Sarah Haskins does it again with Target Women: Lady Friends. Watch through to the end for an example of how girls are indoctrinated into the beautiful women-mindless consumers culture:

My daughter has a passion for fashion.

You may recall that my bespeckled seven-year-old once told me that she would have a Bratz-themed party when I died.

She’s always been a bit more, well, girly than my older daughter. She wants to paint her fingernails. She wants to wear makeup. She wants her clothes to be “cute.”

I thought that a few more years with me as her mother would knock some sense into her. But recently I’ve realized that I’ve got a real problem on my hands.

First, she announced that she wanted to be a fashion designer when she grew up. And she began designing. Matching girl and pet outfits. And accessories.

A darling outfit! With lips everywhere! Titled — in case you can’t read it – “Boy Attraction Fashion!”

Blink. Blink. 

Look what the universe did to you, a friend of mine commented.

She’s always drawn strict distinctions between what boys are like and what girls are like. Recently she told me that she isn’t “100 percent girl” because she likes to be active.

Instead of exploding, I calmly asked her to clarify. We ended up having a long discussion about gender traits. To illustrate, I drew a line along a sheet of paper with “boy” on one end and “girl” on the other. Then I gave her some words and asked her to write them in the appropriate spot on the spectrum.

In the center — halfway between boy and girl, she placed smart, responsible, and funny.

Phew.

By boy she wrote fast, strong and active.

And by girl she wrote fashion and beauty. Beauty, she said, meant that you are beautiful.

Then she mentioned that there was one other characteristic you had if you were “100 percent” girl:

One-hundred percent girls are mean.

She has also told me, while looking in the mirror, that she thinks she is fat.

WHOSE DAUGHTER IS THIS?

Pretty strong evidence, I’d say, for a wider cultural influence than what is provided in the home. She very rarely sees commercial television. We don’t have cable. There are no women’s magazines — and affiliated ads — in our house.

Some of these tendencies are, of course, hard wired. It’s part of who she is. And these certainly aren’t the only thoughts that define her. But how, in this day and age, can she really believe these things?

And how can I help her see that these media-driven female stereotypes are, well, bullshit?

Before it’s too late?

The staff here at Parents for Ethical Marketing is thrilled that Michelle Obama is pissed off at Ty, makers of Ty Girlz Dolls, after the introduction of their newest products Marvelous Malia and Sweet Sasha:

“We feel it is inappropriate to use young, private citizens for marketing purposes,” Obama’s press secretary, Katie McCormick Lelyveld, said in a statement yesterday.

We feel it’s inappropriate to change the likeness of a seven-year-old girl into a teen-like doll with breasts.

Ms. Obama, give us a call. We’ll talk.

I was struck by President Bush’s kind words to the Obama family in his farewell address:

And I join all Americans in offering best wishes to President-elect Obama, his wife Michelle, and their two beautiful girls. 

It was the “beautiful girls” that threw me. Unfortunately, I can’t make a direct comparison to the most popular descriptions of young sons who have moved into the White House — there haven’t been any in recent history — but I’m going to venture to guess that they wouldn’t have been described as handsome. Or cute. Or with any termingology that described their physical appearance.

So this is where we are. On Tuesday we’ll be witnessing an historic inauguration and on Wednesday, it will be back to business as usual for American girls: Corporate-created media images and messages telling them that their value lies only in how they look and what they buy.

No example is more appropriate than this dissection* of the premiere lifestyle brand, American Girl:

Some might argue that American Girl is not as bad as other materials on the market, or as offensive as Barbie or Bratz dolls. This argument misses the key features of what makes this phenomenon so insidious: how corporations play on the feminist and /or educative aspirations of parents, teachers, girls, and young women and turn these toward consumption. American Girl is less about strong girls, diversity or history than about marketing girlhood, about hooking girls, their parents and grandparents into buying the American Girl products and experience.

Meant to be lessons in history featuring girls, their books fail, too:

. . . any potential “girl-power” lessons are short-circuited in these books through the use of historical fiction to deliver traditional lessons about what girls can and should do. While the stories take place in key historical moments, such as the Civil War, and World War II, the girls rarely participate in historical events in any substantial way. Meet Molly is set in WWII and her father, a doctor, serves in the U.S. military. Molly’s concerns center on what to be for Halloween and how to deal with a bothersome brother. The historical fictions encourage a limited independence and emphasize conventional “good girl” behaviors. Girls might go on an adventure or two, but these are usually within the bounds of family relationships (e.g., playing tricks on brothers) rather than as social actors in a larger world.

As for those “good girl” behaviors, we look to Harvard historian Laurel Thatcher Ulrich who said, “well-behaved women seldom make history.” 

My hope is that we take the inspiration of electing our first black President and continue the momentum until we elect our first woman president. And until half our senators and representatives are women. And until women receive equal pay for equal work.

And it all begins with girls. Smart girls. Strong girls. Capable girls. Energetic girls. Creative girls. Hopeful girls.

More on hope:

New Moon Girls: Advertising-free social networking site for girls 8 to 12, plus the classic magazine. This week they are welcoming Sasha and Malia Obama to the White House and calling on girls to report on inaugural activities. Citizen journalism!

TVbyGirls: In the Twin Cities, TVbyGirls teaches the skills needed for girls to learn how to create their own media to expand expanding “the vitality of images about girls and women.” Watch their videos and if you’re local, get a girl you know involved.

The Girl Revolution: For grown-ups who love girls, “The Girl Revolution’s only aim is to heal the soul of the world by raising powerful girls. . . . We’re going to protect them from media consumption and dissolve every single barrier that exists between girls and gender and economic equality.”

*H/T to our friends at the Institute for Humane Education.

Minnesota’s governor and some legislators have a plan to help Minnesota school districts:

Minnesota school districts and charter schools would be required to pool their purchasing power under a plan unveiled Wednesday at the State Capitol.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty and several legislators say public schools could save money on information technology, food services, supplies, equipment, transportation and other services by working cooperatively.

The money saved, according to legislators, would go directly back into the schools and not into the state budget. If approved, the state could end up giving school districts more than expected then, since K-12 education was spared from the first round of state budget cuts. 

Uh-huh. 

I’m all for efficiency and saving money by not duplicating services when we don’t need to. But reading this editorial in support of the legislation made my heart skip a beat:

It’s the sensible Costco concept applied to school budgets . . . . Under the proposal, the state’s Department of Education would create and maintain a list of preferred vendors for services, including school materials, supplies, tools, equipment, technology, food services and transportation.

Watch out: How many of those preferred vendors for school supplies will be able to bid low because their products will double as advertisements?

How can we say no to advertising on school buses if it puts more money into the classroom?

How can we say no to ads on student exams if it means teachers don’t have to pay for the copies out of their pockets?

How can we say no to chain restaurants in the lunchroom if they offer us the best deal?

And how do we say no to free classroom materials — even if they provide misleading information — if the alternative is no materials at all?

Years of inadequate federal and state funding have us backed us into a corner: We must offer up our children to corporate interests, hand over their malleabe minds so they can become brand-loyal consumers, and in exchange, we’ll get pencils and textbooks and writing paper.

I hope I’m wrong. But if I’m not — how can we say no? 

Patrick Byers recently asked if Club Libby Lu was responsible marketing or not, but it seems it doesn’t matter anymore as the retail stores will be closing.

Boo. Hoo.

From Nancy Gruver at Girl Media Maven:

. . . Club Libby Lu shopping and makeovers are not about imagination, self-expression or individuality. They are about conforming to someone else’s idea of who you should be and how you should look. What Club Libby Lu really does is indoctrinate little girls into a culture of comparing themselves to others and striving to change themselves into someone else. Yuck.

Meanwhile, the new American Girl Store in our own Mall of America is hiring Doll Hair Salon Sylists. 

Dream Job-Get paid to play at American Girl

. . . At the store, girls can shop for their favorite American Girl dolls, books, and accessories; get a new ‘do for their dolls in our signature Doll Hair Salon. . . . If you’re an experienced retail and/or hospitality professional, the job of your dreams is waiting at American Girl.

We’re currently seeking:

Sales Associates
Doll Hair Salon Stylists
Stockers
Visual Merchandisers
Event Associates

See, you take your $100 doll into the store and get its hair styled.

One of the newest “historical character” dolls from Mattel’s American Girl line is this one from way back in 1974. [Ahem.] The doll comes with this $18 old-fashioned accessory — a popular toy back then — a Barbie head with hair you could style. Yourself.

How quaint!

Drop everything and go immediately to join CCFC’s letter-writing campaign to tell toy makers to stop targeting kids this holiday season. I know the economy has already caused riffs in our home about what we can afford — and my kids rarely see televison commercials.

. . . Even though experts predict parents will spend less on toys and gifts this year, marketers are still planning their usual holiday ad blitz to kids.

It’s never fair for corporations to bypass parents and market directly to children.  But with parents everywhere worried about making ends meet, it’s especially cruel to bombard children with ads for expensive toys and electronics.

Your letter will go to: Mattel, V-Tech, Leap Frog, Hasbro, Spin Master, Jakks Pacific, Techno-Source, MEGA Brands, MGA Entertainment, LEGO, Activision Blizzard, Thinkway Toys, ThinkFun, Electronic Arts, Ganz, Oregon Scientific, Disney, Playmates Holdings LTD, Nintendo, Take-Two Interactive, Microsoft, KMart, Walmart, Target, and Toys R’ Us.

Poor Red Bull can’t catch a break in Minneapolis.

Last summer the energy-drink maker upset some commuting bicyclists and other Minneapolis residents with their giant cube photo exhibit on the Stone Arch Bridge. Some people had a hard time navigating the bridge, others objected to the blatant advertising on public property.

And now this: According to Minneapolis Roosevelt High Principal Bruce Gilman, on October 1, three Red Bull cars (”with the cans on top”) parked on 40th Avenue across from the school while the busses were dropping off students.

The mission? Free Red Bull to anyone willing to cross the street to get it.

The Red Bull employees, members of the elite, seemingly no-boys-allowed Wiiings Team (yes, Wiiings) had already been asked to leave the same area the previous week.

Why wouldn’t the school accept Red Bull’s generousity? For one thing, Gilman said, the Wiiings Team car fleet was blocking traffic, including a school bus. Students were crossing the street and standing in traffic to get free Red Bull samples. And because no Minneapolis school sells or allows students to have beverages other than water or fruit juice on campus, Red Bull isn’t even allowed inside the school.

Gilman approached the team members and asked them to move along. They refused.

“I have never seen such obnoxious behavior,” Gilman said.

Gilman spoke with Roosevelt’s on-duty police officer, Mark Klukow, about getting the vehicles out of the way of traffic. Officer Klukow’s knowledge of Minnesota statutes — beyond the usual traffic laws – provided the perfect solution.

Officer Kluckow said it’s illegal to hand anything out to kids near school property as they are getting on or off a bus.

By this time classes were in session at Roosevelt and the the Red Bull contingent had moved on to their next captive audience at Minneapolis South High. Officer Klukow caught up with them there.

Citations were issued all around.

Gilman called this a happy ending.

And that’s no bull.

Photo courtesy yoppi