I do not understand the author's vehement opposition to marketing that encourages parents to take an interest in their children's development. (Actually, I do.

I do not understand the author's vehement opposition to marketing that encourages parents to take an interest in their children's development. (Actually, I do. Like Amy Chua, she is using the WSJ to promote her book, while she hypocritically condemns toymakers for promoting their work) Sure, these claims are cheesy and not backed by scientific method; most advertising shares these flaws. But I would rather these toys be marketed by promoting actual meaningful developmental benefits and getting parents thinking, rather than relying on Mickey Mouse's or Dora's face. It is a step in the right direction. Is the author similarly opposed to foodmakers promoting nutritional benefits? Would she argue that parents should just thoughtlessly feed their kids whatever seems like kid food? About the stationary trike she resents, I think that is a great toy for a city family that doesn't want Junior triking into the street in front of the apartment. Live and let live.