The Comment of the Day on Walmart’s jaw-dropping justification for its new line of make-up for the under-12 set, from Steven Mark Pilling:
“… This sort of thing is repugnant by nature. We’ve all seen other clothing lines for kids that reflect this sort of thing, to include sexy lingerie for little girls. This is unrelentingly vile, as it not only sexualizes children further in the eyes of predators, but that it normalizes it in their own developing minds. This is the same argument, of course, that I’ve long employed in my opposition to films employing child actors in R-rated performances. And, I maintain, just as valid. In other words, this is a case of pedophile bait.
“That slickly worded announcement from Walmart that you quoted even resembles that of filmmakers who present such things. The bottom line is profit… regardless of means. The excuse is in shifting the onus onto the parents who, while distracted by other items, will absentmindedly consent to their children (who have been attracted by some colorful, glitzy item- as children innocently are) and indulge them… only to later discover (maybe) the true nature of what they’ve bought. But the damage will have been done.”
Give me a break. “Shifting the onus onto parents?” Who else has this “onus?” You want to make Walmart (and other vendors) responsible for the raising of your child/children? WHAT other “distractions” do parents have that would leave the raising of their own children to advertisers and marketers?
Shame on you. Take responsibility for your children, or don’t have any.