Originally Posted by queenjane
I think it is better, and here's why.
We live in an *intensely* consumerist culture that has an absolutely grotesque view of what is meaningful and beautiful in the human person. And this culture is unprecedented in its intrusiveness, the way it targets children and saturates every part of their day from the time they put on their undies and eat breakfast to the time they read bedtime stories. Consumer culture and the building of brand loyalty from cradle to grave are very difficult to combat in children, whose consciences and abilities to discern truth from fantasy are not fully developed.
I am my child's first line of defense. If my child is to stand a chance of growing into a loving and peaceful person, and into a discriminating and critical consumer I must protect her from the effects of our culture while she is still young.
Call it controlling to refuse to allow lead-painted toys into our house, I don't care. This is my kin we're talking about. And I won't be guilted into being a more "laid-back" or "mainstream" mom who surrenders her children early on to the god of consumerism.
In my view "mainstream" consumerist parents control their kids in order to encourage the traits of efficient consumerism or to help them become more successful consumers. That's not my goal. As an attachment parent, I want my children to run to people, not things when the chips are down. But to get there in this particular cultural context at this moment in time, I have to help them run the gauntlet, every day, of an aggressive child-focused marketing that tells them every day that attachment is less valuable than consumption.
Let-them-eat-twinkies-with-love only works if the child is mature enough to understand the messages she is receiving, or if there isn't someone there giving those messages. It's not the twinkie to which I object, it's the message that goes with the twinkie.