# The Princess Obsession



## poorlittlefish (Jul 20, 2008)

I have 2 DD's--a 3.5yo and a 1yo. As some background, I have never liked the idea of Princess stuff and the whole craze surrounding it. I am not against characters as a whole as I feel like my DD has learned from Elmo and Dora but the whole princess thing really turns me off. There is nothing, in my opinion to be learned from it.

I currently work at a company that makes jewelry for little girls and also some dress up clothes, including Disney princess, Dora, Barbie etc. I brought home a lot of hair and jewelry stuff and my DD LOVES playing with it and putting a lot on etc. She also loves the dress up stuff. For a long time it was an occasional thing for her to dress up and get "pretty" but now it is becoming VERY frequent. We don't tell her she looks like a princess or anything like that but we do allow her to dress up and SHE says it. There is a little girl at daycare (her best friend and the only other girl her age) that is very much into princess and her parents totally encourage it. It is really rubbing off on my DD as she talks about "going to the ball" and other things that we have never said. She also really likes putting on make-up and told me the other day that she wasn't pretty yet because she didn't have make up on.

That was a turning point for me where I feel like I have totally gotten away from what I wanted for her and that I did this. How can I fix this? I know I can take it all away but I feel really bad considering how much she loves it but am planning to take away at least the dress up stuff. I know that we can't do much about the girl at daycare but what can I do to fix this or is it inevitable?

Thanks for any tips you might have.


----------



## Shaki (Mar 15, 2006)

My DD and my Niece (5 and 4) play dress up all the time. They have a ton of princess dresses and love to put them on and walk around in a fancy way. They also swing, play with firetrucks, go on bike rides or whatever in their princess gear. I know there has been a whole lot of uproar lately condemning princess play and I feel it's overblown. Or at least I don't see it as causing alot of problems among the young girls I know. A few weeks ago DD had 3 friends over, they immediately put on princess outfits, then collected magnifying glasses and flashlights and proceeded to tear around the house finding clues and catching bad guys. DD and DN also spend alot of time pretending to be animals. Pretend play is a good thing whether it's princess, animal, army or whatever--as long as it's not directed or controlled by adults I think it's great. It becomes problematic when the play is just re-enacting whatever kids see in videos and films, and again I don't think it maters if it's princess stuff or some equally horrifying (to adults) male associated thing like army or swat--if it's coming from the kids' imagination then don't sweat it. If it's adult imposed ideas of what should be fun then that's not so great.

Also I know some people think it's "bad" if it involves disney characters or merchandise. I don't agree with that. Just cause there's a picture of snow white from the disney movie on the dress doesn't mean the child can't use it imaginatively.

One final thought I would focus on the other awesome creative things you provide for your DDs' play environment, instead of sweating it too much if they learn about "going to the ball" from a friend. In other words I wouldn't over worry about the one happy meal she ate during carpool, but focus on the frequent fruits and veggies you make sure she gets at home...if that makes sense!


----------



## AllyRae (Dec 10, 2003)

I really don't think it matters what you do...somehow if a little girl is attracted to princesses, she'll find them. We have never watched a disney princess movie, and didn't buy princess products. We watched the royal wedding, but only about 10 minutes of it. Ever since then, my 4 year old has been OBSESSED with princesses and princess stories and has found the disney princess books at the library, and my 2 year old refuses to wear anything that isn't a twirly dress and silver sparkly shoes (because that's what princesses wear, she says!) Go figure.


----------



## hildare (Jul 6, 2009)

... i hate the princess stuff. hate hate hate. it makes me









i don't know what you can really do except try to probe a little with conversations. like.. why does makeup mean you're pretty? what other things are pretty? etc.

had you seen this book by Peggy Orenstein? she's written about the princess phenomenon a good bit.

the blog pigtail pals is pretty cool..

and i agree with pp.. acting out a movie with princesses over and over again verbatim = not good. open ended, imaginary play that happens to feature princess = much better.


----------



## One_Girl (Feb 8, 2008)

I found empowering princesses in movies and books for my dd. The Barbie movies are mostly about strong princess and fairy characters who don't get married (with a few exceptions) so we watched those and I pointed that out. Elmo and Dora also have princess stories that are kid friendly and give a good message. There are also many books with strong princess characters. This is just a phase like fighting with magic powers and super heros. I wouldn't worry about it beyond making sure that at home you portray girls and women as strong and capable people.


----------



## Adaline'sMama (Apr 16, 2010)

For me its not so much "princess stuff" that I hate, its the insane amount of advertising that goes with it. I think Disney princesses have their place: at Disney world, Disney land, and when going to see a Disney movie. Personally, we dont own a lot of movies, and I think not having tons of princessey stuff and movies all over the house is great because it encourages kids to think of other "pretty" stuff to dress up in. My LO is still a baby, but we encourage faery stuff instead of princess stuff, mainly because I think its fun to wear dress up clothes, but I dont like that there is a specific story associated with certain princesses (girl is in trouble, man comes to save her, blah blah). Id rather DD make her own stories up, but I know my heart will probably fall into a million pieces one day when she points to a cinderella shirt and wants it.


----------



## funkymamajoy (May 25, 2008)

I don't have an answer for you, but my DD is obsessed with princesses too. It what she likes right now and it makes her happy. I'm just hoping that she grows out of it by jr high.


----------



## Lisa1970 (Jan 18, 2009)

I don't care so much about princesses as I do about the whole "I am a princess" attitude. I hope I am wording that well. I see girls with shirts that say "I am a princess" and it usually refers to them being spoiled and proud of it. I do not like that. Also a bit of a girls are better than boys attitude.


----------



## mumkimum (Nov 14, 2006)

I find my dd's interest in princesses irks me - I don't share it, I'd rather not support disney and don't like how they lump all the girl characters together. I don't like how her interest is so encouraged by other friends with all the princess stuff at their house either - I avoid bringing disney princess stuff aside from books into our house.

I *do* encourage her to use the 'princess' idea imaginatively and vary it a little with playtime ideas of fairies, elves, mermaids (so similar, but kinda different). I remind her that quite a few of these 'princesses' are actually just normal girls like her who happened to become princesses. I have her watch xena warrior princess with me & dh for a way different 'princess' experience.

I'll add that we've talked about this sometimes with dd's preschool teacher (who doesn't like the princess thing either) and when everyone gets to talking about it too much at school, she'll explain some basic limits that monarchy and being a princess has in real life to the kids. I like that angle on it too - it's good to know about how something like a princess is based in real life.


----------



## poorlittlefish (Jul 20, 2008)

Good thoughts and I have been meaning to buy that book but I haven't gotten around to it--a project for my lunchhour!

I wouldn't mind her playing with that stuff if it was pretending in that way but she puts it on and flounces around with this demure look on her face and talks constantly about getting married. Honestly, I have not idea where that came from and I don't think she even knows what it means but boy, is it making me crazy! I think that we are going to put the dresses away for now and I am going to go to goodwill to find some new dress up clothes.


----------



## limabean (Aug 31, 2005)

Eh, it doesn't bug me. I don't think kids need to "learn from" every single thing they're into. It's probably just a phase. I think that on this site there's a lot of pride displayed in kids of both sexes who gravitate towards toys/activities that are typically intended for the opposite sex (so, girls who like playing in the mud and boys who like pink frills). It's that whole "aren't we such a delightfully progressive family" thing. But then if the boy wants to play in the mud, or the girl wants to wear pink frills, it's suddenly a concern. I think the message should be to accept them as they are, even if they don't play into our adult desire to have perfect little counterculture clones.


----------



## AllyRae (Dec 10, 2003)

Honestly, I personally think you are kind of making a big deal out of it for nothing. You know, I played princesses (and barbies. *gasp*). I walked around in pretty dresses and plastic heels and fake makeup and made up games about getting married to a prince and blah blah blah. And you know what? As an adult, I'm a fairly down to earth, reality based person, very outdoors loving and earthy, rarely wear makeup or jewelry, do not dress up in fancy clothes at all, etc. Just because a little girl pretends to be a princess does not in any way correlate with being a vain adult who only wants to marry for money and prizes her looks above all else. I think that sometimes, and you see it a lot on this site, people take their ideals and let it run away with them without basing it in any sort of reality--like princesses or army toys or plastic toys or formula or saying 'good job' to a child will somehow make them into horrible self-centered drones. Part of being AP is following the child's cues...if you take away what she loves and what her interest is at that point, you're kind of teaching her that her values and her likes don't matter...that they're naughty and bad...and eventually, that comes back to bite you when they then either develop a passion for the forbidden fruit, or they stop showing you what they love. And you take away something that makes them truly happy. My 2 year old and 4 year old are never happier than when they are twirling around in princess dresses, arms full of baby dolls, while pushing their plastic shopping cart around the house. Who am I to take that away from them simply because *I* don't think Disney Princesses are good role models. They are babies. This is what they love. They are pretending and having fun (and if you, like me, have a child with autism, you will come to celebrate the pretend play that comes from that child or their siblings because it's truly not something to take for granted.) And they likely are not going to be vain airhead [email protected] Hilt0n types when they get older...


----------



## AllyRae (Dec 10, 2003)

YES!!!!!! Kids shouldn't be billboards for alternative lifestyles. Kids are kids. Kids playing like they naturally do, and us accepting their natural play is as natural parenting as one can get... It could be worse...they could be playing 12 hours of video games a day. Instead, they are pretending, playing, socializing, using their imagination, and having fun.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *limabean*
> 
> Eh, it doesn't bug me. I don't think kids need to "learn from" every single thing they're into. It's probably just a phase. I think that on this site there's a lot of pride displayed in kids of both sexes who gravitate towards toys/activities that are typically intended for the opposite sex (so, girls who like playing in the mud and boys who like pink frills). It's that whole "aren't we such a delightfully progressive family" thing. But then if the boy wants to play in the mud, or the girl wants to wear pink frills, it's suddenly a concern. I think the message should be to accept them as they are, even if they don't play into our adult desire to have perfect little counterculture clones.


----------



## hildare (Jul 6, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AllyRae*
> 
> YES!!!!!! Kids shouldn't be billboards for alternative lifestyles. Kids are kids. Kids playing like they naturally do, and us accepting their natural play is as natural parenting as one can get... It could be worse...they could be playing 12 hours of video games a day. Instead, they are pretending, playing, socializing, using their imagination, and having fun.


kids should not be billboards for consumerism, commercialism, sexism, and disney, either.

i don't know how to multiple quote:

limabean says:

Eh, it doesn't bug me. *I don't think kids need to "learn from" every single thing they're into*. It's probably just a phase. I think that on this site there's a lot of pride displayed in kids of both sexes who gravitate towards toys/activities that are typically intended for the opposite sex (so, girls who like playing in the mud and boys who like pink frills). It's that whole "aren't we such a delightfully progressive family" thing. But then if the boy wants to play in the mud, or the girl wants to wear pink frills, it's suddenly a concern. I think the message should be to accept them as they are, even if they don't play into our adult desire to have perfect little counterculture clones.

____________________

well.. the sad part of the princess stuff is that our kids ARE learning something from doing this.. that girls are weak and need to be saved. that their appearances are of the utmost importance. frankly, if children weren't marketed to so heavily, i don't think that much of this would be what they would choose on their own, necessarily. i dislike it not because i have some counterculture ideal, but because i am a feminist, and i read many things about the impact of 'princess culture' on children.


----------



## philomom (Sep 12, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hildare*
> 
> kids should not be billboards for consumerism, commercialism, sexism, and disney, either.


I agree. You won't find my kids in any clothing with characters or logos on them.

Back to the OP... try reading to her from these books....

http://www.amazon.com/Tatterhood-Other-Tales-Johnston-Phelps/dp/0912670509

http://www.amazon.com/Maid-North-Feminist-Tales-Around/dp/0805006796

My kids can still quote some of the best lines from these and I shared them with the Girl Scout troop kids to spread the love of strong women.. not just princesses.


----------



## Bokonon (Aug 29, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hildare*
> 
> well.. the sad part of the princess stuff is that our kids ARE learning something from doing this.. that girls are weak and need to be saved. that their appearances are of the utmost importance. frankly, if children weren't marketed to so heavily, i don't think that much of this would be what they would choose on their own, necessarily. i dislike it not because i have some counterculture ideal, but because i am a feminist, and i read many things about the impact of 'princess culture' on children.


Eh, I wasn't at all influenced by Disney movies and as a kid, I loved to play princess and bride and fairy and mom and all that girly stuff. I also played in dirt and spent many summer days hanging out with my brother and his friends from the neighborhood, doing "boy" things. I think it's all part of growing up and using your imagination. Even without princess culture, I think most kids realize at some age that appearances are important.

I don't really see Disney princesses as weak and needing to be saved - the modern ones at least. I enjoy movies and love watching Disney movies with my kids. I've seen "Tangled", "Princess and the Frog", "Beauty and the Beast", "The Little Mermaid", and "Aladdin" more times than I can count. Yes, some of the messages aren't very politically correct (like in Beauty and the Beast - all she has to do is love him enough, despite his abusive tendencies, and he'll turn into a handsome, gentle prince??), but all of the princesses are pretty independent and strong. Yes, they DO get help from their male companion, but aren't exactly "saved", and certainly aren't weak.

They aren't perfect stories. No kids' movies are. But there is a big difference between encouraging emulating those characters and just letting a kid be a kid and play pretend and dress up.

FWIW, my daughter doesn't really like playing dress-up, but loves accessorizing. She's currently walking around in her brother's Crocs and an inflatable crown from Chuck E. Cheese. If she wants to play princess, I'm ok with that. She knows she isn't a princess. She knows movies aren't reality, and are just pretend, because we talk about that. She's only 2 but understands a lot.


----------



## AllyRae (Dec 10, 2003)

My kids aren't being princesses in Disney clothes. My little girls pretend to be princesses is regular run of the mill toddler dresses with flowy skirts. No consumerism involved...they wear those clothes all the time anyhow. They aren't billboards for anything...they are just cute toddlers wearing flowy dresses pretending to be princesses (which also goes to show you, if they want to play princesses, they will do it with or without the disney dresses).

And as for sexism...it's not sexism. Princesses are girls. That's all princesses can be. There are no boy princesses. That's not sexism...that's the english language. And a little girl pretending to be a princess is not sexism--it's a little girl playing. Telling a little girl she can't be a princess because it's too girly is reverse sexism. Telling a little girl she HAS to play princess because she's a girl is sexist. Telling a little girl she can't play in the mud because she's a girl is sexist. Letting a little girl play a self initiated and enjoyed game of princess is not sexist...it's a little girl playing. And my princess playing toddlers frequently strip from their flowy dresses and sparkly shoes to go running through the rain garden and playing in the mud. IMO, it's not progressive at all to tell a girl that wants to play princess that she can't because that's too girly. That's just absurd. Let kids fricken be kids.


----------



## AllyRae (Dec 10, 2003)

And my princess playing girls also do martial arts, and one is a pre-competative gymnast as well. They are strong, independent, free willed girls. And often times, they are doing the saving in their pretend too...whether it be princesses rescuing babies out of pretend orphanages (one of my daughters is adopted and that comes out in play a lot) or princesses using roundhouse and front kicks to get the bad guys. A child's natural princess play doesn't have to be the parent's stereotypical idea of what a princess should be. My kids came up with their play scenarios on their own, and not from any movie (I believe they have only ever seen the tinkerbell movie in terms of 'feminine hero' Disney movies anyhow.


----------



## Shaki (Mar 15, 2006)

Just wanted to chime in (as a has-no-problem-with-princess-play mama) that my DD, Niece, and their friends never act "weak" or like a man has to save them when they are getting their princess groove on. As I stated up thread they are usually capturing "bad guys" or spying or whatever. A prince never even comes into it- neither does getting married. If a prince did figure heavily in their play or if being beautiful or getting married was all they were focused on I might engage them in some critical thinking but would not try to stop their play. Their play is THEIRS.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

My older daughter went through a princess phase, but not really disney princesses. She's 9 and doesn't do that anymore. The little one has no interest in princesses yet. Maybe someday? We do watch disney movies here but we don't watch a lot of tv so it isn't a frequent thing.

I don't like to direct my kids' play, but on the other hand I'd want to present some balance. I got the Tatterhood book linked in a PP, and my daughter has read it a trillion times. She loves it and I think it helped not develop the idea of it being good to be a helpless princess stuck in a tower anyway. When she made up princess stories, they were always about the princess saving the prince, or saving someone else.


----------



## Adaline'sMama (Apr 16, 2010)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AllyRae*
> 
> *Honestly, I personally think you are kind of making a big deal out of it for nothing. You know, I played princesses (and barbies. *gasp*). I walked around in pretty dresses and plastic heels and fake makeup and made up games about getting married to a prince and blah blah blah. And you know what? As an adult, I'm a fairly down to earth, reality based person, very outdoors loving and earthy, rarely wear makeup or jewelry, do not dress up in fancy clothes at all, etc*. Just because a little girl pretends to be a princess does not in any way correlate with being a vain adult who only wants to marry for money and prizes her looks above all else. I think that sometimes, and you see it a lot on this site, people take their ideals and let it run away with them without basing it in any sort of reality--like princesses or army toys or plastic toys or formula or saying 'good job' to a child will somehow make them into horrible self-centered drones. Part of being AP is following the child's cues...if you take away what she loves and what her interest is at that point, you're kind of teaching her that her values and her likes don't matter...that they're naughty and bad...and eventually, that comes back to bite you when they then either develop a passion for the forbidden fruit, or they stop showing you what they love. And you take away something that makes them truly happy. My 2 year old and 4 year old are never happier than when they are twirling around in princess dresses, arms full of baby dolls, while pushing their plastic shopping cart around the house. Who am I to take that away from them simply because *I* don't think Disney Princesses are good role models. They are babies. This is what they love. They are pretending and having fun (and if you, like me, have a child with autism, you will come to celebrate the pretend play that comes from that child or their siblings because it's truly not something to take for granted.) And they likely are not going to be vain airhead [email protected] Hilt0n types when they get older...


But things arent the way they were when any of us were growing up, they are changing rapidly.

This, from that pigtail blog that Hildare posted earlier:
By the numbers:

Global revenue generated by the Disney Princess products increased from $300 million in 2000 to $4 billion in 2009.

Percentage of 8-12 year old girls who regularly used eyeliner doubled between 2008 and 2010.

Nearly half of girls between the ages of 6-9yo regularly use lipstick or lip gloss.

$40 million a month: Amount of money 8-12yo girls spend on beauty products. A month. Biggest influence on their purchases is not peers or media. It is their mothers.

Barbie was introduced in 1959 with a target audience of 9-12yo girls. Today's target audience is 3-7yo.

Age at which children express "brand consciousness": 24 months.

25% of teen girls have posted nude or semi-nude photos of themselves online.

41% of 15-17yo girls and 29% of boys say they have participated in bullying someone online.

12,000 Botox injections were given to teens aged 13-19yo in 2009.

43,000 teens under the age of 18 had their appearance surgically altered in 2008.

48% of girls in grades 3-12 polled in 2000 asserted the most popular girls in school were "very thin". By 2006 that number had risen to 60%.

60% of girls in grades 9-12 surveyed in 2006 were attempting to lose weight; only 10% of these same girls were considered medically overweight.

Only 15% of students taking the AP computer science exam are female.

It's awesome that some kids can play princess stuff without get brand obsessed, and honestly, I think that is the key. But you cant deny the push for young girls to become more girly and pretty and sexy from an earlier and earlier age. I was in the 8-12 years old range only 15 years ago and I cant remember ONE girl wearing eyeliner on any kind of regular basis.


----------



## Bokonon (Aug 29, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Adaline'sMama*
> 
> But things arent the way they were when any of us were growing up, they are changing rapidly.
> 
> ...


SOOOO much of that is parents' influence.

7 year old girls aren't going out and buying pants with sayings on the butt with their own money. They aren't buying their own makeup, and they certainly aren't paying for their own Botox.

It's a parent culture problem, not a princess one. So many parents today think their children ARE royalty, and can do no wrong. They don't provide adequate boundaries, and there are many children who are truly spoiled with material items because their parents feel they are entitled to them.

On a side note, I wore eyeliner at age 11, LOL. It wasn't because I wanted to look like anyone. I just liked how my eyes looked better with it on.


----------



## Shaki (Mar 15, 2006)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Adaline'sMama*
> 
> But things arent the way they were when any of us were growing up, they are changing rapidly.
> 
> ...


Those are all troubling statistics but I don't think pretend princess play is to blame. I'd look more towards mtv and american obsession with celebrity as possible root causes for this. But, really, I think critical thinking when dealing with all types of media is key. If we as parents and people think critically about how we respond to popular culture and are vocal about it in front of our kids--without critiquing or wanting to control their responses--then hopefully we set up an open dialogue that empowers them to think for themselves.


----------



## AllyRae (Dec 10, 2003)

This has nothing to do with playing princess. The list you posted are primarily PARENT choices. In order for a 6 year old to regularly wear makeup, the PARENT must have taken the child to the store, made the purchase, and taught the child to wear it...they are also the ones allowing the child to leave the house. If tweens and early teens are having botox and plastic surgery, that is their PARENTS who consent, drive to the appointments, and sign the forms. This has absolutely positively NOTHING to do with playing princess. My 2 and 4 year old play princess DAILY with no influence from me...I don't give them disney movies (not as a protest...we just don't watch many movies)...they don't do princesses that are disney influenced...and it's certainly not because they want to grow up or do something that is unnatural for toddlers to do. They are choosing naturally to do what toddlers often choose naturally to do. And if my 6 year old wants to wear eyeliner out of the house, I am quite certain that I make the final call on that. If *I* am portraying the image that you must be in makeup to be beautiful or you must be thin to be beautiful, that is MY doing...not natural princess play.

The list you presented is a list of items that are influenced by female role models and their values regarding beauty, NOT a toddler girl in a twirly skirt pretending to be royalty while rescuing a few babies. And that is a whole different thread. That's a parenting issue...when you are driving your tween to a botox appointment, or driving your 1st grader to the store for makeup and letting her leave the house in it regularly, it is a parenting issue brought on by the children learning from their mother or other female role model that it is acceptable for a child to do. I see more of a problem with Hannah Montana or iCarly being targeted to preschoolers than I do with toddlers pretending to be random unnamed princesses.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Adaline'sMama*
> 
> But things arent the way they were when any of us were growing up, they are changing rapidly.
> 
> ...


----------



## meemee (Mar 30, 2005)

honestly looking back ... this is all overthinking on part of the parent.

my dd is almost 9 and as i look back man i see how much i overthought so many issues. princess was one of them.

i had no choice. dd got into the princess thing from dc. i didnt encourage it. i didnt ignore it either. i gave what my dd needed.

she got into princesses. figured out what she liked/disliked and totally got over it.

i tell you sometimes i look back and discover i have spent so much 'wasted' time on the right thing to do, when it was all a phase. letting dd realise her thing her way.

i feel my parenting is just beginning.

it isnt princess play that will get dd into all those female body focus. it is her peers teasing her that she is too <this> or too <that> that is the first focus on body issues.

i mean come on. i have friends with dds. honestly none of them are what we are fearing our dd's to be. i have never met that stereotypical teen who is sooo into her body that she looses sense of who she is. i know quite a few middleschoolers who are getting interested - but not to the extent we are fearful about.

in my family the girls who ARE into all that have mom/s who were into all that too.

at 5 dd used a lot of makeup. tonnes of bright ones at home and natural colours when she went out.

once she was done with that phase make up means nothing to her these days except as body paint. art.

i dont dress up myself but man i love princess stuff. when young victoria came out two years ago dd (7) and i went to watch it for her to know what its like to be a real princess.

we still love princesses but at a whole different level far removed from body appeal.


----------



## Smokering (Sep 5, 2007)

Quote:


> Only 15% of students taking the AP computer science exam are female.


I fail how to see how this is a) correlated in any with princess play, or b) a bad thing. Computer science is a "male-brained" field - it favours characteristically male traits, and if you take Simon Baron-Cohen's male-brained theory of autism (which I think is very sound), it makes sense that computer science majors are often Aspie and geeky - in order words, even more "male" than the average male. There's nothing wrong with the fact that women tend to favour fields which allow for greater expression of characteristically female traits, such as jobs involving interpersonal skills and language.

Sure, tendencies are just tendencies, and some women will have the kinds of brains and skills that work fantastically with computer science - hence the 15%. And it would certainly be cause for clucking if women weren't admitted into computer science courses; or if there was no reason for women to be less interested in those fields, except that they were too busy watching Aladdin to bone up their C++ skills. But as it is... so what? Some jobs attract women more than men; some attract men more than women. As long as women aren't measuring their worth by the percentage of the computer science field they dominate... what's the problem?

With regards to princesses - DD likes them. She loves twirly dresses, weddings (although I think she got that from my sister's wedding more than Disney), and dancing. I don't mind. I used to be anti-Disney, and my current feelings are mixed, but I do think many of their movies are damn well made, creative and even groundbreaking (Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, anyone?). Some of the songs and art are brilliant, and I happen to think The Lion King and The Princess and the Frog in particular are masterpieces. Beauty and the Beast's pretty awesome too...

I do have limits, though. I don't buy DD the tacky, sweatshop-made, polyester-and-tulle branded character dresses, because I'm anti-sweatshops and besides, they're really badly made. I made her an incredibly boofy blue princess dress with pearls on the bodice, which she wears to her dancing class. She has a small amount of "bling" - her grandparents gave her a jewelry box with a few beaded necklaces and things in it for Christmas. Other than that, she's not huge on princess "props" or merchandise, mostly because we don't tend to randomly buy lunchboxes or T-shirts or whatever items Jasmine's face is plastered on these days. She will, however, transform a tea-towel or sarong or the baby's jumper into a veil and say "I'm getting married!"

When she gets older, we'll definitely have discussions about issues of gender in Disney movies, and whether the British monarchy is a Good Thing, and all that jazz. Right now we haven't gotten much further than "Yes, we have a real queen, she lives in England, her name's Elizabeth, like your aunty" and showing her photos from the Will and Kate wedding online. But hey, that's current events.  In the meantime, I haven't noticed her wanting to be "saved" - honestly, I don't think the male characters in the films register much at all. She likes the pretty dresses for their own sake, not because they're man-catchin'.  And as a PP said, it really isn't as simple as "Disney heroines are weak and passive and get saved by the men", anyway. That's a very lazy reading of any of the Disney films, particularly the more recent ones. Mulan? The Princess and the Frog? Tangled?


----------



## hildare (Jul 6, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Smokering*
> 
> *I fail how to see how this is a) correlated in any with princess play, or b) a bad thing. Computer science is a "male-brained" field - it favours characteristically male traits*, and if you take Simon Baron-Cohen's male-brained theory of autism (which I think is very sound), it makes sense that computer science majors are often Aspie and geeky - in order words, even more "male" than the average male. There's nothing wrong with the fact that women tend to favour fields which allow for greater expression of characteristically female traits, such as jobs involving interpersonal skills and language.
> 
> ...


... you really think that the lack of women in computer science isn't a bad thing? what?







i am not even sure how to respond to that. the fact that some consider things to be "male brained" shows a huge problem, one that's not improved by the princess stuff.

mamas who are defensive about princess play.. i'm not saying you're harming your kids by letting them play whatever. the problem i have is when it's presented to our kids through the media, and through a walk through the toy department of any store, that this is the only option for them. when boys are encouraged to be active in their play, while girls are encouraged to play passive sorts of games that are centered around appearances. there is a difference.

i guess, though, i feel like it's more of a symptom than a problem. it concerns me, because the more these limited options are given, the more girls embrace them and self regulate in group settings-- where ALL girls play princess, or something is wrong. this also excludes boys, who are being limited in a whole other way. no, it's not wrong for kids to play princess. but for me, i want to avoid this being something for my daughter-- i don't want her to spend time thinking about her appearance in that way, and i want her to play all kinds of other things. i'd love for her to become a computer scientist, and i certainly don't want her to think that's a 'male' field, whatever that means! I feel like princess culture, and the push from the media (i'm not talking about you, mamas) push girls to focus on appearance, which DOES lead to those statistics AM quoted.. and eating disorders, and body image problems. I don't see why it's so important to be pretty, when there are so many other, more meaningful things to be.

maybe the difference in the way we all view this comes from our own identity-- dh and i are activists. we met in an anarchist group. we want dd to learn that people are equal, and that appearances are pretty much bs, along with buying and owning stuff. that's just not who we are.. we expect dd to know that the measure of a person has nothing to do with accumulated wealth, or external appearance.. it's a very very fundamental part of our core beliefs. that and, obviously, as anarchists, we're very opposed to hierarchy and the idea of 'princesses.' one of our favorite hiphop groups, the coup, have a lyric that we love that speaks to this..."tell your teacher princesses ARE evil/how they got all their money was they KILLED people." so.. in our family, there's a whole different set of values and expectations. just because we see things this way doesn't mean that i am attacking you for letting your kids put on a poofy dress. there's no reason to get that defensive about it unless you're a little troubled about what it might mean yourself, you know?


----------



## AllyRae (Dec 10, 2003)

But even in your own post you did it...boys need to be active. Boys shouldn't play passively. It's great that boys toys center around being active (which, I've only seen as military/shooting/violence. The active toys that I've seen that are non-violent/non-star wars/non-military are geared to both sexes). So even in your post, you supported the stereotype that boys must be active shoot em up kind of boys. Why? Why is that a good thing that passive imaginative play is not encouraged for boys? Why is this ONLY a problem for girls and princesses?

To be a bit more objective... Spending time in a toy aisle, this is what I see...

-Active things marketed towards girls, plastered with pink, dora, princesses including bikes, water toys, and sports equipment.

-Active things marketed towards boys, plastered with star wars, dinosaurs, spiderman, and weapons including bikes, water toys, and sports equipment.

-Active things marketed towards either gender, which are often bright but neutral colors with little to no decorations, and include items above, such as bikes, water toys, and sports equipment.

-Girly 'themed' items including dora & princess dolls, dresses, makeup kits, and house play.

-Items aimed at being boy themed, including items with guns and other weapons.

-Pink/licensed characters such as dora, strawberry shortcake, polly pocket

-'boy themed' licensed characters such as star wars, bakugon, and transformers

-Neutral themed items such as blocks or Little People

-Board games aimed at girls which are variations on traditional games, such as dora chutes & ladders

-Board games aimed at boys which are variations on traditional games, such as R2D2 Sorry

-Board games aimed at both genders, including twister, sorry, boggle, etc.

So, objectively looking at things, there are active, passive, licensed, and traditional toys aimed at both genders. A parent has the choice of all of this play in licensed or unlicensed or gender neutral characters. All "girl" things are not appearance related and all 'boy' things are not gun related. But, when licensing comes into play, it does trend that girl stuff will be labeled with dora or princesses and boy things will be labeled with superheros or star wars. But those aren't the *only* options, and there are plenty of active, passive, and traditional options being marketed to both genders individually and then gender neutrally.


----------



## hildare (Jul 6, 2009)

AR: are you referring to my post? the one in which i said "when boys are encouraged to be active in their play, while girls are encouraged to play passive sorts of games that are centered around appearances. there is a difference.

i guess, though, i feel like it's more of a symptom than a problem. it concerns me, because the more these limited options are given, the more girls embrace them and self regulate in group settings-- where ALL girls play princess, or something is wrong. *this also excludes boys, who* *are being limited in a whole other way."* I thought I was making it pretty obvious that i feel that the limitations and harmful sterotypes affect ALL children.

it's NOT good for boys to be told that they can only play active games/activities. And that, and by your own admission in an earlier post, 'boys can't be princesses.' i wonder why not?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AllyRae*
> 
> But even in your own post you did it...boys need to be active. Boys shouldn't play passively. It's great that boys toys center around being active (which, I've only seen as military/shooting/violence. The active toys that I've seen that are non-violent/non-star wars/non-military are geared to both sexes). So even in your post, you supported the stereotype that boys must be active shoot em up kind of boys. Why? Why is that a good thing that passive imaginative play is not encouraged for boys? Why is this ONLY a problem for girls and princesses?


----------



## Kerynna (Mar 11, 2011)

I agree with Limabean. It's probably just a phase. Try not to react to it or pay very much attention to it, as that will just add to the attraction. Let her enjoy a princess-y phase and eventually she'll get interested in something else.


----------



## limabean (Aug 31, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hildare*
> 
> when boys are encouraged to be active in their play, while girls are encouraged to play passive sorts of games that are centered around appearances.


I guess when I see kids (boys or girls) playing princess, I don't see them overly focusing on appearances, any more than kids focus on their appearance when they play dinosaur, cowboy, star wars, etc. We have an extensive dress-up collection, and my kids (a boy and a girl) and all the kids of both sexes we have over regularly emerge from our dress-up closet in all kinds of crazy mash-ups, with a tutu and a dinosaur mask or whatever. And they look at each other and giggle, and then run around and play. So yeah, they notice the appearance, because it's fun, and sort of a major point of dress-up. And I've just never seen these passive girls everyone talks about -- IME, most kids are active and most parents encourage that.

My son and one of his (boy) friends, in particular, looove dressing up in all the pink frilly stuff we have, and somehow I think the posters in this thread who are anti-princess-play for girls would think that was adorable instead of concerning...

ETA: I guess my point is that, while I can understand the theory surrounding this issue, and acknowledge that it has validity, I don't necessarily see that theory play out as expected in practice. I think it takes a whole constellation of things to make a girl (or boy) turn out to be appearance-obsessed, and if s/he grows up in a well-balanced, healthy home I don't think the odd bit of princess play mixed in with alllll the other kinds of play is a problem. Part of my feeling this way, interestingly, comes from having a boy who has always been interested in stuff that is typically "girly." I've always made sure to send the message to him that this is perfectly fine, so it would be really odd in our household for me to suddenly start steering his little sister away from that stuff.


----------



## meemee (Mar 30, 2005)

i have an only dd.

boys ARE princesses in our house. whenever boys come over to play the moms have to realise they are going to go back with makeup on. or at least remanents of it. in fact i think they get their 'girl fix' when they come over. almost all of them played with poly pockets, dress up AND makeup.

but yes boys are looked down upon if they are interested in princess stuff by themselves. i guess that's why dora creators came out with diego. which is why a lot of boys got dolls as birthday presents.

i have faced the opposite too. why is my dd into bob the builder or spiderman? even that she was superprincess spidergirl did not make a difference.


----------



## dauphinette (Nov 13, 2007)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *poorlittlefish*
> 
> Good thoughts and I have been meaning to buy that book but I haven't gotten around to it--a project for my lunchhour!
> 
> I wouldn't mind her playing with that stuff if it was pretending in that way but she puts it on and flounces around with this demure look on her face and talks constantly about getting married. Honestly, I have not idea where that came from and I don't think she even knows what it means but boy, is it making me crazy! I think that we are going to put the dresses away for now and I am going to go to goodwill to find some new dress up clothes.


One thing my mom told me that is hard for me to always wrap my brain around, but I think it's true: She's so young she doesn't know what any of it really means experientially and it's just pretend, if it wasn't princess it might be something else you didn't like like robber or bull in a china shop lol...j/k, I hate the princess stuff too and I LOATHE the marriage stuff, but I know she doesn't have a clue what any of it really means and she is just trying stuff on to see how it feels, what she likes now is not neccessarily any indication of who she will be when she grows up kwim?


----------



## dauphinette (Nov 13, 2007)

This is sooooooooooooo true at our house as I have an only dd as well. Her bff is a boy and his dad doesn't like that aspect of his sons trips to our house but it is what it is and he heads STRAIGHT for gowns and gloss the second he gets in the play room, should I assume where his future is headed because of it? No, i don't think that path is quite so straight and narrow.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *meemee*
> 
> i have an only dd.
> 
> ...


----------



## CatsCradle (May 7, 2007)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *limabean*
> 
> I guess when I see kids (boys or girls) playing princess, I don't see them overly focusing on appearances, any more than kids focus on their appearance when they play dinosaur, cowboy, star wars, etc. We have an extensive dress-up collection, and my kids (a boy and a girl) and all the kids of both sexes we have over regularly emerge from our dress-up closet in all kinds of crazy mash-ups, with a tutu and a dinosaur mask or whatever. And they look at each other and giggle, and then run around and play. *So yeah, they notice the appearance, because it's fun, and sort of a major point of dress-up.* And I've just never seen these passive girls everyone talks about -- IME, most kids are active and most parents encourage that.
> 
> ...


Yes, especially to the bolded parts. In my experience the whole dress-up thing has been about drama, high drama to be sure. My DD and the neighbor kids get together and share costumes, and combined with non-toxic face paint, they end up looking like characters out of a Fellini movie. I think children have less inhibitions about expressing themselves than adults. I mean, I just can't see myself scootering down the street wearing fairy wings, even if I had two martinis.

I also agree with the part that appearance obsession is a result of a combination of influences. I don't blame my life long eating disorder on Barbie, but rather on a number of factors growing up (primarily my father's continual insistence that I lose a few more pounds before track season and my mother's own disordered eating patterns).

I do recognize, however, that the way toys and such are marketed are completely over the top. We don't have a Toys R Us near us, so it is rare that I shop there. However, I had the opportunity to go in one recently when visiting relatives and was quite amazed (in an unsettling way) at how much Disney princess stuff and other commericalized toys were on the shelves. What I saw immediately was lack of choice. That being said, when I was young, the only princess movies that were around were movies like Snow White and Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty. It is interesting to see those films (which were beautifully animated) and compare them with current Disney princess films. Hands down, the current films really do focus on strong women/girl characters (Princess and the Frog is one of my favorites). Watching the old films makes me cringe a little.


----------



## Mittsy (Dec 29, 2009)

I really like the way this series handles this issue:

http://beneaththerowantree.blogspot.com/2011/03/princess-proofing-introduction-of-sorts.html


----------



## Smokering (Sep 5, 2007)

Quote:


> ... you really think that the lack of women in computer science isn't a bad thing? what?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Why is it a bad thing? Is it your opinion that every field of study should be chosen equally by men and women? Why?

Quote:


> the fact that some consider things to be "male brained" shows a huge problem, one that's not improved by the princess stuff.


Do tell? Men and women do, on average, have somewhat different abilities. It isn't some vicious theory invented to keep wimminfolk away from computers; it's scientific fact, confirmed by brain scans in repeated large studies. The research is there for the reading. It's not in any way a "problem", unless a) people start believing that all women are better than all men at interpersonal communication, or all men are better than all women at computer programming, b) male-dominated fields are considered more worthy of respect/money/power than female-dominated fields, or c) women define their worth by their ability to work in male-dominated fields, and thus enter male-dominated fields out of a sense of duty to womankind rather than true preference and enjoyment.

And how this has anything to do with princess stuff, I have no idea. Unless you're claiming that Disney has failed to provide a computer-science-major princess as a role model...? Or that watching Disney movies will somehow prevent girls from learning computer science...?


----------



## mandalamama (Sep 1, 2004)

i just avoid the mainstream princess stuff, although we both love Disney's Mulan. (if you want the warrior Mulan, you have to search for "warrior" and those sets tend to have both of her outfits.) she's got a blue belt in martial arts, at her dojo's kid parties she'll sometimes wear a tutu and a tiara and sparkly necklaces, then she takes off whatever gets in her way of kicking. rather than buying dress up sets, i go to thrift stores or the Salvation Army to get large, shapeless clothes (like broomstick skirts) and she makes up any kind of dress-up outfit she wants. she'll go out in "full drag" *laughs* makeup and all, then bring home a toad - not to kiss, but to keep as a pet. last week it was a slug. ew! the one thing i absolutely will NOT let her wear is shoes with heels, she has her whole life to develop a shoe obsession









when William and Kate were going to get married, i found some good stuff on Kate's duties, we watched a bit of how hard it is to really be a princess!

since birth, because she's genuinely "model type" pretty, she only gets complimented on her looks. i've always added "and smart, too!" now she speaks for herself, "yeah and i'm smart! thank you!" hopefully she'll keep that attitude with her throughout her life.

i've been criticized by some parents for my girl "running around "all muddy." inevitably they're the ones with the girls in the full princess get-ups, including the high heel shoes, moms saying "don't do that you'll ruin your dress," "don't get dirty" and so on. well, dirt happens. happily, it washes.

oh! i almost forgot ... what's so great about princesses? mine is the Empress!


----------



## AllyRae (Dec 10, 2003)

Well, the limit comes from the english language. Yes, boys can put on a poofy dress and PRETEND to be a princess. But boys can never BE a princess. That's just the english language. Same reason a female can never be a king.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hildare*
> 
> AR: are you referring to my post? the one in which i said "when boys are encouraged to be active in their play, while girls are encouraged to play passive sorts of games that are centered around appearances. there is a difference.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jenni1894 (Apr 1, 2011)

I also have a 3.5 and a 1 yo. While the 3.5 is not totally into princesses, she does know who they all are and has a decent about of princess items. Mostly Cinderella b/c it rhymes with her name.  She likes to dress up and wear jewlery and every so often she insists on wearing her high heels (church shoes with a 1/4 inch heel! lol). She will put on her "make up" (chap stick and a blush brush) at her vanity. Sometimes she'll go outside and ride her Disney Princess bike in a dress and her brother's gym shoes. Or play in the sandbox in a pair of plastic dress up shoes. She wears tutu's and dresses to climb trees and dig in the dirt with me, to her brother's baseball games...with her pink glove!

It's just a girl thing. While I didn't play up the "your a princess" to my DD's and I never told DD she could only be pretty if she wears make up or a dress. She just likes it and why would I take away something that makes her happy? I encourage her to be herself, and if that's a girly girl princess or a rough and tumble tomboy then so be it.

She has many other interests besides getting girly and pretty. I think it's probably also something like a new concept to your DD. Her BFF is talking about these wonderful beautiful balls and so on, well DD is interested b/c she's never been exposed to that. kwim?

I would add some other items to the dress up box. hats, purses, necklaces, silks, scarves, back packs....etc. We have a silk that has went from a ball gown to a cape in a matter of moments. Sometimes she's a ballerina, sometimes she's a teacher w/her brother's outgrown suit coat, She's using her imagination and that's good! next time she says she's not pretty b/c she doesn't have make up, tell her you are beautiful w/o make up! The next time she says about going to the ball, ask her if


----------



## LynnS6 (Mar 30, 2005)

Would you have the same concern if your child were dressed as Superman? A fire-fighter?

I was at a picnic a couple of weeks ago, and there was an adorable 3 year old girl with an amazing Superman costume (shirt, cape and skirt) that someone had clearly made for her. My son spent much of his time between 4 & 5 dressing up in fire-fighter suit and having me be the dispatcher so he could go fight fires or take care of medical emergencies. My daughter spent nearly all of her 1st year of preschool (age 3) wearing a leotard with a skirt.

Princesses are fun because they have power. They get to wear cool clothes. What's more fun than to get to wear cool clothes and order people around?

Kids like to dress up. It's healthy for kids to dress up. It's perfectly possible to pretend that you're a princess without being a Disney princess. The only problem comes, in my mind, if the child only has Disney princess stuff to dress up in. If they've got a variety of things to choose from, but choose the princess outfits, who cares? You can, as a parent, play with your child and help them expand their play so that their princesses do interesting things. But unless they're watching the movies, reading the Disney books or buying the Disney costumes, then they'll do what kids naturally do: Pretend.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *poorlittlefish*
> That was a turning point for me where I feel like I have totally gotten away from what I wanted for her and that I did this. How can I fix this? I know I can take it all away but I feel really bad considering how much she loves it but am planning to take away at least the dress up stuff. I know that we can't do much about the girl at daycare but what can I do to fix this or is it inevitable?


What about expanding her dress-up repertoire instead of taking it away? We had a whole dress up box when my kids were little -- everything from doctor's scrubs and dresses to a builder's hat and vest.

Sometimes I think we overthink things. I finally broke down and bought my 7 year old some lip gloss. Why? Because she was coloring on her lips with washable marker. I do not use lipstick. Yet she was fascinated with the concept. A little bit of pink sparkly lip gloss has made her happy and kept her from ingesting washable markers (while non-toxic, probably aren't the best things for your lips).

My 7 year old spent most of the day in a ballet dress -- she was dancing across the lawn, putting her hair in a bun, and then went to jump on a neighbor's trampoline with it on. I bought it for her because she was wearing a couple of her old dresses and pretending to be a dancer in them and they were getting too small. I could fret about the 'ballerina' obsession. Most ballerinas don't have a very healthy body image. But right now, my daughter is 7. She's got a great imagination and is pretending to be a dancer. So she's built more like a hockey goalie and less like a ballerina. She's having fun.

Is your daughter having fun? Can you work toward expanding her play rather than forbidding it?


----------



## hildare (Jul 6, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Smokering*
> 
> Why is it a bad thing? Is it your opinion that every field of study should be chosen equally by men and women? Why?
> 
> ...


actually, yes. equality means having the playing field open to everyone, and having all options available. And there is also research that shows that the biological differences between all the sexes are quite slight, and that society and self censorship can also lead to permanent brain changes, and career selections, and the loss of natural abilities (of girls, who do quite well in science in math during early years, and then decline sharply, presumably because they are either not encouraged or outright discouraged by peers and teachers alike) are not a biological phenomenon at all, but a social one.

but, hey, you know.. believe what you want.

and again.. how this has to do with princesses is this: when girls and boys and all the other in-betweens are given only one of two options, options that encourage social hegemony, it limits the fullness of self expression and exploration. a person taught that because of non-ownership of a penis, that person has to perform in a way that is superficial and focused on appearance, is going to find it extremely difficult to break those social norms and become a scientist, for example, when so many factors are discouraging and against this. sorry if that doesn't make sense. i'd be happy to direct you to a bibliography of scientists and academics who can express this much better than i.

i think that participation in the culture of princess certainly can cause people to internalize the messages that are present. why don't you make a list of princess characteristics and tell me what those are and how they are compatible with intellectual development. ask your kids to help you make the list. i guarantee you your kid will tell you a princess is "pretty." and.. that's pretty much it.


----------



## seawitch (Jan 29, 2011)

I was into Disney princesses when I was a kid - granted, not merchandised stuff... the movies themselves. I didn't pretend to be them, I was a bit older than to be playing pretend, but I did enjoy the movies and felt strongly about them. I didn't ever see them as characters that needed to be saved. I saw Belle as strong and willing to go into the world on her own. (OK, at the end she ends up settling down anyway, but at least she gets her adventure in first. Sort of.) Ariel was a sort of a rebel who did what she wanted to regardless of the consequences - possibly not the best message in the world, as she does end up needing her father in the end and she messes up a lot, but I saw her as brave too. Then there was Jasmine - and she stands up for herself and doesn't want a man unless it's on her terms, plus I just saw her as very exotic. I don't see them as needing saving. I was never very into Snow White, excepting the dwarves, and Cinderella was just sort of meh. Nice movie but didn't really touch me. Never saw Sleeping Beauty until I was an adult. I don't see where the ingrained messages comes into it. I mean, yes, OK, I do *see* that if you're looking at the overall messages, then sure, there's some iffy messages. I'd be more bothered by the fact that all these girls have horrible relationships with their parents for the most part. As a teen I was pretty headstrong too - was that because of an ingrained Little Mermaid message? Maybe, who knows. But that rebelliousness is in no ways tied to the Disney series.

On the other hand I don't get why they would lump the princesses together in one big merchandising thingie. We tend to avoid that because it just doesn't make sense. DD has a hairbrush that she adores with the princesses on it, but we don't do character "stuff" generally - and so far she has never pretended to play princesses. She will sometimes play fairies, or fairy princess, but she never once said "I'm Snow White" or anything. Even if she's a fairy she's a fairy, not Tinkerbell. I don't understand why a lot of kids pretend to be specific characters instead of more generic ones. When I was little I used to play Sound of Music where I pretended my grandmother's yard was the mountains and abbey, but then I didn't pretend I was Maria or the children, I pretended I was a wolf who just tagged along. I was the weird kid though, lol.

ETA: And I never really thought of any of them as "pretty" - maybe they had some pretty dresses but they certainly didn't define them. They all had normal clothes too - with the exception of Jasmine, who just wore cool clothes regardless. EVERYONE is a Disney movie is basically pretty - even the ugly characters are aesthetically pleasing in some way, due to the fact that the whole cartoon world is one of fantasy. I thought Barbie was pretty but I never aspired to look like her, either. At the same time, I was reading the Clan of the Cave Bear series which has Ayla as the main character - she is VERY strong, almost Mary Sue-ish, but she is also described as beautiful. I guess if I thought pretty I'd think of her, not a Disney princess. Just because someone is attractive doesn't mean kids only identify with that aspect of her. As a kid, I hated dresses. As a teen I could care less about appearances, and now as an adult I barely do, although I don't enjoy looking scruffy either. Either your DDs will be obsessed with the girly-girly pretty things with or without Disney - or they won't be, even with it.

ETA2: My two best friends were much more obsessed with the princess movies than I as a kid. One grew up to be a biologist and the other a vet. Anecdotal evidence and all that, but I still don't put a whole lot of faith in the "zomg their brains were permanently altered cos they played with Barbies" or whatever.


----------



## seawitch (Jan 29, 2011)

Re: The Pigtail Pals story on the blog, I'm not entirely sure I'd be so proud of my daughter in that scenario. First, I think "stifling a snort" is a bit snobbish to begin with, but when the nurse gives the DD a present and she literally says "ugh" and tells the nurse off for not having science stickers? OK, what happened to manners? If someone gives my kids a present, I'd expect them to graciously receive it, even if it's not something that they are crazy about. Must be my ingrained repression speaking, though. I guess what seems rude to me seems empowered to others. It's still not behavior I'd encourage in my own children.


----------



## seawitch (Jan 29, 2011)

I also think it's absurd the lengths people go to to promote early sexuality in children. An acquaintance mentioned that she does her make-up with her 7 year old DD in the mornings, and I was afraid to ask whether that was pretend make-up for the child or real. My mother was the opposite - she didn't let me wear nail polish, shave my legs, etc. when it was clearly the norm. I stood out like a sore thumb and got teased. I wouldn't artificially hold DD back if she wanted some "innocent" things - but I'm sure as heck going to encourage her to focus on activities and skills other than looks. If a little lip gloss and nail polish means she fits in when she's 9 or something, whatever. If she doesn't want to wear those things, then I wouldn't force it, but I also wouldn't do what my mom did - stick to a zero tolerance policy because those were her ideals, and leave me miserable in the process. Of course, I'd draw the line somewhere - for me that would be revealing clothing or outright make-up.

I'm still not sure what this all has to do with Disney princesses, though. To me, saying that playing with Cinderella dress-up shoes at 3 means that in a few years she'll be wearing "sexy bunny" hotpants or something, doesn't strike normal. Live-action shows like Hannah Montana or whatever is popular these days, would translate to that to me I think. That kind of stuff I outlaw from my house altogether. Cartoons, not so much. Everyone has their comfort zone.


----------



## Smokering (Sep 5, 2007)

Quote:


> actually, yes. equality means having the playing field open to everyone, and having all options available.


How is that not the case currently? Women are allowed to do computer science if they want - hence the 15%.

Quote:


> And there is also research that shows that the biological differences between all the sexes are quite slight, and that society and self censorship can also lead to permanent brain changes, and career selections, and the loss of natural abilities (of girls, who do quite well in science in math during early years, and then decline sharply, presumably because they are either not encouraged or outright discouraged by peers and teachers alike) are not a biological phenomenon at all, but a social one.


The inferior-parietal lobe is significantly larger in men than in women; the areas of Broca and Wernicke are significantly larger in women than men. Those aren't particularly "slight" differences.

I'm familiar with research that links gender equality to girls performing better in math (I haven't read anything similar about girls and science); however, I haven't found any studies that state that girls who like Disney princesses do worse in math than girls who don't, which is the issue in question here. Liking Disney princesses isn't generally a girl's sole interest and influence for her entire childhood.

Quote:


> but, hey, you know.. believe what you want.


No need to be rude. If you present a rational case, I'll engage with it.

Quote:


> and again.. how this has to do with princesses is this: when girls and boys and all the other in-betweens are given only one of two options, options that encourage social hegemony, it limits the fullness of self expression and exploration. a person taught that because of non-ownership of a penis, that person has to perform in a way that is superficial and focused on appearance, is going to find it extremely difficult to break those social norms and become a scientist, for example, when so many factors are discouraging and against this. sorry if that doesn't make sense. i'd be happy to direct you to a bibliography of scientists and academics who can express this much better than i.


This doesn't make sense. You've read this thread (presumably); of all the princess-permitting parents on the thread, do you see any who've indicated they present their daughters with only the option to be a princess? (I'm not sure what you think the other option is: prince for boys?) Any parents who've said "Sorry kid, you don't have a penis so you need to put down the microscope and get your lip gloss on"? No; pretty much all the parents here have indicated that a) their daughters chose to participate in princess play off their own bat, and in many cases against their parents' preferences, and b) those same daughters also participate in plenty of other types of play, which are non-appearance-based and gender-neutral or even stereotypically male.

Quote:


> i think that participation in the culture of princess certainly can cause people to internalize the messages that are present. *why don't you make a list of princess characteristics and tell me what those are and how they are compatible with intellectual development. * ask your kids to help you make the list. i guarantee you your kid will tell you a princess is "pretty." and.. that's pretty much it.


Wow, that's a loaded question. Why should Disney princesses have characteristics "compatible with intellectual development"? Do the characters in the Narnia series have characteristics "compatible with intellectual development"; and if not, should we withhold those books from our daughters? What about characters in Beatrix Potter, Winnie-the-Pooh, the Faraway Tree series, The Hobbit? I can't see that Jemima Puddle-Duck portrays females in a particularly intellectual light; should I hide that book too? Is a children's book or film not allowed to be a simple adventure story or fantasy? When there are literally millions of books and films out there, why put the burden of having each separate piece of media perfectly psychologically balanced on the media-makers? Sherlock Holmes certainly promotes intellectual development, but not interpersonal communications; so is he a bad influence or a good one? Why not just expose kids to a broad variety of characters in fiction - flawed, clever, naive, vain, caring, lazy, hard-working, ambitious, content, malicious, kind - instead of choosing only characters who are paragons of all the virtues we hope our children will emulate, in the correct proportions? 'Cause the latter seems like it would lead to an extremely restrictive media list. Elsie Dinsmore.... and that's about it?

Since you ask, though, Belle in Beauty and the Beast is an avid bookworm and a capable teacher. Mulan learns the art of warfare along with her male companions, despite being physically disadvantaged. Ariel refuses to accept the party line about the world above the sky, and finds out the truth for herself. Pocahontas similarly rejects the party line about the American settlers, and learns about their motivations and culture for herself. Tiana is a freaking business entrepreneur. Rapunzel is insatiable for knowledge and self-taught in everything from painting to ventriloquism, charting stars, chess, ballet and guitar. Nothing vapid or anti-intellectual about those characteristics, even if the girls in question are pretty.

ETA: Also, it's worth mentioning that none of the princesses themselves is vain. They don't define themselves by their looks; they don't spend their time preening. We see Belle dealing (rather well) with the unwanted attention her looks get her; Tiana so busy planning her restaurant that she's oblivious to the guy planning to sweet-talk her; Mulan cutting off her gorgeous hair so she can pretend to be a man. Cinderella does revolve around a ball dress, but that's more of an 'I can't turn up to a royal function in rags" issue than a vanity one. So if a young girl did become looks-obsessed because of the princesses, one could point out that on Disney's terms, she was acting more like one of Cinderella's stepsisters than any of the actual princesses.

In other words, being pretty does not equal being vain or vapid. It's not fair to condemn characters for being attractive. (Plus, if you take that line consistently... should we not watch Star Wars because Leia's attractive? What about feminist icon Sigourney Weaver in Alien - she's pretty! And so on...) Sure, Disney could do a better job portraying different types of beauty - the only slightly squishy heroines are in Lilo and Stitch, and they're not part of the princess canon - oh, and the good fairies in Sleeping Beauty, I suppose, but you get my point - but if we start condemning beauty qua beauty, that leads down a rather nasty road. "She must be a bimbo, look at the size of her chest"-type thinking.


----------



## hildare (Jul 6, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Smokering*
> 
> How is that not the case currently? Women are allowed to do computer science if they want - hence the 15%.
> 
> ...


----------



## Turquesa (May 30, 2007)

Some thoughts from a mom with a princess of her own:

1. I like the suggestions from this book on feminist parenting. Namely, validate it! Depending on her age, use it as a springboard for discussion. Would she be willing to do as Ariel did and give up her voice in order to get a boy? (Really? Let's see how long she can stop talking and making noise....







)

2. RE commercialization, you'll never be fully able to live Disney-free (@$#@! relatives) but you could sway her toward non-Disney princesses? Melissa & Doug have some alternatives, and my DD loves the dresses that this company makes.

3. Keep offering up other interests and options. DD still loves snakes and dinosaurs. I'll check out books on these topics from the library....as well as the requisite "princess" books.

4. As a PP suggested, empathize with whatever need it fulfills....to feel special, powerful, etc.

Good luck! I'm counting the hours until this phase ends, but I'd never let her in on that fact...


----------



## Turquesa (May 30, 2007)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mittsy*
> 
> I really like the way this series handles this issue:
> 
> http://beneaththerowantree.blogspot.com/2011/03/princess-proofing-introduction-of-sorts.html


Although a little girl with an interest in princesses isn't necessarily a victim of commercialization..... It's not that dichotomous!


----------



## Smokering (Sep 5, 2007)

Quote:


> don't women comprise a number that fluctuates around 50% of the population? does it not seem to you as though there is a disparity in those numbers? there also (off topic) happens to be a disparity in racial composition for folks in fields like computer science. i am pretty sure you'd agree that those discrepancies are due to social inequities, right? having nothing to do with actual brain structure or aptitude, but based upon opportunity.


Of course there's a disparity. I just don't see why that's a bad thing. If women don't want to do computer science, they shouldn't feel obliged to do it just to keep the numbers even. Computer science is a very male-brained field, so much so that even most men don't have the interest or aptitude for it (hence the whole autism-in-Silicon-Valley phenomenon). And given that women have, on average, a greater ability and inclination for jobs involving interpersonal communication, it figures that the rather solitary world of computer science might not appeal as much as other jobs. I was recently reading a book about the biological differences between men's and women's brains, and the author noted that women in male-brained, solitary fields (lab research, for example) often switch careers after several years; not because they're not as talented as their male counterparts, but because they no longer find the job fulfilling and want to interact more with other people.

As far as I know there's no biological reason to believe different races would have different aptitudes for computer science, so it makes sense to look for a sociological explanation. There are biological reasons for women to choose computer science less often than men, and good evidence that male- and female-brained differences occur very shortly after birth, if not before; when social conditioning is unlikely to play a role... and Disney princesses even less so.

Quote:


> and my answer to this is that most of those scans are of adults, as you said. i'm sure you know that when neural pathways are not encouraged then our brains prune to eliminate and emphasize particular things. therefore, and there is research to suggest this, once a child is discouraged or lacks the ability to make use of particular areas of the brain, those connections fall away. no surprise that the brains of adults appear differently once this happens.


Have you researched this at all? Boys' and girls' brains have significant differences even (some researchers say especially) as children. Girls and boys use different areas of the brain when performing the same language-related mental tasks; girls reach the "inflection point", the halfway point of brain development, at 11 years, while boys reach it at 15; girls are better able to coordinate left-brain and right-brain usage, thanks to a structural difference in their brains; and so on, and so forth. Girls and boys do not have identical brains until Disney mysteriously robs girls of their desire to be computer scientists.

It's certainly true that brain function can be improved through practice, and get rusty with disuse. But how exactly is this related to Disney princesses, again?

Quote:


> it is my opinion (yes, it's an opinion) that a culture that is pervasive with the sexism that is apparent (to me) in the qualities and narrow choices present in the disney princess-ing of america, is certainly not on a path to improve opportunities for girls (or boys) or women, or people in general. i honestly feel like we're not even keeping the status quo, but moving backwards towards the gender-segregation of society. one which tells children repeatedly that appearances are of the utmost importance.


What evidence do you have to support this opinion? Are schools refusing to admit girls to male-dominated fields? Do women have fewer employment or study opportunities than they did, say, 20 years ago (or whenever you feel Disney was less pervasive)?

Quote:


> i've stated several times in my posts that i'm not saying that mamas are to blame, or are doing something harmful in encouraging princess play. my issue, rather, is with disney, and the other capitalists who are pushing this crap to our kids. in a very extreme way, so much so that there is little choice out there, and what remains is a focus on consumerism, appearance, and the early sexualization of children, girls in particular. most kids enjoy dress-up. for me, there's a distinction in a normal activity and the obvious prevalence of the disney phenomenon.


I don't live in America, so I can't speak regarding the "other capitalists", but judging from the Disney merchandise available here - which presumably is along the same lines as the stuff marketed in the USA - how exactly does it limit choice? Obviously Disney merchandise will be tied into Disney films, so it's hardly surprising that there's a lot of princess stuff out there. But availability doesn't imply exclusivity. Disney is not a) forcing kids to buy princess gear, b) forcing girls to ONLY buy princess gear, or c) stopping other companies, WAHMs or parents from producing non-princess-related dress-ups. Kids can have every Disney princess dress on the market if they want, OR they can have a Snow White dress to go along with their archaeologist outfit, nurse outfit and spaceman outfit. That's a parental choice. Just because one company only sells popcorn doesn't mean a kid can't eat a balanced diet.

Plus, Disney doesn't only sell princess stuff anyway. I've seen Lilo and Stitch merch, The Lion King merch, Fantasia merch... So there's more "choice" right there.

Consumerism, sure. But we do live in a capitalist society. Every company is trying to make money, whether they're selling wooden Waldorf toys or Pocahontas lunchboxes. So that's hardly a problem unique to Disney, or one that would be solved by avoiding it. DD loves Disney films, but knows we don't buy the pencil cases and backpacks and T-shirts, just because our general philosophy of life is not to buy stuff we don't need (and not to buy new if we can buy second-hand or make something ourselves). It's a total non-issue. She'll pass a Cinderella T-shirt in a shop and say "Look, it's Cinderella!", I'll say "Wow, it is too, cool!", and we go on our merry way. It's doable.

As for early sexualisation, I don't recall seeing any particularly skanky Disney outfits (not that I've investigated them too closely - I think they're shoddily made and don't like the sweatshop aspect). Kids I've seen wearing Disney dresses just look like kids... no padded bras or anything like that... and the one Ariel outfit I've seen had a full top with flesh-coloured fabric, instead of just the clam-shell bra. The only other Disney clothes that spring to mind are T-shirts, and again, the ones I've seen for kids have just been regular T-shirts, no tighter or shorter or otherwise more salacious than usual.

Quote:


> this was my attempt to suggest to you what children might be learning from princesses. if you ask a kid to define the characteristics of a princess, there is lots of insight to be gathered. i'm not suggesting that everything has to do with intellectual development, rather trying to emphasize that kids are learning some pretty awful lessons through unlimited exposure to princess-ism.


How do you think a kid would respond if you asked her to define the characteristics of Jemima Puddle-duck? Would you then assume the kids were learning "some pretty awful lessons" from her, and that Beatrix Potter was therefore evil/misogynistic/anti-computer-science? You're making a lot of assumptions about how kids process things. Even of a young child did say that princesses are pretty, it doesn't follow that she therefore MUST be processing that as "Being pretty is the only important thing in the world", or "I shouldn't try hard at math because I can just grow up and marry a prince", or "Because I don't have a penis, I will have to rely on my sexuality to succeed in life". She may well simply process it as "Pretty dresses are fun to dance about in" - especially if, like pretty much all children in not-totally-weird families, she's exposed to a variety of media in day-to-day life, not just Disney princesses. "Unlimited exposure", you say - but I just don't think that's an issue in the average family, as this thread demonstrates. You seem to be arguing against a rather dystopian version of reality in which girls are kept in a pink bubble and force-fed Disney and nothing but Disney 24/7, and I just don't think that exists.

Quote:


> and there's lots of criticism that has been written about the characters in the disney films themselves.


There is; I've read a bunch of it. Some of it's valid, and some just comes across as reactionary oversimplification by people who aren't honestly engaging with the text. I've read, for instance, that Belle's only defining characteristic is her sexuality - which is simply absurd - and statements along the lines of "All the princesses are just wasting their lives away waiting to be saved by a man", which again is patently ridiculous. Lumping a wideish range of female characters created over a span of, what? Eightyish years? together and making broad generalisations about them all is just sloppy scholarship. So anti-Disney criticism needs to be read with that in mind.

Quote:


> you seem to have found some things of value in them, so, cool.. i personally think some of the other things (like the abuse in B & the Beast and Ariel giving up her voice to please a man, etc)


Those are points against Disney, certainly. Although again, it's not really engaging with the text to say that Ariel "gives up her voice to please a man". She was fascinated with the world above the sea before she even met Erik, and her transformation was as much to do with feeling repressed in her current life as with following him. And she didn't give up her voice to "please" Erik; she gave it up because that was what Ursula demanded, and it didn't please Erik at all that she was mute (despite the insinuations of Ursula that men prefer women silent - you know, Ursula, the evil character...) That said, Ariel is definitely the brattiest princess in the Disney canon, and there are legitimate feminist issues there.

Quote:


> kind of outweigh any sort of sweet touches of a condescending 'you're so smart' mentality.


Specific examples, please?

Quote:


> throughout history, disney has created racist and sexist films. plenty of em. the more recent films are certainly not feminist, not by any stretch of the imagination. and like i said earlier, this is a problem for my family, because our values are pretty much the opposite of what's represented in the disney films... that's not necessarily the case for everybody.


Yes, Disney has created films with racist and sexist elements. So has any studio that's been around for that long; do you also boycott all films by MGM, Paramount and so on? Like those studios, Disney's films have on the whole improved in that regard as they've gone along. What are your specific problems with, say, Tangled and The Princess and the Frog - the two most recent Disney films?


----------



## Dacks (Jun 7, 2011)

The problem with the idea that a field is geared toward the 'male brain' is that it reinforces itself. The field is dominated by men, so men must have the right kind of brain for it, so if a woman is interested in it she has obviously got to have a masculine brain, so few women will consider themselves even a candidate for that field of study, thus the field is dominated by men.

I say this as a woman who has worked in computer science (and then Physics), I promise you it is not a thing that men do better than women. I've met sooo many smart young women who scoff at the idea of going into either field, and it is never because they had trouble understanding previous courses in computers or math or science. It is a thing that is made out to be unfeminine and undesirable for women to do unless they are ok with being considered unfeminine. Then you get into issues where: of course there is sexual harassment in this workplace, didn't you know this was a male-dominated field? Dudes will be dudes, emirate?









I've spent so much time in science outreach events just trying to convince young girls that you don't have to be a genius man like Einstein or an ugly friendless girl in order to do science. It is a major roadblock. Yes, every person has different natural tendencies and personalities, but we do not do enough to foster the scientific/technical tendency in young girls to truly know what the real gender division of those tendencies would be.

ETA: The idea that you need 'male-brained' approach to scientific and technical fields also hampers innovation in those fields. A different perspective or a unique approach can unlock so many mysteries. Extroverts, artsy creative minds, outdoorsy athletic types, they all bring a richer understanding to problems that a stereotypical male in the field cannot approach.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Smokering*
> 
> Why is it a bad thing? Is it your opinion that every field of study should be chosen equally by men and women? Why?
> 
> ...


----------



## Smokering (Sep 5, 2007)

Quote:


> The problem with the idea that a field is geared toward the 'male brain' is that it reinforces itself. The field is dominated by men, so men must have the right kind of brain for it, so if a woman is interested in it she has obviously got to have a masculine brain, so few women will consider themselves even a candidate for that field of study, thus the field is dominated by men.


I get what you're saying. I'm Aspie and it tends to irritate me when people tell me I "think like a man", because I think like me and I'm a woman, so by definition I am thinking like a woman... just not, apparently, like most women.  (Sadly, I do suck at computers and math and other such typically "Aspie" areas, so I won't be adding to any 15 per cents any time soon!)

Still, though... men do tend to have brains that are better geared towards computer science, on average. There are numerous studies that confirm this, and I don't think they can be discounted because of ideology. There's a difference between acknowledging a biological tendency and using it to justify sexist school acceptance policies, or media portrayals of science-loving girls as losers - and the one doesn't necessarily imply the other. And yes, of course there are girls who are brilliant at computers, just as there are men who are brilliant at verbal communication. But there are fewer Aspie-brained (is that a better term than "male-brained"?) girls than boys, and I do think that's related to the relative dearth of women in those fields.

Anyway, this is all sort of beside the point, given that we're talking about Disney. I can't, off the top of my head, think of any anti-girls-doing-science-or-maths messages in any of the Disney princess films. I can't see any pro-girls-doing-science messages either, granted, unless you count generic "be yourself" messages or Rapunzel charting stars; but that doesn't make Disney any more evil than the authors of most films or books which aren't about girls doing science. Cleverness, even bookishness, is portrayed positively in Tangled and Beauty and the Beast; rebelling against gender roles is portrayed positively in Mulan and even, to an extent, The Princess and the Frog; liking non-stereotypically-girly things is portrayed positively in Lilo and Stitch (not a princess movie, granted). So I don't see how Disney is responsible for girls getting the message that girls who do science are lame. Other shows, maybe: I don't watch a lot of kids' TV. But the princess films? Do any of the girls at the outreach programs you mentioned cite actual shows or films that make them feel that way about science?

Quote:


> ETA: The idea that you need 'male-brained' approach to scientific and technical fields also hampers innovation in those fields. A different perspective or a unique approach can unlock so many mysteries. Extroverts, artsy creative minds, outdoorsy athletic types, they all bring a richer understanding to problems that a stereotypical male in the field cannot approach.


Maybe so, but surely most artsy creative types and outdoorsy athletic types would tend to gravitate towards artsy creative or outdoorsy athletic jobs, rather than computer science? And surely at least a bare minimum of the stereotypical abilities are needed as well? I can just see myself trying to convince a computer programming company to take me on because "I'm rubbish with computers, but I'm quite good at improvising limericks, so I'd bring a really fresh perspective!"


----------



## carmel23 (Jul 21, 2006)

I agree to not let the tv rule; disney doesn't have to own it, yk? you can get play silks and make yer own beautiful gowns, etc. We read fairy stores from all over the world, this has really broadened it for my daughter; because at a certain level, they are just universal stories, yk? it doesn't have to be about looking pretty and getting a man.

I would also recommend the book "Cinderella ate my daughter" It is a good discussion of it. We just steer it away from disney, or other "characters" and make it more open ended, with fairies and forest animals mixed in and stuff.

I think it does help that our school (montessori) bans licensed characters. Which allows for relationships not scripted by bad movies designed to sell toys....


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dacks*
> 
> The problem with the idea that a field is geared toward the 'male brain' is that it reinforces itself. The field is dominated by men, so men must have the right kind of brain for it, so if a woman is interested in it she has obviously got to have a masculine brain, so few women will consider themselves even a candidate for that field of study, thus the field is dominated by men.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dacks (Jun 7, 2011)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Storm Bride*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


Wow. I'm not even sure how to respond to that, but I will try.

First, there is not an absolute binary that you are either ugly and friendless or pretty and popular. The events included the women faculty, women students, and local STEM employed women who described their interests, life paths, and the cool stuff they did in STEM fields. Prior to this, most of these girls only knew about women in these fields from portrayals on television, and many of them had really negative notions about what kind of people we are. Our 'convincing' was to show them first hand that there are a variety of personalities and we have rich meaningful lives, and I don't know what is condescending about that. At that age, many girls do prioritize popularity and attractiveness above career options, and we have to work with who they are in order to get through to them. Yes, some did specifically point out that you can't get a husband and live happily ever after if you are a nerd. They would say that boys don't like smart girls.

I don't think that there should be some mandatory percentage of girls that must go into a field they don't want in order to serve gender equality. You can't know you aren't interested until you are given an honest chance to try, and that's my goal for girls.

This was an event that drew in loads of elementary and grade school girls from across the state to participate in STEM workshops specifically aimed at opening their eyes to the possibilities and opportunities that are available to them. Most girls gravitated toward the biology department's offerings, and only ended up in computers, math, or physics workshops because the schedule didn't allow everyone to have their first pick. We had to spend half the hour just working against the comments that 'I'm just a girl and not smart enough to do this.' In boy/girl groups (at other events), we often see the girls briefly struggle, the boys step in impatiently and do it their way, and the girls sit back and do the data recording (they call it being secretary) and accept that they can't do science. But when we put a group of just girls together, they struggle initially and then get it done just fine and often in really interesting ways. They give insights beyond the worksheets that they don't when they are passive partners, they have more confidence when we see them again for mixed gender projects. Science and technology DO need creativity in order to progress. Yes, you also need a minimum of organizational skill, spatial sense, and math, but the most important attributes are confidence and a willingness to try. The point is that generally not encouraging (culturally) girls to even try or think about STEM career options because it is only really for a certain kind of personality does both girls and science a disservice.


----------



## Turquesa (May 30, 2007)

Um, could we take the women-in-the-sciences discussion to another thread?


----------



## amberskyfire (Sep 15, 2007)

While I'm against the idea of real, actual "princesses" (ie: a girl who is considered property to be sold off to a man in exchange for political gain of some sort), I don't forbid DD princess stuff. I don't allow Disney characters into the home for anti-commercial reasons, but generic princess stuff is fine with me. I'm also okay with makeup.

There are some areas where I draw a line, however. While I don't forbid it, I make it crystal clear exactly what things are about. I NEVER refer to make-up as making someone "pretty." Pretty is what you are born with. Make-up is "FANCY." You wear make-up to look fancy, not pretty. Same with high-heels and fancy clothes and jewelry. It's dressing up, just like frilly tutus and sparkles and frothy gowns and make-up is no different. Make-up is part of being human. Most cultures paint their faces and bodies to decorate themselves. It's part of who we are as a species. My only rule is that DD isn't allowed to wear it outside of the house because it isn't appropriate for children, but I let her play with it at home. Make-up is something that we, as a culture, set aside as a special ritual for when a girl comes of age.

I also make sure that DD understands what a princess actually is. She can pretend play princess if she likes, so long as she understands what it is and doesn't think it's something someone should wish to be. I think it's healthy to fantasize about dressing fancy, dancing and generally having a good time. Heck, I daydream all of the time about having expensive clothes and jewelry and having people wait on me hand and foot as though I were important (not that I'm not important, but you know what I mean). It's a fun fantasy and I don't see how it can have a negative effect on a girls life so long as she isn't ignorant to what the title actually means. Growing up, I was obsessed with pretending I was a unicorn and it didn't screw me up when I later realized I was never going to actually have hooves and a magical horn.

Besides that, I read a lot and love children's literature and it seems as though princess books and stories have generally taken a turn towards characters with strong personalities and positive self-image. The girls in these stories tend to be heroes rather than simpering victims. I think that a princess can be a great role model if you approach it the right way and try to weed-out the less savory princess-y characters in literature and movies. If a girl is obsessed with princesses, you won't be able to turn her off of it, but you CAN turn the situation around and make it a fantastic lesson using strong princess role models.


----------



## Marinwoo (Mar 22, 2011)

Not that anything is this easy in practice but my advice is to have a "that's nice" reaction to the princess stuff. If she tells you about her dress and makeup and the ball, just smile and say "that's nice". Then when she's not doing the princess stuff and is doing a great job at using her judgement, making decisions, or whatever other positive lessons you want her to learn, make a BIG deal about how great it is that she made a good choice, shared her toys, whatever it is. She will get that the princess stuff is not amazing to you and she will learn for it not to be amazing for her. Good Luck!


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Turquesa*
> 
> Um, could we take the women-in-the-sciences discussion to another thread?


Sorry about that...a quick reply to the below and I'm done.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dacks*
> 
> Wow. I'm not even sure how to respond to that, but I will try.
> 
> ...


I just wanted to apologize. I had too many feminists try to decide for me what I should do with my future, because "we need more women in [fill in blank] field", and I was a brain. It left a permanent bad taste in my mouth, and affected my views on a variety of things, and when I hear about things like your "science outreach", my initial reaction is pretty hostile. DH and I were talking about this thread yesterday, and he had a different perspective on it, and he made some valid points. So...not my thing, but I let my emotional reaction carry me away. So, I'm sorry I was so snotty.


----------



## 1love4ever (Jan 5, 2011)

I think it is harmful to a child when they think that they are only beautiful if they have makeup on, a pretty dress, etc. I think that a child should learn that what really counts is what is on the inside, how they are as a person.

I have heard of a relationship between a persons role models and their thoughts and observation of that role model as a child(for example if their mother is their role model and she is obsessed with how she looks, thinks she's only beautiful if she wears makeup and thinks she's fat unless she diets and exercises all the time) and how they are later in life. Like the person in my example would be at an increased risk of getting an eating disorder like anorexia, or one of those disorders where you look in the mirror and only see fat, ugly, etc even if that is not true. Body dismorphic disorder I think it is called. Anyway I guess my concern would be if the child only thinks beauty is on the outside and thats all that matters, and she has to be skinny and put on makeup, etc, and I hope that does not effect her views and habits later in life....


----------



## 4evermom (Feb 3, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Smokering*
> 
> As for early sexualisation, I don't recall seeing any particularly skanky Disney outfits (not that I've investigated them too closely - I think they're shoddily made and don't like the sweatshop aspect). Kids I've seen wearing Disney dresses just look like kids... no padded bras or anything like that... and the one Ariel outfit I've seen had a full top with flesh-coloured fabric, instead of just the clam-shell bra. The only other Disney clothes that spring to mind are T-shirts, and again, the ones I've seen for kids have just been regular T-shirts, no tighter or shorter or otherwise more salacious than usual.


That reminds me of a friend with three daughters... She was telling me how much she loved buying clothes for her daughters at the Disney store because they were modestly cut. She had been having trouble finding appropriate clothes that weren't tight and didn't have their bellies hanging out or such (this was maybe 6-8 years ago).


----------



## 3xMama (Oct 14, 2010)

I haven't read through everything so I apologize if its been mentioned already. BUT I just finished the book Cinderella Ate My Daughter by Peggy orenstein (I think that's her name and I may have the spelling wrong, sorry). It covers this topic pretty well.

Personally, I think its pretty normal for girls to fantacize about being a princess and wearing beautiful flowing clothes and having everyone love her, esp the handsome prince. That said, as long as there are more things going on like crafts, other imagination play, being outside etc, I wouldn't worry too much. Yes, as a culture we really do put way way way too much emphasis on how women look and unfortunately it does start way too young. But I think as parents its our job to make sure that it is balanced out, not completely cut out. And if my 5yo DD came to me and said she wasn't pretty cuz she wasn't wearing make up, we'd talk about it and I'd make sure to bring it up mildly but often in our daily chatter. Also, obsession with a certain toy or theme is pretty normal around this age, at least IME. For a few months it was My Little Pony. For awhile it was Mr Potato Head. Dolls were in there somewhere. Currently the big kick is stuffed animals. It comes and it goes.


----------



## nextcommercial (Nov 8, 2005)

I love dress up toys. I think they learn plenty from playing dress up. It's better than sitting on the couch watching Sponge Bob and eating a swiss cake roll.

When I was a preschooler, we played army nurse... army guys... machine guns and good guys/bad guys. I didn't join the service, i'm not a nurse, I don't own a machine gun, and I've never even seen anybody be arrested in real life.

As a grade schooler, I was obsessed with Owning a horse, and living like the Ingalls or the Waltons. None of that played out either.

So, my imaginary play had nothing to do with how I turned out as an adult.


----------



## crowcaw (Jan 16, 2009)

Oh, I'd love to get into the women in science discussion, but won't... My dds (twins) are 5.5 and once they started attending a preschool at 4 princesses became interesting to them. I was momentarily appalled, but once I overcame the initial ick, I decided that it wasn't a big deal and if I didn't provide all-princess-all-the-time stuff, they really were pretty broad in their play and princesses were just part of it. And if I'm honest, there is a lot in the princess stories to be admired. We read lots and lots of traditional folk tales where the princesses are pretty tough and persistent characters. Even disney, in my mind, doesn't portray the princesses as total weakling simps (I have other problems with Disney, particularly the older ones where the bad guys have dark skin and large hooked noses and the good princesses are,um, not that way). But I don't think that kids at dds age take it as seriously as I do as an adult. Princesses are fantasy and real life is the role models they see every day -- me, my friends, their teachers, their pediatrician, their dentist, dh's female (engineer) co-workers,.... who are all smart, capable,...

And dds pretty much over princesses already. Right now they're in mostly a physical activity stage (a summer thing?) and pretend isn't a big part of their day. At least with my two, I don't think pretending to be princesses did permanent damage.

BTW -- I am now a SAHM late-in-life mom, Ph,D. chemist who has had an academic and industrial career.


----------



## karne (Jul 6, 2005)

I haven't read each reply, but this issue is one that we have faced. My almost teen dd loved dress up and princess regalia with a passion, and she esp. loved Disney. We were waldorf at the time, and I felt like a huge failure because my child wasn't supposed to "want' all of this commecial play material since we had kept her environment so pure. Unfortunately, my dd had no such conviction and loved all things disney and barbie!

What was great was that my dd would be outside in full princess gear, searching for frogs, toads, snakes, or up to her knees in mucky pond water "fishing". She, and most kids, are fully capable of holding more than one idea in their minds. Wanting to be a princess did not make her play one dimensional. BTW, she is now a full on animal lover looking for a way to have a career with large animals!

We loved the book Girls Who Looked Under Rocks (Jeannine Atkins) for a read aloud about women scientists as young girls.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *karne*
> 
> What was great was that my dd would be outside in full princess gear, searching for frogs, toads, snakes, or up to her knees in mucky pond water "fishing". .


This is dd1. DH and my in-laws are pretty into Disney, so I've just accepted that some of the Disney stuff is going to be here in our home. DD1 has had a couple of Disney dresses (a Belle one, and another that was just a fleecy dress with a hood, with three princesses on it - quite discreet, actually)...and I love seeing her outside, on the sidewalk, wearing a Belle dress, and digging for worms. She doesn't want to be a princess when she grows up. She wants to be an arachnologist. Our neighbours think she'll be the next David Suzuki. I don't worry that much about the princess stuff.

Oh - and ds2 has also worn her Belle dress at playtime. It's been a couple of years, though. He liked to play princess sometimes, just as he sometimes played dd1 (he and dd1 would wear each other's clothes, and respond to each other's names for a while, then change back) or "mama". I'm okay with that, too.


----------



## transylvania_mom (Oct 8, 2006)

I haven't read the whole thread, but I agree with OP, I also dislike the princess idea. I quote from the only princess book we have (a gift from grandma):

Ariel says: When will my dreams come true?

Jasmine says: I dreamed I was on a flying carpet

Aurora says: I look pretty in pink.

It seems to me princesses (as they are portrayed in movies) are just sitting around passively admiring themselves. Honestly, I prefer Barbie.

This is just my opinion, and in no way am I criticizing people who choose to buy / encourage / allow princess stuff and play. My dd is only 22 mo old, and right now she is content playing with her brother's cars, but in case she decides she wants to be a princess, I'll go with the flow. Oh, and I really want to take both kids to Disney for ds's 8th birthday. So I'm not against Disney stuff. But I can't help disliking the idea of "princess".


----------



## Turquesa (May 30, 2007)

No flames, please. Just read this link light-heartedly.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Turquesa*
> 
> No flames, please. Just read this link light-heartedly.


I've seen that one before. I'll just comment that the Jasmine one was/is nothing less than the truth, for the vast majority of daughters of noble and royal families throughout history. I don't see Belle the way the caption writer sees her. And, Ariel fell in love, but I think the movie made it pretty clear that she was already head over heels in love with the whole idea of life on land, before she even saw Prince What's-his-name.

Snow White was beautiful, but it had very little substance, and the same for Sleeping Beauty.


----------



## Smokering (Sep 5, 2007)

Flames? No. Critique, yes. I've seen a similar captioned-princess thing before; this one isn't quite as bad, but it still doesn't really engage with the texts of the films. Ariel was a brat, granted; but as Storm Bride pointed out, she wasn't just after Eric, she was after the chance to explore the world outside the sea. (What's the "I Want" song in The Little Mermaid? "Part of Your World". Pre-Eric. Eric gets the reprise, indicating that he's now part of the pre-existing fantasy, not the originator of it.)

And what's with the snark towards said prince? He fell in love with Ariel originally for her voice, and actually resisted falling in love with her in her human form because of loyalty to that brief encounter. The witch's spell thing was unfortunate, but it was hardly his fault... Disney's princes tend to be rather one-dimensional and bland, but I've always thought Eric was one of the better ones. (Side note: not that I'm a fan of any characters being one-dimensional and bland, artistically speaking, but at least it's a nice change to see the male romantic leads in that position! Modern Hollywood films are far more likely to have 1-D, bland female romantic leads and fleshed-out male characters. Just sayin'.)

The Cinderella thing paints her as a scheming social climber; she wasn't. She wanted to have a nice night out at the ball; she wasn't trying to seduce the prince in a calculated move to improve her station in life.

Jasmine... well, yeah, that's a fair message to take from that film, except that the film actually critiques that paradigm. Jasmine herself refuses to play ball with the "pick a prince" game, and the Sultan eventually realises that the whole thing is silly and allows her to marry an orphan from the streets. Not terribly realistic, but the only guys trying to marry her for her power are either evil (Jafar) or shallow and lame (the other princes, according to Jasmine). So it's hardly glamorising that tradition.

I don't get the Snow White quote either. Having a powerful woman try to kill you out of jealousy (yes, just one, because she was evil; not "women" plural) wouldn't just "seem" terrible... I'm pretty sure it would actually be terrible. And the prince's attraction to her actually happened before the murder attempt, and was witnessed by the evil Queen - in fact, it probably precipitated her plot - so, er, yeah. Snow White certainly lacked in street smarts, but she wasn't just a bimbo - remember, you know, the seven dwarves element of the story? She made herself useful in the world, and was doing quite nicely until the witch showed up.

Belle was one of the strongest characters in the Disney princess canon, so I don't even know what that one's on about. The film doesn't imply that the Beast fell in love with her for her looks; watch "Something There". Now, Stockholm Syndrome, there's an objection I can get behind; but Belle is not "all about appearances". That's just lazy criticism.

And Aurora's caption... huh? The prince fell in love with her when she was good and conscious. IIRC, he knew it was her in the tower, making the rather chaste kiss he gave her even more OK. So whatever the caption's implying just doesn't make sense. Also, she wasn't dead, just sleeping... you know, like in the title of the film.

I didn't really intend to end up as a Disney princess apologist, but snide "criticism" like this just gets my goat. There are plenty of legitimate things to complain about in Disney's films, but it should be honest criticism done by people who've actually watched the films and made an honest effort to... well, follow the plots, for one thing. This critic doesn't seem to have done that.


----------



## Shaki (Mar 15, 2006)

I'm one of the original mamas who said she has no prob with princess play. It's weird to me that this thread has become about the Disney trademarked version of princesses...as if that's the only kind of princess play that exists. That's a pretty limited way to look at it. I don't think Disney owns princess play or dress up for that matter. Disney certainly didn't invent fairy tales and doesn't have the last word on them. The kids I know do not act out Disney Movie scenarios. Disney has very little to do with their pretend play, and they are allowed to watch all those movies and many of them have. These are not kids that are shielded from media.

My DD has not seen the disney princess movies because DD refuses to watch movies of any kind (she's a very sensitive viewer). She still LOVES to get into a nice princess outfit and princess it up. And I have no issue with giving her a disney cinderella dress to support that play. PS she LOVES science and makes me read her a science text book every night before bed. And if she wanted to watch the whole disney cannon that would be ok with me. We might engage in some critical discussion but I wouldn't be invested in making sure she saw the story thru my lense.

So I guess I just want to comment that I think DRESS UP play whether it's princess or army or whatever is totally freaking fine (which I believe I have already said twice on this thread). And I think getting overly invested in whether or not Disney is ok sort of misses the point. Having said that I do appreciate the explanations of Disney princesses on this thread (both pro and con). I haven't seen many of these movies so it's helpful to hear a sort of run down of what the Disney princesses are about.


----------



## ollyoxenfree (Jun 11, 2009)

I won't deny that we should be concerned about messages about excess consumerism, self-image, gender stereotyping, and other issues that have been covered in this thread, but I lean toward letting my dc explore and enjoy their dress-up princess play. I'm confident that they get enough exposure to different messages from a variety of sources that they won't grow up with stunted intellects and limited social views. They read widely and watch different shows, not just mainstream media. In our own family and social circles, women are lawyers, engineers, corporate executives, SAHMs, television producers, the list goes on. They have strong real-life role models to balance out anything they come across in books and film.

DD is 15 y.o. When she was younger, she watched Disney princess movies and played dress-up princess. She still loves costume jewelry and when she has a sleepover, there is often a viewing of a Disney movie for nostalgia's sake (Mulan is a favourite).

We just got her report card, and she has a 93 in math and a 96 in science. She plans on a career in science - possibly bioengineering. She's also a drama major at an exclusive, entrance-by-audition-only performing arts high school (her last performance was in Lysistrata - a Greek comedy exploring women's roles and power). It's regularly listed as one of the best high schools in our area. So all that pretend play as a kid paid off.

In our family, at least, I'm not worried that a little dress-up play has had lasting harmful effects.

ETA: Smokering, I enjoyed your post summarizing the Disney princesses







.


----------



## JudiAU (Jun 29, 2008)

Luckily, I haven't encoutered this issue but I am reading the thread because I am so uncomfortable by it all. But I thought I would add, the CPSC has warned repeatedly about allowing children to play with cheap imported costume jewelry. They have gone so far as to say to throw it ALL away because it is so very frequently contaminated. FYI.


----------



## wtwct (Sep 1, 2013)

Our daughters are all princesses in our eyes. The problem with promoting this, is the fact that the fairy tale princess has to have/be rescued by a prince. That's why I am opposed to "Toddlers in Tiaras" and the unhealthy level of princess immersion for our future women.

I feel we should err of the side of caution, ("All things in moderation"), and find other ways to build girls' confidence than to offer up the empty promise of the word "princess"; find ways to help them build and recognize their own self-worth, in an effort to protect them from obsessing over their worth to others. That obsession leads to low self-esteem and feelings of "not good enough", "not normal", which puts their entire being at risk.

.

My niece has all the princess movies, and has visited Disney World many times. She has had many toy tiaras for "dress-up" and princess Halloween costumes, and a "real" tiara to wear as a junior bridesmaid. She has subsequently worn it at her 8th grade and high school graduation parties, and probably other occasions of which I am not aware. This year, she wore it to her 21st birthday celebration in a local restaurant. Harmless, you say?

Even though she has been successful in her chosen activities/sports in high school, travel team, and now in college, it somehow does not translate to good self-esteem and confidence in her personal relationships.

At 21, she's convinced she will be an "old maid". Whereas an unmarried man is a bachelor, a state touted as enviable by other men, a woman is "branded", by men and women alike, as an "old maid". The "have to get married or you're not normal" idea is still perpetuated in our society. She is obsessed with the fairy tale wedding; posting bridal gown photos on Facebook.

Because there is nothing happening towards that end, her already low self esteem has been reduced to a dangerously low level. The idea of "gotta have a man" becomes "gotta have any man". She is desperate to make a "prince" out of the lowest form of toad that exists: the manipulative, controlling, emotionally and, now, physically abusive, low-life user, even though her cousin is a glaring example of what happens to women when they marry this kind of man.

Past strides toward respect, equality for women, and the reduction of our "2nd class citizenship", are becoming undone. This is obvious in the willing participation of girls/women in the tasteless objectifying and degrading of themselves in the so-called "entertainment" industry. These girls/women seem totally lacking in self-respect and pride; nothing is considered to be beneath them; there is no notion of having "standards, of not "stooping to that level". Our girls, and boys, are bombarded with, and, influenced by this in our 24/7 pop culture world. Anything goes in the pursuit of fame and fortune, and of your "prince".


----------



## starling&diesel (Nov 24, 2007)

I have a nearly 5yo girl who isn't interested in princess stuff at all, and I'm glad of it. We don't have any branded products or cable but she can choose whatever movies she wants from the library or Netflix and has seen the Disney ones. But they're just a few tales among the hundreds she's read about or seen featuring any number of characters; witches, giants, robots, heroes, magicians, animals, fairies, ghosts, Martians, elves, dragons, snakes, cowhands, acrobats, adventurers, and princesses.
We're not into commenting on how beautiful she is when she's in a dress or wearing a tiara any more than when she's in her pyjamas covered in paint. She's beautiful all the time. I think her lack of interest is partially a result of our vigilance in not equating beauty/looks with praise/attention, way back to when people commented on her 'beauty' as a baby/toddler.
We've avoided 'gendered' toys also, and are part of a circle of homeschooling families who have similar approaches to parenting, consumerism, branded products, effusive comments on looks, etc.
We make efforts to show our kids books/movies with strong girl characters (current fave books: Igraine the Brave, Zita the Spacegirl, also George from the Famous Five)
And guess what? None of the girls are particularly into princesses. Not any more than aliens or witches, anyway.
That tells me that systemic cultural, social, consumer influences do contribute to girls latching onto an interest in princesses.


----------



## grumpybear (Oct 5, 2006)

Princesses bugged me until my DD decided she liked being a princess as much as she liked being a ladybug or a doctor or a ninja.


----------

