The New York Times Sunday Style section featured a repulsive story, Underdressed and Hot: Dolls Moms Don’t Love. Among the most disgusting portions of this objectionable article is the following:
At 8, Macie Rosenthal is done with Barbies. “I have a whole collection,” she said, “that I would like to get rid of someday.”
Instead, pride of place on Macie’s toy shelf belongs to Jade, a 10-inch avatar of urban chic, from her exploded hair, inflated lips and tiny wifebeater shirt to her platform boots.
‘Wifebeater shirt?’ Since when has ‘wife beating’ become a fashion statement? [Update: a reader below corrects my lack of fashion sense and terminology by pointing out the “wifebeater” is a specfic type of T-shirt]
Editing, man. Where was the New York Times editor for this story? Asleep at the switch like the Assistant Captain of the Staten Island ferry which crashed into the dock? Remember Jayson Blair? There never seems to be an editor at the Times when you need one.
I hate stories like these because they purport to depict a negative social phenomenon (the sexualization of little girls by the toy industry), but in reality the story pruriently and vicariously allows the reader to experience the tittilation of the sexualized dolls.
I say, “For Shame” to the New York Times.