Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
At my daughter's ballet school, a special meeting was held to discuss with parents what qualifies as stage makeup. Stage lights will wash children out, but a little blush, mascara, and pink on the lips does the trick. We had parents doing a full foundation, often with glitter, eye liner, bright eye-shadow, red lipstick, glitter hairspray, the whole deal. The school took a strong stand and said "they are children and they should look like children," and then parents were informed that if their girls came out of the dressing room overdone, the girls would not go on stage. The parents were the problem. The policy was always in writing, but it was being ignored.
I think 6th grade is about right for a little lip gloss, but not much more than that. Our children are already growing up way too fast. My 5th grader still only wears lip balm to prevent chapping and coverup with acne medication when she has a blemish.
Walmart's marketing choices are interesting to me. The company takes a strong stand on music and movies, but it doesn't see the moral connection when it comes to encouraging young girls to pose as older than they are. And that, IMO, is what make-up at an early age does.
I have to say that I really don't think make up is immoral.
I have to say that I really don't think make up is immoral.
It's not.
I don't get the big deal here? So what if they are marketing it. You are the parent, if you don't want your daughter wearing it, don't let them.
I think it is actually a halfway decent idea. Little girls love to play with makeup and that play stuff is awful and so bad for their skin. If this is made from better ingredients, it is better for them.
I didn't have a little girl but I can guarantee you I would have bought it for play, cheering, dance etc.....I would rather that than have her using my $25 mascara!
I have to say that I really don't think make up is immoral.
its not that makeup is immoral. girls carry themselves a certain way by what they wear. if they are dressing age appropriately, like jeans/tshirt or skirt and sweater--with FLATS, then they look and act like little girls. as soon as they start with heals and makeup, they begin to ACT as if they feel more mature and that sends the wrong message to guys THINKING they ARE more mature--when in fact they are still children. it gets young girls and for that matter, young boys getting the wrong message into a LOT of trouble.
My point is that it's becoming more and more socially acceptable to have 8 year olds running around in makeup - when you specifically market a makeup line to them that is made to be worn on a day to day basis in order to get them into a "beauty regimen" as the company calls it - then you are attempting to make adult consumers out of preteens and sexualizing them in the process, or at the very least sending the message that at 10 years old they are not beautiful enough to leave the house without makeup.
Then why is walmart to blame if it is becoming socially acceptable? When something becomes socially acceptable then peope will invest in and sell the product.
As others have said. There have been make up kits in the toy aisle for years.
You can't possibly be implying that kids who have the toy make up understand it's fake and therefore don't make the same connections. Are you?
Can someone please explain the difference between real and fake makeup and why the connections would not be the same?
its not that makeup is immoral. girls carry themselves a certain way by what they wear. if they are dressing age appropriately, like jeans/tshirt or skirt and sweater--with FLATS, then they look and act like little girls. as soon as they start with heals and makeup, they begin to ACT as if they feel more mature and that sends the wrong message to guys THINKING they ARE more mature--when in fact they are still children. it gets young girls and for that matter, young boys getting the wrong message into a LOT of trouble.
The post I responded to was one that specifically mentioned that Wal Mart made a moral stand about not selling music and movies that it sees as immoral but sells make up to little girls.
My point is that make up is not immoral. I don't see that many little girls wearing makeup around here. My son went to a birthday party on Saturday and not one of the 11-12 year old girls were wearing makeup. I am not sure this is a huge issue.
I don't get the big deal here? So what if they are marketing it. You are the parent, if you don't want your daughter wearing it, don't let them.
I think it is actually a halfway decent idea. Little girls love to play with makeup and that play stuff is awful and so bad for their skin. If this is made from better ingredients, it is better for them.
I didn't have a little girl but I can guarantee you I would have bought it for play, cheering, dance etc.....I would rather that than have her using my $25 mascara!
I can't see getting all worked up over Wal Mart selling makeup for little girls. If you don't want it don't buy it. They sell guns and I don't want one of those so I don't buy them.
Then why is walmart to blame if it is becoming socially acceptable? When something becomes socially acceptable then peope will invest in and sell the product.
As others have said. There have been make up kits in the toy aisle for years.
You can't possibly be implying that kids who have the toy make up understand it's fake and therefore don't make the same connections. Are you?
Can someone please explain the difference between real and fake makeup and why the connections would not be the same?
I'm not just implying it. Of course it's different. This stuff is being marketed as a beauty regimen for prepubescent girls. This is real makeup and the implication from the company that makes it is that little girls NEED the makeup in order to IMPROVE their appearance. There's very little subtlety about it. They want to make it a lifestyle choice - not just for playing dressup.
I'm going to post the quote from the head of the company again:
Quote:
The GeoGirl brand, owned by Pacific World may eventually become a lifestyle brand granted it will fulfill the sales projection made. “These are real cosmetics with natural ingredients that will create return purchases and create a true beauty consumer," adds Joel Carden, executive vice president, marketing and sales for Pacific World.
A "lifestyle brand" means that they are trying to market it so that little girls will wear the makeup all the time and won't want to leave the house without it. That's what they're hoping for. What a huge profit there is in that if that becomes the case.
I personally think it's socially irresponsible of Walmart and this company to try and start this trend. Because that's what they're doing. If you think this all an innocent attempt to improve the quality of products that little girls play with at home then I don't think you're giving their marketing dept enough credit.
From Walmart:
Quote:
The line will be marketed to parents and targets a certain life stage as opposed to a certain age of girl so parents can make informed decisions whenever they feel it’s appropriate for their child to start wearing make-up.
It's not toy makeup. It's "starter" makeup, if you will. Why do 8-12 year old girls need starter makeup?
I would feel the same way if, for example, Victoria's Secret sold little mini push up bras to 8 year olds in order for them to get used to getting their boobs out, and to make sure they feel inadequate without their product.
As for the morality issue, I think it's like this - on one hand we say "don't you dare have sex before you're 18 or married, or whatever" but at 8/9/10 we're saying "here - here's a line of makeup that serves no other real purpose but to start you off as a sexual being before you've even hit puberty - and besides that, women and girls alike look dreadful without makeup, so you'd better get used to wearing it."
This goes beyond parents individually saying yes or no. I think it speaks volumes about the expectations we have of the girls in our society. In other words, here's one more way of telling them their looks matter above all else.
its not that makeup is immoral. girls carry themselves a certain way by what they wear. if they are dressing age appropriately, like jeans/tshirt or skirt and sweater--with FLATS, then they look and act like little girls. as soon as they start with heals and makeup, they begin to ACT as if they feel more mature and that sends the wrong message to guys THINKING they ARE more mature--when in fact they are still children. it gets young girls and for that matter, young boys getting the wrong message into a LOT of trouble.
Thank you for explaining my point. It really drives me crazy when posters pick up on a single word, take it out of context, and then try to get something going.
And I'll add, if a 11 or 12 y.o. looks like a 15 or 16 y.o. because of makeup, she's likely to have to deal with advances that she is not cognitively or emotionally mature enough to deal with.
Obviously it's the parents decision, as I said earlier. That's not my point. My point is that it's becoming more and more socially acceptable to have 8 year olds running around in makeup - when you specifically market a makeup line to them that is made to be worn on a day to day basis in order to get them into a "beauty regimen" as the company calls it - then you are attempting to make adult consumers out of preteens and sexualizing them in the process, or at the very least sending the message that at 10 years old they are not beautiful enough to leave the house without makeup.
Yes, but it's not up to the stores to set the social norm.
It's up to the consumer.
So if you have a problem with it, show it with your dollars (or lack thereof).
WalMart isn't going to carry a brand that no one buys. It's not good business.
Don't blame them. Blame the parents who let their kids run around all tarted up.
The post I responded to was one that specifically mentioned that Wal Mart made a moral stand about not selling music and movies that it sees as immoral but sells make up to little girls.
My point is that make up is not immoral. I don't see that many little girls wearing makeup around here. My son went to a birthday party on Saturday and not one of the 11-12 year old girls were wearing makeup. I am not sure this is a huge issue.
Makeup is not immoral (nor did I say it was). Marketing something that is sexualizing to young girls is questionable, morally. And if you don't think that marketing affects children, you're naive.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
