Good grief! K__'s started to put together a list of all the things she thinks we're going to need for this child of ours. It's a £1,000 without blinking.
The thing is, we're both pretty sorted on a lot of things. We know that we aren't going to pay for designer labels, for example. Personally, I can't abide children being used as adverts for multinational corporations. If you're an adult and you buy into Nike's brand image so much that you want to emblazon their swoosh all over your body, just do it. That's your business. I'm sure you parting with lots of money for their goods has turned you into a dynamic go getter. In fact, I imagine this works in much in the way that some African tribes believe if you kill a lion and eat its heart you gain its courage. So go ahead, swoosh away, Lionheart.
But it's a crappy thing to force a kid to be an advert for a company both morally and economically. They charge you over the odds for the right to display their logo in the first place and then the bloody child grows out of it in under three seconds. Has the 3 month-old infant wearing a t-shirt with a flashy logo upon it considered whether the designer is employing sweatshop labour? No. Which just goes to show you can't trust the ethics of a newborn. Does it shit in its designer clothes any less? No. It appears not to recognise the brand values of the clothing. Radioactive shit, piss and vomit are all the order of the day apparently, so why option your child as a billboard but pay through the nose for it at the same time?
No, personally, I'd no more brand my child with designer shit than I would place a hot iron into its flesh and mark it part of my herd. And actually, thinking about it, if I were going to brand a child, it would make more sense to actually brand it with some mark that identified it as our child rather than Tommy Hilfiger's, wouldn't it? But we're not going to do either.
No branding for our kid, of any kind, thanks.
The thing is, we're both pretty sorted on a lot of things. We know that we aren't going to pay for designer labels, for example. Personally, I can't abide children being used as adverts for multinational corporations. If you're an adult and you buy into Nike's brand image so much that you want to emblazon their swoosh all over your body, just do it. That's your business. I'm sure you parting with lots of money for their goods has turned you into a dynamic go getter. In fact, I imagine this works in much in the way that some African tribes believe if you kill a lion and eat its heart you gain its courage. So go ahead, swoosh away, Lionheart.
But it's a crappy thing to force a kid to be an advert for a company both morally and economically. They charge you over the odds for the right to display their logo in the first place and then the bloody child grows out of it in under three seconds. Has the 3 month-old infant wearing a t-shirt with a flashy logo upon it considered whether the designer is employing sweatshop labour? No. Which just goes to show you can't trust the ethics of a newborn. Does it shit in its designer clothes any less? No. It appears not to recognise the brand values of the clothing. Radioactive shit, piss and vomit are all the order of the day apparently, so why option your child as a billboard but pay through the nose for it at the same time?
No, personally, I'd no more brand my child with designer shit than I would place a hot iron into its flesh and mark it part of my herd. And actually, thinking about it, if I were going to brand a child, it would make more sense to actually brand it with some mark that identified it as our child rather than Tommy Hilfiger's, wouldn't it? But we're not going to do either.
No branding for our kid, of any kind, thanks.
No comments:
Post a Comment