What's Wrong with Cinderella?

Chapter 2 of Peggy Orenstein's book, Cinderella Ate my Daughter, is titled 'What's Wrong with Cinderella?'

This chapter begins with an explanation of how Daisy, Orenstein's daughter, plays Snow White at a bat mitzvah, despite her mother purposefully never teaching her this story. Daisy was the center of attention as the older children raced around to find a suitable prince to awake her. It's no secret that Orenstein isn't swept up in Disney's magical rendition, as she describes Snow White as "passive, personality-free princess" who's sole virtue is tidiness and who's beauty is the only reason the Prince falls in love with her.

If you read my earlier post on Snow White, you can see I had some similar reactions to Orenstein. But as I don't have a daughter, I am in the 'not at all opposed to sharing the love of Disney, despite it's flaws' phase of my life. Does Disney always provide young girls with a strong role model for the modern world? No. And not that it's an excuse, but these films were made at a time when women were treated very differently. When a woman's sole purpose was to 'keep house'. Thankfully we have come a long way since then. But I don't feel like we should just shut out Disney. Instead it could be used as a learning curve and an empowering message for women. Not to ignore history, but to show that women didn't used to have the same rights and explain the differences between Disney's portrayal of women then and the 'modern' woman now. To show the signs of progression Disney is trying to make with more recent films Like Brave and Frozen, displaying strong heroins. To help girls appreciate the freedoms and opportunities they can take. With just some simple and gentle explanations, maybe this could help build strong, confident and aware girls...or maybe these are just the naive wishes of an 18-year-old 'modern' day woman, empowered by her college education and fresh faced against the cynical world. Who knows? In any case, I don't think just blocking out the stories from a child's life helps in any way - as Orenstein explains, the children only discover the stories themselves anyway, and I feel that without any real explanation to go with them, the children won't learn many good principles, besides those over beauty and dependence on men that many mother's fear!

I really do enjoy the fresh nuggets of information Orenstein provides in her book, and it shows that she thoroughly does her research. For instance, the story behind the Princess marketing franchise and the Princesses who don't make eye contact. I personally believe that the lovingly homemade princess dresses may have been far prettier than many of Disney's creations. This is one thing I'll fight them on! Don't get me wrong, I LOVE a good Princess dress. But that's just it...a GOOD one. Many od Disney's dresses I feel are just lazily designed. They print a tacky face on the front and tah-dah....or should I say ker-ching? Often, I find the prettiest Princess dresses are not Disney's brand, but other imitations. For instance, my niece, Penny, has a beautiful Elsa dress from Marks and Spencers (a British store) and it looks very similar to the dress Elsa wear's in the film. Yet the actual Disney version, has Elsa's face smacked across the chest....oh, how original.

Although I feel Orenstein has some very valid points in her book....I still can't help but feel desperately sorry for Daisy. It pains me to read comments such as "...have managed to infiltrate" as Orenstein describes the contraband that has worked it's way into her home despite her Disney ban. Despite it's faults, Disney brings such joy, and I don't believe it is as limiting as Orenstein suggests. I still believe it can encourage creative play and imagination and merely a balance is required. Penny creates her own games and invents her own stories and adventures - be them Disney or related or not. She is not trapped in a world of pink, princess, butterfly or fairy.
Now maybe I'm just being cynical and far too defensive over the princess culture....but I think we have to be careful looking at one study showing female college students different adverts and analyzing the effect on their career paths - that those who saw stereotypical ads involving acne cream and brownie mix have a lesser desire to pursue STEM than those who saw more neutral ads. I mean how definitive can studies like this be? And Orenstein even admits that, despite looking, she's "never seen a study proving that playing princess specifically damages girls' self-esteem or dampens their aspirations".

In this chapter, the idea of 'effortless perfection' is yet again touched upon (specifically pages 17-18) as girls must not only have it all, but be it all. "Cinderella and Supergirl. Aggressive and agreeable. Smart and stunning." So is this empowering or disheartening women? Are we able to have it all, or are we suffering at an unattainable and futile task chasing the illusion of perfection? Orenstein suggests that both are true.

One of my personal pet peeve's about this Chapter is how Orenstein persuades her friend's daughter to go to the expensive 'American Girl' store that she is "no longer into". But after bringing her there, she is swept up in the place and her mum end's up spending lots of money on new dolls and accessories! Orenstein wouldn't take her own daughter for this very reason, she didn't want to get her daughter hooked on an expensive fad....but it's ok to encourage her friend's daughter? Orenstein writes: "The truth is, I asked Sophie and Karen to join me on this outing because Daisy had not yet heard about American Girl, and I was not eager to hasten her discovery. It's not that I object to the dolls, exactly, and I surely  understand supporting a girl's interest in the line, but I would prefer to stave it off, if not avoid it entirely: there has to be a less expensive way to encourage old-fashioned values". But don't worry, now Karen just has to fork out $500 for Orenstein's experiment as she worries that her husband will think she's "lost [her] mind".