Now, I have that off my chest, you can read a much more intelligent, articulate, and questioning article (here) from Dorothy at BlogHer about the possible influences of (sexualised) girlie produce. Please spend time reading the comments; some of them are interesting.
This article gives a bit of background behind the motivation and economical factors of Barbie 2.0.
When I compare my childhood and my daughter’s childhood, the one major difference has been our exposure to media at an early age. My parents didn’t buy a television until I was a teenager. The only other form of media in our household was a radio in the living room, permanently set to the classical music station. We (i.e., my present family) don’t own a television, though we have numerous computers in our household. My daughter was sitting at a computer (15 minutes at a time) since she was three years old: “playing” educational programmes.
The one main similarity of our childhoods is that both of us spent every waking moment of our days playing. Usually with our (real) best friend or friends.
Because of this, I am not sure what the point is with the Barbie 2.0 site. Why would any girl want to meet her friends virtually? That is, assuming that I am correct in thinking girlhood happens somewhere between your fifth and tenth or eleventh birthday. Can anyone help me here to iron out this puzzle of misplaced commercialism?
Don’t you ever wonder who actually sits in on those marking meetings and reach the consensus about “Fashion, Fun, and Friendship”? How can they believe this to be a brilliant idea worth spending money on to produce and promote? I suspect the use of the site is easily reduced to fashion (a 3D substitute to paper doll cut-outs) and fun (a virtual doll house), and it has very little to do with friendship.
No comments:
Post a Comment