# Bitchy, Diva Attitude



## Meg Murry. (Sep 3, 2006)

Okay, this is a S/O of the princesses thread.

I got the book _Packaging Girlhood_, by Sharon Lamb, and I was horrified at the description of some of the diva garbage they sell at places like Claire's.

Here are examples:
1. Pink (what other color?) flip-flops that read, "Hey, that butt needs kicking."
2. Tins of cookies inscribed "Poison [crossed out] cookies for a friend" and in the Fun For Bulimics department, "Hey, you make me throw up."
3. Notebooks with statements written on them like "You suck and must be punished," "Can't listen, you're dumb," and my personal favorite for the Sociopathic Narcissism Award, "It's all about me, deal with it."

*Why are marketers selling this identity to girls*? What possible advantage could there be in encouraging what I cannot help but see as poisonous, corrosive, spoiled nastiness?

Seriously. Anyone know? Why in the world would anyone want to be associated with this kind of identity? Why would this identity be sold to girls?

By the way, I am genuinely asking this question. I want to make my DD aware of this kind of stereotype, but she'll ask why and I have no clue.


----------



## Demeter9 (Nov 14, 2006)

Worse, they aren't selling it to the girls. They are selling it to the Moms, because that is where the money to buy it is coming from.


----------



## ThreeBeans (Dec 2, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Demeter9* 
Worse, they aren't selling it to the girls. They are selling it to the Moms, because that is where the money to buy it is coming from.









:

The marketers have one goal: to make money. They may be capitalist pigs, but who is really guilty...the capitalist pigs, or the parents who provide the cash flow to purchase this crap?

I hate the entire genre...like the "Boys are Dumb" thing. Yuck. Have you seen those t-shirts?


----------



## Meg Murry. (Sep 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Demeter9* 
Worse, they aren't selling it to the girls. They are selling it to the Moms, because that is where the money to buy it is coming from.

Well, okay, but why in the world would a mother want to have her daughter express an attitude like, "Gold Digger" or "Hottt" or "Boys make good pets"?


----------



## Meg Murry. (Sep 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ThreeBeans* 







:

The marketers have one goal: to make money. They may be capitalist pigs, but who is really guilty...the capitalist pigs, or the parents who provide the cash flow to purchase this crap?

I hate the entire genre...like the "Boys are Dumb" thing. Yuck. Have you seen those t-shirts?

Yeah, I have. Again, why encourage thoughtless sexism? Can you imagine how up-in-arms people would be if a boy wore a shirt that said "Girls are dumb"?

The thing is, I understand very well that the purpose of the marketers is to make money. What I don't understand is why make money constructing and selling *this identity*? Why this identity?


----------



## ThreeBeans (Dec 2, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Meg Murry.* 

The thing is, I understand very well that the purpose of the marketers is to make money. What I don't understand is why make money constructing and selling *this identity*? Why this identity?

You're working on the presumption that marketers have a soul







:


----------



## Meg Murry. (Sep 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ThreeBeans* 
You're working on the presumption that marketers have a soul







:










I think I must be explaining myself very poorly. Sorry...I'll try again with examples.

Okay, why not t-shirts or notebooks that say things like,

* "Smart Girls Love Math"
* "Hermione is My Hero"
* "I Heart Harvard"
* "Smart Girls Don't Need Sugar Daddies"

or whatever. I could see an advantage to promoting the "smart, academic girl" identity in that many girls (smart or not) would like others to think that they are smart; more girls than guys go to college now, so slogans like these would be reflecting something like reality, and so on. It would be socially beneficial in that it would promote and encourage a behavior that encourages intellectual (and probably financial) advancement.

Conversely, statements like the one in my OP promote a stereotypical view of girls as competitive, backstabbing, materialistic, nasty, and dangerously narcissistic. I see no advantage to that. Why promote THAT identity?

In short, if they're selling ersatz identity -- which of course they are -- why do they make it THAT identity? If you're going to (for example) have a stupid charm bracelet where the girl can "personalize" the bracelet according to specific charms, why do the charms say things like "Princess"? Why not "Soccer Star," or "Straight-A," or "Science Whiz" or "Madam President" or whatever?

Why is this bitchy, diva personality being bought? Why is it being sold? Why is it being bought and sold to the near-exclusion of almost all other faux identities pushed on girls by marketers?

Can anyone tell me that?


----------



## CaraNicole (Feb 28, 2007)

I like claires.... If someone doesn't approve for their child by all means don't let your daughter shop there. I have a wicked sense of humor and they sell happy bunny so I buy it.







I think most things in claires are tounge in cheek, not ment to be taken serious at all...

ETA: actually all those quotes from the OP are happy bunny... go figure


----------



## Meg Murry. (Sep 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CaraNicole* 
I like claires.... If someone doesn't approve for their child by all means don't let your daughter shop there. I have a wicked sense of humor and they sell happy bunny so I buy it.







I think most things in claires are tounge in cheek, not ment to be taken serious at all...

ETA: actually all those quotes from the OP are happy bunny... go figure

That still doesn't answer my question. Also, most things that are "funny" still send a message.


----------



## CaraNicole (Feb 28, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Meg Murry.* 
Okay, this is a S/O of the princesses thread.

I got the book _Packaging Girlhood_, by Sharon Lamb, and I was horrified at the description of some of the diva garbage they sell at places like Claire's.

Here are examples:
1. Pink (what other color?) flip-flops that read, "Hey, that butt needs kicking."
2. Tins of cookies inscribed "Poison [crossed out] cookies for a friend" and in the Fun For Bulimics department, "Hey, you make me throw up."
3. Notebooks with statements written on them like "You such and must be punished," "Can't listen, you're dumb," and my personal favorite for the Sociopathic Narcissism Award, "It's all about me, deal with it."

*Why are marketers selling this identity to girls*? What possible advantage could there be in encouraging what I cannot help but see as poisonous, corrosive, spoiled nastiness?

Seriously. Anyone know? Why in the world would anyone want to be associated with this kind of identity? Why would this identity be sold to girls?

By the way, I am genuinely asking this question. I want to make my DD aware of this kind of stereotype, but she'll ask why and I have no clue.


Being that i just figured out where your quotes came from...I think I can better answer your question than my PP...

It's happy bunnies identity not a girls, he is an evil little rabbit and says mean but funny things imo anyways








Happy Bunny is kind of like South Parks Cartman only in rabbit form...
I believe they market these things because they sell to people who have a warped sense of humor like myself... HTH


----------



## Meg Murry. (Sep 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CaraNicole* 
Being that i just figured out where your quotes came from...I think I can better answer your question than my PP...

It's happy bunnies identity not a girls, he is an evil little rabbit and says mean but funny things imo anyways








Happy Bunny is kind of like South Parks Cartman only in rabbit form...
I believe they market these things because they sell to people who have a warped sense of humor like myself... HTH

But if you're buying Happy Bunny, you're (by extension) making him an extension of YOUR personality, as if YOU were saying these things with him as the proxy -- the ventriloquist's dummy, as it were. It would be absurd, wouldn't it, to say, "My dummy said that, but I didn't"?

Whether it's Cartman or Happy Bunny, they're basically announcing that you're endorsing what are essentially mean statements.

The difference is, though, if you're an adult and you want to buy objects that express mean statements, that's up to you: it's a free country.

However, what I simply don't get is...

1. Why would a parent buy these things?
2. Why is this an identity that this society as a whole would want girls to buy into?

To take all the Happy Bunny statements as parts of an overall personality profile, a girl goes around threatening other people with the prospect of random, purposeless physical violence; she playfully offers what might be drugged or poisoned food; she offers food to others with the message that they or the cookies cause vomiting; and she says random cruelties to others such as the idea that they "suck" and need to "be punished" and finally state that they are the most important person in the entire world and other people have to accept their subordinate status.

I find this kind of identity more than problematic. I find it bordering on the sociopathic. The fact that this kind of identity is encouraged for girls is deeply disturbing.


----------



## CaraNicole (Feb 28, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Meg Murry.* 
But if you're buying Happy Bunny, you're (by extension) making him an extension of YOUR personality, as if YOU were saying these things with him as the proxy -- the ventriloquist's dummy, as it were. It would be absurd, wouldn't it, to say, "My dummy said that, but I didn't"?

No, it means I find Jim Benton, Matt Stone, and Trey Parker funny. They are the ventriloquists and their charaters are the dummy, I'm just one member in the audience. I do recall a comic having a routine about a dummy who "he couldn't control" it was quite funny.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Meg Murry.* 
Whether it's Cartman or Happy Bunny, they're basically announcing that you're endorsing what are essentially mean statements.

The difference is, though, if you're an adult and you want to buy objects that express mean statements, that's up to you: it's a free country.

However, what I simply don't get is...

1. Why would a parent buy these things?
2. Why is this an identity that this society as a whole would want girls to buy into?

1. Well if my child found them funny, I prob. would by them...
2. Because different people like different things.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Meg Murry.* 
To take all the Happy Bunny statements as parts of an overall personality profile, a girl goes around threatening other people with the prospect of random, purposeless physical violence; she playfully offers what might be drugged or poisoned food; she offers food to others with the message that they or the cookies cause vomiting; and she says random cruelties to others such as the idea that they "suck" and need to "be punished" and finally state that they are the most important person in the entire world and other people have to accept their subordinate status.

Parents are always going to be mad at SOMEBODY for "sending bad messages" to their kids...
So far Elvis, Bevis and Butthead, South Park, The Simpsons, Married with Children etc. have all hit a nerve I guess it's finally Happy Bunnys turn to shine...
The reason most people find HB amusing is because his ideas on stuff are so out there it would never happen. Stephen Colbert is full of himself but America loves him. There is ALWAYS somebody, and I think it's wrong to blame these things on how kids act or I guess "could act" would be more correct.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Meg Murry.* 
I find this kind of identity more than problematic. I find it bordering on the sociopathic. The fact that this kind of identity is encouraged for girls is deeply disturbing.

I would really hope that I've raised my son to know the difference between a cartoon and the real world. I have more faith in humanity than for a child to say "I gave my friend poision cookies b/c happy bunny did it"
I have yet to read a news report about any child doing something b/c a cartoon sticker said so. I guess I am just missing why this is a big deal, If you dislike Cartman and Happy Bunny so much why not boycott, or start a group?


----------



## AlmostAPpropriate (Oct 23, 2004)

I agree with ya. IMO wearing statements like that on your person and saying you dont endorse them makes little sense.

As to why they are popular I would guess that attitudes like that are considered the domain of the priviliedged celebrity. You know, the image of an actress rejecting her lunch because the grapes arent peeled or something. That sort of entitlement is seen as desireable. So, if you are an average kid with no hope of having the real world cater to you buying the gear and adopting the persona is as close as you can get.

With tabloids and E! giving a play by play of those people's lives like it's news it doesnt surprise me that young girls think that is what acheivement looks like.


----------



## chann96 (May 13, 2004)

I think they market this identity because it's already out there in other forms. Look at Paris Hilton and her ilk. The day she was sent back to prison that was what was on 90% of the news that day (hey I'm a sucker and easily amused and watched it. It was fascinating human drama.) Anyway Paris, Britney, Nicole Richie, Lindsay Lohan and all of the other young female celebrities having been making oodles of press and money by portraying themselves as stupid, bitchy women. Marketers see this and want to capitalize on it. Can't blame them truly. It's about the parents who buy the stuff or allow their children to read magazines or watch tv about them.

I recently saw an article about a young woman trying to at least start to combat this idea. Danica McKellar (best known as Winnie Cooper on the Wonder Years) left Hollywood for school and got her degree in mathematics including being an author on a peer-reviewed paper. http://www.danicamckellar.com/ she has written a book aimed at middle-school aged girls called "Math doesn't Suck". It looks like a funny attempt to show that "smart is sexy" as she puts it. I think she was always a very pretty young woman and frankly has grown into a fairly stunning young adult both physically and mentally.

I hope that with all of the negative press about Britney, Paris, and Lindsay that their stars are beginning to fade and maybe just maybe we are on the verge of turning away from this identity. I think it will always exist to some degree though. It has since I was little so I don't think it will ever completely go away.


----------



## Meg Murry. (Sep 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CaraNicole* 
No, it means I find Jim Benton, Matt Stone, and Trey Parker funny. They are the ventriloquists and their charaters are the dummy, I'm just one member in the audience. I do recall a comic having a routine about a dummy who "he couldn't control" it was quite funny.

Sorry if I wasn't clear -- if you are buying these items and are wearing these statements, they are extensions of you and people take them as such -- not _in spite of_ whether you find these folks funny, but _because_ you do.

Quote:

2. Because different people like different things.
Either you're being flippant or you believe this is the whole story. I'm not sure which I would prefer. I think the first possibility, actually.

Quote:



The reason most people find HB amusing is because his ideas on stuff are so out there it would never happen. Stephen Colbert is full of himself but America loves him. There is ALWAYS somebody, and I think it's wrong to blame these things on how kids act or I guess "could act" would be more correct.

When the diva personality is sold as only one of approximately three or four personalities a girl is marketed from which to "choose," it becomes a problem. It's encouraging a behavior for which there are regrettably very few alternatives besides Princess and Slut. This hardly reflects the diversity of _real_ girls' _actual_ interests or personalities.

By the way, there's a difference between nastiness for its own sake and political satire. I wouldn't object if my DD wore a Stephen Colbert t-shirt.


----------



## Meg Murry. (Sep 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chann96* 
I think they market this identity because it's already out there in other forms.


But if your argument is that it's already out there (e.g., that these products are reflecting some form of reality), then where are the other choices besides Bitch Diva for girls' identities that are also "out there," such as scientists (Marie Curie, Rosalind Franklin), astronauts (Sally Ride), political figures (Condoleezza Rice), sports stars (Brandi Chastain), and others? Where are those figures? Where are those identities?

Quote:



Look at Paris Hilton and her ilk. The day she was sent back to prison that was what was on 90% of the news that day (hey I'm a sucker and easily amused and watched it. It was fascinating human drama.) Anyway Paris, Britney, Nicole Richie, Lindsay Lohan and all of the other young female celebrities having been making oodles of press and money by portraying themselves as stupid, bitchy women. Marketers see this and want to capitalize on it. Can't blame them truly. It's about the parents who buy the stuff or allow their children to read magazines or watch tv about them.
But I'm not sure it's merely a matter of marketers being driven by what parents want -- in fact, I think it's more like _parents_ being driven by what _marketers_ want.

When marketers show on television commercials exactly these stereotypes (Princess, Bitch Diva, and Slut), when Disney movies buy into precisely these stereotypes also, when almost every children's show does the same thing, they create an impression in everyone's mind that these stereotypes are real, these stereotypes are popular, desirable, that these stereotypes represent the only legitimate choices for girls' identities that exist. Is it any wonder, then, that girls want the latest Bratz to reflect what they see and what they're told is the essence of cool? Is it any wonder that their parents buy it for them when their girl wants it so much and when the other girls have it too?

Quote:

I recently saw an article about a young woman trying to at least start to combat this idea. Danica McKellar (best known as Winnie Cooper on the Wonder Years) left Hollywood for school and got her degree in mathematics including being an author on a peer-reviewed paper. http://www.danicamckellar.com/ she has written a book aimed at middle-school aged girls called "Math doesn't Suck". It looks like a funny attempt to show that "smart is sexy" as she puts it. I think she was always a very pretty young woman and frankly has grown into a fairly stunning young adult both physically and mentally.
Okay, so where are the "Math Doesn't Suck" t-shirts? Even better, where are the "Math Rocks!" t-shirts?

Quote:

I hope that with all of the negative press about Britney, Paris, and Lindsay that their stars are beginning to fade and maybe just maybe we are on the verge of turning away from this identity. I think it will always exist to some degree though. It has since I was little so I don't think it will ever completely go away.
It seems to be even more pervasive and obscene than I remember it being when I grew up and all I had to worry was why Barbie had no vagina.


----------



## mom2talus (Mar 23, 2007)

I guess the Happy Bunny lipbalm I bought for a friend that said "Poison Lip Balm For Friends" wasn't funny.

Ummm, yes, it was.

For too many years, girls were taught to be quiet and passive. And they let many bad things happen to them as a result. (I know this all too well.) I'm personally okay with girls being taught to be a bit more sassy, to have some attitude, and to stand up for themselves.


----------



## Adastra (May 30, 2007)

I love (andy buy) Happy Bunny myself, but I see him as being every bit as tongue in cheek as Stephen Colbert.

I don't love South Park but understand what people find funny in it - it's a breathe of fresh air (at least for an episode or two) after the formulaic sitcoms with canned laughter and problems solved in the last 4.2 minutes before the commercial.

I think you are confusing pg-13 semi-sick humor with something else that I agree is disgusting, which is the seducing of our daughters into commercialized, princessy, materialistic, and entitled diva-hood. It's as if the corporate industrial complex took the little girl princess complex and twisted and spun it until they'd made it the ideal consumer - entitled, self-centered, and too snotty to listen to anyone else.


----------



## chann96 (May 13, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Meg Murry.* 
But if your argument is that it's already out there (e.g., that these products are reflecting some form of reality), then where are the other choices besides Bitch Diva for girls' identities that are also "out there," such as scientists (Marie Curie, Rosalind Franklin), astronauts (Sally Ride), political figures (Condoleezza Rice), sports stars (Brandi Chastain), and others? Where are those figures? Where are those identities?

Those identities can sometimes be found in more specialty shops, but they don't sell for long. People like Paris and Britney partly keep themselves in the public eye by their negative antics, but they also have publicists who make sure they stay in the public eye. The publicists are paid to make people want more and more of them. People in the other fields you mention don't have that.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Meg Murry.* 
But I'm not sure it's merely a matter of marketers being driven by what parents want -- in fact, I think it's more like _parents_ being driven by what _marketers_ want.

When marketers show on television commercials exactly these stereotypes (Princess, Bitch Diva, and Slut), when Disney movies buy into precisely these stereotypes also, when almost every children's show does the same thing, they create an impression in everyone's mind that these stereotypes are real, these stereotypes are popular, desirable, that these stereotypes represent the only legitimate choices for girls' identities that exist. Is it any wonder, then, that girls want the latest Bratz to reflect what they see and what they're told is the essence of cool? Is it any wonder that their parents buy it for them when their girl wants it so much and when the other girls have it too?

Certainly parents are driven by marketers. One of the keys to trying to teach our kids about marketing is to understand this. Coke and Pepsi spend oodles to advertise during the Super Bowl and the rest of the year because they want to drive all other soda makers out of our minds. And they want kids to see their favorite football star with their soda and think it's cool or that they NEED to have Michael Jordan's shoes to be cool. Marketing is incredibly powerful; that's why companies spend so much time and money on it.

It goes both ways. Marketing influences kids and parents, but the companies themselves are influenced by parents' and kids' interests.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Meg Murry.* 
Okay, so where are the "Math Doesn't Suck" t-shirts? Even better, where are the "Math Rocks!" t-shirts?

Again these can sometimes be found in specialty stores, but it doesn't sell in the mass market.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Meg Murry.* 
It seems to be even more pervasive and obscene than I remember it being when I grew up and all I had to worry was why Barbie had no vagina.

It is more pervasive at the moment and as I said I think and hope we may be turning the corner on it a little bit with a lot of parents now seeing all of the negative press of Britney et al. I do remember though that even in my little country school the popular girls were the bitchy, "dumb" ones. Smart wasn't cool. It was decidely uncool to be smart.


----------



## LilyGrace (Jun 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Meg Murry.* 

Okay, so where are the "Math Doesn't Suck" t-shirts? Even better, where are the "Math Rocks!" t-shirts?


Ahem -
Math Rocks!








and
Math Goddess


----------



## loveandkindness (Feb 1, 2005)

Stuff like this makes me glad my family lives in our own crunchy little bubble. I have no idea who Cartman and Happy Bunny are. And judging by the above, I don't want to know!

This is off the track from the OP, but from the one time I was in Claire's, my question would be: why would anyone buy JUNK? Most people don't need more stuff. Not to mention all that stuff is probably made in China by exploited workers and full of lead-based paint.

*sigh* I just don't understand mainstream society.


----------



## RedWine (Sep 26, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loveandkindness* 
Stuff like this makes me glad my family lives in our own crunchy little bubble. I have no idea who Cartman and Happy Bunny are. And judging by the above, I don't want to know!

This is off the track from the OP, but from the one time I was in Claire's, my question would be: why would anyone buy JUNK? Most people don't need more stuff. Not to mention all that stuff is probably made in China by exploited workers and full of lead-based paint.

*sigh* I just don't understand mainstream society.

I hear ya.


----------



## Dabble (Jun 14, 2007)

I have to agree that merchandise of this type is completely distasteful, and I would not buy it.

I hate seeing girls with words on their butts "Hot" and "Kiss This" - these girls are like twelve years old!

In a different vein, but sort of the same topic, I saw on an online baby boutique type of store that had an infant romper sized 6-12 months that said "Jail Bait" on it. I showed it to DH, and we both just stared at it open-mouthed and horror-stricken. I can't imagine someone in their right mind putting that on a child.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

I mostly understand what you're saying, but it is really sad to me that you are using negative language towards females--"bitchy" and "diva"--to describe this stuff. Maybe it's just a sign of how ingrained it it in our collective consciousness to put down and negatively stereotype girls.


----------



## bigeyes (Apr 5, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Meg Murry.* 
Yeah, I have. Again, why encourage thoughtless sexism? Can you imagine how up-in-arms people would be if a boy wore a shirt that said "Girls are dumb"?

The thing is, I understand very well that the purpose of the marketers is to make money. What I don't understand is why make money constructing and selling *this identity*? Why this identity?

I guess you haven't seen the shirts that say _shut up stupid b***h_

and no, I'm not joking.









These things have been accepted (in some circles) on men's tee shirts for a long time, now unfortunately it's showing up on girl's clothing as well. What progress, huh?


----------



## bigeyes (Apr 5, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CaraNicole* 

I would really hope that I've raised my son to know the difference between a cartoon and the real world. I have more faith in humanity than for a child to say "I gave my friend poision cookies b/c happy bunny did it"
I have yet to read a news report about any child doing something b/c a cartoon sticker said so. I guess I am just missing why this is a big deal, If you dislike Cartman and Happy Bunny so much why not boycott, or start a group?

While I believe in free speech and all that, I have noticed a difference in my dd's behavior when she isn't exposed to smart alecky kids on tv. Maybe you are lucky and your children aren't affected by it. Most people, adults included, when exposed to rudeness often enough, are going to soak up some of it.

Do what you want, it's a free country. But I'm really tired of that 'I hope I've raised my child better than...' argument that pops up so often when people point these things out. When your humor is _mean,_ what makes you think your child isn't going to _be_ mean?


----------



## Oriole (May 4, 2007)

I don't mean to offend anyone who likes this stuff... but seriously, if those statements are not statements of arrogance, than what is?!








They ARE mean sayings, and they DO intend to make you sound better than the rest in an arrogant way. So why would you chose it for your child? Or yourself for that matter?

They say that you can't dispute person's taste, at the same time, I just don't understand what would you consider poor taste if these t-shirts are ingood taste in your book?







:


----------



## silly_scout (Aug 31, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mom2talus* 
I guess the Happy Bunny lipbalm I bought for a friend that said "Poison Lip Balm For Friends" wasn't funny.

Ummm, yes, it was.

You're right; that is crazy funny.









[/QUOTE]For too many years, girls were taught to be quiet and passive. And they let many bad things happen to them as a result. (I know this all too well.) I'm personally okay with girls being taught to be a bit more sassy, to have some attitude, and to stand up for themselves.[/QUOTE]

I agree to a certain extent. I like sass and intelligence; unfortunately, most of the phrases Meg Murry is speaking of are not that. They are bitchy and diva-like. Hell, here are some of the _infant onesies_ I've seen lately:
Does this diaper make my butt look big?
High Maintenance
Future American Beauty Queen (sidebar: almost vomited when I saw this one)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Meg Murry.* 
Conversely, statements like the one in my OP promote a stereotypical view of girls as competitive, backstabbing, materialistic, nasty, and dangerously narcissistic. I see no advantage to that. Why promote THAT identity?

Have you read Backlash by... Susan Something-or-other... can't think of her name right now. Anyhoo, the theory set forth by this book is that after a period of progression for women, there is an intentional "backlash" by marketers to put women back in their place. Voila:
First Wave Feminism (ala Seneca Falls/Suffragists): Vote obtained. 1920's saw sexual enlightenment for some women. B/C pill (like it or not) invented, freeing some women to have their sexy cake and eat it too. WWII and Rosie the Riveter show women their potential. Then: BAM! WWII is over and women are back in their places, arguably more oppressed than ever. Girdles make a comeback. Birth rights and breastfeeding (trusting your body) at an all-time low.
Second Wave Feminism: Women again organize, NOW, attempts to stop sexual harrassment, increase wages, huge steps taken, then BAM: fashions of the 1980's and marketing ploys become disgustingly sexual and demeaning. See the film "Killing Us Softly" as a reference. Hard core porn (which, IMO, is demeaning and abusive to women) becomes more accessible.
Third Wave Feminism (about the past ten years): Remember in the late 80s and early 90s how shirts actually went to the waist and the jeans actually didn't sit so low that you showed your thong? _Remember when thongs weren't popular?!_ Okay, so the past 10-15 years has seen some more advancement for women... geez, we may be about to see the first female American president. Condaleeza Rice (like her or not)... more women in higher positions, kwim? More WOH mothers staying in their positions and getting wages previously never known to women. So, according to the theory of Backlash, it's time for an adjustment. Therefore, marketers try to do this through promoting a trashy, bitchy persona - a bitch eat bitch type of atmosphere.
Do I sound paranoid? Maybe. I don't know if all of this is done on purpose (like, are there ad execs dressed like villians with long twirly moustaches rubbing their hands together and laughing MWAH HA HA HA!? IDK.) But the subconscious idea is definitely there regardless. Kind of like the pattern of what is considered attractive in a female in antiquity. In time periods and cultures when there is universal hardship, a heavier women is considered attractive because she symbolizes "plenty" and "success". In a time of universal thriving and "success", a thin waif is considered attractive because she symbolizes "control".


----------



## jennnk (Feb 6, 2005)

Unfortunately, being smart isn't cool. Never has been, for girls, as far as I know. Because when you're smart and everyone knows you're smart, not only are you branded a "nerd" and a "geek" and a number of other demeaning things, but people think that you think that you're better than them (projection/jealousy/insecurity) and you're bullied. This was my experience, and the experience of all the smart girls I knew. Plenty of men/boys are intimidated by smart women, by confident women, by assertive yet caring women. These stereotypes and classifications that we're letting our daughters slip into (princess/diva/slut) are a result of insecure men and women wanting to put the rest of us "in our place." They reinforce the patriarchal, sexist notions that you'll never get a boyfriend if you like math, because boys don't like girls who like math, boys like PRETTY girls who like PRETTY things, and boys like girls who can get "freaky" and bend like pretzels, they don't care about whether or not you know the periodic table - they can talk to their FRIENDS about that. It's not funny to joke about poisoning your friends, it's not funny or cute to put a baby in a onesie that says "hung like a third grader" or "jail bait," it's not cute for a four-year-old to wear a halter top & miniskirt and a THONG. And it sure as hell isn't ok to reinforce these notions that being smart is something to be looked down upon, which is what these g-d d*mned things do. Does anyone else remember talking Barbie? "Math is hard, let's go to the mall." I shot that b*tch through the electronic voicebox with a .22. I was 11. I understood then, and I understand more now. It's not okay to dumb ourselves down, to dumb our daughters down. It's BS and it needs to stop.


----------



## silly_scout (Aug 31, 2006)

Oh yeah... remember the thongs that Abercrombie and Fitch marketed to 4-10 year olds a few years ago? They said things like "Wink Wink" and "Eye Candy". *Shudders*


----------



## bigeyes (Apr 5, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *silly_scout* 
You're right; that is crazy funny.










For too many years, girls were taught to be quiet and passive. And they let many bad things happen to them as a result. (I know this all too well.) I'm personally okay with girls being taught to be a bit more sassy, to have some attitude, and to stand up for themselves.[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry, I couldn't find the original post you quoted this from.







:

Girls were not taught to be quiet and passive, they were taught to be passive aggressive. That is much worse, and that is exactly what those shirts and other things are examples of. Standing up for yourself isn't being mean and sneaky, it's being assertive. Big difference.


----------



## jennnk (Feb 6, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *silly_scout* 
Oh yeah... remember the thongs that Abercrombie and Fitch marketed to 4-10 year olds a few years ago? They said things like "Wink Wink" and "Eye Candy". *Shudders*

I hate abercrombie. I hate abercrombie with the passion and fire of one thousand burning suns.


----------



## silly_scout (Aug 31, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bigeyes* 
Girls were not taught to be quiet and passive, they were taught to be passive aggressive. That is much worse, and that is exactly what those shirts and other things are examples of. Standing up for yourself isn't being mean and sneaky, it's being assertive. Big difference.









These t-shirts should say "I've been with the company for a decade now and I deserve the same raise Mr. Jones just got" not "Your boyfriend is looking at me!"

Okay, both of those tee shirts suck. I'm still kinda lovin' the chapstick previously mentioned.


----------



## rupiezum (Mar 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Meg Murry.* 
Well, okay, but why in the world would a mother want to have her daughter express an attitude like, "Gold Digger" or "Hottt" or "Boys make good pets"?

Well, here's the thing - they're pretending like it's all about girl power and strong females. But it's just more subservient







spun in a different way. Because then they can still be like, "Aw, isn't that cute, the widdle girl pretending she's tough." Mind you, these are the people who are marketing thongs to six year olds.

I just got Packaging Girlhood out of the library. Looking forward to reading it.


----------



## bigeyes (Apr 5, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *silly_scout* 
Y
Future American Beauty Queen (sidebar: almost vomited when I saw this one)

Have you read Backlash by... Susan Something-or-other... can't think of her name right now.

Faludi

There is another one I can't recall the author or the exact title of, but it was a bizarrely interesting connection between football and violence against women.
If anyone can help me out with that one, please do.


----------



## Meg Murry. (Sep 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Adastra* 
I I\ think you are confusing pg-13 semi-sick humor with something else that I agree is disgusting, which is the seducing of our daughters into commercialized, princessy, materialistic, and entitled diva-hood. It's as if the corporate industrial complex took the little girl princess complex and twisted and spun it until they'd made it the ideal consumer - entitled, self-centered, and too snotty to listen to anyone else.

They're not identical, of course, but especially in statements like, "It's all about me, deal with it," it's clearly crossing over.


----------



## Meg Murry. (Sep 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LilyGrace* 
Ahem -
Math Rocks!








and
Math Goddess

YAY!!! One of the many reasons I love this board.







:

EDITED: WAIT!!! Did anyone notice that the "Math Rocks" t-shirt was from *men's* apparel?

Thankfully, "Math Goddess" wasn't.


----------



## Meg Murry. (Sep 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Chimpmandee* 
I have to agree that merchandise of this type is completely distasteful, and I would not buy it.

I hate seeing girls with words on their butts "Hot" and "Kiss This" - these girls are like twelve years old!

In a different vein, but sort of the same topic, I saw on an online baby boutique type of store that had an infant romper sized 6-12 months that said "Jail Bait" on it. I showed it to DH, and we both just stared at it open-mouthed and horror-stricken. I can't imagine someone in their right mind putting that on a child.

And yet, I'm sure there's at least one person who's excusing it by saying it's tongue-in-cheek and no one could possibly take that seriously.


----------



## Meg Murry. (Sep 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie* 
I mostly understand what you're saying, but it is really sad to me that you are using negative language towards females--"bitchy" and "diva"--to describe this stuff. Maybe it's just a sign of how ingrained it it in our collective consciousness to put down and negatively stereotype girls.









There's a major difference, IMHO, between an intelligent, assertive woman who knows her own mind and the stereotype (and I've referred to it as such in previous posts) of the bitchy diva.

I have no problem with (for example) t-shirts extolling the virtues of intelligent, assertive women, even ones whom I personally dislike and disagree with (e.g., Hillary, Condoleezza, Margaret Thatcher). There's a world of difference between, say, Hillary Clinton and the stereotype that says, "Buy Me Things - I'm Worth It."


----------



## Meg Murry. (Sep 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bigeyes* 
While I believe in free speech and all that, I have noticed a difference in my dd's behavior when she isn't exposed to smart alecky kids on tv. Maybe you are lucky and your children aren't affected by it. Most people, adults included, when exposed to rudeness often enough, are going to soak up some of it.

Do what you want, it's a free country. But I'm really tired of that 'I hope I've raised my child better than...' argument that pops up so often when people point these things out. When your humor is _mean,_ what makes you think your child isn't going to _be_ mean?

And just to chime in here agreeing with you -- and FWIW, this is not an attack on the PP who liked Happy Bunny -- I think part of raising your child well is keeping the negative attitude to which they're exposed to a minimum. We don't live in a bubble, even a crunchy one, but we do try to keep our dd away from shows, shirts, programs, and people who are essentially mean-spirited in attitude. That doesn't make me a perfect parent -- far from it -- but I think keeping kids attitude-free for as long as possible is a worthwhile (and somewhat achievable) goal.


----------



## Meg Murry. (Sep 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *silly_scout* 
Hell, here are some of the _infant onesies_ I've seen lately:
Does this diaper make my butt look big?
High Maintenance
Future American Beauty Queen (sidebar: almost vomited when I saw this one)


And to me, at least, this seems like the height of misogyny here -- completely reducing women (even INFANT women) to self-indulgent personifications of vanity ("Does this diaper make my butt look big?"), economic and emotional dependence on others, especially men ("High Maintenance") and someone whose only value is in appearance ("FABQ").

Quote:

Have you read Backlash by... Susan Something-or-other... can't think of her name right now.
Faludi. Yes, years ago. You're right on the money. This theory you're floating comes as close as anything I can think of to an answer to my original question. It has the feel of being the right answer, if you know what I mean.


----------



## Meg Murry. (Sep 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jennnk* 
if you like math, because boys don't like girls who like math, boys like PRETTY girls who like PRETTY things, and boys like girls who can get "freaky" and bend like pretzels, they don't care about whether or not you know the periodic table - they can talk to their FRIENDS about that.

I'm just







: about why people actually buy this for their girls.

Quote:

It's not funny to joke about poisoning your friends, it's not funny or cute to put a baby in a onesie that says "hung like a third grader" or "jail bait," it's not cute for a four-year-old to wear a halter top & miniskirt and a THONG. And it sure as hell isn't ok to reinforce these notions that being smart is something to be looked down upon, which is what these g-d d*mned things do. Does anyone else remember talking Barbie? "Math is hard, let's go to the mall." I shot that b*tch through the electronic voicebox with a .22.

I am not an advocate of violence, but man...


----------



## bigeyes (Apr 5, 2007)

And ftr, I am as sarcastic as they come, I love evil humor, but I am trying to keep my children away from it. I really notice a difference in the way they behave when they are exposed to people who are mean and snotty just for the sake of being mean and snotty.

At least when they're older they will know when it's appropriate. At 9 and 10 they don't. Which is why we watch _Mind of Mencia_ after they are in bed.


----------



## Meg Murry. (Sep 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rupiezum* 
Well, here's the thing - they're pretending like it's all about girl power and strong females. But it's just more subservient







spun in a different way. Because then they can still be like, "Aw, isn't that cute, the widdle girl pretending she's tough." Mind you, these are the people who are marketing thongs to six year olds.

I just got Packaging Girlhood out of the library. Looking forward to reading it.

Yes, I agree -- it's co-opting what SHOULD be a good idea (girl power) and one that empowers women, as a PP was arguing (IMHO, incorrectly) that it does. It should, but what it comes down to is that "girl power" basically means "the power to shop."

That's not power. Especially not when the t-shirts and their ilk imply that the money gotten for shopping was acquired through strategic deployment of sexuality. That's not much better (nor much different) than prostitution.


----------



## Meg Murry. (Sep 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bigeyes* 
Faludi

There is another one I can't recall the author or the exact title of, but it was a bizarrely interesting connection between football and violence against women.
If anyone can help me out with that one, please do.

Interesting! I remember reading that violence against women really goes up during the Super Bowl, but I didn't know there was a book on the subject.


----------



## jennnk (Feb 6, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Meg Murry.* 
I'm just







: about why people actually buy this for their girls.

I am not an advocate of violence, but man...









It was the only time I've ever shot a gun. The fact that I hit her, especially where I did, freaked me out so badly I threw up. My dad called me "Annie Oakley" for a week. But I made my little political statement, and got a lot more respect from my dad (at least temporarily) for that much. It's too bad so many girls don't get it, and part of the reason is because of the intense marketing such as that we're talking about here. The opening line of _Full Frontal Feminism_ is "You're a hardcore feminist. I swear." But really there are so many girls/young women who _don't_ get angry at what she talks about as the reasons for why we're all feminists (you can get turned down for birth control, victims get blamed for their own rapes, etc.), and it makes me really sad.


----------



## bigeyes (Apr 5, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Meg Murry.* 
Interesting! I remember reading that violence against women really goes up during the Super Bowl, but I didn't know there was a book on the subject.

It wasn't exactly that, it was more about the attitude that football players and fans have about women, and violent tendencies in football players. IIRC. it's gonna drive me nuts that I can't think of it.


----------



## CaraNicole (Feb 28, 2007)

i had a great big long post and it was crunched. maybe it was ment to be b/c the more i read this thread the more i get the impression you just wanted people to agree with you not answer your questions. i lost track of who said stephen colbert was ok but just so you know on wed. show he had a great big running skit about vicodin painting himself as an addict, if happy bunny upsets you than i'm sure that will to. i guess this is where we agree to disagree b/c i'm just not seeing how all of this is such a big deal







it's ment as a funny and if you take it all personal i guess it's your cup of tea. honestly some of these posts have really made me







: so many blanket statements. well i'm done but please click the links below...

http://www.blackjackinc.com/index.as...ROD&ProdID=645

http://www.blackjackinc.com/index.as...OD&ProdID=1510

http://www.blackjackinc.com/index.as...OD&ProdID=1652

yep he's all evil i tell you!


----------



## bigeyes (Apr 5, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CaraNicole* 
i had a great big long post and it was crunched. maybe it was ment to be b/c the more i read this thread the more i get the impression you just wanted people to agree with you not answer your questions. i lost track of who said stephen colbert was ok but just so you know on wed. show he had a great big running skit about vicodin painting himself as an addict, if happy bunny upsets you than i'm sure that will to. i guess this is where we agree to disagree b/c i'm just not seeing how all of this is such a big deal







it's ment as a funny and if you take it all personal i guess it's your cup of tea. honestly some of these posts have really made me







: so many blanket statements. well i'm done but please click the links below...

yep he's all evil i tell you!









I don't think any of those were even remotely like the stuff we were talking about. Except for the fact that they have the bunny on them, I mean.

We were talking about perpetuating the _girl on girl hatred_ and sexualization of little girls. I don't see that in the examples you gave.








:

But it's kind of funny you characterize yourself as a _badass streetwalker._


----------



## AmyY (Jul 22, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bigeyes* 
It wasn't exactly that, it was more about the attitude that football players and fans have about women, and violent tendencies in football players. IIRC. it's gonna drive me nuts that I can't think of it.

The Stronger Women Get, the More Men Love Football.
http://www.amazon.com/Stronger-Women...6310410&sr=1-1

I agree with all of the above about the mysogyny and backlash element to these items.

Also, I spent like the first two years of my girls' lives strollering them through the mall, and I observed that there is a related phenomenon when it comes to teens and now children (soon I will be forced to call them tweens but for now I resist







). The mall is completely enclosed space. There is no sense of the passage of times and seasons. No idea really of what time of day it is. Piped in music (if you can call it that). Store after store after store after store showing enormous photos of extraordinarily tall, frighteningly thin, desperately happy young girls (and some young boys as well). These photos display merchandise as the way to happiness, and, more key, I think, as the way to rebellion against authority. In other words, impressionable young teens are being told that they can buy their way into rebellion against - what? Something undefined, perhaps parents but it seems to go beyond that into an expectation that PURCHASING SOMETHING AT THE MALL will make you into your own person.

I've never heard of this happy bunny stuff, but the one that strikes me as the most ironic is the store Hot Topic. It's all set up to imitate a garage sale in a mechanic shop, and the products there are certainly enough to make many parents' eyes bug out, but it's clearly fake. There's no real rebellion. When you buy this stuff you're buying corporate culture sold to you as if it was there to help you rebel against corporate culture.

I agree with the deeper, more troubling mysogyny involved in the products many of you have mentioned above. I would also like to point out that there is an element of "cool" to them that suggests that the purchaser/user of them has some sort of edgy sense of humor, some sort of insight about life, some sort of "wink wink" to other purchasers of these products that "we get each other" - when in fact, there are enormous corporations behind these products, and buying them involves no humor, no rebellion, no cool whatsoever. Teens and children are being hoodwinked, and parents may be as well, which is sad. Corporations can congratulate themselves at the success involved in getting people to mass-purchase products that enrich the corporation under the guise of rebelling against corporate culture.


----------



## aussiemum (Dec 20, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loveandkindness* 
Stuff like this makes me glad my family lives in our own crunchy little bubble. I have no idea who Cartman and Happy Bunny are. And judging by the above, I don't want to know!

This is off the track from the OP, but from the one time I was in Claire's, my question would be: why would anyone buy JUNK? Most people don't need more stuff. Not to mention all that stuff is probably made in China by exploited workers and full of lead-based paint.

*sigh* I just don't understand mainstream society.

Hey, your family resembles my family!







We get a little bit of mainstream exposure, but not much. My family's influence, mostly. Besides, my darling DD does a good enough diva impersonation without learning any pat phrases & expressions.


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Meg Murry.* 
YAY!!! One of the many reasons I love this board.







:

EDITED: WAIT!!! Did anyone notice that the "Math Rocks" t-shirt was from *men's* apparel?

Thankfully, "Math Goddess" wasn't.

"Math Rocks" comes in girls/women's styles http://www.cafepress.com/buy/math+ro..._/fpt_/c_360/#

And there are more cool "math girl" shirts!

There's pleanty more 'girly' math shirts as in http://www.cafepress.com/buy/math/-/...t_/fpt_/c_360/


----------



## aussiemum (Dec 20, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie* 
I mostly understand what you're saying, but it is really sad to me that you are using negative language towards females--"bitchy" and "diva"--to describe this stuff. Maybe it's just a sign of how ingrained it it in our collective consciousness to put down and negatively stereotype girls.









Honestly Annettemarie, I'd use the words bitchy or diva or just plain bloody ignorant towards anyone who used words like 'Boys are stupid' or 'Jailbait' for babies, regardless of whether they were male, female, or hermaphrodite. To me, no one is 'inferior', & the way I read alot of the merchandise language here is that it is trying to put certain people down, ie. suggest inferiority, kiwm?

I guess you all would probably guess that I'm not a South Park fan, either?









Okay, I'll keep reading on......


----------



## aussiemum (Dec 20, 2001)

And lest you all think I am completely humourless, whilst reading this....

That's Queen Bitch to You


I laughed so hard I just about needed Depends. If you are a mum with a semi-warped sense of humour I think you'll like it. ANd it (mostly) leaves the kids out of it.


----------



## chicagomom (Dec 24, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *silly_scout* 
Okay, so the past 10-15 years has seen some more advancement for women... More WOH mothers staying in their positions and getting wages previously never known to women.

It's sad and frustrating that on mothering.com this is considered "advancement for women".

WOH is not "advancement".


----------



## Equuskia (Dec 16, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chicagomom* 
It's sad and frustrating that on mothering.com this is considered "advancement for women".

WOH is not "advancement".

Why not? Some women actually *gasp* like to work outside the home, while daddy stays home.

As for hot topic, there's a few here in PR, and I've mostly seen college students and adults shopping there, almost never kids.


----------



## Meg Murry. (Sep 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CaraNicole* 
i had a great big long post and it was crunched. maybe it was ment to be b/c the more i read this thread the more i get the impression you just wanted people to agree with you not answer your questions. i lost track of who said stephen colbert was ok but just so you know on wed. show he had a great big running skit about vicodin painting himself as an addict, if happy bunny upsets you than i'm sure that will to.


Well, let me see.
Is my daughter wearing a t-shirt that says, "I am a Vicodin addict" or "I love Colbert the Vicodin addict"? If so, then yeah. Otherwise, you are comparing apples to oranges. One is a product marketed specifically to girls and is sold in shops patronized largely by tweens and teens (Claire's); the other is a comedy program on Comedy Central whose audience is largely an adult one and is intended to be such. Again, since apparently I have failed to make my point clear, I have no objection to black humor. I have an objection to girls, including my daughter, being sold only one of three possible identities: Bitch Diva, Princess, and Slut.

Moreover, the previous poster was so right I'd like to say it again: Let's not forget anytime soon that Happy Bunny and its ilk are produced _by a corporation_ who did enough focus marketing to decide that mean-spirited statements are somehow "ironic" when coming out of the mouth of a bunny and will sell to tween girls chafing against the other two identities offered to them. It's faux-rebellion at its finest: "Look, I _bought_ this; look at how edgy I am!"

And thanks, Caranicole, for also providing the web page source for these links:

Future Diva

Future Princess

Future Slut


----------



## Meg Murry. (Sep 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya44* 
"Math Rocks" comes in girls/women's styles http://www.cafepress.com/buy/math+ro..._/fpt_/c_360/#

And there are more cool "math girl" shirts!

There's pleanty more 'girly' math shirts as in http://www.cafepress.com/buy/math/-/...t_/fpt_/c_360/

By the way, I'm lovin' cafepress.


----------



## silly_scout (Aug 31, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chicagomom* 
It's sad and frustrating that on mothering.com this is considered "advancement for women".

WOH is not "advancement".

Uh oh, I've upset someone's delicate sensibilitiies.
Shall I reword so as to comfort you?
*Women can now CHOOSE to stay in high paying positions.*
So sorry I thought seeing female CEOs and women making six figures was "advancement".
ETA: Now that I think of it, I think it's "sad and frustrating" that on mothering.com women are still bickering about WOH vs. SAHM. Thought we were a little above that.


----------



## Oriole (May 4, 2007)

Once, I had a professor who pointed out that there were studies done on how much better people do on presentations if they dress up... What we wear affects us, consciously or subconsciously. That's that...

So.. if you wear things like:

"Can't listen, you are dumb"
"It's all about me, deal with it"

I'll think of you a certain way... I'll make certain judgments about parents who dress up their kids in certain things (and I'm not talking about princesses or even Disney characters here, but things that make vulgar statements). I think as a parent, you have to make sure your daughter understands that many will think of her as a selfish, self-centered being if she walks out of the house like that.

Why? Because those are selfish and self-centered statements, and obviously, she endorces them by wearing them.

Just because it is funny to you, doesn't mean it's not mean-spirited.
Humor doesn't have to be mean-spirited.


----------



## Meg Murry. (Sep 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Oriole* 
Once, I had a professor who pointed out that there were studies done on how much better people do on presentations if they dress up... What we wear affects us, consciously or subconsciously. That's that...

So.. if you wear things like:

"Can't listen, you are dumb"
"It's all about me, deal with it"

I'll think of you a certain way... I'll make certain judgments about parents who dress up their kids in certain things (and I'm not talking about princesses or even Disney characters here, but things that make vulgar statements). I think as a parent, you have to make sure your daughter understands that many will think of her as a selfish, self-centered being if she walks out of the house like that.

Why? Because those are selfish and self-centered statements, and obviously, she endorces them by wearing them.

Just because it is funny to you, doesn't mean it's not mean-spirited.
Humor doesn't have to be mean-spirited.

I'm sure you're opening yourself up for twenty replies or so about how you're "being judgmental" and how you "shouldn't judge people by what they wear."

These are very often (not always, but often) the same people who want messages on clothing to express their identity...or to give them one.

Those people want an impossible thing: they want clothing to define (or create) their identities but don't want to be classified or labeled as belonging to those identities. They want to mean something and not mean it; they want to express an idea and not be subject to the consequences of expressing that idea.

The reality of the matter is just as you said: people do judge you by what you wear...and _rightly so_. QUITE OBVIOUSLY, the sum total of a person's identity cannot be determined by one t-shirt and there may be a host of reasons why that person is wearing a t-shirt with a mean-spirited message on it, but for the most part, one's clothing -- including a t-shirt with a message on it -- provides a significant clue about how a person wants others to perceive her or him. Every woman who covers for modesty knows that, to take one example.

All that I can say is not to be surprised when people use their _judgment_ -- the ability to come to a conclusion based on evidence and one of the most superior qualities that human beings possess -- to come to a conclusion about the wearer, feeble protests of "Don't judge me!" to the contrary.


----------



## Krystal323 (May 14, 2004)

:

My whole family loves Hot Topic and Claire's, but my kids will be the first to point out something that's "not very nice!" in those stores.









interesting thread


----------



## CaraNicole (Feb 28, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Meg Murry.* 
Well, let me see.
Is my daughter wearing a t-shirt that says, "I am a Vicodin addict" or "I love Colbert the Vicodin addict"? If so, then yeah. Otherwise, you are comparing apples to oranges. One is a product marketed specifically to girls and is sold in shops patronized largely by tweens and teens (Claire's); the other is a comedy program on Comedy Central whose audience is largely an adult one and is intended to be such. Again, since apparently I have failed to make my point clear, I have no objection to black humor. I have an objection to girls, including my daughter, being sold only one of three possible identities: Bitch Diva, Princess, and Slut.

Moreover, the previous poster was so right I'd like to say it again: Let's not forget anytime soon that Happy Bunny and its ilk are produced _by a corporation_ who did enough focus marketing to decide that mean-spirited statements are somehow "ironic" when coming out of the mouth of a bunny and will sell to tween girls chafing against the other two identities offered to them. It's faux-rebellion at its finest: "Look, I _bought_ this; look at how edgy I am!"

And thanks, Caranicole, for also providing the web page source for these links:

Future Diva

Future Princess

Future Slut


If that's what your upset over, never mind. I can see that we are never going to agree and frankly the longer I'm in this thread the more I think my head is going to explode. Well according to your logic when you wear a shirt "promoting someone" as you say wouldn't you be "promoting" everything they do on their show or atleast be in agreement with what they say? It's the same thing but since this thread is all anti happy bunny no one cares, got it.









Quote:


Originally Posted by *bigeyes* 
I don't think any of those were even remotely like the stuff we were talking about. Except for the fact that they have the bunny on them, I mean.

We were talking about perpetuating the _girl on girl hatred_ and sexualization of little girls. I don't see that in the examples you gave.








:

But it's kind of funny you characterize yourself as a _badass streetwalker._

Well since it's the same bunny it's relevent, I'm suprised noone found a double meaning on those... No I don't characterize myself as a badass streetwalker the momma who sent me the DDDDC does, I'm not sure if you know how a DDDDC works but you do not get to pick them. It's a joke and I took it as such (actually me and that momma had a great laugh on it) but if I ever end up on a street corner I'll be sure to blame a momma on here for sending me that(well since it affects how I feel about myself and all







). Aparently your not allowed to make a joke anymore. See that's the thing with comedy either everything is funny or nothing is you can't pick and choose what people can make fun of or you open yourself to censorship. I am happy that some people in this world still have a sense of humor. Once again if you don't like the stuff don't buy it. Anyways I'm off to go poison some cookies.


----------



## Oriole (May 4, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CaraNicole* 
I am happy that some people in this world still have a sense of humor.

Once again, why does humor have to put others down? Why does it have to be mean-spirited? And why does a 12 year old needs a vulgar statement on her t-shirt to be funny?


----------



## bigeyes (Apr 5, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AmyY* 
The Stronger Women Get, the More Men Love Football.
http://www.amazon.com/Stronger-Women...6310410&sr=1-1


thank you!


----------



## mtiger (Sep 10, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Oriole* 
Once again, why does humor have to put others down? Why does it have to be mean-spirited? And why does a 12 year old needs a vulgar statement on her t-shirt to be funny?

Exactly. Crass is... crass.


----------



## bigeyes (Apr 5, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Meg Murry.* 
I'm sure you're opening yourself up for twenty replies or so about how you're "being judgmental" and how you "shouldn't judge people by what they wear."

These are very often (not always, but often) the same people who want messages on clothing to express their identity...or to give them one.

Those people want an impossible thing: they want clothing to define (or create) their identities but don't want to be classified or labeled as belonging to those identities. They want to mean something and not mean it; they want to express an idea and not be subject to the consequences of expressing that idea.

The reality of the matter is just as you said: people do judge you by what you wear...and _rightly so_. QUITE OBVIOUSLY, the sum total of a person's identity cannot be determined by one t-shirt and there may be a host of reasons why that person is wearing a t-shirt with a mean-spirited message on it, but for the most part, one's clothing -- including a t-shirt with a message on it -- provides a significant clue about how a person wants others to perceive her or him. Every woman who covers for modesty knows that, to take one example.

All that I can say is not to be surprised when people use their _judgment_ -- the ability to come to a conclusion based on evidence and one of the most superior qualities that human beings possess -- to come to a conclusion about the wearer, feeble protests of "Don't judge me!" to the contrary.

I see this all the time in people who dress in undershirts and holey jeans to apply for a job or go out to eat, then complain they don't get an interview, or can't get past the door because of the dress code. _Do we really need Getting A Job and Fine Dining 101?_ Is it necessary for the boss to have to tell your coworker not to wear a _tube top_ to work?

To me this stuff is obvious, yet I see children wearing stuff that characterizes them as obnoxious, slutty, etc. I can't imagine wanting someone to view your children that way. And yet, here we are having this conversation.


----------



## bigeyes (Apr 5, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CaraNicole* 
Well since it's the same bunny it's relevent, I'm suprised noone found a double meaning on those... No I don't characterize myself as a badass streetwalker the momma who sent me the DDDDC does, I'm not sure if you know how a DDDDC works but you do not get to pick them. It's a joke and I took it as such (actually me and that momma had a great laugh on it) but if I ever end up on a street corner I'll be sure to blame a momma on here for sending me that(well since it affects how I feel about myself and all







). Aparently your not allowed to make a joke anymore. See that's the thing with comedy either everything is funny or nothing is you can't pick and choose what people can make fun of or you open yourself to censorship. I am happy that some people in this world still have a sense of humor. Once again if you don't like the stuff don't buy it. Anyways I'm off to go poison some cookies.









You still don't get it. Nobody has a problem with black humor. What we have a problem with is selling stuff to our children that sexualizes them or encourages them to be nasty and mean. Your particular happy bunny examples were not as extreme as the ones mentioned earlier. Not even close.
I don't think anyone is saying they are anti-humor.

I for one just don't want to see my daughter buying things that characterize her as a slut, a princess or a diva/bitch. I believe other posters have made that point as well. I think you _missed_ the point.

It isn't about humor or the lack of it. It's about teaching our children that women are not all sluts, divas, bitches and princesses.

But, you are right, I have no idea what ddddc is. I do think it's ironic that you posted in this topic and you have that streetwalker thing there since we are complaining about our daughters being characterized that way.







I would not find it funny if someone called me that as a _joke_


----------



## AmyY (Jul 22, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bigeyes* 
thank you!

You're welcome!


----------



## AlmostAPpropriate (Oct 23, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CaraNicole* 
Well according to your logic when you wear a shirt "promoting someone" as you say wouldn't you be "promoting" everything they do on their show or atleast be in agreement with what they say? It's the same thing but since this thread is all anti happy bunny no one cares, got it.










I agree with that. If I were a fan of Comedian X and wore a TShirt with her name on it, and she publicly endorsed spanking or she starred in a formula add - you bet, Id quit wearing the TShirt.


----------



## CaraNicole (Feb 28, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bigeyes* 
You still don't get it. Nobody has a problem with black humor. What we have a problem with is selling stuff to our children that sexualizes them or encourages them to be nasty and mean. Your particular happy bunny examples were not as extreme as the ones mentioned earlier. Not even close.
I don't think anyone is saying they are anti-humor.

I for one just don't want to see my daughter buying things that characterize her as a slut, a princess or a diva/bitch. I believe other posters have made that point as well. I think you _missed_ the point.

It isn't about humor or the lack of it. It's about teaching our children that women are not all sluts, divas, bitches and princesses.

But, you are right, I have no idea what ddddc is. I do think it's ironic that you posted in this topic and you have that streetwalker thing there since we are complaining about our daughters being characterized that way.







I would not find it funny if someone called me that as a _joke_


Ok I can sum this up...I think without even stepping on toes.







I personally don't see happy bunny as being bitchy, diva, slut, and princess.
I see it as tounge in cheek, now as for clothes that do have
"super bitch" "the hotness" "future porn star" "I'm hung like a 5 year old" "kiss my black ass" oh and the 3 yr. old that had a HUGE pot leaf on his t-shirt
THOSE are the shirts that seeing kinds in would make me go huh, WTF? I have seen ALL those shirts on kids under 5ish. So when mommas are getting offended by a teen wanting happy bunny, I think of it as PG to what ELSE is out there. I hope that makes sense. If someone is willing to explain why some of the happy bunny stuff is so bad for a teen, I'd really like to hear your view point I'm open to stuff. I know everyone has a different comfort level so I'm curious why PG things to me are so bad to others, It's my food for thought today if you will.

The ddddc came from the ddddc virgin club. The thread is in TAO I believe and it really was funny, if you read it you'll get the whole streetwalker thing.


----------



## bigeyes (Apr 5, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CaraNicole* 
now as for clothes that do have
"super bitch" "the hotness" "future porn star" "I'm hung like a 5 year old"

Now you're starting to get it.


----------



## chicagomom (Dec 24, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *silly_scout* 
*Women can now CHOOSE to stay in high paying positions.* So sorry I thought seeing female CEOs and women making six figures was "advancement".

Which women get to "choose to work?"

It's good that some women get to choose to work. But this isn't really a *choice* for more and more women - they have to work outside the home. This trend that you are seeing isn't the advancement of the feminist agenda, it's the advancement of the capitalist agenda. And that same agenda is reflected in many of these tshirts.


----------



## silly_scout (Aug 31, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chicagomom* 
Which women get to "choose to work?"

It's good that some women get to choose to work. But this isn't really a *choice* for more and more women - they have to work outside the home. This trend that you are seeing isn't the advancement of the feminist agenda, it's the advancement of the capitalist agenda. And that same agenda is reflected in many of these tshirts.

True... to a certain extent. Of the women who want to stay home, but say they can't, how many:
-have cell phones? Unnecessary, bill, IMO.
-own a home where rent is cheaper? Perhaps renting is a temporary option for these families.
-have cable television? Also unnecessary IMO.
-make other unnecessary purchases?

I live in Massachusetts where you can't find a shack for less than a quarter of a mil. DH and I have a $1800 a month mortgage in an area with jobs that don't pay well enough to justify the cost of living. Still, DH works his job, works a second part-time job, I tutor when I can, and freelance just enough to BARELY scrape by. I never leave DD for more than an hour at a time, and can always plan bfing around my work. I eliminate all unnecessary bills and I'm still wearing clothes that I've had for the past ten years.
Now, I totally agree that some groups of women really have no choice but to work. I feel for women who are in low-income brackets and who haven't got a partner to share financial burden. But I really think more mothers could stay home if our society weren't so materialistic. There, I said it, and I'm not sorry. Maybe it's because I know primarily middle class people, but I feel like some of the mothers I know could stay home if they didn't insist on wearing new clothes, owning brand-name stuff, driving new cars, etc. Then again, if they don't want to SAH, who the hell am I to judge?
I think the primary problem is the nuclear family set-up - NOT WOH. My parents and DH and I are in the market for a 2 family home so we can share a mortgage. If we do that, I will go from having a $250K (purchase price) mortgage to a $75K mortgage. Not only will I be able to stay home no prob, we'll also be able to save for Hazel's college fund. Most families don't share the load like this. I'm not saying that people are wrong for living in a nuclear set-up - I'm just saying you can't exclusively blame WOHM for a multi-tiered problem. Both the nuclear family set-up and WOH have no simple solution, and they are both indelably ingrained in our culture.
I guess I really resented your post because I feel like it implied WOHM who enjoy what they do should be apologetic for the fact that it's difficult for other women to SAH. I also feel like you undermine the importance of women being financially independent if they want to be. Your post also implied that only one type of opinion is allowed on MDC. Are we supposed to all agree on stuff? Yeah, that would make for interesting convos. If you have an issue with something someone said, refute it intelligently with an arguement. Don't just say their opinion is sad and frustrating without explanation.
But if we're talking working poor mothers, then yes, WOH is exceedingly difficult and it's unfair that some women can stay home and some can't. I admit that I have a slight advantage being educated and from a middle-class background. However, I still consider women being able to make more money an "advancement". I should hope that I am still welcome to post on MDC without "frustrating" someone because of this belief.








Sorry for the hijack. Now back to our regularly scheduled thread.


----------



## Meg Murry. (Sep 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CaraNicole* 
If that's what your upset over, never mind. I can see that we are never going to agree and frankly the longer I'm in this thread the more I think my head is going to explode.


An interesting way to open your mind, but whatever works for you.









Quote:


Well according to your logic when you wear a shirt "promoting someone" as you say wouldn't you be "promoting" everything they do on their show or atleast be in agreement with what they say? It's the same thing but since this thread is all anti happy bunny no one cares, got it.









Yes, generally so! I'm very glad we have achieved some understanding of each other's point. Yes indeed, if I wear a shirt "promoting someone" (your words), then generally, I am in agreement with a sufficient amount of what they say to constitute general agreement with the majority of that person's or entity's opinions. For instance, if I wore an "I Heart Hitler" t-shirt, I may not agree that annexing the Sudentenland was a great idea, but I might really, really like what he's done with Poland.

Quote:


Well since it's the same bunny it's relevent, I'm suprised noone found a double meaning on those...
Nope, just the one mean meaning.

Quote:


No I don't characterize myself as a badass streetwalker the momma who sent me the DDDDC does, I'm not sure if you know how a DDDDC works but you do not get to pick them.

Very sorry, but this constitutes a complete abrogation of responsibility that I haven't seen since I quit reading the Ron Paul thread. Anyhoo, I have a feeling that if someone gave you a DDDDC with which you utterly disagreed and found insulting and/or did not want to have representing you, it would be a relatively easy matter to PM a moderator or CM herself and have it removed.

Your continued acceptance of it constitutes exactly that: acceptance of it and, one can reasonably presume, agreement with it. Just speaking of myself here, if someone called me a "streetwalker," in whatever context, I wouldn't be happy with it -- and I really, REALLY wouldn't want random MDC guests to read that and view me through that particular prism.

Really, it's up to you to take this, but I would like to offer you some advice. Take responsibility. Take responsibility for what you say and what you do and what you wear and how you appear. Not just you -- everyone, including me. That's _real_ assertiveness and real identity, not the ersatz kind one buys at Claire's.

Quote:

It's a joke and I took it as such (actually me and that momma had a great laugh on it) but if I ever end up on a street corner I'll be sure to blame a momma on here for sending me that(well since it affects how I feel about myself and all







).
Does faux self-pity work for you IRL? This is a tactic that is not worthy of you.

Quote:


Aparently your not allowed to make a joke anymore. See that's the thing with comedy either everything is funny or nothing is you can't pick and choose what people can make fun of or you open yourself to censorship. I am happy that some people in this world still have a sense of humor. Once again if you don't like the stuff don't buy it. Anyways I'm off to go poison some cookies.








I cry BS on the "censorship" comment. What you possibly don't get or are deliberately obfuscating the difference between (I would prefer to think the latter), is that there is a TREMENDOUS difference between censorship and criticism. In this country, you may say a great many things -- but _all_ of them come with some degree of consequence. If I say something on this board that is "legal" by this board's user agreement but objectionable, e.g., "BRITNEY SPEARS IS A GREAT MOTHER!" or "CLOTH DIAPERS POLLUTE THE ENVIRONMENT," I will need to deal with the consequences and people will object to what I said. This, however, does NOT constitute censorship.

Please do not distort facts.


----------



## Meg Murry. (Sep 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CaraNicole* 
Ok I can sum this up...I think without even stepping on toes.







I personally don't see happy bunny as being bitchy, diva, slut, and princess.
I see it as tounge in cheek, now as for clothes that do have
"super bitch" "the hotness" "future porn star" "I'm hung like a 5 year old" "kiss my black ass" oh and the 3 yr. old that had a HUGE pot leaf on his t-shirt
THOSE are the shirts that seeing kinds in would make me go huh, WTF?

Cara, to use your own logic here, why isn't that just an example of tongue-in-cheek humor? Really, would you mind explaining that? Because I'm sure if you went up to the parent of (for example) the "Future Porn Star," and said, "Why would you want other people to think that your child will be exposing his or her private parts, having sexual relations with strangers, and selling those sex acts for money as a career?" the response you'd likely get is, "God, I'm just KIDding. Can't you take a JOKE? Get a sense of HUmor."

Quote:


I have seen ALL those shirts on kids under 5ish. So when mommas are getting offended by a teen wanting happy bunny, I think of it as PG to what ELSE is out there.
This is very faulty logic. If you applied that same logic elsewhere, you'd see why it's faulty. If a serial killer said, "What I've done is not so bad -- I've only killed three people, but the guy next to me has killed sixteen," the fact that someone else has done something worse than he has does not make him Mother Teresa. If a guy smacks around his wife and says, "I'm not such a bad guy -- look at O.J. Simpson," it does not make him Husband of the Year. Yes, a dirty grey cloth looks whiter next to a black one, but not even the contrast is enough to make it white.


----------



## nonconformnmom (May 24, 2005)

*Meg Murry* - I am almost finished with the book you reference in the OP "Packaging Girlhood: rescuing our daughters from marketers schemes" and I can only say, I am getting more and more angry with every page I turn of this remarkable and well researched book.

Every parent of girls should read this book. Don't wait, it may be the most important thing you can do for your daughter.

It's difficult to understand, to recognize, the pervasiveness of it unless you read a book like this. Yes, incidents and packaging looked at in isolation or on a product by product or brand name by brand name basis _seem_ harmless, but when viewed as part of the collective whole, in the context of the culture and the standards and expectations, it is appalling. Truly frightening.


----------



## Meg Murry. (Sep 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nonconformnmom* 
*Meg Murry* - I am almost finished with the book you reference in the OP "Packaging Girlhood: rescuing our daughters from marketers schemes" and I can only say, I am getting more and more angry with every page I turn of this remarkable and well researched book.

Every parent of girls should read this book. Don't wait, it may be the most important thing you can do for your daughter.

It's difficult to understand, to recognize, the pervasiveness of it unless you read a book like this. Yes, incidents and packaging looked at in isolation or on a product by product or brand name by brand name basis _seem_ harmless, but when viewed as part of the collective whole, in the context of the culture and the standards and expectations, it is appalling. Truly frightening.

I couldn't agree more and I'm grateful to the PP who suggested it. Interestingly, my DD and I just walked into Old Navy yesterday and the first thing I saw was a new display for jeans with the very large words "SWEETHEART," "FLIRT," and "DIVA" written across the display. Yep, that's it. You can only be one of those three types if you want jeans. The "sweetheart" has the highest rise; the "diva" the lowest.

What I want to know is where is the display for "TIRED ENGLISH TEACHERS WHO DON'T WANT TO SHOW THEIR FLABBY POST-PREGGO STOMACHS TO THEIR SIXTH PERIOD SENIORS" happens to be. I still can't find it.







:


----------



## ~gilli~ (Jun 30, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Meg Murry.* 
I think I must be explaining myself very poorly. Sorry...I'll try again with examples.

Okay, why not t-shirts or notebooks that say things like,

* "Smart Girls Love Math"
* "Hermione is My Hero"
* "I Heart Harvard"
* "Smart Girls Don't Need Sugar Daddies"

or whatever. I could see an advantage to promoting the "smart, academic girl" identity in that many girls (smart or not) would like others to think that they are smart; more girls than guys go to college now, so slogans like these would be reflecting something like reality, and so on. It would be socially beneficial in that it would promote and encourage a behavior that encourages intellectual (and probably financial) advancement.

Conversely, statements like the one in my OP promote a stereotypical view of girls as competitive, backstabbing, materialistic, nasty, and dangerously narcissistic. I see no advantage to that. Why promote THAT identity?

In short, if they're selling ersatz identity -- which of course they are -- why do they make it THAT identity? If you're going to (for example) have a stupid charm bracelet where the girl can "personalize" the bracelet according to specific charms, why do the charms say things like "Princess"? Why not "Soccer Star," or "Straight-A," or "Science Whiz" or "Madam President" or whatever?

Why is this bitchy, diva personality being bought? Why is it being sold? Why is it being bought and sold to the near-exclusion of almost all other faux identities pushed on girls by marketers?

Can anyone tell me that?

Because people are buying it. The lowest common denominator sells. Period.


----------



## nonconformnmom (May 24, 2005)

My amateur attempt to explain why people buy this stuff is based, in part, on the fact that many of us moms (speaking of myself here and not presuming to speak of other specific MDC members) were inculturated on this stuff from the time WE were babies. So it's difficult for us to see it - we're like fish in water - we can't see the water.

I know that's true for me. I don't even notice all the sexism and stereotyping that goes on, until I read a book like the one mentioned in this thread and then it's like the whole world changes. I shudder to think about the mistakes I made with my oldest dd (she is 20 years old now), and ones that I will be sure not to make with my younger daughters.

I know that, for me, it used to be that I would see things in stores, and somehow the fact that these things were on the shelves gave them instant credibility and acceptance. 'Oh, girls are buying these shorts that say "Princess" on them? Okay ... whatever.' and I'd kind of shrug and just go on, filling my cart. I didn't *think* .... I didn't *question*. Because it's all part of who I am now, the rampant sexism and stereotyping that I grew up with and never recognized.


----------



## rupiezum (Mar 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Meg Murry.* 
Yes indeed, if I wear a shirt "promoting someone" (your words), then generally, I am in agreement with a sufficient amount of what they say to constitute general agreement with the majority of that person's or entity's opinions. For instance, if I wore an "I Heart Hitler" t-shirt, I may not agree that annexing the Sudentenland was a great idea, but I might really, really like what he's done with Poland.


----------



## Meg Murry. (Sep 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *~gilli~* 
Because people are buying it. The lowest common denominator sells. Period.

But I honestly don't think it's that simple. Sure, people are buying it, but look at what I said about Old Navy where they had the three basic "jeans identities" available for purchase. When there are only three basic identities for girls (and basically the SAME ones as for adult women: princess, a.k.a. "sweetheart"; diva, a.k.a. "diva"; and slut, a.k.a. "flirt"), then women aren't really given a choice, are they?

Or I suppose we could wear no pants.


----------



## Meg Murry. (Sep 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nonconformnmom* 
My amateur attempt to explain why people buy this stuff is based, in part, on the fact that many of us moms (speaking of myself here and not presuming to speak of other specific MDC members) were inculturated on this stuff from the time WE were babies. So it's difficult for us to see it - we're like fish in water - we can't see the water.

I know that's true for me. I don't even notice all the sexism and stereotyping that goes on, until I read a book like the one mentioned in this thread and then it's like the whole world changes. I shudder to think about the mistakes I made with my oldest dd (she is 20 years old now), and ones that I will be sure not to make with my younger daughters.

I know that, for me, it used to be that I would see things in stores, and somehow the fact that these things were on the shelves gave them instant credibility and acceptance. 'Oh, girls are buying these shorts that say "Princess" on them? Okay ... whatever.' and I'd kind of shrug and just go on, filling my cart. I didn't *think* .... I didn't *question*. Because it's all part of who I am now, the rampant sexism and stereotyping that I grew up with and never recognized.


That makes sense to me.


----------



## sunnmama (Jul 3, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Meg Murry.* 
Future Diva

Future Princess

Future Slut

I was just lurking, but clicked on these in disbelief....does it really say "future slut?!"

Well, no....and that isn't what I got from those tshirts at all. I am kind of shocked that someone would interpret a toddler tee so perversely (slut). Considering that they are toddler sized, I get:

Present Diva
Present Princess
Presently Innocent and Sweet. But soon I'll be a sneaky 6 yo







. (said by the mother of a 6 yo







)


----------



## lisalou (May 20, 2005)

Interesting to see Stephen Colbert compared to a product line whose sole purpose like Bratz and Barbie is to appeal to the edgy side of tweener's and younger kids while their mothers think "well at least they're still playing with dolls." since Colbert doesn't let his own kids watch his show b/c he's worried they're not old enough to understand the irony behind his persona.

For the OP the image sells, that's why you see stuff like that at Claire's. It sells b/c it's "edgy" while still being "cute". It's a rebellious image that still underlines the idea that a woman or girl can only be a bitchy diva, slut or a princess. It's the same reason Bratz sells now and Barbie did before them.

Personally I have a dark sense of humor, but I'd never buy dd this stuff. When she fully develops her own dark sense of humor and has a job, she can buy the stuff with her own money.


----------



## pinksprklybarefoot (Jan 18, 2007)

I'm a little late to the game, but since I read through the entire thread, I feel the need to add my $0.02.

The thing that really bothers me about the t-shirts (and girls' clothing in general sold these days) is that is is just all a bit too grown-up for my taste. Kids should be kids as long as possible. A lot of these shirts I might find tongue in cheek on an adult, but on a young girl they are inappropriate.

For example, when I was 8 mo prego, I took to wearing one of my old t-shirts from my party days that said "One boyfriend is never enough." It gave DF and I a laugh, anyway. Would not like to see DSD wearing a shirt like that. At least until she is in her twenties.

We buy a fair amount of my DSD's clothing at Old Navy because it is affordable, but I will have to rethink that. No way in heck am I sending a 4 y.o. off to kindergarten with pants that have "Diva" or "Flirt" on the tag.

FTR, I also despise the shirts that say things that label a child as a troublemaker. I know it is supposed to be funny, but it seems unwise/unfair to label one of your children that way.


----------



## mommy68 (Mar 13, 2006)

oops


----------



## mommy68 (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Meg Murry.* 
Yeah, I have. Again, why encourage thoughtless sexism? Can you imagine how up-in-arms people would be if a boy wore a shirt that said "Girls are dumb"?

I agree.

I won't buy anything that has jargon or writing on it, shorts or pants or hats. Once they're 18 yrs of age and want to buy it and have their own $$ then they can do it.

I can't stand the fact that girls are being taught from a very young age to be b*tchy and sarcastic. It's wrong and I won't allow it in my house. It's all up to the parents anyway.


----------



## zeldamomma (Jan 5, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Meg Murry.* 
But I honestly don't think it's that simple. Sure, people are buying it, but look at what I said about Old Navy where they had the three basic "jeans identities" available for purchase. When there are only three basic identities for girls (and basically the SAME ones as for adult women: princess, a.k.a. "sweetheart"; diva, a.k.a. "diva"; and slut, a.k.a. "flirt"), then women aren't really given a choice, are they?

I just checked the Old Navy website, and for girls they offer "the girlfriend" and "the darling" jean styles. I consider either of those to be just about completely innocuous. I don't think they are at all the same as "diva", "flirt" or "slut".

However, "the darling" is nauseatingly patronizing. As is all the personality-branding. I shop at Target, a bit at Lands End, and I'm trying to find a good thrift store.

ZM


----------



## sunnmama (Jul 3, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *zeldamomma* 
I just checked the Old Navy website, and for girls they offer "the girlfriend" and "the darling" jean styles. I consider either of those to be just about completely innocuous. I don't think they are at all the same as "diva", "flirt" or "slut".

I agree....I don't nec disagree with the op about marketing nastiness and sexism, but some of these things can be interpreted fairly innocently.

As for Old Navy, I don't shop there but I did click on the website because of this thread. I also saw a high-rise Goddess style. That is pretty positive, right?


----------



## beccalou79 (Mar 16, 2007)

Hey, I haven't had time to read everyone's responses here, but in case someone hasn't already posted the link, I thought you'd enjoy this pro-smart girl clothing site:

http://www.mindcandyclothing.com/

I'm thinking of ordering a few shirts for myself!


----------



## nicole lisa (Oct 27, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aussiemum* 
Honestly Annettemarie, I'd use the words bitchy or diva or just plain bloody ignorant towards anyone who used words like 'Boys are stupid' or 'Jailbait' for babies, regardless of whether they were male, female, or hermaphrodite. To me, no one is 'inferior', & the way I read a lot of the merchandise language here is that it is trying to put certain people down, i.e. suggest inferiority, kwim?











Ugh. We just had to deal with the "Boys are Stupid" crap in a book store over the weekend. DS (7 in a month) was looking for a blank book for drawing/notes/etc and came across one with "Boys are Stupid." He looked at it, read it and then started crying. He kept asking how girls would feel if there was a book with "girls are Stupid" on the cover. It really hurt him and I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would think that appropriate to say about anyone and then market it to a kid. Here's a page which list the "Boys are Stupid - Throw Rocks at Them" wallet and the "Where Boys Are Made (Stupid Factory)" key chain as the perfect gift for grade 7 girls so they can _"tell the world how they really feel!!!!"_ http://www.associatedcontent.com/art..._under_10.html

The same company (David and Goliath) that does the Boys are Stupid stuff also has

boys are stupid (5 pages of rock throwing, eye poking, poo flinging etc): http://www.davidandgoliathtees.com/i...e=HCGT&page=1&

fatty cakes: http://www.davidandgoliathtees.com/i...e=HCMA&page=1&

boy girl:
http://www.davidandgoliathtees.com/i...ETAIL&pid=1849

dumb blonde:
http://www.davidandgoliathtees.com/index.php?mode=HCGD

All of this is marketed to tween and teen girls. It's not smart or witty or empowering.


----------



## silly_scout (Aug 31, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nicole lisa* 

fatty cakes: http://www.davidandgoliathtees.com/i...e=HCMA&page=1&


Nevermind the fact that one of the t-shirts in this link is insulting to the Chinese as well.


----------



## BurgundyElephant (Feb 17, 2006)

Packaging Girlhood is an awesome book. It's amazing how insidious the marketers are in all areas.

I went ahead and added most of the movies to my queu at Blockbuster, although they didn't have some of the documentaries. My DD's loved the older Little Women movies, too! I've also checked out some of their recommendations for books, and put many others on my Amazon wishlist. A Fairy Tale is a great movie!


----------



## bigeyes (Apr 5, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nicole lisa* 









Ugh. We just had to deal with the "Boys are Stupid" crap in a book store over the weekend. DS (7 in a month) was looking for a blank book for drawing/notes/etc and came across one with "Boys are Stupid." He looked at it, read it and then started crying. He kept asking how girls would feel if there was a book with "girls are Stupid" on the cover. It really hurt him and I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would think that appropriate to say about anyone and then market it to a kid. Here's a page which list the "Boys are Stupid - Throw Rocks at Them" wallet and the "Where Boys Are Made (Stupid Factory)" key chain as the perfect gift for grade 7 girls so they can _"tell the world how they really feel!!!!"_ http://www.associatedcontent.com/art..._under_10.html

The same company (David and Goliath) that does the Boys are Stupid stuff also has

boys are stupid (5 pages of rock throwing, eye poking, poo flinging etc): http://www.davidandgoliathtees.com/i...e=HCGT&page=1&

fatty cakes: http://www.davidandgoliathtees.com/i...e=HCMA&page=1&

boy girl:
http://www.davidandgoliathtees.com/i...ETAIL&pid=1849

dumb blonde:
http://www.davidandgoliathtees.com/index.php?mode=HCGD

All of this is marketed to tween and teen girls. It's not smart or witty or empowering.

Do yourself a favor and _don't_ look at everything on the site. I have never seen so much _un-funny and mean spirited crap_ in one place in my entire life. The sad part is they're probably making tons of money.


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bigeyes* 
And ftr, I am as sarcastic as they come, I love evil humor, but I am trying to keep my children away from it. I really notice a difference in the way they behave when they are exposed to people who are mean and snotty just for the sake of being mean and snotty.

At least when they're older they will know when it's appropriate. At 9 and 10 they don't. Which is why we watch _Mind of Mencia_ after they are in bed.

















:

Much of what I would have said has already been said.

I love dark humor, satire, and sarcasm as much as the next guy...for adults...who are more capable of truly understanding its subtleties. Many kids and tweens just don't get it for what it is, and there is the danger of them thinking the messages should be taken literally. I am a firm believer that everything has a season, and it upsets me that the darkness/sarcasm is spilling over to younger and younger people who are less and less equipped to really comprehend it.

I have never liked the diva/bitch/princess thing, and never will, for adults or especially for younger females. And the whole 'dumb boys' thing bothers me just as much. Sigh.

And THANK YOU for the mind candy and cafe press links - I am SO buying some of these positive message shirts for me and DD - and even some of the others for DS!

The ONLY message Tshirt I've ever bought was one for DS last year, that said, "It seemed like a good idea at the time." because that was SO him then







. I bypassed many other message Tshirts that were mean spirited or painted the wearer as a 'troublemaker' - I just don't see how that's a positive thing, and I'm not big on advertising or spreading negativity.


----------



## jennnk (Feb 6, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *The4OfUs* 







:

Much of what I would have said has already been said.

I love dark humor, satire, and sarcasm as much as the next guy...for adults...who are more capable of truly understanding its subtleties. Many kids and tweens just don't get it for what it is, and there is the danger of them thinking the messages should be taken literally. I am a firm believer that everything has a season, and it upsets me that the darkness/sarcasm is spilling over to younger and younger people who are less and less equipped to really comprehend it.

I have never liked the diva/bitch/princess thing, and never will, for adults or especially for younger females. And the whole 'dumb boys' thing bothers me just as much. Sigh.

And THANK YOU for the mind candy and cafe press links - I am SO buying some of these positive message shirts for me and DD - and even some of the others for DS!

The ONLY message Tshirt I've ever bought was one for DS last year, that said, "It seemed like a good idea at the time." because that was SO him then







. I bypassed many other message Tshirts that were mean spirited or painted the wearer as a 'troublemaker' - I just don't see how that's a positive thing, and I'm not big on advertising or spreading negativity.

My son has 2 shirts with writing on them
"My IQ is higher than the president's"
and
"I do all my own stunts"

because both are true


----------



## Viewfinder (Sep 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bigeyes* 
It wasn't exactly that, it was more about the attitude that football players and fans have about women, and violent tendencies in football players. IIRC. it's gonna drive me nuts that I can't think of it.


http://www.amazon.com/Stronger-Women.../dp/0380725274

Susan Faludi wrote Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women. Every woman should read it. Contemporary culture has a subversive machinery that disappears women's true history almost as it happens. Backlash preserves some salient points of the system as it has pulled to and fro, and what and who are the tuggers.

VF


----------



## mommy68 (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pinksprklybarefoot* 
For example, when I was 8 mo prego, I took to wearing one of my old t-shirts from my party days that said "One boyfriend is never enough." It gave DF and I a laugh, anyway.

It doesn't matter that they have shirts for someone over 18. The problem is with the really young children being allowed to wear them. When I see a 6 yr old with shirt on that says something nasty I *know* her parents had to buy it for her at that age. It's more possible for a 14 yr old to buy a nasty shirt and hide it from the parents but a 5/6 yr old? come on, the parents have to be okay with it and that is what really surprises me. It's tacky







:

I've never really been the type to like t-shirts with any type of writing on them anyway. My son wanted a Dr. Pepper shirt from Walmart a while back and I got it for him because it was cute and he thought it was cool, but I didn't want to get it and it's grown on me.


----------



## 2tadpoles (Aug 8, 2004)

I don't have any daughters. My boys own almost nothing other than message t-shirts. We all like dark humor, and my kids understand sarcasm. My 12yo has a shirt that says "I'm with stupid" on it, with an arrow pointing to one side. I bought it for him, and he wears it when he's out with me sometimes (which implies that I'm stupid). We laugh about it.

The reason we think it (and other shirts) are funny is because it's so over-the-top and unbelievable. I have the Happy Bunny candy tin that says "Poison" on it....but that word is crayoned out and "Mints for Friends" is scribbled underneath.

Anyway, I don't understand the idea of personalities being "sold" to girls. I think that something can't be sold unless there is a buyer. Personal responsibility is where it's at. If I see a 5yo with "flirt" across the seat of her shorts, I'm not going to blame society or the corporations who manufacture the product. I'm going to blame the parents who bought the item.

And people are free to judge me for letting my son wear an "I'm with stupid" shirt. The people who look down on me for that are not likely to be people I care to spend time with, anyway. My kids are happy, kind, and well-adjusted....despite our enjoyment of the Happy Bunny, Foamy the Squirrel, and the Family Guy.


----------



## zeldamomma (Jan 5, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *2tadpoles* 
Anyway, I don't understand the idea of personalities being "sold" to girls. I think that something can't be sold unless there is a buyer. Personal responsibility is where it's at. If I see a 5yo with "flirt" across the seat of her shorts, I'm not going to blame society or the corporations who manufacture the product. I'm going to blame the parents who bought the item.

So I can manufacture anything, market it to whomever I like, and I bear no responsibility for the products I bring into the world?

I'm not big on conspiracy theories, but I do think there's an interest in turning our children into good little consumers, and I tend to think these "purchase a personality" products are part of that. Given that marketers are consciously trying to teach my kids how to best wear me down so I will buy their products, I think they bear some responsibility when their plan succeeds.

I'm not arguing against personal responsibility, I'm just saying there's such a thing as corporate responsibility as well.

ZM


----------



## jennnk (Feb 6, 2005)

Marketing is a science, a precise science. They use focus groups, sociological research, and more to get out a very very precisely tuned message in such a way that the largest portion of their chosen market segment will purchase the product. Do not believe for one single SECOND that it is not like this and it's just that easy to turn away. There are entire degree programs dedicated to teaching people how to convince other people to buy finely-crafted messages and integrate those messages into their lives. I suggest, for anyone thinking that it's all about "personal responsibility" to do some reading of books written for and by marketers. It will make your head spin.


----------



## Benji'sMom (Sep 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nicole lisa* 

Ugh. We just had to deal with the "Boys are Stupid" crap in a book store over the weekend. DS (7 in a month) was looking for a blank book for drawing/notes/etc and came across one with "Boys are Stupid." He looked at it, read it and then started crying. He kept asking how girls would feel if there was a book with "girls are Stupid" on the cover. It really hurt him and I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would think that appropriate to say about anyone and then market it to a kid.


----------



## choli (Jun 20, 2002)

Haven't read the whole thread, but I don't feel that my dd's personality is so easily swayed that she is going to be influenced by baubles from Claires to become a "diva" or anything else. If I did think so, I'd seriously examine my parenting to see what I could rectify.


----------



## nonconformnmom (May 24, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *choli* 
Haven't read the whole thread, but I don't feel that my dd's personality is so easily swayed that she is going to be influenced by baubles from Claires to become a "diva" or anything else. If I did think so, I'd seriously examine my parenting to see what I could rectify.

Wow. The naivete in that post is mind-boggling.


----------



## choli (Jun 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Meg Murry.* 
I couldn't agree more and I'm grateful to the PP who suggested it. Interestingly, my DD and I just walked into Old Navy yesterday and the first thing I saw was a new display for jeans with the very large words "SWEETHEART," "FLIRT," and "DIVA" written across the display. Yep, that's it. You can only be one of those three types if you want jeans. The "sweetheart" has the highest rise; the "diva" the lowest.

Nope, you don't have to be one of those three types, you have the OPTION of going to another store. Nobody is forced to buy those clothes against their will.


----------



## rupiezum (Mar 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jennnk* 
Marketing is a science, a precise science. They use focus groups, sociological research, and more to get out a very very precisely tuned message in such a way that the largest portion of their chosen market segment will purchase the product. Do not believe for one single SECOND that it is not like this and it's just that easy to turn away. There are entire degree programs dedicated to teaching people how to convince other people to buy finely-crafted messages and integrate those messages into their lives. I suggest, for anyone thinking that it's all about "personal responsibility" to do some reading of books written for and by marketers. It will make your head spin.

Absolutely. Marketers are especially enthralled with the social media trends - it provides a whole new venue for them to hawk their wares in. However, it leads to subtler/sneakier tactics which are harder for consumers to recognize as marketing - the line justs keeps getting blurrier.


----------



## chann96 (May 13, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *choli* 
Haven't read the whole thread, but I don't feel that my dd's personality is so easily swayed that she is going to be influenced by baubles from Claires to become a "diva" or anything else. If I did think so, I'd seriously examine my parenting to see what I could rectify.


Quote:


Originally Posted by *nonconformnmom* 
Wow. The naivete in that post is mind-boggling.









I don't think that's necessarily true. I think that Choli makes a valid point that is very similar to what many other people have said in this thread. We do have a responsibility and the ability as parents to influence how our children react to those "baubles" in Claires or whatever the item is. I talk to my daughter about commercials and I try to limit her exposure to them. I want her to understand what the marketers are trying to do. If I realized she was becoming really swayed by something I would re-examine my approach and see how else I could try to teach her about it.

Marketing is an incredible field. My husband is getting his MBA and just took a marketing course. It was very interesting to read some of the case studies for his class and some of the types of research that are done. As someone else mentioned people get whole degrees in this field and make a ton of money studying human psychology and the best way to get the consumer to buy something. Just think about all the reports of how supermarkets play different music at different times of day based on who tends to shop at those times or the long-term influence of Joe Camel or Tony the Tiger. Marketing costs companies billions of dollars a year. They wouldn't do it if they weren't getting a return on their money.


----------



## choli (Jun 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *zeldamomma* 
Given that marketers are consciously trying to teach my kids how to best wear me down so I will buy their products, I think they bear some responsibility when their plan succeeds.

I'm not arguing against personal responsibility, I'm just saying there's such a thing as corporate responsibility as well.

ZM

But if you are aware that your kids are using techniques they were taught to wear you down, why do you give in? If you give in, the responsibility lies with YOU, especially when you are aware of what is going on.


----------



## nonconformnmom (May 24, 2005)

Quote:

We do have a responsibility and the ability as parents to influence how our children
As the mother of a 20 yo (and a 2 yo and a 4 yo) I can say that once they reach the age of 12 or so, it's a whole new ballgame.


----------



## choli (Jun 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nonconformnmom* 
As the mother of a 20 yo (and a 2 yo and a 4 yo) I can say that once they reach the age of 12 or so, it's a whole new ballgame.

As the mother of a 10 and 13 yr old, I can say that much depends on how you've prepared the ground when they are younger.


----------



## jennnk (Feb 6, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nonconformnmom* 
As the mother of a 20 yo (and a 2 yo and a 4 yo) I can say that once they reach the age of 12 or so, it's a whole new ballgame.

It certainly wasn't for my house when I was growing up. My mother made it clear that it was HER money that bought us clothes and if she didn't approve, it wasn't purchased, full stop, no matter how much pleading or "but everyone ELSE is wearing it and they're TEASING ME" I whined. Even when I got a job, all my purchases were cleared through her and I knew better than to push the envelope. I wasn't even allowed to wear a skirt without pantyhose until I was 16, nevermind halter tops or anything else skimpy. 2-piece bathing suits weren't allowed until I was 14, and even then it was only because the only option in the store at the time (March, we were going on vacation) was a bikini. The next year, I got a one-piece again, because that's what Mom allowed. Yes, some kids will rebel (gotta love those episodes of Maury Povitch that South Park spoofed..."Whatever, whatever, I do what I want!"), but not all kids will; some will have the fear of MOM scared into them, and that will be enough to keep "juicy" off their butts.


----------



## nonconformnmom (May 24, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *choli* 
As the mother of a 10 and 13 yr old, I can say that much depends on how you've prepared the ground when they are younger.

Yep. Educating our kids about how marketing works, what marketing does in the way of influencing purchasing decisions and its impact on the culture is a great way to lay that groundwork. Books like Packaging Girlhood are great tools to help parents understand how to talk to our kids about brands and advertising.

JennK - I wasn't referring to kids rebelling when I said "whole new ballgame". I was referring to the influence peers have over our kids beyond our ability as parents to shield or really even to influence. They *will* go the mall; they *will* see the clothes their friends wear, and they *will* develop their own ideas about what is appropriate and appealing - and many of those ideas will be shaped by marketing and advertising.


----------



## jennnk (Feb 6, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nonconformnmom* 
JennnK - I wasn't referring to kids rebelling when I said "whole new ballgame". I was referring to the influence peers have over our kids beyond our ability as parents to shield or really even to influence. They *will* go the mall; they *will* see the clothes their friends wear, and they *will* develop their own ideas about what is appropriate and appealing - and many of those ideas will be shaped by marketing and advertising.

I figured that's what you meant. And that's what I meant by my mom putting her foot down. I _didn't_ go to the mall without my mom, wasn't allowed to until I was 16, and I only ever got $10 (IF I got money at all) when I went and most of that was spent on food (slice of pizza, drink, and a cinnabon, mmmmmm cinnabon). My mom didn't care if other girls were wearing short skirts and "90% bitch, 10% princess" shirts, she made it perfectly clear that she thought those things were trashy (her words, not mine), and even more clear that no daughter of hers would be allowed out of the house wearing something ridiculous (again, her words). Of course, my mom once pointed out a kid with a green mohawk and told me "If you ever come home with your hair like THAT, I will _shave. your. head._" I was three. And when my friend pierced her nipple, my mother said, "If you ever do that, I will tear it out myself." My mother doesn't understand marketing or advertising, but she does understand what she believes, and she believes that this type of "fashion" that we're discussing in this thread is unacceptable and trashy and makes people judge you as less than you are. She believes the same of torn jeans, stained shirts, and clothes that don't fit properly, and constantly gave my male friends hell when they came over and their underpants were showing. She even pants'd my boyfriend once, then told him he should stop wearing his dad's clothes. He wore a belt every time he came over, even after we broke up, still does to this day.


----------



## zeldamomma (Jan 5, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *choli* 
But if you are aware that your kids are using techniques they were taught to wear you down, why do you give in? If you give in, the responsibility lies with YOU, especially when you are aware of what is going on.

Well, I don't give in, as far as I'm aware. I recognize that I am responsible for what I purchase, but aren't *they* responsible for what they manufacture, market, and sell? Am I not allowed to be a little ticked that of all their possible options, they choose to sell things that are unhealthy, unkind, and age-inappropriate?

ZM


----------



## runnerbrit (May 24, 2006)

I know that this is not neccesarily in the same line with the whole thread but I do believe that this article demostrates the power that marketing has on our children.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/diet.....ap/index.html

http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...650268,00.html

So, I must agree that to think that marketing in all forms does not impact our childrens' taste in everything from fashion to food would be naive.


----------



## Meg Murry. (Sep 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *zeldamomma* 
I just checked the Old Navy website, and for girls they offer "the girlfriend" and "the darling" jean styles. I consider either of those to be just about completely innocuous. I don't think they are at all the same as "diva", "flirt" or "slut".

However, "the darling" is nauseatingly patronizing. As is all the personality-branding. I shop at Target, a bit at Lands End, and I'm trying to find a good thrift store.

ZM

The jeans I was talking about were marketed toward teenage girls, not girls younger than 12.


----------



## Meg Murry. (Sep 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *choli* 
Haven't read the whole thread, but I don't feel that my dd's personality is so easily swayed that she is going to be influenced by baubles from Claires to become a "diva" or anything else. If I did think so, I'd seriously examine my parenting to see what I could rectify.

If it were only baubles from Claire's, Choli, it would be easy: we could say, "Oh, don't go in there" and explain why and hopefully that would suffice. However, the problem of marketing certain specific identities to girls (and to boys too, but girls are the subject of the moment) does not stop at the store door, or even the mall door, but into nearly everything our daughters read, hear, and play with.

I don't pretend to have some magic solution. We homeschool, and that's going to prevent exposure to what I personally see as a largely noxious culture, but obviously it doesn't prevent it 100%. I don't think you can escape some cultural noxiousness (and OBnoxiousness) even if you're Amish. What I do think is incumbent on most parents is to consider the effects on your child that these messages some people think of as funny are going to have on their child and on other people's treatment of that child and how those treatments may seriously affect their friendships, their opportunities in life, their perception of themselves, and a host of other issues.


----------



## Meg Murry. (Sep 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *choli* 
Nope, you don't have to be one of those three types, you have the OPTION of going to another store. Nobody is forced to buy those clothes against their will.

Choli, perhaps you should read the whole thread.

Other people have spoken very eloquently about how these three basic types are not just present in jeans at Old Navy. They're nearly omnipresent. The Old Navy jeans were just _one_ of many examples.


----------



## nonconformnmom (May 24, 2005)

Right. And it's not just jeans, or clothes, or stuff at Claire's. It's school notebooks, lunchboxes, bicycles (oh, the part in the book about bicycles really ticked me off!), videogames, and on and on and on.


----------



## silly_scout (Aug 31, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nonconformnmom* 
Right. And it's not just jeans, or clothes, or stuff at Claire's. It's school notebooks, lunchboxes, bicycles (oh, the part in the book about bicycles really ticked me off!), videogames, and on and on and on.

It's anger issues, anxiety disorders, eating disorders... whether or not you buy the sh**. Not buying the stuff and saying that your influence as a parent will supercede the allure of marketing really is naive.
I mean, it's true that we have a great influence on our kids and we have the opportunity to influence who they become. But some children don't have the benefit of physically and emotionally present parents. Some kids are just another mouth to feed. And besides worrying about how my DD grows up, I worry about them, too.


----------



## Meg Murry. (Sep 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nonconformnmom* 
Right. And it's not just jeans, or clothes, or stuff at Claire's. It's school notebooks, lunchboxes, bicycles (oh, the part in the book about bicycles really ticked me off!), videogames, and on and on and on.

Heck, I was visiting some friends w/ a newborn baby and his little fabric book showed boys doing active things like riding horses and girls doing nurturing things like caring for little sheep.

Compelling or coercing kids into gender roles begins VERY early and it's VERY subtle. I don't think I would've noticed if I hadn't had this subject on the brain.


----------



## bigeyes (Apr 5, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Meg Murry.* 
The jeans I was talking about were marketed toward teenage girls, not girls younger than 12.

Well, unfortunately, a lot of preteen girls are big enough to buy grown up sizes. and the stuff marketed to the tweens is pretty sleazy anyway. when I sold children's clothing I was shocked at our entire holiday season's offerings one year. Nothing but slinky _sexy_ stuff! For children? Ick.


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *silly_scout* 
It's anger issues, anxiety disorders, eating disorders... whether or not you buy the sh**. Not buying the stuff and saying that your influence as a parent will supercede the allure of marketing really is naive.
I mean, it's true that we have a great influence on our kids and we have the opportunity to influence who they become. But some children don't have the benefit of physically and emotionally present parents. Some kids are just another mouth to feed. And besides worrying about how my DD grows up, I worry about them, too.









Gordon Neufeld's _Hold On to Your Kids_ was one of the most depressing books I've recently read, because all I could think about was all the kids who weren't going to have 'present' parents staying connected with them, and would be navigating the muck of growing up basically on their own or with their friends. And trying to figure out how I could try to help them by being the connected adult he speaks about in his book.







:

I think for me, it's not just that the "only" options out there are for princess/diva/slut because that's not true, you can certainly decide to not spend your money on anything you don't want to. For me, it's more the fact that these image options are being portrayed as positive ones that are a goal for girls to become...instead of perhaps being smart, considerate, and confident, which I would see as actual goals for a kid of either gender. It's the negative/destructive/selfish image options being sold as desireable that bothers me, for both boys and girls.


----------



## lisalou (May 20, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jennnk* 
Marketing is a science, a precise science. They use focus groups, sociological research, and more to get out a very very precisely tuned message in such a way that the largest portion of their chosen market segment will purchase the product. Do not believe for one single SECOND that it is not like this and it's just that easy to turn away. There are entire degree programs dedicated to teaching people how to convince other people to buy finely-crafted messages and integrate those messages into their lives. I suggest, for anyone thinking that it's all about "personal responsibility" to do some reading of books written for and by marketers. It will make your head spin.

As someone who is in marketing and has even done marking research, this made me laugh out loud. Marketing is anything but a precise science especially the marketing research that you mention. Focus groups are mostly a joke at this point for marketing research. Human nature is not a precise science.

That said, yes the entire purpose of marketing is to get someone to think about a company a certain way and buy a product. The first thing they teach you though is that you can try lying about a product and get people to buy it but you won't get lasting customers if you do. What you need to do is find the need that your product fills. If the product doesn't fill a need no amount of sales pitches is going to make it sell.

In this case, there's a need for tweeners to do some rebellion. And here are products that seem to fill that need in a "cool and edgy" way. There was a great article about Bratz and Barbie and most mothers don't actually like either so they provide a bit of rebellion for young girls. Mothers put up with it b/c well it's just a doll and it's teaching their girls to care about how they look and giving them a chance to rebel in a controlled way.

Yes you're being marketed to. It is your responsibility to figure out though what need you or your child has that's being marketed to (self esteem? rebellion?) and figure out if that's the best way to fill that need. Until we as a society no longer feel like a product or series of products fill a need marketers are just going to keep doing what works. It's their job.


----------



## 2tadpoles (Aug 8, 2004)

Well, I'm the one who brought up personal responsibility and was called naive for it.

My parents didn't buy me garbage because they were broke. Actually, I never really asked for garbage, so maybe I'm an anomaly. Since I was given a lot of freedom as a kid, and was allowed to make most of my own choices, maybe I had little to rebel against.

As the mother of a teenager and a tween, I don't think anything has changed for us since they hit 12. My youngest is actually just turning 12 this month, but he doesn't seem to have any real desire to appear "cool and edgy." Maybe it's because they don't have the peer pressure that most kids have. They make friends based on common interests.


----------



## happyhippiemama (Apr 1, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie* 
I mostly understand what you're saying, but it is really sad to me that you are using negative language towards females--"bitchy" and "diva"--to describe this stuff. Maybe it's just a sign of how ingrained it it in our collective consciousness to put down and negatively stereotype girls.









I haven't had enough coffee as of yet to fully articulate *why* I agree with Annettemarie's statement so strongly....

But I completely, 110%, instinctively do. This was my very first gut reaction to the OP.

More later, after caffeine, perhaps.


----------



## nonconformnmom (May 24, 2005)

Quote:

it is really sad to me that you are using negative language towards females--"bitchy" and "diva"--to describe this stuff. Maybe it's just a sign of how ingrained it it in our collective consciousness to put down and negatively stereotype girls.
I didn't take it that she was using those word to describe girls. She was using those words to describe the nature of the identity that is being marketed to girls. As she wrote in the OP:

Quote:

Why are marketers selling this identity to girls?
"Diva" is an actual word that appears on clothing that is marketed to girls. "Bitchy" is the attitude that is conveyed by many of the products, for example, some of the Happy Bunny stuff that is discussed in this thread.

I think Meg Murry is actually saying the opposite, that girls are NOT divas or bitches, and asking the question, why is it tolerated that companies wish to *sell* things that label them as such?


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

By labeling certain behaviors diva, bitchy, or slutty, I do think we're adopting the same female-negative language as the marketers. A shirt says "I'm the center of the universe," and we (collective we) label it bitchy or diva. A shirt says "I have lots of boyfriends" and we claim the shirt is for "future sluts." The shirts that actually say "diva" or "bitch" or "slut" on them, that's one thing. But taking the saying and extrapolating that the girls who wear them are future bitches, divas, or sluts (among other things) is quite another. I just find the language, even in a discussion like this, to be negative, disturbing, and counterproductive.


----------



## 2tadpoles (Aug 8, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nonconformnmom* 
I think Meg Murry is actually saying the opposite, that girls are NOT divas or bitches, and asking the question, why is it tolerated that companies wish to *sell* things that label them as such?

I think it's a freedom issue.

I'm not really on board with censorship, which is probably why I find MDC so frustrating at times.

If people don't want their daughters to get sucked into the Diva/Princess culture, then they 1) need to stop buying products that promote it, and 2) have meaningful discussions with their kids as to why they disagree with it.

This thread is beginning to remind me of the recent case down South, in which a certain town banned the style of dress which reveals one's boxers. Yeah, I think that pants belted around the thighs looks incredibly stupid. If someone else wants to look that way, it's not my business. Likewise, my Happy Bunny t-shirt is not really your business.


----------



## choli (Jun 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie* 
By labeling certain behaviors diva, bitchy, or slutty, I do think we're adopting the same female-negative language as the marketers. A shirt says "I'm the center of the universe," and we (collective we) label it bitchy or diva. A shirt says "I have lots of boyfriends" and we claim the shirt is for "future sluts." The shirts that actually say "diva" or "bitch" or "slut" on them, that's one thing. But taking the saying and extrapolating that the girls who wear them are future bitches, divas, or sluts (among other things) is quite another. I just find the language, even in a discussion like this, to be negative, disturbing, and counterproductive.

There's a lot of that around MDC. Toddlers in two piece bathing suits looking like sluts, girls wearing spagetti straps looking like sluts, girls in low cut pants looking like sluts...Expressions like "prostitot" and "hoochy mama" applied to children...Sometimes I wonder if I've time travelled back to junior high with the amount of character judgements (usually negative) attached to clothes and hairstyles on MDC.


----------



## momofayden (Jan 8, 2007)

I only read the first page but this dawned on me from one of the posts:

there really are very few, if any positive "themes" going towards girls. Most consist of the bitchy diva, slut or princess theme for girls. that stinks!
where are the positive messages for girls to tell them that being smart is cool, you don't have to be a diva or slutty to be popular, there's no need to be a bitch to other girls to make yourself appear cooler, you don't need a man on your arm to be successful or to support you....frustrating.

for boys you get the homework is stupid shirts, or i'd sell my sister for a video game, I'm bored or not listening to you...that's not so great either.

no i won't buy my children those things.


----------



## nonconformnmom (May 24, 2005)

Quote:

*2tadpoles* wrote: I think it's a freedom issue.

I'm not really on board with censorship, which is probably why I find MDC so frustrating at times.
Nobody is suggesting that these products be banned or made illegal. By "tolerated", I mean, why do some parents (enough to make it worthwhile to the fashion industry) passively either avoid or accept these products? Why is there so little reaction or consequence to the companies that so blatantly promote negative stereotypes?

I agree that dark humor, satire, and parody are all fun forms of self expression. I don't agree with marketing those forms of expression to/ for children who are too young to understand what they mean, or to get the irony. In those cases, the children are not _self_-expressing, they are being used as marketing tools for the consumerist culture, without their knowledge or consent.

Which is why we, as parents, must be vigilant, as so many who have posted in this thread have agreed. Talking to our kids, and helping them distinguish between acceptable products and unacceptable products, is the topic being discussed here.


----------



## Meg Murry. (Sep 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nonconformnmom* 
I didn't take it that she was using those word to describe girls. She was using those words to describe the nature of the identity that is being marketed to girls. As she wrote in the OP:

"Diva" is an actual word that appears on clothing that is marketed to girls. "Bitchy" is the attitude that is conveyed by many of the products, for example, some of the Happy Bunny stuff that is discussed in this thread.

I think Meg Murry is actually saying the opposite, that girls are NOT divas or bitches, and asking the question, why is it tolerated that companies wish to *sell* things that label them as such?

Thank you very much for understanding. I thought my point was obvious, and I think it was to most people. I sincerely appreciate the very clear, straightforward articulation of what I meant -- you said it better than I could have.


----------



## Meg Murry. (Sep 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie* 
By labeling certain behaviors diva, bitchy, or slutty, I do think we're adopting the same female-negative language as the marketers. A shirt says "I'm the center of the universe," and we (collective we) label it bitchy or diva. A shirt says "I have lots of boyfriends" and we claim the shirt is for "future sluts." The shirts that actually say "diva" or "bitch" or "slut" on them, that's one thing. But taking the saying and extrapolating that the girls who wear them are future bitches, divas, or sluts (among other things) is quite another. I just find the language, even in a discussion like this, to be negative, disturbing, and counterproductive.

Would you prefer "Outrageous, quasi-sociopathic narcissism"?

The problem, Annettemarie, is that "Outrageous, quasi-sociopathic narcissism" is TOO gender-neutral. These marketers are creating the princess/slut/diva identities _for girls specifically_, and they are capitalizing on thousands of years of misogynist stereotypes of women as vain, materialistic, self-centered, sex-using gold-diggers to do it. These stereotypes being marketed at Claire's, Old Navy, A&F, and so many places elsewhere are _specifically_ female, not gender-neutral at all. Therefore, it would blur the definition of what these marketers are doing to call it "outrageous, quasi-sociopathic narcissism," though it is also that. To do that would be to ignore the fact that "diva" (for example) is being sold as a POSITIVE identity, something you should want to be _if you are a girl_.

There is no comparable stereotype (or even label, not even the infrequently-used "Divo," which gives me bad Eighties flashbacks anyway) for boys.


----------



## Meg Murry. (Sep 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nonconformnmom* 
Nobody is suggesting that these products be banned or made illegal. By "tolerated", I mean, why do some parents (enough to make it worthwhile to the fashion industry) passively either avoid or accept these products? Why is there so little reaction or consequence to the companies that so blatantly promote negative stereotypes?

I agree that dark humor, satire, and parody are all fun forms of self expression. I don't agree with marketing those forms of expression to/ for children who are too young to understand what they mean, or to get the irony. In those cases, the children are not _self_-expressing, they are being used as marketing tools for the consumerist culture, without their knowledge or consent.

Which is why we, as parents, must be vigilant, as so many who have posted in this thread have agreed. Talking to our kids, and helping them distinguish between acceptable products and unacceptable products, is the topic being discussed here.

Yes, and my original question was not, "Can we censor this?" but "Why is this identity being marketed -- and bought?"


----------



## silly_scout (Aug 31, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *2tadpoles* 
I'm not really on board with censorship, which is probably why I find MDC so frustrating at times.

Hm. I kind of agree with this statement. I feel like I can't really elaborate on why I agree without breaking a UA violation again.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *2tadpoles* 
Likewise, my Happy Bunny t-shirt is not really your business.

Happy Bunny is innocuous enough (IMO), but anything that markets women in a negative light IS my business, because I am a woman and my DD will be a woman one day. And I think we're all in agreement that people have the right to buy what they want... it's more of a "what the flippin' heck is wrong with a culture where these are the images women are pigeon-holed into?"


----------



## Meg Murry. (Sep 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *silly_scout* 

Happy Bunny is innocuous enough (IMO), but anything that markets women in a negative light IS my business, because I am a woman and my DD will be a woman one day. And I think we're all in agreement that people have the right to buy what they want... it's more of a "what the flippin' heck is wrong with a culture where these are the images women are pigeon-holed into?"









:


----------



## phreedom (Apr 19, 2007)

This thread is interesting. I really don't have a problem with sarcastic humour (aka "Happy Bunny") But it's not really something I would choose to wear or put on my daughter. Aside from the odd onsie that has "little star" "little sweety" or "Grandmas Angel" on it, she doesn't have any sort of "personality" tees (sarcastic, mean, diva or otherwise) I try to avoid them as well.

My main issue are the things that promote "exteme self esteem" in little girls or kids in general but mostly seems to be directed at young girs. I don't really like it. And 9 times out of 10 it's superficial qualities. I'm not saying that it's bad to think you are smart or even pretty...I just think it's bad to be arrogant about it.

And this may be mean or shallow, but whever I see a person that has one of those narcissitic "Hottie", "Cuter, than you" "StudMuffin" or Playboy bunny logo t-shirts on...I tend to immediately focus on all the physical qualities that make them not that. (for example an extremely skinny/chubby 12 year old girl with no boobs to speak of/muffin top wearing a playboy bunny shirt...is definately NOT a playboy bunny)

Self Esteem does not equal arrogance. And you are not going to find it in a t-shirt...it comes from within. Hopefully I can teach my daughter to believe in herself, that she is smart and beautiful...on the inside and the outside. But so is everyone in their own way. And you don't need a t-shirt to know that and for others to know that.


----------



## choli (Jun 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *phreedom* 
And this may be mean or shallow, but whever I see a person that has one of those narcissitic "Hottie", "Cuter, than you" "StudMuffin" or Playboy bunny logo t-shirts on...I tend to immediately focus on all the physical qualities that make them not that. (for example an extremely skinny/chubby 12 year old girl with no boobs to speak of/muffin top wearing a playboy bunny shirt...is definately NOT a playboy bunny).

Maybe that's why she's wearing it - and she gets a kick out of people who don't get the joke.


----------



## phreedom (Apr 19, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *choli* 
Maybe that's why she's wearing it - and she gets a kick out of people who don't get the joke.

Eh maybe...but when you add the playboy bunny logo, with the exposed belly and ill fitting jeans, I don't really think "ironic" is the message she was trying to send. Not that I really think a teenager believes people will think she's an honest to God playboy bunny with the shirt on...but the logo does represent a certain look. And to the ones that do actually understand it...more often than not they are equating it with a certain brand of "hottness" and probably wish to be associated with it.


----------



## Meg Murry. (Sep 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *choli* 
Maybe that's why she's wearing it - and she gets a kick out of people who don't get the joke.

That kind of humor -- and ability to laugh at oneself and one's physical imperfections compared with societal standards of beauty -- rarely occurs in girls of that age.

Unfortunately.


----------



## choli (Jun 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Meg Murry.* 
That kind of humor -- and ability to laugh at oneself and one's physical imperfections compared with societal standards of beauty -- rarely occurs in girls of that age.

Unfortunately.

I guess my DDs are the exception, then. They would find it hilarious, especially the judgmental expressions on faces. Then again, I do realize that irony flies right over the heads of most people.


----------



## joensally (Jun 19, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Meg Murry.* 

Conversely, statements like the one in my OP promote a stereotypical view of girls as *competitive*, backstabbing, *materialistic*, nasty, and dangerously *narcissistic*. I see no advantage to that. Why promote THAT identity?

In short, if they're selling ersatz identity -- which of course they are -- why do they make it THAT identity? If you're going to (for example) have a stupid charm bracelet where the girl can "personalize" the bracelet according to specific charms, why do the charms say things like "Princess"? Why not "Soccer Star," or "Straight-A," or "Science Whiz" or "Madam President" or whatever?

Why is this bitchy, diva personality being bought? Why is it being sold? Why is it being bought and sold to the near-exclusion of almost all other faux identities pushed on girls by marketers?

Can anyone tell me that?

This ersatz identity is being harvested so that females will continue to consume. The girl who is choosing charms like "science whiz" is likely then moving on to do something else, while the girl choosing the "princess" charm is figuring out which shade of nailpolish to buy and which shoes go best with the charm (and lest this get someone's back up, I'm speaking in broad strokes here). "Princess" is about narcissism once a girl's past a certain age, and that whole identity (along with diva) is about acquisitiveness and the requisite shopping.

It's actually a freaking marketing slam dunk to get more girls/women _more_ preoccupied with buying by narrowing the range of acceptable female identities to tie so rigidly to consumerism.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Meg Murry.* 
Would you prefer "Outrageous, quasi-sociopathic narcissism"?

The problem, Annettemarie, is that "Outrageous, quasi-sociopathic narcissism" is TOO gender-neutral. These marketers are creating the princess/slut/diva identities _for girls specifically_, and they are capitalizing on thousands of years of misogynist stereotypes of women as vain, materialistic, self-centered, sex-using gold-diggers to do it. These stereotypes being marketed at Claire's, Old Navy, A&F, and so many places elsewhere are _specifically_ female, not gender-neutral at all. Therefore, it would blur the definition of what these marketers are doing to call it "outrageous, quasi-sociopathic narcissism," though it is also that. To do that would be to ignore the fact that "diva" (for example) is being sold as a POSITIVE identity, something you should want to be _if you are a girl_.

There is no comparable stereotype (or even label, not even the infrequently-used "Divo," which gives me bad Eighties flashbacks anyway) for boys.









Yeah, that! Isn't there research that shows that females are the largest consumers across most product areas? This whole strategy totally makes sense to me from marketers' perspectives.


----------



## joensally (Jun 19, 2006)

I looked at the site of the book by Danica McKellar mentioned up thread. It's called Math Doesn't Suck: How to Survive Middle School Math Without Losing Your Mind or Breaking a Nail. Really. While the description includes some great values, these are the first bulleted points:

Quote:

Each chapter also features:

Easy to follow, step-by-step instruction
Time-saving tips and tricks for homework and tests
Illuminating practice problems with detailed solutions
Real-world examples-*from how understanding percents can make you a savvier shopper to how understanding proportions can make you a better chef!*


----------



## chann96 (May 13, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *joensally* 









I looked at the site of the book by Danica McKellar mentioned up thread. It's called Math Doesn't Suck: How to Survive Middle School Math Without Losing Your Mind or Breaking a Nail. Really. While the description includes some great values, these are the first bulleted points:

I think you've missed the whole point of the book. She is trying to entice girls who are scared of math or think it will make them look "geeky". That's what good teachers do - they meet the students where they are and in what they are interested in. She's not going to pull in that group by talking about how to use math for astrophysics. Many of the ideas of homeschooling are the same - ok I want my kid to work on writing or reading so I ask her to write a story about convertibles (meaning the cars) because she's currently fascinated by them or I go get her books from the library about cars. Just because you disapprove of girls liking that stuff doesn't mean it's bad for her to approach teaching the subject from that direction. If it allows her to make a connection with them then I say "Outstanding".


----------



## joensally (Jun 19, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chann96* 
I think you've missed the whole point of the book. She is trying to entice girls who are scared of math or think it will make them look "geeky". That's what good teachers do - they meet the students where they are and in what they are interested in. She's not going to pull in that group by talking about how to use math for astrophysics. Many of the ideas of homeschooling are the same - ok I want my kid to work on writing or reading so I ask her to write a story about convertibles (meaning the cars) because she's currently fascinated by them or I go get her books from the library about cars. Just because you disapprove of girls liking that stuff doesn't mean it's bad for her to approach teaching the subject from that direction. If it allows her to make a connection with them then I say "Outstanding".

I didn't miss the point







.

My point is that this is where middleschoolers are "at"? That breaking a nail, being competent shoppers and future chefs are their primary values? And that it being further reinforced in print as definitional for girls in this age group is good?

I don't disapprove of girls being interested in adorning themselves (makeup, jewelry, clothes), or being interested in cooking or other typically/historically gendered interests. If gender is a continuum, with one end being absolutely de-gendered and neutral, and the other being hyper-feminized (say Barbie-like, but I hate this over-simplification), I think most girls and women land somewhere in the middle. But when we unendingly and exclusively expose girls to messages about nails, shopping and chefs as _definitional_, I think this goes too far.

I have nailpolish on my toes, and I sometimes do DD's toes. We own 4 bottles of polish, accumulated over a number of years - we do not need to buy this year's trend colour of OPI nail polish. We don't need to spend hours in the mall seeking and buying. We are still "feminine," but we are not pre-occupied with the acquisitiveness that all of these consumer messages send.

It's not "female values" that I'm resistant to, it's the hyper-packaging of them. When I was a middle-schooler, sure I liked makeup and shopping, all that stereo-typical girlie stuff. It was not, however, definitional of my identity, nor did shopping preoccupy my time.

I think this latest generation of girls is subject to some of the most aggressive reinforcement of limiting values. It ain't the '50s where their place was in the kitchen - now it's in the malls.


----------



## Unoppressed MAMA Q (Jun 13, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ThreeBeans* 







:

The marketers have one goal: to make money. They may be capitalist pigs, but who is really guilty...the capitalist pigs, or the parents who provide the cash flow to purchase this crap?

I hate the entire genre...like the "Boys are Dumb" thing. Yuck. Have you seen those t-shirts?

i agree. i hate those shirts so much. i love my little boy, and it makes me cry when i see one.

my DD is SO into the PINK culture. we don't go to places like claire's, and it's so crucial to me that she associates pink/'girlie' stuff with concepts like peace, sharing, balanced self-advocacy.

i remember BEING part of that culture as a young girl. it sucked, i think i'm still recovering.


----------



## Viewfinder (Sep 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lisalou* 
As someone who is in marketing and has even done marking research, this made me laugh out loud. Marketing is anything but a precise science especially the marketing research that you mention. Focus groups are mostly a joke at this point for marketing research. Human nature is not a precise science.

That said, yes the entire purpose of marketing is to get someone to think about a company a certain way and buy a product. The first thing they teach you though is that you can try lying about a product and get people to buy it but you won't get lasting customers if you do. What you need to do is find the need that your product fills. If the product doesn't fill a need no amount of sales pitches is going to make it sell.

In this case, there's a need for tweeners to do some rebellion. And here are products that seem to fill that need in a "cool and edgy" way. There was a great article about Bratz and Barbie and most mothers don't actually like either so they provide a bit of rebellion for young girls. Mothers put up with it b/c well it's just a doll and it's teaching their girls to care about how they look and giving them a chance to rebel in a controlled way.

Yes you're being marketed to. It is your responsibility to figure out though what need you or your child has that's being marketed to (self esteem? rebellion?) and figure out if that's the best way to fill that need. Until we as a society no longer feel like a product or series of products fill a need marketers are just going to keep doing what works. It's their job.

Rebellion... of course, this is a good point you made. But the rest of everything that you said is simply not true. I don't mean any disrespect... being "in" marketing may give you a certain view of things, depending on what you do in marketing, what tier of marketing you're on, and your own personal beliefs about people, etc.

Commercial tv airtime is sold for gazillions of dollars. Money slaps hands with money...

Cigarettes, you know, is still a bazillion dollar industry. It's a VERY bad product, and yet... ? There are LOTS of horrible bad products that are made using horrible, bad polluting methods... but money wants more money, and it will kill its own mother and children to get it.

Women are the Number One purchaser of toys, clothes, and gizmos, and so, they are marketed to heavily as GIRLS to be fashionistas, bubble-headed shopaholics, make-up and appearance-obsessed, plastic surgery-numbed, and exclusively a sexed-up version of herself for male consumption.

Powerful, self-aware women are intimidating to most men, even in today's world where we like to think things have changed completely. Hopefully, for those of us who believe they really have, they really HAVE in your life and your household. I hope so. You must have made it the case and I am proud of you.

But if things have truly changed so, why do we not see as many or WAY MORE powerful images of women and girls even AVAILABLE, never mind marketed to girls? Why has there not been a woman President of the USA? Why are most roles of power in the real world held by men? Bratz and Barbies aren't about rebellion: they are about suppression, regression, blocking advancement, and relegating to meaninglessness.

I've been shopping for school clothes for my 8 yo dd at good ol' "Giant" Mart. The kids' sections looked like Slut Central for the girls, and Army Camouflage for the boys. NOT TEEN: KIDS. Co-inky-dink? I don't think so. Soldiers and Sexpots, that's what our kids are being groomed to be. How can anyone think this is giving me what I want? Sure, my dd ogles some of this stuff: her tv role models and sexy aunt and young women we see are all sporting trampwear and not much else except, perhaps, Gangsta-wear.

I, myself, wear plain, colored cotton tshirts and jeans, and that's ALL my dd will actually wear out of the house, even if she has "tiny-tramp" options in her closet, because that's all she can PLAY hard in, which is what she likes to do: RUN, JUMP, CLIMB, IMAGINE. Not prance and preen, except in the privacy of our home and her bedroom... she still plays dress-up, and that's where trampy clothes can be okay, along with silly clothes, dorky clothes, dog and cat clothes, etc. Not in the children's clothing sections of America's affordable department stores.

Childhood: it's a good thing. Let's keep it around for our children's children.

VF


----------



## bigeyes (Apr 5, 2007)

:


----------



## silly_scout (Aug 31, 2006)

Double







:


----------



## Meg Murry. (Sep 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Viewfinder* 
But if things have truly changed so, why do we not see as many or WAY MORE powerful images of women and girls even AVAILABLE, never mind marketed to girls? Why has there not been a woman President of the USA? Why are most roles of power in the real world held by men? Bratz and Barbies aren't about rebellion: they are about suppression, regression, blocking advancement, and relegating to meaninglessness.

YES. This is especially and painfully true when you are in Barnes and Noble shopping for children's biographies.

TONS of bios about Americans, like we're the only country in the world and our not-quite-four hundred years of history somehow trumps the ten thousand years of civilization enjoyed by the rest of the planet.

But that's a bit OT.

TONS of biographies about men. Ben Franklin. George Washington. Martin Luther King, Jr. Albert Einstein.

Worthy people all, to be sure, but when you look at the biographies about women, first of all, you have to look FOR the biographies about women. When you've found any, they are generally about the following. I'm dealing only with American bios, BTW -- like I said, OTHER COUNTRIES apparently have no one worth writing about and selling at Barnes and Noble.

*Good Patriots* - Women functioning as token symbols of our country's mythology who conveniently didn't do much that was important.
*Stars of this show*: Betsy Ross, Dolley Madison.*
Who's NOT there*: Hillary Clinton, Condoleezza Rice, Madeleine Albright, Sandra Day O'Connor, Molly Pitcher, Victoria Woodhull

*Good Token Native People and POC* - Nice "safe" choices so the booksellers don't look too racist or biased, but these women's political activism is often (dare I say it?) whitewashed so people (i.e., white people) can avoid feeling genuinely guilty or question their way of treating others:
*Stars of this show*: Rosa Parks, Harriet Tubman, Pocahontas, Sacajawea
*Who's NOT there*: Coretta Scott King, Toni Morrison, Alice Walker, Kathleen Cleaver, Mae Jemison

*Didn't They Write?*
*Stars of this show*: About the ONLY woman who ever wrote was, apparently, Louisa May Alcott.
*Who's NOT there*:Toni Morrison, Alice Walker, Sylvia Plath, Anne Sexton, Emily Dickinson, Phillis Wheatley, Sojourner Truth, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Charlotte Perkins Gilman, Edith Wharton, Gertrude Stein, Hilda Doolittle, Djuna Barnes

*Women They Can't Ignore Because It Would Be Too Obvious
Stars of this show*: Eleanor Roosevelt, Marie Curie, Susan B. Anthony
*Who's NOT there*: Mae Jemison, Rosalind Franklin, Gloria Steinem, Jane Addams, Mary McLeod Bethune, Dolores Huerta, Margaret Sanger, Dian Fossey, Jane Goodall, Maria Mitchell, Sally Ride

*Poor Things*
*Star of this show*: Helen Keller, blind/deaf girl
*Who's NOT there*: Helen Keller, socialist activist and women's rights champion

Sometimes, an absence speaks louder than words.


----------



## lisalou (May 20, 2005)

VF I think you missed my main point which was marketing is NOT a precise science. You made it sound like focus groups and other things were this amazing thing that provides exact results that helps marketers surgically strike and manipulate everyone. It doesn't.

You're blaming the symptom not the cause. It goes back much further than marketing. It goes back to the role of women throughout history in the patriarchy we call Western Culture. I think things have only advanced so far from when women were considered property and had no inheritance rights and no ability to vote. We tend to take two steps forward and 1 3/4 steps back.

We as a society still judge women based on how attractive they are to men. There are billion dollar industries for that exact purpose. So they have vested interest in making sure women remain insecure about who they are so they'll buy the product. We have a medical industry that treats women like a walking uterus. We're still just objects to the majority of society. And society thinks it has a vested interest in keeping us that way. And we help to perpetuate it as women.

Why not so many strong women in biographies etc? The fact is history has ignored them for the most part. History is the story of the powerful.

So to blame marketing seems rather lame to me. Society's views have to be there first before a marketer can take it make it sell a product. This view of women won't change overnight. But at least we as women can try to stop perpetuating it for ourselves and our daughters and sons.


----------



## Meg Murry. (Sep 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lisalou* 

So to blame marketing seems rather lame to me. *Society's views have to be there first before a marketer can take it make it sell a product*. This view of women won't change overnight. But at least we as women can try to stop perpetuating it for ourselves and our daughters and sons.

Lisalou, I'm afraid that I can't agree with you on this wholeheartedly. Too many times, we all have seen marketers, media spin doctors, all Xbox manufacturers, and the entire Bush administration create an apparent "need" where one did not exist before, or create an ideology or attitude that was either not there at all or present in much smaller quantities before they metastasized it for their own purposes.


----------



## 2tadpoles (Aug 8, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lisalou* 
Why not so many strong women in biographies etc? The fact is history has ignored them for the most part. History is the story of the powerful.

Precisely. That's why it's called his-story, rather than her-story.


----------



## Meg Murry. (Sep 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *2tadpoles* 
Precisely. That's why it's called his-story, rather than her-story.

You're joking, right? I don't want to be boring and explain that the word doesn't have anything etymologically to do with gender.


----------



## 2tadpoles (Aug 8, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Meg Murry.* 
You're joking, right?

Relax.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Meg Murry.* 
I don't want to be boring and explain that the word doesn't have anything etymologically to do with gender.

But you did, anyway.


----------



## Meg Murry. (Sep 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *2tadpoles* 
Relax.

But you did, anyway.

Ah, but you see, I spared you the incredibly long-winded version.
That could change.


----------



## SquishyKitty (Jun 10, 2005)

As an adult, I think HB and Cartman and Family guy are hilarious. However, I would not endorse a child wearing it, because they often aren't able to distinguish between the subtle humor and RL at that age.

I also wouldn't endorse girls wearing the "Boys are stupid" type clothes, nor would I allow DS to wear the numerous shirts marketed at boys saying things like "little monster".

It's pretty sad, the things that are marketed at kids these days. It's up to parents to filter that crap out.


----------



## Viewfinder (Sep 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lisalou* 
VF I think you missed my main point which was marketing is NOT a precise science. You made it sound like focus groups and other things were this amazing thing that provides exact results that helps marketers surgically strike and manipulate everyone. It doesn't.

You're blaming the symptom not the cause. It goes back much further than marketing. It goes back to the role of women throughout history in the patriarchy we call Western Culture. I think things have only advanced so far from when women were considered property and had no inheritance rights and no ability to vote. We tend to take two steps forward and 1 3/4 steps back.

We as a society still judge women based on how attractive they are to men. There are billion dollar industries for that exact purpose. So they have vested interest in making sure women remain insecure about who they are so they'll buy the product. We have a medical industry that treats women like a walking uterus. We're still just objects to the majority of society. And society thinks it has a vested interest in keeping us that way. And we help to perpetuate it as women.

Why not so many strong women in biographies etc? The fact is history has ignored them for the most part. History is the story of the powerful.

So to blame marketing seems rather lame to me. Society's views have to be there first before a marketer can take it make it sell a product. This view of women won't change overnight. But at least we as women can try to stop perpetuating it for ourselves and our daughters and sons.

Lisalou,

I got your main point, and I disagree with it. Marketing _is_ a precise science, much, much too costly not to be as spot-on effective as possible, using whatever methods can be brought to bear, including fraud, deceit, bait-and-switch, etc. It is used on all members of society, with specific tools designed for specific target audiences/consumers. It finds the weakness/need in them, and goes after it. Men "need" bigger and louder car engines and trucks, in order, btw, to be magnetic to women, and women "need" longer legs (high heels), blonder hair, flawless skin, thick eyelashes, figure flattering clothes in order to be chosen by men.

The politics of where women are in society is a factor that is USED by marketing, as part of its scientific methods.

I don't blame marketing for where women are politically, though marketing takes full advantage of where women are: it behooves them to do so. It does make the check bigger at the end of the day.

VF


----------



## lisalou (May 20, 2005)

The history of marketing is littered with failed marketing that was supposed to be a sure thing. That needs that were attempted to be created couldn't be. It's not a precise science nor does it follow the scientific method even vaguely. Sorry it just doesn't. Perhaps I'm taking you a little too literally and your definition of precise science isn't really what I'd consider the scientific method.

Quote:

Lisalou, I'm afraid that I can't agree with you on this wholeheartedly. Too many times, we all have seen marketers, media spin doctors, all Xbox manufacturers, and the entire Bush administration create an apparent "need" where one did not exist before, or create an ideology or attitude that was either not there at all or present in much smaller quantities before they metastasized it for their own purposes.
One of the first things marketing 101 teaches you is that you can't create a need that isn't already there. People do smell bullshit a mile away believe it or not. You can exploit and grow a need but you can't create it through marketing.That's what this administration did with fear after 9/11. That's what marketers do with female insecurities for the multi billion dollar fashion and cosmetic industries.

I'm not absolving marketing at all. Marketing is all about exploitation to sell a product. But after spending some 16 years in it, to make marketing out to be the bogeyman that's the be all end all that we can't overcome is ridiculous to me. If you read a marketing 101 textbook you have 99% of the tactics marketers use to market a product to you. The tactics haven't changed in 50 years. And they're not even as effective as they used to be. Once you're aware of the tactics as well as your own prejudices and insecurities you can make the conscious decision to ignore it as well as teach your children the same.


----------



## happyhippiemama (Apr 1, 2004)

Bumping because it's so good....


----------



## Nemo6 (May 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Meg Murry.* 
YES. This is especially and painfully true when you are in Barnes and Noble shopping for children's biographies.

If what you're talking about is "why do we not see as many or WAY MORE powerful images of women and girls even AVAILABLE", it's largely the fault of the buyers for B&N. When I ran an independent bookstore, there were several publishers with children's biography series, ranging from early picture books up to chapter books for upper elementary.

From your list, I can remember off the top of my head that I carried biographies of Hillary Clinton, Condoleezza Rice, Madeleine Albright, Sandra Day O'Connor, Molly Pitcher, Victoria Woodhull, Coretta Scott King, Toni Morrison, Alice Walker, Mae Jemison, Emily Dickinson, Phillis Wheatley, Sojourner Truth, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Rosalind Franklin, Gloria Steinem, Jane Addams, Mary McLeod Bethune, Margaret Sanger, Dian Fossey, Jane Goodall, and Sally Ride.

I also remember biographies of Amelia Earhart, Clara Barton, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, Nellie Bly, Rachel Carson, Abigail Adams, Martha Washington, Elizabeth Blackwell, Bessie Coleman, Mahalia Jackson, Marian Anderson, Margaret Bourke-White, Dorothea Lange, Georgia O'Keeffe, Julia Morgan, Laura Ingalls Wilder, Annie Oakley, Julia Ward Howe, Althea Gibson, Wilma Rudolph, Babe Didrickson, and numerous contemporary athletes.

I'm pretty sure I remember biographies of Mother Jones, Emma Goldman, and Nancy Pelosi, too.

Granted, there were umpteen different choices for biographies of Rosa Parks and Eleanor Roosevelt, and only one or two of Rachel Carson, but the same held true for biographies of men--lots to choose from if it's MLK or Lincoln, and only one of John Muir.

There were lots of biographies of non-Americans, too. Again, these are often from the same publishers of the biographies that are carried by B&N; it's not as if I had to go to a different source to find them. So it's not that

Quote:

OTHER COUNTRIES apparently have no one worth writing about
just that B&N doesn't consider them worth selling. They only carry the biographies that sell the best, which of course is a vicious cycle; unless the customer is specifically looking for a biography of Mae Jemison and will order one, you can't sell a book that isn't on the shelf.

So once again it all comes down to marketing. B&N and Borders think they know whom kids want to read about, so that's all they carry. I understand how this happens in smaller stores, with limited budgets, but it's one of the many things I hate about the chain bookstores.

There was also a great series on "Outrageous Women" of various eras; these were some of our best-selling biographies, in part because they talked about women who were rarely mentioned elsewhere.


----------



## Meg Murry. (Sep 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nemo6* 
If what you're talking about is "why do we not see as many or WAY MORE powerful images of women and girls even AVAILABLE", it's largely the fault of the buyers for B&N. When I ran an independent bookstore, there were several publishers with children's biography series, ranging from early picture books up to chapter books for upper elementary.

From your list, I can remember off the top of my head that I carried biographies of Hillary Clinton, Condoleezza Rice, Madeleine Albright, Sandra Day O'Connor, Molly Pitcher, Victoria Woodhull, Coretta Scott King, Toni Morrison, Alice Walker, Mae Jemison, Emily Dickinson, Phillis Wheatley, Sojourner Truth, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Rosalind Franklin, Gloria Steinem, Jane Addams, Mary McLeod Bethune, Margaret Sanger, Dian Fossey, Jane Goodall, and Sally Ride.

I also remember biographies of Amelia Earhart, Clara Barton, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, Nellie Bly, Rachel Carson, Abigail Adams, Martha Washington, Elizabeth Blackwell, Bessie Coleman, Mahalia Jackson, Marian Anderson, Margaret Bourke-White, Dorothea Lange, Georgia O'Keeffe, Julia Morgan, Laura Ingalls Wilder, Annie Oakley, Julia Ward Howe, Althea Gibson, Wilma Rudolph, Babe Didrickson, and numerous contemporary athletes.

I'm pretty sure I remember biographies of Mother Jones, Emma Goldman, and Nancy Pelosi, too.

Granted, there were umpteen different choices for biographies of Rosa Parks and Eleanor Roosevelt, and only one or two of Rachel Carson, but the same held true for biographies of men--lots to choose from if it's MLK or Lincoln, and only one of John Muir.

There were lots of biographies of non-Americans, too. Again, these are often from the same publishers of the biographies that are carried by B&N; it's not as if I had to go to a different source to find them. So it's not that just that B&N doesn't consider them worth selling. They only carry the biographies that sell the best, which of course is a vicious cycle; unless the customer is specifically looking for a biography of Mae Jemison and will order one, you can't sell a book that isn't on the shelf.

So once again it all comes down to marketing. B&N and Borders think they know whom kids want to read about, so that's all they carry. I understand how this happens in smaller stores, with limited budgets, but it's one of the many things I hate about the chain bookstores.

There was also a great series on "Outrageous Women" of various eras; these were some of our best-selling biographies, in part because they talked about women who were rarely mentioned elsewhere.


I see what you're saying, but it's amazing how quickly it becomes a matter of a self-fulfilling prophecy: if you don't know it's available, you can't buy it and if people don't buy it, it won't be available.


----------



## amanda10 (Jun 5, 2007)

Wow. What a fascinating thread. I'm going to read Packaging Girlhood pronto. My two girls are now 5 and 8. I was so dismayed by the transformation in my eldest once she started school -- all of sudden she wasn't *allowed* by the boys to play with the dinosaur toys (even though she was obsessed with them at home and had read volumes about them) or the blocks. Girls in her class were already being "mean" in Kindergarten--something she had been completely unfamiliar with. She started bringing the bad attitude home and that hasn't been pleasant. She's had a hard transition, and now I see her as trying to conform (and I desperately don't want her to) so she doesn't get picked on. My five year old enters Kindergarten next month--she's a little tougher emotionally though so I hope she'll manage okay. I am sad that little kids don't act like little kids anymore--they act like little grown ups when they're six.


----------



## Meg Murry. (Sep 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *amanda10* 
Wow. What a fascinating thread. I'm going to read Packaging Girlhood pronto. My two girls are now 5 and 8. I was so dismayed by the transformation in my eldest once she started school -- all of sudden she wasn't *allowed* by the boys to play with the dinosaur toys (even though she was obsessed with them at home and had read volumes about them) or the blocks. Girls in her class were already being "mean" in Kindergarten--something she had been completely unfamiliar with. She started bringing the bad attitude home and that hasn't been pleasant. She's had a hard transition, and now I see her as trying to conform (and I desperately don't want her to) so she doesn't get picked on. My five year old enters Kindergarten next month--she's a little tougher emotionally though so I hope she'll manage okay. I am sad that little kids don't act like little kids anymore--they act like little grown ups when they're six.









Is there any way of homeschooling them? Seriously, the "socialization" you're talking about seems one of the very best reasons to keep them at home, if you can. Just a thought.


----------



## silly_scout (Aug 31, 2006)

Reviving for the sake of this article (which hopefully hasn't already been posted on MDC.)
http://www.slate.com/id/2172705/nav/tap1/


----------



## bu's mama (Mar 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *silly_scout* 
Reviving for the sake of this article (which hopefully hasn't already been posted on MDC.)
http://www.slate.com/id/2172705/nav/tap1/

Good article. Dd is not a tween yet (5), but even shopping for clothes for her is usually difficult. I won't do overt advertising on clothes, no characters (though I did compromise & bought her a t-shirt with 'High School Musical' on it. That was a big step for me







), not overly sequined or shiny. My biggest complaint (as in the article also) are low waisted pants







: , actually double







: .

My favorite line..."Mom, I'm 11!" she said. "I'm not Harriet Miers!"


----------



## mum5 (Apr 10, 2004)

I have not read all the posts, just the first few pages, but just wanted to offer my opinion.
The sad part is, that this kind of language/phrases/attitudes will become the "norm" and will be tolerated and percieved as ok to just be thrown around.
It is wholly unacceptable for children, be they 5 or 15 to be wearing and portraying this kind of image. It IS adult humour, and barely even humour at that.

Just my opinion.


----------



## nancy926 (Mar 10, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chicagomom* 
It's sad and frustrating that on mothering.com this is considered "advancement for women".

WOH is not "advancement".

I haven't read all 9 pages of this thread but I had to respond to this. To me, NFL and AP is not about the mom staying home. It's about FAMILY. In our family, I work. I happen to work at home. My DH stays home with the kids. WHY oh WHY is this not an "acceptable" family unit? Why should I stay home with the kids and be a miserable SAHP so DH can go to an office and make 1/3 what I make and never see the kids???

Sorry, I know this is OT but it bothers me that in a place where people are supposed to be open minded to other ways of living outside the mainstream, that people still believe the only good mom is a stay-at-home mom, and that the father doesn't even factor into a family.


----------



## nonconformnmom (May 24, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nancy926* 

Sorry, I know this is OT but it bothers me that in a place where people are supposed to be open minded to other ways of living outside the mainstream, that people still believe the only good mom is a stay-at-home mom, and that the father doesn't even factor into a family.

I have been trying to express this perspective here on MDC for as long as I've been here, and you nailed it. Thanks for articulating it so well.

I really think that MDC should change the SAHM forum to SAHP, and for heaven's sake let's stop having threads that say "How often does your dh watch the kids".







:


----------



## silly_scout (Aug 31, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nancy926* 
Sorry, I know this is OT but it bothers me that in a place where people are supposed to be open minded to other ways of living outside the mainstream, that people still believe the only good mom is a stay-at-home mom, and that the father doesn't even factor into a family.

Precisely. It really ticked me off that someone would argue with me over the fact that women making 6 figures is advancement. I think that was the angriest I've ever gotten on MDC. And I've had to log off in anger quite a few times because of what I call "non-mainstream-mainstream", meaning MDC members are anti-mainstream parenting, but you sure as h*ll better be for their non-mainstream style or you are one of "Them". (ETA: I am very pro- public school, and I feel like an uneducated boor on here sometimes, but whatev.)
I noticed the person who stated that WOH isn't advancement hasn't posted since several rebuttals have been made. Perhaps she has no answer?


----------

