Crystal Smith, author of  The Achilles Effect, graciously allowed me to reprint this mind-blowing post. Be sure to read her follow-up.

Cross-posted from A Magical Year without Disney:

Here’s a clip of Peggy Orenstein, author of Cinderella Ate My Daughter, talking about the four-billion-dollar Disney Princess complex and the difficulty and rewards of not choosing Disney.

Remember, Orenstein will be reading at the Barnes and Noble at the Galleria in Edina at 7 p.m. tomorrow, Friday, January 28.

The pink microscopes and telescopes for girls offered in a Toys ‘R Us circular are getting some attention; my favorite discussion was at Pharyngula. From Minnesota’s own PZ Meyers:

There is a message being sent here. Being feminine, being girly, means you belong in a separate category in the science world, and it’s a category that needs less utility and more concern about appearances. I don’t get it, and I don’t understand how these kinds of distinctions persist.

As expected, the more than 250 comments are the typical ones we hear when someone dares to criticize The Product:

1. The author/other commenters are overreacting to The Product;
2. There’s nothing wrong with The Product;
3. The Product wouldn’t be on the market if there wasn’t a demand for it;
4. There wouldn’t be a problem if “boneheaded” parents wouldn’t buy The Product;
5. Someone knows someone who owns/bought/uses The Product and they’re fine so the entire criticism is invalid.

Heavy sigh.

But one enlightening comment:

Anyone claiming that they don’t see differences in gender-based marketing of children’s toys, particularly differences that have a negative impact on girls – how much marketing of children’s toys to girls have you looked at prior to this?

The fact that you don’t notice a phenomenon that is not aimed at you in the first place doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.

Thank you, brilliant commenter.

I’d like to offer that the issue isn’t about getting girls interested in science (please), nor is it about selling the most toys.

It is simply about developing life-long consumers to ensure that corporations remain in business and continue making profits.

It begins with a pink microscope (or pink Monopoly or pink globes or pink toy pianos or pink wagons).

Soon the indoctrinated girls become the fashion-conscious tweens and the trillion-dollar moms of marketers’ dreams.

I have no problem with advertising and marketing tactics directed toward adults. We understand it and can choose to ignore it.

Kids can’t.

And too often, those marketing messages and products made for kids are detrimental to their health. See, being a good little consumers is not necessarily good for kids.

It’s good to question pink toy microscopes. Keep it up.

photo courtesy Terren in Virginia

I have been carrying around the 2009 Target toy catalog with me since I received it in November, showing it to friends and just delighting in the fact that this post would write itself. Guest blogger Monica at Sociological Images beat me to it, however, with this fantasic critique.

Girl: I am a girl. I love being in love. Barbie, you are so lucky to have a big tough man like optimus prime to keep you safe. Now you can quit your job as a neurosurgeon and start having lots of babies! Yay! I think I’m going to skip dinner tonight so I can be skinny like you.

Boy: Optimus, no!! Don’t do it! She is only trying to trap you! Marriage is for pussies! Man up!!

You may also enjoy the comments, including a variation on my personal favorite: “If you’re analyzing this you’ve got too much time on your hands.”