Gender, Part II: Subservient = sexy
Finally! Part II of my Gender post.
Let's create a toy for very young children that teaches them to narrow their expectations for themselves. Let's make it the kind of toy that encourages them to abandon several of their own dreams and talents, instead focusing them on skills far less meaningful to society. Make sure it is a toy whose impact stretches not only throughout childhood but into adulthood as well, creating unattainable expectations for their future relationships. It doesn't matter what boys and girls are actually interested in; we will put this new toy in front of them so often, with such ferocity, that they will either embrace and adore the toy or will be somewhat ostracized or labeled as weird.
From Barbie to Bratz to the Disney princess phenomenon, girls are surrounded by toys (with accompanying DVD's, sippy cups, clothing lines, and bedding) that teach them that their success will be derived from how sexually attractive they are to men. Is being attractive to the opposite sex important? In most cases, yes. Is it worth teaching to girls? At some point, probably (in subtle ways). Should we design all paraphernalia for girls age 2 months and up to be focused on being pretty, subservient, and well-mannered? Has anyone actually asked these questions?
There are several posts out in blog world about these issues. Take a peak if you are interested:
Redneck Feminist writes about how the Disney princess culture teaches girls to expect beautiful weddings and empty marriages, and how girls become addicted to praise and to pleasing others.
Daring Young Mom writes about lessons learned from The Little Mermaid. The comments alone are worth reading.
Daddy Daze takes up the subject a few times. Here is one post on it. Read Da Momma's comments for my favorite point of view. To deal with her daughter's obsession with the princesses, she lets her have all the stuff but makes up new stories that are empowering, well, as empowering as it can be when you daughter daily dresses up in glitter tiaras and pink boas. But still.
Many people bemoan the way teenage girls and women are obsessed with their looks. But haven't we been teaching them all along that girls are defined by what they look like? I spend a lot of time around boys and girls ages birth to four years old, and the number of comments that little girls get on their appearances, compared to boys, is stunning to me. Yesterday, I heard a parent tell his son to "Look at Jenny! Whoo hoo! Isn't she a hottie?" 'Jenny' is three and was wearing a cutsie girl outfit that was sweet, although not necessarily sexy. This father's tone was very playful and loving. I realize it may come across as creepier than it really was--it wasn't actually creepy at all. But when parents continually draw their own attention, as well as their sons' attention, to little girls' looks, it reinforces to the girls that this is how they are evaluated. I even complemented a friend today on her daughter's cute outfit while saying nothing of her son's. See? I am contributing to it, as well. Argh.
I know, I know, girls and women (and boys and men) are evaluated on their looks. I don't argue that, nor do I even think it is necessarily always a bad thing. (Isn't it fair for people to be attracted to a certain type of look in a mate? Isn't it fair for a boss to want a well-groomed employee doing her customer service?) But what has happened in our culture is that girls are being raised with the notion that good looks trump every other skill or trait they might have. And their social success hangs upon being and looking pleasing to men.
For a fascinating and well-researched book that chronicles the progression in 19th and 20th century white, middle class, American girls from an obsession with "good works" to one with "good looks," please see Joan Jacobs Brumberg's remarkable work, The Body Project.
There are a lot of positive traits in the Disney princesses. It's nice to be nice. It is nice to be humble, to be helpful, to...wear seashells over your tits for an entire movie? Come on! Almost all of the positive role-modely aspects of Cinderella, Belle, Sleeping Beauty, Snow White, and Ariel are way over shadowed by their unreasonably thin waists and over-pleasing personalities. But what gets me the most is that the heroine stories we feed our daughters are about romance completing a woman's life. Even Mulan, an otherwise good attempt at a positive role model, ends up romantically linked to the prince who...spent their whole relationship thinking she was a man? Really, it is out of nowhere. But I get it. All the success in the world (saving China! Hello!) isn't fulfilling unless the girl is seen as sexually (or romantically, in kid terms) attractive to a man.
This is the point that has the lasting negative effect on girls. You can argue that Ariel wasn't about Eric, but was using him for her purposes. But the reality is that the important struggle in her story is that success comes after successfully attracting a man. It isn't wrong for humans to want a mate or to want to attract the opposite sex. What is wrong is that three year old girls are being taught that pleasing men in a sexual way is critical to their own success. We shouldn't be shocked at the things 13 year old girls do to become popular. We have been teaching them all along that if Dylan and Ryan think she is sexy, she will be accepted.
Male approval is important. This is why I think it is critical that young girls have positive relationships with men and boys that are not based on physical looks or sexual attraction. It kills me when parents of boys that play with Grace make references to them "dating" or to a supposed attraction between them. "Please," I want to plead, "Let Grace know that she is worth more to a boy than her potential to put out at a later date." These boys will grow into future friends and co-workers of girls like Grace, and I hope we haven't over-trained them to look at every female through the lens of, "Is she beddable?" Fathers and adult men can also play a role in validating girls in non-sexual ways. Girls should spend time regularly with their Dads, or if there is no dad, then with a male friend, grandparent, or the like. This man should go to her ballet recitals, soccer games, and birthday parties. He should complement her often on the things she can do that are not sexual or attractiveness-oriented. She should learn early that she already has the attention of important men, and that she needn't blow every guy in the 8th grade to feel accepted by the opposite sex.
I can tell already that there are interests Grace has that boys her age do not, and vice versa. My goal is to encourage her natural interests without using media and toys that capitalize on her interest to additionally teach that weakness and helplessness is attractive in a woman, that a good girl pleases men first and foremost, and that true success only comes to women by becoming sexually attractive and subservient to men. Play with dolls? Yes. Barbies? No. Watch Maisy? Yes. Disney princess movie? No. Let her rock babies to sleep and care for them all day? Yes. Let her live her early childhood without seeing any other mothers go to a paying job? No. Let her wear pink dresses? God, yes. Tell her she looks cute? Yes. Constantly validate her for being cute all day long? I try not to.
By the comments I have gotten from other moms, even my close friends, I know I am not normal. I was asked three times in the same week, "Why are you like this?" The tone ranged from incredulous that I even care about this issue to curious as to why I bother. These gender posts have come out of wanting to explain myself. I was raised in a family and community where girls were validated for all sorts of successes: athletic, academic, social, artistic. I am only seeking to do the same with my own children. It is absolutely shocking to me that my other peers are surprised by my desire to shield Grace and Natalie from negative feminine stereotypes. I thought we were all raised in the same generation and similarly desire our nation's daughters to not be bound by negative expectations of what femininity is. I challenge adults to allow our children to explore their own natural interests. We will certainly find that many boys will still be drawn to action games and mechanics. And many girls will still want to hold dolls and have tea parties. But these children will also be allowed to explore other interest areas, and most importantly, won't be learning that subservience to men is sexy and expected in every girl.
Let's create a toy for very young children that teaches them to narrow their expectations for themselves. Let's make it the kind of toy that encourages them to abandon several of their own dreams and talents, instead focusing them on skills far less meaningful to society. Make sure it is a toy whose impact stretches not only throughout childhood but into adulthood as well, creating unattainable expectations for their future relationships. It doesn't matter what boys and girls are actually interested in; we will put this new toy in front of them so often, with such ferocity, that they will either embrace and adore the toy or will be somewhat ostracized or labeled as weird.
From Barbie to Bratz to the Disney princess phenomenon, girls are surrounded by toys (with accompanying DVD's, sippy cups, clothing lines, and bedding) that teach them that their success will be derived from how sexually attractive they are to men. Is being attractive to the opposite sex important? In most cases, yes. Is it worth teaching to girls? At some point, probably (in subtle ways). Should we design all paraphernalia for girls age 2 months and up to be focused on being pretty, subservient, and well-mannered? Has anyone actually asked these questions?
There are several posts out in blog world about these issues. Take a peak if you are interested:
Redneck Feminist writes about how the Disney princess culture teaches girls to expect beautiful weddings and empty marriages, and how girls become addicted to praise and to pleasing others.
Daring Young Mom writes about lessons learned from The Little Mermaid. The comments alone are worth reading.
Daddy Daze takes up the subject a few times. Here is one post on it. Read Da Momma's comments for my favorite point of view. To deal with her daughter's obsession with the princesses, she lets her have all the stuff but makes up new stories that are empowering, well, as empowering as it can be when you daughter daily dresses up in glitter tiaras and pink boas. But still.
Many people bemoan the way teenage girls and women are obsessed with their looks. But haven't we been teaching them all along that girls are defined by what they look like? I spend a lot of time around boys and girls ages birth to four years old, and the number of comments that little girls get on their appearances, compared to boys, is stunning to me. Yesterday, I heard a parent tell his son to "Look at Jenny! Whoo hoo! Isn't she a hottie?" 'Jenny' is three and was wearing a cutsie girl outfit that was sweet, although not necessarily sexy. This father's tone was very playful and loving. I realize it may come across as creepier than it really was--it wasn't actually creepy at all. But when parents continually draw their own attention, as well as their sons' attention, to little girls' looks, it reinforces to the girls that this is how they are evaluated. I even complemented a friend today on her daughter's cute outfit while saying nothing of her son's. See? I am contributing to it, as well. Argh.
I know, I know, girls and women (and boys and men) are evaluated on their looks. I don't argue that, nor do I even think it is necessarily always a bad thing. (Isn't it fair for people to be attracted to a certain type of look in a mate? Isn't it fair for a boss to want a well-groomed employee doing her customer service?) But what has happened in our culture is that girls are being raised with the notion that good looks trump every other skill or trait they might have. And their social success hangs upon being and looking pleasing to men.
For a fascinating and well-researched book that chronicles the progression in 19th and 20th century white, middle class, American girls from an obsession with "good works" to one with "good looks," please see Joan Jacobs Brumberg's remarkable work, The Body Project.
There are a lot of positive traits in the Disney princesses. It's nice to be nice. It is nice to be humble, to be helpful, to...wear seashells over your tits for an entire movie? Come on! Almost all of the positive role-modely aspects of Cinderella, Belle, Sleeping Beauty, Snow White, and Ariel are way over shadowed by their unreasonably thin waists and over-pleasing personalities. But what gets me the most is that the heroine stories we feed our daughters are about romance completing a woman's life. Even Mulan, an otherwise good attempt at a positive role model, ends up romantically linked to the prince who...spent their whole relationship thinking she was a man? Really, it is out of nowhere. But I get it. All the success in the world (saving China! Hello!) isn't fulfilling unless the girl is seen as sexually (or romantically, in kid terms) attractive to a man.
This is the point that has the lasting negative effect on girls. You can argue that Ariel wasn't about Eric, but was using him for her purposes. But the reality is that the important struggle in her story is that success comes after successfully attracting a man. It isn't wrong for humans to want a mate or to want to attract the opposite sex. What is wrong is that three year old girls are being taught that pleasing men in a sexual way is critical to their own success. We shouldn't be shocked at the things 13 year old girls do to become popular. We have been teaching them all along that if Dylan and Ryan think she is sexy, she will be accepted.
Male approval is important. This is why I think it is critical that young girls have positive relationships with men and boys that are not based on physical looks or sexual attraction. It kills me when parents of boys that play with Grace make references to them "dating" or to a supposed attraction between them. "Please," I want to plead, "Let Grace know that she is worth more to a boy than her potential to put out at a later date." These boys will grow into future friends and co-workers of girls like Grace, and I hope we haven't over-trained them to look at every female through the lens of, "Is she beddable?" Fathers and adult men can also play a role in validating girls in non-sexual ways. Girls should spend time regularly with their Dads, or if there is no dad, then with a male friend, grandparent, or the like. This man should go to her ballet recitals, soccer games, and birthday parties. He should complement her often on the things she can do that are not sexual or attractiveness-oriented. She should learn early that she already has the attention of important men, and that she needn't blow every guy in the 8th grade to feel accepted by the opposite sex.
I can tell already that there are interests Grace has that boys her age do not, and vice versa. My goal is to encourage her natural interests without using media and toys that capitalize on her interest to additionally teach that weakness and helplessness is attractive in a woman, that a good girl pleases men first and foremost, and that true success only comes to women by becoming sexually attractive and subservient to men. Play with dolls? Yes. Barbies? No. Watch Maisy? Yes. Disney princess movie? No. Let her rock babies to sleep and care for them all day? Yes. Let her live her early childhood without seeing any other mothers go to a paying job? No. Let her wear pink dresses? God, yes. Tell her she looks cute? Yes. Constantly validate her for being cute all day long? I try not to.
By the comments I have gotten from other moms, even my close friends, I know I am not normal. I was asked three times in the same week, "Why are you like this?" The tone ranged from incredulous that I even care about this issue to curious as to why I bother. These gender posts have come out of wanting to explain myself. I was raised in a family and community where girls were validated for all sorts of successes: athletic, academic, social, artistic. I am only seeking to do the same with my own children. It is absolutely shocking to me that my other peers are surprised by my desire to shield Grace and Natalie from negative feminine stereotypes. I thought we were all raised in the same generation and similarly desire our nation's daughters to not be bound by negative expectations of what femininity is. I challenge adults to allow our children to explore their own natural interests. We will certainly find that many boys will still be drawn to action games and mechanics. And many girls will still want to hold dolls and have tea parties. But these children will also be allowed to explore other interest areas, and most importantly, won't be learning that subservience to men is sexy and expected in every girl.
posted by Sarah at 2:51 PM
25 comments
