Social Responsibility and Bratz Dolls
Filed Under: Freedom & Politics, Link Love, Parenting, Thriving
This morning I was catching up on some blog reading and got to this post by IzzyMom: a call to action to ask Scholastic to remove Bratz books from their offerings at school fairs. Her post got me thinking about this whole idea of businesses being “socially responsible.”
I’m still exploring my feelings on this topic. I’m a strong proponent of capitalism and I think businesses have a right to use the tools available to them (i.e. advertising) to make money. It’s a parent’s responsibility to raise their child, instill values, and ultimately choose what to buy or not buy. On this topic, I often find myself on the fringe with many mommy bloggers because I don’t have the urge to strike Bratz dolls from existence.
But IzzyMom makes a statement that I can’t ignore:
…everyone knows a child’s peers have infinitely more influence over them than their parents do after a certain point. My words will only go so far…
This can be true. If these books are offered for purchase *at school*, girls could conceivably buy a Bratz book and keep it at school, or look at one that a friend owns, and the parent would have no knowledge. So, what to do? Is Scholastic “socially responsible” for protecting young girls from what some view as sexually-suggestive material? Or is it a parent’s responsibility to pass on their values and hope for the best?
Parents embody their values and this rubs off on their children. Even if kids have rebellious periods, they often come around to hold the same values as their parents when they become adults. But as I will shortly begin my journey into the tween and teen years, I admit to being concerned about those times when my kids will reject my values, my teachings, my advice, and throw caution to the wind, as I did when I was a teenager.
I’m pretty confident that my values will reign in most situations, but there will certainly be times when other influences exert some force over my children’s decisions. When that time comes, will I be calling out for “social responsibility?”
PHAT = Parenting, Homeschooling And Technology. That about sums up my life at the moment. 
Subscribe To This Blog
Angela, Mother Crone | May 15, 2007 | Reply
The older my chidren get, the more reasons I have to be glad we have chosen to homeschool. You see, there are around a lot of same-age peers that attend public and private school. And my kids are little effected by the peer pressure their friends are. Sure, they may pick up on a trend for screen-printed shirts or Chuck Taylors, but in real moral situations they trust us. They don’t think it is cool to find that over half of Scout’s 13-14 baseball team was sexually active. They don’t think it is cool for 11-12 yr old girls to dress like sluts and date. Our choice has given them a solid base from which to derive their own choices.
In traditional school settings, peer groups have far more importance than parents at very young ages. If all parents shared the same basic value system, this would not be such a dilemna. But that is not the fact anymore. So I watch many friends who are wonderful parents struggle to compete with the peer influence as their children morph away from their values.
In applying that to the Bratz/Scholastic situation though, I think the issue is misdirected at Scholastic. The Bratz books and dolls are universally available. So the kids will know about them and see them despite your wishes. The issue here is more about having trustworthy children, is it not? If I tell my children that they are not to buy any Bratz or South Park items with their money, and they turn around and disobey my wishes, it is THEIR bad choice.
Scholastic did not make them, nor did their friends. They may have tempted or urged, but the child needs to learn to stand their ground in simple situations. If they never have any practice at doing so, how will they handle it when it is something far more critical than a Bratz activity book being dangled in front of them?
lori | May 15, 2007 | Reply
My kids get the Scholastic sales brochures from their schools. They arrive every other month or so. They arrive whether I want them or not — a teacher’s aide stuffs them in my son’s folder and puts the folder in his backpack, for example.
Through these brochures, Scholastic sells not only books, but also some toys, like slime kits, plush toys, and Yu-gi-oh swag. The brochures have become *very* heavily slanted toward books and other items with some sort of product tie-in. It’s all pop-culture, all the time, and it’s frustrating.
Ironically, the schools are reinforcing and encouraging TV watching by helping promote so many books with movie and TV tie-ins. (TV isn’t necessarily bad, but the books, I think, reinforce how central TV is in children’s lives more than they promote learning.)
I’d say schools have the responsibility to restrict the content they promote to educationally-related and age-appropriate stuff. If Scholastic is expanding their products beyond books (and even toys) with true educational value, then I think it’s up to the schools to say they won’t distribute the Scholastic brochures. Unfortunately, most schools probably won’t do that because they get too many rewards from Scholastic for participating. Either that, or they don’t even bother to think about the kind of content they’re helping sell to kids. I’m not sure which condition is worse, the greed or the ignorance.
So while I wholeheartedly agree that parents are ultimately in control of what their children, I also think that schools should stop being agents of big corporations and their product marketing campaigns.
lori | May 15, 2007 | Reply
Oy. In the last paragraph, I left out “buy” after “what their children”.
Two Knives | May 15, 2007 | Reply
I don’t want to strike the Bratz Dolls from existence, either. (Wait, maybe I do.) But even the most vigilant parents cannot single-handedly combat a $15 billion dollar industry that uses psychological research on brain development to figure out new ways to manipulate children.
I just think it’s high time corporations took just a little bit of responsibility. That’s all.
Izzy | May 15, 2007 | Reply
I’m glad to see this issue is still being discussed. I love the discourse!
I’d like to clarify, for anyone that hasn’t read my post that my goal, and the goal of “Campaign For A Commercial-Free Childhood” is not to strike Bratz from existence (although I wouldn’t shed any tears if that did cease to exist) but to remove the books from school book fairs.
The American Psychological Association recently completed a study on the increasing sexualization of younger and younger girls in our society.
Personally, I didn’t need the APA to implicate the Bratz for me, but they did, in fact, specifically name them as a primary example of some of the “toys” that fall under the umbrella of contributing to a heavily sexualized environment for very young girls.
I have no issues with capitalism, per se, but children are utterly defenseless against the onslaught of very sexual material everywhere they turn. I’d like to think that schools might be exempt from that onslaught and that my child will go there and learn things like math, science and reading (from appropriate books)rather than about “Lil’ Bratz Dancin Divas, Lil’ Bratz Catwalk Cuties”.
So I’m going to ask a very inflammatory question, purely for the sake of argument and I mean NO disrespect to PHAT Mommy or her readers…
How would you feel if, in the name of capitalism and under the premise that parents are the only responsible party in this issue, your child’s school was carrying Hustler at the bookfair?
Or, to make it more realistic, how about something anyone can pick up at their local grocery store or CVS like Low Rider, Maxim or FHM, both of which are not age restricted but have very sexy imagery in them.
Would you be okay with that? Would you feel like Scholastic has the right to put those in schools and that it’s the parent’s responsibility to keep it out of their kid’s hands?
I know it’s an extreme example but I think it illustrates my point.
Thanks for posting about this
Shannon | May 16, 2007 | Reply
Hi Izzy, thanks for your comment. There are laws and ordinances that restrict where and how adult titles can be displayed/sold. So I certainly would be upset if those titles were offered at the Scholastic fair. But, as of now, there are no laws against Bratz items. What that tells me is that there are people who are buying and enjoying these products. If all, or even most, parents found the products offensive and appalling, Bratz would quickly be discontinued by the manufacturer.
I don’t like them any more than you do and I would not buy them for my daughter. But the makers and sellers of Bratz should not be blamed. Our time and effort might be better spent informing parents why Bratz might not be the best choice for their girls. You are doing this exact thing through your blog posts and your reference to the APA research.
JayMonster | May 16, 2007 | Reply
I don’t like Bratz Dolls. OK, I downright hate them. But if they sell, then the manufacturer has the right to sell them. I agree with you up to that point.
Now the deviation. Scholastic has a responsibility in their unique situation. They get special consideration and access to children to sell their wares because of who they are and the image they are supposedly portraying. It is about schooling. It is about learning. It is about reading. They get special consideration, and make some nice money doing it.
For that privilege and access, yes they have a responsibility to offer only materials that are satisfactory to the community. It is the cost of gaining that access to our children. Otherwise they could just go hawk their wares on Cartoon Network and hope for the best.
Outside in the “cold, cruel world” yes competition is everything and people can (and should) vote with their wallets. Inside the walls of places such as schools, pure money decisions is not the best way to go.
Sandy | May 16, 2007 | Reply
No, Scholastic should not stop selling Bratz dolls, nor are they socially responsible for selling them.
Personally, I hate Bratz and so does our 9yo dd…matter of fact, she hates Barbie too. Stuffed animals are her favorite toys,thankfully.
Izzy | May 16, 2007 | Reply
Sandy, in a similar vein, do you feel corporations should avoid doing things that are environmentally unsound, even if they’re not illegal?
Just curious
lance | May 16, 2007 | Reply
Scholastic is just a company trying to make a buck. I’m not gonna fault them for trying to serve their market — if they didn’t, they’d lose business to some competitor who was willing to sell whatever crap the kids tended to buy, and we’d be having this discussion about the “social responsibility” of that company.
What burns me is that the schools feel perfectly free to deliver their captive little charges to Scholastic in exchange for a cut of the take. How about clearing book fair participation with parents first via a permission slip or something?
Stephanie | May 16, 2007 | Reply
I do think that Scholastic and other companies and people have the social responsibility to not sell Bratz dolls and other items that distort and pervert our children’s mental and emotional growth.
As a single parent I have a knee-jerk reaction to your statement: “It’s a parent’s responsibility to raise their child, instill values, and ultimately choose what to buy or not buy.”
It is not only a parent’s responsibility to raise their children properly, but it is also society’s responsibility to protect our children and this country’s future.
I was a stay-at-home mom for 10 years and had
the majority of control of what my children were exposed to in their lives. After my divorce, in certain states it’s 50% custody regardless of parental involvement, I lost that level of control. Everything I believe in is diffused by “a different lifestyle” of someone else regardless of my own personal values.
The fact that I am no longer able to view and discuss every purchase, TV show, and so forth with my children does not give society the right to victimize my children with trash when they are not in my home.
Children are precious and need to be protected no matter what the situation. It is not a child’s fault that a parent is busy, unavailable, or down right negligent.
Kudos to the parents like myself that are involved in their children’s lives. Children that are not as lucky to have invested parents should not lack the protection of concientious adults to set up safeguards to help them develop into responsible adults. I question the morals and ethics of those who feel otherwise.
Mama Luxe | May 16, 2007 | Reply
I consider myself a free market capitalist.
While Scholastic may be free to partner with Bratz in their marketing, we are also free to object to it, write to Scholastic, and boycott their products if we wish to do so.
I have a particular issue because of the placement in schools. Schools create a “captive” audience and for that reason, the issue is different than a mere marketplace situation. Furthermore, the school and teachers are “authority figures” and I do not like the implicit endorsement, either.
If I walk into a store, I choose whether or not to purchase a particular book or doll.
That’s a whole different story from a school distributing or encouraging people to buy a certain item.
In another example, parents may decide they are okay with sending their kids on these spring break trips, but I don’t agree with schools allowing the salespeople access.
lance | May 16, 2007 | Reply
Stephanie, I don’t know how I (as a member of “society”) got saddled with the responsibility of protecting your kids, but I don’t want it. I promise not to hold you responsible for protecting mine.
I also don’t know how you establish that those idiotic dolls “distort and pervert our children’s mental and emotional growth”. Or do you not even consider it necessary to back up your hyperbolic claims (they’re dolls, for cryin’ out loud) before crying victimization? Kids are not adults, but neither are they made of glass.
I don’t have 100% control over the forces that will shape my children, but does that mean I too get to demand that society fall into line and support my child-rearing choices? What if maybe I think those dolls are no big deal and I’d like my children to be able to conveniently buy them and related products through my school? Which one of our child-rearing strategies is more worthy of forced compliance, and what are the practical means of making that decision?
What safeguards do you want for children? I mean, there are already laws to make sure people feed them, don’t beat the living crap out of them, and don’t sexually abuse them. What else do you want? I mean, if you really think that those dolls are so corrupting that the mere offering of them for sale is an irresponsible act that should be prohibited, I get really scared thinking of just how many other things you think should be tossed on the bonfire in the name of “protecting the kids”.
The bar is correctly set high when examining if a claim of harm justifies the restriction of otherwise peaceful behavior. It’s certainly gotta be more than “well I don’t like it.” Because while kids are certainly precious, so is liberty. Being so willing to abridge liberty for the sake of minimizing any possible risk betrays a fundamental disrespect for both the freedom of adults and the common sense and resiliency of children. Dare I say that I question the morals and ethics of those who feel otherwise
?
Dana | May 20, 2007 | Reply
Isn’t the same group behind this also upset with the Pizza for books program?
Anyway, if the parents do not have a strong enough influence to counteract whatever it is Scholastic sells, Scholastic abandoning the sale of such items will hardly help anything.
I suppose the school’s perceived endorsement might be a factor…and that is concerning on its own. The perceived endorsement of an impersonal institution holds greater power than the parent?
Shawna | May 21, 2007 | Reply
I do believe in capitalism, but I also believe in social responsibility. I do not feel our children should be an intended target for marketers. Market and sale to adults all you want, but not to children…and yes, I do think schools have a social responsibility to keep their campuses nuetral and market free; schools should not endorse any products nor brands…they are there to teach and care for our children, not profit off of them.
Just my 2 cents
Two Knives | May 22, 2007 | Reply
Lance, Stephanie’s “claims” are backed up by recent APA research (see http://twoknives.net/?p=173 if you can stomach it).
Stephanie, I think you are right on.
lance | May 22, 2007 | Reply
I followed the link and read the executive summary and skimmed the entire study: nothing in there supports the claim that Bratz Dolls cause harm; they are associated with a harmful sexualization of girls, but apparently we need to repeat the obvious: correlation is not the same as causation. You’re advocating restrictions on a business when it’s likely to only be a symptom of something bad, not the cause. It might be unseemly to cater to the darker sides of the human psyche, but it what sense is it Scholastic’s responsibility not to?
Two Knives | May 23, 2007 | Reply
Lance, I absolutely agree that correlation is not cause. Corporations choose their responsiblities based on what the market demands. Of course I’d like to see corps make an attempt, at least, to stop contributing (not cause) to social problems. (There’s no correlation between media images and eating disorders, yet Unilever has stopped using too-skinny models.)
Ultimately we get to decide what is acceptable and what isn’t by the power of the dollar. What safeguards do I want for my kids, you ask? I want corporations to stop using brain-developement research to attack my kids’ vulnerabilities in order to sell to them. It’s no different than telemarketers calling the elderly or disabled and “tricking” them. Both are vulnerable, both should be protected.
Great thread!