8 Comments

• 1. Sibyl  |  June 16th, 2008 at 7:53 pm

  Honestly, I see no problem with the new design. It’s just more of a modern cartoon style, with big eyes as a bit of the anime influence which is coming into Western culture. I don’t think ANY little girl is going to feel a need to be thin or sexualized because of the new image. Her clothing is not revealing, looks nothing like a real human being anyways because her head is the same size as her body.

  I see replacing the cat with the cell phone as wrong, though, because it encourages commercialism. There are 4th and 5th graders who feel they need cellular phones to act grown up, and it’s a horrid waste of money.

• 2. W  |  June 16th, 2008 at 11:57 pm

  I agree with the above poster. When I look at these character drawings and updated images I don’t think “wow, she’s thin.” They don’t look sexualized, emaciated, and their not dressed in clothes that is age inappropriate for the little girls who buy the paraphernalia associated with the brand lines in question. I have no problem with these images.

  Bratz, I definitely have a problem with. That is a twisted, manipulative and messed up depiction of a pre teen doll.

  I am concerned, and have been for years, about characters such as Ariel (The Little Mermaid) and the various female sex pot images on Guitar Hero and Dance Dance Revolution video games. It doesn’t get trampier then that and my little cousins etc… play those videos all the time. The male characters in Guitar Hero are always hairy, overweight, style deficient rockers, or gangly scruffs who still look like there fourteen, yet, the girls strut the dimensions of an anatomical nightmare (the impossibly perfect woman).

  Examples:
  Impossible waist to hip ratio.
  Gigantic breasts (translation: not even fake implants could acheive this in real life).
  Barely there skirts and midriff baring tops.

  (Double standards yet again. What a shocker.)

  I get that adults play these video games. Fine. But kids play them too.

  Completely unrelated: I hate that they updated and messed with the Spiderman cartoon. They gave him a new voice and it sucks.

• 3. Neffy  |  June 17th, 2008 at 4:37 am

  I disagree with above posters in saying that the image isn’t sexualised. They have changed her face from that of a child to that of a teen/young adult, but remains in a child’s body – nay, a child’s body that is actually thinner than the original. A character doesn’t have to be given breasts to be sexualised – in fact, the subtlety of this makes it easy for people to dismiss the image as harmless and those objecting to it as over-the-top feminist whingers. With the original image, there is no question that we are looking at a child. with the new one, it is a lot more ambiguous.

  And whether you agree that the image is sexualised or not, you can’t deny that her face is a clone of every other female character out there at the moment (from cartoon characters, to dolls, to peoples’ avatars for fuck’s sake). You know what I’m talking about – straight hair, massive alien bog-eyes, high rosy cheeks, pretty little mouth, a nose that would be tiny for a hamster…urgh. What happened to promoting diversity and individuality?

  This so-called “anime look” that is becoming so popular should really be named the “impossibly cute replicant look.”

• 4. W  |  June 17th, 2008 at 12:25 pm

  I see the bog-eyes, pretty little mouth, and hamster nose in the original image too. I think the major difference, and what is rightly objected too is that the orignal Strawberry Shortcake was never trying to replicate or model a real human little girl. It was just a doll and not a suggestion of anything more. Eg: the old Strawberry Shortcake image has hair strands that are clearly from a mop and hands without fingers.

  The new Stawberry Shortcake image does try to replicate a real little girl. As a result, little girls will try to be like her. And, yes, that is wrong. I see your point. Her mane of hair and refined facial features (that are impossible for a little girl to even achieve until post puberty) are cause for concern.

• 5. Piper  |  June 23rd, 2008 at 9:31 pm

  The older one is cute, but the most appealing thing about her isn’t her appearance, it’s her playfulness- running, jumping, roll-on-the-grass-and-laugh kind of playful.
  The new one looks ‘playful’ in a ‘let’s do each other’s nails’ kind of way, which is to say the most appealing thing about her is her sleek conventionally pretty appearance. This Strawberry Shortcake would never, ever roll on the grass.
  This is not the direction children’s entertainment should be headed.

• 6. Emie  |  June 25th, 2008 at 12:55 pm

  How disappointing that some people took time to mention that they indeed see NOTHING wrong with the new models. I am, naturally, against the new models, yet I do not put my reasonings on the same level as to think that they are sexualized, more that it is comercialized. Strawberry Shortcake and her friends were created to cause the same affection as Raggety Ann and Andy. When are they going to remake them into glamourous? With Ann in a floor lengthed sequinned dress with a low color and high slit, Andy in a dashing suit (both adorned with patches??). It could never be done, so why, I must ask, do they insist on changing, as you said, the 80’s retro cartoons. It has broken my heart to see them change not only Strawberry Shortcake, but also the Carebears, My Little Pony, and Holly Hobby. I would usually be seen as a little young to truly appreciate these (born in 1989) but my family took a special action in having me brought up with these childhood favorites, which even now I remember and hold with warm affections (as do my BROTHERS, both in their late twenties). Their characters are the stuffed animals I have kept around, the movies that I still watch when I need comfort. they are classics, being recreated for a new time, and it’s horrid.

  And to the 2nd poster… Ariel? Are you joking? She’s a mermaid! Would you prefer her in a turtle neck sweater. I suppose you also have a problem with Tinkerbell in her short fairy dress, and Wendy traveling around in her nightgown (which the Ariel-look alike mermaids were quick to mention, if you recall). It is not an explotation, it is a character, in no way designed to simbolize sex. If you must see it in another light, notice how Ariel was dressed as a human. it was her first action to find clothes, and from that point on she was modestly dressed. Do you take a similar standpoint on all Disney princesses? Belle wore an off the shoulder gown, Pocahontas, a skin wrap, and Jasmine, oh dear, she wore a cultural fitting middrift baring outfit (oh calamity!) In that sense it is only Aurora and Snow White who are fit to be seen by children. But would you really not allow children to see these classics? Of course not! In this case, you need to be not so very strict. It is ridiculous, and in some ways quite disgraceful to some cultures that actually practice such wardrobes. Think a little before you challenge a classic that has created much happiness for many people.

  As for you, A.J. Thank you. it’s refreashing to hear that others value classic, and good for you to not be sucked in by the new image that is being released. I appreciate it emmensely. (as to the rest of you who agreed)

• 7. W  |  June 25th, 2008 at 6:47 pm

  Ernie – Your attempt at British pompous ass word rendition is blather. Your condescention and attempt to discredit others opinions is also blather. You are a wind bag and I find that hilarious. You, and your bug eyed opinion, is laughable at best you half whit.

  You and Ariel are a match made in heaven. I hope your clam bra chafes you irrepairably.

• 8. Alyza  |  June 25th, 2008 at 7:51 pm

  It’s great to see so many of you respond with your opinions about the new Strawberry Shortcake. However, we wold really appreciate a civil conversation. Everyone has a right to their opinion, but future posts that attack people will get taken down. Argument is appreciated, but personal attacks are not.

  -A.J.

Trackback this post