While watching the documentary Killing Us Softly 3, one of the themes that disturbed me the most was the living oxymoron that women are expected to portray. We have to appear both sexy and innocent, both virginal and experienced. This instantly reminded me of all the toys I see now that are hyper-sexualized and aimed at young girls. When I was younger, we played with comparatively tame Barbie dolls and My Little Ponies, so some of the toys I see on in toy stores now completely boggle my mind. There are some sexually-charged toys that are met with huge outrage from parents and are taken off the shelves; for example, a pole-dancing kit with a DVD tutorial of ‘sexy’ moves that was removed from retail toy websites in the UK (http://www.smh.com.au/news/unusual-tales/tots-poledancing-row/2006/10/27/1161749287304.html ).
But toys that are less overt in their hypersexuality, such as Bratz dolls made by MGA, are practically flying off the shelves. These dolls, which are made to represent girls in the tween/teen age range, dress in a highly provocative manner and are, quite simply put, the epitome of the sexualization of children. To a degree, Barbie has been accused of provactive dress in the past and although it is certainly true in some instances, at least Barbie has “jobs” and does productive things. While she’s being a veterinarian or a teacher, all Bratz seem to be concerned with is going to the mall and riding around in Corvettes. Especially disturbing is the “Bratz Babyz” line of dolls, which are sexed-up toddler versions of original Bratz dolls.
[I hope you don’t mind the pictures, I felt they were extremely necessary.]
This line of dolls sparked controversy when it was discovered that at least one type of doll was wearing what appeared to be a THONG (http://www.parentdish.com/2005/08/11/mom-declares-war-on-baby-bratz-dolls/). The first time I saw these dolls advertised, I was in honest disbelief: What kind of babies have hair to their feet, wear make-up and don thongs? And how could you sell or buy a doll that looked like, for lack of a better term, an infant prostitute--a 'prostitot' if you will?
According to a report by the APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls, “Bratz dolls come dressed in sexualized clothing such as miniskirts, fishnet stockings, and feather boas. Although these dolls may present no more sexualization of girls or women than is seen in MTV videos, it is worrisome when dolls designed specifically for 4- to 8-year-olds are associated with an objectified adult sexuality.” A spokesperson for Bratz countered that Bratz dolls are for children 8-years old and over, but in my experience children much younger than the age of eight play with Bratz dolls. For instance, I babysit a girl named Emma who just turned six this month. Her mother refuses to buy Bratz toys for her, but Emma has recieved invitations to Bratz-themed birthday parties from her classmates and Bratz-related toys as gifts. One occasion where I had to babysit both her and her cousin, Emma asked her cousin, “Do you still like princesses?” to which the girl (one year older) replied, “Princesses are old, I like Bratz now.” The company can choose to promote the knowledge that no one under eight plays with Bratz, but I’m sure they have consumer statistics that say otherwise.
And it’s not only dolls—Bratz have an entire line of products, from lunchboxes to makeup to underwear (including padded bras for 3 to 6-year olds called ‘bralettes’) to music CDs to movies to their own Saturday morning cartoon. So even if you’re like Emma’s mother and you refuse to buy Bratz dolls, it’s literally impossible to get away from their influence-- unless you plan to raise your child in a cave hidden deep in the Himalaya mountains.
For me, it’s also not just a matter of what the Bratz dolls wear, but their physical appearance as well. Although the Bratz line has been praised for featuring dolls that represent many different cultures, they all share the same thin-yet-curvaceous body type, along with luminously huge doe eyes, bulbous glossed lips, and the slightest hint of a nose. Just LOOK at this doll.
If it’s Barbie that has been setting girls up to live up to a standard of unattainable ideal beauty for the past fifty years, then these alien-like creatures have certainly swiped her crown. As Killing Us Softly 3 tells us, American culture believes that you CAN look ideal if you only try hard enough. Eyeball implants, anyone?
Other than unattainable beauty, what does a doll like this teach young girls? I certainly believe that toys are an integral part of the media intake of children. Just look at girls who (like me) played with ‘innocent’ toys like My Little Ponies and Barbies in childhood . . . who have grown as young women to exemplify the lifestyles as depicted in Ariel Levy’s Dispatches from Girls Gone Wild. Girls like ‘Crazy Debbie’, who “masturbated for the GGW cameras in the back of a bar,” well aware of the fact that it is fodder for “guys to get off on.” Her mindset is evident as she goes onto say, “I just think this is fun. Miami is one of the few places where people aren't ashamed of their bodies.” Naturally girls like Crazy Debbie have been molded from other forms of media, but my point is this: if girls who play with non-sexualized toys as children and grow up still wishing to objectify themselves, then how can girls who play with sexually-charged dolls like Bratz hope to act any differently?
It’s hard to judge the exact effects toys like Bratz dolls will be for the girls who play with them. Regardless, these toys undoubtedly play a part in molding the minds of young girls, and it’s very frightening to imagine what the 5 and 6-year old girls I see playing with Bratz today will become in ten years if something isn’t done. The problem with Bratz dolls isn’t only their appearance, it’s the fact that they are marketed to portray so-called “girl power.” This idea of “power” through dressing provocatively all goes back to the conclusion Ariel Levy makes in her book, Female Chauvinist Pigs: “Sexual power is only one, very specific type of power . . . Looking like a stripper or a Hooters waitress or a Playboy bunny is only one, very specific type of sexual expression.”
Just look at Crazy Debbie, who believes that her acts on camera for Girls Gone Wild demonstrate that she isn’t ashamed of her body. She believes that acts like on-camera masturbation are sexually liberating and empowering. But do these acts really liberate women? Levy states, “We are not even that free in the sexual arena. We have simply adopted a new norm, a new role to play: lusty, busty exhibitionist.” This behavior only seeks to further the stereotype that this is how women should act if they want to feel liberated. Not only that, but this idea of girls showing their breasts and performing sexual acts on-command only increases the sense of entitlement males have to sexual gratification from women. And when a person is refused something to which s/he feels entitled, complexes of objectification and power can result in acts of violence, including the crime of rape.
No comments:
Post a Comment