Just thought I'd pass this on from James Lileks http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/05/0405/042805.html
"The Bratz are now Baby Mommaz. Yes, the hooker-in-training dolls have children. Bratz are the main reason I do not keep a supply of bricks around the house, because everytime the commercials come on I wish to pitch something kiln-fired through the screen so hard it beans the toy exec who greenlighted these hootchie toys. The Baby Bratz are as bad as you can imagine: “Bottles with Bling.” Judas on a stick, why not just refit the Bratz so they have Real Oozing Gonorreal Flow Action?"
Ken that's horrible. I can't believe you put your boy's pottymouth words on my journal:P First off the Baby Bratz are not the 'babies of the Bratz dolls'- geez.too quick to flip, he made a big erroneous assumption. These are the Bratz dolls back when THEY themselves were younger. Same characters. So, there's Jade as a teen/young woman (http://img.epinions.com/images/opti/b4/af/MGA_Entertainment_Bratz_Jade_Toys-resized200.jpg),and then Jade as a 'baby'. get it? It's written all over the package and press. blahblah. boring point for me but big when your boy is implying that the company is blatantly condoning teenage pregnancy. And there's a whole grey area in even That seemingly shocking notion because real children have always been playing/caring for 'baby dolls' , and that says something strange too, no?.
Anyhoo,needless to say, the subversiveness of Bratz and much of the girltoy culture is part of the appeal for older doll-lovers like myself. I'm not that much concerned with actually deciding on the appropriateness for young children. But conceptually I find it fascinating. There's a huge vat of contradiction, controversy and stereotype in all this. I wonder his stance on the classic Barbie for children. Is she a better 'role model' for little girls? hehe. Do big lips mean hoochie mama and thin lips aristocrat? If he would say it's just the fashions...the barbie i had growing up had some very revealing and 'streetwalker-esque' 70's glitter outfits...but somehow she remained...how should we say...sexless? Also these fashions are really what you see on our um...'celebrity dolls'...so what's different? Interesting to think about image and identity and race/culture etc. And dolls have always revealed various exaggerated concepts of 'perfection' or ideals. Put a Bratz mouth on this pic of <http://www.celebrityinspirations.com/images/musicstarphotos/simpsonjessicaearringsbeadedhoops.jpg>Jessica Simpson and what happens? lol. Holy Hoochie!
Then if we go into the whole evolving realm of avatars and 'digital dolls' representing a person in the coming age..and the choices we will all make for that....sooo crazy. What are the aspects that will be emphasized and/or de-emphasized, what do we wish to project, etc. Already the selection of one photo of ourselves for association with our blog/outward projections is such a psychologically revealing thing.
ah, there's just too much to go into with all this stuff. I think the Bratz designers are inGENius. The new Babyz are a perfect mixture of cult fads, hello kitty,kawaii punk, wide-faced love,Japanese vinyl toy craze (http://www.toymania.com/news/messages/4966.shtml) mixing into a mainstream hip-hop-ish teen culture. They know eXactly what they're doing...and targetting a wide market of collectors.
To be perfectly honest, I was just trying to get a rise out of you. When Lileks first posted this, I sent it to someone else, who made plenty of salient points about the "reality" of Barbie and the "message" little girls received from her. That said, I don't have a daughter and, if for no other reason than I know I'll turn into a complete basketcase, I hope I never have one. I just couldn't handle the pressure, would never be able to say no to her but would probably threaten to kill any filthy boy who stepped within five feet of her (because I know how boys are, especially the "sweet" seeming "innocent" and "nice" ones). They'd have to lock me up in a padded room and throw away the key. Now, if you don't mind, my son turns 7 today (SEVEN!!!!) and I have to go buy him some toy guns.
It's really all too confusing for me.lol omg! Then I know JUST what to get Nick! a role model (http://www.kidrobot.com/shop.php?Category=12-Inch%20Action%20Figures&sku=5556&image=2) Took me a sec, but I figured out the 'LV' is Louis Vuitton! how essential! *cracking myself up*
no subject
Date: 2005-06-10 09:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-11 01:35 am (UTC)I think I would chew on her plastic hair like a happy pup.
The contrarian says
Date: 2005-06-10 04:15 pm (UTC)http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/05/0405/042805.html
"The Bratz are now Baby Mommaz. Yes, the hooker-in-training dolls have children. Bratz are the main reason I do not keep a supply of bricks around the house, because everytime the commercials come on I wish to pitch something kiln-fired through the screen so hard it beans the toy exec who greenlighted these hootchie toys. The Baby Bratz are as bad as you can imagine: “Bottles with Bling.” Judas on a stick, why not just refit the Bratz so they have Real Oozing Gonorreal Flow Action?"
HAHAHAHAHAHA
--Ken
Re: The contrarian says
Date: 2005-06-10 05:48 pm (UTC)First off the Baby Bratz are not the 'babies of the Bratz dolls'- geez.too quick to flip, he made a big erroneous assumption.
These are the Bratz dolls back when THEY themselves were younger. Same characters. So, there's Jade as a teen/young woman (http://img.epinions.com/images/opti/b4/af/MGA_Entertainment_Bratz_Jade_Toys-resized200.jpg),and then Jade as a 'baby'. get it? It's written all over the package and press. blahblah. boring point for me but big when your boy is implying that the company is blatantly condoning teenage pregnancy. And there's a whole grey area in even That seemingly shocking notion because real children have always been playing/caring for 'baby dolls' , and that says something strange too, no?.
Anyhoo,needless to say, the subversiveness of Bratz and much of the girltoy culture is part of the appeal for older doll-lovers like myself. I'm not that much concerned with actually deciding on the appropriateness for young children. But conceptually I find it fascinating.
There's a huge vat of contradiction, controversy and stereotype in all this. I wonder his stance on the classic Barbie for children. Is she a better 'role model' for little girls? hehe. Do big lips mean hoochie mama and thin lips aristocrat? If he would say it's just the fashions...the barbie i had growing up had some very revealing and 'streetwalker-esque' 70's glitter outfits...but somehow she remained...how should we say...sexless? Also these fashions are really what you see on our um...'celebrity dolls'...so what's different? Interesting to think about image and identity and race/culture etc. And dolls have always revealed various exaggerated concepts of 'perfection' or ideals.
Put a Bratz mouth on this pic of <http://www.celebrityinspirations.com/images/musicstarphotos/simpsonjessicaearringsbeadedhoops.jpg>Jessica Simpson and what happens? lol. Holy Hoochie!
Then if we go into the whole evolving realm of avatars and 'digital dolls' representing a person in the coming age..and the choices we will all make for that....sooo crazy. What are the aspects that will be emphasized and/or de-emphasized, what do we wish to project, etc. Already the selection of one photo of ourselves for association with our blog/outward projections is such a psychologically revealing thing.
ah, there's just too much to go into with all this stuff.
I think the Bratz designers are inGENius. The new Babyz are a perfect mixture of cult fads, hello kitty,kawaii punk, wide-faced love,Japanese vinyl toy craze (http://www.toymania.com/news/messages/4966.shtml) mixing into a mainstream hip-hop-ish teen culture. They know eXactly what they're doing...and targetting a wide market of collectors.
Re: The contrarian says
Date: 2005-06-10 06:14 pm (UTC)Ken
Re: The contrarian says
Date: 2005-06-11 01:51 am (UTC)Took me a sec, but I figured out the 'LV' is Louis Vuitton! how essential!
*cracking myself up*