesses. There are more lunchboxes and tee shirts and backpacks of her than any of the others. Why is she a fave? Maybe it's because she has the pink dress. Maybe it's because she's the WHITE Blue-Eyed blonde. A lot of the moms I know say their daughter likes Sleeping Beauty best because she's "the prettiest one" - she's the most white/blonde of all the dolls. Doesn't that make you sick? Come on!

Want to hear what Disney itself has to say about Sleeping Beauty? Here ya go! This is straight off the Disney Princesses web site *
""By the time sleeping Beauty is awakened from her slumber by the prince, she has been transformed from a sheltered girl into a mature young woman ready to become a bride."*"
see for yourself:
http://disney.go.com/princess/html/main_iframe.html

What brought about this amazing transformation of the preferred Aryan princess? Being kissed. By a Prince. She transforms from a comatose sheltered girl, to a "mature young woman ready to be a bride."

Yikes!

Is that a movie?

I need to get out more......


----------



## Kincaid (Feb 12, 2004)

I don't know if it's a movie (probably is...). I just got that quote from the stinking PACKAGING that goes along with the Sleeping Beauty stuff that is sold - ya know, the lunchboxes, t-shirts, etc.

It would not surprise me if the original fable was a rape-fantasy. Especially since it clearly reads (via Disney) that she goes from being an innocent sheltered girl to a mature woman ready to be a bride.... (BARF)

All you folks defending the idea of superheros as cultural icons, you are missing my point. I just told the school if you are banning Spidey, you better get Sleeping Beauty off her back and out of the preschool too.

I am ok with generic "I'm a princess" play, especially if that princess is allowed to be anything other than white, blue eyed, blonde, thin, and dependent on men to save her.
This is not about Paperbag Princess or any of those rare excpetions.


----------



## laoxinat (Sep 17, 2007)

Hey mama,

I keep thinking it would be so awesome if one of the girls' mamas would get on board with you. So it can't be characterized as sour grapes, KWIM? My problem is not with the genders of the characters, just the commercialization in general. I hate that all kids are being made pawns in the corporate zeal to separate us all from as much of our hard-earned cash as possible. UGH. And ITA there's bias against queerness happening there. People can be such idiots







:
However, it sure made for a rip roaring thread!!! (thanks thismama! God you saved me from a lotta typing







)
laoxinat


----------



## Inci (Apr 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kincaid* 
thismama, thank you so much for GETTING it. It's probably no coincidence that here we are, two queers, who are railing against the Barbification of little girls.

Sleeping Beauty is crap! I don't care how much anyone is a devotee of pop culture or whatever. She was in a COMA, out of it, sealed shut in a GLASS coffin (why a glass coffin you ask? Why, so that her silent comatose beauty could shine through). And a man comes and kisses her.

I'm so with you, Kincaid... And I'm a lesbian, too! (Coincidence?!)
It pisses me off to hear about the homophobia you're dealing with at your kid's school. Okay, we're _assuming_ homophobia is what's behind the need for "safety" and "anonymous" feedback... that's really freakin horrible, that people are like that.

And yeah, Sleeping Beauty sure IS crap. Sleeping Beauty, and Snow White, are sexually assaulted by the princes. Comatose = unable to consent. It enrages me that Disney promotes this.

And OMG, I was once subjected to "Barbie and the Twelve Dancing Princesses" when a 3-year-old I was babysitting for had it on when I arrived. It's just as hideous and vapid as the title sounds; it seems more like an animated Saturday Night Live skit than anything else. I tried blocking most of it out, but one scene that stuck with me is when Barbie ("Princess" someone; I forget) somehow had the ability to wish for anything at all in the world and it would come true. She stands there going, "I wish... I wish........I wish for......." and the tension builds, and I'm filling in the blank with "An end to white supremacist capitalist patriarchy!!", when Barbie finally blurts out, "...BALLET MUSIC!"
And I nearly vomited up my lunch.


----------



## wonderwahine (Apr 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *water* 
This is patently false.

to you maybe, but I didnt say it is proven or studies show, i said i think. we will just ave to agree to disagree


----------



## oceanbaby (Nov 19, 2001)

I haven't read the last 5 pages - is there an update to the school situation?

(And FWIW, I am straight, and the whole being awakened with a kiss thing makes my skin crawl.)


----------



## GranoLLLy-girl (Mar 1, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ShaggyDaddy* 
If you read batman comics, or even watch the critically acclaimed and widely respected late 1990s batman cartoon, you will see why the original title was "Detective Comics". Batman is a detective first and a butt-kicker second.

Spiderman was the first superhero with real problems. He is a scientist, a teenager, and a super hero. In the comic world he INVENTED the web shooter device and the fluid that gives him web (even though in the movie it is an organic mutation). He is a problem solver who uses his inventions and his powers in an attempt to solve problems without hurting people, people who want to hurt him.

The most appealing heroes are the ones we can relate to. The ones who use their brains to solve problems, and happen to have super powers. In the case of batman, careful planning, problem solving, and inventing ARE HIS ONLY POWER. He is a normal human who uses his brain, determination, and lifestyle to fight crime.

Anyone who does not understand the basic human need for mythology should be against teaching shakespeare, Roman and Greek history and mythology, religion, and basically all fiction. It is disturbing to me that a university research lab lacks basic understanding of human psychology, or at the very least does not care about it.

I was thinking along these lines...when people start banning books, comic characters, ideas, etc.--watch out...you are on a slippery slope!


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GranoLLLy-girl* 
I was thinking along these lines...when people start banning books, comic characters, ideas, etc.--watch out...you are on a slippery slope!

Oh gawd, the slippery slope argument. Parents protecting their children from rigid gender role propaganda is about as dangerous to your freedom as universal health care would be. I find it very... American... to get bent out of shape about how anything and everything can threaten freedom.









Kincaid and Inci - Totally not a coincidence, that we are all queer and get this.


----------



## joensally (Jun 19, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ShaggyDaddy* 
Are you kidding me? 25% of the roman economy (and almost 100% of what survived the test of time) was used for worshiping, advertising, following, and diefying super heroes.

Yes. This was a wise investment in social control and indoctrination.

ShaggyDaddy, I've enjoyed your posts regarding the mythology element, and agree that there's signifant cultural value there. We are our history, and culture is transmitted through story.

ThisMama, you've rocked on this thread. I get it - and I'm hetero







. Just a feminist with sociology and english degrees who hates the commercialism that is rampant in this culture, and the increasingly rigid gender stereotyping that's going on. Anybody been in a toy store lately? My latest favourite is the Fisher-Price tough digital camera - holy two clearly gendered models, Batman!

As the parent of a girl and a boy, I'm far more concerned about the cultural messages being transmitted by Disney Princesses and Bratz, along with the whole related slough of narrowly defined gender paraphenalia, than I am about superheroes. I'd far rather discuss justice and making things right than I would discuss what to wish for on that star.

Not a developmental psychologist, but I think that when preschoolers are going through that phase of identifying gender, it's healthy for them to have a preoccupation with more rigid definitions of gender. I think we have moved past supporting little girls (in particular) to navigate this natural developmental stage, to fetishizing a narrow notion of feminine and making it prescriptively definitional and limiting.

/rant


----------



## joensally (Jun 19, 2006)

Did they consult parents on the banning of superheroes?

I would ask the Director to reframe the meeting as "a discussion of the daycare's policies on daycare-appropriate gear."

The daycare needs to figure out the optics on this one -- are they parent-involved (in which case, they should have held some kind of consultation on a policy change that would impact families who had already purchased the outlawed items), or are they reactive and responsive to bullying themselves? It's very interesting that such accomodations are being made for members of a group who haven't been made subject to a policy. I wonder if some of those who'd rather write in are parents of superhero fans? If so, they need to get their capes on and get to that meeting!


----------



## floobear (Jul 9, 2006)

I think superhero and princess items are silly but at least there are real princesses in the world. If a girl aspires to be one, she just might. Why crush her dreams? Are such dreams just too darn impractical? Queen Noir, Princess Grace, Princess Masako were all commoners before marriage and they were/are very real and have done some sort of good in the world through charities and being mothers. Last time I checked no one can really fly, cast webs, or stop trains or repel bullets using their bodies.

But if someone who eats, breaths, and lives Superman wants to wear it on their shirt, I would not try to stop them (unless it is a private school and they have a school uniform). Otherwise it seems like suppression of free speech and discrimination.


----------



## jauncourt (Mar 15, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *oceanbaby* 
I haven't read the last 5 pages - is there an update to the school situation?

(And FWIW, I am straight, and the whole being awakened with a kiss thing makes my skin crawl.)

With good reason - the kiss is the sanitized version. Originally, the sleeping girls are woken by non-consensual sex, or giving birth to babes concieved while they were enchanted. Yick. However, that in itself is a magic-softened parable of forced marriage for conquest or political purposes. Sorry, tangent









SO, yeah ... EW. When little girls play fairytale princesses around me, I try to encourage them to play the stronger side. I try to have them saving the prince as much as they get saved.

Maura


----------



## secretresistance (Dec 2, 2005)

I'm late to this party, but I have to speak up with three cheers for thismama. Awesome posts, and I agree with everything you've written.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *floobear*
I think superhero and princess items are silly but at least there are real princesses in the world. If a girl aspires to be one, she just might. Why crush her dreams? Are such dreams just too darn impractical? Queen Noir, Princess Grace, Princess Masako were all commoners before marriage and they were/are very real and have done some sort of good in the world through charities and being mothers. Last time I checked no one can really fly, cast webs, or stop trains or repel bullets using their bodies.

Also, if my daughter's life dream is to marry the person she'd have to marry in order to become a princess, um, I'd think I had failed in a fundamental way. Am I misreading?


----------



## siobhang (Oct 23, 2005)

I have read the thread and been thinking about some of the issues raised by various posters.

First off, I think both super heroes and princesses are used by preschoolers in very similar ways - gender specific (and socially acceptable) dramatic play which give the child "special" powers - be they heroic powers of flight or fighting or social interaction powers of beauty, charm, and personal obedience.

My main issue with princesses, as marketed by Disney, is that these girls (and most of the princesses are girls) have no real power and no self-created power - only power given to them by birth or by men. And this is a very dangerous meme we have seen replayed throughout culture. This is part of our mythology - but one I would love to see changed or removed entirely, frankly.

So in fact, I would prefer to see superheros to princesses - as marketed by disney. The generic theme of princesses can be reshapped to include Princess Leah, Wonder woman, and other strong women leaders who took accidents of birth (or good fortune of marriage) and turned them into opportunities to achieve great things.

The other element is the marketing. The enormous resources that have gone into figuring out how to sell to our children is frightening and it would be nice to think there might be some market free zones left in the world (since public schools are no longer that way).

I completely plan on teaching my kids about wise consumerism (since unless you don't plan on living in the world, you at least need to understand consumerism, and how to mitigate its controlling affects) - but I can't teach them all they need to know now; they don't have the cognative abilities yet. However, they are being actively marketed to - those marketers aren't waiting until they have the ability to say no.

We all censor - I don't let my 4 year old watch CSI or ER or erotica or violent scenes - he cannot parse the content and some things will be disturbing to him. I don't let my 2 year old watch discovery channel shows about snakes (even though he is obsessed with snakes) because they film the snakes jumping at the screen and it frightens him.

We also try to avoid tie-in marketing - as in just because we let the kids watch barney doesn't mean we buy them barney lunch boxes or barney T-shirts, etc. If they ask explicitly, sure, we can discuss it, but we don't just buy it because we think they'll like it better.

This policy has been undermined by family members who decided the kids HAD to have elmo stuff, which is less offensive than other mass marketing lines, in my mind, but still licensed characters. And it is also undermined by the fact that some things are nearly impossible to find without some marketing - kids shoes or or disposable diapers or toothbrushes, for example.

Basically, at their current ages, I want to limit their exposure to things that contradict our values . When and as they get older, we will definitely introduce/lesson our control - again, as they gain cognative abilities and skills to make informed decisions. And I am sure my thoughts will change as our reality changes - as my kids get older and have more peer pressure, we may cave or modify our approach.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jauncourt* 
With good reason - the kiss is the sanitized version. Originally, the sleeping girls are woken by non-consensual sex, or giving birth to babes concieved while they were enchanted. Yick. However, that in itself is a magic-softened parable of forced marriage for conquest or political purposes. Sorry, tangent









Where can one find these? I've read some very old versions of various fairytales, and I've never come across that aspect before. I'd never even heard of it.

The "woken with a kiss" thing never really bothered me. I kinda like being woken with a kiss myself. I just don't see kissing someone you think is dead (Snow White) or know needs to be kissed to arise from a coma (Sleeping Beauty) is in the same league as non-consensual sex...

That said, I find most of the Disney Princesses simply annoying. Belle and Jasmine both have a lot of spunk, and Mulan kinda kicks butt, however, the others are...annoying. (Pocahontas mostly bugs me because of the bastardization of her story, not because of the character.)


----------



## floobear (Jul 9, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *secretresistance* 
Also, if my daughter's life dream is to marry the person she'd have to marry in order to become a princess, um, I'd think I had failed in a fundamental way. Am I misreading?

I don't know if you're misreading anything or not. If my daughter insisted she wanted to be a princess, I would go out of my way to share what I know about real princesses and see if she still wants that.

The main problem with princess and superhero idolatry at the preschool level is that its not like the children have been exposed to all sorts of career choices and somehow decided "I like that one to emulate". Its all prepackaged trinkets for concepts that are both exquisitely easy to market and easy for a child and parent(!) to understand. It would be slightly harder (and require more marketing dollars spent) to induce girly emulation of an accountant because you have to explain money, math, time, basis, taxes and alot of those things are no fun. Money-parent separation is easiest by giving a child a very simple, high fun concept which can be reduced to shiny, mass produced trinkets. And yes I find such tactics sad when they work and repulsive when they don't.

There is an interesting PBS Frontline series called "The Merchants of Cool" on money-parent separation once children hit the teenage years: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ows/cool/view/. It shows that there is no such thing as an insular world as long as Viacom exists.

I would still allow anyone to wear or bring whatever characters on their shirts to preschool. Just because I find something sad or repulsive doesn't mean everyone else does.


----------



## jauncourt (Mar 15, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
Where can one find these? I've read some very old versions of various fairytales, and I've never come across that aspect before. I'd never even heard of it.

This is an essay on feminist readings of fairytales and culture. Footnote 18 (at the end) gives the specific citation. I originally read about this facet of the popular tale in a book on the darker side of teaching tales that's in my parents' library.

It's originally a darker story, but it was also a story from a much darker world :|

Maura


----------



## Inci (Apr 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
The "woken with a kiss" thing never really bothered me. I kinda like being woken with a kiss myself. I just don't see kissing someone you think is dead (Snow White) or know needs to be kissed to arise from a coma (Sleeping Beauty) is in the same league as non-consensual sex...

But the men who wake Snow White and Sleeping Beauty up with kisses are STRANGERS. Not the princesses' lovers. And that's wrong.


----------



## katheek77 (Mar 13, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
Where can one find these? I've read some very old versions of various fairytales, and I've never come across that aspect before. I'd never even heard of it.

.)

Go to the "sources" section of the article for the basis of Sleeping Beauty...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleeping_Beauty Originally, she is raped, not woken with a kiss.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Inci* 
But the men who wake Snow White and Sleeping Beauty up with kisses are STRANGERS. Not the princesses' lovers. And that's wrong.

They're not strangers in the Disney movies. Sleeping Beauty and her prince had met before the kiss. I think Snow White and her prince (who had no name) had, as well, but maybe they only heard each other when Snow White was singing. I can't remember for sure.

Anyway - the way the stories are set up, they're stuck either being kissed by a stranger or left in a coma forever...neither of them had a lover, as such. The stories certainly have an objectionable side, and the original versions cited by another poster sound grotesque...but I'm not going to put in on the princes in question for sexual assault in the circumstances in the stories, yk?


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

I just checked those sources. Perrault's version has her being raped, but he'd changed an already existing story, so I think saying that "originally" she was raped is way overstating the tale. His version might be the best known in a literary sense, but most people I know have certainly never heard of it. As vapid as Disney princess movies are, I really can't connect this version to the Disney one, yk?

Princess stories and romances and such bore the crap out of me, so I'm certainly not an expert on this stuff.


----------



## Needle in the Hay (Sep 16, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
They're not strangers in the Disney movies. Sleeping Beauty and her prince had met before the kiss.

Yes they met and danced and the prince ran home to the King and Queen to tell them he wanted to marry her. Snow White and her prince also met and had that lightning bolt of love moment and he searched the countryside for her until he finally came upon her in the glass coffin. According to one of Tomie dePaola's books the prince in the pre-Disney version didn't kiss her but picked her up to take her to his castle and the poison bit of apple fell out of her mouth and she awoke. I guess Walt Disney liked the Sleeping Beauty ending better, maybe if he'd made Sleeping Beauty first he wouldn't have ended Snow White that way.

Thismama, banning children's play and what they can bring with them to school is the slippery slope. Obviously parents can decide what they want to ban (or discourage) in their own homes but I'd be annoyed if my DS's spider-man sneakers were verboten anywhere he goes (unless it were someplace where all shoes were forbidden). I actually wouldn't stand for it. I'll decide if my kid can have spider-man on his shoes and you (general you) decide for yours. That's not the same as someone else wanting to decide for other people's kids (especially when it involves trying to control their fantasy play).


----------



## jauncourt (Mar 15, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
I just checked those sources. Perrault's version has her being raped, but he'd changed an already existing story, so I think saying that "originally" she was raped is way overstating the tale.

Actually Perrault started the sanitization. This is the story he drew from. The wikipedia article is kind of confusingly phrased - also there are several other folklorically related stories that have the element of non-consensual sex resulting in offspring.

OK, that's enough tangent. Any updates on the school issue?

Maura


----------



## Inci (Apr 22, 2005)

I think it's acceptable for a private preschool to ban whatever it wants, as long as the rules of the ban are clearly stated, up front, before the school year starts, so parents can decide if their personal values and philosophies mesh with the school's. I don't think banning anything halfway through the year is a wise decision. However, in general, I'd be in favor of a ban of all licensed characters and toy weapons, yet opposed to a ban of any type of _play._

Kincaid, when's the meeting happening? How's everything going?


----------



## loraxc (Aug 14, 2003)

Quote:

Not a developmental psychologist, but I think that when preschoolers are going through that phase of identifying gender, it's healthy for them to have a preoccupation with more rigid definitions of gender. I think we have moved past supporting little girls (in particular) to navigate this natural developmental stage, to fetishizing a narrow notion of feminine and making it prescriptively definitional and limiting.








:

OP, I completely support you and I absolutely agree that it's a double standard. Good for you for standing up for this.

My DD is struggling on the outside of an older girls' clique at school. All they do is play dress-up and Disney princess (school doesn't actually provide character materials, but it doesn't matter). They also like to tell DD that her clothes and shoes are not "pretty." DD is not interested in princesses and has never seen a Disney movie.

I am proud of the way I've raised my daughter, but this has been hard on my mama heart. She now plays a lot of pretend games at home featuring mean girls who exclude others. She is freaking 3 years old. To the teachers' credit, they are fighting hard against this, but it seems like they are a voice crying in the wilderness.


----------



## Baelzharon (Oct 27, 2005)

I think this entire issue has been blown completely out of proportion. There is nothing wrong with letting little children play, and act out as little princesses or superheros, or even cowboys and indians. They're kids, using their imaginations and nothing insidious or violent should come out of that. However, when adults try to superimpose their complicated thoughts and fears onto something so simple and innocent as children playing, you end up with draconian like methods being used.

Instead of telling your little girl how powerful princesses have been in the real world (Lady Di) you just outright ban princesses because of a few disney movies? Little girls like to play with pretty things, why is it hard for you to understand that? Instead you have to turn it into some ridiculous feminist movement, and now you've complicated and confused your child who doesn't think like that at all. She just wants to have fun.

Little boys are going to play rough. Take away all the cartoons, superheroes, play weapons etc etc... and they'll just use a stick or garden tool or whatever suits their fancy as a proxy. They'll play just as rough, but now not in a safe environment. As a parent, and adult it's our responsibility to provide a safe and controlled environment for children to play in. Providing rules and letting the boys understand boundaries and personal space will go along way towards limiting any serious harm happening. Letting little boys pretend to be superman is not the worst thing that can happen...


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:

Not a developmental psychologist, but I think that when preschoolers are going through that phase of identifying gender, it's healthy for them to have a preoccupation with more rigid definitions of gender. I think we have moved past supporting little girls (in particular) to navigate this natural developmental stage, to fetishizing a narrow notion of feminine and making it prescriptively definitional and limiting.
I missed this the first time, but I think it's really interesting. My daughter did not care about her gender at ALL for years. People always thought she was a boy and she wouldn't bother to correct them.

Then at almost three she started to correct them. And right now (at almost 4) it is important to her that she is a girl and she is going to be a woman. Her big things about being a woman (or a 'mama' which to her is synonymous with woman right now) are that she is going to do homework and carry a baby in her belly. She loves to put dolls up her shirt, and borrows my highlighter and pages with computer printed text on them to highlight things. Her 'woman' play is based on things she sees me and other women in her life do. She VERY much wants a sister, and when a bunch of my friends went out to eat last weekend, she was thrilled to notice that everyone was a girl.

She is also pretty rejecting of her dad right now, which is new, and which he has suggested to me is part of this stage of identifying with her own gender and figuring out what that is about. I think he is probably right about that.

I do wonder what she would be like in a different world, though, kwim? Developmental psychology is great but it too comes from this context. My daughter has said to me several times that she is shy of men, but not women, because men are "too angry" and "loud." I honestly do not know where she has gotten this as the men she is around are not angry or loud. Well... her father is a bit loud, but she is not shy of him.

However, there is a wider cultural truth that men do tend to be more violent than women. Whether she has picked up on that somehow I do not know, or it may have to do with the fact that the world of small children seems populated with women, so women are more familiar.

Basically a long rambling way to say that I do not know to what extent these norms of developmental psych that we accept as unchanging and essentialist, are actually influenced by the culture in which we live. And while my daughter has not been exposed to much princess play, she absolutely has been exposed to the gender divide in our culture.


----------



## marybethorama (Jun 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Very Snoofly* 
I certainly understand the concerns about marketing to kids and the more vapid aspects of Disney princesses, but I disagree that the "stuff" in and of itself limits or prohibits imaginative play.

\

I agree 100%


----------



## 93085 (Oct 11, 2007)

If we're concerned about our kids losing their childhood innocence, then I think we should use caution in letting adult anxieties limit or regulate their play and their interests.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jescafa* 
If we're concerned about our kids losing their childhood innocence, then I think we should use caution in letting adult anxieties limit or regulate their play and their interests.

Good point! Much better to leave that regulation to the multinationals! Whatever was I thinking all these pages...


----------



## 93085 (Oct 11, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
Good point! Much better to leave that regulation to the multinationals! Whatever was I thinking all these pages...

What?


----------



## JustJamie (Apr 24, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Baelzharon* 
There is nothing wrong with letting little children play, and act out as little princesses or superheros, or even cowboys and indians.

There is something VERY wrong with letting little children play "cowboys and Indians".

FWIW, I agree with basically every post thismama has made in this thread, so I'll just say a big







: to her.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jescafa* 
What?

Our children get mass marketed to by giant corporations. This is not about letting them find what draws their interest naturally. These companies have entire departments aimed at decoding our children's psychology and figuring out how to develop toys that they will obsess on, and ensuring those toys and images are all around them and infiltrating their environments.

It's not like if we are hands off it will be simply up to our kids what they play with.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *JustJamie* 

FWIW, I agree with basically every post thismama has made in this thread, so I'll just say a big







: to her.









Thanks!


----------



## loraxc (Aug 14, 2003)

Quote:

If we're concerned about our kids losing their childhood innocence, then I think we should use caution in letting adult anxieties limit or regulate their play and their interests.
Huh??

Do you really think that adult interests are not already influencing children's play to a HUGE extent? This is BIG, BIG business. It's everywhere. As has been pointed out in this thread, it's hard to even buy a freaking toothbrush without a licensed character on it. (Yes, this also happened to us.)

If I lived on an island cut off from all media, advertising, and TV, I might buy this, but in today's world, it's just a nutty POV. What, Bratz are somehow organic and innocent, but my desire to limit that is artificial, controlling anxiety?


----------



## 93085 (Oct 11, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
Our children get mass marketed to by giant corporations. This is not about letting them find what draws their interest naturally. These companies have entire departments aimed at decoding our children's psychology and figuring out how to develop toys that they will obsess on, and ensuring those toys and images are all around them and infiltrating their environments.

It's not like if we are hands off it will be simply up to our kids what they play with.

Ah. I wasn't understanding what you meant by the word "multinationals." I was envisioning people of mixed citizenship accosting our children with gender-specific flashcards.

I actually agree with what you're saying about the giant corporations, we just have a fundamental divide in philosophy. My mantra is "expand" rather than "limit" when it comes to formative experiences.


----------



## 93085 (Oct 11, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loraxc* 
Huh??

Do you really think that adult interests are not already influencing children's play to a HUGE extent? This is BIG, BIG business. It's everywhere. As has been pointed out in this thread, it's hard to even buy a freaking toothbrush without a licensed character on it. (Yes, this also happened to us.)

If I lived on an island cut off from all media, advertising, and TV, I might buy this, but in today's world, it's just a nutty POV. What, Bratz are somehow organic and innocent, but my desire to limit that is artificial, controlling anxiety?

See my above post.


----------



## CherryBomb (Feb 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jescafa* 
Ah. I wasn't understanding what you meant by the word "multinationals." I was envisioning people of mixed citizenship accosting our children with gender-specific flashcards.


----------



## frog (Jun 1, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kincaid* 
You would think I was asking for Andrea Dworken to be the assistant teacher.

Other than the fact that she's dead, I'd have been on board with this.









You did the right thing, OP.


----------



## prothyraia (Feb 12, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loraxc* 
Do you really think that adult interests are not already influencing children's play to a HUGE extent? This is BIG, BIG business. It's everywhere.

Exactly. If I don't make an effort to directly influence my child's internalization of gender roles, Disney certainly will.

It's not about wanting to limit my child's play. It's about wanting to limit the effect of profit-driven corporations on my child's play. SOMEone is going to have a powerful effect here, and I'd really rather it not be someone who's only interest in my child is the money that her mommy has.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jescafa* 
My mantra is "expand" rather than "limit" when it comes to formative experiences.

I agree with this in theory, I just don't see how to give the alternate materials a fighting chance against the, say, Disney princesses, when the princesses are so incredibly prevalent. If your kids get junk food at school, at Grandma's, everytime you go outside, see their friends eating nothing but junk food, and have people give them bags of potato chips to take home, I don't see healthy food choices wining out. The same goes for negative cultural phenomena. Banning it completely might be excessive, but I think you almost have to limit it if you don't want to be dominated by it.


----------



## marybethorama (Jun 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
It's not like if we are hands off it will be simply up to our kids what they play with.

But it mostly is for my kids. Not that they've never succumbed to marketing. They did and learned a lesson. But most of the time they play very creatively and are not overly into commercial characters. I've said this a million times but the kids I know in my circle who pretend to be TV characters are the ones who are not allowed tv (and who go to Montessori school).

My kids' school is fairly mainstream in many ways (but not overly consumerist at all-it's not McMansions and SUV's). The big game they play ATM is "Jump Josie" It's an obsession. They learned it at a folk-dancing demonstration class that they took part in. Otherwise they play tag, kickball or foursquare).

The only kids I know who role play commercial characters come from different schools and not just public ones.

The only kids I know who are obsessed and don't play creatively are the ones whose parents are controlling their play and media consumption. I think it may go both ways actually. If parents make a big deal of forbidding something I think that can make it more attractive, but also if the parents (or other people) push it, I think that can also make it more of an obsession. FE if the child is always getting Spiderman/Princess toys and is told that that's what they should be playing with.


----------



## marybethorama (Jun 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *prothyraia* 

I agree with this in theory, I just don't see how to give the alternate materials a fighting chance against the, say, Disney princesses, when the princesses are so incredibly prevalent. If your kids get junk food at school, at Grandma's, everytime you go outside, see their friends eating nothing but junk food, and have people give them bags of potato chips to take home, I don't see healthy food choices wining out. The same goes for negative cultural phenomena. Banning it completely might be excessive, but I think you almost have to limit it if you don't want to be dominated by it.

I think this is a YMMV thing. I've heard people say that Disney princesses are everywhere in their circle and I'm not doubting them for a minute. I'm sure it's true. I think it's like baby buckets.

Bear with me a moment







I hear all the time about mainstream babies in buckets. I live in a mainstream area and I almost never see babies in buckets. They're not in slings either as it is not a crunchy area and most people have not heard of them. Babies are held in arms. I think the babies in buckets are probably more common in suburbia. I only see them among the upper middle class and they are very rare. Ironically there are a lot of crunchyish moms who uses buckets.

I think the Princess thing may be similar. I've heard people who live in suburbia say how big Disney princesses are. That's not the case here. It may be in certain neighborhoods but it's not in my area.


----------



## Kincaid (Feb 12, 2004)

Ok... an update.

The "ban" was not instituted at the middle of the year or anything unfair. This preschool has had the policy of no superheros since the 1970's. It's in their little parent handbook. I don't think anyone has considered that policy since the 1970's. The teaching staff and the director are thrilled that I brought the idea of princesses or licensed charatcers up for discussion. The moms of boys are glad because they see the policy as being uneven.
It's the moms of girls who are pissed.

I also want to throw out, to the person who wrote "most normal kids are going to want the sparkly lunchbox, not the plain one" etc.... be careful with your word choice "normal" because it can be very hurtful. These kids are predominantly learning disabled, on the A spectrum, have cerebal palsy, downs, etc. So, maybe your "normal" child would indeed not be satisfied with a plain lunchbox or backpack, but my special little child is happy with his blue and red one, he says "bue! wed!" and he is happy with his choice. It does not have to have a licensed character on it for him to be happy.

My issue is, little girls are bringing barbie/princess/etc lunchboxes and t-shirts and shoes and backpacks. It's not a consistent policy and I am all about consistency with children.

There is a parents advisory board meeting next week. Apparently the mothers who are offended by the suggestion of expaning the restriction to include princesses/barbie/bratz are very mad... but told the director they want their comments to be "anonymous". When asked about lifting the restriction altogether, these moms said they want to keep the heros ban in place because "without it the boys will be rough with their little girls and it's good to limit the violence." Aaaaagh!


----------



## 93085 (Oct 11, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kincaid* 
I also want to throw out, to the person who wrote "most normal kids are going to want the sparkly lunchbox, not the plain one" etc.... be careful with your word choice "normal" because it can be very hurtful. These kids are predominantly learning disabled, on the A spectrum, have cerebal palsy, downs, etc. So, maybe your "normal" child would indeed not be satisfied with a plain lunchbox or backpack, but my special little child is happy with his blue and red one, he says "bue! wed!" and he is happy with his choice. It does not have to have a licensed character on it for him to be happy.

Hmmm, is this what you're referring to?

Quote:

Here's the thing: MOST three-year-olds do not want to celebrate their three-year-oldness with plain backpacks, plain lunchboxes, and plain white diapers. MOST of them want to express themselves with images that are meaningful to them. If your kid is happy with the plain stuff, that's fab, and maybe that's his own way of expressing himself. That would sure make him unusual though. What I suspect is that the plainness of his school accoutrements actually is actually an expression of your own social/political views. Because I have to say you've clearly put a lot more thought into it than I've put into my daughter's Hello Kitty lunchbox. Which she picked out herself.

Peace.
I don't actually see the word "normal" in that entire quote. Nice spin, though.

Quote:

My issue is, little girls are bringing barbie/princess/etc lunchboxes and t-shirts and shoes and backpacks. It's not a consistent policy and I am all about consistency with children.
I agree that the policy is inconsistent, and I agree that the mothers to whom you are referring are being unfair. I just am not on board with your desired end result.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Baelzharon* 
Instead of telling your little girl how powerful princesses have been in the real world (Lady Di) you just outright ban princesses because of a few disney movies?

umm...the kind of princesses the OP wants to add to the ban are the Disney type princesses. Do you really think she'd object if a bunch of the little girls got together and pretended to be doing an interview about the international problem with land mines??

Quote:

Little girls like to play with pretty things, why is it hard for you to understand that? Instead you have to turn it into some ridiculous feminist movement, and now you've complicated and confused your child who doesn't think like that at all. She just wants to have fun.
"Little girls like to play with pretty things"? Ugh. I'm not a feminist and this comment grates on my every nerve. Lots of little boys like to play with pretty things - ds2 is wearing a pair of barrettes, even as we speak. While I liked dress-up reasonably well as a kid, I was just as likely to put on an old men's jacket and a hat as the fake fur coat and pearls. DS1 used to wear stick-on earrings when he was 2-3, and loved to show off how "sparkly" they were to anybody who would listen.

Quote:

Little boys are going to play rough. Take away all the cartoons, superheroes, play weapons etc etc... and they'll just use a stick or garden tool or whatever suits their fancy as a proxy. They'll play just as rough, but now not in a safe environment. As a parent, and adult it's our responsibility to provide a safe and controlled environment for children to play in. Providing rules and letting the boys understand boundaries and personal space will go along way towards limiting any serious harm happening. Letting little boys pretend to be superman is not the worst thing that can happen...
...and even more nauseating gender stereotyping _here_. My most beloved toy as a little _girl_ was a cap rifle - I also devoured superhero comics of all kinds, and still own somewhere around 1000 of them. One of my oldest son's favourite toys as a small child was a baby doll, which he absolutely doted on. Despite his total fascination with Power Rangers, Spider-Man and swords, he almost never played guns - found them boring. He was also very gentle in his play with other kids...unlike dd, who is _very_ aggressive.

I think there's a very definite gender issue here. Disney Princesses, Bratz, etc. are aggressively marketed to girls - even more than Spidey is marketed to boys. I think it's sick that corporations are dictating gender identity to our kids. I also think it's sick that we think this is somehow normal. Girls are _not_ all into dressing up, shopping and playing with "pretty things"...and boys are _not_ all into superhero play, guns and trucks. I'm not personally opposed to weapons play at all...but dd is just as into it as her big brother (more than he was at her age). Comments such as "little girls like to play with pretty things" and "little boys are going to play rough" simply feed into the same nonsense Disney is shovelling down the throats of little girls.

I'd like to see less marketing to kids, in general. I'd _really_ like to see less marketing that's skewed along the lines of ridiculous, exaggerated stereotypes about appearance, power and gender roles. (Where the heck _is_ Wonder Woman? She's been around since the 30s! What about Hawkgirl, Supergirl, Batgirl, and dozens of others? Is someone afraid that female superheroes might cut into the sales to boys?)


----------



## frog (Jun 1, 2005)

Oh, StormBride. Clearly, you're just abnormal.

I think there's a tribe for us somewhere...


----------



## 93085 (Oct 11, 2007)

StormBride, you do realize that almost everything you were interested in as a little girl is CURRENTLY banned by the OP's daycare.

Why aren't you a feminist?


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jescafa* 
StormBride, you do realize that almost everything you were interested in as a little girl is CURRENTLY banned by the OP's daycare.

Yeah - I know. I feel bad for the kids who want to play that way. I'd have probably gone mental, unless there were plenty of books and/or puzzles...

Quote:

Why aren't you a feminist?
That's way too long and complicated for me to get into, and the times I've discussed it here, it hasn't gone well.


----------



## 93085 (Oct 11, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
That's way too long and complicated for me to get into, and the times I've discussed it here, it hasn't gone well.

OK--sorry; I didn't mean to bring up a sore subject.


----------



## Viola (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
It's not like if we are hands off it will be simply up to our kids what they play with.

ITA with this. I hear that parents will say they did not influence their children one way or another with gender specific toys or clothing, and that their girls naturally gravitated one way and their boys another way. There's nothing natural about it in the majority of cases.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jescafa* 

I actually agree with what you're saying about the giant corporations, we just have a fundamental divide in philosophy. My mantra is "expand" rather than "limit" when it comes to formative experiences.

So is mine. Staying away from the princess-related tumult of propaganda expands, rather than contracts, IME. The children I know who are indoctrinated in it play it ALL the time, and much of their play relates to looking pretty and excluding boys. That is pretty limited IMO.

My child is relatively free from that stuff, so the scope of her imaginative play is much freer.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kincaid* 
There is a parents advisory board meeting next week. Apparently the mothers who are offended by the suggestion of expaning the restriction to include princesses/barbie/bratz are very mad... but told the director they want their comments to be "anonymous". When asked about lifting the restriction altogether, these moms said they want to keep the heros ban in place because "without it the boys will be rough with their little girls and it's good to limit the violence." Aaaaagh!

I find it very... typical







... that the mothers at your school defending the princesses are also the ones doing that stereotypical woman thing of not having an actual, direct conversation, but presenting their points in a passive aggressive manner.

Ah, the irony!


----------



## wonderwahine (Apr 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
So is mine. Staying away from the princess-related tumult of propaganda expands, rather than contracts, IME. The children I know who are indoctrinated in it play it ALL the time, and much of their play relates to looking pretty and excluding boys. That is pretty limited IMO.

My child is relatively free from that stuff, so the scope of her imaginative play is much freer.

but those are only a selection of children YOU know, which doesnt mean its how it always happens


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wonderwahine* 
but those are only a selection of children YOU know, which doesnt mean its how it always happens

No, but it is a general theme in my experience. And, I form a lot of my opinions based on my experience and my observations. As do a lot of us. Unless you have some study up your sleeve about how princess play actually does not psychologically impact little girls and affect their view of their gender roles?


----------



## chicagomom (Dec 24, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wonderwahine* 
i think the more they have lack of exposure, the harder it is for them to process and overcome it when they are no longer children.

You might be interested in checking out Born to Buy: The Commercialized Child and the New Consumer Culture, or Consuming Kids: The Hostile Takeover of Childhood.

W/regard specifically to advertising/marketing in schools, check out the annual reports on commercialism in education by AZ U. The 2007 report notes that "schools are becoming part of a 'total marketing environment' in which commercialism pervades virtually the entire experience of growing up."

Modern child marketing techniques are based on a wealth of research and data; these data conclude that early exposure is key to building long-term brand loyalty. That is, the earlier you get at 'em, the *harder* it is for them to overcome these messages when they are no longer children.

If your suggestion were true, advertisers wouldn't advertise to children, wouldn't pursue a "total marketing environment."

Tweens (8-13) spend $335 billion each year (themselves and stuff they get their parents to buy). Marketers like Girls Intelligence Agency insert themselves directly into slumber parties to sell stuff, bypassing parental controls. If your suggestion were true, advertisers wouldn't be doing this. And yet Mattel, Disney, record labels, and a huge host of others spend billions to use GIA parties and "secret agents" (8-14 year old girls who are popular and whose opinions matter to their friends) to sell stuff through these "opinion research" parties, shopping trips, chat forums, and other stealth marketing. "40,000 secret agents on call nationwide, ready to invite you into their bedrooms."

These organizations have early, frequent, easy access to our kids. And as a GIA exec noted in a recent 60 Minutes piece on advertising to children, parents will cut back on their own food before they'll deny their child something they think will help him/her "fit in" socially. And *that's* the real reason people will spend big $$ to cover their child in logo-princess gear. I actually think it has very little to do with parents refusing to "censor" their child's play or anything nearly so well-thought-out as that.

Plenty of schools have uniforms where princess-logo and other logo stuff is banned, and those kids turn out just fine.


----------



## Shonahsmom (Mar 23, 2004)

Don't know if it's been mentioned on this thread, because I don't have the time to read the entire thing, but I highly recommend, especially to those of you who have written things like, "Girls like to play with pretty things," reading Packaging Girlhood.


----------



## Ellie'sMom (Aug 10, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kincaid* 
You would think I was asking for Andrea Dworken to be the assistant teacher.


Haven't read all the responses, but the above made me







all over the keyboard!

I'm with you OP. The policy is a total double standard.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

Yeah, I think the younger kids are, the more helpless they are against marketing. Our daughter is just to the age where I'm starting to feel like she has *some* ability to see through marketing, and it's still very weak and I only see her actively choosing against following a marketing trend occasionally. Hopefully, by the time she's 9 or 10, she'll be a bit more savvy, but young kids simply aren't sophisticated enough to see through marketing schemes, and the younger and less sophisticated they are, the more prone they are to follow whatever looks cool that minute, in other words follow whatever is marketed well. The later you can put off having your kids be hit by marketing, the better, IMO. My daughter goes to public school so I see how she's hit by this. She was able to not get hit by the Hannah Montana marketing, but she's all over the Webkinz stuff. So she's got a tiny bit of ability to get past marketing in some situations, but if cute stuffed puppies are involved it's still all out the window.


----------



## Shonahsmom (Mar 23, 2004)

Ah, Chicagomom has made some great book suggestions as well.

Hi Chicagomom!


----------



## wonderwahine (Apr 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
No, but it is a general theme in my experience. And, I form a lot of my opinions based on my experience and my observations. As do a lot of us. Unless you have some study up your sleeve about how princess play actually does not psychologically impact little girls and affect their view of their gender roles?

the same could be said on your side of the coin for your arguement, show me the proof. you probably cant... which is my exact arguement.


----------



## wonderwahine (Apr 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chicagomom* 
You might be interested in checking out Born to Buy: The Commercialized Child and the New Consumer Culture, or Consuming Kids: The Hostile Takeover of Childhood.

W/regard specifically to advertising/marketing in schools, check out the annual reports on commercialism in education by AZ U. The 2007 report notes that "schools are becoming part of a 'total marketing environment' in which commercialism pervades virtually the entire experience of growing up."

Modern child marketing techniques are based on a wealth of research and data; these data conclude that early exposure is key to building long-term brand loyalty. That is, the earlier you get at 'em, the *harder* it is for them to overcome these messages when they are no longer children.

If your suggestion were true, advertisers wouldn't advertise to children, wouldn't pursue a "total marketing environment."

Tweens (8-13) spend $335 billion each year (themselves and stuff they get their parents to buy). Marketers like Girls Intelligence Agency insert themselves directly into slumber parties to sell stuff, bypassing parental controls. If your suggestion were true, advertisers wouldn't be doing this. And yet Mattel, Disney, record labels, and a huge host of others spend billions to use GIA parties and "secret agents" (8-14 year old girls who are popular and whose opinions matter to their friends) to sell stuff through these "opinion research" parties, shopping trips, chat forums, and other stealth marketing. "40,000 secret agents on call nationwide, ready to invite you into their bedrooms."

These organizations have early, frequent, easy access to our kids. And as a GIA exec noted in a recent 60 Minutes piece on advertising to children, parents will cut back on their own food before they'll deny their child something they think will help him/her "fit in" socially. And *that's* the real reason people will spend big $$ to cover their child in logo-princess gear. I actually think it has very little to do with parents refusing to "censor" their child's play or anything nearly so well-thought-out as that.

Plenty of schools have uniforms where princess-logo and other logo stuff is banned, and those kids turn out just fine.

and if you are an involved parent, those things dont always happen. and I will never read a one sided extremeist view book like you recomended. i dont believe in extremisim, on any side.

and my kids hopefully (unless they request it) will never attend school, and if they do, it will be at one where their clothing and other choices arnt censored.


----------



## the_lissa (Oct 30, 2004)

Having not that read it, you cannot say that a particular book is one sided and extremist.


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
I find it very... typical







... that the mothers at your school defending the princesses are also the ones doing that stereotypical woman thing of not having an actual, direct conversation, but presenting their points in a passive aggressive manner.

Ah, the irony!









:

I can't believe I read the whole thread. SO many thoughts spinning around in my head. Mostly agreeing with the 'ick' factor of the Disney princess schtick, and with the double standard at the school. And mostly just a big







: to all fo thismama's posts.

I wish I lived near you OP. I'm straight and coem across as pretty 'mainstream' and I'd LOVE to back you on this and help eliminate the potential of the absurd 'she's a queer manhater!" argument.







. How convenient to be able to pull that instead of really delving into the issue.

PLEASE let us know what happens at the meeting!!!


----------



## wonderwahine (Apr 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *the_lissa* 
Having not that read it, you cannot say that a particular book is one sided and extremist.

anything of that theme and title is considered extremeisim by me


----------



## frog (Jun 1, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wonderwahine* 
anything of that theme and title is considered extremeisim by me

That seems...extreme.







:


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wonderwahine* 
the same could be said on your side of the coin for your arguement, show me the proof. you probably cant... which is my exact arguement.

I am not demanding proof of you. I am saying it's a double standard when you say my perspective doesn't count because it is based on my own experience, while you trot out theories like 'early indoctrination makes it easier for children to see something objectively' without backing up your points.

Also, I probably could provide some research to back up my points, I have access to a wealth of online academic journals. But right now I am supposed to be researching the history of the Caliphate in Egypt, so I do not have the energy. Maybe later.


----------



## 93085 (Oct 11, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
So is mine. Staying away from the princess-related tumult of propaganda expands, rather than contracts, IME. The children I know who are indoctrinated in it play it ALL the time, and much of their play relates to looking pretty and excluding boys. That is pretty limited IMO.

My child is relatively free from that stuff, so the scope of her imaginative play is much freer.

Freer than... ?

This isn't my experience. My daughter--who I don't believe is atypical--blends stereotypically male and female forms of play. Her beloved princess Polly Pockets go to baseball games and save people from fires, for instance. I find that empowering; much more empowering than her being told she can't play with princess Polly Pockets because all they do is "look pretty." Hers do much more than that, at least partly because no one is prescribing to her how she should or should not play with them.

Re. expanding and contracting, history demonstrates that you can never broaden someone's mind by limiting their access to images and experience. While we're making reading recommendations, everyone who has posted on this thread should read up on the Christian iconoclasm during the Reformation. The Catholic Church was the big bad corporation back then--and while the Reformers' beef with it may well have been legitimate--the wholesale destruction of relgious images and stripping bare of church architecture was indubitably a grave disservice to humanity. I don't necessarily _equate_ that chapter of history with this one, but I believe the fearful, censoring impulse is the same.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wonderwahine* 
anything of that theme and title is considered extremeisim by me

I don't think the unquestioned middle of the road approach is necessarily the superior one on this issue.

I also think it is sad when it is considered extreme to not subject our children to mass marketed gender role imagery. Especially here on MDC, I would expect a bit more critical thought.


----------



## jauncourt (Mar 15, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Shonahsmom* 
Don't know if it's been mentioned on this thread, because I don't have the time to read the entire thing, but I highly recommend, especially to those of you who have written things like, "Girls like to play with pretty things,"

I mentioned it, myself, that I did not really play much in the gender-typical girly way - I only played princess when I was playing with a male friend who later came out as transgendered (he loved to come over and dress up in my nicest dresses, and I didn't judge him for it). I played archaeologist, firefighter, police officer, explorer, etc, and I was given all the options - dolls, firetrucks, trains, dollhouse, sports equipment, books, cars, models, science kits, etc.

I played with my dollhouse, but only as a social activity. When alone, if I wanted to interact with it, I made things. I tried to re-engineer my dolls. I also dug up earthworms and kep them as pets, naming and caring for them and eventually returning them to the yard. I chose what I wanted - and it wasn't pretty things









It depends on the child. And just that - _the child_, not _the gender_. If the child asks for gender definition play, allow it, it's necessary to the child, but if the child is not interested, don't force it.

YMMV, but this works for me.

Maura


----------



## the_lissa (Oct 30, 2004)

I think it is the height of ignorance to dismiss books as extremist and one sided without reading them.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jescafa* 
Freer than... ?

Freer than the girls whose primary play and gender role identification is about being a princess, being pretty, and saying 'ew' when they see boys.

And I know several girls who do just that.

Quote:

This isn't my experience. My daughter--who I don't believe is atypical--blends stereotypically male and female forms of play. Her beloved princess Polly Pockets go to baseball games and save people from fires, for instance.
Nothing wrong with role playing dolls. I don't like Polly Pockets much because the primary purpose of the toy seems to be all the wardrobe changes. But making up stories with figurine type toys is fine in my book.

Quote:

I find that empowering; much more empowering than her being told she can't play with princess Polly Pockets because all they do is "look pretty."








I think posters are imagining my life, and the lives of other mothers who don't encourage princess play, as about repeated 'no's' to our children's plaintive pleas for the various toys. My kid doesn't even know about most of these toys; they are not on her register.

Quote:

Hers do much more than that, at least partly because no one is prescribing to her how she should or should not play with them.
Well, I beg to differ. The company, with the various vanities and Polly Pocket wardrobe rooms and cars, is prescribing a mode of play. I'm glad your daughter is able to avoid playing in that prescribed way, but that does not mean there is not intention in the type of accessories sold with the doll.

Again, I have no problem with *some* of that, or with figurines in general. And I bought my daughter the Polly Pocket doll with the animals awhile back. It was on the borderline of 'okay' for me. But she lost all the clothes and most of the animals rather quickly.

Quote:

Re. expanding and contracting, history demonstrates that you can never broaden someone's mind by limiting their access to images and experience.
I disagree. Avoiding commercial propaganda and other mind-deadening plastic crap is expanding, IMO.

And again, I am not a purist. My child watches a fair amount of TV. But not princess stuff, and I make no pretense that it is broadening her horizons. It simply gives me some peace, and that is why I use it.


----------



## prothyraia (Feb 12, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jescafa* 
Re. expanding and contracting, history demonstrates that you can never broaden someone's mind by limiting their access to images and experience.

I believe this is true of adults. I don't think it necessarily applies to children.

I don't buy the argument that parents choosing what their children will be exposed is draconian censorship, while marketing executives choosing what children will be exposed to is freedom and virtue.


----------



## 93085 (Oct 11, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
I also think it is sad when it is considered extreme to not subject our children to mass marketed gender role imagery. Especially here on MDC, I would expect a bit more critical thought.

That's terribly unfair, no matter what your view on this issue. There have been many thoughtful, well-reasoned posts on both sides of the issue on this thread. The critical thought may not always have been directed where you thought or expected it would be, but it's been far from absent.

I live nearby the author of Packaging Girlhood, so I have read it, and so have many of my friends. There is food for thought in there and some very good points about consumer culture in general and girlhood in particular. It's wise to be aware of the influences on our children. But it bears noting that neither the author nor the book states that we must do our best to _never expose_ our daughters to the influences of popular culture, advertising, and mass marketing.

I *am* a feminist, and I strongly believe that the last thing our daughters need is for people to be telling them that it is or is not OK for them to do or like or want something simply because they're girls.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jescafa* 
That's terribly unfair, no matter what your view on this issue. There have been many thoughtful, well-reasoned posts on both sides of the issue on this thread. The critical thought may not always have been directed where you thought or expected it would be, but it's been far from absent.

My point was that it sucks when one position is negated as 'extreme.' I hardly think it is extreme or without merit to critique and avoid princess and superhero play, and I resent the implication to the contrary.

Quote:

But it bears noting that neither the author nor the book states that we must do our best to _never expose_ our daughters to the influences of popular culture, advertising, and mass marketing.
And it bears noting that no poster here has said we should never expose our daughters to pop culture. Let's not polarize the issue beyond what is the reality.

Quote:

I *am* a feminist, and I strongly believe that the last thing our daughters need is for people to be telling them that it is or is not OK for them to do or like or want something simply because they're girls.
I believe that our children need our protection, and that our young girls (and boys) need protection from rigidly defined one dimensional gender roles that send the message that girls are always pretty, value materialism, and wait for rescue by a man, while boys are never vulnerable, always save the day, and have lots of steroid-induced muscles.

That is hardly the same as 'people' telling them what to do or like or want. In fact, the place they are getting messages about what to do or like or want are from large corporations. Stepping away from our responsibility to guide and shield our children is not going to mean nobody is telling them how to be.

That is simply naivete and wishful thinking, unfortunately.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *prothyraia* 

I don't buy the argument that parents choosing what their children will be exposed is draconian censorship, while marketing executives choosing what children will be exposed to is freedom and virtue.









:


----------



## 93085 (Oct 11, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *prothyraia* 
I believe this is true of adults. I don't think it necessarily applies to children.

I don't buy the argument that parents choosing what their children will be exposed is draconian censorship, while marketing executives choosing what children will be exposed to is freedom and virtue.

Fair enough, but what we've been talking about all along is making that choice for a larger group of kids, not just your own.

I think, ultimately, I just don't believe that parents are powerless in the face of global marketing. I don't personally believe that I'm powerless against it. I have confidence that my daughters will grow up to be thinking, confident, strong women no matter what they liked to play with when they were four. Perhaps in a vaccuum of parental modeling and involvement these things might become dominant (though for the record I do not in any way believe that everything that's globally marketed is "bad), but that's simply not going to be our experience; I have total confidence in that.


----------



## floobear (Jul 9, 2006)

When I was a girl I wanted princess and barbie stuff. My parents would not spend a penny on it! Not one cent. They allowed me to fantasize all i want and if one of my friends gave me a sad chewed up version of Barbie, they didnt care. (How clever of them!!) I didnt like my treatment at the time but now it seems okay. I grew up and got married and had children, but I never once doted on the notion of my wedding day. I never developed a love for jewelry or shopping. (I loathe both really) and am bewildered by the idea of costume jewelry (isnt it strange how it only exists for women?)


----------



## 93085 (Oct 11, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
Stepping away from our responsibility to guide and shield our children is not going to mean nobody is telling them how to be.

That is simply naivete and wishful thinking, unfortunately.

Of course, people will always using her gender as an excuse to tell her how to be. BUT I WILL NOT BE ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE. I will be the one telling her not to let other peoples' ideas about gender tie her down.


----------



## frog (Jun 1, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *floobear* 
When I was a girl I wanted princess and barbie stuff. My parents would not spend a penny on it! Not one cent. They allowed me to fantasize all i want and if one of my friends gave me a sad chewed up version of Barbie, they didnt care. (How clever of them!!) I didnt like my treatment at the time but now it seems okay. I grew up and got married and had children, but I never once doted on the notion of my wedding day. I never developed a love for jewelry or shopping. (I loathe both really) and am bewildered by the idea of costume jewelry (isnt it strange how it only exists for women?)

I LOVED Barbies. I had many of them and played with them endlessly. I still have them and all their clothes.

And I grew up to be a big ol' ****.

<shrugs>

Really, it depends on the person.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jescafa* 
Of course, people will always using her gender as an excuse to tell her how to be. BUT I WILL NOT BE ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE. I will be the one telling her not to let other peoples' ideas about gender tie her down.

And that is good. But we have already addressed on this thread the issue of letting gender propaganda seep into the psyches of our children, and then giving them a deconstructionist critique and telling them not to let it affect them.

Definitely better to provide the critique than not. But that critique is not going to entirely remove the damage of that propaganda. Much better to not infiltrate a young mind with it in the first place.

I do not think a mother is the only influence on her daughter's life. Have you read the book Reviving Ophelia? The thesis as I remember it is that the cultural messages do affect children, and that these effects cannot be entirely negated by positive parental role modelling. And that we see the damage and harm from those messages manifest more obviously at puberty.

I think it is naive to assume we can render the gender propaganda harmless. If that were the case, we'd have a lot more women with a lot fewer issues than we do now.


----------



## marybethorama (Jun 9, 2005)

Okay, I've read the book and the one issue I have (and I'm continuing to have) is that it's blind to class issues.

The author is a Harvard professor. She lives in a geographic area with incredible demographics. (Forgive me, if I use the wrong term, I'm not a sociologist).

I live in a very poor area of Appalachia. There are vast differences between the type of people that Schor interacts with in her daily life and the type of people in my life.

Like I said in a previous post, I think there are huge differences between wealthy urban/suburban areas and rural areas. I hate the whole red state/blue state idea but there is a grain of truth.

I think there is a difference in the type of consumerism in rurul areas versus urban/suburban areas and it's not fair to generalize. We've touched on this before in discussions of "what is mainstream in your area".

I think this does inform some of our experiences.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *frog* 
I LOVED Barbies. I had many of them and played with them endlessly. I still have them and all their clothes.

And I grew up to be a big ol' ****.

<shrugs>

Really, it depends on the person.

Right, and I did too. But that is not proof that Barbie play, with the unrealistic bodies and overfocus on being pretty and fashionable, did not seep into your psyche in some way.

I know for myself I struggled with body image issues for a lot of my life, from girlhood through adolescence on up. I am still not totally over those issues. It was not ALL Barbie, but OTOH Barbie sure didn't help.


----------



## marybethorama (Jun 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
A
I think it is naive to assume we can render the gender propaganda harmless. If that were the case, we'd have a lot more women with a lot fewer issues than we do now.

FWIW, though I have many issues







I don't see them as being the result of gender propaganda. Then again I never was much for "girl culture".


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *marybethorama* 
FWIW, though I have many issues







I don't see them as being the result of gender propaganda. Then again I never was much for "girl culture".

Well, and I will be so bold as to say that none of us escaped it. We all see effects in differing ways, but I don't think ignoring 'girl culture' is an out. Gender role stuff is EVERYWHERE, from infancy on up.

Do you have body image issues? Do you find yourself needy/codependent in relationships, especially those with men? Do you have difficulty being assertive in conflicts?

Those are some issues that I notice are extremely present in women I know, and I think they have a lot to do with gender role indoctrination and what we see as acceptable ways for women and girls to be.


----------



## 93085 (Oct 11, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
Definitely better to provide the critique than not. But that critique is not going to entirely remove the damage of that propaganda. Much better to not infiltrate a young mind with it in the first place.

I guess it's a question of whether or not you believe that's actually 100%possible. I don't. I don't really think you do, either.

And then it's a question of whether you feel it's better to acknowledge it as part of our culture and let your child explore it under your guidance, or to ensure that the only exposure your child gets to it is far away from your watchful, thoughtful, critical eye.

I choose the former.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jescafa* 
I guess it's a question of whether or not you believe that's actually 100%possible. I don't. I don't really think you do, either.

No, I don't think that is 100% possible.

Quote:

And then it's a question of whether you feel it's better to acknowledge it as part of our culture and let your child explore it under your guidance, or to ensure that the only exposure your child gets to it is far away from your watchful, thoughtful, critical eye.

I choose the former.
Well that is your framing of the options, but not the options as I experience them. We have tried to minimize gender role indoctrination from my child's birth. She obviously knows she is a girl, but she doesn't have these rigid ideas of what 'girl' means. Including that we have not shown her princess type toys/movies/games/etc.

She is not lusting after these things and finding devious ways to access them behind our backs.







She simply does not care about them, and plays with the notion of being a girl in different and IMO less rigid/more healthy ways.


----------



## 93085 (Oct 11, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
Well that is your framing of the options, but not the options as I experience them. We have tried to minimize gender role indoctrination from my child's birth. She obviously knows she is a girl, but she doesn't have these rigid ideas of what 'girl' means. Including that we have not shown her princess type toys/movies/games/etc.

She is not lusting after these things and finding devious ways to access them behind our backs.







She simply does not care about them, and plays with the notion of being a girl in different and IMO less rigid/more healthy ways.

It's not about lusting or deceiving; I'm not suggesting that about your daughter. It's about exposure. All it takes is one playdate where the other girl says, "This is Barbie. She only wears dresses and she has to be a mommy when she grows up." Little girl A might respond, "That's not true! My Barbie wears camo and is a bounty hunter!" whereas little girl B might just think, "Oh. I guess that's what Barbies are."


----------



## frog (Jun 1, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
Right, and I did too. But that is not proof that Barbie play, with the unrealistic bodies and overfocus on being pretty and fashionable, did not seep into your psyche in some way.

I know for myself I struggled with body image issues for a lot of my life, from girlhood through adolescence on up. I am still not totally over those issues. It was not ALL Barbie, but OTOH Barbie sure didn't help.

Oh, for sure. I'm just saying that these things that influence us are PART of who we grow into, but not the be all, end all necessarily.

For whatever reason, I was fortunate to escape the body issue stuff. Was it because of sports and knowing what my body can do? Was it just being a tomboy for so long and not paying attention to the "girl" stuff? Was it just dumb luck?

I have no idea.

I still think it's totally fine for parents to limit what their kids see, particularly regarding mass-marketed stuff.


----------



## 93085 (Oct 11, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
Well, and I will be so bold as to say that none of us escaped it. We all see effects in differing ways, but I don't think ignoring 'girl culture' is an out. Gender role stuff is EVERYWHERE, from infancy on up.

Do you have body image issues? Do you find yourself needy/codependent in relationships, especially those with men? Do you have difficulty being assertive in conflicts?

Those are some issues that I notice are extremely present in women I know, and I think they have a lot to do with gender role indoctrination and what we see as acceptable ways for women and girls to be.


Granted, but let's not forget that men are bombarded with gender-identity messages as well. We haven't cornered the market on victimhood.

I truly think little boys have it a lot harder than little girls--I think they have a lot fewer options for dress, play, everything, that are broadly accepted for their gender.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jescafa* 
Granted, but let's not forget that men are bombarded with gender-identity messages as well. We haven't cornered the market on victimhood.

I truly think little boys have it a lot harder than little girls--I think they have a lot fewer options for dress, play, everything, that are broadly accepted for their gender.

I would not say boys have it 'harder' than girls, but I absolutely agree with you that men and boys get bombarded as well. And I am procrastinating on my homework just a little longer to respond to this post. I think we have focused on princesses in this discussion coz the superheroes are already banned.

But yes, messages that say boys cannot be nurturing, cannot be weak or vulnerable, cannot cry, cannot be pretty or sparkly, cannot need to be held and loved and comforted, etc etc... those messages are also very damaging and help set up a crap dichotomy between genders that in the end perpetuates much heartache and even violence.

I dearly hope there is a little penis-having-person growing in my uterus right now, and if there is I will make certain that he is as shielded as my daughter from messages that would seek to prevent him from experiencing and expressing the breadth of his humanity.

And now this pregnant mother is all teary, and I have to go do this stinkin' document study for school!!!!! If you see me on here in the next few hours, shoo me away.


----------



## 93085 (Oct 11, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
I dearly hope there is a little penis-having-person growing in my uterus right now, and if there is I will make certain that he is as shielded as my daughter from messages that would seek to prevent him from experiencing and expressing the breadth of his humanity.

Though we've been arguing opposing approaches on this thread, I just wanted to say that was nicely put, and in my own way I'm totally on board with that. Back to work, you!


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Thanks.







And yeah... back to freaking work! Put down the keyboard, walk back over to the notes on the sofa... Do not trip over the naked 3 year old on the way.

See ya later.


----------



## prothyraia (Feb 12, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jescafa* 
Fair enough, but what we've been talking about all along is making that choice for a larger group of kids, not just your own.

In that respect, I think if Superman is out, Snow White should be too. Because to do otherwise is just...well...silly, imo. Definitely not a fan of the double standard there, and I happen to find the superhero 'message' faaaar less troublesome than the princess 'message'.

But if both were currently allowed, I personally wouldn't advocate for banning either from school/daycare, despite the fact that I want to limit my kids exposure to it. The key word here for me is *limit*, not completely eliminate (because it exists and it's so common, you can't eliminate exposure to it entirely without never allowing your children to leave the house).

Almost everyone censors what their children have access to to some extent, we all just have different criteria for what we consider harmful. Gender stereotypes, or violence, or sex, or nudity, or marketing, and so on.


----------



## 93085 (Oct 11, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *prothyraia* 
In that respect, I think if Superman is out, Snow White should be too. Because to do otherwise is just...well...silly, imo. Definitely not a fan of the double standard there, and I happen to find the superhero 'message' faaaar less troublesome than the princess 'message'.

But if both were currently allowed, I personally wouldn't advocate for banning either from school/daycare, despite the fact that I want to limit my kids exposure to it. The key word here for me is *limit*, not completely eliminate (because it exists and it's so common, you can't eliminate exposure to it entirely without never allowing your children to leave the house).

Almost everyone censors what their children have access to to some extent, we all just have different criteria for what we consider harmful. Gender stereotypes, or violence, or sex, or nudity, or marketing, and so on.

I'm wholly opposed to bannings, including bannings in the interest of equanimity, but other than that I actually totally agree with you.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *prothyraia* 
Definitely not a fan of the double standard there, and I happen to find the superhero 'message' faaaar less troublesome than the princess 'message'.

I do, too...largely because I find the superhero "message" considerably more multi-layered and complex than the princess "message". Princesses - at least the modern, Disney variety - are very...shallow. Despite many people's belief to the contrary, most superheroes aren't. They don't solve all their problems with their fists, and I think they have a lot to offer in terms of problem solving skills (that's what this was all about in the first place, right), and they all demonstrate qualities of self-sacrifice, generosity, etc. I just don't see too many redeeming qualities in "The Princesses".


----------



## marybethorama (Jun 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
Do you have body image issues? Do you find yourself needy/codependent in relationships, especially those with men? Do you have difficulty being assertive in conflicts?

Body image issues, yes, sometimes but I can lay them at the feet of my family .

The others no, and TBH I've never understood why women are like that. Like I said, I missed out on a lot of that kind of socialization. I was (and still am) a bookworm.


----------



## chicagomom (Dec 24, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Shonahsmom* 
Ah, Chicagomom has made some great book suggestions as well.

Hi Chicagomom!

Hi Shonahsmom! Hi Shonah!


----------



## Meg Murry. (Sep 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kincaid* 
I am so glad you all understand my point!!

I just want the policy to be fair and consistent. I don't allow either aggressive heros, or passive princesses, in my house.

I'm the only lesbian mommy at the school, so I am *positive* some of the parents are wanting to reply anonymous because they are saying "it's NORMAL for little girls to do this..." etc. As if I don't understand "normal" because my own sense of gender rightness is warped.

Um, I hate princesses. We have an anti-Bratz, anti-Barbie philosophy in our house and I have gone over the implications of the stereotype with DD in our house many times. The passivity is a problem, the materialism and product tie-ins are a problem, and the overemphasis on appearance over every other worthy quality a woman can possess is a BIG problem.

And I am not a lesbian. Not that there's anything wrong with that.







I'm a mother who wants her daughter to aim for a life of doing something more than waiting for her prince to...uh...come.

Not that there's anything wrong with that either.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

I agree that both sets of characters, princesses and superheroes, should be restricted, because of the marketing to children element, but I think the "problem solving" justification is silly. I would ask:
What constitutes good problem solving? What is an example of a children's character who exhibits good problem solving? For every specific individual character being banned, what, exactly, specifically to that character, is wrong with that particular character's problem solving?

I have no problem with princess or superhero _stories_. We love some of the original "princess" fairy tales, which were originally morality tales. The much-maligned Cinderella, for instance, is in the original story being rewarded for her good heart, in contrast to her vain, superficial stepfamily. But the Disnified Cinderella is part of the marketing scheme promoting vain, superficial behavior. Disney and Barbie and pop culture have corrupted these stories about honor and sacrifice and duty and morphed them into the snotty/bitchy/sexy/arrogant/snide/bossy/vain/materialistic/"girl-power" divas we all know and hate. We've had several conversations at our house about real princesses and civic duty and sacrifice. The same is true, I'm sure, of superheroes, although that would be my husband's area of expertise (he's interested in classic comics). But I know that many of the comics are more complex and sophisticated than the bang-bang-pow-pow-shoot-the-badguys stuff that's peddled.

Preschool is a bit young, but if I were teaching older kids, maybe middle school, I think it would be great to do a "fairy tales and comic-book heroes" unit in which we examined the stories, their messages, and how they changed with marketing.

ETA: I think it's funny that so many object to the princesses' being passive. That's the least of my objections to them. I'm all for passivity.







But, vanity, selfishness, materialism, and shallow power-hungry greed, not so much.


----------



## chicagomom (Dec 24, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wonderwahine* 
and if you are an involved parent, those things dont always happen.

True, and smokers don't always get cancer. That's not a convincing argument. And I will still shield my children from inhaling toxic substances insofar as I'm able, and advocate for other parents to do so as well.

Quote:

and I will never read a one sided extremeist view book like you recomended. i dont believe in extremisim, on any side.

and my kids hopefully (unless they request it) will never attend school, and if they do, it will be at one where their clothing and other choices arnt censored.
The fact that your children don't attend school means you are already censoring their access to our media-saturated consumer culture.


----------



## leewd (Aug 14, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *noah's mom* 
I agree with your approach, from the perspective of - if they're going to ban one, they need to ban the other. Or neither. Definitely seems like a double-standard going on there.









:

As one who desparately HATES the whole princess thing, I'm stearing my girls toward the Power Puff Girls (they kick a$$).

I don't see why the "lesbian-thing" would be an issue. I'm as straight as a board (







I just thought of that







), and I totally agree with you! Then again, maybe I'm an "abnormal" girl. I always preferred using the dolls as patients when I played doctor to playing family or whatever . . .


----------



## Baelzharon (Oct 27, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *JustJamie* 
There is something VERY wrong with letting little children play "cowboys and Indians".

FWIW, I agree with basically every post thismama has made in this thread, so I'll just say a big







: to her.

Clearly something is VERY wrong when you go the other route and take measures like this into consideration.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21397455/

When you rely on extremism to push your agenda you end up making mistakes like this.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Baelzharon* 
Clearly something is VERY wrong when you go the other route and take measures like this into consideration.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21397455/

When you rely on extremism to push your agenda you end up making mistakes like this.

Are you seriously saying that mothers shielding our children from mass marketed princess images is the same thing as suspending a child over a drawing of a stick figure shooting a water gun?

Holy crap, man.







:


----------



## wonderwahine (Apr 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chicagomom* 
The fact that your children don't attend school means you are already censoring their access to our media-saturated consumer culture.

i am not homeschooling to avoid the media culture, i am homeschooling because it provides better education and he wont be exposed to either side of extremisim.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wonderwahine* 
i am not homeschooling to avoid the media culture, i am homeschooling because it provides better education and he wont be exposed to either side of extremisim.

Wait, are you censoring 'extremism?'







:


----------



## andreac (Jul 13, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Baelzharon* 
Clearly something is VERY wrong when you go the other route and take measures like this into consideration.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21397455/

When you rely on extremism to push your agenda you end up making mistakes like this.

I think the other person was referring specifically to "cowboys and Indians" not to any gun play. The idea of encouraging my child to "play" at what was essentially genocide is pretty gross. Cops and robbers, pirate, superheroes I'm fine with. Cowboys and indians...no way.

Thismama, you've totally rocked this thread! I pretty much agree with everything you've written.


----------



## wonderwahine (Apr 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
Wait, are you censoring 'extremism?'







:

nope, theres no way to censor extremisim when its on the daily news and in your next door neighbour


----------



## alaskaberry (Dec 29, 2006)

LOL, that ROCKS!







Personally if I have a daughter I would much rather have her be into Fiona than Snow White (bleh). At least Fiona knew martial arts and proved that true beauty is inside. She's not Disney, though...She's Dreamworks.


----------



## 93085 (Oct 11, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna* 
I have no problem with princess or superhero _stories_. We love some of the original "princess" fairy tales, which were originally morality tales. The much-maligned Cinderella, for instance, is in the original story being rewarded for her good heart, in contrast to her vain, superficial stepfamily. But the Disnified Cinderella is part of the marketing scheme promoting vain, superficial behavior. Disney and Barbie and pop culture have corrupted these stories about honor and sacrifice and duty and morphed them into the snotty/bitchy/sexy/arrogant/snide/bossy/vain/materialistic/"girl-power" divas we all know and hate.

(snip)

ETA: I think it's funny that so many object to the princesses' being passive. That's the least of my objections to them. I'm all for passivity.







But, vanity, selfishness, materialism, and shallow power-hungry greed, not so much.

Wait a minute--have you seen the Disney Cinderella recently? As fond as DD is of princesses, we haven't seen many of the movies, since she has little tolerance for suspense or villains...but Cinderella is the one that we have been able to watch, so I've seen it three or four times over the last 6 months or so. It's totally about being a hard worker and uncomplaining and kind to animals and keeping hope in your heart. And being grateful. And punctual.







She's not in any way portrayed as vain or any of the other things you mentioned. Now, there may very well be better messages for little girls, but please at least let's condemn it for something it's actually guilty of.

And it's been a _long_ time since I've seen the movie, but doesn't Belle in Beauty and the Beast have a lot of piss and vinegar, too? I remember being impressed that she was thoughtful and read a lot. LOL. I actually can't think of a single one of the Disney princesses who embodies "vanity, selfishness, materialism, and shallow power-hungry greed." Though certainly I appreciate that the marketing tie-ins stress appearance over the narrative content of the stories.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jescafa* 
I actually can't think of a single one of the Disney princesses who embodies "vanity, selfishness, materialism, and shallow power-hungry greed." .

Actually, I can't, either. I don't care for most of them very much, and the marketing hype around them makes me want to vomit...but I can't think of any who embody those traits.


----------



## Meg Murry. (Sep 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jescafa* 
There are potential negative associations with almost every type of childhood play. Superheroes are violent; princesses are passive, heard it. Superheroes are also brave, strong, proactive, confident. *Princesses can be heads of state.* Aren't those positive, empowering models? When we try to X something out of our childrens' lives, we then couch these things in purely negative terms; hampering their ability to approach these concepts in an imaginative way and reap the positive from it.

Can you name three? With any significant political power?
I can't.


----------



## gridley13 (Sep 3, 2004)

I don't have time to read the thread, but I have to give kudos to the OP.

I really despise the Princesses. I am not even going to get into why.

I just couldn't pass this thread without cheering you on.


----------



## Meg Murry. (Sep 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ShaggyDaddy* 
That statement is very confusing to me. Imagination isn't just isolated thought in a bubble, some of the best stories of any time were built on other people's works. When we bring our imaginations together we create culture.

Shakespeare wrote Julius Caeser based not really on the history, but based on the stories that were part of his culture.

He based his _Caesar_ on passages from _Plutarch's Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans._ This was far closer to history than to oral folk legend. However, your main point was correct: it was built on the work of another person.


----------



## 93085 (Oct 11, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Meg Murry.* 
Can you name three? With any significant political power?
I can't.

Currently or historically? Well, I concede that current ones are scarce; I mean, the Age of Revolution and the Enlightenment sort of cut down on my options. Elizabeth II of England and Beatrix of the Netherlands come to mind (given that they started out as princesses); though I concede that many would consider them not to have "significant" political power. But do you seriously want me to start listing great female monarchs of all time--given that they started out as princesses? I'm a little afraid of insulting your intelligence if I do.


----------



## Meg Murry. (Sep 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
Disney princesses is not a part of modern 'culture' that I am particularly concerned with preserving, nor do I feel it would offer my daughter anything good. In fact I think it would offer a LOT that is bad.

I hardly see it as a disservice to children to avoid that kind of over-marketed, rigidly gendered propaganda.

We do not have to simply consume our culture. We can create it.

YES. What you said. And to take an earlier example offered by Shaggy Daddy, surely SD wouldn't advocate consuming some of the genuine crap offered up at the Globe Theater or other London theaters during their Elizabethan heyday -- delightful works such as Marlowe's _The Jew of Malta_, for example. I put Bratz and princesses and Barbie and Disney on about that level (and for some of the same reasons).


----------



## 93085 (Oct 11, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Meg Murry.* 
Can you name three? With any significant political power?
I can't.


Oh, here you go: http://www.guide2womenleaders.com/qu..._empresses.htm
Denmark currently has a queen (formerly a princess) as head of state as well. I don't know a blooming thing about Danish government, but there you go--three current former princesses as heads of state of major European nations. Or does it not count if I didn't know off the top of my head that Denmark had a queen?

Neat website linked above, BTW. Lots of stuff about women rulers, past and present.


----------



## Meg Murry. (Sep 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
Has it occurred to you that perhaps we play out in adulthood the dynamics we learned in childhood? Perhaps celebrity women and starlets are the grown up princesses...

Oh, my God, look at how many movies are directly based on or clear descendants of fairy tales!

1. _Ever After_ (Cinderella)
2. _Pretty Wo_man (Cinderella)
3. _Rebecca_ (on surface: Cinderella/below surface: Bluebeard)
4. _Pride and Prejudice_ (Cinderella)

I could go on, but do I need to?


----------



## Meg Murry. (Sep 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kincaid* 
I don't know if it's a movie (probably is...). I just got that quote from the stinking PACKAGING that goes along with the Sleeping Beauty stuff that is sold - ya know, the lunchboxes, t-shirts, etc.

It would not surprise me if the original fable was a rape-fantasy. Especially since it clearly reads (via Disney) that she goes from being an innocent sheltered girl to a mature woman ready to be a bride.... (BARF)

All you folks defending the idea of superheros as cultural icons, you are missing my point. I just told the school if you are banning Spidey, you better get Sleeping Beauty off her back and out of the preschool too.

I am ok with generic "I'm a princess" play, especially if that princess is allowed to be anything other than white, blue eyed, blonde, thin, and dependent on men to save her.
This is not about Paperbag Princess or any of those rare excpetions.


The original Italian source for the folk tale had Sleeping Beauty raped in her sleep. She woke up to find herself the mother of two kids.


----------



## 93085 (Oct 11, 2007)

I'll come back to this when you're done reading the whole thread and responding to the posts you agree with.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jescafa* 
Wait a minute--have you seen the Disney Cinderella recently? As fond as DD is of princesses, we haven't seen many of the movies, since she has little tolerance for suspense or villains...but Cinderella is the one that we have been able to watch, so I've seen it three or four times over the last 6 months or so. It's totally about being a hard worker and uncomplaining and kind to animals and keeping hope in your heart. And being grateful. And punctual.








She's not in any way portrayed as vain or any of the other things you mentioned. Now, there may very well be better messages for little girls, but please at least let's condemn it for something it's actually guilty of.

And it's been a _long_ time since I've seen the movie, but doesn't Belle in Beauty and the Beast have a lot of piss and vinegar, too? I remember being impressed that she was thoughtful and read a lot. LOL. I actually can't think of a single one of the Disney princesses who embodies "vanity, selfishness, materialism, and shallow power-hungry greed." Though certainly I appreciate that the marketing tie-ins stress appearance over the narrative content of the stories.

No, the stories themselves aren't that way, but the marketing is. The marketing of "Disney princesses" isn't even about the stories anymore. The princesses have been completely stripped of their narrative. They are the new Barbies. There are little books about the "princesses" getting together and doing things, although the stories are completely unrelated. Now Cinderella and Snow White and Sleeping Beauty and the Little Mermaid are all having a joint tea party and wearing shiny dresses, with no mention of the the stories, original or Disnified. Rather than being about the tales, it's about the "princess" commodity, which is promoted, through marketing, as part of the larger phenomenon of selfishness and vanity and "girl power." They take a story about honor and duty and pull out the heroine and market her as nothing more than an updated Barbie.


----------



## Meg Murry. (Sep 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jescafa* 
Currently or historically? Well, I concede that current ones are scarce; I mean, the Age of Revolution and the Enlightenment sort of cut down on my options. Elizabeth II of England and Beatrix of the Netherlands come to mind (given that they started out as princesses); though I concede that many would consider them not to have "significant" political power. But do you seriously want me to start listing great female monarchs of all time--given that they started out as princesses? I'm a little afraid of insulting your intelligence if I do.

I would simply argue that _as princesses_, they had little to no political power -- and in some cases, were completely other people's tools and barely escaped with their lives intact (Princess Elizabeth -- later Elizabeth I -- comes to mind here).

Queen...that's another thing altogether. What those women were _before_ they were queen is not (IMHO) super-relevant. To say "Princesses have significant political power because they became queens" is kind've like saying that pawns have significant power on a chessboard because they can be promoted, KWIM?

Now, if the "queen" archetype weren't so blastedly negative in this society, it might be a better role model -- or at least one with more self-determination than "princess."


----------



## chicagomom (Dec 24, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wonderwahine* 
i am not homeschooling to avoid the media culture, i am homeschooling because it provides better education and he wont be exposed to either side of extremisim.

Unschooling in the US is by definition not "mainstream", so you are already exposing your child to extremism by pursuing an education far outside of mainstream culture, regardless of its superior qualities.


----------



## Meg Murry. (Sep 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna* 
No, the stories themselves aren't that way, but the marketing is. The marketing of "Disney princesses" isn't even about the stories anymore. The princesses have been completely stripped of their narrative. They are the new Barbies. There are little books about the "princesses" getting together and doing things, although the stories are completely unrelated. Now Cinderella and Snow White and Sleeping Beauty and the Little Mermaid are all having a joint tea party and wearing shiny dresses, with no mention of the the stories, original or Disnified. Rather than being about the tales, it's about the "princess" commodity, which is promoted, through marketing, as part of the larger phenomenon of selfishness and vanity and "girl power." They take a story about honor and duty and pull out the heroine and market her as nothing more than an updated Barbie.

And have you noticed the systematic exclusion of Mulan?


----------



## 93085 (Oct 11, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Meg Murry.* 
I would simply argue that _as princesses_, they had little to no political power -- and in some cases, were completely other people's tools and barely escaped with their lives intact (Princess Elizabeth -- later Elizabeth I -- comes to mind here).

Queen...that's another thing altogether. What those women were _before_ they were queen is not (IMHO) super-relevant. To say "Princesses have significant political power because they became queens" is kind've like saying that pawns have significant power on a chessboard because they can be promoted, KWIM?

Now, if the "queen" archetype weren't so blastedly negative in this society, it might be a better role model -- or at least one with more self-determination than "princess."

Then I worded it poorly initially. I said, "Princesses can _be_ heads of state," when what I should have said was, "Princesses can _become_ heads of state." And I do think it's relevant because it's not as though you or I could become ruling Queen of Denmark. You have to be princess first.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chicagomom* 
Unschooling in the US is by definition not "mainstream", so you are already exposing your child to extremism by pursuing an education far outside of mainstream culture, regardless of its superior qualities.

Very true. Many people would call unschooling extreme. Does that render it worthless? Or am I seeing some hypocrisy here for different issues?


----------



## 93085 (Oct 11, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jescafa* 
Then I worded it poorly initially. I said, "Princesses can _be_ heads of state," when what I should have said was, "Princesses can _become_ heads of state." And I do think it's relevant because it's not as though you or I could become ruling Queen of Denmark. You have to be princess first.


Oh, but also, if you look at the link I posted above, you'll see that the word "princess" remains part of the list of formal titles for many ruling queens. So in a way I worded it correctly initially as well.


----------



## zo's ma (Mar 4, 2003)

At the end of the day, IMO there's no place for any of it in school....have all of the princesses/superheros that you want at home and leave them there. Those loud, plastic, busy, garish things staring out at you....sensory overload for sure. Show me a 3/4 y/o who needs more stimulation.

Disney does prohibit the imagination.....watch a few movies and there's nothing left, it's all been thought up for you.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jescafa* 
Oh, but also, if you look at the link I posted above, you'll see that the word "princess" remains part of the list of formal titles for many ruling queens. So in a way I worded it correctly initially as well.









Well, but really what their status and job is, is Queen. Why not get to the point? If Queens have political power, why do girls play princess and not Queen? As Meg Murry said, it's the equivalent of adoring a pawn in a game of chess because of what it can be promoted to.

Doesn't make much sense to me as a pro-princess argument.


----------



## 93085 (Oct 11, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
Well, but really what their status and job is, is Queen. Why not get to the point? If Queens have political power, why do girls play princess and not Queen? As Meg Murry said, it's the equivalent of adoring a pawn in a game of chess because of what it can be promoted to.

Doesn't make much sense to me as a pro-princess argument.

Just because they're young girls, I guess, and princesses can be young girls. I'm sure that's a bad answer too.







I think to some extent girls are fascinated with princesses because they can pretend to be one while still being their own age (or thereabouts), whereas if you're pretending to be a doctor or a lawyer or President, you're also pretending to be an adult. Neither thing is bad, it's just one of the things that sets the princess thing apart, and perhaps explains part of its distinctive appeal. I think it's exciting to girls to think that a girl can "be" something even while she's still a child.


----------



## Smokering (Sep 5, 2007)

Quote:

4. Pride and Prejudice (Cinderella)
Um????!

I admit the recent Keira Knightley travesty had a bit of rags-to-riches theme going on, thereby _completely_ ruining the point of the book; but to call it 'Cinderella' is going a bit far.


----------



## wonderwahine (Apr 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chicagomom* 
Unschooling in the US is by definition not "mainstream", so you are already exposing your child to extremism by pursuing an education far outside of mainstream culture, regardless of its superior qualities.

but I am not an unschooler


----------



## Needle in the Hay (Sep 16, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chicagomom* 

The fact that your children don't attend school means you are already censoring their access to our media-saturated consumer culture.

I know you wrote this to make a point with a PP, but I did just want to clarify that not sending a child to school is not censoring them. I would argue that sending them to school is increasing their access to media-saturated consumer culture and not the other way around. Now that I have this in mind I understand a bit better why some would want to ban licensed characters, even though I don't think it's the answer.

I'm realizing now that my perspective is skewed a bit on this issue (princesses, superheroes, bans at school, etc) because we are not as bombarded with all that stuff as many who are posting on this thread. It makes it a lot harder to deal with when it's everywhere, all the time.







:

As for us, we are constantly encountering industrial treats (even the post office has candy for sale!) and due to this I did have to make a couple of rules otherwise DS wants something wherever we go. But I wouldn't want to make a rule that no other child can bring industrial snacks to a group my DS attends so that my DS isn't exposed to it...


----------



## chicagomom (Dec 24, 2002)

NitH, I just love the phrase "industrial treats"!

Censorship is the restriction of intellectual freedom. Although commercial speech that targets children has never been unregulated - (tobacco, alcohol, pornography), the courts have generally regarded it as the purview of the parents to decide which commercial speech is acceptable.

So, discussing a possible ban on logo gear with others in the community and coming to an agreement is precisely what is supposed to happen. As adults, we are charged with the responsibility for and care of the children in our community.

Advertising aimed at children is exploitative. It exploits the facts of childhood (intense desire to be attached and belong, developing sense of self) for the purposes of twisting a person to believe their worth is determined by what they consume. Advertising in the classroom is especially problematic because advertising at school carries extra weight in the implicit endorsement of the idea or product.

Neither unschooling, homeschooling, restricting advertising in school, nor banning industrial treats is censorship. But they all control or restrict a child's access to or view of something, and are decisions made by a parent regarding a child's environment.

When we convey our values, religion, traditions to our children we are giving them these things preferentially, which means we are excluding other things on purpose. Saying it's "making choices" or "family values" when I do it and "censorship" when someone else does it strikes me as dishonest.


----------



## Meg Murry. (Sep 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Smokering* 
Um????!

I admit the recent Keira Knightley travesty had a bit of rags-to-riches theme going on, thereby _completely_ ruining the point of the book; but to call it 'Cinderella' is going a bit far.

This falls into the "owes a substantial debt to" category rather than the "based upon" category.

1. The structure of the family is similar -- there is a (gentle) rivalry there btw the Elizabeth/Jane faction and the Lydia/Kitty faction (and the Mary faction all by herself), and of course Mrs. Bennett falls very much into the category of the mean mother who favors her other daughters at Lizzie's expense.

2. Darcy is clearly a Prince Charming by the end of the story, though he clearly does not begin as one. His act not only enables Elizabeth to be married (to him) but Jane to be married (to Bingley).

3. Like Cinderella, the story is all about transformation: from "rags" to riches for Elizabeth, from snobbish rejection to noble behavior (for Darcy), from "wild girl" to "married girl" for Lydia, and of course from pride and prejudice to mutual sympathy.

And of course, the big one...

4. Marriage is the transformative act for the heroine, one that elevates her from genteel poverty to incredible, fantastic riches (Darcy has 10,000 a year and Pemberley)...and she meets him at a ball.


----------



## lisalou (May 20, 2005)

It would be just as easy to argue it's Beauty and the Beast. Prince Charming starts out as a beast that Elizabeth must eventually see for who he really is and thus fall in love with him. I don't think Jane Austen was attempting to retell a fairy tale though. I think it would be better to teach the book as a view of a certain society that in some ways can still apply to ours. I can't help but wonder what books you end up letting your children read since it's so easy to bend narratives to whatever you choose. It used to be a hobby of mine in college.

As for the OP I think banning overmarketed characters is far more effective than banning superheros or princesses. Archetypes are an important part of story telling. It's silly to ban them completely and ends up with children missing out on something that's important to our culture and story telling tradition.

I find it sad that it does seem that secret response is a result of the OP being a lesbian.


----------



## wonderwahine (Apr 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chicagomom* 

Neither unschooling, homeschooling, restricting advertising in school, nor banning industrial treats is censorship. But they all control or restrict a child's access to or view of something, and are decisions made by a parent regarding a child's environment.

yup, i am restricting the goverments access to my child so that he actually gets an education that gives him a childhood not just mountains of busywork, and so I dont have to have him stuck under the thumb of NCLB







:


----------



## Smokering (Sep 5, 2007)

Meg Murry: I'm sorry, but I still can't buy it. Apart from the fact that there's _no_ evidence Jane Austen intended her story to be Cinderella-esque (and I prefer hermeneutics to revisionist literary theory), the themes just don't add up. As lisalou said, it could just as easily be Beauty and the Beast. The 'moral' of Cinderella is that the Prince rescues her from a life of drudgery; with, depending on the version, some added morals about keeping hope in your heart, or what-have-you. It's a stretch to apply that to Elizabeth. The theme of Pride and Prejudice is neither about romantic love or rags-to-riches; it is about navigating the complex waters of society, and coming out at the other side with your reputation, and if possible your heart, intact. Cinderella, had the Prince not found her, would have been in exactly the same position as Square One. Elizabeth, had Darcy not proposed for the second time, was not the same as in the beginning; she had undergone a moral, emotional, even physical journey which changed her outlook on life. To compare the two... well, it seems disrespectful. It's probably clear by now I'm a huge Lizzie Bennett fan, but really--she has a LOT more going for her than Cinderella, and ditto for their respective stories!


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wonderwahine* 
yup, i am restricting the goverments access to my child so that he actually gets an education that gives him a childhood not just mountains of busywork, and so I dont have to have him stuck under the thumb of NCLB







:

And yet you see no polarity with this issue. Fascinating.


----------



## Hazelnut (Sep 14, 2005)

Jeez I think princess stuff is worse than superheroes in many ways. I'm sorry people went nuts over your logical suggestion.


----------



## 93085 (Oct 11, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chicagomom* 
Censorship is the restriction of intellectual freedom. Although commercial speech that targets children has never been unregulated - (tobacco, alcohol, pornography), the courts have generally regarded it as the purview of the parents to decide which commercial speech is acceptable.

So, discussing a possible ban on logo gear with others in the community and coming to an agreement is precisely what is supposed to happen. As adults, we are charged with the responsibility for and care of the children in our community.

Advertising aimed at children is exploitative. It exploits the facts of childhood (intense desire to be attached and belong, developing sense of self) for the purposes of twisting a person to believe their worth is determined by what they consume. Advertising in the classroom is especially problematic because advertising at school carries extra weight in the implicit endorsement of the idea or product.

Neither unschooling, homeschooling, restricting advertising in school, nor banning industrial treats is censorship. But they all control or restrict a child's access to or view of something, and are decisions made by a parent regarding a child's environment.

When we convey our values, religion, traditions to our children we are giving them these things preferentially, which means we are excluding other things on purpose. Saying it's "making choices" or "family values" when I do it and "censorship" when someone else does it strikes me as dishonest.

This is all very well articulated, but we seem to have lost sight of the fact (I repeat) that what we're talking about here is making choices for OTHER peoples' kids, not just our own. That is censorship. That's banning Catcher in the Rye from high school. Same thing. Plenty of people think that Salinger is just as much schlock as Cinderella. In the end, it all falls under the heading of making moral decisions for other peoples' children.

To be honest, the relative merits and vices of superheroes and princesses--as much as I've enjoyed the debate--are beside the point.


----------



## journeymom (Apr 2, 2002)

This issue has me really thinking hard.

By equating Princesses, Barbies and Bratz to super-hero toys, are we establishing that there are Girl Toys and Boy Toys?

What do Bratz have to do with super-heroes?

How will banning Bratz make the situation any more fair or logical?

The decision to ban a toy should not be based upon gender, either gender. It is wrong to ban girl toys, just like it is wrong to ban boy toys.

It makes sense to ban a toy that encourages violent behavior. But the parents need to prove that any particular toy actually _causes_ violent behavior.

Kincaid, you must decide very carefully what you are objecting to. Then decide very carefully what you think the solution is to your objection.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ShaggyDaddy* 
Are you kidding me? 25% of the roman economy (and almost 100% of what survived the test of time) was used for worshiping, advertising, following, and diefying super heroes.

OMG- thank Hera you said that-- and I knew you would. The entire world of a Roman child would have been based around their superheo gods who annoy the hell out of mere humans.


----------



## journeymom (Apr 2, 2002)

Quote:

It's the moms of girls who are pissed.
If I were one of them I don't think I'd be pissed, but I'd question why you're trying to ban the princess toys.

Quote:

My issue is, little girls are bringing barbie/princess/etc lunchboxes and t-shirts and shoes and backpacks. It's not a consistent policy and I am all about consistency with children.
Consistently what? You want to be consistently right, not just consistent.

Quote:

these moms said they want to keep the heros ban in place because "without it the boys will be rough with their little girls and it's good to limit the violence." Aaaaagh!
I agree, aaaaagh! They need to prove it! They must prove that the super-hero toys will cause the boys to be rough with the girls. This is very weak logic. If they can prove it, not just site anecdotal stories about how the neighbor's son behaved after watching three hours of Batman Beyond, then they might have a case for banning super-hero toys. But I'd bet a dollar they can't prove it.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *journeymom* 
This issue has me really thinking hard.

By equating Princesses, Barbies and Bratz to super-hero toys, are we establishing that there are Girl Toys and Boy Toys?

What do Bratz have to do with super-heroes?

How will banning Bratz make the situation any more fair or logical?

The decision to ban a toy should not be based upon gender, either gender. It is wrong to ban girl toys, just like it is wrong to ban boy toys.

It makes sense to ban a toy that encourages violent behavior. But the parents need to prove that any particular toy actually _causes_ violent behavior.

Kincaid, you must decide very carefully what you are objecting to. Then decide very carefully what you think the solution is to your objection.

I think there are girl and boy toys. If you look at preschoolers' backpacks and do a survey of what gender has what on their backpack, it's pretty clear that there are girl and boy toys. We are not deciding that, we are acknowledging it.

And, it doesn't matter really. If toys that encourage violence are banned, so should be toys that encourage passivity, focus on appearance, and glorification of material wealth.

You can call it a coinkidink that the one is on boys' backpacks and the other on girls', if that makes you feel better. Kwim?


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Schools have a legitimate interest in discouraging violence. I doubt they have a legitimate interest in discouraging passivity. And while I would prefer a little less encouragement of focus on appearance and material wealth, I'm not sure schools have a legitimate interest in discouraging that, either.


----------



## journeymom (Apr 2, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
I think there are girl and boy toys. If you look at preschoolers' backpacks and do a survey of what gender has what on their backpack, it's pretty clear that there are girl and boy toys. We are not deciding that, we are acknowledging it.

Acknowledge, decide. For the sake of this argument here on this thread, I need to know if you, my fellow MDC parents, have established, or agree, that there are girl toys and boy toys. Because it is not a given. Some here could insist that there is no such thing as a girl's toy or a boy's toy.

And with my argument I am establishing that the decision to ban a toy should not be based upon sex.

Quote:

If toys that encourage violence are banned, so should be toys that encourage passivity, focus on appearance, and glorification of material wealth.
OK, but that's a separate issue. It has nothing to do with whether super-hero toys should be banned.

Quote:

You can call it a coinkidink that the one is on boys' backpacks and the other on girls', if that makes you feel better. Kwim?
No, it is not a coincidence, it is central to my argument. And how I _feel_ is irrelevent.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Nobody is saying the girls cannot have princesses but the boys can. Or that the boys cannot have superheroes but the girls can. Superheroes are banned, princesses may be banned. In general, for every kid. So whether toys are gendered really is irrelevant to the argument.

It just so happens that most of the girls (that I know, anyway) play with princesses, and most of the boys (again, IME) play with superheroes, and that this seems to be the case at the OP's preschool. But really it does not matter to the issue of whether they should be banned.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *journeymom* 
This issue has me really thinking hard.

By equating Princesses, Barbies and Bratz to super-hero toys, are we establishing that there are Girl Toys and Boy Toys?

What do Bratz have to do with super-heroes?

How will banning Bratz make the situation any more fair or logical?

The decision to ban a toy should not be based upon gender, either gender. It is wrong to ban girl toys, just like it is wrong to ban boy toys.

It makes sense to ban a toy that encourages violent behavior. But the parents need to prove that any particular toy actually _causes_ violent behavior.

Kincaid, you must decide very carefully what you are objecting to. Then decide very carefully what you think the solution is to your objection.

I don't really get the feeling, despite the feminist perspective involved, that this is really about banning girl toys, in response to a ban on boy toys. The stated reason for the superhero ban is that superheroes don't demonstrate good problem solving skills. While I suspect they _mean_ that superheroes are too violent, that's not what they _say_. To say that a child (male or female) can't wear a Batman t-shirt, because Batman doesn't demonstrate good problem solving skills, but a child (male or female, although I'll admit that girl in a Batman shirt strikes me as being more likely than a boy in a Cinderella shirt) _can_ wear a Cinderella t-shirt makes no sense to me at all. As several people have mentioned on this thread, the Princesses (Disney, Barbie, Bratz - the diva toys, in general) certainly don't demonstrate good problem solving skills. To whatever extent they may do so in the stories, it's buried in the way they're marketed.

I have to agree with Kincaid that if one entire group of licensed characters can be banned for something as vague as "lack of good problem solving skills", then that criteria should be applied across the board to all licensed characters. I feel that even more strongly as I believe that the average superhero demonstrates far more problem solving capability than the average Princess.


----------



## siobhang (Oct 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *journeymom* 
Acknowledge, decide. For the sake of this argument here on this thread, I need to know if you, my fellow MDC parents, have established, or agree, that there are girl toys and boy toys. Because it is not a given. Some here could insist that there is no such thing as a girl's toy or a boy's toy.

define is... ; )

basically it comes down to the difference btw Gender (a social construct) and sex (biologically determined difference - i.e. penis vs vulva).

Culturally, there absolutely are gender defined "boy toys" and "girl toys", and toy companies, clothing manufacturers, and kids tv reinforce this quite strongly.

Whether there are toys which are inherently sex based is debated quite a bit. In my opinion, while I cannot say that differences between boys and girls, and their playthings of choice are 100% gender-based (vs sex based), I personally believe this choice is in the high 90% gender based.

That said, it is very very hard to go against gender definitions in this world. Boys and girls who don't conform to gender expectations face a great deal of pressure. And kids are still learning how to BE little people, including rules such as "boys play with trucks" and "girls play with dolls". Nice, concrete, universal rules - which is how preschoolers view the world.

This is why breaking the hegimonic hold those gender stereotypes have on our children at this crucial early age is VITAL.


----------



## meaghann (Oct 23, 2007)

Sadly such a ban (on superheroes or princesses or whatever) does the most harm to the very children who are most vulnerable to commercial exploitation.

Suppose there is a boy who eats, sleeps, and dreams Superman. Clearly he has been touched by the powerful Marvel marketing machine. Sometimes he imagines himself to be Superman. His fixation with Superman interferes with his ability to learn and to make friends at school. His school has such a ban. So he wears his Old Navy clothes and carries his lunch in a brown bag. He knows every teacher and administrator disdains Superman and this ilk so he does not talk about his hero worship alot. He certainly does not try to sneak any Superman toys into school. His teachers, who are supposed to be there as experts in early education, have little to go on to explain his learning problems. Perhaps these teachers dont take alot of time to ponder this boy's learning problems, especially if they are trying to deal with a thousand other matters that teachers deal with. Had this boy been free to express himself in any way he likes, his teachers or almost anyone could more easily identify him as a candidate for some kind of early intervention.

The ability to identify people for reform is one of the fringe benefits of freedom of speech.


----------



## miss_sonja (Jun 15, 2003)

That's insane! And sexist. If they're going to ban licensed characters, that's one thing, but to ban 'superheros' and still allow all the princess stuff? That's not cool. What about the female superheros? Could a kid have a Wonder Woman lunch box? Storm? Supergirl? And what do they know about problem solving? Have any of them read an issue of X-Men where the characters are tormented about having to fight bad guys who are willing to kill, when the mutant heroes won't kill, even if their life depended on it?

I would pull my kid from a school like that, frankly. That's the kind of non-thinking that gets us all in trouble.


----------



## chicagomom (Dec 24, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jescafa* 
This is all very well articulated, but we seem to have lost sight of the fact (I repeat) that what we're talking about here is making choices for OTHER peoples' kids, not just our own. That is censorship. That's banning Catcher in the Rye from high school. Same thing. Plenty of people think that Salinger is just as much schlock as Cinderella. In the end, it all falls under the heading of making moral decisions for other peoples' children.

To be honest, the relative merits and vices of superheroes and princesses--as much as I've enjoyed the debate--are beside the point.

I see what you are saying, except that we already practice many "acceptable" restrictions of commercial speech to children (tobacco, alcohol, pornography). Do you think these are unacceptably censorious as well? What would be the difference?

And of course other kinds of clothing are also prohibited (eg clothing with sexual/racist/homophobic phraseology). Do you find regulating these unacceptable?

Do you find it censorious to prohibit or restrict soda and junk food at school?

Is it censorious to prohibit military recruiters or their advertising in schools?

Not everyone finds all of these unacceptable. Some will think some of these should be outright banned or tightly regulated. In my view all of these require a conversation between adults and some community-guideline-setting.

I find commercial speech on clothing and at school problematic because commercial speech aimed at children is everywhere, it's insidious (viral marketing slumber parties and product placement) and these days it's frequently tied to school funding (soda machines, bus radio, etc). And I think it's perfectly reasonable for a group of adults to come to the same conclusion and try to consensually create a tiny space in their childrens' lives that is ad-free.


----------



## beanma (Jan 6, 2002)

kincaid, have you any updates? this has been an interesting discussion, but i'd like to hear what they're discussing at your ds's school!


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

I haven't followed this whole thread. But, yesterday, ds mentioned that "Stephanie is a superhero". And when I inquired, he was referring to the pink Stephanie on Lazy Town. Apparently, she becomes a superhero in this DVD. http://www.amazon.com/LazyTown-New-S.../dp/B0009UC7PC

So, would Stephanie lunch boxes be banned?









Pat


----------



## bigeyes (Apr 5, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
I find it very... typical







... that the mothers at your school defending the princesses are also the ones doing that stereotypical woman thing of not having an actual, direct conversation, but presenting their points in a passive aggressive manner.

Ah, the irony!


----------



## bigeyes (Apr 5, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *leewd* 







:

As one who desparately HATES the whole princess thing, I'm stearing my girls toward the Power Puff Girls (they kick a$$).

I don't see why the "lesbian-thing" would be an issue. I'm as straight as a board (







I just thought of that







), and I totally agree with you! Then again, maybe I'm an "abnormal" girl. I always preferred using the dolls as patients when I played doctor to playing family or whatever . . .

Did you know they were originally called the Whoopass girls? Their creator didn't think that would play very well on kiddie tv.


----------



## runes (Aug 5, 2004)

one can "become" a superhero







in a myriad of ways. you can be bitten by a spider, or come from another planet, or be a normal person with extraordinary intelligence and resources etc etc.

but the ONLY way that any one of our commoner daughters can become a princess is if they marry a man that is a prince, and that external source of 'power' (which is also tied to marriage and by default, heterosexuality) just reeks, imo.

i have a neice who is just OBSESSED with princesses, especially the disney princesses. her family took her to a 'meet the princess' luncheon at disneyland and she was absolutely serious when she asked cinderella:

"how do i become a REAL princess?"

i don't think that cinderella gave her a definitive answer, but i







thinking of various cheeky hypothetical answers to that one!


----------



## 93085 (Oct 11, 2007)

Actually, you can become an actual princess, title and lands and everything, through that "American Princess" reality show on We. Not that I'm suggesting that show is a model for female empowerment, mind you.









But I wanted to respond to this:

Quote:

I see what you are saying, except that we already practice many "acceptable" restrictions of commercial speech to children (tobacco, alcohol, pornography). Do you think these are unacceptably censorious as well? What would be the difference?
Restricting childrens' access to these things is actually written into law. I think, generally, that limiting access to things that are not regulated by law is where the line is crossed into censorship.

Quote:

And of course other kinds of clothing are also prohibited (eg clothing with sexual/racist/homophobic phraseology). Do you find regulating these unacceptable?
Arguably some of this falls under obscenity regulations, as well. But no, I don't object to regulating hate speech. Hate speech is a directed, pejorative attack on a person or group of people. Cinderella and Spiderman are not.

Quote:

Do you find it censorious to prohibit or restrict soda and junk food at school?
I have a very specific position on this, which I am happy to have the opportunity to share.







I think it's absolutely fine for schools to be limited in terms of what they provide as part of their food service. I don't see how it serves the community at all for schools to spend their limited funds on Dr. Pepper and Hershey bars. However, I think that it would indeed be wrong and arguably a violation of civil rights for schools to regulate what individual students can bring in their brown-bag lunches (barring a deadly peanut allergy in the school or some other issue of immediate danger). So yes, I would see that as censorious in a similar way to the princess/superhero ban.

Quote:

Is it censorious to prohibit military recruiters or their advertising in schools?
Yes. And I am not in favor of this war, not in the slightest. But if colleges and businesses can recruit, then so can the military.

Quote:

Not everyone finds all of these unacceptable. Some will think some of these should be outright banned or tightly regulated. In my view all of these require a conversation between adults and some community-guideline-setting.

I find commercial speech on clothing and at school problematic because commercial speech aimed at children is everywhere, it's insidious (viral marketing slumber parties and product placement) and these days it's frequently tied to school funding (soda machines, bus radio, etc). And I think it's perfectly reasonable for a group of adults to come to the same conclusion and try to consensually create a tiny space in their childrens' lives that is ad-free.
OK, but it's actually the _children's_ freedom that concerns me here, not the desires of the parents. Oh, I know, I'm just a free-speech, civil liberties nut--I voted in favor of providing the pill at our local middle school too. And I have gone on record at our city hall opposing the criminalization of skateboarding and possession of certain art supplies (which may or may be used for graffiti) by minors.

I just think kids have so few rights, so few avenues to express themselves without adult intervention. I hate that there seems to be this idea that the more we can lead/guide/limit their experiences when they're young, the better off they'll be when they're older. I'm afraid that the opposite is true.


----------

