Dora Grows Up, Becomes 'Fashionable' - Page 2

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by Oriole

I think it becomes bad when superficial becomes more important than the heart. But I don't live my life by superficial standards. So how is it wrong for me, or for anyone else, to think that Dora is pretty? Or that Disney draws pretty illustrations? Just because someone else doesn't like it, does it mean it's wrong of me to appreciate it? I also happen to like Lascaux sketches, or is "beauty" wrong in any context?

Just a few things that pop into my head while reading the replies.

I also notice that you're back to this. Could you please point out the post or posts that suggested that it's wrong for you to like what you like? I've read the thread twice, and I must have missed them.

[Oriole]

Originally Posted by Storm Bride

I don't think it's wrong to find things/people pretty or beautiful or whatever. I do think it's wrong to think that our own personal tastes form some kind of valid "definition" of beauty. Beauty is very subjective.

I'm also not arguing that companies have the right to run their businesses the way they want to. I'm not in favour of banning shows aimed at kids. I never even remotely suggested that I was. I'm simply saying that I have no respect for their business practices and I don't agree that they're harmless. I think they're dangerous and I don't understand what "I like Disney" has to do with anything. Unless I missed something, nobody here was saying that "fashion Dora" should be against the law?

I'm not sure what showcasing a product or having toys at the eye level of children has to do with the kind of manipulation I'm talking about, either. They're both "marketing", but they're not the same thing.

I don't like it. I think these companies are taking awful, awful advantage of children...and most especially (sadly) of those children who are already growing up with the handicap of parents who use the tv as a babysitter. Yeah - we're tv-free (although not really, as we watch a lot of DVDs). We don't spend a lot of time and energy focused on this stuff, and we do a lot of other things. DD and ds2 will probably be just fine, even with the societal marketing barrage. The children of parents who teach those children to watch tv critically will probably be okay. However, the ugly marketing is really aimed at the poor kids whose parents plant them in front of a tv all day - the vulnerable ones.

I very much agree with the bolded part. To me it only emphasizes that I cannot blame the TV for what it's teaching my child if I don't spend enough time with my kid and treat TV as a babysitter for my kid.

You see, to me the big problem here not the companies that are utilizing what a business is expected to utilize - marketing, but the parents who rely on TV to raise their children. Dora, or Disney is not the issue at that point, and that's what I am trying to get at.

It's not Disney's responsibility to teach my child values, nor is it Dora's responsibility to develop the sense of beauty in my child. It's my responsibility, and blaming the company is an easy way out, kwim?

Why would I expect for my child to turn out okay if I sit him/her down in front of the screen for hours at a time? Of course they'll be barraged with all kinds of messages I might or might not agree with, since I didn't write those messages. The problem is, if I don't agree with the messages, then I shouldn't be sitting my kid down in front of the screen in the first place, and that's where the choice comes in. A company (Disney, or otherwise) has a choice in marketing, just as you have a choice whether or not to trust TV to teach your child about what's important in life, kwim?

[Oriole]

Originally Posted by Storm Bride

I also notice that you're back to this. Could you please point out the post or posts that suggested that it's wrong for you to like what you like? I've read the thread twice, and I must have missed them.

Oh, I don't think you are saying it's wrong to like it, but I am trying to make a point that I don't think there is anything wrong with a company producing a product that some people like and others don't.

I think the argument was that Disney and Dora etc. teach children bad values, and I was trying to make a point that I disagree with it. I don't think that a company can be held responsible for this or that if we as parents don't take the time to show our children the big world, with art, and books, and games, and human interactions on all kinds of levels. If all those things are in place, then Dora bears no more value than any book that you don't like, but still has every right to be written and read by people who do like it, kwim?

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by Oriole

I very much agree with the bolded part. To me it only emphasizes that I cannot blame the TV for what it's teaching my child if I don't spend enough time with my kid and treat TV as a babysitter for my kid.

You see, to me the big problem here not the companies that are utilizing what a business is expected to utilize - marketing, but the parents who rely on TV to raise their children. Dora, or Disney is not the issue at that point, and that's what I am trying to get at.

It's not Disney's responsibility to teach my child values, nor is it Dora's responsibility to develop the sense of beauty in my child. It's my responsibility, and blaming the company is an easy way out, kwim?

It's not an easy way out for me. I've made the decisions to try to minimize the impact of this on my children. The parents who are letting Disney raise their children aren't blaming Disney for anything, because they're okay with it.

I actually agree that it's not Disney's "responsibility" to teach my children values. Where you and I seem to disagree is on our viewpoint. I think it's scummy - really, really scummy - to deliberately take advantage of the vulnerability of children and the insecurities of parents (because there are parents out there who truly believe they'll scar their children forever by "depriving" them of the latest Princess branded piece of crap) to sell products. It also goes way beyond marketing a product. It's marketing a brand, and then inventing product - any product - that might sell if it has that brand on it. It's deliberate, planned manipulation of children. They're not just "utilizing marketing". They are deliberately manipulating children...people who can't fight back or make their own informed decisions about what they want to expose themselves to.

You say it's "just business". I say that the "it's just good business" attitude allows companies to engage in practices that are unhealthy, manipulative and irresponsible. Those companies are trying - trying hard - to get their hooks into all our children. The fact that some of us have the time, energy and knowledge to fight back doesn't mean the assault is ethical or acceptable. I find marketing specifically to children ethically iffy at the best of times. When it becomes the kind of calculated, manipulative campaign that companies such as Disney engage in, it moves up to a whole new level of ugly.

Why would I expect for my child to turn out okay if I sit him/her down in front of the screen for hours at a time? Of course they'll be barraged with all kinds of messages I might or might not agree with, since I didn't write those messages. The problem is, if I don't agree with the messages, then I shouldn't be sitting my kid down in front of the screen in the first place, and that's where the choice comes in. A company (Disney, or otherwise) has a choice in marketing, just as you have a choice whether or not to trust TV to teach your child about what's important in life, kwim?

I don't know a single parent who objects to Disney and who lets their children watch hours of unsupervised children - not one. The fact that I can't control how someone else raises their children doesn't mean I think it's okay for a company to take advantage of that to sell product. That, imo, is like saying it's okay for a pimp to exploit a young female runaway, because her parents didn't make the choice to nurture her properly (obviously, the severity differs). I don't give a crap what the parents of those kids think about it. I care about the sleazy motives of the marketers and about the effect on the kids.

I don't support legislating companies to prevent them from sleazy marketing. That doesn't mean I like, approve of, or in any way agree with those practices. I just think that, in this case, the "cure" (legislation) might be worse than the disease...that's not the same thing as saying the disease is benign.

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by Oriole

Oh, I don't think you are saying it's wrong to like it, but I am trying to make a point that I don't think there is anything wrong with a company producing a product that some people like and others don't.

I don't think anybody has suggested there's anything wrong with making a product that some like and some don't. Do you think we've said that, or are you just arguing a point that nobody is making, for some other reason?

I think the argument was that Disney and Dora etc. teach children bad values, and I was trying to make a point that I disagree with it. I don't think that a company can be held responsible for this or that if we as parents don't take the time to show our children the big world, with art, and books, and games, and human interactions on all kinds of levels.

And, again, I disagree. Disney is not just making a Princess movie or a Princess dress. They are deliberately trying to convince little girls that being a "Princess" is something to aspire to. If a little girl wants to play princess, I have no objection (dd loves to do that). Disney can't teach my child bad values, because I won't let them. That doesn't mean I think it's okay that they try to do so. They are deliberately trying to make little girls think that they are better, more valuable people if they wear a Belle dress or a tiara. My dd can probably resist that - she's got a lot of spunk - but that doesn't mean in any way, shape or form that it's okay to try to brainwash her into that view of the world.

[Oriole]

Originally Posted by Storm Bride

I don't think anybody has suggested there's anything wrong with making a product that some like and some don't. Do you think we've said that, or are you just arguing a point that nobody is making, for some other reason?

Sure, but as you are reviewing that fact that you don't like it, I am reviewing the fact that I do like it, and at least in my opinion, I thrive despite of it, so the argument that Disney teachers unethical values doesn't hold water for me, because I believe my values are intact, kwim?

And, again, I disagree. Disney is not just making a Princess movie or a Princess dress. They are deliberately trying to convince little girls that being a "Princess" is something to aspire to. If a little girl wants to play princess, I have no objection (dd loves to do that). Disney can't teach my child bad values, because I won't let them. That doesn't mean I think it's okay that they try to do so.

I think this is an interesting statement, and I don't know 100% answer to it myself, but I wonder if "the chicken came before the egg, or the egg before the chicken".

I venture a guess, that Disney is not the one that came up with the idea that girls should be princesses, I think the girls came up with that idea centuries ago, hence, a good portion of Disney movies are based on folk tales that are centuries old. I simply can't give Disney the credit for it, kwim? It's been here long before, and Disney simply realizes it, and plays into many little girls' dreams of being a princess.

They are deliberately trying to make little girls think that they are better, more valuable people if they wear a Belle dress or a tiara. My dd can probably resist that - she's got a lot of spunk - but that doesn't mean in any way, shape or form that it's okay to try to brainwash her into that view of the world.

I think this is the core of our disagreement: If I believed that Disney's goal is to teach little girls they are more valuable with tiaras and princess dresses, I wouldn't be disagreeing with you. I would nod and say that it's pretty unethical. I, however, think that Disney is putting its own spin on old tales, and puts up a product that is fun and entertaining as it is meant to be. If a child believes he/she is defined by the superficial, it's not because of Disney or Dora, but rather because of other circumstances in their life, imho.

[Storm Bride]

I think we're talking about two different things, honestly. You're talking about Disney movies being based on old folk tales, and Disney putting its own spin on old tales. I'm not really talking about the movies or the "spin" on those.

I'm talking about the fact that I have a great deal of difficultly finding a toothbrush or toothpaste that doesn't have Princesses on it (unless it's a "boy's toothbrush" with Lightning McQueen), that my dd owns a mirror (given to her by a relative, and, in fairness, she loves the thing) that tells her she's "beautiful as a princess", that it's "wonderful to be a princess" and various other nauseating messages when she pushes a button, and that almost everything made for children is plastered with licensed characters. Disney has turned their vision into a cultural norm.

I also think the little girl dream of being a princess (and I agree that many little girls have it) is just that - a little girl dream. Let them have it, sure. But, it's messed up to sell that to them as an ideal, or goal. As adults, we're supposed to be guiding our children through the world. Creating a product line to convince girls that if they have the right look, the right clothes, or the right accessories, they'll be happier or better is sick. It's exactly the opposite of what adults should be doing. Whether Disney is successful or not doesn't change what they're trying to do. IMO, there's a big difference between trying to convince someone that they'll like your product and trying to convince someone that their product will make them a better, happier, more attractive person. Disney does the latter. (I will say that it's not just Disney. It's largely the modern way or marketing - but the ones who aim it at children are particularly scummy.)

I used to work for a Marketing Manager for Timex. She talked to her sales people about "selling the benefits"...standard sales technique. In the 13-14 years since I worked there, that seems to have shifted more and more to "sell the lifestyle" and it honestly makes me want to vomit. In the case of Disney, it also makes me a bit sad, because I have good memories of watching those movies (back when it was a BIG deal to go to the theater) and it's no fun to associate Disney with nastiness to children.

[Storm Bride]

Off the Disney thing. I finally finished reading the article about the new Dora line (started it before, but had to leave the computer and forgot I hadn't finished it).

The comment about the instant gratification the girls will receive made me gag. I wonder if these people haven't read anything about how bad the need for instant gratification is for people...or if they just don't care. My money's on the latter.

The fact that they used the words "empowers girls" just...just...I don't even have words. I just don't have words. Well, "ugh" - that's one...

I also find the fact that this doll is marketed to girls "5 and up" a little odd, in view of the spokespeople's repeated references to "tweens". I in no way consider a 5 or 6 year old to be a "tween".

The whole thing made me ill.

[Oriole]

I understand where our differences are, and I don't think we can see it through another's eyes. I will respectfully agree to disagree.

[KaraBoo]

I think it's marketed to girls that age because there's the built-in Dora fanbase already. And now they have those girls who watched Dora as little ones and are now tweens.

Makes me ill too.

[St. Margaret]

I am annoyed on behalf of the parents who were okay with Dora because she wasn't a princess (I detest the whole cult of the princess, for the reasons PPs have clearly outlined) and actually went out and did active, positive, powerful things... and now those parents get to see that character they let into their children's lives morph into another fashion doll. Makes me take a BIG step away from saying "Okay, this mass-marketing toy is okay" because I'll never know when they'll decide to turn it into a princess/fashion plate/what have you.

Has anyone here seen The Corporation? It is a huge documentary but it has a great section on how the toy companies have teams of scientists studying the best ways to manipulate child behavior (that "nag factor) and parents' buying habits. They figure out how to get kids hooked and how many times they have to get them to nag their parents until they'll buy for them. And the woman being interviewed is just smiling, like this is some great thing.

No one is saying legislate away companies' ability to make and market any product. But I don't have to like that product!

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by St. Margaret

I am annoyed on behalf of the parents who were okay with Dora because she wasn't a princess (I detest the whole cult of the princess, for the reasons PPs have clearly outlined) and actually went out and did active, positive, powerful things... and now those parents get to see that character they let into their children's lives morph into another fashion doll.

:
I'll do my best to just keep dd oblivious to this, but she's got cousins who watch a ton of tv, so I don't know how successful I'll be. I'm not even completely anti-Princess, but I want my kids to see other things, too.

[meemee]

wait!!! so you are telling me after all those cool years of running away from the fox and playing with fun animals - she grows up into a barbie?!!!!!!!! or a bratz. : what a shame. what happened to all her pals like tico, boots? she just leaves them behind. after smokey mountain and crocodile lake adventures she goes into fashion? oh what a cop out. following in hannah montana styles stuff.

i guess of course diego if redone too will turn into a scientists or a mike fay the national geographic explorer.

[Theoretica]

No kidding...the sexist implications are pretty infuriating...good points meemee

[flower01]

Originally Posted by St. Margaret

I am annoyed on behalf of the parents who were okay with Dora because she wasn't a princess (I detest the whole cult of the princess, for the reasons PPs have clearly outlined) and actually went out and did active, positive, powerful things... and now those parents get to see that character they let into their children's lives morph into another fashion doll. Makes me take a BIG step away from saying "Okay, this mass-marketing toy is okay" because I'll never know when they'll decide to turn it into a princess/fashion plate/what have you.

I can't get the link to work - bummer. But, this discussion is fascinating me.

The above quote is exactly what frustrates me about the whole marketing thing to young children. My DD is not even old enough to watch TV, but in my head I had thought Dora would be one show I would allow because I had read so many positive things about the educational value of the show - but, the more I see Dora plastered all over everything little thing, the less I want my daughter exposed. But, this issue goes beyond Dora, obviously, and princesses. Remember how cute and innocent Britney Spears was at 16. And Lindsay Lohan...Based on recent trends, I really don't want any marketed character or person being an "idol" to my child. The reality is that kids get hooked...and even if you limit it, their friends get hooked and no matter what values you've promoted in your home, your daughter is going to be held to the standards of the latest "it" girl/doll on the market. And it's effecting girls at younger and younger ages.

So, although I think businesses should have the "right" to market the way they want, I do think that we should call people (because people run businesses - it's not some abstract conglomerate of money-making ideas)to higher standards and ethics. I am certainly not going to support a company that promotes something contrary to my values and I think most people want their daughter's to aspire to more than what our society defines as beautiful and successful (rich & famous). And the ones that don't care, well they aren't really the pillars of our communities, are they?