GoldieBlox vs. What Exactly? - Contributor Post

Pollychromatic brings up some really good points about the Goldie Blox / Beastie Boys issue.

....



GoldieBlox and the Beastie Boys. What a freaking mess. Right in the heart of the intersectionality between feminism and parenting. Add in copyright legalities. Add in free speech. Add in artistic expression. Add in the free market.

Really, what a mess.

So where do I start?

I’ll start with who came first. The Beasties. Hey there Beasties. Oh how I love you.

I was 14 when Licensed to Ill came out. I loved it unashamedly. It was probably the very first hip hop that hit me in the suburbs of Northern California. I mean, there was the stray shot of rap that was White Lines, but really. It was all about the Beastie Boys when it comes to bringing hip hop to most of white America. That’s what started it.

I loved “Girls.” I don’t even cringe at it nowadays because that love is so strong. We shook our teenage asses to that song because it was freaking fun. Because. Because reasons. Because, listen.


It’s hard not to shake to that.

It does not even matter how horrible the lyrics are. Sometimes we just like horrible things. Let’s be real, though. When I was 14 I did not know how horrible it was. It was just catchy, and I was just dancing.

That love continued, too, even though the Beasties evolved so much over time. I loved their new stuff (hey, if you don’t think Paul’s Boutique is one of the most perfect albums to ever come out, you don’t know music), I loved their old stuff. On the run up to getting the scan done to find out the sexes of my twins, “Girls” was one of the ringtones that I had one my phone for a solid week.

It’s just a solid riff, and as much as I am a staunch feminist who completely rejects the message of “Girls,” I’m also the girl who shakes her ass to it.

So there’s that.

Then there’s GoldieBlox.

Dammit, GoldieBlox. I grew up in a family that completely supported STEM for girls (and boys). When the GoldieBlox Kickstarter happened, my whole family ate it up. My daughter has one of the original Kickstarter sets. You know, it’s a pretty good toy, too. Both my son and daughter like it.

The box is orange and yellow, with multi-colored dots and the blonde tool-belt sporting “Goldie” on top. The toy inside consists of pieces that are blue, purple, lavender, red, and yellow. With a long peachy-pink ribbon, and five character figures to manipulate. Each of the figures are internet-nerd friendly. A sloth, a hound dog, a grumpy looking cat, a tutu wearing dolphin and a koala in a business suit. A book that tells their story while giving you building instructions, and then alternate building instructions for ideas for free-play.

Pretty okay. Very tinker-toy with it’s spools and sticks and connector bits, but also kitschy in a way that has a lot of wink to the parent, and a lot of play for the kids who don’t get that it’s kitschy. Not quite enough toy, but a good starter set. For those of us who are raising boys and girls, and are kind of horrified by the gendered changes in marketing of toys in the last couple decades, we were willing to buy in and get the company off the ground.

Company founder and inventor Debbie Sterling is from the Bay Area, too, so that was an extra selling point for my family.

Then came this.

A great little Rube Goldberg machine built out of princess girl toys backed by three little girls running around to the song “Girls,” but with new lyrics that say girls really want a change.

And this. GoldieBlox are one of four finalists for ad space for a small business to get aired during the Superbowl.

This was sort of a slam dunk for me. Even with these good arguments in the mix.

I liked the subversive message of taking a song that had lyrics that are pretty backwards, and all the pink princess toys, and turning it all into an anthem that says NOPE. Admittedly, I was also pretty happy that the Beasties had signed onto this. Because of course they would have had to. Right?

Oh. Wait. Nope. The remaining Beasties make it clear that they accuse GoldieBlox of using their song in an ad. Something that MCA specifically requested in his will to never be done. They didn’t sue, they simply accused. It seemed to be upsetting to them, too, because they specifically like the mission statement of GoldieBlox. The guys grew up a lot, you know.

What was even more brass balls for GoldieBlox than using a song they didn’t even get permission to use, was that they hadpreemptively sued the Beasties for the right to do it under the label of free speech parody. Something that at least one expert in fair use legalities said was likely a legally tight case. At least tight enough to hold legal water, that is.

My ass stopped shaking to the new “Girls” for a second. Now I’m not sure what the hell I feel. I think I support GoldieBlox. Right? Feminism? STEM for girls? The right to free speech? Wait. Where do I stand?

It’s a bit harder to dance to that music.

The next shot out of this mess is a needle scratching across the record for me, though. The Beastie Boys didn’t even sue GoldieBlox. Whhhhhut?

Dammit, Debbie. Dammit.

 

The 7 Most Horrifying Things in McCall's (Sept. 1949) - Guest Post

Amber over at Miss Parayim stumbled across an old stack of McCall's Magazine the other week. What's resulted is...horrifying. Thanks, Amber! (The "story" is my favorite.)

Last weekend, I found myself in an antique store, and came across a stack of old McCall’s magazines from 1949.  I had completely forgotten that this magazine even existed, and since I wasn’t interested in sewing when they stopped publishing it over 10 years ago I never connected the dots between the magazine and the pattern company.

I decided to buy one, and thought it would be fun to peruse the pages of what your average housewife would read for funsies 64 years ago.

My how times have changed.  THANK GOD!

First off, that iconic ad image of the 1950′s woman that has become almost a cliche at this point- the huge bright smile, wide eyes, giant full skirt- it must have started sometime in the 40′s because this thing was so full of that it was almost unreal.  I had a few “is this real life?” moments because while I knew that character must have been used, for whatever reason I didn’t expect to see it on almost every page.  It was very surreal.

Also- there are NO makeup ads, but if you take a modern women’s magazine, and replace every makeup ad with an ad for deodorant, you’ll have a sense of how weirdly prevalent those types of ads were.  Apparently late 1940′s/early 1950′s women were naturally gorgeous, but they smelled REALLY bad (or, at least, that’s what advertisers wanted them to believe).  Kind of makes you wonder about the things they advertise in those magazines today.

As I flipped through the pages of brightly smiling, malodorous women, I became more and more glad I am in my 30′s today, not 60 years ago.  Because as beautiful and fun as some of those outfits were, there’s a lot from back then that I have absolutely no desire to remake as “vintage modern”.

Presenting….  The 7 most awful and horrifying things I saw in the September 1949 McCalls (or- why I feel sorry for my grandmothers)

#1  Crisco- it’s digestable!

Let’s start off with an easy one. This was early in the magazine, and is the sort of whimsical and humorous tag line we like to expect. Digestible! How quaint!

#2 Green food coloring = instant pistachio!

Yeah…. I don’t buy it. And I’m starting to doubt the image of the mid-century housewife that was an amazing homemaker and cook that they would even suggest such a thing.

#3 You’re a bad mom if you don’t buy our product!

Gee- thanks for the guilt trip, McCalls. Not only do I not have any oil-o-sol in my medicine cabinet, I had never heard of it until now. Consider my children, unloved :(

#4- You can never be too clean!

Can you read the subheading? This is number ELEVEN in a series. I don’t want to know how long that series was. This article was several pages long :(

#5 You are getting sleepy….

This article was about 6 pages long, and “Cook it for him good” was splattered across every page in large font. One page even had it twice. Brainwashing by repetition? It is my womanly duty, after all…

#6 I’m not even going to try to make this one entertaining. It’s that awful.

Think twice before you tell the man “make yourself at home” I can’t even put into words… The man is actually the “hero” of this story. That girl is supposed to be 11 years old. I only skimmed the story, and what’s implied by this picture doesn’t happen (which kind of makes it even worse that they would dream this up to lure in readers). The gist of the story is- man gets invited to dinner at his high-school girlfriend’s house. He is completely disgusted by how unkempt the place is (there are crumbs on the kitchen counter!). He says some borderline inappropriate things to the daughter. Later the mom propositions him, but can’t decide if he can be with someone that keeps such a filthy house (crumbs!!! on the counter!!!!) . He later decides to call the mom and take her up on the offer, and she pretends he dialed the wrong number. The whole thing was just weird, and the mediocre housekeeping seemed like the real point of the story. Or maybe that unclean houses are magnets for pedophiles? I thought this might be something of a Lolita rip off since the mom in that book was kind of a slob, but that wasn’t published until 1955. Maybe this was just an ongoing theme until that book defined it. Whatever it is, it’s gross on several levels.

#7 The woman today is as bright as a toilet

Bright? You’re right! That goes for the lady- and the toilet bowl too!

Really, McCall’s?  REALLY?  Let’s compare our readers to a toilet!  That’s a great idea!
This is the one that really infuriates me.  This is 1949.  Only a few years ago, the women that were reading this magazine were keeping calm and carrying on.  They were making do and mending.  They were planting victory gardens to feed their family, and hoarding their rations so they could be lucky enough to buy one of those brand new sewing machines that you charmingly advertise in this magazine!
They were Rosie the Riveter, and you just made a buck on an advertiser that compared them to a toilet!?  REALLY???

Fucking hell, it sucked to be a woman back then….

 

The End of the Spammers?

I've posted before about the hilarious spam messages I receive on this blog.

Gems like:

"I think this is one of the such a lot important information for me.
And i'm satisfied reading your article. However wanna remark on few general things, The website taste is great, the articles is in reality great : D. Just right job, cheers
My web page: how to get rid of acne scars "

"That is really attention-grabbing, You are a very 
skilled blogger. I've joined your feed and sit up for seeking more of your excellent post. Additionally, I have shared your web site in my social networks
Also visit my web page ... how to get your Ex back "

and

"Somebody essentially lend a hand to make seriously articles I 
would state. This is the first time I frequented your web 
page and thus far? I surprised with the research you made to create this actual put up amazing.

Excellent activity!
My webpage ; buy youtube views"

keep coming.

I laugh.

Now, I had been allowing these spam comments for two reasons.

1) Captcha is annoying.

2) Some of these commenters are real people making, like, three pennies per comment or something. And who am I to deny them their income? They're only looking ridiculous on older posts anyway.

But then I got a comment that said something along the lines of this:

"Blah blah ridiculous, nonsensical blather. Does your site have a spam problem? View my webpage."

And I was like, well, it didn't until you drew it to my attention. Now, I'm thinking, jeez, if the spammers are asking if I've got a spam problem, it's probably time to bite the bullet and rid myself of these leeches.

(No offense, leeches.)

Even without that snarky spam comment, the number of links left on old blog entries is getting up to a half dozen a day.

This is everyone's problem. Moderation, yo. When you descend upon something so surely and with no reprieve, you're going to be stopped where otherwise, had you exercised just a little judgement, held back just a tad, you'd be left alone to attempt to entice people with your stupid links.

Unfortunately for you, I'll now be taking care of my "spam problem."

Thanks for bringing it to my attention, bots.

But before I do, here are a few more gems for you all:

"When someone writes an article he/she retains the image of a user in his/her brain that how a user can be 
aware of it. Therefore that's why this article is perfect. Thanks!
Here is my web-site :: buy Youtube views " 

(This one is extra good because it's on a post about shepherd's pie. Hah.)

"What's up, every time i used to check weblog posts here early in the daylight, for the reason that i like to gain knowledge of more and more.
my web site :: clean my pc "

Okay, I have to stop copy and pasting these before I change my mind about strengthening my security.

They're so hilarious; I really quite like them.


 

Save the Children

"For just one dollar a day, you could feed a child for life."

We all know those commercials. The ones where the missionary-type person is walking around an impoverished nation, loving kids in front of the camera and begging for our help. The children are starving. They really do need help. Their stomachs are swollen and distended, their limbs are gaunt, their eyes are big...sad and hopeful.

We feel moved, saddened, upset with the state of the world. We think, what a great PSA. If I had an extra dollar a day, I would totally give it to these people. In fact, someday I'm going to. I'm going to help save the world. Maybe tomorrow. Maybe next week.

Fail.

As much as we hate to admit it because we don't want to look like the hard-hearted people we are, these television spots and magazine spreads have ceased to work. All they do is make the viewer feel like a good person for seemingly feeling sympathy and outrage for these poor people. But not enough sympathy or outrage to give up our ordered coffee each morning to help feed them.

In essence, these spots are doing the opposite of their intent. They're soothing the slacktivist instead of needling them into action. And they're not getting the money they need.

With that said, I give you this:




In the video, activists put a tape recording of a baby crying in a blanket in a box and leave it on the sidewalk. Passersby think there is an actual child in there, and many stop. On the television we get to clutch our hearts and swear at the world before clicking the channel. On the street, if you come across an abandoned baby in a box, you're going to stop. Already you've done more than the TV watcher. Already the activists have created more awareness than the old PSAs do at this point.

By taking a problem that seems far away, and making it real, tangible, right in front of us, you succeed in reaching a different part of people. A part that is called to action inherently. A part that doesn't have anything to do with the self-congratulatory voice inside of us, telling us what a good person we are going to be someday. In fact, those passers-by aren't even thinking about themselves at all. They're thinking, oh God, someone left a baby on the street. They stop to help. They never think about how awesome they are once.

And that's an eye-opening experience for them all on its own. By jarring them into action before thought, they realize how good they actually are deep down. They feel even better about themselves because they have an instinct they never even knew about, and now they know that they can count on that instinct, that they will stop and help.

And if they were willing to stop and help a baby on the street, which would have been a lot of work, distraction, paper shuffling, commitment, and confusion, wouldn't they be willing, instead, to donate a dollar a day to the cause? It achieves the very same thing they were about to try to do, anyway, for a real person, not a tape recording, and it's a lot easier.

Well done, I say. Bravo.

Save the children.


___

If you like this blog, please vote on Babble.com. Tales of an Unlikely Mother is number 18, just scroll down and click on the thumbs up! Thank you so, so much.

Want to Go to Paris? Don't Have a Kid.

Commericials are so ridiculous in general that the one I saw last night hardly even bears mention, but it stuck with me, not only for it's blatant exclusionary tactics (which, in a commercial, where your audience is women, and a large percentage of that audience, would, by nature of things, have children, can't be a particularly clever thing to do), but also for its sheer length.

So, after my babies were tucked away in their beds, most definitely not sleeping, laughter and shouts erupting from the room every few minutes, and every few minutes more, a plaintive plea: "Mommy?  Moooooommmmmmy!" I settled down to watch a bit of television (After Lately, actually.  You should watch it.)

After five minutes of the show, the commercial break pops up, and I go to resettle the kids. I plop myself back down on the sofa to see images of happy young women -- every once in a while, a happy young couple -- flitting back and forth on the screen, wearing fashionable things, and being presented with "life choices."

A stork comes by with a purple satchel.  The beautiful woman laughs at him and shakes her head. She moves on to a picture of the Eiffel Tower and instead picks out the note "Trip to Paris."  Another woman, this one in stylish glasses and skinny jeans, looks at house after house after house, the implication being that she can afford it because she doesn't have a child.  Which is why we should all buy this particular brand of birth control.

The commercial goes on and on; it's never-ending.  It says, look at this scenario that's better without kids. Look at that one; you can't do that one with kids.  See all of these smiling faces? It's because they don't have kids.  Know why they don't have kids? Because they buy and use our birth control.

Oh. Okay.

Except that having a kid doesn't mean you'll never get to Paris.  If you try to do it with toddlers, you're a braver woman than I, but last time I checked (I hope!) that phase lasts for just a few years.  Having a kid doesn't prevent you from buying a home you would like.  In fact, it may push you in that direction, who knows?

But, I get their point. I understand what they were going for, and it's not a notion that's completely without merit. Without kids, there is a lot that you can do, it's true.

What really gets me is the length of time they spent on this one concept.  The commercial ran at least a minute. That's a really long time in TV. And I got the point after 15 seconds. 30 seconds was pushing it.  It was only after the full minute that my annoyance and my resolution to never switch to their product set in.

Birth control is used by so many people for so many different reasons.  Why not include the woman with totally intense cramps (in a picture, of course...going with the commercial, she'd be smiling and lovely, over-the-moon about her choice of BC), or the woman has a family already and is satisfied with where she is in life? By using just ten seconds to show those two situations, that brand of birth control widens their audience probably three-fold. As it stands, they alienate at least half and maybe more of the birth-control users out there.  Foolish marketing, in my opinion.

Of course, I'm probably over-reacting and here's why.  Right after that commercial, a spot came on for Enfamil Formula, showing a harried mother in an oversized shirt feeding her baby a bottle.

Oh, television, what's with the one-two punch?  "If you didn't use that birth control we were just talking about, and you look like this woman instead of those other women, here's a product for you."

Well, E, thank you for not leaving mothers behind in your advertising.


___
Please vote for Tales of an Unlikely Mother on Babble.com. We're number 15, just scroll down and click on the thumbs up.