Yeah! The Bratz are banned.....

[gypsyhips26]

Not sure if this is where I should post this but hot off the wire....

http://www.commercialfreechildhood.o...edguardian.htm

[Dr.Worm]

I was sooo happy to hear this and dd will be too..she HATES bratz..thank goodness...wish I could have been a part of the writing campaign but glad all you wise mommies and the wise mommies from commercial-free childhood got it done! today Scholastic..tomorrow..the world!!

[bscal]

I am so glad that they are not offering Bratz anymore. I personally HATE them and do not allow them in my household. I also don't allow my daughters to wear clothing that is too grownup (which makes it impossible to shop for my almost 6 year old.)

Beth

[Dr.Worm]

I hear ya on the clothes! I am weird because I want my little girl to look like a little girl she is 8...I guess it's time to wear makeup and short tight minis to school.

[philomom]

Thank goodness!

[llamalluv]

Originally Posted by gypsyhips26

Not sure if this is where I should post this but hot off the wire....

http://www.commercialfreechildhood.o...edguardian.htm

I thought censorship was a BAD thing.

[Mackenzie]

I am torn on this. I LOATHE that line of doll/books/movies/etc... absolutely loathe it and will not allow them in my house.

But I have a really really hard time supporting any kind of book banning. Reading crap is better than not reading and parents always have the choice ot not allow it, as have many of us. By banning things like that, we are, in effect, taking that choice away from parents and saying "oh we've got this, you don't have to worry about it" I don't think that I can tell a parent that they can't allow their kids to read stuff like this any more than I can fathom telling them they have to let their kids read Harry Potter, if they've decided not, no matter how misguided I think they are


sigh, it's a toughie...

[choli]

I will never cheerlead for book banning. It's disgusting.

[Minky]

The "books" banned themselves.

Have you read one of these "books?" They have no literary value at all. The storylines, vocabularly and plot are very limited and they're really just extended commercials for the Bratz dolls.

Is it censorship if Scholastic is discerning about whether or not it gives the stamp of approval to books with no literary value?

It's the same for the movies. They're just commercials for the dolls and I'd sooner let my children watch a Disney movie, which at least has a storyline.

[Mackenzie]

That very well maybe, and you are probably correct about the content, having not read one myself. However, should we as parents, or Scholastic as a purveyor, make that decision for all? What is different between that and the banning of Rowling, or Blume, or Hemingway, or any number of other greatly challenged books? It all boils down to a matter of opinion and I am just not comfortable with banning of the printed word, no matter if I agree with the subject content or not. Believe me, I wish I could consciously organize a mass pire out of Limbaugh and Dobson for a start...

[2lilsweetfoxes]

I do not like the message Bratz sends to little girls. (My daughter has a few, given by grandmas). That being said, I hate censorship more. If my child ever wants to read a "banned" book, I promise I will find it for him/her. I'll likely read it first or together so that we can discuss it.

[Blu Razzberri]

Well, there's a couple things that come to mind, here. (pro-"ban")

1) Many parents are distantly involved with their kids; and simply figure that it's cartoon-y, and therefore made and meant for kids. I bet most of them don't even open the book to find out what's in it. It's the same with what happens on TV and cartoons, and the message that's sent out to kids (ex: Caillou throwing a tantrum to get his way).

2) Most parents tend to trust the company to carry good books, much the same way you'd trust Disney not to produce an adult film. For example; "Golden Books" has a reputable name and a 'type' of book. Their books are meant for young kids, and have positive-encouragement messages (ie: The Little Engine That Could). "Scholastic" tends to carry a broader selection, but it's tailored to specific age-groups (DS brings home a Scholastic flier from school once a month, and it's all in the j/k-gr2 range of books). Part of this is to help parents distantly-involved parents choose companies that try and filter stuff for them; like Scholastic does.

3) Filtering comes largely by popular opinion, and since the loudest voice was "get rid of Bratz books"; it was the popular opinion. What Scholastic did was take negative press, and make it look like a positive for their company.

4) It's not like this was the government banning the publishing of the book, or whatever. That would be different. Bratz books are still available through the publisher, likely many book stores, and other book carriers (just not Scholastic); so if a parent wants to get it, they can still find it.

5) If Scholastic had been carrying a line of books that encourage pre-teens to have sex, do drugs, make porn, or any and all other inappropriate activities for pre-teens; would you be ok with a "ban" then; or does it still apply that you're against banning books?

[Authentic_Mother]

:

Originally Posted by Blu Razzberri

Well, there's a couple things that come to mind, here. (pro-"ban")

1) Many parents are distantly involved with their kids; and simply figure that it's cartoon-y, and therefore made and meant for kids. I bet most of them don't even open the book to find out what's in it. It's the same with what happens on TV and cartoons, and the message that's sent out to kids (ex: Caillou throwing a tantrum to get his way).

2) Most parents tend to trust the company to carry good books, much the same way you'd trust Disney not to produce an adult film. For example; "Golden Books" has a reputable name and a 'type' of book. Their books are meant for young kids, and have positive-encouragement messages (ie: The Little Engine That Could). "Scholastic" tends to carry a broader selection, but it's tailored to specific age-groups (DS brings home a Scholastic flier from school once a month, and it's all in the j/k-gr2 range of books). Part of this is to help parents distantly-involved parents choose companies that try and filter stuff for them; like Scholastic does.

3) Filtering comes largely by popular opinion, and since the loudest voice was "get rid of Bratz books"; it was the popular opinion. What Scholastic did was take negative press, and make it look like a positive for their company.

4) It's not like this was the government banning the publishing of the book, or whatever. That would be different. Bratz books are still available through the publisher, likely many book stores, and other book carriers (just not Scholastic); so if a parent wants to get it, they can still find it.

5) If Scholastic had been carrying a line of books that encourage pre-teens to have sex, do drugs, make porn, or any and all other inappropriate activities for pre-teens; would you be ok with a "ban" then; or does it still apply that you're against banning books?

[Otterella]

There's a big difference between "banning" a book and declining to market it to an inappropriate audience. You wouldn't expect to see Danielle Steele marketed in Scholastic flyers, would you? It's an inappropriate audience. Nobody is telling the kids "You're not allowed to read these books no matter where you get them." That would be a ban. But I applaud the decision to stop advertising them to children.

[bigeyes]

Meh.

Are they still pushing Yu-gi-yoh or Pokemon or whatever else is currently popular? (I can't recall what the last junk 'book' was that came home from the book fair)

If so, then what good does it do to ban bratz?

Licensed crapola is licensed crapola. Get rid of all of it or stop patting yourselves on the backs, scholastic. :

[thisiswhatwedo]

can I just side track enough to tell you about this birthday gift a boy from my daughters preschool gave her. I think the mom may have been clueless because she has all boys (?) but they gave my 5 year old this Barbie doll that had a real slutty miniskirt and jacket with stiletto heels and a big bag that came with credit cards fashion magazines and a cell phone. It also had a latte with one of those cardboard hand protectors. The best part was her other outfit was a black and pink mesh baby doll nightie.
I kinda think of the bratz as packing less than a punch than that.
I actually thought it was funny, I mean it was like some SNL skit.

[~Mom2thhts~]

Blu Razzberri that was very well said!

I am totally happy that scholastic sees through bratz and the image they are giving to little girls. From a company such as this I would expect them to *only* sell/market the books with good content, not every crappy book that gets published.

[Oriole]

My thoughts:

1. I can't stand Bratz.
2. I would never support a ban.
3. This is not a "ban", it's a company's choice of merchandise they sell or don't sell, just like all other companies choose what they sell or don't sell.
4. If a book was banned (i.e. not allowed in print, or for sale), I would never support that line of thought.
5. Yey for scholastic!

[Freefromitall]

I don't support book bans, however, this is not a ban. The books are still allowed to be published/distributed. This company just chooses not to be the one doing the publishing/distributing.
Big difference imho

[grniys]

Originally Posted by Oriole

My thoughts:

1. I can't stand Bratz.
2. I would never support a ban.
3. This is not a "ban", it's a company's choice of merchandise they sell or don't sell, just like all other companies choose what they sell or don't sell.
4. If a book was banned (i.e. not allowed in print, or for sale), I would never support that line of thought.
5. Yey for scholastic!

And that sums up my thoughts on the subject.