NO. Really?

About a month ago the American Psychological Association released a report calling "Bratz" dolls "psychologically damaging" to girls.

How much money did they spend to arrive at this non-bombshell of a conclusion? Bratz dolls make Barbie look absolutely nun-like. Bratz dolls are marketed to 4-8 year old girls. I had dolls when I was 4-8 years old. They wore diapers, not slut clothes. When I wasn't playing with them, I was inside reading things like "A Wrinkle In Time" by Madeleine L'Engle, or outside getting filthy with horses and bikes and baseballs. I could experience the utter fabulousness that was dredging my bare toes through the silt at the bottom of the irrigation ditch because I didn't have to worry about chipping my toenail polish. Mostly because I did not know toenail polish existed, nor did I give a second thought to lip gloss or fishnet stockings.

So ponder again: 4-8 year old girls. FOUR? So according to the AMA, we're actively sexualizing little girls who are just barely out of diapers. A mere two or three years after they've discovered the wonder of the spoken word, we're teaching them that shutting up and baring their navels is the preferred mode of communication.

Quoting here: "Individual studies have found problems related to eating disorders, low self-esteem and depression, but...there hasn't been a body of work that illustrates how these problems are 'directly linked' to sexualized images in ads and popular media. The group recommends more research on girls since the bulk of the studies reviewed dealt with teens and young women."

I never thought I'd have proof, but there it is: I'm smarter than researchers at the AMA. If teens and young women end up in the throes of eating disorders, low self-esteem and depression while dealing with the fall-out of an overly sexualized society, doesn't it stand to reason that it would have all the MORE impact on little girls?

There's no common sense in this world.