We live in an age that likes to appear cynical. It now seems naive to point out that the only thing that big business cares about is big bucks. And if you object that certain products demean girls and women, well, you are considered a prude. But it needs to be said, because simply saying ‘So what?’ is costing the childhood of a generation". OK . Well said . But frankly i dont see the harm a doll itself is. The doll’s clothing reflects what kids perceive as cool and hip as does the spin off merchandise kids clothing. She should probably apply that thinking to the root of it all – the trash that is circulated by mass media in conveying what is cool and hip which is acceptable:
Apparently its ‘empowering‘ for the likes of knickerless Britney and all the spin offs to hump the floor dressed as a schoolgirls. I feel the same way about the female chauvinist pigs who perpertuate this myth and image as i do about their male counterparts who openly indulge it (thinking of some girating idiot on MTV holding his crotch and calling girls hoes, here, not the cabbie who calls me ‘darlin’ ..which is to twist Mikes expression would be PC gone bezerk). What’s with knickerless Britney, Paris Hilton and some dirty internet footage, Jordan and her boob jobs, Abbey Titmuss and Rebecca Loos celebrated as celebs for doing nothing more than shagging someone famous? I am pretty fed up with Nuts, Zoo, Maxim, Loaded and a variety of soft porn boys magazines that set girls up on the cover like a couple of grinning bimbos (which the models themselves seem to buy into, unquestioningly, and babble on about being ’empowering’) sold as mass consumer ‘pop’. I dont think it makes me a prude. Course you want to look cool, feel good about yourself and your image and a lot of what i would consider ok and fun might not be what others think is acceptable. In the early 90s i dressed up in some tres raunchy clubbing numbers and had a blast. As did my friends. I dont think, maybe, we were so much influenced by something because it wasnt mass culture. It was fun and it was unique. Noone was dictating it to us and were old enough to know what we were wearing. Trends are supposed to come and go though. But one trend seems to be sticking. Isnt it a worrying when its repackaged as ’empowering’ and some 60% of little girls want to be glamour models or lap dancers? The result of that stat is a target market for unscrupulous business. Im just not sure where and how you draw the line? And what about boys. They are sexualised just as early.
The first issue of Loaded had Gary Oldman on the cover and set out with good intentions (around about the same time i think as the Spice Girls and Girrrrl power). It didnt take them long to figure out what sells. I just read that magazine sales of mens magazines are in decline in the UK as the shift moves to the internet (mag sales in the US of the same remain strong). New media that is as good as it is bad. Two thirds of all internet searches are for porn – which gives you an idea of what is on the net and accessible unless you’re vigilant. Virtual sex games and their ads, trailers and free downloads could just as easily become a kids sex education. You can say dont buy, switch off, ignore etc but in this day and age id wager that is becoming increasingly hard to do. Whats to deflect it? Where’s the balance with some ‘better’ role models that the media will buy into?
*as i was writing this the 23 year old uni student on work experience here took a look at this and agreed she feels the same way too. Phew!