Tracie was crushed to find ... language supportive of homosexuals... "I feel like there's nowhere safe," says Tracie.
So now we can decide: Is Tracie concerned for the moral correctness and ultimately the salvation of her fellow ape-descended life-forms, or is she ruled by raw monkey terror of The Other?
Wasn't this discussed here or on Metafilter recentlty? I looked but couldn't find.
It's interesting when you reorganize the American Girl press release to get the true message across.
“At American Girl, we want every girl to recognize that she is talented, unique, and full of amazing possibilities,” says Ellen L. Brothers, president of American Girl, Inc.
Each $1.00 “I CAN” band features American Girl’s signature berry-colored star and can be worn as a bracelet, a ponytail holder, a zipper pull, a backpack charm, or however a girl chooses to express her individuality.
And from the US Patent Office:
Word Mark AMERICAN GIRL
Goods and Services IC 003. US 001 004 006 050 051 052. G & S: PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS NAMELY, ANTIPERSPIRANT, BATH BEADS, BODY CREAM, BODY GLITTER, BODY LOTION, BODY MASKS, BODY OIL, BODY SCRUB, BODY WASH, BUBBLE BATH, SKIN CLEANSERS, COLOGNE, HAND CREAM, FACE MOISTURIZERS, HAIR SHAMPOO, HAIR CONDITIONER, FRAGRANT BODY MIST, LIP STICK, LIP GLOSS, LIP LINER, HAIR STYLING MOUSSE, HAIR GLITTER, FRAGRANT OIL, FRAGRANT GEL, MOUTHWASH, TOOTHPASTE, NAIL STENCILS, NON-MEDICATED BATH SALTS, NAIL POLISH, NAIL POLISH REMOVER, SHAVING CREAM, SOAP FOR THE FACE, SOAP FOR THE BODY, SUN BLOCK, SUNTAN LOTION, TALCUM POWDER, AND PERFUMES
Yep, all the really important stuff.
So if human beings descend from apes, wouldn't that mean that us monkeys are an ascension from the rest of humankind?
i have to post something not relating to the topic at hand so i don't scream / godwin out
Roman Catholic schools in Brookfield, Wis., and St. Louis canceled American Girl fashion shows, where girls were to dress up like their dolls.
Because vanity is only sinful when endorsed by the secular.
grass roots? more like astroturf. nice work, newsweek.
I have received the AG catalog for years, in spite of the fact that there are no girls in my house. The whole deal always creeped me out, with the girl and the doll looking just about the same.
I really do not want to have to buy any of these dolls, in order to stick my thumb in the eye of some fundies. That is why I buy and eat Girl Scout cookies. It is just about the same issue.
you have some kind of "thumb in the eye for fundies" fund?
weird.
i should start a hello kitty fund/budget
I'd put a few bucks into that "thumb in the eye for fundies" fund, EarWax.
I'm gonna go with Raw Monkey Terror.
I have four of their dolls from when I was smaller, along with quite a few accessories. I had no idea I was also sticking it to the Man.
I'm gonna go with Raw Monkey Terror.
I have four of their dolls from when I was smaller, along with quite a few accessories. I had no idea I was also sticking it to the Man.
This is nothing but a group of individuals who found a link between a company or product and a political view they don't agree with, so they organized a boycott and a protest.
I've done it. Many of you have, too. Why shouldn't they?
Good Lord. These people -- who dare to call themselves Christians -- are going to try and bring down an organization (Girls Inc., I think American Girls are creepy) that supports good values for girls because they're not afraid of teh gay. I wish these dumbasses would stop hijacking my religion and making all of us look like awful bigots.
Wow, "nowhere safe." Gosh, look at that hetero-oppression.
I'm 24 now, but I was the right age when they first came out nationally; I still have my collection.
As do a pair of my friends, currently engaged, one of whom was kicked out of her house for being gay.
Funny, that.
I was into history; these were great when I was a kid. Now I'm in grad school for archaeology. The historic ones were actually fairly significant in my childhood for me, and now the company is still rocking.
You want creepy though, the old story that used to be on the back of the mags did it. It was about how the founder found an old doll in someone's attic and was wondering about the girl who had it, or something like that. It was creepy, but I can't find it online right now.
What rocket88 said. I stirred the shit (in an admittedly minor way) recently at work by not donating to the United Way, partly because they support nonprofits like the Boy Scouts that discriminate against homosexuals. I don't see why those who disagree with me should be less inclined to stand up for their beliefs by not giving money to organizations they have moral or ideological problems with. I'd respect them less if they were, in fact.
Wow, "nowhere safe." Gosh, look at that hetero-oppression.
Yeah. I don't know how well-versed in the actual culture of Christian fundamentalism you are, but this very mentality underlies the very foundations of their hatred. Your average fundamentalist believes that the entire world is against him, that he must gird up to battle the Forces of Darkness, and that he will be despised and hated for doing what is right, and that the wisdom of The Lord will look like foolishness to the unwashed world. Inherent in this is a sort of victim mentality that is reinforced by the history of the early Church, when Christians actually were victims, and despite the fact that most fundamentalist denominations have strong political ties and large stacks of cash, they honestly believe that they are just like those martyrs who were thrown to lions and nailed to trees. As they adjust their hand-engraved, solid gold cufflinks, they'll tell you it's True. I once had an argument with a Baptist who had the unmitigated gall to call white heterosexual Christians "the most discriminated against" group in the US. She could not for the life of her understand why I nearly flew into a rage at that.
Just plain creepy.
Keep that away from kids. Especially little girls.
Why shouldn't they?
Because they're wrong.
I mean, obviously they have a right to do so, but they should be called on stupid shit.
This is nothing but a group of individuals who found a link between a company or product and a political view they don't agree with, so they organized a boycott and a protest.
... Why shouldn't they?
Aren't you just a little bit missing the point that this group of Christians saw a behaviour they found repellant, and thus spoke out about it, and in so doing are behaving in a way that others find repellant, who are now speaking out about it?
"Why shouldn't they?" is a tough one to answer, in and of itself. I suspect many liberals struggle to integrate a general world view in which freedom of speech and concerned activism are Good Things, with the constant reminder that those rights and freedoms are being used by groups whose social and political agendas are wrapped around a belief that no-one else should have the right to disagree.
Unfortunately, there's a tendency amongst the liberals I know to scoff and roll their eyes at things like this but to do absolutely nothing until the fundamentalists come knocking on the door of the few issues they specifically give a damn about. And the scary thing about this, as far as I'm concerned, is that the religious right knows that liberals behave that way.
See Repealing One Civil Right at a Time for some insight into how some powerful factions within the religious right intend to remake America in thier own image. Every concession is a small concession. Every qualification is a small qualification. Every step seems reasonable, or at least not too frightening or worrying in and of itself.
So, why shouldn't they? For me, it comes down to the fact that much of the religious right can't or won't accept that you have a right to be activist in opposition to the social and political changes they want to make, while reserving the right to be activist in opposition to anything and everything with which they disagree.
If there ever is The Rapture, there are going to be quite a few fundies left here on earth with me.
Didn't Jesus once say, "There ain't no fun in fundamentalism"? Maybe I'm thinking of the other guy.
fundies: They're what's wrong with America.
A quote from one of the concerned mothers in the MSN article about American Girl:
"is pro-abortion and pro-contraception and pro all the other lies the secular world wants our girls to believe."
Please explain exactly how abortion and contraception are LIES. And what are these other lies that she's refering to?
This reminds me of the most recent episode of Trading Spouses (the second of a two-parter was on last night), where the fundamentalist Christian mother flew into a rage at the thought of being exposed to the "dark-sided" world of people who don't believe in Jesus. She kept proclaiming herself a "God Warrior" and admitted to being closed-minded to things she didn't agree with. (How exactly can you not agree with something you know nothing about?) She worked herself up into a sobbing frenzy because someone with different beliefs actually tried to calmly talk to her about what he believed. It was unreal. (And, no, I don't normally watch that show - I think it's awful. This episode being no exception. But I was sucked in, thanks to the boyfriend.) Apparently keeping an open mind and learning about those that are different from you is a bad thing.
Why shouldn't they?
Aside from echoing Nick and Planet: These fundies are taking two minor planks of the "platform" of an organization that -- at its heart -- is only about improving girls' self-esteem, and using a different group's entirely apolitical association with the first to yank away what is probably a somewhat important part of their daughters' lives (especially in the case of the fashion shows) just to make a hysterical statement about gayness and/or "protect" their kids from something that would probably never have had an impact on them in the first place.
That's very different from, say, boycotting Nestle because it helps kill third world babies.
Didn't Jesus once say, "There ain't no fun in fundamentalism"?
mmm that was probably Tom Waits. Oft-confused with Jesus.
So, why shouldn't they? For me, it comes down to the fact that much of the religious right can't or won't accept that you have a right to be activist in opposition to the social and political changes they want to make, while reserving the right to be activist in opposition to anything and everything with which they disagree.
Kind of like you're doing now.
For those of us in the political center (an extremely small minority of political thought), watching these left vs. right battles is amusing, in a way. Both sides behave in exactly the same way. They spend more time & energy demonizing the 'other side' than they do developing and backing up their own views. The right uses terms like 'liberal' and 'socialist' as pejoratives, just as the left does with 'religious right' and 'christian'. When they veer away from reasoned, civilized debate, they instantly drum up instances of how the other side does it worse.
I see these battles in the same way I see arguments about close calls in baseball game instant replays. Whether you see the runner as safe or out depends entirely on what team you cheer for. Neither side will ever make a concession to the other.
Hey, we're just stating our opinions, which, if I understand your logic, means that you're not allowed to state yours.
What??
Whether you see the runner as safe or out depends entirely on what team you cheer for.
Well, speaking personally, I disagree. I see the runner as out if he's tagged before touching the bag and safe if the reverse is true. In the unlikely event of a true "tie", it does go to the runner.
That said, Bush is a weenie.
rocket88:This is nothing but a group of individuals who found a link between a company or product and a political view they don't agree with, so they organized a boycott and a protest. I've done it. Many of you have, too. Why shouldn't they?
That's one way of looking at it. Another is: These parents have decided to deprive their children of some refreshingly wholesome playthings in order to better express their own hatred.
To put that another way: As American consumers, these people buy the products and services of hundreds, maybe thousands of different corporations on a regular basis. Those corporations support a huge number of charitable organizations, and those charitable organizations run many, many different programs spread all accross the political spectrum. It's simply not credible to imagine that any individual agrees with every point-of-view his or her money eventually ends up supporting. A person genuinely and intelligently concerned about such things would surely revise his/her own relatively massive grown-up corporate patronage first, before they worried about a few dolls. "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" Christians my ass. They should be the ones making the sacrifices.
A simpler way of looking at it might be: They're perfectly free to be, and to act like, hypocritical, bigoted dumbasses. And we're perfectly free to mock them for it.
What??
Because rocket88 is finding fault with us stating our opinions in response to someone else's. As far as I can tell, there must be some sort of zero-sum mechanism in place: the right to state an opinion only goes to the first person to do so and precludes anyone else doing so in response.
There's a big difference between 'These people are stupid and punishing their kids because of their idiot beliefs' and 'Good for them for exercising their free speech, even though I don't agree with them'.
I'll agree.
How about "Good for these people for excercising their free speech, but they're stupid and punishing their kids because of their idiot beliefs and I don't agree with them"?
Cause that's where I swtand.
Close enough!
My nephews like some of the toys that come in McDonalds' Happy Meals, but they never get any because my sister is boycotting McDonalds. Is she punishing her kids for her own selfish idealism?
There's a big difference between 'These people are stupid and punishing their kids because of their idiot beliefs' and 'Good for them for exercising their free speech, even though I don't agree with them'.
I wouldn't want it to be impossible for them to carry out their insane boycott, and I wouldn't want it to be impossible for them to pollute the air with their oral diarrhea, either. But one doesn't have to compliment them for doing these things, surely?
If I (or you, for that matter) really felt obligated to say 'Good for them for exercising their free speech, even though I don't agree with them' every time we found a reason to feel that way, we wouldn't get much else done in a day, I'll bet.
But one doesn't have to compliment them for doing these things, surely?
No, and I don't think that's ever been rocket88's point. I think his point has been simply that there's nothing wrong with boycotting a company you don't believe in. It's just standing up for your principles. The principles themselves may be contemptible, but that's a separate issue.
And I really don't see how not buying your kids a certain brand of doll is punishing them. An ex of mine was refused Barbies when she was a girl, because her parents didn't really like what they perceived Barbie to stand for (I will never buy any of those fucking Bratz dolls, or however you spell it, for similar reasons, should I ever spawn a girl). She had a very happy childhood, and perhaps a much more positive body image than she otherwise might have had to boot.
Shit, my parents refused to buy me tons of toys I wanted. And now I'm a paragon of intellectual brilliance, a tower of moral infallibility, and a guy with a really talented wang.
Kind of like you're doing now.
No, not even vaguely.
The dilemma in this is that it's not a debate. It's not a reasoned discussion. It's not the product of a democratic process. It's not even about right or wrong, or 'your' opinion versus 'mine' [1].
As far as the religious right is concerned, it's about good and evil. And, if you have any illusions on the topic, any form of dissent makes you, well, evil. Oh, and that almost certainly includes those of you in the extremely small minority of the political center, too. Welcome to the legions of the damned, there are some empty seats at the back.
If you haven't already, spend some time surfing the web sites of the religious right. A fun place to start would be with the ravingshate-mongering preachings of Fred Phelps, at godhatesfags.com. Apparently, Mister Rogers is burning in hell, or so Phelps believes, along with absolutely anyone who disagrees with the good Pastor's take on homosexuality. You see, there's that inability to accept dissent thing again. He's also demanding the death penalty for sodomy (pdf). Fun guy. Admittedly, Phelps is at the "white-sheet-with-eyeholes-cut-out" wearing end of the religious right, but his brand of extremism is probably less dangerous for the fact that it's relatively easy to identify and quantify.
'Religious right', by the way, is simply a convenient term that makes expressing an opinion about the goals and ambitions of an identifiable group a little easier. Would 'christian conservatives' be less pejorative to you? Sorry, no, you removed any use of 'christian' from the lexicon of the debate, didn't you. And a good thing too, since it's probably already been lost in this conversation that we're (or at least I'm) talking about a specific group of christians / religious-persons (they'd be the ones over there, on the right), rather than christians / religious-persons as a whole. Hmmm. I guess we'll have to rely on 'those people', and hope everyone simply knows who we mean. That makes a great deal more sense. Mmhmm.
As I said in my earlier post, it's a hell of a challenge to acknowledge and defend the rights to protest and self-expression of those who believe you are absolutely not entitled to the same rights. I'm still trying to make sense of that one in respect to my general beliefs that everyone is not only entitled to these things, including the non-pejoratively-used religious right, but should be encouraged to be activist in pursuing them as ideals. I'll let you know if I manage to resolve this conflict. I wouldn't hold your breath. I know I'm not.
Ultimately, the-people-formerly-known-as-the-religious-right want to change the society I / you / we live in. They want to impose a set of values and a world view that I (and I hope at least some others) object to in a fundamental way, and they don't believe that I / you / we have a right to object. Even if it smacks of hypocrisy, I will not go gentle into that good night. And while I'm, you know, busy raging against the dying of the light and whatnot, the irony is that I will be fighting, even if only in a small way, for the rights of the-people-formerly-known-as-the-religious-right too. Not to mention the we-get-to-poke-fun-at-everyone bastards in the political center.
Yes, it may well be a case of "Hypocrite, thy name is planetthoughtful," but if someone's got a better way of standing up for what you believe in, could you please share it with me? Thank you, I'd appreciate it.
[1] And it's definitely not a baseball game, either. In a baseball game two sides get to compete. In this arena, if you disagree, they don't want you on the field. In fact, I doubt you're welcome in the stadium at all.
…if human beings descend from apes…
No, no, no, no, no, no, no! We are not descended from apes. We share a common ancestor with the apes. And chimps. Hell, go back far enough and human beings even share a common ancestor with fundamentalists. But we are most emphatically NOT descended from the apes. It may seem like splitting rabbits, but it is an important distinction. Apes and chimps have been evolving all this time just like we have.
Whew! Sorry 'bout that outburst. Too many years of anthropology, you may safely ignore me now.
And it's definitely not a baseball game, either. In a baseball game two sides get to compete. In this arena, if you disagree, they don't want you on the field. In fact, I doubt you're welcome in the stadium at all.
I disagree.
Now suit up, kid. Tonight's important, see?
The whole concept is beyond horrific. Thank God we are doing the ancestral troll dolls here.
Douggles, we appreciate you trying to clear up any mistaken ideas, but really, some people ARE descended from apes. You can tell the ones in congress--they're the ones hooting and flinging shit.
…some people ARE descended from apes
Nah, I prefer to think of them as actually BEING apes. Just shaved, shoved into a suit, and taught to speak, after a fashion
WTF? All this time I thought that Darwin said that we descended from GRAPES. That's why I've always been a creationist - cause I ain't no goddam fruit.
"shared a common ancestor with grapes", mais peut etre tu as raisin.
monkeyfilter: go back far enough and human beings even share a common ancestor with fundamentalists.
Oui, c'est ma raisin d'être.
ah yes, in vino habitas.
Homo Sauvignon.
i think many creationists would argue that one thing that separates us from the beasts is our concept of "da vine"
That, and we don't lick our own balls.
Sorry - "can't".
Thank you.
Oui, c'est ma raisin d'être.
Don't make me slap you.
Not . .y'know . . there anyway.
Aw shucks, I feel so flattered. That's the first time a comment by me has been quoted into a tagline. My life is complete.
ravingshate-mongeringpreachings of Fred Phelps, at godhatesfags.com. Apparently, Mister Rogers is burning in hell, or so Phelps believes, along with absolutely anyone who disagrees with the good Pastor's take on homosexuality. You see, there's that inability to accept dissent thing again. He's also demanding the death penalty for sodomy (pdf). Fun guy. Admittedly, Phelps is at the "white-sheet-with-eyeholes-cut-out" wearing end of the religious right, but his brand of extremism is probably less dangerous for the fact that it's relatively easy to identify and quantify. 'Religious right', by the way, is simply a convenient term that makes expressing an opinion about the goals and ambitions of an identifiable group a little easier. Would 'christian conservatives' be less pejorative to you? Sorry, no, you removed any use of 'christian' from the lexicon of the debate, didn't you. And a good thing too, since it's probably already been lost in this conversation that we're (or at least I'm) talking about a specific group of christians / religious-persons (they'd be the ones over there, on the right), rather than christians / religious-persons as a whole. Hmmm. I guess we'll have to rely on 'those people', and hope everyone simply knows who we mean. That makes a great deal more sense. Mmhmm. As I said in my earlier post, it's a hell of a challenge to acknowledge and defend the rights to protest and self-expression of those who believe you are absolutely not entitled to the same rights. I'm still trying to make sense of that one in respect to my general beliefs that everyone is not only entitled to these things, including the non-pejoratively-used religious right, but should be encouraged to be activist in pursuing them as ideals. I'll let you know if I manage to resolve this conflict. I wouldn't hold your breath. I know I'm not. Ultimately, the-people-formerly-known-as-the-religious-right want to change the society I / you / we live in. They want to impose a set of values and a world view that I (and I hope at least some others) object to in a fundamental way, and they don't believe that I / you / we have a right to object. Even if it smacks of hypocrisy, I will not go gentle into that good night. And while I'm, you know, busy raging against the dying of the light and whatnot, the irony is that I will be fighting, even if only in a small way, for the rights of the-people-formerly-known-as-the-religious-right too. Not to mention the we-get-to-poke-fun-at-everyone bastards in the political center. Yes, it may well be a case of "Hypocrite, thy name is planetthoughtful," but if someone's got a better way of standing up for what you believe in, could you please share it with me? Thank you, I'd appreciate it. [1] And it's definitely not a baseball game, either. In a baseball game two sides get to compete. In this arena, if you disagree, they don't want you on the field. In fact, I doubt you're welcome in the stadium at all.