There has been some discussion lately about the impending remake of Dora the Explorer, one of the first Latina cartoon characters. Well Dora is growing up and they've just released her new image.
Veronica at Viva La Feminista has some thoughts about the make-over.
The outrage is not just about Dora, it is because we know that Dora is the safe one. The good girl. The toy and cartoon that we haven't had to monitor. Any tampering with our Dora rocks our world. If Dora isnt' safe, what the hell will we do?The outrage is powered by pent up outrage over the sexualization of our daughters, of their dolls and their clothing.
The outrage is far more than just tween-ifying Dora. It is about all the other small things that inch our daughters closer to 90210 and further away from cuddling with us on the couch with the Backyardigans. It'll happen in its own time...if society let it happen in its own time.
My first thought was, well I'm glad they didn't lighten her skin. It's frustrating how little control we have over these representations of women and girls and how large of an impact they have on us.
What do you all think of the new Dora?
For those who don't remember, her before picture is after the jump.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: The new Dora.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/12552
This is SO FRUSTRATING. I have been dreading this "make-over." Dora was so sweet and perfect and just fine the way she was. BAH.
Are they going to keep the young Dora stuff going too?
Good question-- are they going to have two shows or replace young dora with tween dora?
I'm pretty sure the new Dora is more for marketing. The old Dora will still have a show.
If they're just trying to expand to an older demographic, I don't really see what the problem is. Is the older Dora going to have a show targeted to older kids, or do they just want to sell older Dora products to younger viewers?
I was thinking the same thing. If they are just expanding Dora to a older audience I think it is actually kinda cool because it adds a adventurer to the role models available to tween girls. It just depends on if they keep old (or young I guess) Dora.
Her appearance messes with the adventurer idea. Instead of sensible hair, sneakers, and a backpack, she has huge hair, no place to keep her adventuring supplies, ballet flats (not good for outdoors adventuring), the excess fabric of a dress and fussy sash, and a lot of jewelry to keep up with. The tween Dora is clearly not built for adventures.
They're keeping the show with the younger Dora, this is for the interactive doll.
I don't think it's so bad. She looks taller, as if she's a year or two older, but it's not sexualized. Her outfit is appropriate and they didn't give her the heavy lidded gaze or pouty lips of the Bratz dolls. And they're not replacing the other Dora look. The way I see it, her shorts and sneakers outfit is for when she's camping and exploring, and this is what she'd wear for a special occasion, a friend's party or a dinner with relatives or something.
Where is her backpack? Did Swiper swipe it?
Those ribbons are going to get caught on something in the rain forest. Better cut them off before she gets hurt.
She needs more practical shoes. No way those flats are going to hold up on a hike up Star Mountain.
EXACTLY.
Before, she looked like she was ready for an adventure. Now, she looks like she's ready to paint her nails and make a big deal about how she can't do anything for the next 20 minutes because she just did her nails.
She doesn't have a backpack, because backpacks are for nerds, and she doesn't want DAVID JOHNSON, THE HOTTEST BOY IN SCHOOL *sigh* (writing Dora Johnson, Dora Johnson, Dora Johnson in her notebook) to think she's a loser!
i HATE the new Dora. Thin, stylish, with long hair? Um, no thanks. I don't like the girly Dora. I wasn't girly as a kid and I would have hated that character with passion.
Okay huge issue for me...
Why is it that we're trying to sell this sexy image of Dora to young girls, yet at the same time, trying to promote the pure little girl image to grown women?
The New Dora vs. America's Next Top Model Photo Shoot - I'm having a difficult time reconciling the two!!
Because if you're a girl, you're either a virgin or a slut.
You honestly find this to be "sexy"?
Maybe she need updating (technologically speaking), but she did NOT need a makeover like this!!
The makers are trying to retain a group of fans who are aging and they (the owners of the IP) reason that these kids no longer easily identify with "young" Dora.
This is not an unreasonable makeover (certainly not the sexualized "Bratz" image some people were leaping to believe was coming)and seeing this makes me very glad I did not jump on the reactionary bandwagon.
Just to play Devil's Advocate with you, you honestly find Bratz to be "sexy"?
Logrus said "sexualized", not "sexy".
Fair comment. Honest answer is "no" but I do believe they are dressed and "made up" in a manner that us old folks find to be sexualied.
"Just to play Devil's Advocate with you, you honestly find Bratz to be "sexy"?
As in, "do they personally turn me on?" No. But they do borrow heavily from the classic caricature of a "sexy" girl you see in classic cartoons, Tex Avery stuff and the like.
People did not stop procreating at the inception of Dora the Explorer. There is no need for Dora to "grow up" with her original fans. They will grow up and begin watching shows targeted towards their age-group. Younger children will take their place.
However, this tween-Dora will still be leading adventures meant for ages 3-5. Her attire may not be what you consider "sexy", but it certainly isn't clothing worn by toddlers. Does she really need lip-gloss and long flowing hair? NO.
My four year old niece wears clothing almost identical to the "new" Dora, her hair is similar, and she likes sparkly lip-gloss.
Should we assume all four year old girls like sparkly lip-gloss? Is an empire-waisted tunic, leggings, and lip-gloss necessary to trek through the rain forest? Should all young girls aspire to look like excessively feminized cartoon representations?
I work with children, currently in a pre-primary setting with infants to ages four and five. There's nothing wrong with girls wearing pink and purple "girly" attire. In Dora's case, it's just not practical. Feminizing Dora to make her appealing to an older audience while maintaining the same show is a load of shit.
I'm just refuting your comment about who wears what.
"Nobody does/wears/thinks/etc _____" comments are usually bullshit pulled from someones ass to bolster a point that has nothing to back it up other than made up "facts" propagated by the person wishing to put forth said opinion as "fact".
Your mad they changed something dear to you (and me too, btw). I get it, it's reasonable to dislike change and favor originality; but to a monolithic corporation it makes more sense to try to reinvent something than to actually be risky and innovative.
The fact that your four year old niece wears the same outfit as Dora, (therefor new Dora is O.K.) is just as anecdotal and opinion based as my comment.
I have only ever watched Dora a handful of times. It's hardly "dear to me". I just don't see the need to mature Dora, when the show isn't changing along with her. If Dora has two shows, Dora the Explorer, and Dora and Miley Cyrus go to the Mall to Get Matching Tongue Piercings, then the change would make sense.
Mature/feminized Dora as the same explorer just does not compute.
Also, it is incredibly difficult to find children's clothing for girls that does not emulate the styles of tweens/adults. However, lack of gendered clothing in RL does not make Dora's new outfit appropriate.
Nor does it make it inappropriate for Dora to reflect what her owners hope will be her new demographic.
Dude, you're missing the point. Dora isn't "reflecting" her new demographic (sexualized tweens), she's helping support it.
Is television reflective or projective? Actually it's both. My niece dresses (well her mother dresses her) like this, predating Dora. Her mother is/was clearly influenced by her exposure to (god I hate this cliche term but here goes) "MTV Culture" which was a heightened and stylized reflection of certain elements of existing culture.
This is what popular culture does in the media, they take reality and emphasize it until it pushes the borderline of acceptable behavior then they/it polls from the newly redefined culture of a given demographic and does it all over again.
Dora is indeed reflective of real people, with some traits overlooked and others emphasized. People will walk away from Dora changed and eventually feed the popular meme a new image which it will alter and regurgitate, ad infinitum/nauseum.
exactly. it's not like sesame street has had a problem keeping its audience. i don't get why people in charge of great brands don't seem to see the strength in what they've got going. even ignoring the girly-fying of dora here, the simple fact is that "old dora" was great and has been great for several years. i don't see that they were in risk of losing that.
I agree. I was fearing a much more sexualized image--this one mainly seems a couple of years older, but still younger than 12 or maybe even 10. (Though the ribbons, loose hair, and shoes could be a problem for adventuring, if we want to be literalistic about it. I guess we'll have to see).
On the other hand, why update her at all? Sesame Street didn't grow up with its audience, and neither did Barney or Mister Rogers. I could see updating the art a little, maybe, but eventually they're going to lose those kids, anyway, so why not just pick a demographic and stick to it?
But fans of every cartoon character age. What happens is a new crop of fans is born to take their place. It makes no sense for Dora's creators to give her constant updates in order to keep up with the first group of kids who ever fell in love with her.
I don't like this makeover. She doesn't look older as much she looks stereotypically feminized. Little girls don't necessarily lose their tummies when they turn ten, or sprout bows and ribbons where formerly there were none.
They gave her eyelashes and defined lips; she didn't have them before. She looks like an Anime character. I wonder how many little boys will follow Dora on her adventures now that she's been gussied up.
I hope they don't make her give up exploring. That's what her new outfit and hairstyle suggest. I guess now that the girl's ten she should be channeling her energy to more important things, like shopping and applying makeup. /sarcasm
I have been writing about this too (http://www.canow.org/canoworg/2009/03/dont-let-mattels-makeover-destroy-dora.html) and I think a lot of Latinas with daughters are especially ticked off about this. I don't mind them making an older Dora, but I do mind the stereotypically gendered "girlification" of the older Dora, and don't get me started on the changeable eye color.
Even more than the new look, I mind that it seems like all the Dora products are now geared towards this kind of image of girlhood. I want Dora to be a middle school Veronica Mars or Nancy Drew (not that they don't come with their own issues), rather than a Bratz with a vague storyline.
...y'know, I just don't see how this is going to work.
If that's her new character model, as others have noticed, there's no way it's suitable to exploring natural places. And interesting as it might be, there's no way an 8-year-old should be exploring the city on her own with only Boots to help her. Of course, it's a kids' cartoon, but still.
As has also already been mentioned, perhaps she could have used a redesign, though the main reason why animated characters don't is because of costs associated with building a new model. But this is exactly the wrong kind.
Even her eyes aren't the same -- noticeable lashes, an extra sparkle -- 'cause God forbid any girl should bore anybody while standing around looking at shit! -- and even that little contrasting shadow cast by her new hair so that she looks extra... I don't know, bubbly? Vivacious? Bubbly at eleven years old, then vivacious at twelve? Are we going to start hearing about what a feisty Latina she is?
The eyebrows, mouth and feet are pure Barbie. Her head now looks too big for her body to support -- or her body now looks too small and thin to support her head.
I have a little cousin who loves Dora. It kills me to wonder what she'll make of this.
Apparently she's going to be concerned with more eco stuff. Not that that's a bad thing, mind you, but I liked how adventurous she used to be. Why do they have to pull her away from that? Girls need to become interested in a wide variety of things at a young age, not just painting their nails as they scoff at their little brother for not putting the paper product in the paper recycle bin. Geez.
I don't find this new image to be sexualized at all. Yes, she has lipgloss, but she's wearing flats and a modest neckline and she doesn't have breasts, as is appropriate for a 10 yr old. I agree that her togs are not so good for hiking, but I don't find them sexy. She's marketed at girls her supposed age - not at 3-5 year olds. The 3-5 year olds still have the young Dora to follow. I think keeping girls engaged with an explorer as they grow up is a fantastic idea. Now, if she becomes Dora the Child Model or Dora the Make Up Scientist or otherwise loses her explor-itude, I'm going to have a problem.
"...and she doesn't have breasts, as is appropriate for a 10 yr old"
I really have to object to this, because the logical conclusion is that a 10 year old having breasts is in fact *inappropriate*. Everyone develops at a different age and rate, and shaming girls who develop earlier by saying that it's inappropriate for a 10 year old cartoon character to reflect their reality is really the same thing as saying that an early developer should be ashamed of her breasts.
Breasts have nothing to do with appropriate or inappropriate.
In all fairness to FrumiousB, if the new Dora had breasts, the complaint about her new image would increase tenfold, wouldn't you say?
Don't get me started on her body language.
Young Dora has both feet planted firmly on the ground, tween Dora is balanced on tiptoe.
Young Dora is waving hello, tween Dora has one hand flipped out.
Tween Dora's legs are inexplicably long. Young Dora has a waist.
Old Dora had a pot belly. New Dora has a slender, svelte form. Maybe they powers-that-be are encouraging kids to exercise more instead of eating too much.
No, young Dora had... god forgive... BABY FAT?! NO! Even our children must be "slender and svelte!"
Old Dora is not a baby, therefore her ridiculously protruding stomach is not from the fat of the baby. It's so huge it pokes through her shirt. Seeing old Dora reminds me of walking into WalMart on a Saturday afternoon, where I am surrounded by unfit, protruding bellies, awful haircuts, and people who retain their baby fat, helped along by beer and tacos, into their fifties.
Plus, old Dora looks like she dressed herself in WalMart clothing! What kind of example is she for our children!?!
To point out one more oft overlooked point, old Dora's parents are obviously negligent. What parents in their right minds would let their 8-year old go traipsing about Central American jungles unsupervised? Is that really the the message we want to be sending to our children?
Also, the fact that old Dora has obviously been abandoned or orphaned or constantly neglected by her parents, as evidenced by the remark above, shouldn't one of us run down to Teotihuacan
to adopt this poor girl and save her from the harsh realities of a third world nation?
I think that's what the creators of the new Dora were thinking. Dora hasn't just been sexualized. That's missing the point. She has been saved.
At least the new Dora lives in the city where her adoptive parents live.
Because it's much safer for a young "svelte" girl to wander about unsupervised in a city than it is in a jungle.
I really don't see what's all that wrong with the new Dora. I think she needs to be a bit more plump like the old Dora was, but this image doesn't offend me at all. Yes, this Dora is older, but I don't see how she has been sexualized and I don't see how she is any more "girly" than the old Dora. Old Dora always wore pink so its not like that has changed. As far as her clothes she is just following the trends of fashion in girls this age (the fact that this Dora buys into what the fashion industry is another discussion entirely). Now if in the new show she starts doing her hair and makeup instead of hiking and adventuring then there will be some cause for concern.
I hate the lip gloss. I hate the shoes. But she doesn't trek through the jungle anymore. Didn't any of you read the press release? The new Dora has moved to a fashionable part of the big city. Full of fashion! And mysteries! That require fashion know-how!
THAT'S the scary part, more than the ugly, feminized makeover.
okay, that is wrong.
I hate to say it, but I agree. The new Dora is "hot". Maybe she's nice to look at, but who would wanna hang out with her if she's into fashion and all of that garbage?
Honestly, she's not as bad as I feared. But still I don't like the Disney twinkle in her eye or the flowy hair. The thing I loved about the old Dora was how real she looked. I have a 3 year old niece, who never wears dress, has a bowl cut, and has her belly poking out of her shirt. She loves Dora. I don't know if that's because Dora is like her, but I don't want her to feel like she's gotta tween it up too early because Dora doesn't look like her any more. It's just sad all around.
I'm with you. It's not as bad as I feared, but not as good as I believe it should be. I would have liked to have seen Dora with a more rounded shape with basic clothes like the original. I'm also not a big fan of the makeup or that pose. Maybe her adventures will be good enough to make up for the lacking makeover, but I am very skeptical.
Honestly though, I just really don't see this working. My daughter is 9 and loved Dora until about 6 years old. Then Dora became a "baby show" never to be watched again. Most of the kids in her class feel the same way (which I found out when my son brought his Dora doll to school and asked the kids if they liked Dora too). Maybe this will attract the kids who are still into Dora now when they get older, but I don't see it being a big hit with kids who have already moved on.
I saw this discussion on an AOL article. It definitely brought up many issues about Mothers and "their requests" as well as what the new image means. I'm sure this will inspire some conversation; here is a section of the article titled: "After Dora uproar, Nick and Mattel soothe moms"
Mattel and Nickelodeon both say there are two major misconceptions about the new Dora, which is not replacing the "Dora the Explorer" cartoon, but will be a new interactive doll aimed at 5- to 8-year-olds. (Instead of aging the actual character, they are introducing an extension of it.)
"I think there was just a misconception in terms of where we were going with this," Gina Sirard, vice president of marketing at Mattel, says. "Pretty much the moms who are petitioning aging Dora up certainly don't understand. ... I think they're going to be pleasantly happy once this is available in October, and once they understand this certainly isn't what they are conjuring up."
"The idea is Dora for more girls," Brodsky says. "The whole point was this was created because moms said help us."
The doll, which comes with a USB port and is compatible with online story lines that take Dora and four friends on new adventures involving the environment, social action and more, still has, as Sirard called it, the "Dora DNA."
Soooo, why do they have to call her Dora anyway?
If they are not doing away with the younger child Dora, and just wanted an older market, why not make this Dora's cool older cousin Lucia or something?
Is it too English Major-y of me to see something strange about her coming with a USB port?
e.g. A woman is nothing until she's plugged into something (or someone).
I certainly don't think more electronic toys for girls is a bad thing. Especially when they focus on social activism and the environment instead of shopping.
It gets creepier. That USB port is there so you can "interact" with the doll...translation: you can change her looks - like the length of her hair and her eye color.
I always thought Dora was annoying. If her voice improves it will be worth the more grown-up body. I've always liked the Maya and Miguel cartoon stories, which are probably targeted to the same age group as the new Dora is, but their bodies are absurdly skinny. This new Dora at least looks like someone who won't blow away in a high wind.
The big eyes still creep me out though.
I can't wait to see what Dora looks like in a few years, when she's 18. Maybe she'll wear a tasseled bra.
Well said, Bob.
Why are they all being such pendejos?
Hahahahahahaha. Win.
I'm glad somebody got that joke...
:P
Um do the Simpsons have to grow up? Did the Rugrats ever have to grow up? This is Bullshit. Just because a cartoon character looks young, doesn't mean they can't have an older target audience. I read once that the Rugrats audience was up to 11 and 12. And you know Spongebob's audience is at least that old. There is no reason for an older image. Total cop-out.
They did do teenage Rugrats, actually. Which absolutely nobody watched.
And sometimes there are future teen and adult Simpson kids. Lisa is the president in one of the future episodes.
This sucks. I always loved how androgynous Dora was... so to me, this image is not even recognizable as Dora (at any age). They should have just created an entirely different character because I don't see how kids are even going to recognize her as "Dora." And not only is the feminization/sexualization aspect asinine, it seems like bad marketing in a way. This is not the same "Dora" brand that people will recognize... so they've taken Dora and created something else entirely, which happens to be more generic/less authentic than what they had to begin with, yet they're using the same name. Huh? Maybe that's how business works but it certainly doesn't make much sense to me.
http://radiantlikeness.blogspot.com/2009/03/dora-not-explorer-any-more.html
This. is. super. fucked. Where can i write to complain??
The issue here is less about the new Dora and more about why they would change the original Dora. She is perfect now. Why change her?
Dora is a preschool icon. She is adored by so many little children and their mothers for the complete mix of positive attributes. When Nickelodeon wanted a boy brand they developed Diego. Why wouldn't they just develop this Tween brand as a cousin or a friend?
We saw a need for role models for our Tween daughters and developed the Hip Chicas inspired by Dora and other Latina preschool brands. This option would give girls that grow out of Dora a new set of multicultural role models that are hip, smart, fashionable, yet socially conscious.
The result was the five characters we developed and have been hailed for in the press [google: Hip Chicas]. We built it as an interactive virtual world where the characters guide girls' activities in order to be where Tweens are today. We changed the concept of "HIP" into "Help Improve the Planet", the perfect acronym.
When Nickelodeon originally said that Dora would be the new "City Dora" with "adventures in the mall", we became very concerned with the confusion this would cause our daughters, who are more than just shoppers.
We would prefer that they had left Dora alone, but wish the people at Nickelodeon the best. Hopefully they will do a better job on this going forward.
Hey, maybe one day Dora and her new "four friends" can leave the mall for a while and visit the Hip Chicas at www.HipChicas.com, so that they can learn how they too can Be Hip!
Does anybody else find it super weird that the new Dora's eyes sparkle so damn much. For some reason it was the first thing I noticed. And those sure are some perfectly arched eyebrows...I tell ya...until I was like 16...my eyebrows were NOT that nice. Is anyone born with perfectly arched eyebrows?
She's going to get dirt in the back of those flats...I hate it when that happens...thats why you shouldnt wear flats to EXPLORE. Gr
On the one hand, she still does look like a conceptualized young Latina. On the other hand, she looks 14 and nowhere near ready for an adventure to anywhere aside from Claire's.
This makes me wonder what they're going to do to Diego.... No Diego, No!
Maybe they'll make him an Emo boy.
Diego explores the Black Parade! Diego swipes Dora's eyeliner! Excellent.
I don't mind the ageing of her, but agree with other commentators when they say she just doesn't look like an explorer any more. Is that lip gloss? What's with the floaty summery clothes and stupid shoes - surely you'd want some decent trainers or preferably some sturdy boots, some jeans or combats, t-shirt and, yes, A BACKPACK? And surely, having been such an active and adventurous little girl, she would look a bit... sturdier?
Now, she just looks like all the other female characters in cartoons. Maybe an extra in a Barbie movie or something. Certainly not like someone who prefers exploring to clothes shopping. She just doesn't look the part.
I showed my 5yo daughter the new image and asked, "Hey, who is this?"
She stared for a long time, and finally said, in a confused voice, "Maybe Dora?"
I honestly don't know how she guessed.
Did they bind her feet? Why are they so tiny? Is she levitating? Cause her feet aren't really on the ground, yet she isn't leaning forward like a runner. I guess she's supposed to be skipping.
My little girls love pink princess fairies. Dora was my one respite. ugh.
Why do they feel the need to fix what isn't broken?
There are so many cartoons with long standing popularity that didn't age (think Simpsons, Flinstones, etc). This is just an excuse to sexualize Dora. Sad.
Yep not as bad as I thought it might be, but still kind of sad. This reminds me of one of those Bratz Doll things minus the plastic surgery lips.
I certainly don't think more electronic toys for girls is a bad thing. Especially when they focus on social activism and the environment instead of shopping.
The weirdest thing to me is the fact that it would have been so easy to make her "update" at least sensible for her character.
The skinny part I'll let pass since I'm from a nearly totally Mexican American area of the states, and plenty of my peers at Dora's age looked gangly like her.
If she had to have long hair, why not have her tie it back in a ponytail? Instead of a flowy top, why not a nice T-shirt, maybe with a print on it if you really want to push "fashion". And then, I don't see why a pair of jean shorts is too masculine for a girl to wear. Neither would a pair of hiking boots considering her hobby! And of course, she'd need at least a PURSE if not a damn BACKPACK to carry all of her equipment!
There are just so many things they could have done to prevent falling into this bad habit of making her overly feminine. Instead of updating her to be suitable for her own character, they decided to completely change her. And I think that is one of the saddest parts.
My question is, if they've updated Dora, why not Diego? Is he gonna start low riding some baggy jeans while showing off his custom Nikes while trekking across the jungle?
Sorry, this has little to do with the new Dora (although I am admittedly annoyed by it) and more to do with the continued use of the term "tween" for "teen". O.K., I'm about to let my geek flag fly, but didn't J.R.R. Tolkien create that word to signify a hobbit in their TWENTIES, because hobbits do not become adults until their thirties? The term "teen" is already a sort of slang for someone between the ages of 13 and 19, so to say teen and tween actually means to say a teenager and someone in their twenties - hence the W! It's not short for between, it's a sort of play on words with twenties and between.
Sorry for the rant people, this has just been driving me crazy for the past few years and I had to finally unleash it somewhere! :)
I believe in this usage its not from Tolkein, but its short for the word "between," like, between a child and a teen.
I think this sucks. Dora was a good character to begin with. I like that she was well... a KID! She didn't worry about accessorizing and lip gloss. She's supposed to be a normal little kid. She's interested by things, she likes to learn, she wears clothes that don't fit her perfectly, she talks to a pet, she uses her imagination... That's what most little kids are like. Now, she's just another Hannah Montana. A fake image for little girls meant to cause them a future love of eating disorders of all sorts of varieties. Hooray! Thanks a lot Nickelodeon.
God forbid we encourage kids to exercise and eat right - we can't have the FA people coming after us with their appeals to ignorance, junk science, and various other logical fallacies that no major feminist so far has had the ovaries to stand up to. But I digress. Obesity is super duper healthy. Weight loss is categorically impossible. What thefuck ever.
But yes, sexualization of children actually is bad. Too bad for all the reactionaries chomping at the bit here that New Dora is not sexualized. If anything, she's a watered down, overly sanitized reflection of the entirely normal desire of preteens to emulate the look, behavior, and attitude of teenagers. I think we're widening the definition too much when wearing lip gloss becomes a marker of sexualization. Half the 5th graders on the planet wear Bonnebell lip gloss and yet somehow still manage to avoid the rampant, inseminating passion it apparently ignites in all males unfortunate enough to be entranced by shiny, luscious, root beer flavored lips.
And all of this "fashion is garbage" bull is yet another reason feminism has marginalized itself into obsolescence. There are a shit ton of women who zomg actually like looking pretty, and y'all are scaring them the fuck away. Much as I like wearing my burlap sack around town, it seems that nearly everyone prefers it when I put ten minutes of effort into myself and look super effing hot. Oh, the oppression.
When you gripe about the fact that feminism hasn't gotten anything done lately in spite of the widespread support for the basic platform of the cause, THIS IS WHY. Most women don't like the idea of domestic violence, or rape, or unequal pay, but they also don't want to feel bad about going to the gym, or buying designer jeans, or putting on makeup. Dismissing them as performers for the patriarchy hasn't done you folks much good lately, but go ahead and pretend like the girls you hated in high school wouldn't be part of the cause anyway. They would, and yet they aren't, and look who still hasn't managed to pass the ERA yet.
Basically, I'm sick of this shit. If this is modern feminism, I want no part of it.
Yes, feminists take issue with the beauty industry and the impossible standards that it places on ALL women (not just the women who enjoy "looking pretty"), because we are seething with jealousy at the stylish women who can pull it off. That's it in a nutshell!
Baby fat equals obesity? Sure, some kids are thin, but wanting at least a single media representation of a ten year old with perfectly normal baby fat is somehow pushing junk science, etc? I'm pretty sure the current insistence that normal healthy people have no body fat is the actual junk science.
Oh, one more thing - keeping Dora in her sneakers and loving the outdoors would be encouraging exercise. Making her walk on her tiptoes in impractical clothing? Not so much.
And again, because I cannot stress this enough, CHILDREN NATURALLY HAVE BABY FAT. It is normal, it is healthy. Please do not go through life thinking that young Dora's tummy is somehow a sign of obesity. Feel free to stand up to the FA movement, but please don't include normal children tummies in the targets. Little kids don't need your baggage.
If you're talking to me, my boy has no fat; he is a muscular little Atlas in miniature; a mini-man with a natural V-shaped physique. Are you saying he is less of a child because he isn't plump with sugar- and fast food-induced baby fat?
CHILDREN HAVE BABY FAT -- !!! -- I can't believe the utter, sweeping, prejudicial categorization of children in this phrase!
I think it is really kind of disturbing the way a lot of people on here are talking about the "baby fat." Dora is NOT fat. Absolutely NOT. I think that talking about children being overweight this way is also NOT going to help them lose weight or feel better about themselves. Obesity is a problem, but it IS a medical problem. Do some research before you preach. Oh, and plenty of girls who are NOT fat have all sorts of emotional issues because of the pressure put on them to be so damn skinny. The unrealistic expectations in our society are very damaging. I just think this whole debate about whether or not Dora is fat is SAD.
Why can't dora wear shoes she can exercise in - and go explore the jungle? Why can't she have short hair? We have so many dolls who look this way - why can't Dora take up martial arts instead of fashion?
This isn't about exercise and health. Little kids have potbellies like that because they haven't been told to "suck it in" yet. There's not a goddamn thing wrong with a little pudge on small children.
As someone who volunteers for Planned Parenthood and Equality Texas on a regular basis, I get plenty of exposure to a number of feminists, just regular women who fight for their rights. I've never seen a feminist who didn't look like she made an effort to be presentable when she walked out of the door. Most are sexually attractive, even by the fascist and oppressive beauty standards that you are trying to protect. The idea that feminists do not believe in hygiene and self-grooming is a myth, something else that is made up about us so that we will be seen as something other than women. They call us ugly or fat because if we are seen as the same as all the other women, then the other women might want to join ranks with us in the fight against the institutional discrimination that still exists against women. Even you, now, want to be separated from us because you don't want to reduce your gender measurement by being associated with the ugly bitches that talk too much and don't shave their armpits, right?
Before the Civil War, Southern society pitted black slaves against poor, destitute whites so that they would never realize that they, together, could rise up and fight their oppressors. Maybe if the girls who look "hot" never speak to the girls who don't, neither of them will realize that men are consistently out-earning women in the workplace and compromising our rights to safe, legal abortion.
Also, this might surprise you, since you seem to be on a long-term visit to denial-land, but sexual activity does begin when kids are in the 5th grade, sometimes earlier. Read a book about child development sometime.
You have *mostly* articulated how I feel as well.
I'm into so many aspects of feminism, but I just can't stand how feminism seems to hate ANYTHING that is even remotely "girly".
I can't wear makeup, shave my legs or armpits, I can't like fashion, I can't put effort into my appearance, I can't like shopping or clothes, I can't like the colour pink or flowers, I can't want to get married, etc., etc. All these things that this site tells me I'm a bad feminist if I like them. And all it does is drive people like me - who is a strong feminist - away. I can only imagine what it does to those who aren't feminists to begin with.
And btw that was a short list. I could expand it 10x if I spent more time.
No. The goal of feminism, and I believe every single editor of this blog would stand behind me on this, would be for all women to be able to make whatever choices they want, regardless of their gender. If you like pink, like it. If you wanna get married, get married (Jessica, the pride and joy of this blog, is planning her wedding as we speak), if you want to become a lawyer, get your LSAT on.
Stop trying to separate yourself from the "other feminists" so you can feel more feminine. We are all women. Unless you are biologically male and identify as a man. Because men can be feminists too.
that's not quite accurate. often on this blog, when i make that same point (that, to me, feminism is about empowering women to make whatever choices they want to without judgment), it gets dismissed as "i choose my choice!" feminism, and i am reminded that "the personal is political". some commenters have labeled certain choices "not feminist", as if a choice is a feminist rather than a person. one of the comments in the recent marriage post basically told jessica that, by getting married, she's making it harder for people who choose NOT to get married.
that's hardly supporting a woman who's made an informed choice for herself.
i have to say, i think anne's criticism is a valid one.
To this I say: show some backbone. Obviously, feminism takes on many nuanced details, and it is your job to work out what feminism means to you. Once again, I argue that the editors of this blog would say that a big part of feminism is women making choices regardless of gender definition.
In this world, we aim to classify things, especially women. Hot girls, fat girls, nerdy girls, rich girls, funny girls, slutty girls, stupid girls... the list goes on and on. I suppose it is this trend that breeds the idea of a "good feminist", like a "good Democrat" -- a person who follows the platform, who exists with that definition in mind. I have to say, if you think that "being pretty", as Anne put it, is a keystone of a woman's existence, then you probably need to open your mind to other ways of life. However, that's not to say that there is anything wrong with "being pretty", but you are in denial if you think the world around us doesn't place unattainable standards upon women and girls at younger and younger ages. Some women see breaking out of those beauty standards with something different as a way of protest; I certainly do.
I get the feeling that you still need to work out your feminism. I spent years having semi-feminist ideas in the closet because I didn't want my friends to know I was a feminist. After I accepted the feminist within, it took years to work out my feelings about inequality and how I would act on those feelings. The term feminist carries many myths with it, like the idea that feminists don't shave or put on make-up. Some do, some don't. I bet you could find alot of women who don't necessarily identify as feminists who don't shave or don't like to be "girly". Feminists, like all women and people in general, are not all the same.
See this very post basically what I said - you say it's about giving women choices but yet you are condemning people who make certain choices. And then you question the posters feminism.
Feminism doesn't have to mean the same thing to every person. It doesn't actually. And that's fine. This needs to be respected more.
There are different kinds of feminism: yes. They need to be respected: yes. Describing feminism as a movement to tear women away from attractive clothing, marriage, and shaving = no.
The reason the new Dora is not a good thing is because it is yet another image being presented to young girls that says it is time to grow up, time to be pretty, time to be just like all the other stuff that says you have to act a certain way. Dora was great before because she was different than other things being presented to young girls. She created an environment of options.
I know all about Jessica's wedding of course. I read this site and the comments every single day. I see what people post. And I know it's about giving women choices - I know that - but still you see comments regularly which basically condemn people who make certain choices. Given this, what kind of choice is it?
Don't get me wrong. I was in a strange mood when I made my last post. I understand the context of the posts and it's not impacting my own personal views, however I definitely do think that people are turned off of feminism because of this.
Gah! As someone who regularly decries the "I choose my choice" brand of feminism that has sadly been popping up here of late, please understand:
I'm not saying you're a bad feminist, less of a feminist, not a feminist if you get married/shave/love fashion/shop at Walmart/etc. I am asking you to critically examine WHY you do these things, instead of taking them at face value and assuming that because you're an informed woman, they are feminist choices. This society operates under the patriarchy. It influences every single one of us. I am asking you to acknowledge it, understand its role in your life, and try to subvert it in whatever way you can.
Feminism is not about uncritically supporting every single choice a woman makes simply because she is a woman.
i reject the notion that a choice can be "feminist" or "not feminist" at all. by saying a choice is a "feminist choice" or not, that places a value judgment on someone's decisions that i feel is inappropriate. in my view, unless someone can clearly demonstrate to me how what i do harms someone else, no one else has any business commenting on what i do. (and i mean *clearly* demonstrate. not something amorphous like "your shaving your legs makes it harder for me to not shave because it perpetuates unattainable beauty standards!") i, and it seems like some of the other posters here, are essentially saying that it seems like some strains of modern feminism are just as dogmatic and limiting as, well, those unattainable beauty standards.
i appreciate that some people, such as ikkin, want to protest those beauty standards, and that's great. i believe everyone has the right to live the way they want to, free of judgment. but when, say, not wearing makeup or dyeing one's hair becomes a symbol of feminism, that excludes and alienates people who might agree with those feminist goals, but wear the damn makeup or dye their hair, ***and i think it's presumptuous to assume that those visual markers indicate someone's values or ethics***. my body hair, shaved or not, SAYS NOTHING ABOUT ME AS A PERSON.
katie80 wrote "Feminism is not about uncritically supporting every single choice a woman makes simply because she is a woman". but when we make someone feel as if there is a *right* answer, a *more feminist* choice, when, quite frankly, it is not our business, i believe that is just as harmful to women. we are all complicated people, and we have a range of needs. for example, jessica (and i) are both planning weddings right now, and i know both of us are being very mindful to make both our weddings and our marriages reflect our values. someone telling me that getting married is not a "feminist choice" is essentially assuming that we haven't thought about these issues already. that's pretty horrible, and just as dogmatic as a society that says that women *need* to be married.
and btw, ikkin, telling me that you think "i still need to work out my feminism" is pretty insulting. isn't it possible that i've worked it out, and it just happens to be *gasp* different than yours?
The scary part is no matter what you do someone's going to disapprove. It was like that 400 years ago; it will always be like that.
Do we have to go around running our mouths about everything we disapprove of?
In America we have freedom of speech (sort of). The oft-overlooked corollary to the freedom of speech is the freedom to shut the hell up.
So, people should just stop bitching and learn to accept things as they are and always have been?
So, basically, you haven't read this site. Or, really, anything that's not mainstream scarecoverage of feminism.
Basically, I'm sick of this shit. If this is modern feminism, I want no part of it.
Don't let the door hit ya...
Granted, these changes do happen to girls as they grow up (I lost all my baby fat, started taking better care of my hair, etc etc), but what's the point in changing Dora?
We all know that once you get to a certain age, you stop watching these shows anyway. That or you watch them, but deny it to anyone who asks. Or you watch it if there's nothing better on. Who is going to follow Dora the Explorer as she gets older? What's next Adult Dora, Adult Dora and daughter, Abuela Dora...? No one will follow it that long.
Don't get me wrong, I think it's beyond just important for little girls to have role models -- especially role models who aren't screaming "come and get it" through their outfits or whose thoughts go further than "oooh, mall and daddy's credit card!" But I also think it's equally important to keep children's cartoons as they are. Keep them pure and don't fuss with them. It's tween-teen-adult cartoons that need work...
I thought it was going to be so much worse, actually. As I watch my niece grow up, I have seen her go from a cuddly little ball of pudge to a taller and leaner little girl. And she was adorable the whole time. She loves to eat, to run around and play, to read, to color, to sing, to dance, and she has the cutest little belly that I just love to tickle.
While I do have issues with the jewelry, I can believe that the new Dora is an older version of the original. When they showed the silhouette I was worried that she was wearing a tiny short skirt with nothing on her legs. I'm glad that's not the case. She also does not have a tween shape -- she's not developing breasts, for example. She looks like a little seven year old. I don't think she's sexualized in the way that Bratz dolls are.
The real test will be if they keep the sense of adventure and love of learning in the show. She isn't necessarily a "girly girl" now. It all depends on how her characterization changes. That's the most important part to me. Just my two cents.
OK, I got burned here the last time I said it, but I’ll give it a go again. I’ve never liked Dora. Well, not totally true. I think the show is great; I like the healthy interest in actively figuring out problems and the positive Latina image. My complaint is that Dora has for a long time now been made into much more than the show. Her image is all about selling tons of plastic crap. People are bought into the idea that because the show and character are good/positive/healthy it’s OK for everyone to buy tons of crap toys.
And not just toys, there is so much Dora branded stuff out there…it just makes me sad. It negates children using their imaginations in play, the show dictates how play happens, then the toys and other things re-inforces it. In essence, Dora is the latest incarnation of He-Man, She-Ra, The My Little Ponies and the Care Bears, or the advent of unregulated children’s programming.
(I'm 32 and let me tell you, I was so freaken in love with the My Little Ponies when I was a kid and they've gone and made them all sexy now too, barf city.)
Once upon a time, it was illegal to have children’s shows that were basically just ads for toys. Reagan got rid of that in the early 80’s, and so it has been ever since.
As great as the Dora show is, in reality it only exists to sell stuff. And I have a serious problem with that. Having a three year old, I watch his media consumption as intensely as I watch the food he eats. I don’t want him to be sucked into the huge advertising effort to take over his childhood.
Now that Dora is been tween-ized maybe I can be more open with my dislike.
We just watch the show - we don't buy the crap.
that's the way to do it! you are getting the cool of the show without being sucked into all the stuff.
I've tried to direct my son towards shows that really don't have much in the way of the stuff. Kipper from the UK is great for that. DVDs from the library!
Dora has moved to the city. She will be a doll who is plugged into an online world. Little girls can change her eye color, hair, clothes, and so on. She will have accessories sold separately, and a line of Dora Explorer Girls will now accompany her, not any animals. The press release emphasizes "cutting edge fashion play".
I think this is terrible.
Why can't a tween girl go to even wilder natural places and solve mysteries there?
My daughter is now graduating from college - and I've never met a more solid and completely unaffected by modern culture or the sexualizing of young girls young woman as she - and yet we curl up on the couch together and watch America's Next Top Model.
Everything about Dora, like everything else, is about money. About monetizing everything. It only makes sense that Dora's producers would want to dress her the way their sponsors would like to sell, and draw her the way they believe her audience would want themselves to look like.
I remember my solid daughter in elementary and middle school (before we took her out and home-schooled her) - the cliques were in place as always - the culture of the girls and the boy craziness and whatever went round seemed to me more about their mothers and what their families were stuffing down and approving of than what was in the culture. The popular girls (like the new picture of Dora) were the icons to be adored and emulated or rebelled against - and where they got their "culture" always seemed to me an eclectic mix of timeless things more related to "class" than to modern anything. And I've always thought the sexualizing of women as the other side of brutality is something that has to do with power - and can be seen in many ways.
I'm so happy you brought this up, and would love to continue the dialogue about it, Sincerely, Rori Raye
This kind of thing would be much better: Give Dora prosthetic legs and have her become a champion runner and identity-buster!
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/aimee_mullins_prosthetic_aesthetics.html
I want to say upfront that I'm not posting as the "Evil Slut Clique" but rather as me, Lilith. (Just a disclaimer, because I don't know if the ESC agrees with me).
I'm a mom and while I don't love the new Dora, I'm not upset about it either. I was concerned originally (before her new image was released) about them sexualizing Dora... but now that I see it, eh, it seems like not such a big deal. She doesn't look sexy, she just looks older.
On the one hand, I understand the complaints. However I don't think that the girls who gravitate towards this new Dora are going to start dressing differently because of her. No, to the contrary, I think it's more likely that the girls who are already dressing that way, will perhaps give "adventuring" another chance. That is, you don't have to be a "tomboy" to be a strong woman.
Not that there's anything WRONG with being a "tomboy", because I don't believe there is, but sometimes in our attempts to let our daughters know that you DON'T have to dress or look a certain way, we end up alienating those who do happen to be into fashion, etc. You CAN do both.
We're told day in and day out that you can be strong AND pretty and feminine. I'm really not sure why that message is considered so awesome and positive. Yeah, as long as you look like the stereotype, you can behave a little differently from the stereotype. It's like the very annoying cultural trope about how it's great when women eat a lot, assuming they stay thin and don't look like they eat a lot. With new Dora the message is apparently that it's great that she explores a lot, as long as she doesn't look like she does. That's... not so great.
Furthermore, you DO have dress a certain way to do adventuring. If older Dora does the things younger Dora does in the new clothes, she will get caught her clothing caught on branches, she will injure her ankles because of improper shoes, and she'll probably wish she had her magic backpack back so she could carry some hiking supplies. Dora's not some random, amorphus "strong female," her schtick is that she's an outdoorsy explorer. Her clothing change implies a fundamental change in her activities.
I think the real critique will come when it's shown how the new Dora is characterized and behaves on her show. To be honest, I'm not so bothered with the way she looks - what she's wearing seems like near-standard-issue clothing for girls that age. She looks like a girl I could have as a student - the leggings and long tunics are HUGE with late-elementary age girls. I don't think there's anything progressive about pushing girls to look one way OR the other. Some girls enjoy embracing the girly look, some like the tomboy thing (to use language my peers and I used to describe gendered appearance at that age). I realize that there is a societal expectation that girls will look the way that this new Dora does and that in this her appearance is anything but subversive, but she does reflect a significant part of her audience.
It would have been nice if she could have been slightly less pink and purple and flowy haired in a nod to the girls who DON'T look this way. But I don't think it's necessary, how you look should not determine the kind of person you are or attitude you have. I was very tomboy-ish as a kid, but I've grown into someone who probably cares more about fashion and shopping than my bank account can really handle! Still, I also care passionately about social activism: it's limiting to say if you look one way or care about certain things, you can't care about others. I found the Guanabee post linked to on this article troubling in that way: she CAN attend an environmental rally in her current outfit, but perhaps her bigger struggle will be in being taken seriously by her ideological peers!
The update of Dora is clearly purely for monetary gain, but if they keep the character adventurous, intelligent and a positive role model perhaps her appearance will matter less. She could even be a good thing, countering the Disney Channel female tween icons like Hannah Montana.
Tween characters don't need to wear shoes they can't run in. Ugh, this makes me furious. Little girls can be pretty if they want to be and continue to develop their physical prowess and develop their power in the world.
Check out Chihiro from Miyazaki's film "Spirited Away", or Kik from "Kiki'sDelivery Service. How about Pai from "Whale Rider" or Fiona, from "The Secret of Rion Inish.
I don't have a huge emotional attachment to the old Dora--my nieces aren't quite old enough for her yet--but I'm still a little perturbed by this change.
It would actually be kind of cool if they managed to make the "Tween Dora" have *some* interest in fashion while being passionate about the environment, having adventures, and so on--too often, girls seem to be forced into make a false choice between the clothes-hair-makeup triad and their own unique interests: *either* you're the kind of girl who is obsessed with clothes-hair-makeup and looks down on girls who aren't, *or* you disdain clothes-hair-makeup and look down on the girls who are interested in clothes-hair-makeup.
In media, the beginning of an interest in clothes-hair-makeup often marks the death of a girl's individual personality (unless the episode or movie ends with her rejecting clothes-hair-makeup in favor of another interest). Never--or at least very rarely*--is a girl portrayed as being able to balance her interest in clothes-hair-makeup with an interest in other things. Clothes-hair-makeup are portrayed as having so much power that real-life girls can feel like sellouts if they have the urge to occasionally experiment with clothes-hair-makeup. It's the preadolescent version of the Madonna/whore complex: you can either be pretty but shallow, or interesting but unfeminine. And *either way* you get to feel bad about yourself!
(*One exception, of course, is Hermione Granger, who was able to enjoy dressing up and giving extra attention to her hair for a special occasion without losing all traces of personality. However, given the setting, it's likely that her pretty dress and special hair gel had some kind of magic properties that protected her from turning into a shallow bimbo.)
Anyway, tl:dr, if the new Dora somehow manages to balance her more fashionable image with a continued interest in nature and adventures, that would be a good thing for girls who want to dabble in clothes, hair, and makeup but fear that doing so will activate the Shallow Switch and turn them into The Libby. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheLibby)
From Bob's blog:
I sat in bed, unable to move. For fuck's sake! That wasn't one a the questions that was on my high priority answer list. Even if I did love her, that wasn't one a the things I was willing to admit. A man's got his dignity. And Bob Collins has more dignity than most men. Not only that, Bob Collins also had Bob Collins's Principles, one of them which said Don't Ever Tell No Bitch You lover Her, and By Bitch, That Means All Women. From what I had seen, love can cramp a man's style, kill his desire to engage in the opportunity fuck. I couldn't let myself fall into that trap. If this thing with Janice didn't work out, I planned to fuck another broad within three seconds of our break up, while I continued to fuck other women during our relationship.
Well, at least I know to stop taking you seriously now.
Sorry about the trolls folks, cleaning up now.
I don't think her new look is hugely inappropriate. I'm glad they did the leggings with the "tunic" instead of just a short dress. But I do have some comments.
1. They say she looks like a 10 year old, and she's supposed to appeal to 5-8 year olds. She looks 12 to me. Does she need to be that slim, that jeweled, that long-haired? Or is it just me, and this IS what 10-year-old girls look like?
2. Why couldn't they introduce this character as Dora's older cousin, or something like that? Why does it actually have to BE Dora?
If they'd shorten the hair, lose the bodice ribbon and half of the purple flowers, and the pouty lips, and plump her up a tad, I'd say they were onto something.
I'm glad that people have such strong feelinsg about this. Since it's "only" a TV show, people would usually over look this.
But Dora was a once-in-a-lifetime creation. A strong, smart, adventurous, Hispanic female character loved by boys & girls!! That has literally never happened before.
Im mad because there is this stigma that little girls have to ditch any masculine traits by double digits or else they'll be misfits for life. So it's ok for Dora to be brave & mildly androygynous while she's young. But once she reaches "tween" she has to cut that shit out and get serious about being female. The fuck?
And also, why can't they have her grow up, with the intention of older boys still watching? Why must everything gender segregate so boys & girls have to stand on opposite sides of the room once puberty comes into question. We could do away with so much of sexism if boys & girls were allowed to mingle as human beings, not just as separate genders.
Exactly, Danyell! That's what all the people saying this isn't so bad don't get -- that role models like Dora simply don't exist for little girls, let alone girl role models who little boys like and look up to as well. Nobody's saying there's anything wrong with liking pink or wearing jewelry, but where's the representation for girls who aren't into that, or who wouldn't have been into that if it wasn't so relentlessly pushed on them? Girls already have approximately 1,309,231 so-called role models who look like this new Dora. Why can't there be any diversity? What's the big fear in showing a different type of girl? It makes me think of how, in Sut Jhally's documentary Dreamworlds, he says the answer to shitty portrayals of women (and here, girls) in the media isn't more censorship, but less. We have these giant fucking corporations run by straight white men pumping out clone after clone role model for girls and women, and there is simply no variety, no room for straying from the norm, whatsoever. Little girls today are simply not encouraged to reach their full potential or look beyond these incredibly narrow ideals that the media gives them. And THAT is what most people here are objecting to, not the fact that Dora is wearing pink and has long thick straight hair and stupid footwear. If it were just her and maybe a few others, no problem. The problem is that's how ALL girl's role models look nowadays.
One also has to wonder if this isn't the first step in phasing out the old Dora -- we all know how these megacorporations have a constant need to stomp out any whiff of female independence or deviation from fascist beauty standards. (Hey, it doesn't sell products!) I think we'd be foolish to take Nickolodeon's word that this is "just" a harmless makeover; I bet they'll get people used to the idea of the new Dora replacing the old Dora one baby step at a time, until we hardly notice when the old Dora bows out.
I kind of think the bigger concern should be aimed at her character, not what she's wearing. She looks a lot like an updated version of my friends and I when we were that age. We wore silly, girly clothes and had hair as long as- if not longer than Dora's. But, when we were younger, we all had an interest in science and sports and running around, and learning, among other things. And now, we all are in college, definitely interested in other things than just looking girly. Should Dora stop exploring, I think that would be a cause for serious alarm.
many people would over look this since it's just a TV show. The young Dora is geared towards younger childeren, or toddlers, and in my opinion, it should stay that way. Childeren look at these cartoon characters as role models, and in my opinion, by the way the new Dora dresses, she is a bad role model, and a bad influence towards toddlers. The "Young" Dora, dressed safe. The backpack, tennis shoes, and her short hair is perfect since she is an adventurer. By the new Dora having long, flowing hair, with dresses, and ballet flats, does not fit with the adventurer she was created to be. How could someone run in those shoes. You might as well just call her a fashionista, and not an adventurer.
didnt they do this with the rugrats? because it didnt work.
the new dora is cute...but definitly not an adventurer. she needs to put on some hiking shorts, boots, a t-shirt, and upgrade backpack
you have to just love dora the explorer. My kids just love here. i have spent alot of money on dora for my kids but it is well worth it. sterling silver jewelry