Facebook
Twitter
Email Sign-Up
RSS FeedMore From the “Oh No They Didn’t” Files
I sometime wonder whether Abercrombie really expects to sell stuff like their push-up bikini tops for 7-year-olds (see below) or whether they just make them to piss off parents and get instant street cred among kids. Or maybe they purposely push the bounds of good taste so that by comparison something we would’ve found sexualizing and inappropriate before now looks demure and acceptable by comparison? I mean, I can’t REALLY believe they think it’s a good idea to put a 7-year-old in a tiny bikini bottom and a padded bra……
Thanks to Emily Bartek for exploding my head with this one.
Well, I did go check out their website once I saw your blog. However, I was disgusted enough to click right back out … whereas I’m sure some people would continue to look and might eventually get to the, “Oh, now that’s cute” stage and buy something. So, yes, maybe part of it is so outrageous just to get attention.
The part I don’t get is that all my friends who blossomed early, so to speak, hated the fact that they had noticeable breasts when the other girls did not. I remember one friend specifically telling me that she would lie on her stomach every night to sleep and pray that they would go back in.
Has that changed? Has the media really managed to influence our society in such a way that what made you an outcast 25 years ago now makes you cool? Do little girls really want shapely breasts at 7?
My niece is 7. Part of me wants to ask her. The other part of me doesn’t want to bring it into her realm of knowledge, just in case she ends up thinking it’s cool
Ok, I couldn’t bring myself to look at the product mentioned, but I will note that my 6 year old has seen the padded bras at Kohl’s and has been asking for one. Of course, I have refused, but I don’t quite understand where she wants to emulate the bra thing, unless it is just a reflection of me? Its very strange to me…who would want to wear a bra? Torturous! It is wrong that they are making them for younger and younger kids. And they must be selling them to keep them stocked…
Oh, gosh, really? Girls are going through puberty somewhat earlier, but still, most won’t until they are pre-teens. So a bra would seem to be a specialty item and a PUSH-UP bathing suit just wrong. And, like I say in the book, foisting sexuality, sexually charge images, ideas, toys, clothing onto kids at too young an age does NOT encourage healthy sexuality but quite the opposite–encourages them to see sexuality as a performance, as something external. And…Well. I won’t rant
At any rate, earlier puberty would be a reason to protect girls from premature sexualization, not give into it…..
Peggy, I Facebooked you a few of my theories on this:
1.) Industry is hyper-sexualizing w/hellacious age compression which baits parental outrage, amps buzz, increases PR, and then one of two things flows forth:
a.) Marketers can “pullback” and end up looking like the corp. social responsibility poster child.
b.) As media fans the flames and undermined parents fume, tweens decide it’s the next ‘gotta have it’ item and start social norming w/coolhunting cred…
c.) Both.
This sort of ‘live litmus test’ has even greater implications when you factor in that retailers get to see “how far is too far” to bend toward that tipping point of toxicity…
The ol’ hate-n-bait strategy to fire up parental outrage is actually an ingenious move if they pull product as a result, since parents feel like they “won” and in the meantime the objects being sold are chatted up like crazy.
Recall last year? After the Miley Cyrus/kid sister Noah lingerie kerfluffle, the exact same controversy (padded swimsuits for 7 year olds) took place at a UK/large retailer Primark (equiv to a mass market chain in USA) http://www.styleite.com/retail/padded-bikinis-kids
Shaping Youth wrote, “The Commodification of Kids: The Backlash Has Begun!” http://www.shapingyouth.org/?p=10580 citing the progress we as outspoken consumers have made into a movement (with books like your own, and sites like SparkSummit.com) —and yet as I fast-forward to this ‘news’ hitting the Today Show tomorrow w/Abercrombie I keep thinking…”hmn…that’s an AWFULLY huge coincidence”
Same song, second verse? Have we been duped?
We might need to start shaking our heads “Oh no they didn’t” for a whole different reason. Hmn…
I’m totally with the BOTH theory. That’s what I’ve been thinking about. And the litmus test idea…..
I haven’t been into an Abercrombie store in at least 10 years (we just don’t have one near us). This is so surprising. I thought their image was more preppy college co-ed than slutty.
Sheesh.
Oh they went slutty. I seem to recall a particularly provocative campaign maybe 5 years ago. Suffice to say they have GONE there!
I totally wanted to wear a bra at age 10 or 11. Not by 7, but I was definitely INTERESTED in feminine stuff. It’s not a new phenomenon that girls want to grow up to become beautiful and powerful women but it is a new phenomenon that we are encouraging the sexy image at such a young age. I vividly remember shaking my hips at age 6 or 7, thinking I was funny and not really understanding it. I don’t think it’s a pre-cursor to early sexuality. Then again, I was sexually active WAY earlier than I hope my own children will be…
I agree, Tracey, that a certain level of curiosity, interest, playing at adult womanhood is totally to be expected. Of course it is! And you’re right, the issue is the way that natural incipient curiosity is amplified, magnified and sold back to girls so that it encourages them, from an early age, to define themselves primarily through appearance and how they believe others judge that appearance rather than how they feel, who they are, what they do. So exploiting a natural curiosity, which in some ways worse than instigating it. And given the links between early emphasis on appearance, early sexualization (which does NOT mean early sexual activity; here is the APA definition) and increased vulnerability to negative body image, eating disorders, depression and poor sexual choices this is something parents need to think about. One of the main reasons I object to the sexualization of girlhood is that it undermines healthy sexuality in girls. So, anti-sexualization is being PRO sex (when they’re older, obviously).
Thank for this, Peggy. Society tends to label those of us who are concerned about early sexualization as prudes, and it’s nice to see your pro sex statement. Our culture seems so far from healthy sexuality at all ages!
I was glad to see the Abercrombie Fitch thing being called out on TV. I see the push-up bikini tops have been discounted on their web page… here’s hoping that it’s a prelude to them disappearing completely!
Peggy, I have to tell you I really struggle with this. I’ve got two (11 and 13) and I would never buy a push up anything for either of them. However, when does a bikini become more than just a bathing suit? And vice versa? My girls are confident, straight A students, yada yada. I’m OK with them wanting to wear bikini bathing suits. I suppose it’s become a pick your battles kind of thing. Where is the line?
I think it is a pick your battles kind of thing, Suzy. And 13 is so much different than 10…..How do tankinis work for them?
Just one word. Well, three I guess:
Positively, disgustingly appalling.
[...] sale price on Abercrombie Kids’ push-up bikini tops. That they market to 7-year-olds. As Peggy Orenstein says, Oh no, they didn’t. But they did. And they aren’t the [...]