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!

Stephanie, I think you are right on.

Just my 2 cents

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?

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 ?

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.

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.

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?

Just curious

Personally, I hate Bratz and so does our 9yo dd…matter of fact, she hates Barbie too. Stuffed animals are her favorite toys,thankfully.

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.

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.

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

I just think it’s high time corporations took just a little bit of responsibility. That’s all.