Posted on 11/13/2005 4:42:14 PM PST by SJackson
It turns out that when suburban mothers buy American Girl dolls that look and dress exactly like their own little girls, they may unwittingly be purchasing tiny, lesbian partners for their children....
It turns out that when suburban mothers buy American Girl dolls that look and dress exactly like their own little girls, they may unwittingly be purchasing tiny, lesbian partners for their children.
At least, that is the fear of the wacko, right-wing watchdogs who keep track of exotic threats to our children that most of us are too naive - or not nearly psychologically twisted enough - to recognize.
Up until now, we thought the growing success of the Wisconsin-based American Girl doll company was one of those wholesome, positive, all-American stories.
Who could possibly find fault with a roaringly successful commercial venture that encourages young girls to dress in the same designer outfits as their look-alike dolls?
The company founded 20 years ago in Middleton by Pleasant Rowland was sold to Mattel Inc. in 1998 for $700 million. The company has upscale doll stores in Chicago, New York and Los Angeles with expensive clothing boutiques, hair salons and high fashion events for dolls and children alike.
Obviously, any little girl who buys deeply into the American Girl mystique - emphasis on "buy" - is well on her way to dressing for success in life. At the very least, she has a shot at becoming a particularly well-tailored trophy wife.
The commercialization of childhood is a serious social issue that could be the subject of thoughtful public debate. Or we could just listen to the ignorant blatherings of right-wing extremists.
Guess which has gotten American Girl into hot water? You got it. It's the complaints of the American Family Association and the Pro-Life Action League.
The American Family Association, based in Tupelo, Miss., the birthplace of Elvis Presley, has a long history of seeing threats to our children that most people are far too intelligent to notice.
The American Family Association was among the few organizations to perceive that preschool children were being brainwashed into pursuing a life of homosexuality by a sexually ambiguous Teletubby named Tinky Winky.
The organization once protested an episode of "Rocky and Bullwinkle" in which Bullwinkle the Moose married Cinderella. You might think the American Family Association would rejoice at such a high-profile celebrity endorsement of traditional marriage.
But those vigilant protectors of conservative morality recognized the Bullwinkle-Cinderella liaison for what it was - a subtle endorsement of inter-species relations promoting sex with animals.
So what could be so objectionable about American Girl dolls to attract protests from the American Family Association and, even more curiously, the Pro-Life Action League? The last we knew no embryos were destroyed producing American Girl dolls, which are not actually alive, just perky.
It turns out purchasing American Girl dolls helps promote concepts these groups find offensive. You know, objectionable concepts such as living healthy lives and being tolerant toward others.
The two groups have launched a crusade against American Girl for contributing philanthropically to Girls Inc., formerly the Girls Clubs of America, which for 140 years has organized programs encouraging young girls to feel good about themselves and strive for achievement.
This is where the charges about lesbianism come in. It seems that in educating adolescent girls about sexuality, Girls Inc. fails to teach young women to hate themselves or anyone else if they happen to be gay.
Almost as bad, in attempting to prevent teenage pregnancy, Girls Inc. reveals to girls that abstinence is not the only method of birth control. Since abstinence has been known to fail, it also acknowledges the existence of contraception and abortion.
No advocacy is involved. It's a simple matter of providing an honest education in the basics of good health for adolescent girls.
American Girl dolls aren't proselytizing innocent young girls into lesbianism or teenage whoredom. That's just standard laughable exaggeration from wild-eyed goofballs on the right.
But when the president of the United States lends legitimacy to the wild-eyed right on issues such as teaching religious beliefs as science in our schools, pretty soon other institutions in our society start taking seriously other ridiculous right-wing ideas.
St. Luke Catholic School in Brookfield recently canceled an American Girl fashion show that was expected to raise from $10,000 to $30,000 for the school.
Apparently, these regional fashion shows, which send personal invitations to more than 20,000 American Girl doll owners over a wide area, are killer fundraisers.
Brookfield, in Waukesha County, could well be the state's most seething hotbed of both American Girl dolls and the religious right. Those well-dressed, fresh-faced dolls never had a chance.
Father Frank Malloy, the pastor of St. Luke school, said in canceling the American Girl event: "The cost is too high. Our integrity isn't for sale."
Anyone gullible enough to believe that an American Girl doll is a threat to public morality doesn't need to be bought. He's already been Bullwinkled.
Is there a real story behind this? I have a hard time believing this rendition.
Almost as bad, in attempting to prevent teenage pregnancy, Girls Inc. reveals to girls that abstinence is not the only method of birth control. Since abstinence has been known to fail, it also acknowledges the existence of contraception and abortion.
Is this the best that the wild-eyed left can come up with after all this time?? That "abstinence has been known to fail"?? You need to get your money back from the "Wise-Ass-Comic-Columnist-Wannabes" school. So many years have gone by, and you STILL are not causing laughter, no matter one's political stripe. Get original here!
Among the things THIS group of wacko watchdogs is protesting is the idea of letting a young girl decide on her own what her reproductive "options" are. Perhaps these wacko watchdogs think that THEIR values should be promoted before those of some outside group? Sounds reasonable to me, no?
Oh, yeah -- and the promotion of abortion. Is there any special reason you mention the A-word only once? (Extra points to you for a nice side-step! Keep up the good work, and you'll expand your readership!) This group of wacko watchdogs doesn't happen to agree with you on that point. When did having a different moral or political slant on this subject become an issue for demeaning humor attempts?
St. Luke Catholic School in Brookfield recently canceled an American Girl fashion show that was expected to raise from $10,000 to $30,000 for the school.
Father Frank Malloy, the pastor of St. Luke school, said in canceling the American Girl event: "The cost is too high. Our integrity isn't for sale."
But when the president of the United States lends legitimacy to the wild-eyed right on issues such as teaching religious beliefs as science in our schools, pretty soon other institutions in our society start taking seriously other ridiculous right-wing ideas.
OK, young feller, which is it? Either it's a parochial institution that can teach whatever the flock it wants (because it pays their own way, for one thing) -- or (all of a sudden) it's an "institution in our society," (which is mixing your sacred "separation of church and state") (which does NOT exist as such in our Constitution) (so STOP saying it). Have you co-opted the Catholic Church as a government institution all of a sudden? Hmmmm....we'll have to start a class action against the VLWC on this one.
Oh, and my "wild-eyed left" remark from above? Apparently it's OK for Sen. Barak Obama to have an opinion on the subject (he thinks "it's silly") (but then he's a democrat so it's OK), but not conservatives who are raising kids (withOUT the Village™). Please look what some African-Americans are saying on the subject of Planned Parenthood, abortions, and genocide:
Or we could just listen to the ignorant blatherings of right-wing extremists.... wild-eyed goofballs on the right.... wacko, right-wing watchdogs.... most of us are too naive - or not nearly psychologically twisted enough.... ignorant blatherings of right-wing extremists.... most people are far too intelligent to notice....
Wonderful! You'll laugh, you'll cry -- if there's one left-wing HATE-filled essay replete with DNC easy talking points that Hey! The Fax-Masters told you it was fool proof! Where were we? Oh, yeah. If there's one left-wing HATE-filled essay replete with UNORIGINAL sweeping generalities and unsubstantiated Kool-Aid talking points that you have to read this season, THIS IS IT!
WHY DOESN'T THE SACRED "FREEDOM OF CHOICE" EVER INCLUDE WHAT I WANT?
Long on accusations, short on substance.
"Long on accusations, short on substance."
That's pretty much the left's motto.
I wonder how this person was able to type their article over their own shrieking. Talk about wild eyed...
What we have here is a failure to think. Oh well. If Joel's angry, we must be doing something right.
Exactly! I can spend my money where I want and I'm not going to knowingly support a company that contributes to immorality.
Yes.
Part of the problem is that the article deliberately misrepresents the AFA's position. There's no problem with the dolls themselves, it's support of other organizations that the company is aligning itself with.
Since abstinence has been known to fail...
Abstinence fails once in a while? What happens, miracle virgin births or something? Scientists everywhere must be baffled by the new phenomena the left wing just stumbled upon.
gosh, yanno, it happens just ONCE in history and people are all afraid of it..
so if they are going to be believing in immaculate conception, does this mean that the left is actually starting to believe in the story of Christ? or are they just trying to trivialize one of the founding principals of that religion?
I can't be a partner, but I would definitely be a customer!
I'm waiting for the other shoe to fall: somebody who says "THIS IDEA SUCKS! YOU'LL NEVER MAKE ANY MONEY!"
Meanwhile I will have a family conference: "Is this something that we would do as a home based business?" Not hand-made figures as collectibles, but mass produced dolls that little girls can make friends with.
My youngest daughter loved the American Girls series, and always begged for one, which we could never afford. So our version would have to be less expensive.
The product would also have to appeal to both Jewish and Christian customers. I would prefer a Christian partner to recommend and design the Christian History girls.
I like the idea of historical dolls of different nationalities that little girls can identify with. I have two Russian granddaughters with a very deep Russian heritage, and a Canadian girl who shouldn't feel left out.
True! Two of my granddaughters are half latina! My oldest granddaughter has a AG Bitty Baby that she got at age 2 and has loved that doll to death. It goes EVERYWHERE she goes! I'd like to get the other two granddaughters baby dolls like that for them to love until they are old enough to take care of a doll with lots of hair.
I think it's a marvelous idea! Go for it!
Nearly every time this wacko leftist tries to make a point, he either gets it completely backwards or just whiffs altogether.
My favorite was when he equated abortion with "preventing teen pregnancy", as if the girl never got pregnant at all if she kills her baby before it's born.
The American Girl uproar has really gotten to the lefties. If the company didn't engage in the joint venture with Girls Inc., he'd be ridiculing the company and its customers with more belittling trophy wife BS. Since they partnered with an abortion and lesbian-promoting Girls Inc., the righties get to slam them instead.
Postscript: This guy appeared on TV a week before the 2004 election and predicted John Kerry would win by a wide margin, ~ 10 points. He's out there in lala land.
Well, that would be a failure of self-control or human nature not abstinence, wouldn't it? In the words of a great American, "abstinence works every time it's tried." The fact that it's not always tried is not the failure of abstinence.
But I can see where those who benefit from children not being encouraged to practice abstinence would want to shift the blame.
Considering that the success or failure of abstinence is ENTIRELY dependent on human nature, you cannot separate the two. I refute the naive notion that abstinence succeeds every time it's tried. There are of course instances in which abstinence is just thrown to the wind and not even attempted, but I'm not speaking of those.
Good people fail. Good people fall short. It's a fact of life. Many times, with young people especially, the will to abstain is present, but the flesh is weak. To think that just because a young man or woman attempts abstinence that success is guaranteed, is naive at best. As it has always been the way since the dawn of history, a certain number of young men and women with the best of intentions will still be finding themselves asking, "What was I thinking?" the morning after.
You most certainly CAN separate the two. EVERY time abstinence is utilized, it is 100% effective. How can you connect failure of abstinence to the lack of use of it? Your logic is a bit warped.
But, as I say, if you have an agenda which includes the idea that young persons are just little monkeys who have absolutely no self-control and that there's no sense in expecting it from them, it would be to your advantage to twist the logic to suit.
I'm sorry, obviously you're not grasping the logic. Since your post indicated a preference for logic, let's look at it in precise logical terms.
Abstinence is 100% effective each and every time the practitioner successfully abstains. It's obvious that you grasp that much. However, you seem to be struggling with an inability to separate set success from set attempt. If we could draw Venn Diagrams here in FR, it would be simple enough to demonstrate that set success is a subset of set attempt, with the former being wholly encapsulated by the latter. Sadly though, you'll find that set attempt also encapsulates set failure, our second subset.
Logically, you would express this as:
If some of those who attempt to abstain succeed, and some of those who attempt to abstain fail, then not everyone who attempts to abstain, succeeds in that attempt.
But, as I say, if you have an agenda which includes the idea that young persons are just little monkeys who have absolutely no self-control and that there's no sense in expecting it from them, it would be to your advantage to twist the logic to suit.
Lol, one thing at a time here. First of all, I have no agenda. Abstinence is wonderful, and not only do I wish I would have abstained, but I encourage my children to abstain. You're barking up the wrong tree there.
You're just digging yourself in deeper when you start with the "monkeys who have absolutely no self-control.
Logically speaking, the failure of abstinence isn't predicated upon a complete lack of self-control, or no self-control as you put it. Rather, all it takes for failure here is an IMPERFECT level of self-control. It's literally a case where a single mistake leads to a complete and irrevocable failure.
So to conclude: Abstinence works each every time it's attempted, AND the attemptee makes zero lapses in judgement and has zero failures.
A man wiser than myself said it's best to pray for peace, but prepare for war. In the raising of my own children, I'm praying that they're virgins on their wedding nights, but I'm preparing for the figurative war should they fail to achieve that lofty ideal.
+
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.