Bratz vs Barbie

Right off, I hate Bratz dolls. I mean I freaking detest them. Despite that, I never forbid my daughters from playing with them. Didn't matter, as they liked Barbies more, though my oldest was into dolls before Bratz got popular.
I myself never bought them, but I never bothered with others.
Last I heard, Bratz had almost 50 percent of the doll market, and had just about caught up with Barbie. I suspect that they have now surpassed Barbie.

Being a parent, this got me thinking about the differences between the worlds of Barbie and Bratz:

Feminists have hated Barbie for decades, and all the Stienems and Dworkins of this poor world loudly proclaimed that she was partly responsible for all the troubles of American girls. "Ban Barbie" they cried.

OK, let's suppose for the sake of this rant that you buy into the feminist argument that little girls are so intellectually and emotionally vapid that they will be scarred for life because they can't get themselves to look like Barbie. This despite the fact that it's generally known and understood that no human being can be built like that without major surgery.
Let's suppose that all little girls should have been playing with the Happy to be Me dolls to protect them. Those were a flop, so I guess the feminists just didn't fight hard enough.

And now Barbie is being replaced by the Bratz dolls. Maybe I'm out of touch, but I haven't heard any screaming about these from the feminists outside of some blogs, so I have to assume that, overall, they have no problem with these dolls. I guess feminism's third wave is real.

In my humble, male, old fart opinion, the Bratz are mutant hookers with currently stylish clothes and cool cars. The little wretches have to smoke crack because they don't have noses to snort coke with.
They do look like they're high. They look furtive and mean.

So let me get this all straight.

Barbie was horrible because she had an unattainably perfect body. OK, got it.
There were astronaut Barbies, and doctors, nurses, veterinarians, and so on. Barbie games had her rescuing lost and hurt animals, skiing, riding horses, and of course doing her hair and such. She had a nice smile and a positive can do attitude. Her movies reflected all this too.
But that's all materialistic and shallow I'm told.

Bratz do exactly NOTHING except endlessly shop for clothes.
That's it, pretty much.

Well, I must say that if little girls use dolls as role models, as feminists think they do, then Bratz are a hell of a lot easier to aspire to!
Barbie doctor? Dude, that takes work, ya gotta study for, like, hours y'know.
Why study or work when any girl can just hang out at the mall, charge a few bucks for sex with old pervs and pull in (pun intended) enough cash to buy some really stylish new designer clothes? Probably have enough left over for booze, drugs, etc. too.
I guess that must not considered shallow or materialistic.

So, it seems to me that feminists believe that unnaturally attractive, professional, positive attitude dolls are an abomination against all of women kind, but just plain unnatural, negative attitude, slacker dolls are swell.

In "researching" this for all of 10 minutes, I did come across a whole lot of blogs and forums with individuals complaining about Bratz. But nothing in the way of news articles. I remember reading about the horrors of Barbie in newspapers and magazines ad nauseum in the 80's and 90's. It's a huge difference.

Because of the resounding silence on the part of feminist leaders (perhaps there are no more? Perhaps feminism is dead as a movement since women have achieved so much that organizations and leaders are no longer necessary?), I can only conclude that Bratz represent the ideal of today's concept of feminism, the so called "third wave."

Well, I hope you like where you've ended up ladies.