or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › I started a Princess battle at preschool
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

I started a Princess battle at preschool - Page 12

post #221 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jescafa View Post
StormBride, you do realize that almost everything you were interested in as a little girl is CURRENTLY banned by the OP's daycare.
Yeah - I know. I feel bad for the kids who want to play that way. I'd have probably gone mental, unless there were plenty of books and/or puzzles...

Quote:
Why aren't you a feminist?
That's way too long and complicated for me to get into, and the times I've discussed it here, it hasn't gone well.
post #222 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Storm Bride View Post
That's way too long and complicated for me to get into, and the times I've discussed it here, it hasn't gone well.
OK--sorry; I didn't mean to bring up a sore subject.
post #223 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by thismama View Post
It's not like if we are hands off it will be simply up to our kids what they play with.
ITA with this. I hear that parents will say they did not influence their children one way or another with gender specific toys or clothing, and that their girls naturally gravitated one way and their boys another way. There's nothing natural about it in the majority of cases.
post #224 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jescafa View Post

I actually agree with what you're saying about the giant corporations, we just have a fundamental divide in philosophy. My mantra is "expand" rather than "limit" when it comes to formative experiences.
So is mine. Staying away from the princess-related tumult of propaganda expands, rather than contracts, IME. The children I know who are indoctrinated in it play it ALL the time, and much of their play relates to looking pretty and excluding boys. That is pretty limited IMO.

My child is relatively free from that stuff, so the scope of her imaginative play is much freer.
post #225 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kincaid View Post
There is a parents advisory board meeting next week. Apparently the mothers who are offended by the suggestion of expaning the restriction to include princesses/barbie/bratz are very mad... but told the director they want their comments to be "anonymous". When asked about lifting the restriction altogether, these moms said they want to keep the heros ban in place because "without it the boys will be rough with their little girls and it's good to limit the violence." Aaaaagh!
I find it very... typical ... that the mothers at your school defending the princesses are also the ones doing that stereotypical woman thing of not having an actual, direct conversation, but presenting their points in a passive aggressive manner.

Ah, the irony!
post #226 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by thismama View Post
So is mine. Staying away from the princess-related tumult of propaganda expands, rather than contracts, IME. The children I know who are indoctrinated in it play it ALL the time, and much of their play relates to looking pretty and excluding boys. That is pretty limited IMO.

My child is relatively free from that stuff, so the scope of her imaginative play is much freer.
but those are only a selection of children YOU know, which doesnt mean its how it always happens
post #227 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by wonderwahine View Post
but those are only a selection of children YOU know, which doesnt mean its how it always happens
No, but it is a general theme in my experience. And, I form a lot of my opinions based on my experience and my observations. As do a lot of us. Unless you have some study up your sleeve about how princess play actually does not psychologically impact little girls and affect their view of their gender roles?
post #228 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by wonderwahine View Post
i think the more they have lack of exposure, the harder it is for them to process and overcome it when they are no longer children.
You might be interested in checking out Born to Buy: The Commercialized Child and the New Consumer Culture, or Consuming Kids: The Hostile Takeover of Childhood.

W/regard specifically to advertising/marketing in schools, check out the annual reports on commercialism in education by AZ U. The 2007 report notes that "schools are becoming part of a 'total marketing environment' in which commercialism pervades virtually the entire experience of growing up."

Modern child marketing techniques are based on a wealth of research and data; these data conclude that early exposure is key to building long-term brand loyalty. That is, the earlier you get at 'em, the harder it is for them to overcome these messages when they are no longer children.

If your suggestion were true, advertisers wouldn't advertise to children, wouldn't pursue a "total marketing environment."

Tweens (8-13) spend $335 billion each year (themselves and stuff they get their parents to buy). Marketers like Girls Intelligence Agency insert themselves directly into slumber parties to sell stuff, bypassing parental controls. If your suggestion were true, advertisers wouldn't be doing this. And yet Mattel, Disney, record labels, and a huge host of others spend billions to use GIA parties and "secret agents" (8-14 year old girls who are popular and whose opinions matter to their friends) to sell stuff through these "opinion research" parties, shopping trips, chat forums, and other stealth marketing. "40,000 secret agents on call nationwide, ready to invite you into their bedrooms."

These organizations have early, frequent, easy access to our kids. And as a GIA exec noted in a recent 60 Minutes piece on advertising to children, parents will cut back on their own food before they'll deny their child something they think will help him/her "fit in" socially. And *that's* the real reason people will spend big $$ to cover their child in logo-princess gear. I actually think it has very little to do with parents refusing to "censor" their child's play or anything nearly so well-thought-out as that.

Plenty of schools have uniforms where princess-logo and other logo stuff is banned, and those kids turn out just fine.
post #229 of 331
Don't know if it's been mentioned on this thread, because I don't have the time to read the entire thing, but I highly recommend, especially to those of you who have written things like, "Girls like to play with pretty things," reading Packaging Girlhood.
post #230 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kincaid View Post
You would think I was asking for Andrea Dworken to be the assistant teacher.

Haven't read all the responses, but the above made me all over the keyboard!

I'm with you OP. The policy is a total double standard.
post #231 of 331
Yeah, I think the younger kids are, the more helpless they are against marketing. Our daughter is just to the age where I'm starting to feel like she has *some* ability to see through marketing, and it's still very weak and I only see her actively choosing against following a marketing trend occasionally. Hopefully, by the time she's 9 or 10, she'll be a bit more savvy, but young kids simply aren't sophisticated enough to see through marketing schemes, and the younger and less sophisticated they are, the more prone they are to follow whatever looks cool that minute, in other words follow whatever is marketed well. The later you can put off having your kids be hit by marketing, the better, IMO. My daughter goes to public school so I see how she's hit by this. She was able to not get hit by the Hannah Montana marketing, but she's all over the Webkinz stuff. So she's got a tiny bit of ability to get past marketing in some situations, but if cute stuffed puppies are involved it's still all out the window.
post #232 of 331
Ah, Chicagomom has made some great book suggestions as well.

Hi Chicagomom!
post #233 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by thismama View Post
No, but it is a general theme in my experience. And, I form a lot of my opinions based on my experience and my observations. As do a lot of us. Unless you have some study up your sleeve about how princess play actually does not psychologically impact little girls and affect their view of their gender roles?
the same could be said on your side of the coin for your arguement, show me the proof. you probably cant... which is my exact arguement.
post #234 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagomom View Post
You might be interested in checking out Born to Buy: The Commercialized Child and the New Consumer Culture, or Consuming Kids: The Hostile Takeover of Childhood.

W/regard specifically to advertising/marketing in schools, check out the annual reports on commercialism in education by AZ U. The 2007 report notes that "schools are becoming part of a 'total marketing environment' in which commercialism pervades virtually the entire experience of growing up."

Modern child marketing techniques are based on a wealth of research and data; these data conclude that early exposure is key to building long-term brand loyalty. That is, the earlier you get at 'em, the harder it is for them to overcome these messages when they are no longer children.

If your suggestion were true, advertisers wouldn't advertise to children, wouldn't pursue a "total marketing environment."

Tweens (8-13) spend $335 billion each year (themselves and stuff they get their parents to buy). Marketers like Girls Intelligence Agency insert themselves directly into slumber parties to sell stuff, bypassing parental controls. If your suggestion were true, advertisers wouldn't be doing this. And yet Mattel, Disney, record labels, and a huge host of others spend billions to use GIA parties and "secret agents" (8-14 year old girls who are popular and whose opinions matter to their friends) to sell stuff through these "opinion research" parties, shopping trips, chat forums, and other stealth marketing. "40,000 secret agents on call nationwide, ready to invite you into their bedrooms."

These organizations have early, frequent, easy access to our kids. And as a GIA exec noted in a recent 60 Minutes piece on advertising to children, parents will cut back on their own food before they'll deny their child something they think will help him/her "fit in" socially. And *that's* the real reason people will spend big $$ to cover their child in logo-princess gear. I actually think it has very little to do with parents refusing to "censor" their child's play or anything nearly so well-thought-out as that.

Plenty of schools have uniforms where princess-logo and other logo stuff is banned, and those kids turn out just fine.
and if you are an involved parent, those things dont always happen. and I will never read a one sided extremeist view book like you recomended. i dont believe in extremisim, on any side.

and my kids hopefully (unless they request it) will never attend school, and if they do, it will be at one where their clothing and other choices arnt censored.
post #235 of 331
Having not that read it, you cannot say that a particular book is one sided and extremist.
post #236 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by thismama View Post
I find it very... typical ... that the mothers at your school defending the princesses are also the ones doing that stereotypical woman thing of not having an actual, direct conversation, but presenting their points in a passive aggressive manner.

Ah, the irony!
:

I can't believe I read the whole thread. SO many thoughts spinning around in my head. Mostly agreeing with the 'ick' factor of the Disney princess schtick, and with the double standard at the school. And mostly just a big : to all fo thismama's posts.

I wish I lived near you OP. I'm straight and coem across as pretty 'mainstream' and I'd LOVE to back you on this and help eliminate the potential of the absurd 'she's a queer manhater!" argument. . How convenient to be able to pull that instead of really delving into the issue.

PLEASE let us know what happens at the meeting!!!
post #237 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_lissa View Post
Having not that read it, you cannot say that a particular book is one sided and extremist.
anything of that theme and title is considered extremeisim by me
post #238 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by wonderwahine View Post
anything of that theme and title is considered extremeisim by me
That seems...extreme. :
post #239 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by wonderwahine View Post
the same could be said on your side of the coin for your arguement, show me the proof. you probably cant... which is my exact arguement.
I am not demanding proof of you. I am saying it's a double standard when you say my perspective doesn't count because it is based on my own experience, while you trot out theories like 'early indoctrination makes it easier for children to see something objectively' without backing up your points.

Also, I probably could provide some research to back up my points, I have access to a wealth of online academic journals. But right now I am supposed to be researching the history of the Caliphate in Egypt, so I do not have the energy. Maybe later.
post #240 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by thismama View Post
So is mine. Staying away from the princess-related tumult of propaganda expands, rather than contracts, IME. The children I know who are indoctrinated in it play it ALL the time, and much of their play relates to looking pretty and excluding boys. That is pretty limited IMO.

My child is relatively free from that stuff, so the scope of her imaginative play is much freer.
Freer than... ?

This isn't my experience. My daughter--who I don't believe is atypical--blends stereotypically male and female forms of play. Her beloved princess Polly Pockets go to baseball games and save people from fires, for instance. I find that empowering; much more empowering than her being told she can't play with princess Polly Pockets because all they do is "look pretty." Hers do much more than that, at least partly because no one is prescribing to her how she should or should not play with them.

Re. expanding and contracting, history demonstrates that you can never broaden someone's mind by limiting their access to images and experience. While we're making reading recommendations, everyone who has posted on this thread should read up on the Christian iconoclasm during the Reformation. The Catholic Church was the big bad corporation back then--and while the Reformers' beef with it may well have been legitimate--the wholesale destruction of relgious images and stripping bare of church architecture was indubitably a grave disservice to humanity. I don't necessarily equate that chapter of history with this one, but I believe the fearful, censoring impulse is the same.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Parenting
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › I started a Princess battle at preschool