Does anyone else do this? Generic names to licensed toys?

[redvlagrl]

We are a TV free/licensed character free household. I hope to do this as long as possible (though I don't want to make DD a social outcast when she is older so I may relent then).

When we are at a playgroup or someone's home and there is, say, an Elmo doll I try to refer to it as a 'teddy' or monster doll or something else. The same with Thomas trains. I just call them trains, not James or Thomas or Gordon etc.

Does anyone else do this or am I alone? And is it pointless, do you think?

I am surprised when I see two year olds who can name every character in a Toy Story book - I suppose it means they must have seen the movie *and* the parent is reinforcing it.

Thoughts?

[Kailey's mom]

Well, as for the kids knowing the names of the trains or toy story characters, it could have been a learning activity/memory game. I used to do this with dd. ""what color is Tinky Winki? What's the yellow ones name? LOL

this could me a fun thread, so do you want to make alt. names for characters

Mickey mouse: the mouse
Winnie the pooh: yellow bear
Tigger: Jumping tiger

[briome]

We do a moderate version of this, kind of a pick your battles kind of thing. Keep in mind I married a wonderful man (he is a great father too) that just happens to be very in star wars and simpsons and licenced stuff.

I had more control over it with my first (now 5yrs old) because I could screen more of it, but less with my 2 yr old because he picks up what his brother is into. I let the oldest have Star wars shirts (because daddy does) he also has a SW winter hat and gloves and underwear. When he was younger he did get into 'Cars' the movie (thanks parents in law ) but I refuse to get any OTHER theme junk like sheets, food, etc or toys for one purpose that advertised another purpose........ Like the 'CARS" fishing pole the in-laws got him. Can't he just have a fishing pole?

I know how I have handled it is not ideal (having an older child) but luckily neither of my children seem to be particuarly obsessed with any characters (other then the oldest and Star Wars, thanks hubby). My 2 yr old is obsessed with snakes of all things.

In a way I think downplaying the significance of thease characters (trains can have names, people and pets all have names, cars on the street have names....no big deal if you don't watch the show) lessons the obsessive nature that the licenced characters create. I do assert that a box of cereal (or whatever it is) is in no way better because it has a picture of a fun looking thing on it.

When my son was 4 1/2 he really wanted me to get him frosted flakes at the store (first time he had ever asked for something like this) He really likes animals and tigers (Tony the Tiger on the box). I asked him what tigers eat...he knows, deers and stuff. I asked him why we want to eat something with a tiger on it. How would he know what would be good? He thought about that real hard! I did tell him that is is little flakes that are shiny and sweet and something Grandma might have for a treat but we are not buying it. Now I teach him about logos and commercials and what they mean as a whole educated consumer thing that is important to me.

Anyway, good thread!

[AndrewsMother]

Originally Posted by redvlagrl

I am surprised when I see two year olds who can name every character in a Toy Story book - I suppose it means they must have seen the movie *and* the parent is reinforcing it.

Thoughts?

Maybe their parents have read the book over and over again? My son knows Darth Vader, and all of the Winnie the Pooh Characters and he has never seen Star Wars or a Winnie the Pooh Episode.

[redvlagrl]

Originally Posted by AndrewsMother

Maybe their parents have read the book over and over again? My son knows Darth Vader, and all of the Winnie the Pooh Characters and he has never seen Star Wars or a Winnie the Pooh Episode.

In this particular instance though, it's a book the child only sees once a week a playgroup (this session has only been going about 6 weeks so far), so I doubt it's from that. I do see your point, however.

I suppose I'd like my children to name their own toys and give them their own personalities rather than them being prescribed. For instance have a Tiger toy and name it whatever and decide that it eats whatever and likes to whatever, rather than "oh, this is Tigger. He likes to bounce etc".

[prothyraia]

I do this as well. I'm not horribly opposed to my kids learning the names of licensed characters, but I'm not going to do the marketers work for them by branding things for my kids.

So yeah, it's "Wow! Look, your gramma got you a mouse shirt!" and not "Wow! You have a Mickey Mouse shirt! Who's that on your shirt? Is it Mickey?!?"

[_betsy_]

The Disney princesses are all called "pretty girls" in our house. SIL is "into" Disney and their family goes several times a year, always bringing back trinkets/stuffed animals/shirts for my girls. So far, they are all just pretty girls, or a a duck or whatever. DD1 (almost 3.5) does know the name Mickey Mouse, mostly from her 6 year old cousin.

[AndrewsMother]

Originally Posted by redvlagrl

In this particular instance though, it's a book the child only sees once a week a playgroup (this session has only been going about 6 weeks so far), so I doubt it's from that. I do see your point, however.

I suppose I'd like my children to name their own toys and give them their own personalities rather than them being prescribed. For instance have a Tiger toy and name it whatever and decide that it eats whatever and likes to whatever, rather than "oh, this is Tigger. He likes to bounce etc".

I see your point, because I am not a fan of licensed toys, but there are a few that "I" love.

To answer your question, I don't give generic names to licensed toys. DS has a variety of toys, majority non licensed, and he plays with the all the same. Each toys is given a different personality based upon the mood of his imagination.

I use to be anti licensed anything, but in the end it only caused me stress. I will not give in to licensed clothing, bed linens, or food, but a toothbrush or cup is not going to errode our family values or create a materlistic monster. If anything it makes tooth brushing easy!

[galincognito]

Originally Posted by redvlagrl

I am surprised when I see two year olds who can name every character in a Toy Story book - I suppose it means they must have seen the movie *and* the parent is reinforcing it.

at our house, my kids watch maybe 1 or 2 hours of tv a week and we don't encourage licensed products of anything however dd1 only needs to hear/see something once, ONCE, to know everything about it. i can bring home 20 books from the library and read her the whole stack one time through. the next day, she'll know what more than half the books are titled at what the first page says. another example of this; dd2 got an elmo bath toy for her birthday last week. dd1 was playing with it and says "are you big bird? no. are you cookie monster? no. you're elmo." not only was she going through various characters, she was only naming sesame street characters. dd1 has never watched an episode of sesame street. i think i've read her the same sesame street book about 6 times in her life. yet she knew.
sorry, didn't mean to rant. however, it's totally not the case, in fact it's the opposite, that our kids see all this stuff and we reinforce it. we seem to be powerless in the face of our kids memories.

[ShyDaisi]

I definitely do give generic names to licensed characters, but I am kind of losing the battle. While he isn't obsessed with anything and we don't own anything with the characters on them (with no intentions to do so), he is starting to recognize characters (just a couple so far). We don't watch TV at home much at all, but he has started watching it at daycare so when we are out he is starting to point them out and has even named one or two. He used to not pay attention to it at all, but it is sucking him in...I wish I had a choice, but I don't.

Another part that is helping to put names on the characters (other than daycare/TV), and part of what drives me bonkers, is people in public *think* he knows the name of the character...then look at me like I am from Mars when I tell them he doesn't know who the character is. Like when we are at the Aquarium - It isn't, "Oh, do you see the clown fish? Isn't it pretty with the orange, white, and black stripes?" -- It is, "Oh, look!! It is Nemo! Do you see Nemo?"....Or, when we were at the train museum, rather than, "What a big train! Look at how tall and long it is!", it is, "Whoa! Do you see how big Thomas is?"... I do realize they are just trying to communicate with my child on a personal level, so my problem isn't with the person, per se. I just wish that people realized what a mass marking ploy it all is...

[indigosky]

This is a great thread, and I love this idea!

On a different subject, though related in some ways, DD has two small, very simple dolls, one pink and one blue, that are otherwise identical (I don't even know where she got them -- baby gifts, I guess). I call them Pinky and Bluey. DD's had them her whole life but just started playing with them a lot recently (she's 2). I've been referring to Pinky as "he" and Bluey as "she." This gives the feminist in me great joy every time I do it, but it's SURPRISINGLY difficult, even for someone like me who thinks about gender and stereotypes a ton. I've slipped up more than once, and referred to them using the stereotyped pronouns. But I'm going to keep working at it. It'll be interesting to see when, if ever, she questions it.

[readermaid]

We are trying to be as license-character-free as we can be though as DD gets older (she's only 2 now) it feels like a losing battle.

Our one "success" in avoiding the specific : We got a Mickey Mouse doll as a gift, so we just told DD it was Rupert Rodent. She has since seen Mickey Mouse, and doesn't connect it to the doll. Rupert is still Rupert.

[Letitia]

We have tried to avoid branding, mostly because I am offended by the degree of marketing to tiny kids. It really bugs me that someone somewhere is designing products to be sold because they are hoping my toddler will whine to get one when she sees them in the store aisle.

I do think they're cashing in on something that's an easy mark. We've had similar experiences with DD to Galincognito's comments about kids' memories. DD sees or hears something once, usually from a book, and it's remembered from there on out. Which for her, turns it into some kind of a friend. I didn't realize that before I had kids; I thought it was parents leaving the TV on all the time.

We don't watch any TV and have all of one "branded" toy (a huge Thomas thing the kids can get inside, but we call it "the train"). So DD names her dolls and animals after characters from books, or sometimes people or animals we know in real life. I can't imagine it's a very different process naming things "Dobbin" and "Frances" than "Dora" and "Nemo," but it's certainly easier on my ears.

[LaLaLaLa]

If I don't know the character's name, I'll give it a generic name. But if I do know the name, I don't have a problem using it. We've never watched Sesame Street, because Elmo drives me absolutely up the wall. We don't read books with these characters, either. But when someone has a doll or a bit of clothing with one of these characters, I don't cringe at saying: "Oh, yeah, that's Big Bird. He's from a TV show we don't watch."

I just don't see what's to be gained from hiding something's name from my kids. When DH watches a baseball game on TV and the kids wander through to check it out, he'll tell them the names of the players if they ask. If they flip through a magazine and ask about the photographs, I'll tell them who is in the photographs if they want to know. At 4 and 5 years old, names are kind of important to them right now. I don't see why there would be such an issue giving them the real names of cartoon characters, too, especially if we had no intention of watching the shows.

If the characters exist ONLY in books, do those ones also get generic names? What if it's a beloved book character who has made the move to TV, like Curious George? Is he simply referred to as "the silly monkey"?

My DD has a stuffed dog she calls "Percy." If we were at a playgroup and another parent kept referring to it as "brown dog," DD would get irritable. Because that's not. its. name. I'd think kids with an Elmo doll would be similarly frustrated at an adult continuously renaming something belonging to them that they know has an actual name.

Maybe I'm being obtuse about the issue. Is it that parents are embarrassed when their kids know the names of characters because then other people assume they let their kids watch the shows and there is a big stigma? Does awareness of the names of characters affect their kids in some other way? I don't see the point, I guess, of specifically keeping such harmless information from my kids when they request it.

[redpajama]

Originally Posted by redvlagrl

We are a TV free/licensed character free household. I hope to do this as long as possible (though I don't want to make DD a social outcast when she is older so I may relent then).

When we are at a playgroup or someone's home and there is, say, an Elmo doll I try to refer to it as a 'teddy' or monster doll or something else. The same with Thomas trains. I just call them trains, not James or Thomas or Gordon etc.

Does anyone else do this or am I alone? And is it pointless, do you think?

I am surprised when I see two year olds who can name every character in a Toy Story book - I suppose it means they must have seen the movie *and* the parent is reinforcing it.

Thoughts?

My kids are 3 and 5 (and 6 months, but she doesn't have a lot to say about licensed characters just yet) and I don't work to keep them from licensed "stuff" now, although we avoided it when they were little. I guess I just didn't deliberately expose them to it, but I also didn't try to keep them from them once they discovered them themselves.

My son went through a sort of character "binge" when he first discovered this whole world of characters/marketing (between 2 and 3--we didn't let him watch any TV at all until he was almost 2). Now, at 5, he still loves Star Wars "stuff" (he has yet to see the actual movies), but he's settled down about all of it for the most part. My daughter (3) who was exposed to more, earlier, as a result of having an older brother who was starting to get into those things, has always been much more moderate about it, and, at 3.25, has yet to really get "into" any particular licensed character. Part of this, I think, is personality, but I think we created a little bit of "forbidden fruit" magic around TV/licensed character with my son that caused him to go through that little craze/phase.

ANYWAY...I was just going to say that, when my kids were little (especially my son), I was SHOCKED by the things they knew, with regard to marketing and characters. By 2, my son--who had never been through a drive-thru or eaten fast food (nor had he seen us eat it), could call out names of fast food restaurants as we drove down the street. Likewise, he occasionally named characters I didn't expect him to know. I wouldn't assume that the kids who know the characters' names have necessarily been overly (or overtly) exposed to those characters. They really are everywhere, and it's not unlikely that your kid (or others) can pick up their names--band-aids, t-shirts, juice boxes, books at the library, et cetera. It's all over the place.

The thing I wonder is, are you doing your kid any particular favor by giving the characters other names? If they're not going to see it any more or less if they call it one name or the other (after all, your daughter could beg for "red monster" just as easily as she could beg for "elmo," right?) Is it just that you're afraid other people will make the same assumptions about you (that you expose your kids to lots of TV, et cetera) if they hear your kid call Elmo by his name that you make about them?

On the other hand, when my 3.25 chose a Cookie Monster puppet at the library this afternoon, and referred to him as "Gingerbread Man" (she's obviously heard his name before and retained the cookie-association, but didn't quite recall his name), I didn't correct her--he just went by Gingerbread Man for the evening.

[EviesMom]

I don't tend to worry about licensed stuff too much, because we name pretty much all of our toys. Either DH and I do, or now that the kids are old enough, they do. Sometimes they're silly names, sometimes they're names that come on the packaging, sometimes they're things the kids decide to rename so theirs is more meaningful to them.

The first Barbie my mom gave DD, DD was 2. She said that Barbie didn't sound like a real name, so grandma said her long name was Barbara. She's now morphed into "Naked Barbara" whether she's clothed or not. All the Cars characters are currently named Lighting, distinguished by their colors or "DS' Lightning" or "DD's Lightning." I figure as long as the self-named outnumber the "came-with-the-name"s we're doing okay on the commercialization.

Originally Posted by ShyDaisi

Another part that is helping to put names on the characters (other than daycare/TV), and part of what drives me bonkers, is people in public *think* he knows the name of the character...then look at me like I am from Mars when I tell them he doesn't know who the character is. Like when we are at the Aquarium - It isn't, "Oh, do you see the clown fish? Isn't it pretty with the orange, white, and black stripes?" -- It is, "Oh, look!! It is Nemo! Do you see Nemo?"....Or, when we were at the train museum, rather than, "What a big train! Look at how tall and long it is!", it is, "Whoa! Do you see how big Thomas is?"... I do realize they are just trying to communicate with my child on a personal level, so my problem isn't with the person, per se. I just wish that people realized what a mass marking ploy it all is...

*This* though, drove me crazy until DD got old enough to whisper to me or argue back with the adult "{Giggle} THAT can't be Nemo! Nemo lives in the OCEAN and this is the AQUARIUM! This is some other clown fish and his mommy and daddy live in there too so I don't think he wants to go to the ocean anyway." She would probably tell people straight up that it can't be Thomas either and have a rationale for it. Doesn't have a face, doesn't speak in Ringo Starr's voice...

[claddaghmom]

I don't know if I would do that. DD does not watch a lot of shows but I'll still be accurate about them if she sees something. For example a kid at the playground was sharing his elmo toy and I named it elmo.

She'll point to things or touch things at the store...we take a trip down the toy aisle at the end of shopping...and I'll say things like, "Oh, isn't that Dora doll cute" or "Yeah, that's Cookie Monster!"

I guess that's brand recognition on some level, but I also think it's just an identification in itself and doesn't have to go any deeper.


Then again, this is coming from the worst mom of the year...who let her DD watch spongebob at 4am one morning. Now DD sees anything remotely squarish or spongish and says, "bongbob!"

[MujerMamaMismo]

Yes. This is exactly what we do. DS was given a Thomas Tank Engine for xmas. He loves it but just calls it the 'train.' So far, we've avoided all other licenced characters but I'm well aware that this is just the beginning.

[briome]

Originally Posted by ShyDaisi

part of what drives me bonkers, is people in public *think* he knows the name of the character...then look at me like I am from Mars when I tell them he doesn't know who the character is...

Oh YES! so agree! While my child does know a few (ahem, Star Wars as I have said before) He is certainly not as 'brand loyal' as half of kids.

Maybe teaching flexibility in any item would help our children feel 'in control' even if a toy was maketed in a certain way, with a certain name.

The box says this doll is named 'Dolly' but it is your doll and you can call her whatever you want!

[crittersmum]

We try to stick to generic names, too, but we don't make a big deal of it now that DD's started calling the "pretty ladies" (Disney princesses) by their proper names.

To respond to a PP: "Cinderella" is a brand, "Sally" -- or some other tag your own child makes up -- is a name. One has a billion dollar marketing machine complete with child psychologists behind it; one is just your kiddo's imagination.

I am ticked off at her Montessori preschool, though. A few months ago, twice in one week I came to pick up DD and her teacher was reading a Dora book. I said I knew she was really busy, and offered to bring books that were on theme to her classroom, an offer that was enthusiastically accepted. Then, last week, I was there during free reading after lunch and noticed that well over half the books available were Barney or Disney.