For years, psychologists hypothesized that raising strong, confident boys had more to do with nurture than with nature, and that it was essential for parents--fathers, mainly--to instill in them a masculinity and sense of self. This masculinity was narrowly defined to exclude any interests or traits that could be considered girlish--things like sparkly dragons or painted nails. The underlying fear: Too much female, or mom, influence could sway a son's sexual orientation. The opposite has hardly been discussed--that too much male, or dad, influence will "make" a daughter gay. In fact, little girls who display what are thought of as typically male traits--such as playing sports, excelling in math and science, and wearing tomboyish clothing--are celebrated, and close relationships with their fathers are rarely questioned. It's one reason that schools hold father-daughter dances but tend to hold mother-son events that are sport-related, if they hold any at all.

Gender typing is believed to impede emotional development and account for anti social behavior in boys. In my work with families and parenting, I have observed that boys who are not trapped in gender roles grow up to be more independent, more open-minded, and more sexually tolerant than their peers. Their exposure to a greater repertoire of potential identities gave them a sense of parental acceptance that laid the groundwork for a natural assertiveness. These boys also more easily treated females with respect and openness.

...15-18% of girls under twelve now wear mascara, eyeliner and lipstick regularly; eating disorders are up and self-esteem is down; and twenty-five percent of young American women would rather win America's Next Top Model than the Nobel Peace Prize.

I always bite my tongue when I meet little girls, restraining myself from my first impulse, which is to tell them how darn cute/ pretty/ beautiful/ well-dressed/ well-manicured/ well-coiffed they are.

Teaching girls that their appearance is the first thing you notice tells them that looks are more important than anything.

...
(here, the author talks with a little girl named Maya about what books she is reading, then they discuss the book in detail, exploring societal implications- as appropriate for a 5-year-old.)
...

So, one tiny bit of opposition to a culture that sends all the wrong messages to our girls. One tiny nudge towards valuing female brains. One brief moment of intentional role modeling. Will my few minutes with Maya change our multibillion dollar beauty industry, reality shows that demean women, our celebrity-manic culture? No. But I did change Maya's perspective for at least that evening.

Try this the next time you meet a little girl. She may be surprised and unsure at first, because few ask her about her mind, but be patient and stick with it. Ask her what she's reading. What does she like and dislike, and why? There are no wrong answers. You're just generating an intelligent conversation that respects her brain. For older girls, ask her about current events issues: pollution, wars, school budgets slashed. What bothers her out there in the world? How would she fix it if she had a magic wand? You may get some intriguing answers. Tell her about your ideas and accomplishments and your favorite books. Model for her what a thinking woman says and does.

Several troubling patterns emerged in existing coverage of child sexual abuse:

The language used to describe the abuse was often vague and inconsistent. Many articles contained ambiguous phrases, such as "sexual acts," "inappropriate sexual behavior," and "lewd and lascivious acts with a child." Such imprecise language limits the public's understanding of the issue and disguises its severity.

Nearly three quarters (73 percent) of stories were tied to a criminal justice news hook such as an arrest or trial that related to the aftermath of the abuse. This type of coverage puts the emphasis on the perpetrator instead of on the impact the abuse has on victims, their families, and the wider community. Such coverage also portrays child sexual abuse as an isolated event, ignoring its larger social context.

Prevention was rarely mentioned. Less than one-third (30 percent) of stories discussed solutions. Of those, the overwhelming majority focused on interventions to address abuse after the fact, while only a handful looked at preventing future abuse.

"This report makes it clear that we need to make prevention visible and generate stories of the possibility for social change," Cordelia Anderson, director of Sensibilities Prevention Services and president of National Coalition to Prevent Child Sexual Abuse & Exploitation, said.

opinion post on cnn. part soapbox, with good backup. i appreciated it.
by lz granderson

"I saw someone at the airport the other day who really caught my eye.

Her beautiful, long blond hair was braided back a la Bo Derek in the movie "10" (or for the younger set, Christina Aguilera during her "Xtina" phase). Her lips were pink and shiny from the gloss, and her earrings dangled playfully from her lobes.

You can tell she had been vacationing somewhere warm, because you could see her deep tan around her midriff thanks to the halter top and the tight sweatpants that rested just a little low on her waist. The icing on the cake? The word "Juicy" was written on her backside.

Yeah, that 8-year-old girl was something to see alright. ... I hope her parents are proud. Their daughter was the sexiest girl in the terminal, and she's not even in middle school yet.

Abercrombie & Fitch came under fire this spring for introducing the "Ashley," a push-up bra for girls who normally are too young to have anything to push up. Originally it was marketed for girls as young as 7, but after public outcry, it raised its intended audience to the wise old age of 12. I wonder how do people initiate a conversation in the office about the undeveloped chest of elementary school girls without someone nearby thinking they're pedophiles?

Push-up bikini controversy

What kind of PowerPoint presentation was shown to the Abercrombie executives that persuaded them to green light such a product?

That there was a demand to make little girls hot?

I mean, that is the purpose of a push-up bra, right? To enhance sex appeal by lifting up, pushing together and basically showcasing the wearer's breasts. Now, thanks to AF Kids, girls don't have to wait until high school to feel self-conscious about their, uhm, girls. They can start almost as soon as they're potty trained. Maybe this fall the retailer should consider keeping a plastic surgeon on site for free consultations.

We've been here with Abercrombie before -- if you recall, about 10 years ago they sold thongs for 10-year-olds -- but they're hardly alone in pitching inappropriate clothing to young girls. Four years ago the popular "Bratz" franchise introduced padded bras called "bralettes" for girls as young as six. That was also around the time the good folks at Wal-Mart rolled out a pair of pink panties in its junior department with the phrase "Who Needs Credit Cards" printed on the front.

I guess I've been out-of-the-loop and didn't realize there's been an ongoing stampede of 10-year-old girls driving to the mall with their tiny fists full of cash demanding sexier apparel.

What's that you say? Ten-year-olds can't drive? They don't have money, either? Well, how else are they getting ahold of these push-up bras and whore-friendly panties?

Their parents?

Noooo, couldn't be.

What adult who wants a daughter to grow up with high self-esteem would even consider purchasing such items? What parent is looking at their sweet, little girl thinking, "She would be perfect if she just had a little bit more up top."

And then I remember the little girl at the airport. And the girls we've all seen at the mall. And the kiddie beauty pageants.

And then I realize as creepy as it is to think a store like Abercrombie is offering something like the "Ashley", the fact remains that sex only sells because people are buying it. No successful retailer would consider introducing an item like a padded bikini top for kindergarteners if they didn't think people would buy it.

If they didn't think parents would buy it, which begs the question: What in the hell is wrong with us?

It's easy to blast companies for introducing the sexy wear, but our ire really should be directed at the parents who think low rise jeans for a second grader is cute. They are the ones who are spending the money to fuel this budding trend. They are the ones who are suppose to decide what's appropriate for their young children to wear, not executives looking to brew up controversy or turn a profit.

I get it, Rihanna's really popular. But that's a pretty weak reason for someone to dress their little girl like her.

I don't care how popular Lil' Wayne is, my son knows I would break both of his legs long before I would allow him to walk out of the house with his pants falling off his butt. Such a stance doesn't always makes me popular -- and the house does get tense from time to time -- but I'm his father, not his friend.

Friends bow to peer pressure. Parents say, "No, and that's the end of it."

The way I see it, my son can go to therapy later if my strict rules have scarred him. But I have peace knowing he'll be able to afford therapy as an adult because I didn't allow him to wear or do whatever he wanted as a kid.

Maybe I'm a Tiger Dad.

Maybe I should mind my own business.

Or maybe I'm just a concerned parent worried about little girls like the one I saw at the airport.

In 2007, the American Psychological Association's Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls issued a report linking early sexualization with three of the most common mental-health problems of girls and women: eating disorders, low self-esteem and depression. There's nothing inherently wrong with parents wanting to appease their daughters by buying them the latest fashions. But is getting cool points today worth the harm dressing little girls like prostitutes could cause tomorrow?

A line needs to be drawn, but not by Abercrombie. Not by Britney Spears. And not by these little girls who don't know better and desperately need their parents to be parents and not 40-year-old BFFs."

found this gem on msnbc "moms" today.

Journalist Peggy Orenstein wrote "Cinderella Ate My Daughter" out of concern over what messages the "pink, princess" girl culture was doing to her daughter Daisy. Far from being a harmless phase, Orenstein says the girl culture that's aggressively marketed to children actually sets girls up to focus on their appearance and become sexualized younger and younger.

What's a parent to do? "Lock our daughters in a tower," Orenstein joked to TODAY's Ann Curry. Hmmm, tempting. What do you think of the 'pink, princess' girl culture?

Now. My first reaction to the "princess" culture of little girls is one of annoyance. I think it's great for girls to dress up, play around with traditionally "girly" toys, etc. The problem comes in when girls have the princess-like sense of entitlement or prissy attitude. alternately, i it's dangerous for boys to be taught an over-inflated affection for violence. My brother played cops and robbers and various games (heck, I joined in) and he's not a violent person today, nor did he get in fights growing up. Yes, society barrages children, teens and adults alike with both subliminal and not-so-subtle marketing techniques, but ultimately, parents have a lot of control over what their children are allowed to do, see, watch.

On a slightly snarky note, I found it laughable that Orenstein was up in arms about the "pink, princess" culture and its effect on her daughter. and in the next sentence we discover that she named her daughter daisy.