I've noticed girls wearing those shirts as well. I think similar shirts are sold at mass market retailers like Target. I know feminism is about being able to make your own choices, but I really cringe when I see girls making such poor ones.

There's an article in the NY Times today that relates to this as well. It's about how the Cinderella phenomenon (and the whole princess fad in general) is teaching girls lessons that are the exact opposite of those taught in the original fairy tale. Rather than teaching girls that merit is based on intrinsic qualities, the way the Cinderella costume competition plays out is that the wealthiest girl with the most and best pieces of the costume is the best person. Don't have the money for a real tiara? Don't bother showing yourself on Halloween.

Here's the URL:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/03/fashion/thursdaystyles/03cindy.html?pagewanted=2&8hpib

-Joe

...of the girls who fought back against boys wearing "Hooters" t-shirts to school by printing and wearing "Peckers" shirts. They had a woodpecker on them, of course (after all..."Hooters" just refers to owls, right?).

Shirts with faux-provocative slogans on them are silly, not degrading. While I hope to raise my (future) daughters to have way too much respect for themselves to wear a shirt that advertises their 15 bedroom notches, I don't really object to Abercrombie selling them. If you feel degraded, don't wear them.

And the Asian T-shirts were a cute pun, which none of the Asian young people I knew at the time found insulting. Lighten up, people.

What's really going on here is that girls are being taught that marketing, positioning and publicity are far more important than actual concrete work or results. Let's look at this like adults, shall we?

Here's a description of the program:

The premise involves gathering a group of about two dozen girls, ages 13 to 15, giving them $10,000 and permission to give it all away.

It's not a new reality TV show. It's an innovative grant-making program to empower teenage girls in Allegheny County.

Known as the Allegheny Girls as Grantmakers Project, the two-year program will allow girls to discuss and explore ways to make a difference in the county by reviewing grant proposals designed by peers and funding the best ones.

"It begins them on a journey to give them a knowledgeable place to work from to see what will have impact here," said Heather S. Arnet, executive director of the Women and Girls Foundation of Southwest Pennsylvania, which is collaborating with three other nonprofits on the $50,000 project.

Okay, so four nonprofits have handed a bunch of teenage girls fifty thousand dollars, and enabled them to give it away as they see fit. And they're not interested, apparently, in funding programs for building houses, or running a food pantry, or teaching people to read -- how boring. How uncool.

Instead, let's get in the papers! Let's attack a big, fat corporate target and make completely unverifiable claims! Let's position ourselves as champions of morality and progressiveness, and have a goal that's so abstract it's almost nonexistent! I'll bet if you asked them what they wanted to accomplish, you'd hear that classic nongoal -- "We want to make people think."

This is a crock. Being written up in the media as some kind of teenage Mother Theresa, except without the icky contact with actual poor people, is not quite as good as being Linsey Lohan, but it's close. Again, the lesson here is that publicity and positioning are just as good as, if not better than, actually accomplishing something. This is Eve Ensler redux. What hypocrites.

"Some of my best friends are women ..." But it never ceases to amaze me that women will crawl buck naked across a field of broken glass to degrade themselves in public. Call me old-school, but I don't get any of this crap -- Girls Gone Wild, bunny t-shirts and keychains, and the whole idea that objectifying yourself is cool and liberating. I worry about bringing a daughter into this culture. A&F won't pull the shirts because while racism may not sell as well as it used to, sexism is more profitable than ever.

I don't understand the vitrol behind Prudence Dogwood's letter below. If Ms. Dogwood had actually taken the time to quote and source the description of the problem, the reader would have actually gotten the whole picture of the grant-making program.

For reader's information, the description from her letter is taken from the following article: "Teen Girls To Hold Purse Strings," Steve Levin Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, July 11, 2005, and the rest of it states:

"The 26 girls in the program -- selected from about four dozen applicants -- are in grades eight through 10 at 18 different public and private schools, and one is home schooled. They are white, black, American Indian and Asian, and come from families that are Catholic, Protestant, Greek Orthodox, Jewish and Hindu.

"Beginning this fall, the girls will meet monthly to discuss and develop a request for grant proposals that will be distributed in January to schools around the county. An advisory council of six young professional women will help the girls learn how to do a needs analysis, conduct grant workshops, review grant proposals and, ultimately, decide the final awards next June.

"The second year will include providing project assistance to grantees, continued development of marketing, budgeting and programming skills, and planning for a June 2007 conference showcasing their accomplishments ...

"I have a lot of great ideas about how we could use the [grant] money," said [Maya Savage, 14 year old 9th-grader], who lists tolerance and stemming teen violence as two programs she'd consider worthy of grants. "I think it's important that girls have more self-esteem and are more aware about what's going on in the community."

Thus, this media campaign is but one of many projects the girls are undertaking. Furthermore, when asked about this story in the local media, a participant responded:

'"We totally didn't expect it to be picked up a) this quickly and b) by the national media," said Ms. Blackman-Mathis, a 16-year-old junior at Schenley High School in Oakland.'

-- http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05307/599884.stm

Thus, I don't think the girl's grandiose goal was to conduct a huge national media corporate bashing campaign - but in my eyes, it takes a lot of ovaries for them to have raised it that level. Good for them!

Guess what? Sometimes the process *is* the result.

These kids are are 12-17 for God's sake. I would have LOVED the opportunity to do something similar at that age, and learn valuable skills, such as how to plan press conferences, conduct an advocacy campaign, manipulate the media, and attract political attention. They are also learning the importance of diversity and team-building skills they will carry throughout their whole lives.

What would the naysayers prefer? They all join Habitat Humanity or the Girl Scouts, be told what to do, and call it a day? Or maybe create a national federal emergency response team to the avian flu? What "results" or "outcomes" are we looking for? Haven't we all learned that working against poverty, sexism, all other -isms takes time?

I can't even believe I am defending the idealism, feminism, and the value-added of girl-centered programs in this type of forum. How depressing.

After years of NGO and public policy work, let me tell you, I'd rather have the girls on my side.

I wish them the best of luck.