...at least not of girls dressing too maturely. Women dressing too immaturely is another matter.

Did anyone else read Louisa May Alcott? Little Women didn't really deal as much with the over-sophistication of children, especially in dress, but Eight Cousins did and Rose in Bloom did. And they were set in the 2nd half of the 19th Century.

Anne of Green Gables by L.M. Montgomery, mdny aecades later, also dealt with the conflict of young girls dressing up too much and too early.

Even Jane Austen, so much earlier, described the awkwardness of having younger sisters competing with their older sisters in the marriage "market."

Apparently, trying to control how girl children dress has not been successful in promoting more wholesome images for them.

Perhaps the answer lies elsewhere... in a world where all girls (not merely a priviliged few) are more than mere vessels in waiting, and have more interesting toys (johnfairfax!) than those that promote only motherhood, and where learning to put their own needs first, rather than others', is not even questioned. (For example, families will usually, without question, make personal sacrifices so that a father or brother may complete his education. Yet, if a mother or daughter wishes to do the same, it often must be after fulfilling all of her other family obligations first... even though a woman's level of education has been shown to have a great impact on her family's SES.) It's simply a matter of different priorities for different genders. Alhough there has been some improvement, and younger women have more opportunities in education just in the past decade or two, there is still significant pressure for young women to marry and produce children. (At least until the "Momb" finally exists!)

Preparing for motherhood presupposes finding a mate, which presupposes being found sexually desirable. Of course-- young girls are merely following the script set out for them by our sexually-schizophrenic culture. Be sexually desirable, but be chaste.

Longtime... I would also have mentioned "An Old Fashioned Girl," if I had remembered the title while posting my comment... thanks for the reminder!

I guess Barbie is sometimes a Rohrschach test. I don't remember torturing any, just trying to make clothes for them from recycled socks (mostly knit dresses w/ cowl necks).

My daughter used to give hers punk haircuts, though, which did give them a tortured look, but was a dark source of amusement for me. (Perhaps I was simply too repressed as a child.)

One of my favorite bits from one of Roseanne's stand-up routines was about her frustration with the unreality of Barbie. Something to the effect that she could "get" Barbie more if Mattel would just come out with a "Trailer Park Barbie" or an "Incest Survivor Barbie."

Sort of makes one wonder what else might be (have been) going on in Barbie's torture chamber...

The Times also refused/neglected (?) to run the story about the mysterious bulge on Bush's back during the debates, in spite of having some sources outside Washington-- not to mention, the evidence of our own eyes!

Certainly, any combination of these spiked stories could have made a difference in last year's election, rather than merely in one vote on renewing the Patriot Act.

But, then I remind myself that even running those stories might not have made a difference, if Rove's GOP really was successful in altering the Diebold votes in key states. Of course, to most of the MSM, not just the Times, that's just one more story that's pure hogwash, and unfit to print, except to make sport of conspiracy theorists. [sigh]

Voters' Rights? Hah! An antiquated notion in Rove's BushWorld.

I was truly skeptical when I saw the trailers. The almost universally favorable reviews, though, made me reconsider, and I really planned to see this version of P&P, but somehow didn't have time. And then there was that interesting controversy over the differences in the British and American releases. And, now, I'm frankly in no hurry...

As for those who are asking the critics to "lighten up..." what if this were some other piece of artistic work that you admired as much as Ms. Fattore and others of us admire P&P, as well as the rest of Austen's work, and it had been, in your eyes "defiled?"

Anyone old enough to remember the early days of the Beatles, for instance, or Janice Joplin, can probably recall being horrified the first time they heard one of Lennon's tunes re-interpreted as elevator music, or Joplin's song against materialism being used to sell Mercedes Benz. (Shudder!)

I must go even further than some of the other letter writers, for I did not even care for Gwyneth Paltrow as Emma, tho' she played her well enough, because she did not seem to have enough of Emma's "substance."

The worst Austen adaptation, though, (in my mind worse even than the Olivier/Garson version of P&P), but not even mentioned here so far, was Mansfield Park, not one of Austen's typical comedies, but a very involving novel. The movie version was truly a travesty. Fanny's character, demure and retiring, was transformed into something informed by feminisim. I'm all for movies with feminist characters, but not when they mis-appropriate a finely drawn character and distort her out of all recognition.

Make all of the romantic, sentimental, realistic movies people are willing to pay to see. I'd probably see some of them, too. Just don't call them by a name which can no longer apply. Using the "cred" of Jane Austen in order to sell tickets to something beneath her standards does none of us any credit.

(Surely, there are other ways to get others interested in Austen. Perhaps Stephanie Barron's entertaining mystery series would be one?)

I got the sarcasm, too. And the irony.