What do you think?
Rate this book
Cinderella Ate My Daughter: Dispatches from the Frontlines of the New Girlie-Girl Culture
Goodreads Choice Award
Nominee for Readers' Favorite Nonfiction (2011)The acclaimed author of the groundbreaking bestseller Schoolgirls reveals the dark side of pink and pretty: the rise of the girlie-girl, she warns, is not that innocent.Sweet and sassy or predatory and hardened, sexualized girlhood influences our daughters from infancy onward, telling them that how a girl looks matters more than who she is. Somewhere between the exhilarating rise of Girl Power in the 1990s and today, the pursuit of physical perfection has been recast as the source of female empowerment. And commercialization has spread the message faster and farther, reaching girls at ever-younger ages. But how dangerous is pink and pretty, anyway? Being a princess is just make-believe; eventually they grow out of it . . . or do they?
In search of answers, Peggy Orenstein visited Disneyland, trolled American Girl Place, and met parents of beauty-pageant preschoolers tricked out like Vegas showgirls. The stakes turn out to be higher than she ever imagined. From premature sexualization to the risk of depression to rising rates of narcissism, the potential negative impact of this new girlie-girl culture is undeniable—yet armed with awareness and recognition, parents can effectively counterbalance its influence in their daughters' lives.
245 pages, Hardcover
First published January 25, 2011
447 people are currently reading
24.8k people want to read
About the author
Peggy Orenstein
9 books708 followersPeggy Orenstein is a best-selling author and a contributing writer for The New York Times Magazine. Orenstein has also written for such publications as The Los Angeles Times, USA Today, Vogue, Elle, Discover, More, Mother Jones, Salon, O: The Oprah Magazine, and The New Yorker, and has contributed commentaries to NPR’s All Things Considered. Her articles have been anthologized multiple times, including in The Best American Science Writing. She has been a keynote speaker at numerous colleges and conferences and has been featured on, among other programs, "Nightline," "Good Morning America," "Today," NPR’s "Fresh Air" and Morning Edition, and CBC’s "As It Happens."
Orenstein was recognized for her “Outstanding Coverage of Family Diversity,” by the Council on Contemporary Families and received a “Books For A Better Life Award” for Waiting for Daisy. Her work has also been honored by the Commonwealth Club of California, the National Women’s Political Caucus of California, and Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Additionally, she has been awarded fellowships from the United States-Japan Foundation and the Asian Cultural Council.
Born in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Orenstein is a graduate of Oberlin College and lives in the San Francisco Bay Area with her husband and daughter.
Orenstein was recognized for her “Outstanding Coverage of Family Diversity,” by the Council on Contemporary Families and received a “Books For A Better Life Award” for Waiting for Daisy. Her work has also been honored by the Commonwealth Club of California, the National Women’s Political Caucus of California, and Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Additionally, she has been awarded fellowships from the United States-Japan Foundation and the Asian Cultural Council.
Born in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Orenstein is a graduate of Oberlin College and lives in the San Francisco Bay Area with her husband and daughter.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 2,210 reviews
February 9, 2023
Once upon a time it was considered attractive for women to have some actual flesh on them; small boys wore pink dresses while little girls wore blue; childrens television shows were not designed specifically to sell toy lines, and manufacturers did not push pink-colored merchandise for a vast range of products to enhance their bottom lines. Pre-teen girls were not encouraged to dress like streetwalkers and bump and grind like exotic dancers. Surely girls were never presented with a global range of options and encouragement to pursue their dreams, career-wise that is, unfettered by domestic and sexual expectations. But the environment today is different in type, comprehensiveness and degree from the world of our mothers.
Peggy Orenstein - image from Barb - photo by Michael Todd
When my youngest was a wee lass, she was fond of presenting herself to anyone who would attend, resplendent in a T-shirt that sported a bevy of Disney heroines, and demand of her audience, “Who’s your favorite princess?” I still had visions back then of her playing hardball on a mostly boys team, and build on her utter fearlessness on the monkey bars to work up to a bit of serious climbing some day. I viewed her princess fixation as a passing phase. Yes, her favorite color was pink, and it is only recently, well into teen years, (when this was written) 0that her favored palette has broadened. (Whew!) But my daughter was hardly alone in her predilections. She (and her parental units) had been deluged with a marketing environment that has forced little girls into a pink mindset like a prince trying to stuff an evil-stepsister foot into a tiny glass slipper. So what’s the deal with all the pink that is engulfing today’s young girls? Peggy Orenstein, parent to a budding princess of her own, took notice, did some investigation and came up seeing red. Cinderella Ate My Daughter tells what she found.
She covers a wide swath. Orenstein wonders what is actually wrong with the Cinderella image. Nothing at all if your goal is to be valued solely for your looks and to be rescued from a poor existence by a handsome and wealthy guy. There can be no higher value in a princess than materialism. She also notes that princesses are not exactly the girl-bonding sort. There is very little room on a throne. Hardly a recipe for winning friends and influencing people. Self realization has been replaced by self-marketing.
One subject that permeates is the impact of corporate marketing. From a Disney exec’s multi-billion dollar eureka moment, when he came up with the notion of selling princess clothing and sundries to a huge girl market, to the sexualized dolls and gear of the late 20th and early 21st century, to the “pinking” of everything, top-down product pushing has had a major impact on the world. Do we really need pink soccer balls? Pink baseball caps? Casey Stengel is spinning in his grave. The reason for this silliness is nothing less than the profit motive. If you can sell more product by differentiating into multiple versions, it is nothing less than the American way. Orenstein talks with a marketing exec who credits “the pink factor” with increasing sales. But the downside to advanced marketing prowess and relentless market segmentation is actual long run harm. Pink is associated with all things girly-girl. And that carries baggage. A fixation on pink makes it that much tougher for girls to be all they can be if who they are falls outside the extant confines of what it means to be a girl. Ostracism for being different is quite real.
And having primed girls to define themselves by the things they buy, the market now offers them more and more sexualized products. Bratz sashayed onto the market as a sort of slut-Barbie, to be followed by others from that sort of stable. Whereas dolls were once a sign of innocence, many of them have become something much darker. Don’t be fooled by products flogged as “sassy.” Take a look in your magic mirror and see that “sassy” translates to “sexy.”
Orenstein looks also at where nature and nurture diverge, reporting on some very surprising studies. Can the brain be changed by one’s environment? Is gender preference for types of toys nature or nurture? Are children maturing faster today than they have in the past?
There is also a wonderful discussion of the Brothers Grimm. And you will be surprised to hear of the impact one former president had on things girlish.
As with the BP disaster, the impact of all this gender stereotyping and sexual hyping will be emerging for many years to come. For our young girls, it might be better not to be in the pink if it means increasing sexualization of childhood and decreasing social, educational, recreational and career options due to having to survive in an ofF-red monoculture. When short term financial gain is all, and long term consequences are merely corporate externalities, not only are our girls harmed, but our nation suffers. What talents, what potential progress might be stifled by a culture that steers girls into a curved cattle chute that dissuades difference? Such a culture does less to empower and more to make young women handmaids to the bottom line.
Perhaps in some future column or later edition of the book, I would like to see more on sociobiology. We need a baseline. If girls are being moved away from some natural state, what can science tell us about what the parameters of that natural state might be? What behaviors are inherited from our cave-dwelling or pre-agricultural days?
But that is a quibble. This is an outstanding, if alarming, overview of just how the world is conspiring against our girls, covering many areas of interest, from neuroplasticity to changing views on weight, from the impact of Barbie and American Girl dolls to girls in on-line culture. Cinderella Ate my Daughter is a compelling read, but it is not a pretty picture.
==============================EXTRA STUFF
Links to the author’s personal, Twitter and FB pages
2/4/11
I came across a really good review of this in the NY Times. I am so jealous.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/23/boo...
And I hear that Cinderella will be making its well-deserved way onto the NYT bestseller list 'ere long.
9/14/11
I received this alarming bit this morning, a serious eye-roller. What are these people thinking!
3/30/12 - Puberty Before Age 10: A New ‘Normal’?, by Elizabeth Weil - A fascinating article on early development in girls
12/2/12
I just came across this excellent GR review by my pal Cathy
3/29/13
This report on sexualization of girls from American Psychological Association is chilling stuff
4/2/13
This seemed the best review in which to place this link. My son posted it on his FB page. From Womens Press, Losing my religion for equality…by Jimmy Carter
5/29/13
Just in case you do not get down to comment #64, GR friend Caroline, has alerted us all to a wonderful piece on CNN's Opinion page, by David M. Perry, For strong daughters, stop with the sex stereotypes. I would add even for those who might not be so strong. Many beasts remain to be slain.
6/13/13
GR, and actual, friend Cathy turned up this item about some more wonderfulness. If you find yourself in Berlin this summer and feel a need for some serious eye-rolling, you might want to check out this exhibit, Barbie’s Dream House?
2/28/14
A different Disney princess song - enjoy
4/5/14
An interesting piece from Slate on the innateness of gender-based toy selection
7/14/14 - I came across an article about a wonderful project, looking at what might have happened were Disney princesses living in the real world, dark but fun
8/12/16 - An interesting NY Times article on one of the downsides of an excess focus on appearance - For Teenage Girls, Swimsuit Season Never Ends - by Lisa Damour
PS - My who’s your favorite princess child is now (2023) running marathons on the other coast and wherever they are held, managing medical trials for a new drug, studying for a Masters degree and is soon to be married, to an accomplished cancer researcher, which is much better than a prince.
Peggy Orenstein - image from Barb - photo by Michael Todd
When my youngest was a wee lass, she was fond of presenting herself to anyone who would attend, resplendent in a T-shirt that sported a bevy of Disney heroines, and demand of her audience, “Who’s your favorite princess?” I still had visions back then of her playing hardball on a mostly boys team, and build on her utter fearlessness on the monkey bars to work up to a bit of serious climbing some day. I viewed her princess fixation as a passing phase. Yes, her favorite color was pink, and it is only recently, well into teen years, (when this was written) 0that her favored palette has broadened. (Whew!) But my daughter was hardly alone in her predilections. She (and her parental units) had been deluged with a marketing environment that has forced little girls into a pink mindset like a prince trying to stuff an evil-stepsister foot into a tiny glass slipper. So what’s the deal with all the pink that is engulfing today’s young girls? Peggy Orenstein, parent to a budding princess of her own, took notice, did some investigation and came up seeing red. Cinderella Ate My Daughter tells what she found.
She covers a wide swath. Orenstein wonders what is actually wrong with the Cinderella image. Nothing at all if your goal is to be valued solely for your looks and to be rescued from a poor existence by a handsome and wealthy guy. There can be no higher value in a princess than materialism. She also notes that princesses are not exactly the girl-bonding sort. There is very little room on a throne. Hardly a recipe for winning friends and influencing people. Self realization has been replaced by self-marketing.
One subject that permeates is the impact of corporate marketing. From a Disney exec’s multi-billion dollar eureka moment, when he came up with the notion of selling princess clothing and sundries to a huge girl market, to the sexualized dolls and gear of the late 20th and early 21st century, to the “pinking” of everything, top-down product pushing has had a major impact on the world. Do we really need pink soccer balls? Pink baseball caps? Casey Stengel is spinning in his grave. The reason for this silliness is nothing less than the profit motive. If you can sell more product by differentiating into multiple versions, it is nothing less than the American way. Orenstein talks with a marketing exec who credits “the pink factor” with increasing sales. But the downside to advanced marketing prowess and relentless market segmentation is actual long run harm. Pink is associated with all things girly-girl. And that carries baggage. A fixation on pink makes it that much tougher for girls to be all they can be if who they are falls outside the extant confines of what it means to be a girl. Ostracism for being different is quite real.
And having primed girls to define themselves by the things they buy, the market now offers them more and more sexualized products. Bratz sashayed onto the market as a sort of slut-Barbie, to be followed by others from that sort of stable. Whereas dolls were once a sign of innocence, many of them have become something much darker. Don’t be fooled by products flogged as “sassy.” Take a look in your magic mirror and see that “sassy” translates to “sexy.”
Orenstein looks also at where nature and nurture diverge, reporting on some very surprising studies. Can the brain be changed by one’s environment? Is gender preference for types of toys nature or nurture? Are children maturing faster today than they have in the past?
There is also a wonderful discussion of the Brothers Grimm. And you will be surprised to hear of the impact one former president had on things girlish.
As with the BP disaster, the impact of all this gender stereotyping and sexual hyping will be emerging for many years to come. For our young girls, it might be better not to be in the pink if it means increasing sexualization of childhood and decreasing social, educational, recreational and career options due to having to survive in an ofF-red monoculture. When short term financial gain is all, and long term consequences are merely corporate externalities, not only are our girls harmed, but our nation suffers. What talents, what potential progress might be stifled by a culture that steers girls into a curved cattle chute that dissuades difference? Such a culture does less to empower and more to make young women handmaids to the bottom line.
Perhaps in some future column or later edition of the book, I would like to see more on sociobiology. We need a baseline. If girls are being moved away from some natural state, what can science tell us about what the parameters of that natural state might be? What behaviors are inherited from our cave-dwelling or pre-agricultural days?
But that is a quibble. This is an outstanding, if alarming, overview of just how the world is conspiring against our girls, covering many areas of interest, from neuroplasticity to changing views on weight, from the impact of Barbie and American Girl dolls to girls in on-line culture. Cinderella Ate my Daughter is a compelling read, but it is not a pretty picture.
==============================EXTRA STUFF
Links to the author’s personal, Twitter and FB pages
2/4/11
I came across a really good review of this in the NY Times. I am so jealous.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/23/boo...
And I hear that Cinderella will be making its well-deserved way onto the NYT bestseller list 'ere long.
9/14/11
I received this alarming bit this morning, a serious eye-roller. What are these people thinking!
3/30/12 - Puberty Before Age 10: A New ‘Normal’?, by Elizabeth Weil - A fascinating article on early development in girls
12/2/12
I just came across this excellent GR review by my pal Cathy
3/29/13
This report on sexualization of girls from American Psychological Association is chilling stuff
4/2/13
This seemed the best review in which to place this link. My son posted it on his FB page. From Womens Press, Losing my religion for equality…by Jimmy Carter
5/29/13
Just in case you do not get down to comment #64, GR friend Caroline, has alerted us all to a wonderful piece on CNN's Opinion page, by David M. Perry, For strong daughters, stop with the sex stereotypes. I would add even for those who might not be so strong. Many beasts remain to be slain.
6/13/13
GR, and actual, friend Cathy turned up this item about some more wonderfulness. If you find yourself in Berlin this summer and feel a need for some serious eye-rolling, you might want to check out this exhibit, Barbie’s Dream House?
2/28/14
A different Disney princess song - enjoy
4/5/14
An interesting piece from Slate on the innateness of gender-based toy selection
7/14/14 - I came across an article about a wonderful project, looking at what might have happened were Disney princesses living in the real world, dark but fun
8/12/16 - An interesting NY Times article on one of the downsides of an excess focus on appearance - For Teenage Girls, Swimsuit Season Never Ends - by Lisa Damour
PS - My who’s your favorite princess child is now (2023) running marathons on the other coast and wherever they are held, managing medical trials for a new drug, studying for a Masters degree and is soon to be married, to an accomplished cancer researcher, which is much better than a prince.
February 19, 2012
It was good but lacking. She skims over a lot of interesting questions and conflicts, but don't really explore a lot of other ones because of her feminist agenda (and I'm a feminist). This book also suffers from her white, liberal, and (relatively) rich guilt and blinders. There are quick fleeting mentions of race (the last chapter she talks about the Princess & the Frog, and I was frequenting face-palming and rubbing my temples, esp when she mention her biracial daughter), fat, and sexuality. Actually there is a lot of sexuality but of the heterosexual kind.
Since she's a reporter for the New York Times, I googled her other work and her article on Miranda Cosgrove contained entire paragraphs lifted from her chapter "From Wholesome to Whoresome: The Other Disney Princesses", which was about Miley Cyrus, Hilary Duff and the like. This chapter and the superhero chapter suffer because of the lack of detail and nuances, which she either ignored to strengthened her point or she didn't know or care enough to add. For example what about the Disney boys (Justin Timberlake and Shia LaBeuof) in contrast? Or Raven Symone who didn't fit into the neat 'thin, white girl' mold like the other Disney idols? I would have liked further discussion or thought on that.
The wealth angle also left me cold because if you can't afford the American Girls dolls or the reason you say no to your child's plea's for Dora, Jasmine and other frilly things is because you simply can't afford it, then the discussion of these items harmful effects seems pretty moot.
Her chapters on the Internet and teens was just as rushed, they covered the usual stuff (sexting, nude pics, facebook overuse, branding, Twilight, cyberbullying, etc.), but there wasn't much depth here. She talks about statistics and second hand experiences, but it really didn't add any new understanding to the subject.
The best parts are when she talks about raising her daughter and how she deals first hand with these struggles and her own approach to them. I liked the parts about the Princess & the Frog, superheroes, talking with other moms in her neighborhood, and trips to see events and stores she talks about with trepidation and disdain.
Since she's a reporter for the New York Times, I googled her other work and her article on Miranda Cosgrove contained entire paragraphs lifted from her chapter "From Wholesome to Whoresome: The Other Disney Princesses", which was about Miley Cyrus, Hilary Duff and the like. This chapter and the superhero chapter suffer because of the lack of detail and nuances, which she either ignored to strengthened her point or she didn't know or care enough to add. For example what about the Disney boys (Justin Timberlake and Shia LaBeuof) in contrast? Or Raven Symone who didn't fit into the neat 'thin, white girl' mold like the other Disney idols? I would have liked further discussion or thought on that.
The wealth angle also left me cold because if you can't afford the American Girls dolls or the reason you say no to your child's plea's for Dora, Jasmine and other frilly things is because you simply can't afford it, then the discussion of these items harmful effects seems pretty moot.
Her chapters on the Internet and teens was just as rushed, they covered the usual stuff (sexting, nude pics, facebook overuse, branding, Twilight, cyberbullying, etc.), but there wasn't much depth here. She talks about statistics and second hand experiences, but it really didn't add any new understanding to the subject.
The best parts are when she talks about raising her daughter and how she deals first hand with these struggles and her own approach to them. I liked the parts about the Princess & the Frog, superheroes, talking with other moms in her neighborhood, and trips to see events and stores she talks about with trepidation and disdain.
April 12, 2011
Here's the deal: The two stars - those are for me. To someone who has read a fair amount about children/gender and feminism in general, Orenstein does not offer anything new. If I was a new or future-mom, however, an average middle-class mom who hasn't read what could be considered a "feminist" book since college (or possibly never!), or just one who finds most children's toys essentially "harmless," I think this book could be a real eye-opener - I think it could easily deserve three or four stars...
The strong points of this book, in my opinion, are the author's voice, her ability to be concise, and the pace of the book itself. Orenstein can be a funny lady - her social observations and anecdotal style make this book a surprisingly fun, fast read. Her voice is likeable, believable, and (perhaps, most importantly) familiar. Most of the time, I believe that Orenstein, herself, does seem to embody the idea of a typical middle-class USA mom. Either by journalistic license or in her genuine character, Orenstein wrote Cinderella Ate My Daughter in a decidedly mainstream tone and for a decidedly mainstream audience.
I don't think I'm remiss in saying that even women who consider themselves in favor of womens' rights, equality, tolerance - don't use the label "Feminist" very often. And neither does Orenstein. Mainstream US society has taught us to fear that particular label, to avoid it. So, for the most part, even though she is raising a feminist argument, Orenstein does avoid calling it that most of the time. This choice, I think, allows her book to reach a more mainstream audience. It scares most Americans to be considered out of the "mainstream," (especially if one is a journalist - like Orenstein, who observes 'the mainstream' and reports on it). If Orenstein is trying to seem the "everymom," she really pulls it off.
Orenstein, echoing the sentiment of what I believe is a lot of people in this country, attempts to have the "best" of both worlds by participating in and enjoying the safety of mainstream culture (Look! My children and I lead "normal," healthy lives!), and criticizing it and advocating change at the same time (Look! We consider these activities and attitudes "normal," and we shouldn't - they are harmful!). People attempting this (people like...me!) can come off conflicted/confused because they're attempting to reconcile what is seemingly impossible.
As a result, what Orenstein doesn't quite bring to the table is conviction. In her attempt to reconcile living in the mainstream/criticizing the mainstream, she often builds up a great deal of heated conviction in the beginnings and middles of her chapters on specific topics (princesses, American Girl Dolls, Barbie, fairy tales, Disney, mixed-gender play, consumerism/advertising, child beauty pageants), but then lets her arguments wither away by the end of the chapters into a series of confused questions. While this ambivalence may mirror what some mainstream parents feel toward the culture they live in, it makes for a weak argument. And this is why this book, in my opinion, only deserves two stars.
Furthermore, by "kind-of-but-not-exactly" labeling her argument or herself as "feminist" - she does an even further disservice to her readers by pushing the word (the lifestyle, the criticism) slightly to the side, once again - where "feminist" can be side-stepped, rather than better defined. Taboo, rather than common. Ignored, rather than embraced.
I did appreciate Orenstein bringing an essentially (watered-down) feminist criticism to mainstream moms. Perhaps they can find use for it, perhaps they can begin questioning their child-rearing decisions more often than they currently do (I know she has inspired me to think about my own future-momness). Maybe to a mainstream American mom, Orenstein is asking questions about and criticizing a culture that they had not had the inclination to formally engage with before now...Maybe a dose of "feminist-lite" can prove more helpful than no criticism at all.
The strong points of this book, in my opinion, are the author's voice, her ability to be concise, and the pace of the book itself. Orenstein can be a funny lady - her social observations and anecdotal style make this book a surprisingly fun, fast read. Her voice is likeable, believable, and (perhaps, most importantly) familiar. Most of the time, I believe that Orenstein, herself, does seem to embody the idea of a typical middle-class USA mom. Either by journalistic license or in her genuine character, Orenstein wrote Cinderella Ate My Daughter in a decidedly mainstream tone and for a decidedly mainstream audience.
I don't think I'm remiss in saying that even women who consider themselves in favor of womens' rights, equality, tolerance - don't use the label "Feminist" very often. And neither does Orenstein. Mainstream US society has taught us to fear that particular label, to avoid it. So, for the most part, even though she is raising a feminist argument, Orenstein does avoid calling it that most of the time. This choice, I think, allows her book to reach a more mainstream audience. It scares most Americans to be considered out of the "mainstream," (especially if one is a journalist - like Orenstein, who observes 'the mainstream' and reports on it). If Orenstein is trying to seem the "everymom," she really pulls it off.
Orenstein, echoing the sentiment of what I believe is a lot of people in this country, attempts to have the "best" of both worlds by participating in and enjoying the safety of mainstream culture (Look! My children and I lead "normal," healthy lives!), and criticizing it and advocating change at the same time (Look! We consider these activities and attitudes "normal," and we shouldn't - they are harmful!). People attempting this (people like...me!) can come off conflicted/confused because they're attempting to reconcile what is seemingly impossible.
As a result, what Orenstein doesn't quite bring to the table is conviction. In her attempt to reconcile living in the mainstream/criticizing the mainstream, she often builds up a great deal of heated conviction in the beginnings and middles of her chapters on specific topics (princesses, American Girl Dolls, Barbie, fairy tales, Disney, mixed-gender play, consumerism/advertising, child beauty pageants), but then lets her arguments wither away by the end of the chapters into a series of confused questions. While this ambivalence may mirror what some mainstream parents feel toward the culture they live in, it makes for a weak argument. And this is why this book, in my opinion, only deserves two stars.
Furthermore, by "kind-of-but-not-exactly" labeling her argument or herself as "feminist" - she does an even further disservice to her readers by pushing the word (the lifestyle, the criticism) slightly to the side, once again - where "feminist" can be side-stepped, rather than better defined. Taboo, rather than common. Ignored, rather than embraced.
I did appreciate Orenstein bringing an essentially (watered-down) feminist criticism to mainstream moms. Perhaps they can find use for it, perhaps they can begin questioning their child-rearing decisions more often than they currently do (I know she has inspired me to think about my own future-momness). Maybe to a mainstream American mom, Orenstein is asking questions about and criticizing a culture that they had not had the inclination to formally engage with before now...Maybe a dose of "feminist-lite" can prove more helpful than no criticism at all.
August 29, 2013
"We simply gave girls what they wanted." – Andy Mooney (Former Chairman of Disney Consumer Products)
This was a very insightful and interesting read, it was a very disturbing one as well. This book came about due to the fact that Orenstein gave birth to a baby girl and, as a result, a lot of things were on her mind about how she was going to raise a well-rounded girl, one who wasn’t obsessed with the (terrifying) princess culture and had a healthy self-esteem.
I don’t have any children but I do have a 3 year old niece and younger female cousins. Looking for toys to buy them has always been a chore. First of all, I have to be sensitive about finding dolls that resemble them (self-esteem reasons) secondly I have to find dolls that aren’t hypersexualized- it’s harder than it sounds.
Some interesting questions raised in the book are:
- Why do girls feel the need to be pretty all the time?
- Do sex-specific toys serve to heighten the differences between boys and girls, what are the repercussions of this?
- Why are young girls and adult women wearing the same clothes (fashion-wise)?
- “Women. Beauty. Power. Body. The ideas and images remain so muddled, so contradictory; how to disentangle them for our girls?”
I was disturbed by several things in this book. Firstly, the baby beauty pageants turned my stomach. Secondly, the selection of hypersexualized dolls that are out there is just frightening. Thirdly, cyberbullying.
The main message I got from this book: kids have a LOT to deal with in this day and age, girls in particular. This is a very stressful time to be a kid.
I feel that everyone with young daughters should read this one.
This was a very insightful and interesting read, it was a very disturbing one as well. This book came about due to the fact that Orenstein gave birth to a baby girl and, as a result, a lot of things were on her mind about how she was going to raise a well-rounded girl, one who wasn’t obsessed with the (terrifying) princess culture and had a healthy self-esteem.
I don’t have any children but I do have a 3 year old niece and younger female cousins. Looking for toys to buy them has always been a chore. First of all, I have to be sensitive about finding dolls that resemble them (self-esteem reasons) secondly I have to find dolls that aren’t hypersexualized- it’s harder than it sounds.
Some interesting questions raised in the book are:
- Why do girls feel the need to be pretty all the time?
- Do sex-specific toys serve to heighten the differences between boys and girls, what are the repercussions of this?
- Why are young girls and adult women wearing the same clothes (fashion-wise)?
- “Women. Beauty. Power. Body. The ideas and images remain so muddled, so contradictory; how to disentangle them for our girls?”
I was disturbed by several things in this book. Firstly, the baby beauty pageants turned my stomach. Secondly, the selection of hypersexualized dolls that are out there is just frightening. Thirdly, cyberbullying.
The main message I got from this book: kids have a LOT to deal with in this day and age, girls in particular. This is a very stressful time to be a kid.
I feel that everyone with young daughters should read this one.
December 7, 2011
This one was just okay for me. While she does make some great points about postmodern girlhood, many of her views are just as reactionary as the ones she criticizes. I actually could not finish this one because I kept getting annoyed with her logic. For instance, she criticizes Barbies, American Girl dolls, and baby dolls as being too limiting in the way they portray gender. Then, she discusses buying her daughter toy guns and Thomas the Train gear. Is she not just pushing her daughter into the opposite direction, and, by doing so, only reaffirming the idea that masculinity is more desirable? I thought so. This kind of logic permeates the entire book. She also, for another example, claims that when she was a girl she played with guns and did not turn out, as she puts it, a sociopath. The thought that ran through my mind was I played with Barbies and stuffed animals and worshiped The Little Mermaid, but I did not turn out damaged. I honestly kept feeling bad for her daughter as Orenstein won't let her play with toys she's drawn to. I struggle to see what is wrong with a 3 year old playing with a doll. Let's face it, boys play with dolls, too, only they're called "action figures." According to this book, girls should play with action figures aka boy dolls instead of Barbies aka girls dolls. Gee, what a revolution.
One good thing is she does recognize some of her own confusion, as when she recounts a rather heartbreaking incident in Target with her daughter. She writes very well, and her tone is often very funny. Her book does raise some good questions about this "girly-girl" culture, but her answers were not very satisfying. I really don't see how we can fix any social problems by declaring one gender's toys oppressive (girls' toys) and viewing the other's (boys' toys) as superior and fulfilling.
Honestly, the issue I have with toys today is there is nothing really encouraging intellectual curiosity. For instance, as a child I had enough Barbies to have my own Miss America pageant, half of my bed was stuffed animals, and my bedroom was pink. However, I had a toy microscope my brother, sister, and I used to examine insects we caught. We had bug cages and kept our "pet" crickets, frogs, and lizards there. I also had a child's dictionary that came with a spelling "calculator" to assist the child with learning new words. I mention this because now I really feel there is a disregard for intellectualism that is profound. Most toys today are based on some popular movie and foster no imagination--and they break within a month, if that. I really feel for little children growing up now. They have no Saturday morning cartoons, no decent toys, and not much to spark their imaginations--and this applies to boys and girls. Only having Spiderman, Batman, and Ironman as your role models is just as limiting as the Disney princesses.
I think these issues bother Peggy Orenstein, but she does not really explore the problems oppressing all children. I think I would have enjoyed this book more had she explored gender more thoroughly.
One good thing is she does recognize some of her own confusion, as when she recounts a rather heartbreaking incident in Target with her daughter. She writes very well, and her tone is often very funny. Her book does raise some good questions about this "girly-girl" culture, but her answers were not very satisfying. I really don't see how we can fix any social problems by declaring one gender's toys oppressive (girls' toys) and viewing the other's (boys' toys) as superior and fulfilling.
Honestly, the issue I have with toys today is there is nothing really encouraging intellectual curiosity. For instance, as a child I had enough Barbies to have my own Miss America pageant, half of my bed was stuffed animals, and my bedroom was pink. However, I had a toy microscope my brother, sister, and I used to examine insects we caught. We had bug cages and kept our "pet" crickets, frogs, and lizards there. I also had a child's dictionary that came with a spelling "calculator" to assist the child with learning new words. I mention this because now I really feel there is a disregard for intellectualism that is profound. Most toys today are based on some popular movie and foster no imagination--and they break within a month, if that. I really feel for little children growing up now. They have no Saturday morning cartoons, no decent toys, and not much to spark their imaginations--and this applies to boys and girls. Only having Spiderman, Batman, and Ironman as your role models is just as limiting as the Disney princesses.
I think these issues bother Peggy Orenstein, but she does not really explore the problems oppressing all children. I think I would have enjoyed this book more had she explored gender more thoroughly.
September 16, 2013
I find this much more difficult to review now than I initially thought - not because I am skeptical of its findings, but because, as Orenstein herself admits, it is a self-contradicting muddle - that claims to set women free as it manacles them.
For one, I was almost dizzy - living in the Third World, I had no idea what kind of life children have in the West (or at least the USA). Throughout the book, I couldn't help pausing to reflect into how different our lives are from the world that is portrayed here - and yet, how similar, given the fact that women are still not free, women are still trying hard to live up to the contradictory expectation of society, and whether here or there - women can't escape the fetters of their biology. Even if a girl manages to forget the fact that she is one, the world will not let her forget that.
Coming to the book, too many things were new to me to put in sufficient inputs of my own - for one, the first chapter struck me in a very different way - Orenstein hoped for a boy for different reasons - it would make her life easier, as a conscientious mother finding it way more difficult to raise a daughter in a less sexist way.
For the Third World, the reason why boys are preferred has a lot to do with traditional culture and religion (ANY religion you take) emphasizing boys as the carriers of heredity and women as a burden on the house (our language specifically calls women these:
a snake - meaning it is a dangerous burden that has to be carried on one's head, nevertheless;
parki thapan - meaning that a girl doesn't belong to her parental home, but to the home where she will be married, hence, she is but a jewel loaned to the parents till she is reclaimed by her in-laws, a jewel, therefore, has to remain untainted, the responsibility lying on the parents) and much more - which is, by the way, the root of social problems, in my eyes, far worse than any of the problems mentioned by Peggy.
Not being critical here - the stakes are very high, I understand that - but it is not life-crippling in most cases, unlike in the Third World.
I was taken aback by the second chapter dealing with dolls and princesses and the consumerist Disney culture. Because it is almost non-existent in India, I had a hard time conceiving of a world that is an appalling reality for the USA. Disney hardly promotes its products here - I have seldom seen a Disney product endorsed here, on TV or in stores. There is hardly any overt gender segregation here - in terms of colors - I am yet to see an all pink/lavender toys section - we do have pink books, pens, toys, dresses, pots-and-pans, with Princess pictures but they are scattered among the toys and colors intended for boys as well, thus not overtly segregating them as girl or boy toys. No Princess dresses available at all. Hardly any Disney movies shown. Barbies are freely bought but only by the rich - they are very expensive, and come in only two features - Caucasian and Indian. For the rest of the kids, you can buy about 10-12 dolls in the price of one least-expensive model of Barbie - unsophisticated dolls that look less like women and more like babies, with faces coming almost straight out of the Evil doll in Child's Play 2.
Of course, an important distinction has to be made here to fully understand why - a huge number of Indians are too poor to afford toys. The middle class (ranging from just above poverty line to quite rich), though being able to afford them somewhat, have a distinctive trait that is a product of historical forces - it aspires to become an aggressive consumer, but is shy of breaking cultural taboos - it will buy things that can be shown-off to others as expensive, classy - but will not buy things that will make them appear more Western than acceptable in their social class - this is more important when it comes to raising girls - after about the age of 10, they will subtly turn their daughters to wearing the traditional salwar-kameez instead of the tee-capris or gowns they wore as kids - the notion being that they have to be chaste, not too modern, have to gain social approval as good, Indian girls, so that by the time they will be married off, they will have an unblemished past.
For the richer class, the dynamics are two-fold - one section upholds the same traditional values as the other classes - it consciously represses women, keeps them docile and protects them from the decadent Western values by subtly insinuating from their childhood that to be Western is to be immoral. The other section aspires to be Western - to be called forward, i.e., liberal - and ensures their girls are not left out in the race to own the latest Western gear, imbibe the latest Western girlie fetishes, and look saucy as they grow up - I think this is the only class that is vulnerable to the trends Orenstein finds dangerous in her country - and yet, since there is little overt exposure to gender divides for toddlers or pre-pubescents, the stakes are somewhat lower.
Another cultural difference is the lack of participation of girls in popular media or as popular icons - there is no music industry in India apart from that of play-back singing in Bollywood songs - no music videos or albums - even when they were there a decade back, there were hardly any women singing, none of them young enough to be idols for teenagers - mostly they sang songs of love and love lost, nothing rebellious in tune, lyrics or dresses. No Indian Hannah-Montana kind of movies either, or concerts or merchandise. No versions of cute innocent girls growing up into drug-addicts. There was no innocent girl culture to begin with, nor a Lindsay/Cyrus debacle either. No kiddie pageants (but then, in India, women's entire lives are a pageant where they are tested for domestic skills and subservience and the prize is, yes, you guessed it, a husband).
No Princess stories infiltrating the kiddos' minds - the Indian story-telling culture is vastly different, excluding the vulnerable rich, pro-Western class I mentioned - due to many joint families, the task of reciting stories is delegated to grand-parents, who invariably recite religious stories (extremely misogynist) - the lessons women learn are to idolize men and devalue themselves. The classic Adam-Eve syndrome. Women tainted men. Worship men. Punish women. Both sexes imbibe these Indian values.
The same goes for Internet usage - the poor cannot afford it, but the middle-class and the rich class can and girls do use it the way the West uses it - frequently. But it is yet monitored internally, in the sense that girls are less likely to post revealing pictures of themselves given the horror of potential social disapproval if they are pictured wearing shorts or mini-skirts or halter-necks or off-shoulders.
However, there is a contradictory trend in women's clothes recently, especially in the educated, upper-middle class - more and more middle-class families are allowing their girls to wear shorts/skirts, though the numbers are still dismal. It is still uncommon - and therefore, sometimes dangerous to be seen in such clothes. And yet, women are not free of their traditional roles - they are only allowed to be Western in one area - in clothing - all other aspects are just as much repressive.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Overall, reading this book has done me a lot good despite not being able to identify with most of these issues.
The first is, I got a first-hand account into what a gender-biased consumerist culture does to little girls - it is frightening, appalling, but not insurmountable. It takes a whole load of effort - tricky for parents and girls alike to distinguish between what they want and what they are made to believe they want. What they want to be and what they are made to believe they want to be. Whether their personalities are a reflection of who they are or what the world wants them to be.
Secondly, it is making me think harder about the differences in the First World culture and the Third World culture. At many points in the text, I almost laughed out aloud in scorn. What Orenstein often dubbed as old-world outlook on females - well, they are still liberating for us. The feminism of the 70s hasn't even arrived in India. While she harks back to older times that were old-fashioned, I find they are still radical in the Indian context! I feel I'm still living in the '50s America, where being a feminist is the equivalent of being ungrateful to your community that is bearing your burden, and which is inherently decadent and immoral. Stained. Forever.
Third impression - Despite being appalled at the consumerist culture in The USA, I find it easier to surmount those odds than to conquer this Everest of Repressive Indian Woman Identity. I'd rather risk over-exposure to ignorance. Dangerous freedom over Safe imprisonment. Choice over Fate.
I'd rather be Meredith of Brave than Rapunzel of Tangled - I'd always favored Brave over Tangled - but could never explain concretely why. I believe this book, especially in its discussion of the two movies precisely lay bare the issues with Tangled which I could not articulate. Even if Brave was a Princess movie.
One of the highlights of this book is that it does not employ technical terms of feminism - it is more rooted in the practical world than in theories that explain the practical world - the arguments, references and lingo is understood even by the most under-read teen, extremely approachable/accessible and straight-forward, without the high airs of knowledge that put off, for a good reason, many people from books like this. Rather than a research book, it reads like a memoir or a carefully researched, well-written blog.
I'm so glad I read this book. Despite the huge gap in culture, I do relate to it in a very curious, unexpected way.
---------------------------------------------------------
EDIT:
In retrospect, I found the book quite haphazard. I felt it very disorganized and beating about the bush instead of following a clear logical path.
Another thing that bothered me at times was her aversion to anything pink while simultaneously observing that very few pink-lovers grew up to be girls who did not respect themselves or fashioned themselves in line with contemporary images of feminity and womanhood.
Her militant efforts to keep away all girlie toys ruffled me a bit - it is like discarding half of the options available for her daughter.
It also concerns my disagreement with Radical feminism that rejected everything commonly associated with being a woman - feminine clothes, attitudes, motherhood, etc. IMHO, they went too far. Like Orenstein in her obvious panic to shield her daughter. In a way, she was forcing her daughter to give up some beautiful things instead of teaching her that she could have both girlie and boyish things and that both should mould her. She was doing just what the market was doing to the girls, in a sense - forcing them to believe they were choosing something, while all the while subtly forcing them to reject, give up entirely one version of themselves when they could be both.
Thankfully, under her daughter's pressures, I believe, she had to let Daisy try out both versions possible - she could be girly and boyish, without having to accept a concrete single identity.
----------------------------------------------
EDIT 2:
After a short quick re-read, I'm beginning to find more flaws in it - Orenstein's often contradicting her own statements. eg - she laments the lack of female bonding between the princesses, who are always depicted as either loners or as competitors - and yet, she is uncomfortable when her daughter bonds with other girls her age. I don't think she's hypocritical, but I'm beginning to think she's so paranoid, it is clouding her fair judgement - she's finding fault with whatever is commonly done simply because it is the norm.
I find myself less enamored with the text now, though I'm mighty glad I read it - it opens, for me at least, new portals into critical examination of popular culture.
For one, I was almost dizzy - living in the Third World, I had no idea what kind of life children have in the West (or at least the USA). Throughout the book, I couldn't help pausing to reflect into how different our lives are from the world that is portrayed here - and yet, how similar, given the fact that women are still not free, women are still trying hard to live up to the contradictory expectation of society, and whether here or there - women can't escape the fetters of their biology. Even if a girl manages to forget the fact that she is one, the world will not let her forget that.
Coming to the book, too many things were new to me to put in sufficient inputs of my own - for one, the first chapter struck me in a very different way - Orenstein hoped for a boy for different reasons - it would make her life easier, as a conscientious mother finding it way more difficult to raise a daughter in a less sexist way.
For the Third World, the reason why boys are preferred has a lot to do with traditional culture and religion (ANY religion you take) emphasizing boys as the carriers of heredity and women as a burden on the house (our language specifically calls women these:
a snake - meaning it is a dangerous burden that has to be carried on one's head, nevertheless;
parki thapan - meaning that a girl doesn't belong to her parental home, but to the home where she will be married, hence, she is but a jewel loaned to the parents till she is reclaimed by her in-laws, a jewel, therefore, has to remain untainted, the responsibility lying on the parents) and much more - which is, by the way, the root of social problems, in my eyes, far worse than any of the problems mentioned by Peggy.
Not being critical here - the stakes are very high, I understand that - but it is not life-crippling in most cases, unlike in the Third World.
I was taken aback by the second chapter dealing with dolls and princesses and the consumerist Disney culture. Because it is almost non-existent in India, I had a hard time conceiving of a world that is an appalling reality for the USA. Disney hardly promotes its products here - I have seldom seen a Disney product endorsed here, on TV or in stores. There is hardly any overt gender segregation here - in terms of colors - I am yet to see an all pink/lavender toys section - we do have pink books, pens, toys, dresses, pots-and-pans, with Princess pictures but they are scattered among the toys and colors intended for boys as well, thus not overtly segregating them as girl or boy toys. No Princess dresses available at all. Hardly any Disney movies shown. Barbies are freely bought but only by the rich - they are very expensive, and come in only two features - Caucasian and Indian. For the rest of the kids, you can buy about 10-12 dolls in the price of one least-expensive model of Barbie - unsophisticated dolls that look less like women and more like babies, with faces coming almost straight out of the Evil doll in Child's Play 2.
Of course, an important distinction has to be made here to fully understand why - a huge number of Indians are too poor to afford toys. The middle class (ranging from just above poverty line to quite rich), though being able to afford them somewhat, have a distinctive trait that is a product of historical forces - it aspires to become an aggressive consumer, but is shy of breaking cultural taboos - it will buy things that can be shown-off to others as expensive, classy - but will not buy things that will make them appear more Western than acceptable in their social class - this is more important when it comes to raising girls - after about the age of 10, they will subtly turn their daughters to wearing the traditional salwar-kameez instead of the tee-capris or gowns they wore as kids - the notion being that they have to be chaste, not too modern, have to gain social approval as good, Indian girls, so that by the time they will be married off, they will have an unblemished past.
For the richer class, the dynamics are two-fold - one section upholds the same traditional values as the other classes - it consciously represses women, keeps them docile and protects them from the decadent Western values by subtly insinuating from their childhood that to be Western is to be immoral. The other section aspires to be Western - to be called forward, i.e., liberal - and ensures their girls are not left out in the race to own the latest Western gear, imbibe the latest Western girlie fetishes, and look saucy as they grow up - I think this is the only class that is vulnerable to the trends Orenstein finds dangerous in her country - and yet, since there is little overt exposure to gender divides for toddlers or pre-pubescents, the stakes are somewhat lower.
Another cultural difference is the lack of participation of girls in popular media or as popular icons - there is no music industry in India apart from that of play-back singing in Bollywood songs - no music videos or albums - even when they were there a decade back, there were hardly any women singing, none of them young enough to be idols for teenagers - mostly they sang songs of love and love lost, nothing rebellious in tune, lyrics or dresses. No Indian Hannah-Montana kind of movies either, or concerts or merchandise. No versions of cute innocent girls growing up into drug-addicts. There was no innocent girl culture to begin with, nor a Lindsay/Cyrus debacle either. No kiddie pageants (but then, in India, women's entire lives are a pageant where they are tested for domestic skills and subservience and the prize is, yes, you guessed it, a husband).
No Princess stories infiltrating the kiddos' minds - the Indian story-telling culture is vastly different, excluding the vulnerable rich, pro-Western class I mentioned - due to many joint families, the task of reciting stories is delegated to grand-parents, who invariably recite religious stories (extremely misogynist) - the lessons women learn are to idolize men and devalue themselves. The classic Adam-Eve syndrome. Women tainted men. Worship men. Punish women. Both sexes imbibe these Indian values.
The same goes for Internet usage - the poor cannot afford it, but the middle-class and the rich class can and girls do use it the way the West uses it - frequently. But it is yet monitored internally, in the sense that girls are less likely to post revealing pictures of themselves given the horror of potential social disapproval if they are pictured wearing shorts or mini-skirts or halter-necks or off-shoulders.
However, there is a contradictory trend in women's clothes recently, especially in the educated, upper-middle class - more and more middle-class families are allowing their girls to wear shorts/skirts, though the numbers are still dismal. It is still uncommon - and therefore, sometimes dangerous to be seen in such clothes. And yet, women are not free of their traditional roles - they are only allowed to be Western in one area - in clothing - all other aspects are just as much repressive.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Overall, reading this book has done me a lot good despite not being able to identify with most of these issues.
The first is, I got a first-hand account into what a gender-biased consumerist culture does to little girls - it is frightening, appalling, but not insurmountable. It takes a whole load of effort - tricky for parents and girls alike to distinguish between what they want and what they are made to believe they want. What they want to be and what they are made to believe they want to be. Whether their personalities are a reflection of who they are or what the world wants them to be.
Secondly, it is making me think harder about the differences in the First World culture and the Third World culture. At many points in the text, I almost laughed out aloud in scorn. What Orenstein often dubbed as old-world outlook on females - well, they are still liberating for us. The feminism of the 70s hasn't even arrived in India. While she harks back to older times that were old-fashioned, I find they are still radical in the Indian context! I feel I'm still living in the '50s America, where being a feminist is the equivalent of being ungrateful to your community that is bearing your burden, and which is inherently decadent and immoral. Stained. Forever.
Third impression - Despite being appalled at the consumerist culture in The USA, I find it easier to surmount those odds than to conquer this Everest of Repressive Indian Woman Identity. I'd rather risk over-exposure to ignorance. Dangerous freedom over Safe imprisonment. Choice over Fate.
I'd rather be Meredith of Brave than Rapunzel of Tangled - I'd always favored Brave over Tangled - but could never explain concretely why. I believe this book, especially in its discussion of the two movies precisely lay bare the issues with Tangled which I could not articulate. Even if Brave was a Princess movie.
One of the highlights of this book is that it does not employ technical terms of feminism - it is more rooted in the practical world than in theories that explain the practical world - the arguments, references and lingo is understood even by the most under-read teen, extremely approachable/accessible and straight-forward, without the high airs of knowledge that put off, for a good reason, many people from books like this. Rather than a research book, it reads like a memoir or a carefully researched, well-written blog.
I'm so glad I read this book. Despite the huge gap in culture, I do relate to it in a very curious, unexpected way.
---------------------------------------------------------
EDIT:
In retrospect, I found the book quite haphazard. I felt it very disorganized and beating about the bush instead of following a clear logical path.
Another thing that bothered me at times was her aversion to anything pink while simultaneously observing that very few pink-lovers grew up to be girls who did not respect themselves or fashioned themselves in line with contemporary images of feminity and womanhood.
Her militant efforts to keep away all girlie toys ruffled me a bit - it is like discarding half of the options available for her daughter.
It also concerns my disagreement with Radical feminism that rejected everything commonly associated with being a woman - feminine clothes, attitudes, motherhood, etc. IMHO, they went too far. Like Orenstein in her obvious panic to shield her daughter. In a way, she was forcing her daughter to give up some beautiful things instead of teaching her that she could have both girlie and boyish things and that both should mould her. She was doing just what the market was doing to the girls, in a sense - forcing them to believe they were choosing something, while all the while subtly forcing them to reject, give up entirely one version of themselves when they could be both.
Thankfully, under her daughter's pressures, I believe, she had to let Daisy try out both versions possible - she could be girly and boyish, without having to accept a concrete single identity.
----------------------------------------------
EDIT 2:
After a short quick re-read, I'm beginning to find more flaws in it - Orenstein's often contradicting her own statements. eg - she laments the lack of female bonding between the princesses, who are always depicted as either loners or as competitors - and yet, she is uncomfortable when her daughter bonds with other girls her age. I don't think she's hypocritical, but I'm beginning to think she's so paranoid, it is clouding her fair judgement - she's finding fault with whatever is commonly done simply because it is the norm.
I find myself less enamored with the text now, though I'm mighty glad I read it - it opens, for me at least, new portals into critical examination of popular culture.
March 4, 2016
I read this when it first came out. It was the rave and I had a little princess so I was all for it! The title alone had me captivated. However, the rest of the book had me irritated.That said. This. Book. Was. Not. For. Me! Hated it! I ended up shipping it to either my sister or cousin just to get it out of my house. Yes, as a parent I often pick up books that will help me out or give me advice on other ways of parenting. I just don't believe Disney is the devil or that it absolutely wrong! To put my daughter in a tutu.
If you read it and loved it. Bravo to you. I hated it, didn't agree with what she said and moved. And I did that by flying my daughter to Disney world and primping her out Princess style
Yes she may be divalicious but she also loves dirt bikes and horse back riding and dirt, climbing trees, stupid ballet, gymnastics, swimming and so on.... So judge me all you want. I'm an awesome mother who loves girly girl shit and hated this stupid book.
If you read it and loved it. Bravo to you. I hated it, didn't agree with what she said and moved. And I did that by flying my daughter to Disney world and primping her out Princess style
Yes she may be divalicious but she also loves dirt bikes and horse back riding and dirt, climbing trees, stupid ballet, gymnastics, swimming and so on.... So judge me all you want. I'm an awesome mother who loves girly girl shit and hated this stupid book.
December 2, 2012
Living in the Oldest City in the United States, St. Augustine certainly has its challenges, first being the high number of tourists to visit the area a valid 2 million a year.
In the past they were mostly middle class with St. Augustine being their destination. However, with that said, in the past 20 years or more the complexion of the tourist has changed significantly. And numbers will bear out that the city is no longer the destination point, it’s a ‘side trip’ after Disney World.
Once in the city, the destination place, must see, is the Castillo de San Marcos. Built from 1671 when the first worker drew his pay, the “fort”, as it’s commonly referred to by locals, was finally completed August 31, 1693 and if you’re counting, that’s 22 years.
Ok, Cathy, what’s the deal? Why are you beginning your review of Cinderella Ate My Daughter with a very short history lesson of Castillo de San Marcos? Please stay with me just a moment more.
I recall walking my dog at fort green, the grassy area surrounding the Castillo and a young boy, about 10, yelling to his parents, “hey, look, it’s a dog!” It took me years to figure out just why he thought that was so odd, to see a dog walking around the fort. (Hint: Seen any dogs (other than assistance dogs at Disney World? See any homeless at Disney World? See any panhandling at Disney World?)
Loving history as I do, I trained for tour guide certification specifically for the Castillo only giving tours to 4th graders. The city is inundated with 4th graders from throughout the state in the spring when they’re required to study Florida history, St. Augustine being where it all started.
One morning giving a tour, I overheard a precocious and chatty little girl asking her friend, “how long has this castle been here?” The other little girl answered, “probably same time as Cinderella’s castle.” When I overheard these kids I immediately emphasized again to the entire group when Castillo de San Marcos was built and that it isn’t “a castle” like they’ve all seen at Disney World. (It’s a given they all have been to Disney World.) It’s an honest to goodness real original fort for the purposes of defending and protecting the Spanish city, not housing any princesses waiting for the prince’s kiss to take them away.
It was like a eureka moment for me thinking about that comment from the kid about my dog. He thought he was at Disney World; a fictional world, developed by real people in the real recent past.
In the book, Disney, the creator of all those pixel movies, you know which ones, where the young woman is saved by the prince’s kiss and they live happily ever after. Then there’s MGA, creator of Bratz dolls which were quite sexy little things when they originally entered the market. Needless to go on, you know where I’m going and you would have to have lived in a cave not to have heard of Tiaras and Toddlers.
What do these companies, TV advertising and programs and peer pressure all have in common? Making a mint on parents, friends and relatives purchasing a ‘fantasy’ of related items which happen to be pink. What I have called for years, ‘the pink princess’ phenomena.
What little girl could resist being a princess along with all its undercurrent themes of being kissed by a prince, living in a castle and living forever ‘happily ever after?’ Even I would be stupid to refuse that, if indeed such a thing exists; however, it’s all fantasy and unfortunately fantasy to sell products, specifically pink products from play castles to princess dresses to you name it…it’s pink as long as it’s pink.
So what has this done to generations of our daughters? Has it made them less studious? More competitive to catch ‘the prince’ at any cost? Encouraged their belief as their parents said, ‘you’re a princess’ with undertones of your beauty and charm will get you where you want to be in life. Me, well, I believe it has and it shows in the ‘duh’ factor of some young women I see from time to time, just waiting for that prince to come.
Author Peggy Orenstein covers it all without being ‘preachy’. It was an easy read for a mom or dad, anyone who is interested in a little sociology tempered with some humor. Orenstein discovers some of herself in challenges trying to instill in her own daughter how to make good choices in her toys and accessories including lunchboxes.
As you can see this is simply a broad overview of how society has been infused with this “pink fantasy” brought on(in my mind) by Disney World and how it has taken hold of our children. It’s all about marketing, folks, selling stuff to children who ‘just have to have’ what their friends have. And it’s P-I-N-K!
For an in depth look at this book, for both mothers and fathers and interested sociology, please read Will Byrnes review Cinderella Ate My Daughter: Dispatches from the Front Lines of the New Girlie-Girl Culture which is very thoughtful and thorough. Will’s review was the reason I wanted to read the book, and so glad I did. It was an eye opener.
A great break for me from mysteries.
*******
UPDATE from Time Magazine, Week of Dec 10, 2012
Disney World to Update Princess Complex (Including something for the lads...oops, Disney missed them the first go around in marketing arena)
It never ends, the marketing of the Princess theme. The new complex will include an opportunity for the lads saying it's something more masculine. They missed a marketing chance previously by focusing only on the girly-girls.
End of story includes fact that Florida family pays $1,810 yearly for family passes. Where does this money come from? And why? Buy the girls books for crying out loud! (Editorial comment)
http://www.time.com/time/subscriber/a...
In the past they were mostly middle class with St. Augustine being their destination. However, with that said, in the past 20 years or more the complexion of the tourist has changed significantly. And numbers will bear out that the city is no longer the destination point, it’s a ‘side trip’ after Disney World.
Once in the city, the destination place, must see, is the Castillo de San Marcos. Built from 1671 when the first worker drew his pay, the “fort”, as it’s commonly referred to by locals, was finally completed August 31, 1693 and if you’re counting, that’s 22 years.
Ok, Cathy, what’s the deal? Why are you beginning your review of Cinderella Ate My Daughter with a very short history lesson of Castillo de San Marcos? Please stay with me just a moment more.
I recall walking my dog at fort green, the grassy area surrounding the Castillo and a young boy, about 10, yelling to his parents, “hey, look, it’s a dog!” It took me years to figure out just why he thought that was so odd, to see a dog walking around the fort. (Hint: Seen any dogs (other than assistance dogs at Disney World? See any homeless at Disney World? See any panhandling at Disney World?)
Loving history as I do, I trained for tour guide certification specifically for the Castillo only giving tours to 4th graders. The city is inundated with 4th graders from throughout the state in the spring when they’re required to study Florida history, St. Augustine being where it all started.
One morning giving a tour, I overheard a precocious and chatty little girl asking her friend, “how long has this castle been here?” The other little girl answered, “probably same time as Cinderella’s castle.” When I overheard these kids I immediately emphasized again to the entire group when Castillo de San Marcos was built and that it isn’t “a castle” like they’ve all seen at Disney World. (It’s a given they all have been to Disney World.) It’s an honest to goodness real original fort for the purposes of defending and protecting the Spanish city, not housing any princesses waiting for the prince’s kiss to take them away.
It was like a eureka moment for me thinking about that comment from the kid about my dog. He thought he was at Disney World; a fictional world, developed by real people in the real recent past.
In the book, Disney, the creator of all those pixel movies, you know which ones, where the young woman is saved by the prince’s kiss and they live happily ever after. Then there’s MGA, creator of Bratz dolls which were quite sexy little things when they originally entered the market. Needless to go on, you know where I’m going and you would have to have lived in a cave not to have heard of Tiaras and Toddlers.
What do these companies, TV advertising and programs and peer pressure all have in common? Making a mint on parents, friends and relatives purchasing a ‘fantasy’ of related items which happen to be pink. What I have called for years, ‘the pink princess’ phenomena.
What little girl could resist being a princess along with all its undercurrent themes of being kissed by a prince, living in a castle and living forever ‘happily ever after?’ Even I would be stupid to refuse that, if indeed such a thing exists; however, it’s all fantasy and unfortunately fantasy to sell products, specifically pink products from play castles to princess dresses to you name it…it’s pink as long as it’s pink.
So what has this done to generations of our daughters? Has it made them less studious? More competitive to catch ‘the prince’ at any cost? Encouraged their belief as their parents said, ‘you’re a princess’ with undertones of your beauty and charm will get you where you want to be in life. Me, well, I believe it has and it shows in the ‘duh’ factor of some young women I see from time to time, just waiting for that prince to come.
Author Peggy Orenstein covers it all without being ‘preachy’. It was an easy read for a mom or dad, anyone who is interested in a little sociology tempered with some humor. Orenstein discovers some of herself in challenges trying to instill in her own daughter how to make good choices in her toys and accessories including lunchboxes.
As you can see this is simply a broad overview of how society has been infused with this “pink fantasy” brought on(in my mind) by Disney World and how it has taken hold of our children. It’s all about marketing, folks, selling stuff to children who ‘just have to have’ what their friends have. And it’s P-I-N-K!
For an in depth look at this book, for both mothers and fathers and interested sociology, please read Will Byrnes review Cinderella Ate My Daughter: Dispatches from the Front Lines of the New Girlie-Girl Culture which is very thoughtful and thorough. Will’s review was the reason I wanted to read the book, and so glad I did. It was an eye opener.
A great break for me from mysteries.
*******
UPDATE from Time Magazine, Week of Dec 10, 2012
Disney World to Update Princess Complex (Including something for the lads...oops, Disney missed them the first go around in marketing arena)
It never ends, the marketing of the Princess theme. The new complex will include an opportunity for the lads saying it's something more masculine. They missed a marketing chance previously by focusing only on the girly-girls.
End of story includes fact that Florida family pays $1,810 yearly for family passes. Where does this money come from? And why? Buy the girls books for crying out loud! (Editorial comment)
http://www.time.com/time/subscriber/a...
November 13, 2019
***NO SPOILERS***
An important read. Peggy Orenstein argued with intelligence and eye-opening research and was never afraid to delve right into the heart of the matter, which is this: Why is the (stereotypically) feminine inherently viewed as less-than? What's especially unsettling are the sections on Disney and just how dominant an influence it is on the young. She shined the brightest light on how absurd it is that one company has almost a monopoly on all things "kid." (Orenstein pointed out how remarkably difficult it is to find merchandise for girls that isn't emblazoned with Disney-princess images, for instance.) To be clear, this isn't an anti-Disney book, but Orenstein was unafraid to say it like it is, and that is that Disney has made--and continues to make, despite increasingly better intentions--serious mistakes.
She took a hard look at the American Girl doll company and little-girl beauty pageants, among other things. It makes for one engrossing read that will alarm but also thoroughly inform. Very importantly, this isn't a nonfiction "alarmist" book that leaves the reader feeling there's nothing she can do; by the end, it's clear what needs to be done, and it's do-able.
Complementary reading: Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture (primary focus: objectification of women by women themselves)
For the Love of Men: A New Vision for Mindful Masculinity (among other things, examines why the stereotypically feminine is viewed as less-than)
Beauty Sick: How the Cultural Obsession with Appearance Hurts Girls and Women
Update: An excellent CNN article that adds more food for thought: http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/28/opinion...
An important read. Peggy Orenstein argued with intelligence and eye-opening research and was never afraid to delve right into the heart of the matter, which is this: Why is the (stereotypically) feminine inherently viewed as less-than? What's especially unsettling are the sections on Disney and just how dominant an influence it is on the young. She shined the brightest light on how absurd it is that one company has almost a monopoly on all things "kid." (Orenstein pointed out how remarkably difficult it is to find merchandise for girls that isn't emblazoned with Disney-princess images, for instance.) To be clear, this isn't an anti-Disney book, but Orenstein was unafraid to say it like it is, and that is that Disney has made--and continues to make, despite increasingly better intentions--serious mistakes.
She took a hard look at the American Girl doll company and little-girl beauty pageants, among other things. It makes for one engrossing read that will alarm but also thoroughly inform. Very importantly, this isn't a nonfiction "alarmist" book that leaves the reader feeling there's nothing she can do; by the end, it's clear what needs to be done, and it's do-able.
Complementary reading: Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture (primary focus: objectification of women by women themselves)
For the Love of Men: A New Vision for Mindful Masculinity (among other things, examines why the stereotypically feminine is viewed as less-than)
Beauty Sick: How the Cultural Obsession with Appearance Hurts Girls and Women
Update: An excellent CNN article that adds more food for thought: http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/28/opinion...
December 3, 2010
Is it just me or are nonfiction books of this type getting shorter and ending in an increasingly abrupt manner? I was startled when I hit the end of this most recent offering from Ms. Orenstein; with a good pinch of pages left I thought I had just reached the end of a chapter, only to see the rest of the bulk consisted merely of acknowledgements, notes, and so forth.
This sudden drop off only adds to my list of frustrations with this interesting, well-intentioned, yet flawed book. As the mother of three young daughters, I was at once intrigued and skeptical when I picked up the book, which claims to tell us poor befuddled mothers what to make of the supposedly new culture of "girlie girl." The author immediately strikes a very bloggy, up-to-the-minute tone, which can be fun to read but also frustratingly limited. It is odd to pick up an actual physical book and see snarky snappiness and reference after reference to things I have seen online, but have never encountered in real life. Is there truly no world outside the internet now?
It also has the downfall so common to these social critique tomes, in that the author employs what I like to call the "me and my playgroup" method of research. Rather than delving into true social scientific research even in a casual way, rather than expanding her explorations into unfamiliar neighborhoods or more solidly limiting the terms of the inquiry to well-heeled coastal progressive communities, the author lazily lopes around the park on the corner and runs back to report what she has seen there. A lot of assumptions fill in the gap. For instance, she says that since the "princess thing" is so big "even" where she lives (liberal Berkeley) it "must" be even worse elsewhere. Well no, not necessarily. Up here in Portland, frankly, I can fairly easily steer my daughters around the excesses of Disney culture. And as far as any kind of material spoiling and expectations of things like "spa day," well, if you can't even afford a once-a-year "spa day" for yourself (as the millions of Americans who make less than $40,000 per year mostly cannot) then you certainly aren't going to be getting one for your 7 year old, whether you think it's immoral or not!
Orenstein gallops along at quite a clip with the false dichotomies, too. Should we encourage girls to play act being a doctor, or just let them be ballerinas? Uh, why not both? Am I damaging my daughter by letting her play with Thomas the Train toys or is it more damaging to let her play princess? Well, why should either one be damaging at all, and especially if one has the breadth of mind to enjoy both?
It was interesting to see her cite some of the same facts and articles that Wendy Shalit cites in "Good Girl Revolution." Ideologically I am in neither camp, overall, but on this one I daresay Shalit covered the same ground much more satisfyingly and with a more engaging writerly tone to boot.
In Orenstein's anecdotal evidence about the excesses of "girlie girl" I did notice one common theme that carried through: she wasn't there when it happened. In one instance, her daughter had wandered off with some older kids. In most of the rest, it concerned something that happened at preschool. Over and over again with the stuff she cites I found myself thinking, "WHERE are the parents of all these kids?" So much could be remedied by parents being there and saying no as frequently as possible. Dare I say, this woman is making an excellent argument in favor of strong women staying at home to rear and shelter their daughters? Oh heavens, that cannot be! But at least if she proposed this she would be proposing SOME solution. As the book slumped forward, prematurely expired, I had already been feeling depressed and hopeless about the state of girlhood. Orenstein leaves us there with no ideas for remedy at all, save a bland last-minute exhortation that maybe moms can sorta make a difference, I guess, if we try. Woo!
This sudden drop off only adds to my list of frustrations with this interesting, well-intentioned, yet flawed book. As the mother of three young daughters, I was at once intrigued and skeptical when I picked up the book, which claims to tell us poor befuddled mothers what to make of the supposedly new culture of "girlie girl." The author immediately strikes a very bloggy, up-to-the-minute tone, which can be fun to read but also frustratingly limited. It is odd to pick up an actual physical book and see snarky snappiness and reference after reference to things I have seen online, but have never encountered in real life. Is there truly no world outside the internet now?
It also has the downfall so common to these social critique tomes, in that the author employs what I like to call the "me and my playgroup" method of research. Rather than delving into true social scientific research even in a casual way, rather than expanding her explorations into unfamiliar neighborhoods or more solidly limiting the terms of the inquiry to well-heeled coastal progressive communities, the author lazily lopes around the park on the corner and runs back to report what she has seen there. A lot of assumptions fill in the gap. For instance, she says that since the "princess thing" is so big "even" where she lives (liberal Berkeley) it "must" be even worse elsewhere. Well no, not necessarily. Up here in Portland, frankly, I can fairly easily steer my daughters around the excesses of Disney culture. And as far as any kind of material spoiling and expectations of things like "spa day," well, if you can't even afford a once-a-year "spa day" for yourself (as the millions of Americans who make less than $40,000 per year mostly cannot) then you certainly aren't going to be getting one for your 7 year old, whether you think it's immoral or not!
Orenstein gallops along at quite a clip with the false dichotomies, too. Should we encourage girls to play act being a doctor, or just let them be ballerinas? Uh, why not both? Am I damaging my daughter by letting her play with Thomas the Train toys or is it more damaging to let her play princess? Well, why should either one be damaging at all, and especially if one has the breadth of mind to enjoy both?
It was interesting to see her cite some of the same facts and articles that Wendy Shalit cites in "Good Girl Revolution." Ideologically I am in neither camp, overall, but on this one I daresay Shalit covered the same ground much more satisfyingly and with a more engaging writerly tone to boot.
In Orenstein's anecdotal evidence about the excesses of "girlie girl" I did notice one common theme that carried through: she wasn't there when it happened. In one instance, her daughter had wandered off with some older kids. In most of the rest, it concerned something that happened at preschool. Over and over again with the stuff she cites I found myself thinking, "WHERE are the parents of all these kids?" So much could be remedied by parents being there and saying no as frequently as possible. Dare I say, this woman is making an excellent argument in favor of strong women staying at home to rear and shelter their daughters? Oh heavens, that cannot be! But at least if she proposed this she would be proposing SOME solution. As the book slumped forward, prematurely expired, I had already been feeling depressed and hopeless about the state of girlhood. Orenstein leaves us there with no ideas for remedy at all, save a bland last-minute exhortation that maybe moms can sorta make a difference, I guess, if we try. Woo!
October 4, 2014
Awful, awful, awful. For someone who claims to be a feminist, she brings down everything and anything feminine, and thinks that if you act more like a boy, then you are somehow a better girl?
Let's get this straight: there is NOTHING wrong with disney princesses, barbies, or the colour pink. You are not somehow shallow for enjoying these things, and like, congrats, Peggy Orenstein, you acted like a tomboy as a kid, want a cookie? *rolls my eyes*
No, but seriously, what's wrong with being girly? (Nothing.) What, does my femininity make me shallow? (No, it does not. Thinking that being girly makes me shallow as a person, in fact, makes YOU a shallow person.) Does it make me weak? (No.) Why would you EVER bring down the idea of being girly, when you're trying to empower GIRLS?
For someone who talks about feminine relationships, she brings down one of those two things: femininity. She's trying to support females, but is really bringing them down. She wants equality between females and males, but does this while making masculinity seem like a great thing and femininity weak or wrong or 'damaging'. The only thing that is damaging is this book. It is like having a strong female character, and you're cheering her on, but then she says something sexist like "Oh, don't be such a girl." Well, then what was the point of having a strong female character if she's going to bring down girls?
Defeat the idea that you are shallow or somehow wrong for wanting to be a princess in a pretty dress; she's kind of a jerk for making it seem like that there is something WRONG with girls wanting to be a princess. I get that she means that looks aren't everything, yeah, but why can't little girls play with their barbies in their disney princess dresses AND be smart AND kind etc? News flash: they can. The disney princesses do it, but somehow, all the disney princesses' great qualities and traits are ignored by the author of this book, as she incorrectly claims that princesses' only goal is to have a prince and have her take care of them.
First of all, what's wrong with wanting a prince (a man)? Why is it that princes (men) can have a princess and still keep hold of their strength and quality of character, but as SOON as a princess wants to be with a prince, she's no longer a good princesses and is labeled as weak or something?
And, just for the record, the only princess who wanted a prince and has that as her goal was Snow White. But so what? Is she not still a kind and hard-working woman? Why does wanting a prince make her not a strong character? And besides, that's another problem: strong characters are nice, they're wonderful really, but female characters and their other qualities shouldn't dismissed if they are not strong characters (it makes it seem like women are only valued if they are strong, or at least conventionally so, and the fact that they are kind or thoughtful or smart means nothing, apparently.)
Anyways, this author seems to dislike Cinderella, and falsely so. The author looks at her story, and also the other princesses' stories, very straightforwardly and narrow-mindedly. Cinderella is a GREAT princess; even though she's not physically strong, as it seems, it does not mean that she isn't a strong female lead. She went through years of abuse and humiliation and loss; she had only known those awful things growing up. But still, she remains a kind and gentle person, is hard-working and dreams of - not a prince, like this writer claims - but of happiness. She even says so in her song, dammit. And because she deserves it, because she is suffering and has seen so little kindness, the fairy godmother grants her salvation. Besides, all Cinderella asked was for a night out and a dress. Funny how it's said that SHE was the one looking for a prince, when the prince was the one holding a whole BALL just to find a princess. And look, just like I said, no one sees anything wrong with that, but somehow Cinderella is wrong for falling in love with him? Cinderella has a wonderful message: to be kind. To be a good person even if you have not seen much good. She does this her whole life, she even protects the mice in the castle, and that is why she is given a happy ending. Because her friends - and the godmother - saw how much she deserved it. She tells kids to believe in yourself, in happiness, no matter how awful the situation is. To be hopeful. And it's not like she was just sitting around and waiting: when the opportunity to go to the ball came, she went despite all odds. Her step-mother wouldn't give her a break? Doesn't matter, because Cinderella gave HERSELF a break.
I could go on and on with the other princesses, but you get my point.
All and in all: stop bringing down feminine things, and start supporting it, because there is nothing wrong with being a girly girl. Just because we are taught to hate the pretty girl in a dress, does not mean we should. You aren't a better person for not liking makeup or dresses or princesses or barbies, and no one cares if you played with toy guns as a child and hung out with boys. If you force your daughter to not play with barbies or girly things, when she WANTS to, and make her feel like it's wrong for her to act like, well, a girl, then you are bringing her down, not up. You are just as bad as those mothers forcing their daughters into beauty pageants. Don't tell your daughter who to be or what to like and think that counts as guiding her away from "the wrong path". If you are against princesses or anything girly because somehow they enforce the idea that looks are all that matter or something, then you are being a hypocrite, because you are judging a person based on what they look like. In the end, it's not going to matter whether you play with a football or a doll, because that will not define you as a person, or make you a better person. But if you are constantly tearing down the idea of acting girly, then believe it or not, YOU are the problem.
Let's get this straight: there is NOTHING wrong with disney princesses, barbies, or the colour pink. You are not somehow shallow for enjoying these things, and like, congrats, Peggy Orenstein, you acted like a tomboy as a kid, want a cookie? *rolls my eyes*
No, but seriously, what's wrong with being girly? (Nothing.) What, does my femininity make me shallow? (No, it does not. Thinking that being girly makes me shallow as a person, in fact, makes YOU a shallow person.) Does it make me weak? (No.) Why would you EVER bring down the idea of being girly, when you're trying to empower GIRLS?
For someone who talks about feminine relationships, she brings down one of those two things: femininity. She's trying to support females, but is really bringing them down. She wants equality between females and males, but does this while making masculinity seem like a great thing and femininity weak or wrong or 'damaging'. The only thing that is damaging is this book. It is like having a strong female character, and you're cheering her on, but then she says something sexist like "Oh, don't be such a girl." Well, then what was the point of having a strong female character if she's going to bring down girls?
Defeat the idea that you are shallow or somehow wrong for wanting to be a princess in a pretty dress; she's kind of a jerk for making it seem like that there is something WRONG with girls wanting to be a princess. I get that she means that looks aren't everything, yeah, but why can't little girls play with their barbies in their disney princess dresses AND be smart AND kind etc? News flash: they can. The disney princesses do it, but somehow, all the disney princesses' great qualities and traits are ignored by the author of this book, as she incorrectly claims that princesses' only goal is to have a prince and have her take care of them.
First of all, what's wrong with wanting a prince (a man)? Why is it that princes (men) can have a princess and still keep hold of their strength and quality of character, but as SOON as a princess wants to be with a prince, she's no longer a good princesses and is labeled as weak or something?
And, just for the record, the only princess who wanted a prince and has that as her goal was Snow White. But so what? Is she not still a kind and hard-working woman? Why does wanting a prince make her not a strong character? And besides, that's another problem: strong characters are nice, they're wonderful really, but female characters and their other qualities shouldn't dismissed if they are not strong characters (it makes it seem like women are only valued if they are strong, or at least conventionally so, and the fact that they are kind or thoughtful or smart means nothing, apparently.)
Anyways, this author seems to dislike Cinderella, and falsely so. The author looks at her story, and also the other princesses' stories, very straightforwardly and narrow-mindedly. Cinderella is a GREAT princess; even though she's not physically strong, as it seems, it does not mean that she isn't a strong female lead. She went through years of abuse and humiliation and loss; she had only known those awful things growing up. But still, she remains a kind and gentle person, is hard-working and dreams of - not a prince, like this writer claims - but of happiness. She even says so in her song, dammit. And because she deserves it, because she is suffering and has seen so little kindness, the fairy godmother grants her salvation. Besides, all Cinderella asked was for a night out and a dress. Funny how it's said that SHE was the one looking for a prince, when the prince was the one holding a whole BALL just to find a princess. And look, just like I said, no one sees anything wrong with that, but somehow Cinderella is wrong for falling in love with him? Cinderella has a wonderful message: to be kind. To be a good person even if you have not seen much good. She does this her whole life, she even protects the mice in the castle, and that is why she is given a happy ending. Because her friends - and the godmother - saw how much she deserved it. She tells kids to believe in yourself, in happiness, no matter how awful the situation is. To be hopeful. And it's not like she was just sitting around and waiting: when the opportunity to go to the ball came, she went despite all odds. Her step-mother wouldn't give her a break? Doesn't matter, because Cinderella gave HERSELF a break.
I could go on and on with the other princesses, but you get my point.
All and in all: stop bringing down feminine things, and start supporting it, because there is nothing wrong with being a girly girl. Just because we are taught to hate the pretty girl in a dress, does not mean we should. You aren't a better person for not liking makeup or dresses or princesses or barbies, and no one cares if you played with toy guns as a child and hung out with boys. If you force your daughter to not play with barbies or girly things, when she WANTS to, and make her feel like it's wrong for her to act like, well, a girl, then you are bringing her down, not up. You are just as bad as those mothers forcing their daughters into beauty pageants. Don't tell your daughter who to be or what to like and think that counts as guiding her away from "the wrong path". If you are against princesses or anything girly because somehow they enforce the idea that looks are all that matter or something, then you are being a hypocrite, because you are judging a person based on what they look like. In the end, it's not going to matter whether you play with a football or a doll, because that will not define you as a person, or make you a better person. But if you are constantly tearing down the idea of acting girly, then believe it or not, YOU are the problem.
February 26, 2011
This is what Spencer calls "pop non-fiction", meaning that it's written in a way guaranteed to attract attention. The whole book read like it made sense, until you really started paying attention to what you were reading and realized that she's just stringing together sensational facts and not doing a whole lot of real research or thinking very logically. Yes, she interviewed experts and read articles (I think), but she also presents her own assumptions as fact, and her small sample sizes (i.e. her group of friends) as definitive proof.
I was really disappointed, in part because I've noticed a tendency in my daughter to play out roles that involve sitting and waiting for rescue, and have been trying to find ways to motivate her to think for herself, act for herself and choose for herself, and not to choose to be dependent on others for her happiness. I was hoping that this book addressed this issue, discussed it, maybe talked ideas or solutions, but it doesn't. It talks about the sexualization of girls, it talks about marketing manipulation, and it talks about pink overload, but I didn't think it came together coherently into a real message about anything other than, 'let's panic!'
I also felt that the author, in her encouragement to worry about the things she's documenting (I hesitate to give her enough authority to call them 'trends'), overlooked a couple crucial ideas. First, participation in popular culture is OPTIONAL, and part of my job as a parent is to protect my children from popular culture (or deny it to them, depending on how you look at it) as I prepare them for it. Second, it is OKAY TO SAY NO to your child. It's more than okay. It's important. Third, it is NEVER too early to talk to your child about anything. Including modesty. Including sex. When a child asks why, it is always possible to find or simplify an explanation for them, a true explanation, and your honesty will help them trust you.
It's not often that I read books and feel better about my parenting, but this one sure gave me a boost. This book is meant to be sensational, and not to inspire real thought in people. (Think of any network news program. What's the latest thing we should panic about tonight? Same tone.) Do not recommend this to anyone, for anything.
I was really disappointed, in part because I've noticed a tendency in my daughter to play out roles that involve sitting and waiting for rescue, and have been trying to find ways to motivate her to think for herself, act for herself and choose for herself, and not to choose to be dependent on others for her happiness. I was hoping that this book addressed this issue, discussed it, maybe talked ideas or solutions, but it doesn't. It talks about the sexualization of girls, it talks about marketing manipulation, and it talks about pink overload, but I didn't think it came together coherently into a real message about anything other than, 'let's panic!'
I also felt that the author, in her encouragement to worry about the things she's documenting (I hesitate to give her enough authority to call them 'trends'), overlooked a couple crucial ideas. First, participation in popular culture is OPTIONAL, and part of my job as a parent is to protect my children from popular culture (or deny it to them, depending on how you look at it) as I prepare them for it. Second, it is OKAY TO SAY NO to your child. It's more than okay. It's important. Third, it is NEVER too early to talk to your child about anything. Including modesty. Including sex. When a child asks why, it is always possible to find or simplify an explanation for them, a true explanation, and your honesty will help them trust you.
It's not often that I read books and feel better about my parenting, but this one sure gave me a boost. This book is meant to be sensational, and not to inspire real thought in people. (Think of any network news program. What's the latest thing we should panic about tonight? Same tone.) Do not recommend this to anyone, for anything.
January 2, 2012
The book deals with the issue that is very dear to me, as mother of a 5 year old, who has begun to embrace pink and princesses.
The book was a fast and enjoyable read, but lacking in conclusion, which make it sounds more like a compilation of blog posts than an actual book. I thoroughly enjoyed the parts where she went researching, getting professional insights and putting in historical context to the issue, but find it bewildering when she started to relate them to her own daughter and parenting, which was often confused and bordering neurotic (the drama when her husband bought the daughter a Barbie!). It would probably make for a better book if Orenstein, along with her concern for the issue, actually have a stance over the matter, strong arguments to support it, and stick to it when it comes to her parenting. (But perhaps, doing so would make the book too preachy and alienating to potential readers who don't share the argument.)
I'm also disappointed that there is no real constructive effort going into her battle against the pink-ification of little girls. Instead of worrying too much about pink toys and frilly dresses, why not use the energy to get the kid out of shops and do something physically active? Instead of weighing what doll to buy her daughter, why not introduce her to nature or art? The strongest message that I got from this book and author (which I'm sure was not the intention), was that if you define your sense of identity (and by extension your children's) by what you buy and consume, yes, you should worry about the aggressive marketing of pinks and princesses to your daughter(s). There's so much more to parenting than buying them the right toys and clothes.
I used to dress my little girl in blacks and bright reds when she was a baby. By the time she was 4, she started to have her own opinion on what she wears, and yes, pink became her favourite colour. It was a worrying trend, but I kept buying her clothes of assorted colours, I don't always buy her the latest hype in toys, but she plays with all sorts; Barbies, princess outfits, kitchen set, pirate outfits, tractors, and trains (she simply loves toys with moving parts). I'm trying to let her enjoy the toys as they essentially are, not as girls' toys or boys' toys. I also encourage her to be physically active; get involved in all kinds of sports, ballet, or just to romp around wildly at the playground (sometimes, she would climb to the top of the jungle gym, while clutching a pink purse in one hand - obviously it can be done). I'm passionate about steering her away from gender stereotyping, but not at the expense of her not realising how fun it is actually to be a girl. And fun is not defined by what we can get at the mall.
The book was a fast and enjoyable read, but lacking in conclusion, which make it sounds more like a compilation of blog posts than an actual book. I thoroughly enjoyed the parts where she went researching, getting professional insights and putting in historical context to the issue, but find it bewildering when she started to relate them to her own daughter and parenting, which was often confused and bordering neurotic (the drama when her husband bought the daughter a Barbie!). It would probably make for a better book if Orenstein, along with her concern for the issue, actually have a stance over the matter, strong arguments to support it, and stick to it when it comes to her parenting. (But perhaps, doing so would make the book too preachy and alienating to potential readers who don't share the argument.)
I'm also disappointed that there is no real constructive effort going into her battle against the pink-ification of little girls. Instead of worrying too much about pink toys and frilly dresses, why not use the energy to get the kid out of shops and do something physically active? Instead of weighing what doll to buy her daughter, why not introduce her to nature or art? The strongest message that I got from this book and author (which I'm sure was not the intention), was that if you define your sense of identity (and by extension your children's) by what you buy and consume, yes, you should worry about the aggressive marketing of pinks and princesses to your daughter(s). There's so much more to parenting than buying them the right toys and clothes.
I used to dress my little girl in blacks and bright reds when she was a baby. By the time she was 4, she started to have her own opinion on what she wears, and yes, pink became her favourite colour. It was a worrying trend, but I kept buying her clothes of assorted colours, I don't always buy her the latest hype in toys, but she plays with all sorts; Barbies, princess outfits, kitchen set, pirate outfits, tractors, and trains (she simply loves toys with moving parts). I'm trying to let her enjoy the toys as they essentially are, not as girls' toys or boys' toys. I also encourage her to be physically active; get involved in all kinds of sports, ballet, or just to romp around wildly at the playground (sometimes, she would climb to the top of the jungle gym, while clutching a pink purse in one hand - obviously it can be done). I'm passionate about steering her away from gender stereotyping, but not at the expense of her not realising how fun it is actually to be a girl. And fun is not defined by what we can get at the mall.
October 15, 2017
When I picked this book up from the campus library, my librarian-friend commented, "This looks interesting," she handed the book to me. "But I'm glad things are better now." This book, published in 2011, already seems like old information to this person. Granted, she's a few years younger than myself, and she has a very young daughter, so maybe she does have a better sense as to whether or not things are "better" or not.
I'm not as confident.
True, everything Orenstein wrote in this book in 2011 is old information to me. Even in 2011, this would have been information I was already familiar with, aware of, railing against in some way or another. I have no children, nor will I ever, and I am just fine with that decision. But that doesn't mean I'm completely blind to the marketing that goes on out there - I was a child once too, I remember the commercials (in my day it was My Little Pony, Care Bears, even Strawberry Shortcake). I remember the pink aisle in the toy store that was dedicated to Barbie dolls and clothes, and I remember the feeling of joy as I searched that aisle out if I had the opportunity to pick out something. I remember an equal level of joy, however, as I joined my brothers in the aisle filled with Transformers (Bumblebee continues to be my jam) or searched out the Thundercats on my own. I still have my few Barbies, I still have my Strawberry Shortcakes, and I still have my Thundercats.
I was not encouraged to search out the "pink". It was there, but my parents didn't raise us to believe that boys had blue and girls had pink, and there could not be any cross-over in between. My brothers and I played with Little People (back when they were actual choking hazards, not the weird size that they are now) on our summer vacations.
I still, however, liked the color pink. I don't know where that came from. I would ask for "pink cake" for my birthdays. I'm pretty sure I asked for a pink cake the year that I made out like a Bandit with Smurf paraphernalia (blue, all blue). It made me happy, and as I grew older (like middle school age), that desire for pink went a bit more drastic when I began to search out "hot pink", that crazy color that was super popular in the late 1980s and very early 1990s. I was all over that. Of course, at that age, I was seeking acceptance by my peers, though I don't remember anyone who was as into the neon colors like I was (with the exception of my very first boyfriend, but even he didn't play around with hot pink). I had a hot pink telephone in my bedroom, for crying out loud. Right beneath my New Kids on the Block posters.
Then I went on a pink-hate for a while, having decided, like Orenstein, that pink is problematic for girls, that the toys featuring so much pink create unrealistic expectations for younger consumers, and that is bad-bad-bad. I railed against the color. I was mature, and mature people do not go for pink.
Somewhere along the way I stopped caring either way. I know some whose daughters like the color pink, and others whose daughters do not. What I do like, for the most part, is that it seems most of these people are allowing their daughters to decide for themselves how they feel about the color. As it should be. And as it should be with toys and whatever else. Let the kids decide what they want to play with or surround themselves with.
Of course I say this as a childless adult, where it seems so simple. Except it's not simple, and I totally get that. I'm aware that there's this ongoing issue of "girl" toys v. "boy" toys, and it's just not like it was when my brothers and I built things with Legos (primary colored blocks; not the pink/pastel ones that seem to be geared only towards girls today).
For the most part I agree with Orenstein, I think we're on the same side of the issues. But I did disagree with some of her comments, her approaches to how she wanted to raise her daughter.
What I read there is that Orenstein's concern is simply about the color of the toys available. What I don't hear her saying (in that paragraph, though it comes up to a certain degree elsewhere in the book) is that we should be talking about how the toys geared towards girls are all about homemaking. Why such pressure on getting a toy oven? Why an iron? Such practical items, yes, but why are we encouraging our children that those are "girl toys"? As if to say that when you grow up, this is your lot in life. Better enjoy it now at a young age when it's still "fun".
But, sure, if you want to worry about whether or not Easy-Bake ovens and the Suzy Homemaker lines are or are not monochromatic, go ahead. I'm saying that the color is not the fundamental problem.
Later in the same chapter she does express frustration that the toy options to girls are limited, which isn't exactly inconsistent with what she said on page 35, but it comes across as a bit meandering, a somewhat loose text.
She offers up a lot of evidence for issues we continue to deal with when it comes to marketing. From Disney Princesses to Hannah Montana to cyberbullying, there really are a lot of issues out there, and it all can lead to body image problems, hyper- and oversexualization, lack of self-worth, etc. etc. Orenstein doesn't offer up many solutions, however. Because, honestly, she's just another mom who wants to raise her daughter with as little damage as possible - a worthy enough goal, and I commend her for giving it thought as so many continue to see nothing wrong with encouraging their young daughters to get into the Toddlers & Tiaras world.
She talks about Miley Cyrus, Lindsay Lohan, Britney Spears, Selena Gomez, and other pop celebrities that she had to contend with in the writing of this book. I remember being in Chicago in like 2007 or something, walking down the sidewalk, and then hearing screaming. We looked around and behind us was a herd of young girls and their parents running towards us and screaming and we didn't know what the fuck was going on until we turned the corner and saw a Hannah Montana sign. It was a concert, a Miley/Hannah concert and this group of young girls and their parents were losing their goddamn minds. It was terrifying. But that's not that unusual. Look at old footage of young women at a Beatles concert or Elvis - those girls were losing their collective minds too.
The interesting part of the pop celebrity discussion is the virgin/whore cycle that Orenstein pointed out. We like Hannah Montana. We're on board when Miley Cyrus says she's a good girl. But three months later when she's posing semi-nude in a magazine, shit hits the fan.
We're okay with pop princesses until they're old enough to express their sexuality, and then suddenly they're bad role models. (Of course there's a lot to be said about the manner in which many of them express their sexuality, and we shouldn't overlook the fact that a lot of that is dictated by some creepy weirdo collecting the money in the background - many pop celebrities lead very orchestrated lives, even if it appears they are fighting against it.)
It's complicated, we all know this. We want our daughters to feel good about themselves, but it's difficult to accomplish that when Bratz dolls outsell Barbie, making us wish Barbie had a stronger presence like when we were kids.
Orenstein complains a lot about Disney Princesses, and while the discussion of the marketing behind the Princesses is really fascinating and somewhat new to me since I was beyond that age once the concept of Disney Princesses really took off, yet she agrees that it's not that one thing that is a problem:
Yes. Exactly.
The closest solution she provides, and one I agree with wholeheartedly: "Even McDonald's has retooled its menu. If we can force change in the food industry, why not do the same for toys and media?" (p184)
It's only been six years since Orenstein published this book, but already I do feel there are some differences. We are seeing a bit of a renaissance when it comes to the way princesses are viewed. While Diana Prince (aka Wonder Woman) is especially popular right now, she's been around, god, for a really long time. Orenstein realizes at the end of the chapter in which she was talking about Wonder Woman that, well, she was a princess, wasn't she.
So let's talk more about that! That was a final thought in the chapter, and we never returned to it. Not only is Wonder Woman bad-ass, but who else was an amazing princess that we grew up with? Um, how about Leia Organa of Alderaan? Would Star Wars really have been what it was if Princess Leia hadn't kicked supreme ass? (Of course we won't talk about how she was portrayed in the beginning of Return of the Jedi, but she still came back and kicked more ass once she was able to put on actual clothes.) That she eventually became General should be pointed out and discussed with our younger generations.
People are also pointing out that our beloved Princess Buttercup became an Amazon warrior in the new Wonder Woman movie. YES. Let's see more of that, let's talk more about that, let's create more of these sorts of characters that our children can aspire to be. I liked to pretend like I was Wonder Woman when I ran around in our backyard. Hell, maybe sometimes I still do.
I guess the point is there is nothing wrong with being a princess. But the road doesn't have to end there. And I am glad to see representations such as those I just mentioned. My hope is there will be more of them to come. Or we can skip the princess steps and just go straight into being the bad-asses that we are when we're not catering to some sort of marketing mumbo jumbo about what we should or should not want.
Orenstein appears to have open discussions with her daughter when they're watching movies and listening to music. That's what needs to happen with both girls and boys - if we raise children to understand what they're consuming, maybe it will be less confusing to them as they grow up. Just maybe. I think it's worth a try, anyway.
And for those who grow up thinking princesses are stupid because they don't do anything, don't forget to point out those fantastic princesses we grew up with who most certainly did something.
Maybe that's what my librarian-friend meant, that at least now there are choices. I hope she's raising her daughter to realize that.
I'm not as confident.
True, everything Orenstein wrote in this book in 2011 is old information to me. Even in 2011, this would have been information I was already familiar with, aware of, railing against in some way or another. I have no children, nor will I ever, and I am just fine with that decision. But that doesn't mean I'm completely blind to the marketing that goes on out there - I was a child once too, I remember the commercials (in my day it was My Little Pony, Care Bears, even Strawberry Shortcake). I remember the pink aisle in the toy store that was dedicated to Barbie dolls and clothes, and I remember the feeling of joy as I searched that aisle out if I had the opportunity to pick out something. I remember an equal level of joy, however, as I joined my brothers in the aisle filled with Transformers (Bumblebee continues to be my jam) or searched out the Thundercats on my own. I still have my few Barbies, I still have my Strawberry Shortcakes, and I still have my Thundercats.
I was not encouraged to search out the "pink". It was there, but my parents didn't raise us to believe that boys had blue and girls had pink, and there could not be any cross-over in between. My brothers and I played with Little People (back when they were actual choking hazards, not the weird size that they are now) on our summer vacations.
I still, however, liked the color pink. I don't know where that came from. I would ask for "pink cake" for my birthdays. I'm pretty sure I asked for a pink cake the year that I made out like a Bandit with Smurf paraphernalia (blue, all blue). It made me happy, and as I grew older (like middle school age), that desire for pink went a bit more drastic when I began to search out "hot pink", that crazy color that was super popular in the late 1980s and very early 1990s. I was all over that. Of course, at that age, I was seeking acceptance by my peers, though I don't remember anyone who was as into the neon colors like I was (with the exception of my very first boyfriend, but even he didn't play around with hot pink). I had a hot pink telephone in my bedroom, for crying out loud. Right beneath my New Kids on the Block posters.
Then I went on a pink-hate for a while, having decided, like Orenstein, that pink is problematic for girls, that the toys featuring so much pink create unrealistic expectations for younger consumers, and that is bad-bad-bad. I railed against the color. I was mature, and mature people do not go for pink.
Somewhere along the way I stopped caring either way. I know some whose daughters like the color pink, and others whose daughters do not. What I do like, for the most part, is that it seems most of these people are allowing their daughters to decide for themselves how they feel about the color. As it should be. And as it should be with toys and whatever else. Let the kids decide what they want to play with or surround themselves with.
Of course I say this as a childless adult, where it seems so simple. Except it's not simple, and I totally get that. I'm aware that there's this ongoing issue of "girl" toys v. "boy" toys, and it's just not like it was when my brothers and I built things with Legos (primary colored blocks; not the pink/pastel ones that seem to be geared only towards girls today).
For the most part I agree with Orenstein, I think we're on the same side of the issues. But I did disagree with some of her comments, her approaches to how she wanted to raise her daughter.
The original Easy-Bake oven, which I begged for (and, dang it, never got), was turquoise and the Suzy Homemaker line - I had the iron, which really worked! - was teal. I can't imagine you would see that today. What happened? Why has girlhood become so monochromatic?
(p35)
What I read there is that Orenstein's concern is simply about the color of the toys available. What I don't hear her saying (in that paragraph, though it comes up to a certain degree elsewhere in the book) is that we should be talking about how the toys geared towards girls are all about homemaking. Why such pressure on getting a toy oven? Why an iron? Such practical items, yes, but why are we encouraging our children that those are "girl toys"? As if to say that when you grow up, this is your lot in life. Better enjoy it now at a young age when it's still "fun".
But, sure, if you want to worry about whether or not Easy-Bake ovens and the Suzy Homemaker lines are or are not monochromatic, go ahead. I'm saying that the color is not the fundamental problem.
Later in the same chapter she does express frustration that the toy options to girls are limited, which isn't exactly inconsistent with what she said on page 35, but it comes across as a bit meandering, a somewhat loose text.
She offers up a lot of evidence for issues we continue to deal with when it comes to marketing. From Disney Princesses to Hannah Montana to cyberbullying, there really are a lot of issues out there, and it all can lead to body image problems, hyper- and oversexualization, lack of self-worth, etc. etc. Orenstein doesn't offer up many solutions, however. Because, honestly, she's just another mom who wants to raise her daughter with as little damage as possible - a worthy enough goal, and I commend her for giving it thought as so many continue to see nothing wrong with encouraging their young daughters to get into the Toddlers & Tiaras world.
She talks about Miley Cyrus, Lindsay Lohan, Britney Spears, Selena Gomez, and other pop celebrities that she had to contend with in the writing of this book. I remember being in Chicago in like 2007 or something, walking down the sidewalk, and then hearing screaming. We looked around and behind us was a herd of young girls and their parents running towards us and screaming and we didn't know what the fuck was going on until we turned the corner and saw a Hannah Montana sign. It was a concert, a Miley/Hannah concert and this group of young girls and their parents were losing their goddamn minds. It was terrifying. But that's not that unusual. Look at old footage of young women at a Beatles concert or Elvis - those girls were losing their collective minds too.
The interesting part of the pop celebrity discussion is the virgin/whore cycle that Orenstein pointed out. We like Hannah Montana. We're on board when Miley Cyrus says she's a good girl. But three months later when she's posing semi-nude in a magazine, shit hits the fan.
The virgin/whore cycle of the pop princesses, like so much of the girlie-girl culture, pushes in the opposite direction, encouraging girls to view self-objectification as a feminine rite of passage.
(p130)
We're okay with pop princesses until they're old enough to express their sexuality, and then suddenly they're bad role models. (Of course there's a lot to be said about the manner in which many of them express their sexuality, and we shouldn't overlook the fact that a lot of that is dictated by some creepy weirdo collecting the money in the background - many pop celebrities lead very orchestrated lives, even if it appears they are fighting against it.)
It's complicated, we all know this. We want our daughters to feel good about themselves, but it's difficult to accomplish that when Bratz dolls outsell Barbie, making us wish Barbie had a stronger presence like when we were kids.
Orenstein complains a lot about Disney Princesses, and while the discussion of the marketing behind the Princesses is really fascinating and somewhat new to me since I was beyond that age once the concept of Disney Princesses really took off, yet she agrees that it's not that one thing that is a problem:
It would be disingenuous to claim that Disney Princess diapers or Ty Girls or Hannah Montana or Twilight or the latest Shakira video or a Facebook account is inhreently harmful. Each is, however, a cog in the round-the-clock, all-pervasive media machine aimed ta our daughters - and at us - from the womb to the tomb; one that, again and again, presents femininity as performance, sexuality as performance, identity as performance, and each of those traits as available for a price.
(p182-3)
Yes. Exactly.
The closest solution she provides, and one I agree with wholeheartedly: "Even McDonald's has retooled its menu. If we can force change in the food industry, why not do the same for toys and media?" (p184)
It's only been six years since Orenstein published this book, but already I do feel there are some differences. We are seeing a bit of a renaissance when it comes to the way princesses are viewed. While Diana Prince (aka Wonder Woman) is especially popular right now, she's been around, god, for a really long time. Orenstein realizes at the end of the chapter in which she was talking about Wonder Woman that, well, she was a princess, wasn't she.
So let's talk more about that! That was a final thought in the chapter, and we never returned to it. Not only is Wonder Woman bad-ass, but who else was an amazing princess that we grew up with? Um, how about Leia Organa of Alderaan? Would Star Wars really have been what it was if Princess Leia hadn't kicked supreme ass? (Of course we won't talk about how she was portrayed in the beginning of Return of the Jedi, but she still came back and kicked more ass once she was able to put on actual clothes.) That she eventually became General should be pointed out and discussed with our younger generations.
People are also pointing out that our beloved Princess Buttercup became an Amazon warrior in the new Wonder Woman movie. YES. Let's see more of that, let's talk more about that, let's create more of these sorts of characters that our children can aspire to be. I liked to pretend like I was Wonder Woman when I ran around in our backyard. Hell, maybe sometimes I still do.
I guess the point is there is nothing wrong with being a princess. But the road doesn't have to end there. And I am glad to see representations such as those I just mentioned. My hope is there will be more of them to come. Or we can skip the princess steps and just go straight into being the bad-asses that we are when we're not catering to some sort of marketing mumbo jumbo about what we should or should not want.
Orenstein appears to have open discussions with her daughter when they're watching movies and listening to music. That's what needs to happen with both girls and boys - if we raise children to understand what they're consuming, maybe it will be less confusing to them as they grow up. Just maybe. I think it's worth a try, anyway.
And for those who grow up thinking princesses are stupid because they don't do anything, don't forget to point out those fantastic princesses we grew up with who most certainly did something.
Maybe that's what my librarian-friend meant, that at least now there are choices. I hope she's raising her daughter to realize that.
February 24, 2014
So here's the story. A bunch of people decided that it would be a good idea if they could sell some stuff to some girls, of which group Peggy Orenstein's daughter is a member. These people wanted to sell some really slutty toys and clothes and television programs and beauty pageants. Rather than take the hardline parent approach and say :"No slutty stuff for you", Peggy decided to write a book about it. That way she could warn the world about the slutification of womankind while filling her bank account with the proceeds from book sales.
I wasn't particularly comfortable reading this. Aside from the livid pink cover and the fact that certain females of my acquaintance were asking why I was reading a women's book, I couldn't shake the feeling that I was a spy in the enemy camp. Not that Orenstein actually comes out and blames men for anything, but certain observations cause one to wonder...like when she makes the pointed observation on page 39 that the voice of Miss Piggy is provided by a man. Like it's a bad thing. Like maybe only a woman should be Miss Piggy. Seriously, I have never heard any man complain that Bart Simpson's voice is provided by a woman.
Another disturbing passage was one in which Orenstein was shopping with her daughter for a doll and she hoped that her daughter would select a doll that was not white or blonde. I thought about that one for a while; I know that her daughter is of mixed race, but really, put the incident in perspective. Imagine what people would think of me if I took my son shopping for an action figure and hoped that he wouldn't select the black one because we happened to be white. A minor point, perhaps, but one to consider. I don't think it is intentional racism, but it's a point to watch when writing for the masses.
I think that Ms Orenstein has written a good book here. It certainly engaged my interest and she is clearly a talented writer but I do believe that the book is targeted at women. If anything I am more mystified by women than ever before. I don't understand why they see a problem with the psychological and physical differences between the sexes. Ms Orenstein has conducted extensive research, identified a few problems, raised a few questions but provided no answers.
I wasn't particularly comfortable reading this. Aside from the livid pink cover and the fact that certain females of my acquaintance were asking why I was reading a women's book, I couldn't shake the feeling that I was a spy in the enemy camp. Not that Orenstein actually comes out and blames men for anything, but certain observations cause one to wonder...like when she makes the pointed observation on page 39 that the voice of Miss Piggy is provided by a man. Like it's a bad thing. Like maybe only a woman should be Miss Piggy. Seriously, I have never heard any man complain that Bart Simpson's voice is provided by a woman.
Another disturbing passage was one in which Orenstein was shopping with her daughter for a doll and she hoped that her daughter would select a doll that was not white or blonde. I thought about that one for a while; I know that her daughter is of mixed race, but really, put the incident in perspective. Imagine what people would think of me if I took my son shopping for an action figure and hoped that he wouldn't select the black one because we happened to be white. A minor point, perhaps, but one to consider. I don't think it is intentional racism, but it's a point to watch when writing for the masses.
I think that Ms Orenstein has written a good book here. It certainly engaged my interest and she is clearly a talented writer but I do believe that the book is targeted at women. If anything I am more mystified by women than ever before. I don't understand why they see a problem with the psychological and physical differences between the sexes. Ms Orenstein has conducted extensive research, identified a few problems, raised a few questions but provided no answers.
September 28, 2011
2.5 stars. There was interesting information here, and I definitely agree that today's society focuses far too much on outward appearance.
And I am all for a decrease in materialism and consumerism and riding on the trends of the media.
However. I never really saw the link between playing princess and becoming a slutty Britney Spears.
As long as parents make an effort to teach that inward beauty is far more important than outward beauty, I see no harm in letting my daughter dress-up in princess dresses and wear a tiara.
I felt like the author kept wavering the point of her book between
A) A princess is not a good role model and
B) WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH ETHNIC PRINCESSES!
Isn't that contradictory?
Did I miss the point of the book?
I agree with Ashley Miller that best part was where the author compared the New Year's resolutions of today's girls with those from 100 years ago.
Girl A: "Resolved: To think before speaking. To work seriously. To be self-restrained in conversations and actions. Not to let my thoughts wander. To interest myself in others."
Girl B: "I will try to make myself better in any way I possibly can...I will lose weight, get new lenses, already got new haircut, good makeup, new clothes and accessories."
Can you guess which girl is from today? Yep. The self-centered one.
Did the feminist movement take away all the internal qualities of women (e.g. kind, tender, nurturing, industrious) and leave behind only an outward shell?
And I am all for a decrease in materialism and consumerism and riding on the trends of the media.
However. I never really saw the link between playing princess and becoming a slutty Britney Spears.
As long as parents make an effort to teach that inward beauty is far more important than outward beauty, I see no harm in letting my daughter dress-up in princess dresses and wear a tiara.
I felt like the author kept wavering the point of her book between
A) A princess is not a good role model and
B) WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH ETHNIC PRINCESSES!
Isn't that contradictory?
Did I miss the point of the book?
I agree with Ashley Miller that best part was where the author compared the New Year's resolutions of today's girls with those from 100 years ago.
Girl A: "Resolved: To think before speaking. To work seriously. To be self-restrained in conversations and actions. Not to let my thoughts wander. To interest myself in others."
Girl B: "I will try to make myself better in any way I possibly can...I will lose weight, get new lenses, already got new haircut, good makeup, new clothes and accessories."
Can you guess which girl is from today? Yep. The self-centered one.
Did the feminist movement take away all the internal qualities of women (e.g. kind, tender, nurturing, industrious) and leave behind only an outward shell?
January 24, 2011
"How did you get through the princess stage?" That is in the top 5 questions I get asked by other moms, especially those I truly believe are turning to me as a feminist to guide them through the forest of pink. So it intrigued me to learn that even the famed Peggy Orenstein struggles with the princess phase.
Orenstein's book School Girls was pivotal in my growth as a young feminist. It detailed the trials of being a middle school girl with such genius that if she was a mom at my daughter's school, I would have totally turned to her for guidance.
So why is the princess phase such a challenge for moms today? If it's a phase, can't we just sit back and wait it out? In her new book, Cinderella Ate My Daughter: Dispatches from the Front Lines of the New Girlie-Girl Culture, Orenstein reveals why this phase isn't as innocent as the glitter makes it appear.
Orenstein talks to the moms of her daughter's classmates to find that they also have rules about princesses in their homes. Only costumes - for imagination/play sake. No movies though. Yet the girls still know the plots and have their favorite princesses. She attends toys trade shows to talk to the toys peddlers themselves. "Pink is what girls want," is the official line. But how much choice do girls have in the first place if everyone buys into the "If it's not pink, it won't sell" line? Orenstein even gives us a quick historical view of how baby dolls became a girl toy -- let's say that the feminist movement seems older than the baby doll conspiracy.
As parents we are told to expect our girls to want to play with just girls and our boys to play with just boys after the age of about two or three. "It's natural," they say, "Watch." Orenstein talks with an expert who explains why allowing our kids to self-select into single-sex groups is not something to encourage. If we allow our kids to "naturally" only know how to play with the same sex at 4 and all the way up, how the hell do we expect them to communicate with each other as teens who are dating? Working together? Leading Student Council? We shouldn't. And the princess thing helps to divide our kids into BOY and GIRL buckets. Which is why experts say if you see the same sex play divide happen, force interaction.
Orenstein points out our hypocrisies, such as gasping in horror when we see young girls dancing to suggestive music, but not thinking twice when we take them to children's movies that include those songs. Are "not too skanky" dolls really worthy to be in our daughters' rooms? Do we really need to buy hundred dollar dolls so our girls can play with a doll that looks like a girl and not a college student?
At one point of the book, Orenstein reflects on the challenge of buying a gift for another girl. Not just a friend's daughter, but a princess-loving-pinkified girl. Oh, I know that feeling. You want to buy her something she'll love, but loathe the idea of buying something you would never buy your own daughter. And your feminist credentials are TOTALLY on the line too. If you select a bad toy, it will reflect on the whole community. This by the way, would make an excellent game show.
Orenstein doesn't get it all right. She misses the mark on 1990s feminism or "girlie feminism" by fusing the reclamation of feminine trades like sewing and knitting to women who feel that being sexy is empowering. They emerged at the same time, but are from two different camps.
Early in the book Orenstein talks about the evolution of girlhood and how 2/3 of women today classified themselves as being tomboys as children. Yet only 1/3 of girls today would classify themselves as tomboys. This confuses her. Are women today over emphasizing their tomboy status? Rather I contend that tomboy is a label from the past. My daughter asked me what a tomboy was about a year ago. "Tomboy was a name people use to use for girls who were sporty, liked to climb trees because not a lot of girls did those things. Now we don't need to use it because so many girls are athletic." So if you asked my daughter, she might say she's not a tomboy. I even got her a shirt that said, "I'm not a tomboy, I'm an athlete." It's not a bad word to use, but I think it's a relic of a time long gone, pre-Mia, pre-Williams sisters.
And that's where we are. In a world where girls can look up to Mia Hamm and the Williams sisters. They can go out every morning and practice their sport. Yet the media will still take time to evaluate who looked the best during the opening rounds of a Grand Slam tournament or ponder who is pregnant. That's the world our girls are growing up in and we not only need to figure our own way through this forest of pink princesses, but we need to guide them through it too.
Not only are our girls faced with being girly and sporty, but Orenstein takes a moment to link the academic pressure our children, girls and boys, are under. The pressure to be super academic early on can and often does alienate them from the joy of learning. Friends know that I fear this for my own smartypants daughter.
Orenstein offers few solid solutions, but what she does is walk herself through the challenges and asks us to come with her. She does answer the "How did we get here?" question in respect to dolls, clothes, sexiness and pink. There is also a MUST READ section on children's websites/social networks. While they may be safe from dirty old men, they are NOT safe from the pressure of commercialization. I know some of you poo-poo my anti-commercialization rants, but please, please, if you read this book, you will know why the intense commercialization our children are living in is robbing them of the childhood we experienced.
I hope it's not a surprise that I'm highly recommending this book. Seriously go get this book, read it and let's get back to raising our daughters instead of the marketers doing it.
Orenstein's book School Girls was pivotal in my growth as a young feminist. It detailed the trials of being a middle school girl with such genius that if she was a mom at my daughter's school, I would have totally turned to her for guidance.
So why is the princess phase such a challenge for moms today? If it's a phase, can't we just sit back and wait it out? In her new book, Cinderella Ate My Daughter: Dispatches from the Front Lines of the New Girlie-Girl Culture, Orenstein reveals why this phase isn't as innocent as the glitter makes it appear.
Orenstein talks to the moms of her daughter's classmates to find that they also have rules about princesses in their homes. Only costumes - for imagination/play sake. No movies though. Yet the girls still know the plots and have their favorite princesses. She attends toys trade shows to talk to the toys peddlers themselves. "Pink is what girls want," is the official line. But how much choice do girls have in the first place if everyone buys into the "If it's not pink, it won't sell" line? Orenstein even gives us a quick historical view of how baby dolls became a girl toy -- let's say that the feminist movement seems older than the baby doll conspiracy.
As parents we are told to expect our girls to want to play with just girls and our boys to play with just boys after the age of about two or three. "It's natural," they say, "Watch." Orenstein talks with an expert who explains why allowing our kids to self-select into single-sex groups is not something to encourage. If we allow our kids to "naturally" only know how to play with the same sex at 4 and all the way up, how the hell do we expect them to communicate with each other as teens who are dating? Working together? Leading Student Council? We shouldn't. And the princess thing helps to divide our kids into BOY and GIRL buckets. Which is why experts say if you see the same sex play divide happen, force interaction.
Orenstein points out our hypocrisies, such as gasping in horror when we see young girls dancing to suggestive music, but not thinking twice when we take them to children's movies that include those songs. Are "not too skanky" dolls really worthy to be in our daughters' rooms? Do we really need to buy hundred dollar dolls so our girls can play with a doll that looks like a girl and not a college student?
At one point of the book, Orenstein reflects on the challenge of buying a gift for another girl. Not just a friend's daughter, but a princess-loving-pinkified girl. Oh, I know that feeling. You want to buy her something she'll love, but loathe the idea of buying something you would never buy your own daughter. And your feminist credentials are TOTALLY on the line too. If you select a bad toy, it will reflect on the whole community. This by the way, would make an excellent game show.
Orenstein doesn't get it all right. She misses the mark on 1990s feminism or "girlie feminism" by fusing the reclamation of feminine trades like sewing and knitting to women who feel that being sexy is empowering. They emerged at the same time, but are from two different camps.
Early in the book Orenstein talks about the evolution of girlhood and how 2/3 of women today classified themselves as being tomboys as children. Yet only 1/3 of girls today would classify themselves as tomboys. This confuses her. Are women today over emphasizing their tomboy status? Rather I contend that tomboy is a label from the past. My daughter asked me what a tomboy was about a year ago. "Tomboy was a name people use to use for girls who were sporty, liked to climb trees because not a lot of girls did those things. Now we don't need to use it because so many girls are athletic." So if you asked my daughter, she might say she's not a tomboy. I even got her a shirt that said, "I'm not a tomboy, I'm an athlete." It's not a bad word to use, but I think it's a relic of a time long gone, pre-Mia, pre-Williams sisters.
And that's where we are. In a world where girls can look up to Mia Hamm and the Williams sisters. They can go out every morning and practice their sport. Yet the media will still take time to evaluate who looked the best during the opening rounds of a Grand Slam tournament or ponder who is pregnant. That's the world our girls are growing up in and we not only need to figure our own way through this forest of pink princesses, but we need to guide them through it too.
Not only are our girls faced with being girly and sporty, but Orenstein takes a moment to link the academic pressure our children, girls and boys, are under. The pressure to be super academic early on can and often does alienate them from the joy of learning. Friends know that I fear this for my own smartypants daughter.
Orenstein offers few solid solutions, but what she does is walk herself through the challenges and asks us to come with her. She does answer the "How did we get here?" question in respect to dolls, clothes, sexiness and pink. There is also a MUST READ section on children's websites/social networks. While they may be safe from dirty old men, they are NOT safe from the pressure of commercialization. I know some of you poo-poo my anti-commercialization rants, but please, please, if you read this book, you will know why the intense commercialization our children are living in is robbing them of the childhood we experienced.
I hope it's not a surprise that I'm highly recommending this book. Seriously go get this book, read it and let's get back to raising our daughters instead of the marketers doing it.
April 10, 2011
When I finally managed to get hold of a copy of this very contemporary piece of non-fiction (this hardback book has very clearly been written for the U.S. market hence it is not available through my local library services) I was immediatly aghast at the hideously-pink and glittery dustjacket. I felt uncomfortable handling the book, which has led me to think a lot about why, and of course to carefully consider what 'girlie-girl' culture meant and means to me personally.
This book was voted as the very first group-read at "The Feminist Readers' Network".
Despite the fact that this author/journalist is quite clearly focusing on her american audience, and therefore she makes cultural references which go right over my head and hence excludes readers outside of the continent, I found that nevertheless I was continually anticipating that Peggy Orenstein would tell me something I didn't already know, which led me to wonder about how 'new' her argument really is.
There is nothing profound here.
From a feminist perspective, the sexualisation of infants and young girls, genderised play patterns, childhood consumerism, the marketing of pink, have long been a huge concern of mine and exploring the contemporary context (including the influence of electronic media and social networking sites) with Orenstein upon which she has based her research really didn't produce any great shock or fresh outrage in me. I am wondering if the author felt shocked at her own findings...
From my perspective, this quote has particular pertinence:
In my opinion, I feel that the author should have taken heed of her own words prior to writing this book, prior to making the decision to become a parent. Peggy Orenstein very clearly communicates to her readers that she did not think through her own values and limits early enough. She presents herself as lacking confidence and clarity in her own style of parenting.
I would like to state that I found the lack of footnotes in the actual text a real bother! Orenstein's writing, her research is poorly referenced - in the sense that one has to guess when to refer to the notes section at the back of the book (between pages 195 and 222). Grrr...
I also felt that there was very little flow and coherence to her argument. Orenstein seemed unable to flesh out each viewpoint she presented to the reader; mostly it felt as though she could not even make sense of her own position, and alongside the sense I got that when writing this book she did not even pretend to be objective, I very quickly came to realise that there is very little authority in her voice. I also disliked the way she would flimsily return to these little viewpoints later on in the book, in a separate chapter, and repeat them as if to add weight to another little, not-very-new-or-profound point she was making. Grrr...
Overall, a rather disappointing read.
This book was voted as the very first group-read at "The Feminist Readers' Network".
Despite the fact that this author/journalist is quite clearly focusing on her american audience, and therefore she makes cultural references which go right over my head and hence excludes readers outside of the continent, I found that nevertheless I was continually anticipating that Peggy Orenstein would tell me something I didn't already know, which led me to wonder about how 'new' her argument really is.
There is nothing profound here.
From a feminist perspective, the sexualisation of infants and young girls, genderised play patterns, childhood consumerism, the marketing of pink, have long been a huge concern of mine and exploring the contemporary context (including the influence of electronic media and social networking sites) with Orenstein upon which she has based her research really didn't produce any great shock or fresh outrage in me. I am wondering if the author felt shocked at her own findings...
From my perspective, this quote has particular pertinence:
"We have only so much control over the images and products to which they [children] are exposed, and even that will diminish over time. It is strategic, then - absolutely vital - to think through our own values and limits early, to consider what we approve or disapprove of and why."
In my opinion, I feel that the author should have taken heed of her own words prior to writing this book, prior to making the decision to become a parent. Peggy Orenstein very clearly communicates to her readers that she did not think through her own values and limits early enough. She presents herself as lacking confidence and clarity in her own style of parenting.
I would like to state that I found the lack of footnotes in the actual text a real bother! Orenstein's writing, her research is poorly referenced - in the sense that one has to guess when to refer to the notes section at the back of the book (between pages 195 and 222). Grrr...
I also felt that there was very little flow and coherence to her argument. Orenstein seemed unable to flesh out each viewpoint she presented to the reader; mostly it felt as though she could not even make sense of her own position, and alongside the sense I got that when writing this book she did not even pretend to be objective, I very quickly came to realise that there is very little authority in her voice. I also disliked the way she would flimsily return to these little viewpoints later on in the book, in a separate chapter, and repeat them as if to add weight to another little, not-very-new-or-profound point she was making. Grrr...
Overall, a rather disappointing read.
June 25, 2012
I don't have children, and I don't teach children. I picked up this book in part due to an interview on NPR and after seeing prostitots in the malls. I should also note I had Barbies when I was kid. They got trampled by thier horses a lot. But at least, during my childhood, Barbie could be a vet. I also don't understand why girls wear pants with the word 'juciy' written across the butt.
Peggy Orenstein's book is a good look at the effects and causes of girlie-girl culture. If you are a Twilight fan, you might not be too disappointed with her analysis of the books/movies, and she takes a deeper look at the whole baby beauty queen pheomna than the back leaves you to think. If you are a parent, it help you try to negoiate all that how to raise a girl who stands on her own two feet; if you're not a parent, you'll be interested in the cultural analysis.
For instance, Orenstein points out that girls seem to be given two opitions - be a girl-girl (for the boys) or be one of the boys. The problem with the first is obvious, the problem with the second is that it tends to make the "tomboy" view other girls as inferior.
Now Goodreads member, I ask you, how many books, in particular in the current YA and paranormal/urban fantasy market with female protagonist do just that?
Yep.
Or the Disney Princesses. Orenstein is right. They never look at each other. It's spooky.
What makes the book, besides Orenstein's wonderful writing where she points out her own problems in the culture, is the the fact that Orenstein admits that she doesn't have all the answers. She just wants the reader to think.
Four stars, though, because the Allies banned the Grimms after WW II due to propganda purposes (look at Nazi illustration for LIttle Red Riding Hood), and really how can you not mention Robin McKinley or Terry Pratchett or Jane Yolen when listing positive things for girls to read?
Peggy Orenstein's book is a good look at the effects and causes of girlie-girl culture. If you are a Twilight fan, you might not be too disappointed with her analysis of the books/movies, and she takes a deeper look at the whole baby beauty queen pheomna than the back leaves you to think. If you are a parent, it help you try to negoiate all that how to raise a girl who stands on her own two feet; if you're not a parent, you'll be interested in the cultural analysis.
For instance, Orenstein points out that girls seem to be given two opitions - be a girl-girl (for the boys) or be one of the boys. The problem with the first is obvious, the problem with the second is that it tends to make the "tomboy" view other girls as inferior.
Now Goodreads member, I ask you, how many books, in particular in the current YA and paranormal/urban fantasy market with female protagonist do just that?
Yep.
Or the Disney Princesses. Orenstein is right. They never look at each other. It's spooky.
What makes the book, besides Orenstein's wonderful writing where she points out her own problems in the culture, is the the fact that Orenstein admits that she doesn't have all the answers. She just wants the reader to think.
Four stars, though, because the Allies banned the Grimms after WW II due to propganda purposes (look at Nazi illustration for LIttle Red Riding Hood), and really how can you not mention Robin McKinley or Terry Pratchett or Jane Yolen when listing positive things for girls to read?
February 17, 2016
I don't know if I can write a review that will do justice to this book, but I at least want to say a few things about my reading experience/thoughts/opinions.
First off, I thought the writing was intelligent and engaging. Orenstein includes a quite hefty Citations/Bibliography at the end of the book that provides references for the sources she mentions in the text (there are no notations in-text, which make for easy reading).
I felt that Orenstein research her topic thoroughly, and I liked how she didn't automatically make the conclusion to burn everything pink/princess. Sometimes, I had trouble following from one chapter to the next, one thought to the next, but there was a lot of information and I read this pretty quickly so part of that could be just me.
Orenstein's final conclusion seem to be something that would be obvious: it's the parents' job to pick and choose what is best for the daughter, to remind her that she is more than just her outward beauty, that she is a person whose thoughts and feelings aren't defined by outward appearances. I do appreciate such a conclusion, but it seems rather underwhelming.
Also, Orenstein hints at people "fighting back" against the heavy marketing to children (similarly to the fight against obesity), but there are no big conclusions or "steps" you can do for this.
However, I really enjoyed reading this, even though I do not have a daughter of my own. I think parents with daughters would definitely appreciate at least a look at this to get them aware of what is in store for their Little Princess.
First off, I thought the writing was intelligent and engaging. Orenstein includes a quite hefty Citations/Bibliography at the end of the book that provides references for the sources she mentions in the text (there are no notations in-text, which make for easy reading).
I felt that Orenstein research her topic thoroughly, and I liked how she didn't automatically make the conclusion to burn everything pink/princess. Sometimes, I had trouble following from one chapter to the next, one thought to the next, but there was a lot of information and I read this pretty quickly so part of that could be just me.
Orenstein's final conclusion seem to be something that would be obvious: it's the parents' job to pick and choose what is best for the daughter, to remind her that she is more than just her outward beauty, that she is a person whose thoughts and feelings aren't defined by outward appearances. I do appreciate such a conclusion, but it seems rather underwhelming.
Also, Orenstein hints at people "fighting back" against the heavy marketing to children (similarly to the fight against obesity), but there are no big conclusions or "steps" you can do for this.
However, I really enjoyed reading this, even though I do not have a daughter of my own. I think parents with daughters would definitely appreciate at least a look at this to get them aware of what is in store for their Little Princess.
March 2, 2012
When I was growing up, I had a hard time remembering that McDonald's and Disney were not the same company. I still have a hard time remembering that. Both aggressively market products few can spend their entire lives resisting because their advertising budgets are unrivaled and because they have mastered the recipes for broad appeal. Both are aggressively exported to other countries, representing all that is optimistic, colorful, unsubtle and unhealthy about America. Both are harmless in small doses but dangerous when they attain the monopoly on a child’s life they’ve been aiming for.
Like Eric Schlosser in Fast Food Nation, Peggy Orenstein examines a corner of our culture that does not take constructive criticism well. It is because of the size of the pink princess deluge driven by Disney and their ilk combined with their defensive refusal to admit any fault or responsibility - “It’s what every girl wants!” - that her work is such a welcome respite.
Sometimes her feminist alternatives to the pink princesses sound soft compared to the roar of her reprimands. Focusing only on the (admittedly daunting) price of the dolls, she misses a major opportunity to understand the brilliance of the American Girl history series. The Princess and The Frog exemplifies feminism in all the ways Beauty and the Beast failed to, yet Orenstein’s review of the film was as weak as its box office performance. And what about those she ignores altogether? Lilo and her sister Nani of Lilo and Stitch are two of the best female characters in cinema history, let alone the Disney canon. Princess Fiona of Shrek is bad-ass and the third film in the series parodies princesses better than any other fairy tale trope. Meanwhile, Pippi Longstocking is worshipped in Northern Europe by boys and girls alike. Indeed, wouldn’t a more pro-active welcoming of boys into the princess culture dilute a lot of its sexism? She does recognize the potential for that revolution, but only briefly.
But for any of her failures to perfectly repair the girly-girl culture, Orenstein offers several impeccable articulations of the problems. Princess stories are problematic when they impose rote scripts and stifle rather than encourage creativity. Sexualization is problematic when the goal is not to receive pleasure but to please a partner in exchange for being approved of as pretty. Social networking online is problematic when “the self becomes a brand to be marketed to others rather than developed from within.” And the Muppets are problematic when, for all their creativity, they still can't come up with more than two female Muppets. I think I’m going to end up quoting her a lot.
The New York Times praised her book while emphasizing that it is little cause for alarm seeing as most girls outgrow the pink princess phase. As a former Snow White wannabe, I know this can be true, but I had kick-ass feminists in my life to help me along the way; I hesitate to agree with the Times’s assertion that “most” do. Orenstein provides depressing figures on the rise of female eating disorders, the recent drop in computer science degrees, the stagnant problem of teen girls equating “feeling good” with “looking hot.” And even while I tend to surround myself with self-confident, intellectual women who define themselves as much more than their prettiness and their purchases, I continue to encounter those fitting Orenstein’s descriptions. They are the ones whose daddies only gave them credit cards, never engaging them in intellectual discussions, and who now avoid debate like an ugly outfit. They are the ones who know that appearing pretty means non-threatening, so self-confidence is tossed out for coyness, self-assertion is abandoned for pouting, and wit is relinquished for fawning giggles. They are the ones who torture themselves over their looks (“I’m so ugly! I’m so fat!”) in order to land a man and then keep him from cheating, spending more of their day unhappy than any other people I know. They are the ones who have not left the princess phase because they do not know how to.
Like the families that rely on fast-food several times a week, too many parents lazily give in to the pink marketer’s schemes and the peer pressure foisted upon their daughters in play groups. There is nothing wrong with the occasional indulgence, just as there is nothing inherently wrong with the color pink. But just as they have demanded healthier Happy Meals and more farmers’ markets, parents should demand more varied toys, activities and role models for their daughters, refusing any monochrome model of girlhood.
Like Eric Schlosser in Fast Food Nation, Peggy Orenstein examines a corner of our culture that does not take constructive criticism well. It is because of the size of the pink princess deluge driven by Disney and their ilk combined with their defensive refusal to admit any fault or responsibility - “It’s what every girl wants!” - that her work is such a welcome respite.
Sometimes her feminist alternatives to the pink princesses sound soft compared to the roar of her reprimands. Focusing only on the (admittedly daunting) price of the dolls, she misses a major opportunity to understand the brilliance of the American Girl history series. The Princess and The Frog exemplifies feminism in all the ways Beauty and the Beast failed to, yet Orenstein’s review of the film was as weak as its box office performance. And what about those she ignores altogether? Lilo and her sister Nani of Lilo and Stitch are two of the best female characters in cinema history, let alone the Disney canon. Princess Fiona of Shrek is bad-ass and the third film in the series parodies princesses better than any other fairy tale trope. Meanwhile, Pippi Longstocking is worshipped in Northern Europe by boys and girls alike. Indeed, wouldn’t a more pro-active welcoming of boys into the princess culture dilute a lot of its sexism? She does recognize the potential for that revolution, but only briefly.
But for any of her failures to perfectly repair the girly-girl culture, Orenstein offers several impeccable articulations of the problems. Princess stories are problematic when they impose rote scripts and stifle rather than encourage creativity. Sexualization is problematic when the goal is not to receive pleasure but to please a partner in exchange for being approved of as pretty. Social networking online is problematic when “the self becomes a brand to be marketed to others rather than developed from within.” And the Muppets are problematic when, for all their creativity, they still can't come up with more than two female Muppets. I think I’m going to end up quoting her a lot.
The New York Times praised her book while emphasizing that it is little cause for alarm seeing as most girls outgrow the pink princess phase. As a former Snow White wannabe, I know this can be true, but I had kick-ass feminists in my life to help me along the way; I hesitate to agree with the Times’s assertion that “most” do. Orenstein provides depressing figures on the rise of female eating disorders, the recent drop in computer science degrees, the stagnant problem of teen girls equating “feeling good” with “looking hot.” And even while I tend to surround myself with self-confident, intellectual women who define themselves as much more than their prettiness and their purchases, I continue to encounter those fitting Orenstein’s descriptions. They are the ones whose daddies only gave them credit cards, never engaging them in intellectual discussions, and who now avoid debate like an ugly outfit. They are the ones who know that appearing pretty means non-threatening, so self-confidence is tossed out for coyness, self-assertion is abandoned for pouting, and wit is relinquished for fawning giggles. They are the ones who torture themselves over their looks (“I’m so ugly! I’m so fat!”) in order to land a man and then keep him from cheating, spending more of their day unhappy than any other people I know. They are the ones who have not left the princess phase because they do not know how to.
Like the families that rely on fast-food several times a week, too many parents lazily give in to the pink marketer’s schemes and the peer pressure foisted upon their daughters in play groups. There is nothing wrong with the occasional indulgence, just as there is nothing inherently wrong with the color pink. But just as they have demanded healthier Happy Meals and more farmers’ markets, parents should demand more varied toys, activities and role models for their daughters, refusing any monochrome model of girlhood.
March 9, 2011
an interesting look at how highly gendered girlie-girl culture is being marketed to increasingly younger girls. but in orenstein's quest to determine whether or not all things pink & princess-y hurt little girls, or whether there is a biological component to their attraction to pink & dolls & princesses, she takes on some pretty obvious targets. she criticizes bratz dolls for being too sexualized. she attends a high glitz little kid beauty pageant. she comments on how expensive american girl toys are. i mean, there's not a lot of groundbreaking insight here. i guess it might be new if you suddenly find yourself the mother of a little girl & you heretofore have not paid any attention at all to children's toys, movies, or clothing, but for those of us who have...
she doesn't really come to any conclusions. not even on the question of whether or not girls are biologically driven to dress up like princesses while boys play with toy swords. she seems downright reluctant to come to a conclusion, actually. my take on it is that babies start being gendered before they are even born. studies have shown that pregnant women who know they are giving birth to boys worry less about how much weight they are gaining than pregnant women who know they are having girls. they say things like, "he's robust & healthy--he likes to eat," reinforcing the idea that boys can eat all they want but girls have daintier appetites. once babies are born, girls are praised more for looking cute & boys are praised more for seeming alert (people think it's a sign of burgeoning intelligence). people play more roughly with boy children than with girl children. take three steps into a babies r' us & prepare to have your head explode from all the explicitly gendered baby accoutrements available for sale. red, green, or dark blue crib bumpers for boys, pink & pastels for girls. as if a gender-neutral crib bumper is going to affect the child's development or sense of identity. when kids are having all kinds of gendered assumptions & expectations dumped on them before they are even born, how can we have any idea what their natural preferences are? i remember i was out with a friend's baby one day & some stranger was all, "oh, she is beautiful!" my friend said, "he's a boy," & the person said, "& a big, handsome one too!" one of the moms in orenstein's book fretted over what she was doing to her kids by always praising her daughter for looking pretty & praising her son for being smart. she wanted to underscore the fact that her daughter was pretty to build up her self-esteem for when she gets older & starts thinking she's not...but isn't there a possibility that placing an emphasis on a little girl's looks from a really young age, even if what you're saying is positive, sets the stage for her to become more insecure about her appearance as she gets older? because she starts to internalize the idea that her appearance & her self-worth are one & the same?
i can't say for sure whether or not children are more gendered now than they were when i was little. i was really isolated from a gendering culture. my parents didn't actually let me wear pink & i didn't ask to wear it. my sister, my brother, & i all had long hair (as did my father). i remember playing with dolls & i remember playing with trucks, but mostly i just wanted to read books.
i don't think there's any denying, though, that marketing is skewing younger & younger. there are more advertisements during children's television programming, & there are more consumerist tie-ins with kids' media. i watched "sesame street" when i was a kid, but i don't remember there being any sesame street toys or anything. there probably were...but not on the have-to-have-it level of elmo dolls, which were introduced when i was a teenager. it definitely scares the crap out of me to think about how to have a child & try to shield her from wanting all these consumerist doodads...especially when all her friends have them & they are status symbols on the playground. but while orenstein's book was interesting & entertaining, it didn't really do much in the way of making sense of how to parent through these landmines, which is what i was seeking.
she doesn't really come to any conclusions. not even on the question of whether or not girls are biologically driven to dress up like princesses while boys play with toy swords. she seems downright reluctant to come to a conclusion, actually. my take on it is that babies start being gendered before they are even born. studies have shown that pregnant women who know they are giving birth to boys worry less about how much weight they are gaining than pregnant women who know they are having girls. they say things like, "he's robust & healthy--he likes to eat," reinforcing the idea that boys can eat all they want but girls have daintier appetites. once babies are born, girls are praised more for looking cute & boys are praised more for seeming alert (people think it's a sign of burgeoning intelligence). people play more roughly with boy children than with girl children. take three steps into a babies r' us & prepare to have your head explode from all the explicitly gendered baby accoutrements available for sale. red, green, or dark blue crib bumpers for boys, pink & pastels for girls. as if a gender-neutral crib bumper is going to affect the child's development or sense of identity. when kids are having all kinds of gendered assumptions & expectations dumped on them before they are even born, how can we have any idea what their natural preferences are? i remember i was out with a friend's baby one day & some stranger was all, "oh, she is beautiful!" my friend said, "he's a boy," & the person said, "& a big, handsome one too!" one of the moms in orenstein's book fretted over what she was doing to her kids by always praising her daughter for looking pretty & praising her son for being smart. she wanted to underscore the fact that her daughter was pretty to build up her self-esteem for when she gets older & starts thinking she's not...but isn't there a possibility that placing an emphasis on a little girl's looks from a really young age, even if what you're saying is positive, sets the stage for her to become more insecure about her appearance as she gets older? because she starts to internalize the idea that her appearance & her self-worth are one & the same?
i can't say for sure whether or not children are more gendered now than they were when i was little. i was really isolated from a gendering culture. my parents didn't actually let me wear pink & i didn't ask to wear it. my sister, my brother, & i all had long hair (as did my father). i remember playing with dolls & i remember playing with trucks, but mostly i just wanted to read books.
i don't think there's any denying, though, that marketing is skewing younger & younger. there are more advertisements during children's television programming, & there are more consumerist tie-ins with kids' media. i watched "sesame street" when i was a kid, but i don't remember there being any sesame street toys or anything. there probably were...but not on the have-to-have-it level of elmo dolls, which were introduced when i was a teenager. it definitely scares the crap out of me to think about how to have a child & try to shield her from wanting all these consumerist doodads...especially when all her friends have them & they are status symbols on the playground. but while orenstein's book was interesting & entertaining, it didn't really do much in the way of making sense of how to parent through these landmines, which is what i was seeking.
July 23, 2014
Well written, but...
I have reservations. I enjoyed reading the book enormously. Orenstein is funny, and she can turn a phrase. The downside is, her funniest phrases all have to do with girls looking slutty. If she isn't the one who coined "prosti-tot" she could have been.
I'm the mother of two girls, so I share her concerns about how popular culture in the US might be affecting girls. A valid consideration for every parent, not just those who make their living reporting on girls. On the other hand, much of what she's reporting is the kind of trend story I particularly despise, about wealthy, privileged white people. It isn't invalid, it's just not germane to me.
So I loved reading about, for example, the origin of the American Girls dolls and books, and how mothers like to buy all the furniture and stuff (the furniture and the wee pets really speak to me) and how the girls like the clothes and dolls. [The novels are formulaic and not very appealing to girls or parents, despite the appeal of the idea, but the non-fiction American Girls books, with advice or mini-mysteries or whatever have been hugely appealing to the kids.]
The moral panic over sexting, etc. leaves me cold. There are always people judging the behavior of girls and women and complaining about how it signals the coming of the end times. What there isn't enough of in this book and in the world at large, is discussion of the actual risks girls are targeted for, and what collective action is needed for wild-scale problems. I don't think there is any inherent harm in a teenager sending a topless photo to another teen. There is clear and obvious danger in a teenager forwarding that photo to all and sundry without permission.
In sum, I'm not interested in advice about how best to raise my daughters. Like every adult human, I'm sure I know best how to raise children. What I don't know is how best to save all children from sexual coercion, or violent relationships, or bullying, or eating disorders, or depression. Already, in the two years since this was published, we've seen successful grassroots campaigns to eliminate toy segregation by gender. We've also seen the pearl clutching about Miley Cyrus rise to new heights. Both are anecdotes, but one is information I can act on.
Library copy.
I have reservations. I enjoyed reading the book enormously. Orenstein is funny, and she can turn a phrase. The downside is, her funniest phrases all have to do with girls looking slutty. If she isn't the one who coined "prosti-tot" she could have been.
I'm the mother of two girls, so I share her concerns about how popular culture in the US might be affecting girls. A valid consideration for every parent, not just those who make their living reporting on girls. On the other hand, much of what she's reporting is the kind of trend story I particularly despise, about wealthy, privileged white people. It isn't invalid, it's just not germane to me.
So I loved reading about, for example, the origin of the American Girls dolls and books, and how mothers like to buy all the furniture and stuff (the furniture and the wee pets really speak to me) and how the girls like the clothes and dolls. [The novels are formulaic and not very appealing to girls or parents, despite the appeal of the idea, but the non-fiction American Girls books, with advice or mini-mysteries or whatever have been hugely appealing to the kids.]
The moral panic over sexting, etc. leaves me cold. There are always people judging the behavior of girls and women and complaining about how it signals the coming of the end times. What there isn't enough of in this book and in the world at large, is discussion of the actual risks girls are targeted for, and what collective action is needed for wild-scale problems. I don't think there is any inherent harm in a teenager sending a topless photo to another teen. There is clear and obvious danger in a teenager forwarding that photo to all and sundry without permission.
In sum, I'm not interested in advice about how best to raise my daughters. Like every adult human, I'm sure I know best how to raise children. What I don't know is how best to save all children from sexual coercion, or violent relationships, or bullying, or eating disorders, or depression. Already, in the two years since this was published, we've seen successful grassroots campaigns to eliminate toy segregation by gender. We've also seen the pearl clutching about Miley Cyrus rise to new heights. Both are anecdotes, but one is information I can act on.
Library copy.
October 13, 2017
I was surprised by how much this book interested me and how quickly I read it. While one obvious market for CINDERELLA will be the parents of young girls, it will also attract the attention of those interested in gender equality, sociology, and the rapid and profound ways childhood has changed over a few generations.
Looking at today's hyper-gendered world of play, women my age and older frequently identify their child selves as "tomboys," even when they really weren't. I grew up among gender-segregated toys, to be sure--the 1980s were the realm of Care Bears, Rainbow Brite, He-Man and Transformers--however, I don't remember ever feeling that I couldn't play with anything that wasn't garishly branded as "girls only," as most of the modern youngsters the author speaks to do. I was equally devoted to My Little Pony and dinosaurs. I cuddled stuffed animals and built mini-cities for matchbox cars. I hated baby dolls and loved studying bugs. I also played with plenty of non-gendered, 'all kids' toys like Little People, Playmobil and the pre-licensing bonanza Legos.
The little girls in CINDERELLA who demand a wardrobe of only frilly dresses seems nuts to me. I fought with my mom not to wear dresses because they interfered with running and climbing on the playground.
The author is a progressive, feminist mom to a young girl, and even she feels worn down by all of the pink-mania and admits to occasionally giving in to her kid's whining for silly princess stuff. However, she also imparts valuable lessons and discussions with her kid, and it seems that little by little, her charge is becoming a smarter and more literate consumer. One thing I do wish was that the author would bring some of her open-mindedness to all aspects of her daughter's future. The kid's age isn't even in double digits and she's already talking about her "giving me grandkids" and what kind of mom she'll be. She's progressive enough to allow that her youngster may grow up to want a same-sex partner, but can't imagine her as childfree?
Looking at today's hyper-gendered world of play, women my age and older frequently identify their child selves as "tomboys," even when they really weren't. I grew up among gender-segregated toys, to be sure--the 1980s were the realm of Care Bears, Rainbow Brite, He-Man and Transformers--however, I don't remember ever feeling that I couldn't play with anything that wasn't garishly branded as "girls only," as most of the modern youngsters the author speaks to do. I was equally devoted to My Little Pony and dinosaurs. I cuddled stuffed animals and built mini-cities for matchbox cars. I hated baby dolls and loved studying bugs. I also played with plenty of non-gendered, 'all kids' toys like Little People, Playmobil and the pre-licensing bonanza Legos.
The little girls in CINDERELLA who demand a wardrobe of only frilly dresses seems nuts to me. I fought with my mom not to wear dresses because they interfered with running and climbing on the playground.
The author is a progressive, feminist mom to a young girl, and even she feels worn down by all of the pink-mania and admits to occasionally giving in to her kid's whining for silly princess stuff. However, she also imparts valuable lessons and discussions with her kid, and it seems that little by little, her charge is becoming a smarter and more literate consumer. One thing I do wish was that the author would bring some of her open-mindedness to all aspects of her daughter's future. The kid's age isn't even in double digits and she's already talking about her "giving me grandkids" and what kind of mom she'll be. She's progressive enough to allow that her youngster may grow up to want a same-sex partner, but can't imagine her as childfree?
January 9, 2012
Much like the Disney Princesses , there wasn't a whole lot of depth to this book. It felt like a paper I might have written early on in college-- not heavily enough researched and with far too much jumping to conclusions. Orenstein herself doesn't really know where she stands, and her constant back and forth is not only annoying, it weakens her argument. Princess culture is destroying our children and families and we must take a stand... or is it not? Not being absolute is one thing, but making such assertions and backing off, over and over again, is another.
Cinderella has consumed my almost-three-year-old's life, and it definitely concerns me. How did she turn out so girly when I have a hard time doing my hair if it is longer than three inches? It bothers me when I hear her whispering to her dolls about finding their prince and living happily ever after. On the other hand, I think her preoccupation with "happily ever after" is based more on how she sees her own family, rather than the obscure Cinderella and the prince, especially given that she constantly refers to her father as The Prince. So, what I really believe is important is that we instill what we value in our children, and if a little bit of princess culture gets in the mix that is just fine, for me. I want my daughter to have her happily ever after someday, but I also want her to seek out education and a career and a life that will make her happy, not just a prince. As a parent, it is my responsibility to make sure that she understands that there is so much more to a fairy tale ending than finding one's partner in life, and I feel up to the task without destroying her love for all things pink.
Cinderella has consumed my almost-three-year-old's life, and it definitely concerns me. How did she turn out so girly when I have a hard time doing my hair if it is longer than three inches? It bothers me when I hear her whispering to her dolls about finding their prince and living happily ever after. On the other hand, I think her preoccupation with "happily ever after" is based more on how she sees her own family, rather than the obscure Cinderella and the prince, especially given that she constantly refers to her father as The Prince. So, what I really believe is important is that we instill what we value in our children, and if a little bit of princess culture gets in the mix that is just fine, for me. I want my daughter to have her happily ever after someday, but I also want her to seek out education and a career and a life that will make her happy, not just a prince. As a parent, it is my responsibility to make sure that she understands that there is so much more to a fairy tale ending than finding one's partner in life, and I feel up to the task without destroying her love for all things pink.
December 16, 2011
Read. This.
Orenstein won me over whole-heartedly in this book when she ripped Bella Swan to shreds. Bella Swan is a twit to end all twits. Queen of the pathetic. Least of the lame. Why. Whywhywhywhywhywhywhy?
We have a lot to do, ladies. A long way to go. Still.
Orenstein won me over whole-heartedly in this book when she ripped Bella Swan to shreds. Bella Swan is a twit to end all twits. Queen of the pathetic. Least of the lame. Why. Whywhywhywhywhywhywhy?
We have a lot to do, ladies. A long way to go. Still.
July 16, 2011
I appreciated that the author was honest about the fact that she was wrestling with some of the very same issues I am as the mother of a 3-year-old girl -- how to navigate the girlie-girl culture while keeping her a little girl with a smart head on her shoulders, a confident heart, and equipped for the "real" world. The author bashed just about everything out there, but ended with good advice.
page 192:
"...our role is not to keep the world at bay but to prepare our daughters so they can thrive within it."
and later on the same page:
"The good news is, the choices we make for our toddlers can influence how they navigate it as teens. I'm not saying we can, or will, do everything "right," only that there is power -- magic -- in awareness. If we start with that, with wanting girls to see themselves from the inside out rather than outside in, we will go a long way toward helping them find their true happily-ever-afters."
page 192:
"...our role is not to keep the world at bay but to prepare our daughters so they can thrive within it."
and later on the same page:
"The good news is, the choices we make for our toddlers can influence how they navigate it as teens. I'm not saying we can, or will, do everything "right," only that there is power -- magic -- in awareness. If we start with that, with wanting girls to see themselves from the inside out rather than outside in, we will go a long way toward helping them find their true happily-ever-afters."
September 21, 2016
Trendy non fiction that doesn't offer anything new but makes hella money because parents worry about their children.
January 7, 2024
Yesterday I finished our Group read book and was really disapointed! I admit, I did have great expectations. In the 80s I was quite into the subject of gender specific socialisation and I thought, after so many years, there would not just be some better scientific studies availiable, I hoped for a change in every daay life as well!
Obviously I was wrong: Most of the studies on which Peggy Orenstein based her book, didn't reveal new results and everyday life has changed, but not to the better.
Though I believe USA life can't really be compared to Europe, I was extremly shocked about some things: The massive focus on materialism (I am what I buy), the objectification of girls, the importance of how girls look and the helplessness of parents face to face with these conditions. To me , it seems to be more extreme in usa than in Europe.
But: I'm not sure, if I believe the picture, the author painted!
Hopefully in her book she just described the worst, there must be other parents, other girls, other lifestyles...
What really irritated me on Peggy Orensteins style, was, that she started a subject and every time I got the impression: this women didn't do their homework, her research was bad... but then, 2 chapters later, she states more precisely, works the subject over and comes to different conclusions.
The book is quite "america-focussed", so that for me, everything seems to be from another planet, I didn't know the films, the stars, the TY programs... and definetely not the life style.
Sometimes my impression was, that the author was to much part of the world she tried to analyse, so that she actually was not able to be objective.
The book made me sad, because I'm sure, Peggy Orenstein is one of the more reflected mothers, more aware of what happens in the environment of her daughter, what impact education, role models, peer groups, TV, the internet...has on the development, but to me she seems to be pretty helpless, confused and insecure.
Obviously I was wrong: Most of the studies on which Peggy Orenstein based her book, didn't reveal new results and everyday life has changed, but not to the better.
Though I believe USA life can't really be compared to Europe, I was extremly shocked about some things: The massive focus on materialism (I am what I buy), the objectification of girls, the importance of how girls look and the helplessness of parents face to face with these conditions. To me , it seems to be more extreme in usa than in Europe.
But: I'm not sure, if I believe the picture, the author painted!
Hopefully in her book she just described the worst, there must be other parents, other girls, other lifestyles...
What really irritated me on Peggy Orensteins style, was, that she started a subject and every time I got the impression: this women didn't do their homework, her research was bad... but then, 2 chapters later, she states more precisely, works the subject over and comes to different conclusions.
The book is quite "america-focussed", so that for me, everything seems to be from another planet, I didn't know the films, the stars, the TY programs... and definetely not the life style.
Sometimes my impression was, that the author was to much part of the world she tried to analyse, so that she actually was not able to be objective.
The book made me sad, because I'm sure, Peggy Orenstein is one of the more reflected mothers, more aware of what happens in the environment of her daughter, what impact education, role models, peer groups, TV, the internet...has on the development, but to me she seems to be pretty helpless, confused and insecure.
May 8, 2011
I had unrealistically high expectations for this book. I agreed so whole-heartedly with its premise and have so much else in common with the author: we were born in the 60s, we worked in NYC and moved to California, we both had infertility issues and now she has a daughter and I have daughters.
I found it entertaining but nowhere near as educational as I had hoped. To be fair, I think all the learning bits came out months earlier in a media blitz. From reading the book I did learn plenty of interesting trivia (that pink was originally a baby boy color, being a watered down version of red which symbolized virility; and that paradoxically light blue was for baby girls as it was virginal like Mother Mary's robes ergo Disney's original princesses Sleeping Beauty and Cinderella dressed in it); and she does recommend specific titles of other books to go to for "sample conversations" which might be exactly what I'm looking for.
I guess this book is more for moms who live a media saturated life, or I guess I didn't realize how far from that I am. Reading it has reinforced my decision to shelter my girls from TV and movies; I think Peggy Orenstein would classify my parenting techniques as "Ahmish"; and correspondingly I was shocked that her Japanese-Jewish daughter wasn't reading yet at age 5. So I guess I have less in common with her than I thought, and maybe now I should go read that Tiger Mom book I didn't think I'd agree with after all...
I found it entertaining but nowhere near as educational as I had hoped. To be fair, I think all the learning bits came out months earlier in a media blitz. From reading the book I did learn plenty of interesting trivia (that pink was originally a baby boy color, being a watered down version of red which symbolized virility; and that paradoxically light blue was for baby girls as it was virginal like Mother Mary's robes ergo Disney's original princesses Sleeping Beauty and Cinderella dressed in it); and she does recommend specific titles of other books to go to for "sample conversations" which might be exactly what I'm looking for.
I guess this book is more for moms who live a media saturated life, or I guess I didn't realize how far from that I am. Reading it has reinforced my decision to shelter my girls from TV and movies; I think Peggy Orenstein would classify my parenting techniques as "Ahmish"; and correspondingly I was shocked that her Japanese-Jewish daughter wasn't reading yet at age 5. So I guess I have less in common with her than I thought, and maybe now I should go read that Tiger Mom book I didn't think I'd agree with after all...
Displaying 1 - 30 of 2,210 reviews