Update: shortified version
How dangerous is the princess movement? It is so dangerous that a book needed to be written:
Much more after the jump.
A familiar theme here is the amazing extent to which feminism tends to really be about controlling other women's behaviour. This is something that cannot be admitted—feminists cannot even admit it to themselves usually.
An interesting exception to the rule is with little girls. Girls are supposed to be raised and that means feminism can charge right in with suggestions about how they ought to and ought not to be raised. And the effect of fairy tale princesses on little girls has been a target for a long time. Second-wave feminism has been concerned with fairy tales and the way they are said to shape girls from the very beginning of the movement in the 1960s.
Anyway, it's a long-standing concern so I wasn't surprised to walk past the feminist bookstore in my neighbourhood and see the entire front window devoted to a display pushing a new book called Cinderella Ate My Daughter: Dispatches from the Front Lines of the New Girlie-Girl Culture by Peggy Orenstein. It's impossible to look at a title like that and not think, "Here we go again." Could there possibly be a move in this argument that hasn't been made nine million times already.
The story of Cinderella is, after all, more than three hundred years old. Little girls didn't just start to get all dreamy-eyed about princesses last week. There were girlie girls when I was boy and there were girlie girls when my grandmother was a little girl.
And the notion that culture can overcome nature has been long been put to rest. To pick only one recent example of thousands, someone recently gave dolls to some brand of monkey, I think it was chimps, and lo and behold the female chimps mothered the dolls and the male ones chewed on the dolls.
Reading around the reviews, the thing that is most stunning about the praise this book is garnering is the complete absence of anything that looks even vaguely like critical thinking. For example, here is Annie Murphy-Paul in the New York Times:
This is an old trick. Many years ago PT Barnum was asked about the future of the circus and he said he thought there would always be a market for the circus so long as there were children. And some cynic quipped, "In other words there is a sucker born every minute." In a weird twist most people came to believe the cynical comment was made by Barnum himself but the cynicism was all in the eye of the critic. The same is true above. The cynicism about little girls is not Disney's but Annie Murphy-Paul's and that ought to have us wondering.
Peggy Orenstein is also apparently very cynical about girls ability to do anything right. She has also written a book called SchoolGirls: Young Women, Self-Esteem and the Confidence Gap. At Amazon her new book comes accompanied by an "exclusive note" from the author. (Anyone who is willing to pretend what is just a marketing pitch for their book is "an exclusive note" has nothing to learn from Disney about cynical promotion gimmicks). Here is how it opens:
And, by the way, no one can raise "the ideal daughter" and it is a little odd to complain that Disney is creating stress in girls' lives if you feel you have to raise an ideal daughter—your daughter will feel that pressure too.
Further, is it really a good idea to make your daughter part of the marketing campaign? Now the whole world will be watching this little girl as she grows up just to see how she does. You may think I'm being overly picky here but Orenstein is also the author of a best-selling memoir called Waiting for Daisy: A Tale of Two Continents, Three Religions, Five Infertility Doctors, An Oscar, an Atomic Bomb, A Romantic Night, and One Woman's Quest to Become a Mother. "Daisy" is her daughter's name and it isn't hard to picture Daisy's own book of bitter recriminations aimed at her mother twenty years from now.
Let's get back to our story courtesy of Newsweek's review:
Above the jump, I noted the stunning admission that there is no solid research to back any of these fears up. The science that actually is provided might just as easily be used to reach the opposite conclusion to what the book and its fans appear to suggest:
In conclusion, the Newsweek review tells us:
And I don't mean to be too disgusting a man but is it really way over the top to expect girls to do well at school, to care about their appearance, to dress well and, that horrid final nagging detail, to be kind? Seriously, they are the richest generation of girls in human history with more freedom and choices than any girls ever. Surely they can manage this and surely it's not unreasonable to expect them to work at it.
How dangerous is the princess movement? It is so dangerous that a book needed to be written:
Orenstein knew there was something about this she didn’t like. Frilly dresses? Waiting for Prince Charming? Isn’t that a retrograde role model? One would think—but as it turns out, it’s harder than it sounds to find the science to back up that notion. So instead, Orenstein decided to head to the front lines of this girl culture herself ....The passing admission that "as it turns out, it’s harder than it sounds to find the science to back up" the notion that little girls wanting to be princesses is a bad thing ought to stop us dead. Pardon me, but isn't that a problem for the whole thesis? And given that serious researchers have had a hard time coming up with any evidence, why in heaven's name should we be impressed that a mere journalist who isn't an expert in anything at all went to the front lines of the "girl culture" and has written a book about it. Is there something special about journalists that requires the rest of us to take their opinions more seriously than what we can figure out for ourselves?
Much more after the jump.
A familiar theme here is the amazing extent to which feminism tends to really be about controlling other women's behaviour. This is something that cannot be admitted—feminists cannot even admit it to themselves usually.
An interesting exception to the rule is with little girls. Girls are supposed to be raised and that means feminism can charge right in with suggestions about how they ought to and ought not to be raised. And the effect of fairy tale princesses on little girls has been a target for a long time. Second-wave feminism has been concerned with fairy tales and the way they are said to shape girls from the very beginning of the movement in the 1960s.
Anyway, it's a long-standing concern so I wasn't surprised to walk past the feminist bookstore in my neighbourhood and see the entire front window devoted to a display pushing a new book called Cinderella Ate My Daughter: Dispatches from the Front Lines of the New Girlie-Girl Culture by Peggy Orenstein. It's impossible to look at a title like that and not think, "Here we go again." Could there possibly be a move in this argument that hasn't been made nine million times already.
The story of Cinderella is, after all, more than three hundred years old. Little girls didn't just start to get all dreamy-eyed about princesses last week. There were girlie girls when I was boy and there were girlie girls when my grandmother was a little girl.
And the notion that culture can overcome nature has been long been put to rest. To pick only one recent example of thousands, someone recently gave dolls to some brand of monkey, I think it was chimps, and lo and behold the female chimps mothered the dolls and the male ones chewed on the dolls.
Reading around the reviews, the thing that is most stunning about the praise this book is garnering is the complete absence of anything that looks even vaguely like critical thinking. For example, here is Annie Murphy-Paul in the New York Times:
... in 2000 a Disney executive named Andy Mooney went to check out a “Disney on Ice” show and found himself “surrounded by little girls in princess costumes. Princess costumes that were — horrors! — homemade. How had such a massive branding opportunity been overlooked?Notice first how much of this argument consists of simply sneering. And then notice that even as presented this little anecdote admits that Disney did not create the demand for princess outfits but merely sought to meet it. Mooney found himself surrounded by little girls in princess costumes. The man isn't stupid, he must have thought "Wow, these little girls want to dress like the princesses they see on the ice and their mothers are so eager to please them they are willing to spend time and money making them costumes." And he concluded that there was a market here. Is there anything about that that is evil or cynical?
This is an old trick. Many years ago PT Barnum was asked about the future of the circus and he said he thought there would always be a market for the circus so long as there were children. And some cynic quipped, "In other words there is a sucker born every minute." In a weird twist most people came to believe the cynical comment was made by Barnum himself but the cynicism was all in the eye of the critic. The same is true above. The cynicism about little girls is not Disney's but Annie Murphy-Paul's and that ought to have us wondering.
Peggy Orenstein is also apparently very cynical about girls ability to do anything right. She has also written a book called SchoolGirls: Young Women, Self-Esteem and the Confidence Gap. At Amazon her new book comes accompanied by an "exclusive note" from the author. (Anyone who is willing to pretend what is just a marketing pitch for their book is "an exclusive note" has nothing to learn from Disney about cynical promotion gimmicks). Here is how it opens:
As a mom, I admit, I was initially tempted to give the new culture of pink and pretty a pass. There are already so many things to be vigilant about as a parent; my energy was stretched to its limit. So my daughter slept in a Cinderella gown for a few years. Girls will be girls, right?In a review at Newsweek we learn the following:
All of which is why, when Orenstein got pregnant, she kept to herself a dirty secret. “I was terrified at the thought of having a daughter,” she writes. “I was supposed to be an expert on girls’ behavior. What if, after all that, I wasn’t up to the challenge myself? What if I couldn’t raise the ideal daughter?”Dear Peggy Orenstein, it isn't a dirty secret if you are willing to trumpet it to a journalist. Of course she already knows this and this is just more marketing. Notice the flattery implicit in this self presentation, We moms have it so tough, why "our energy is stretched to the limit." No doubt it is, but parenthood has always been a serious responsibility and Orenstein has one daughter. My mother raised three daughters. My grandmother raised five daughters and five sons through the depression and world war.
And, by the way, no one can raise "the ideal daughter" and it is a little odd to complain that Disney is creating stress in girls' lives if you feel you have to raise an ideal daughter—your daughter will feel that pressure too.
Further, is it really a good idea to make your daughter part of the marketing campaign? Now the whole world will be watching this little girl as she grows up just to see how she does. You may think I'm being overly picky here but Orenstein is also the author of a best-selling memoir called Waiting for Daisy: A Tale of Two Continents, Three Religions, Five Infertility Doctors, An Oscar, an Atomic Bomb, A Romantic Night, and One Woman's Quest to Become a Mother. "Daisy" is her daughter's name and it isn't hard to picture Daisy's own book of bitter recriminations aimed at her mother twenty years from now.
Let's get back to our story courtesy of Newsweek's review:
Suddenly, as if on princess steroids, Orenstein began noticing princess mania at every turn: Daisy’s classmates—even one with two mothers—showed up to school in princess outfits. The supermarket checkout woman addressed her daughter with “Hi, Princess.” She found her daughter lying on the floor at a bat mitzvah, surrounded by a group of boys, waiting for her “prince” to come and wake her.There are an awful lot of stories that get written because some journalist has noticed something. And good heavens, imagine an adult calling a little girl "princess". But it is the last sentence that really spins. Okay, here is a girl at a bat mitzvah and she is surrounded by boys and we know that she is 'waiting for her “prince” to come and wake her'. Really? How exactly does the fact that a girl is interested in boys show that something disturbing is happening.
Above the jump, I noted the stunning admission that there is no solid research to back any of these fears up. The science that actually is provided might just as easily be used to reach the opposite conclusion to what the book and its fans appear to suggest:
Orenstein finds one such enlightening explanation in developmental psychology research showing that until as late as age 7, children are convinced that external signs — clothing, hairstyle, favorite color, choice of toys — determine one’s sex.On the basis of this Orenstein concludes:
“That’s why 4-year-olds, who are in what is called ‘the inflexible stage,’ become the self-appointed chiefs of the gender police. Suddenly the magnetic lure of the Disney Princesses became more clear to me: developmentally speaking, they were genius, dovetailing with the precise moment that girls need to prove they are girls, when they will latch on to the most exaggerated images their culture offers in order to stridently shore up their femininity.”The emphasis in that sentence comes from Orenstein herself. I don't have any problems with the logic of this. In fact, this all makes a whole lot of sense to me. It makes so much sense that I can't figure out why Orenstein can't see something that ought to be painfully obvious here. Let me re-emphasize the emphasis:
... the precise moment that girls need to prove they are girls ...As I say, it makes sense. They are pre-adolescent so they are not functionally sexual so, not surprisingly, they identify girlhood with its outer trappings. But, girls need to prove they are girls! That's quite an admission. Except that it ought to be so obvious it needn't be said. Boys at this age also need to prove they are boys. So why is Orenstein eager to undermine the things girls do to meet this need?
“People have said to me, ‘Don’t you feel like you’re brainwashing your daughter because you’re not giving her the choice of what she consumes?’ ” Orenstein says. “But there’s not really a choice. Disney isn’t giving you a choice.”Either that or Disney is giving girls the choices that there feminist mothers aren't letting them have.
In conclusion, the Newsweek review tells us:
There may not be research that looks at the detriments of princess culture specifically, but there is certainly evidence to show that girls are struggling. Studies show young girls today face more pressure than ever to be “perfect” (like a princess?)—not only to get straight A’s and excel academically, but to be beautiful, fashionable, and kind.Notice that the woman who worried about raising the "ideal daughter" (her words) is blaming Disney because girls are under pressure to be "perfect".
And I don't mean to be too disgusting a man but is it really way over the top to expect girls to do well at school, to care about their appearance, to dress well and, that horrid final nagging detail, to be kind? Seriously, they are the richest generation of girls in human history with more freedom and choices than any girls ever. Surely they can manage this and surely it's not unreasonable to expect them to work at it.
No comments:
Post a Comment