saving girls from themselves

Doesn't the state have a responsibility to protect children? There are real risks to self-esteem and body image from anorexia to depression (both conditions that are at times fatal).

We, as a society, often act to protect kids against harmful things; cigarettes, liquor and pornography for example.

Should we really let kids have whatever they want (as long as their parents agree)?

5 Replies

My oldest daughter still has her Barbies, stored away somewhere. If they in any way harmed her or changed her personality she has kept it well hidden.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

I have heard cigarette smokers make the same type of argument (it hasn't harmed me a bit)...

2 Replies

@ebrown p,

Horse ****, ebrown.

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

I think it's very difficult to prove a toy has such negative psychological effects. Both anorexia and depression have genetic and chemical triggers. You would have a hard time proving a doll could be the catalyst of such illnesses. If they start decorating Barbies with lead paint or asbestos you would have a case, but I don't think we have any evidence that playing with a doll that has a small waist and big boobs causes lasting harm (even if the person doing the playing is an adult male).

1 Reply

@Green Witch,

Let's see. Barbie was probably the first grown-up woman I knew personally who had a job, owned her own car, lived by herself in an apartment. That sort of thing didn't happen much in the suburbs in the early 1960's.

Thanks Barbie. I like my car, my job (mostly), my income (definitely), my house, and my suits (in the days when we still wore suits with coordinating shoes/purses/briefcases and gloves).

2 Replies

@ebrown p,

Quote:

Should we really let kids have whatever they want (as long as their parents agree)?

Yeah, goddamn it, it's none of your business.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

So.... the first example of a successful working woman in your childhood had pale skin, a ridiculously thin waist and unnaturally large plastic breasts... and this is a good thing?

This is not what I want my daughter to aspire to.

5 Replies

@ebrown p,

Fine, don't get your daughter a Barbie . . . after which, mind your own goddamned business. Other people's children, whose lives are not being endangered, are none of your goddamned business.

0 Replies

My apologies, Brandon . . . i may have been wrong. It is entirely possible that E_Brown has a re-education camp for you . . .

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Re-education camp? Ummm... that would be a different Barbie altogether.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/39/KlausB_RMPics.JPG

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

Quote:

...had pale skin

There is such a thing as Malibu Barbie you know, ebrown.

I grew up with Barbie as did all of my girlfriends. Today we are all successful women in our own right - insecurities and all. Some of these women have refused to buy Barbies for their daughters sighting the same reasons you give. Their daughters are just as interested in fashion, girly goods and thinness as their Barbie playing counterparts. If you want to spare your daughters the pain of ever feeling inferior you will have to lock them away from TV, the computer, High School gym class, store mannequins, most magazines, teen novels, boys, and other girls. I think it's better just to love and encourage a young girl to be herself and let her sort out the nasty details in her own way.

1 Reply

@Green Witch,

There are two different issues here.

The first is what I can do as an individual parent to protect my kids from things that are unhealthy. As you point out; it is very difficult for individual parents to protect their kids from things that are ubiquitous in society. This is especially true when these unhealthy products are specifically marketed to kids for profit.

The second issue is what can we do collectively, as a society, to protect our kids from things that are unhealthy. As a society we have a far greater ability to counteract the manipulation of our kids and to work together to address common problems.

Again the cigarette example is perfectly applicable.

Not that long ago to keep our daughters away from cigarettes we would have had to "lock them away" from TV, most magazines, teen novels, movies and boys.

We as a society acted to change these unhealthy messages. In addition to an effort to change opinion, there was also a success drive to pass legislation banning the marketing of a harmful product to kids.

We have healthier kids today as a result.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

You claim it is not serious or important, but then you write:

Quote:
. . . it's a bad idea representing a fascistic outlook.

. . . having made an idiotic remark about re-education camps.

So, i repeat:

The sky is falling, the sky is falling ! ! !

I said I think the guy is a fascist. I didn't say that the sky is falling, or this is of great significance, or anything equivalent. This is simply something you made up because you wanted to.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

Doesn't the state have a responsibility to protect children? There are real risks to self-esteem and body image from anorexia to depression (both conditions that are at times fatal).

We, as a society, often act to protect kids against harmful things; cigarettes, liquor and pornography for example.

Should we really let kids have whatever they want (as long as their parents agree)?

He's trying to forcibly prevent a company from selling a product, because he thinks they are guilty of wrongthinking. The government possesses no such right.

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

Let's make cigarettes illegal, and fatty foods while we're at it.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

So.... the first example of a successful working woman in your childhood had pale skin, a ridiculously thin waist and unnaturally large plastic breasts... and this is a good thing?

This is not what I want my daughter to aspire to.

The question isn't whether it's a good thing. You're free to believe whatever you want. The question is whether the government has the right to forcibly prevent its sale.

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

I just can't put Barbie in the same category as cigarettes. Barbie never smoked or caused cancer.

I understand we need to protect children from people who want to exploit them, but speaking as a Barbie playing child - I just don't think there is a real problem. I developed more hang ups from reading Seventeen magazine , looking at the covers of record albums (think 1970's rock) or going bikini shopping with my cousin who to this day looks like Cindy Crawford. Barbie was the least of my problems when it came to self-esteem..

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

cringing at that sentence, should have been 'husband and mine'.

Back to discussion.

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

Doesn't the state have a responsibility to protect children? There are real risks to self-esteem and body image from anorexia to depression (both conditions that are at times fatal).

We, as a society, often act to protect kids against harmful things; cigarettes, liquor and pornography for example.

Should we really let kids have whatever they want (as long as their parents agree)?

I'm just catching up here, so will quote.

ebrown, my first take is that's you're devil's advocating, but my second is you are not.

If you disapprove of barbies as dolls, write about that, put it out on the internet, preach in your church, sign up the rest of your family, make lots of videos, it's ok now because of the supremes thing, yea, Tom Forsythe, but BAN them?

1 Reply

saving girls from themselves

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know