Power brokers

[Matt Deckard]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/16/AR2006031602359.html
How did the topic of such well crafted photos get twisted into talk of sexual exploitation? It is an interesting topic to say the least when you see young girls dolled up in makeup and gowns preening for beauty contests which make them look as though they are mannequins being paraded for new toy manufacturers. It’s a bit disturbing to me actually. I saw Little Miss Sunshine and you know what I’m taking about. Innocence and youth and kids being kids is being lost on adults being kids. There have been different generations where children were expected to act as adults and then where children were to act as children, now I fear we are seeing adults trying to act as children (so I dance I corrupt my adult friends at times when I flail about on dance floors, though when in the office i'm business).

I like the Hickey ads… I think the boys look swell in their well-crafted duds. I don’t think it is awkward or as awkward as when little girls are gussied up to a point of weirdness and put on display.. There are times when children must dress well groomed and the Hickey Freeman ads are a very good example.

Any who… what’s your take on the mess I just wrote?

 

[MrBern]

fashion shots...no bearing on reality. An illusion.

I was amused to see this kid on Oprah last week.

http://www.thestar.com/artsentertainment/article/180994

Oprah had him working as a correspondent at FAshionWeek.

During a runway show, a fashion expert leaned over & asked if he liked fashion.
"No....I'm a boy"

Now thats a kid.

 

[Paisley]

I think the author of the article read a lot into the photo. I don't find little boys in nice clothes disturbing.

Little girls in grownup clothes can be disturbing, though. You used to see catalog photos of mother-daughter outfits in the days when mothers tended to dress like respectable ladies. Now that a lot of mothers dress during the day as if they were going to a rock concert, or like they just rolled out of bed, mother-daughter outfits are disturbing.

I've read several articles in the past few years about girls--not so much mothers, but girls--complaining that they cannot find clothes in department stores that don't show a lot of skin.

 

[Feraud]

The article says more about the author's mindset and interpretations than it does anything else. Much ado about nothing..

But go to any wedding, religious service or musical recital and it's possible to see spit-polished children.

Really? I must be ignoring the little rug rats as usual because I do not see many spit polished children.

 

[reetpleat]

What a silly artricle. Firstly, you could argue that it is just another example of the modern cultures mixed messages concerning male power. These days it is too often portrayed as bad or negative, rather than about the power of action and getting the job done. Certainly the corporate world can get twisted, but while female power is held up as an ideal, male power is often denigrated.

But more to the point, who thinks these guys look like power brokers? To me they look like small versions of the foppish young models usually used in suit ads. Disafected young preppies maybe, but powerbrokers, please. the kind of guys who have never seen a boardroom in their lives, and certainly would not know what to do in one.

 

[JazzBaby]

Personally, I found the article ridiculous and highly speculative. The photo is an advertisment, the purpose of which is to sell the suit - it's not supposed to be some kind of social commentary. Who sits around analysing advertisments anyway? The whole issue of child exploitation has become so hyped-up and sensationalised that apparently we can't even photograph a kid wearing a suit without some kind of hidden agenda. I'm not sure I even understand what the article is trying to say? That little boys shouldn't be allowed to wear suits? Or if they do wear suits they should be photographed rolling around in a muddy puddle in them, so they appear more 'childlike'?

Please. It seems the only thing you have to do to get an article in a newspaper these days is vaguely imply the notion of child exploitation and suddenly the whole world and it's dog is fretting over whether we're damaging our children by buying a little girl a Barbie makeup set. I blame the media, and silly articles like this.

 

[reetpleat]

Personally, I found the article ridiculous and highly speculative. The photo is an advertisment, the purpose of which is to sell the suit - it's not supposed to be some kind of social commentary. Who sits around analysing advertisments anyway? The whole issue of child exploitation has become so hyped-up and sensationalised that apparently we can't even photograph a kid wearing a suit without some kind of hidden agenda. I'm not sure I even understand what the article is trying to say? That little boys shouldn't be allowed to wear suits? Or if they do wear suits they should be photographed rolling around in a muddy puddle in them, so they appear more 'childlike'?

Please. It seems the only thing you have to do to get an article in a newspaper these days is vaguely imply the notion of child exploitation and suddenly the whole world and it's dog is fretting over whether we're damaging our children by buying a little girl a Barbie makeup set. I blame the media, and silly articles like this.

I agree with everything except the idea that it is just an advertisment. I think we need to be awae and concerned about all ads that prey on negativity and exploitation of our fears and concerns to manipulate us. But they ahve that right. But when it does come to exploiting childrens sexuality, I take grave offense and am very concerned.

Too many ads do. I think the author needs to go afte them and stop looking for issues where there is none though.

 

[happyfilmluvguy]

Newspapers are funny (child humor). Maybe that's why I don't read them, or ever will.

The kids look nice in suits though! Must tell the neighbors about it....

 

[Flitcraft]

The article says more about the author's mindset and interpretations than it does anything else. Much ado about nothing..

Amen!
The article's more about the author than the subject.
I think kids should dress neatly for special events.. but then I think adults should as well, and not too many of them are doing that these days!

 

[Feraud]

After re-reading the article I draw two more conclusions. Firstly, fashion is dead (again) when writers have to dig this deep to write about something. If they are not describing the "moral decay of our modern society" reflected in men wearing girly outfits then this writer is seeing something

There's a sense that innocence has been lost, perhaps even violated.

that is not there.
Also, I would not trust the author to babysit my child.

 

[Orgetorix]

The kids are posed the way they are for one reason: to grab your attention. As pointed out already, it's an advertisement, and ads always try to do something differently enough that people will take notice. The kids look well dressed, but that isn't quite enough to make an ad stand out, so they pose them in such a way that they look vaguely like arrogant twentysomethings in 10-year-olds' bodies.

No big deal. No reason to get any more up in arms about it than one does when kids are "exploited" to sell something by made to look adorably cute.

 

[griffer]

They just look yummy!

I kid.

Please. Its just the modification of the child dress up theme.

Isn't it cute when the kids pretend to be like adults?

Actually, if anything, these kids are too old for this pose. They don't have the innocent goofiness in their eyes anymore. They are like I was at 14- to ready to be old, to be respected. Such a hurry to be all growed up.

At some point, we cross a line where we actually stop wanting to be kids. It comes about the same time we lose our innocence and internalize and despise the reality that we are 'just kids'.

I want kids to be kids. I want innocence. I don't think this ad is sexual; I just don't think the campaign is achieving what it was intended to. I think it has lost the innocence of when these kids were 7.

But, they sure are snappy dressers.

Or maybe this ad is aimed at WOMEN who want to dress up their man-boy husbands??!?!?

 

[Paisley]

Or maybe this ad is aimed at WOMEN who want to dress up their man-boy husbands??!?!?

lol Funny

 

[Mike in Seattle]

The article says more about the author's mindset and interpretations than it does anything else. Much ado about nothing..

Really? I must be ignoring the little rug rats as usual because I do not see many spit polished children.

Agreed - it speaks volumes about the writer.

 

[Lady Day]

I said the same thing for these young men, their poses are outrageous and over the top.

Those fellas look fine. Yeah its overly posed, but what you gonna do? Maybe a wee bit Miami Vice, but they look like beach going kids. I think its cause they are not smiling. Adults like to see kids smiling. Not smiling means seriousness, seriousness means intent. Intent means sex. Or, could be the hands in the pockets...[huh]

LD

 

[griffer]

Intent means sex.

Really? I mean, wow, REALLY?

Maybe i should watch that "Law & Order: Criminal Intent", I just didn't know it was about prison sex!

lol

Or did you typo 'Internet'?

'Cause I get those two mixed up all the time...

 

[Dapper Dan]

While the writer definitely is guilty of projecting his or her own hang-ups on the advertisement, I think he or she has a point. The ad, to me, is a little disturbing. But mostly because it conjures up images of children desperately in need of a spanking. The kind of child who is too used to having money thrown at him, who thinks that the whole world should be impressed by him. Sort of like Bill Mumy's character from that episode of The Twilight Zone where he has these incredible telekenetic powers and is too young to know how to use these powers for anything other than his own personal amusement. In my opinion, the children in the advertisement just seem to embody crass consumerism and privalege. Hickey Freeman ain't givin' away their duds. Who's got the kind of money to buy these hyper-expensive suits for children who will outgrow them in under a year?

Also, the author is not calling the children sexualized. Re-read the article if that's the impression you got. What he or she is saying is that they are being represented as too grown up, which is a little disturbing. In our society, the atribute most prized in women is sexuality (for the record, that's not the atribute I prize most, but I'm not society). When little girls are dressed up as adult women at, say, beauty pagents, their overt sexuality is disturbing and even disgusting. Anyone who remembers those photos of Jonbenet Ramsey knows what I'm talking about. "Adult" girls exude that Jodi-Foster-in-Taxi Driver creepiness.

Extending this little argument, the quality society prizes most in men is power. So when little boys are dressed in the trapings of adult male power, they should theoretically exude that same creepiness that the little sexualized girls project. And, to a certain extent, I'd have to agree. Now I'm not nearly so disgusted by these little boys as I am by the little sexualized girls, but there is something a little off-putting about the little boys who look like they could buy and sell me twenty times over. And while I'd say the author took it too far, I'd also say that there is something decidedly unwholesome about those two boys.

Or maybe it's jealousy talking. I wish I had duds as fine as those.

 

[Matt Deckard]

I don't think there is as much of a connection to the over colled up girls and over important boys. I think when you dress girls up in a more mature manner rather than a glamour manner it is something that has been traditionally done for years... like with the boys.

 

[reetpleat]

I said the same thing for these young men, their poses are outrageous and over the top.

Those fellas look fine. Yeah its overly posed, but what you gonna do? Maybe a wee bit Miami Vice, but they look like beach going kids. I think its cause they are not smiling. Adults like to see kids smiling. Not smiling means seriousness, seriousness means intent. Intent means sex. Or, could be the hands in the pockets...[huh]

LD

I dig these photos. I don't think they are over the top or anything of the kind. Kids love to play dress up and walk around with cell phone candy dispensers and whatever. Kids love to play at being grown up and that is how they beocme grown ups, trying on roles. Perhaps you could argue that it is not kids playing as muych as growns ups dressing them up, but who cares. I am with you. These photos and these kids are fine. Now ifyou dresssed them up like rappers in a sexualized video, I might object. but there is nothing of the negaitivity of adulthood present here.

Not to mention that back in the day, kids did dress like this, so there is nothing inauthentic or weird about this. It is pretty much recreating something real from the past. This is exactly how kids dressed except for the hat maybe.

 

[Feraud]

Ah shucks! These two look so cute.
All kids should dress like that!

What our replies reflect is how everyone sees something diffrent from the same photo.

I think the "Power Brokers" photo has become an interesting Rorschach Test to those who replied..