Peggy Orenstein at Bitch (interviewed by M.M. Adjarian) on the relationship between vanity and princess culture, and ultimately the erosion of self-esteem:
[The] insistence on defining girls and women by how we look and how we relate sexually is not only a way to keep [us] in our place, but a way we keep ourselves there. Obsessing over our appearance is the way we assure ourselves and others around us that even if we’re really successful, we’re not really threatening. [T]he pressures on women to look good from womb to tomb have become more intense and confusing [in part] because we have made so much progress. And the consequences for girls of being prematurely sexualized can be precisely the things we’re trying to avoid, such as negative body image, eating disorders, or depression. One of the things [I found] that surprised me was the relationship between sexualization and disconnection from authentic sexuality: Girls who are sexualized early are more likely to see sexuality as a performance, not as something that they feel internally.
When girls play dolls today, the fantasy that’s offered them is that they should grow up to be a rock star or movie star. That was absolutely not true when we were girls. And even the beloved Dora the Explorer—they split Dora into two because they wanted to keep the audience, and the audience was aging out younger and younger. So they made a tween Dora. [Original] Dora is very sturdy and just neutral: She has short hair, a straight-cut shirt, a backpack, and a map. [Tween Dora] got flirty clothes and pretty hair, and the map and backpack are gone. Her fantasies are about being a rock star performing a benefit concert.
So much of what girls are presented with is essentially about performance. [And] here’s Dora, in this new incarnation, giving a soft-pedaled version of the same lesson. If it were in isolation, that might be one thing. But it’s just constant. That’s what girls are told [to aspire to]—high-school student by day, rock star by night. It’s about the importance of this surface self.
I’ve been thinking a lot more about the way girl power has been contorted into pro-narcissism. My daughter, Daisy, got a make-your-own messenger bag kit for her seventh birthday—[it’s] a messenger bag that you decorate with iron-on transfers. [Most of] the transfers were pink and orange and purple, hearts and flowers and stars and all the stuff that you would typically expect. But that was not what we noticed. One of the transfers said “spoiled,” another one said “pampered princess,” and a third one said “brat.” And [Daisy] looked at them and said, “Mom, why do they want you to put that on your purse? Isn’t that kind of braggy?”—which is the worst thing you can say if you’re seven. And I said, “Yeah, I think you’re right. It is kind of braggy.” Somehow the idea of creating a strong sense of self in girls has been distorted by the culture into announcing you’re a spoiled, narcissistic brat—like that is what signifies confidence. But it’s that sexualized, manipulative femininity.
If you asked what we want for our daughters, we’d want very wonderful, positive, thoughtful things: strong internal sense of self, self-direction and compassion and potential and all of that. And then [we] undercut that with what they’re playing with. The two don’t add up.
blue milk 
I have often thought this about the current generation of teen pop stars, Miley Cyrus et al. Who is the target audience for their sexualisation? They perform on stage in their mid-teens wearing thongs and hot pants… in front of an audience of 12-16 year old girls? Perhaps this is some perverted power play to persuade dads to take their daughters to the shows, or perhaps they are performing as what the audience members see as the ideal version of themselves.
Is the hyper-sexualisation of teen stars meant to make them inspirational figures for an audience feeling pressured into wearing less clothes and ‘putting out’ earlier? It seems warped that this sexualised look is meant to give the impression of self-confidence and self-assuredness, when surely a truly self-confident artist would have the stones to say ‘no’ to the pushy stylist who wants her to wear a see-through top.
Wow – as the mother of three girls this is right on! The most confident teens I’ve ever met were all bucking mainstream and down right quirky. With engineers as parents, hopefully our girls will be nerdy and true to themselves!
It seems like the “rebel cool” persona has trickled down to a ridiculously young age. 7?
Lots of little girls seem to go through a phase of loving pretty things, self-adornment, princesses, fairies etc. is there a positive way of nurturing this enthusiasm without it becoming tacky or sexualised or commercialised? Personally I became a tomboy pretty young and rejected all that stuff. Now I’m older I’m less inclined to reject things. I have sons, not daughters, but if I had a daughter I don’t think I’d want to be giving her the message that liking pink and wanting to be beautiful is wrong (any more than if my sons developed a love of pink and frills). But I’d be interested to know how to channel it creatively without getting bogged down in stereotypes.
It’s a good question. I’d be interested to see how other feminist parents responded to this question. It’s a tricky line between making femininity a negative thing and otherwise buying into a very commercial version of femininity.
Yes. I liked that Peggy Orenstein introduced her daughter to Greek mythology and the goddess Athena, but I’m not very familiar with the Greek myths. I’m sure there are other inspiring ideas out there – highbrow or otherwise.
I was a Princess Girl before it was a thing (my mother tells me she seriously worried, the obsession was so great/beyond what all the other girls were doing), and I’d think about actively looking outside Disney for faerietales and their interpretations. Still have my much-loved compendiums of Grimm & Anderson (enormous brick-sized books I got when I was 7 or 8), despite their falling apart from use. I’m still pining over the book my grandmother had from when my father was young. It had amazing illustrations that drew a lot from traditional faerie ideas; the images were beautiful but very weird, often creepy, with bits of ugly or awful in them too. Alas, it has gone missing in recent years.
Which is to say; I still think faeries and princesses are cool for me (there’s definitely a couple of sparkly little crown haircombs amongst my bellydancing costumery), but early exposure to a mixture of sources meant I had a much broader idea of what “Princesshood” encompassed. And I also grew up loving The Paperbag Princess.
As my daughter gets older I find her gravitating more towards things like ballerinas and horses, things she could potentially aspire to do – although we aren’t biting on the horse issue yet. I try to encourage her in lots of things, including running around with nerf guns with her brother, playing lego – the original stuff, gardening etc. I find if I’m doing it she is interested in it, likewise she wants to do what her brother does and what her dad does. I think that if you pursue a range of interests yourself then your child is likely to try a number of different things as well and princesses will just be one aspect of their play.
I think there are potential issues if family grasp onto princesses as the child’s only interest so every toy/DVD/clothing item etc is all princess related.
Oh, this. It IS such a tricky line, as you say, between commercializing and negatizing femininity. Especially when resources are thin. I’m thinking about your recent post on being poor and substituting time for money. Because all of this takes incredible creative time and energy. Which can be challenging when you’re trying to put food on the table…
[…] On Vanity And Princess Culture from Blue Milk, talking about dolls and other faux-harmless toys for […]
[…] On Vanity And Princess Culture from Blue Milk, talking about dolls and other faux-harmless toys for […]
[…] On Vanity And Princess Culture from Blue Milk, talking about dolls and other faux-harmless toys for girls […]