gender: children/youth

Found here, here, and here thanks to Erin H.  Thanks!

Erin writes:

This brings together the awful hypersexualisation of toys for young girls (recommended: ages 4 – 8 ) with the often bizarre and sometimes disturbing anthropomorphisation of animals. In this case, Bratz dolls (complete with impossible footwear and freakishly large eyes) meet My Little Ponies in an unholy combination of hinted-at cleavage, age-inappropriate costuming / accessories and come-hither glances! So many shades of ick. What would the equivalent for young boys be, I wonder?

Speaking of, is anyone else nostalgic for my little ponies and carebears?  Sigh.

NEW!  In a similar phenomenon, I present you the Tini Puppini (found here via Jezebel):

This is an ad (found here) for House of Dereon’s collection for girls. House of Dereon is the fashion label created by Beyonce Knowles and her mother.

The girl standing on the right is wearing high heels which seem to actually be her size. They are not, thankfully, for sale on the website. This might be interesting to add to a discussion of the adultification of girls or the Miley Cyrus scandal.

Thanks to Elizabeth for pointing this one out!

Also note the girls-as-using-their-looks-and-friendliness-to-manipulate and boys-as-using-money-to-get-what-they-want themes:

Thanks to our reader, Laura L!

Also in the sexualization of kids: the Miley Cyrus scandal ‘n stuff and modeling, tramp stamps, and stripper poles for kids.

This article on modesty was in Women’s Care, a free magazine that showed up in my mailbox yesterday.

I assume the way the girl is posed and the look on her face are supposed to imply immodesty. Her clothes don’t strike me as at all problematic (I mean, are peace signs sexy?), so if it’s supposed to be an image of the “comeback” of modesty, the pose and look are extra creepy.

Some quotes from the 1-page article:

The Wall Street Journal recently reported that Victoria’s Secret executives who have long asked, ‘What is sexy?’ are now trying to figure out, ‘What’s too sexy?’…The revamping of the company’s product lines follows a drop in sales. Questions to chat about: Is modesty making a comeback or is the decrease in Victoria’s Secret’s sales the results of a sluggish economy?

Where can mothers find modest clothing for females from little girls to teens?

Again we see the assumption that caring for kids is women’s work–it’s not parents who are looking for clothing for their kids, it’s mothers.

In addition to the cut and length of clothing, the article discusses “slogan” tees that say things like “So many boys, so little time.” There is no mention whatsoever of boys’ slogan tees, which are also often offensive or at least questionable. We only need to worry about modesty in reference to girls, apparently.

These images came to us from Dianne who saw this on BoingBoing and dug deeper to find all these great examples!

Illustrating the way in which whiteness is taken-for-granted and others are always, well, other, Plan Toys sells these doll sets labelled “Ethnic Family,” “AsianFamily,” and, “Doll Family.”

They also sell a “farmer” and a “farmer’s wife.” Dianne notes: “Women don’t farm, apparently, they just marry men who do.”

They also sell this generic “Native American set” of which they write:

“Children can create imaginary stories with the Indian figures, camp, teepee and authentic accessories. They can learn about the traditional American tribe and their lifestye.”

Notice how American Indian tribal difference is erased with the phrase “the traditional American tribe.” Diane pointed out that the set actually combines teepees and totem poles which were traditions of tribes in the plains and on the west coast respectively.

In the “How to Play” section, it says:

“Children can imagine and tell stories about Red Indians, helping to stimulate their imagination and expanding their horizon.”

Yes they really do say “Red Indians.”

Diane notices that, just like the doll family is obviously white, “here again, apparently the default child is white, who can ‘imagine… stories about Red Indians.'”

Ironically, the company claims that they are “socially & environmentally responsible” and promote “good values.”

Thanks so much Diane!

NEW: Kirsten D. sent us this link to a series of Playmobil toys.  All of the non-white characters are given racial designations, but the white characters are not.  I included some examples below.

African/African American Family:

Asian family:

Grandparents:

Medical Team and Patients:

Prince and Princess:

Also in the neutral and the marked: men are people and women are women and from pale to pumped with racial stereotypes.

I took a picture of this bikini at a children’s clothing store in L.A. It is size 12-18 months:

NEW! (May ’10): Reagan B., Tara C., and Ma. Elí C.L. told us about a children’s bikini for sale at the chain Primark in the U.K. The bikini came complete with a top sufficiently padded to make girls look as though they have breasts:

The chain quickly pulled the bikinis after a public outcry about the sexualization of children.

NEW! (July ’10): Naomi sent us a link to Babi-kini, a website that sells string bikinis for little girls. Not only is the girl on the homepage in a bikini, but she’s in a typical swimsuit-model pose, too:

They sell a variety of styles, including one similar to the zebra-print one I originally posted above.

I went to the “one-piece swimsuits” section, but an error message came up saying there were no items matching my search. Sigh.

This is a doll Mattel put out as part of the Barbie line a few years ago. Her name is Midge. Apparently she is Barbie’s long-time friend. If you notice, Midge is pregnant. Her belly opened up and there was a baby inside. The line Midge is part of is called Happy Family.

This is Alan, Midge’s husband, and Ryan, their son. Midge and Alan were married in 1991, according to Mattel.

This is the whole Happy Family line–Alan and Ryan, Midge and baby, and grandparents.

The pregnant Midge doll was quickly pulled from the market because of protests that Midge might be interpreted as a single mother. Mattel argued that Midge and Alan had been married for years, but conservative groups argued that since she was sold separately, girls could get the wrong message and think she wasn’t married.

These anti-statutory rape PSAs were made by advertising agency Serve for the United Way of Milwaukee. They created enough of a controversy that they were pulled (see an article at Salon).
In response to the controversy, the advertising agency put a little over 2 minutes of focus group footage on youtube:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61-gu2X_57k[/youtube]