Chasing the “IT” Toy. Or Not.

Posted on | December 6, 2007 |

Yesterday morning I read a post about Chasing the “It” Toy by Trent over at The Simple Dollar.  I haven’t been able to get that post out of my mind.  I posted a comment at the time but feel compelled to return to the topic here on my own blog this morning.

Trent talks about his own and his wife’s experience with “it” toys — Cabbage Patch dolls, Super Mario games, and a Tickle Me Elmo.  He writes:

I know, certainly, that my best Christmas memories are of receiving that one toy I most wanted for Christmas, but I realize now that on some level, I realized that it was more than just the mere gift. I knew that my parents had gone through a lot of effort to get the item and make sure that I had it that year for Christmas, and I knew it was because they loved me very much. [emphasis mine]

This statement keeps ringing in my head.

My response was as follows:

Hi Trent. I love  your blog and respect your opinions but I have to say that the very idea and existance of “it” toys offends me deeply. On principle alone I wouldn’t walk across the street to get an “it” toy for free.

I defend the right of marketers and manufacturer’s to try to build the aura of “it” for their products but I equally defend my right, as a mother, to keep my children from being exposed to the media that encourages “it” toys. And, if exposed, I stand firm on my efforts to help my children see that their lives will not be ruined forever if they never receive an “it” toy.

What struck me most was Trent’s equating the willingness to stand all night in a line or to fight over a coverted toy with love.  I know that this type of behavior over an “IT” happens all the time – parents who pay 10 times the retail value of a gift or a halloween costume or a Hanna Montana concert ticket just because little Johnny or Suzy craves it with their whole heart and just has to have it.  I would hate for my children to measure how much I do or do not love them by the number or value of the material gifts I have or haven’t provided.

Now, I don’t know Trent (though I do enjoy his blog) and I don’t know for sure that he was measuring his parents’ love by the bribing of a dock-worker in order to score a Super Mario game.  But I know that some parents operate that way and I know some children think that way about their parents.

I don’t want any part of it.  I’d rather shoot myself in the foot than give my children the impression that acquiring anything by a particular date was worth paying usury rates or losing sleep over. If Tickle Me Elmo tickles your kid’s fancy, so be it but what kind of value system would induce you to pay several times the retail value plus inflated shipping to some eBayer just so you could wrap it and put it under the Christmas tree?

My kids have received some pretty cool and coveted things over the years including American Girl dolls, Razor scooters, and iPods. Like any parent, I get a thrill out of seeing their faces light up when a gift is spot on. Although I can’t personally imagine spending money on a Tickle Me Elmo or a video game, I do understand their appeal. I’m not questioning the value of the toys themselves. I’m questioning the concept of giving even one iota of creedence to the thought that buying the toy by December 24th has any greater value or demonstrates any greater love than buying the same gift in, say, the middle of July.

My kids are not yet full-grown and therefore I can’t point to them and say, see, my method is proven to work.  But based on their current levels of media immunity, their savvy-ness in regard to “IT” things, and their highly developed abilities of delayed gratification, I’m pretty confident that we’re on the right track.  It might be that St. Peter will turn me away from the pearly gates because I never bought my kids an ”IT” toy but that’s a chance I’m willing to take.

Related Posts for Further Reading

• No Related Posts

Comments