Entries Tagged 'Toys & Games' ↓

The blogosphere is confusing the hell out of me. Specifically the supposed advocacy blogosphere, which says it’s watching out for body image and female progress.

In previous years these advocates would argue that certain toy companies excluded girls from engineering type toys – maybe Lego for instance – by focusing on male narratives, often narratives that focused on violence and competition and conquer (Star Wars, Ninjas, Dinosaurs, Cars movie, Mind Storm, etc.). Certainly, one might argue, there was definitely room for Lego to make their product more inviting to girls. So they did.

And pro-girl advocates responded with a violent social media shit-storm that surely made their head spin.

We don’t need a “girl” Lego line. The line isn’t “smart” enough. Characters were beauticians wearing mini-skirts, sitting in hot tubs, drinking mojitos and this sells girls short. Did my friend Crystal – who is a beautician that wears mini skirts and sits in hot tubs drinking mojitos whenever possible – really sell herself short? I thought. Prior to this moment I had thought of her as a small business owner and artist who actually had a pretty rad life. Wait, I wear mini-skirts and so does Ainsley. We sit in hot tubs. We drink fancy drinks out of fancy glasses, mostly because it makes us feel fancy. What does this criticism say about us?

I guess the blogosphere was looking for the narrative to be more upscale, only narratives about women lawyers, doctors and corporate executives will be allowed. The “lowly” professions will now be considered “selling yourself short” for all girls no matter where their interests or skills lie. Only gay boys will be encouraged to be hair stylists from here on out and vacationing or relaxing, forget it. Is this where we’re headed?

Then we have the issue of body image. The blogosphere has been fighting women and girls being objectified by media and advertising. Namely posing models in sexualized poses that make them look like the entertainment. It’s degrading. It’s minimizing. It’s demoralizing. It dehumanizes us and it’s downright disrespectful. Right? Well, I guess that’s only if the girl or woman is emaciated and the blogosphere is jealous of her weight. I mean, that’s the only conclusion I can come to considering the accolades this photograph and article about plus-sized women being passed around by the exact same blogosphere that has been for years declaring that posing women like this is down-right wrong.

When I pointed out, on Facebook, that this was, in fact, a very popular pose in pornography I was told I was flat out wrong and they just didn’t see this at all.

Seriously? You don’t see that this woman is bent in half with her bottom and vag. exposed, ready to take it from behind, with her face to her knees (making her essentially faceless to her lover), except that it’s looking directly into the camera for the viewers’ benefit with a giant smile that says “I’m having a GREAT time in this completely unnatural and weird pose!” with her childish braid hanging to the ground, juxtaposed next to her super high heals?

Have I gone mad? Am I the only one who sees all the markings of pornography or has this woman’s size 8 thighs blinded everyone? I mean, plus-sized women hang out like this all the time, right? Folded in half exposing their asses for easy access in little girl braids and three-inch stilettos – that’s the cultural definition of “sexy” we’ve all agreed on and fat girls are “sexy” too damn it! Imagine if she was an emaciated girl. Then it’s objectification of women? Imagine if it’s a man. Then it’s just gross?

I thought plus-sized women were shooting higher than wanting to be included in being objectified by the media and in advertising. I thought they might want to get out of this cultural insanity with their dignity in tact. But, “this is art” I was told. Unlike all the other times when it’s just the media and advertising objectifying and sexualizing women and girls.

My mistake. This is progress. I guess?

I’m just not sure where the hell all this progress is going anymore.

This is Ainsley and her PawPaw showing off their new cell phones. He got the new iPhone 4 and she got a cool purple slider phone.

Yes, we got our nine-year-old daughter a cell phone.

My mother-in-law reminded me that I used to say things like, “I would never give a child a ______ ” on the assumption that cell phones were some potential evil form which might “spoil a child.” As if withholding joys, pleasures, and technology somehow makes a better human.

When you’re a new parent, you’re sometimes stupid. Coming from your experience in a way that assumes you know all there is to know about parenting and the future when they are born.

Then you grow.

You start to realize how convenient it would be to text your kid at the neighbors house, “come home, time for dinner” instead of calling the neighbor or going over. You start to realize how much easier it would be to keep track of where they are. You also realize it would be better for them to keep in touch with their grandparents, cousins, and friends without them touching your own new iPhone.

The rules are simple: keep it with you, don’t text me when you’re in the next room all day long, and we (parents) will look at your phone at any time, so don’t do or say anything you wouldn’t want your parents to know about.

I banned Nickelodeon myself about a month ago. I enjoyed iCarly, but they they started playing less nice shows like Victorious, which seemed to be a bunch of mean girl “you’re not my friend” banter and I got sick of the attitude of Drake and Josh. Mainly, my kid watched them, had an attitude with me that I got very, very sick of. I can’t prove that her attitude was caused by Nickelodeon’s programming, but I don’t have to prove it. I just have to intuit or feel like it’s a problem and that’s good enough – because I’m the mom.

I’ll probably never turn it back on in our house because of the below email from Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood which sites terribly poor judgement about what is good for children and makes it obvious that Nick is a predator who considers my children and my dollars their prey. No F’ing way. The inappropriateness of their Internet gaming is sickening and disturbing in a very gender-oriented way. I shouldn’t even have to boycott a child-oriented company for putting up “peeping Tom” and “keep women out of Congress” and “inflict more pain” websites. They should just have a few moms at the corporate table saying, “Hell NO! Are you out of your demented fucking mind?” It’s too late for them to retrieve one damn cent from my children – this is a permanent lifelong ban for terribly poor judgment and it’s irrevocable. I don’t trust you Nick.

This from the CFCC email, it is quoted:

We’re making a difference. Last week, Nickelodeon removed links to AddictingGames.com from the preschool websites under its NickJr.com umbrella, including Dora the Explorer, Backyardigans, and Wonder Pets.

More than 7,000 of you demanded that Nickelodeon stop promoting its Addicting Games website to children–and there are signs that Nick is finally getting the message.  But we need you to keep the pressure on.  Two Nickelodeon websites for preschoolers–Nick Jr. Boost and Nick Jr. Arcade–continue to link to the website, which includes some highly sexualized and horrifically violent games.  And Nick is actually revving up its promotion of Addicting Games to children.  On Saturday June 19th, Nickelodeon TV will air the Addicting Games Showdown at 10:00 AM–prime kids’ viewing time.

Will you take a moment to thank Nickelodeon for removing the links to Addicting Games from Nick Jr. …and demand that they stop promoting Addicting Games to all children?

Nickelodeon has also removed a couple of the games that CCFC highlighted, like Perry the Sneak, but the site continues to feature games that are inappropriate for children, such as:

• Nancy Balls: “You can try to keep women out of congress, but it’s going to be really difficult.  Take their shoes away and collect guns.  That’s how to be a MAN.”
• Torture Chamber III: “The object of Torture Chamber is to cause as much pain as possible to your victim before he dies.  Doing so awards pain points, and unlocks new forms of punishment.”
• Highway Pursuit: “Robbing the bank was the easy part: now you have to protect the getaway car! Shoot those jerks [cops] who want their money back.”
• You Da Sperm: “What has this woman been eating that there are apparently jellyfish inside her uterus? Take Sammy the Sperm through the inner canals that is woman, and avoid the stingy jellyfish.” (The game’s soundtrack is a moaning woman).

It is clear that Nick knows that children are playing these games; CCFC found advertising for Nickelodeon’s popular pre-teen show iCarly on You Da Sperm and a Scholastic book for pre-teens on Highway Pursuit.  You can find more examples of the egregious games CCFC found last week at Addicting Games–and who is advertising on them–here.

We’re pleased that Nick removed the links from NickJr.com.  That’s a start, but it’s not enough.   CCFC won’t stop our Addicting Games campaign until Nickelodeon stops promoting violent and sexualized games to children.  That’s why Nick needs to hear from you today.  And please share this action alert with friends and family.

Ainsley’s Christmas List this year is simply a list of every commercial she saw inside an hour. No joke.

If your child’s Letter-to-Santa reads like this, download Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhoods’ Holiday Guide.