“That would almost be censorship.”


The Bratz dolls, a frequent target of those who bemoan the hyper-sexualization of young girls, have taken another hit.

Scholastic Inc., the children’s publisher, will no longer include chapter books based on the overtly sexy Bratz dolls in any of its school book clubs or fairs this year — and an advocacy group is taking credit for the decision.

The Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, based in Boston, said that Scholastic’s move followed an 18-month fight to purge book club fliers that go home with students and are distributed at school book fairs of titles like “Lil’ Bratz: Dancin’ Divas” and “Lil’ Bratz: Catwalk Cuties.” Scholastic has also stopped offering spinoff products, like a Bratz computer game and designer stencil kit, in its book clubs and fairs.

Full article in the NYT.


I've told my daughter no Bratz dolls because they're not very nice girls (which is code for: "They look like tiny whores."). Madison has countered by suggesting, "They're actually really nice mom! They just look mean." Oh, sweet, sweet Madison....they don't look mean they look awfully nice, for the right price, at least for an hour.


I'm fortunate that my daughter was almost too old for the Bratz doll craze when it started years ago. She wanted one and I said, no, but only because of past experience with Barbie--fun to look at and dress for about 5 minutes, then they sat in a drawer--complete waste of money, but thankfully it wasn't my money, it's the fault of relatives. Also, Bratz dolls are ugly and alien looking IMHO.

I like your response though Bibliofuture--"they're not nice girls." What is wrong with toymakers anyway???

My view is that the timing of Scholastic's Bratz books move on the eve of the American Library Association's phoney "Banned Books Week" is a slap at the ALA, and it further exposes BBW's phoniness. (Is phoniness a word?)

See "Scholastic Tells ALA to Take a Hike; Drops Bratz Books from Catalog on Eve of ALA's Phoney "Banned Books Week" at:



I see it as a slap to Barack Obama. See, he's FROM Chicago and ALA is headquartered in Chicago so Scholastic is slapping Obama in the face by way of the ALA.

I also heard they're doing it to impress Jodi Foster.

Did you also know that "phoney" is not a word but "phony" is? I wonder why that is? Perhaps if the library in your town has any books left you could look it up.

God, I love you, Dan.

Phoney is phony. Sorry. Next time I say fake, phony, fraud.

Yes, I have made a stretch, but it is still a major downer for the ALA's phoney BBW to have Scholastic remove that book nationwide for sexually inappropriateness. That is a perfect example of what Jessamyn West said when she said, "It also highlights the thing we know about Banned Books Week that we don't talk about much--the bulk of these books are challenged by parents for being age-inappropriate for children. While I think this is still a formidable thing for librarians to deal with, it's totally different from people trying to block a book from being sold at all."


E-mail Jessamyn and let her know who you are and what you are writing and I can assure you that you two will have a long and fruitful conversation vis a vie your attempt impugn librarians as pornographers. She and I are friends and I can promise it will be a fun-filled conversation.

As for her quote: what's it got to do with your argument? You're just as happy when things are removed from the shelves permanently because of one parent complaining. How is that like what she said?

Jessamyn knows me as well. What she said is directly on point. I'll get to that in a monent.

The ALA is using BBW to claim keeping books from children is banning. Despite Bd of Education v. Pico. Despite US v. ALA. The law does not matter when you have an agenda to push. Everyone knows keeping inappropriate books from children is not book banning.

Along comes Scholastic. It has huge power over what books are bought, particularly in public schools. It has removed Bratz books. It did this due to claimed sexual inappropriateness. It did this on the eve of the phony Banned Books Week. Scholastic appears to have banned Bratz books by removing it from its catalog for reasons of sexual inappropriateness. Of course Scholastic did not ban the books, it just acted appropriately to remove sexually inappropriate material.

Along comes Jessamyn. Actually she said this long ago, relative to this Scholastic matter. She said:

"It also highlights the thing we know about Banned Books Week that we don't talk about much" -- hmmm, interesting comment from Jessamyn. What do they know that they don't talk about much?

"--the bulk of these books are challenged by parents" -- challenged! by parents!! Not by the government!

"for being age-inappropriate for children." -- not for political ideas, not even for ideas! Jessamyn is clearly left leaning politically, but I have found her to be honest again and again, and this is just another example.

"While I think this is still a formidable thing for librarians to deal with, it's totally different from people trying to block a book from being sold at all." -- TOTALLY DIFFERENT! Thank you, Jessamyn. Book banning is totally different from keeping age-inappropriate material from children, which is common sense and which is the law. Even the very case the ALA lost and lost big, US v. ALA, makes this very clear:

"The interest in protecting young library users from material inappropriate for minors is legitimate, and even compelling, as all Members of the Court appear to agree."

The ALA uses BBW to promote the idea that material removed for being age-inappropriate is in reality banned. That is false. It is pure propaganda. You know it. I know it. Jessamyn knows it. The US Supreme Court knows it. Yet the ALA guides libraries nationwide to write propaganda pieces that have nothing to do with reality. TTFN was not "banned" in a Texas school. Rather it was legally removed for talking about the caloric intake of a spoonful of sperm, and other pervasively vulgar material.

Let one person like me say something to expose the ALA propaganda, and the ad hominem attack begins:

I am not "impugning librarians as pornographers." You made that assumption. Rather, I am pointing out the same thing that Jessamyn points out, and that the US Supreme Court points out, and that common sense tells everyone. And the problem is driven by the ALA's "Office for Intellectual Freedom," not by tens of thousands of terrific librarians. Your trying to tar me in such a fashion will not work.


The ALA is using BBW to claim keeping books from children is banning.

Keeping a book out or your child's hands is parenting. Keeping books out of the hands of other people's children is censorship. You have no authority over my child(ren) and how I raise him/her/them is none of your damned business.

And the overwhelming majority of books that are challenged, are challenged for the wrong reasons. The screaming hysteria and conspiracy theory about a "homosexual agenda" is not grounds for having And Tango Makes Three removed from and forbidden in elementary school libraries.

There is nothing that cannot be found offensive by someone, somewhere.