"Girl Power - No, Really" is Chapter 10 of Peggy Orenstein's book Cinderella Ate My Daughter.
This is the final chapter of the book. This chapter begins by looking at the latest Disney Princess film (as of the writing of this book), The Princess and The Frog. Orenstein discusses how race plays into this film, giving anecdotes from her African-American friend who says black girls need to aspire to be princesses to help remove them from the realm of the "worker bee". Orenstein highlights how Disney consulted experts like Oprah, and the NAACP, among other organizations, to avoid the brunt of the inevitable backlash at this film.
With the character of Lotte, Disney mock the idea of princess - showing how ridiculous it can be to live you life for the sole purpose of marrying a prince. This overly verbose, dramatic, princess-obsessed girl can serve as a warning against pursuing life as a princess. However, as evident in Orenstein's eanecdote, Lotte embodies 'princess' far more than Tiana. Daisy, Orensteins daughter, refers to Lotte when she speaks about the princess in this film, as Lotte embodies all the stereotypes already ingrained in the child's mind. Lotte wears nice dresses, and is at a point of privilege, with her immense wealth allowing her leisure. She throws balls, she wears a tiara, she is pink obsessed, and she dances with a prince. So you can hardly blame the child for thinking her a princess!
In this final chapter, Orenstein tries to bring together her book, explaining that she doesn't have all the answers to raising her child in a perfect way. That, while she strives to protect Daisy from "the marketers' land-grab" (183), she hasn't achieved the peerfect activity balance with walks outside and crafts. Orenstein reiterates alternatives she finds to the commercial princess line, including Papo figurines, and Hayao Miyazaki films (famous films like Laputa: The Castle in the Sky, and Kiki's Delivery Service).
Orenstein discusses the future of Disney, speculating about Brave and Tangled that were yet to be released. Orenstein accurately depicts that Tangled will not too closely resemble the old fairytale Rapunzel, and goes on to explain the story of Rapunzel. However, I disagree with a contrast Orenstein makes between Ariel and Rapunzel. In Rapunzel, a prince hears her singing, and falls immediately in love with her before laying eyes on her. Orenstein conjectures that "that makes Rapunzel the inverse of Ariel - she is loved sight unseen because of her voice" (191). While you could argue that Eric falls in love with the voiceless Ariel by spending time with her and focusing on her appearance and body-language - though her personality certainly shines through even without a voice (as she brushes her hair with a fork, takes the reins in the carriage, explores the town etc.), and Eric often smiles at her for this. It is undeniable that Eric first fell in love with Ariel's voice, when he heard her sing, but didn't see her face. So I don't think Orenstein added anything to her argument by include this point that Ariel is the "inverse" of Rapunzel in this respect, and, in fact, I think this inclusion only opens her argument up to criticism.
Orenstein uses Grimm's Rapunzel as a final teaching point for parents, that they should not smother or restrain their child too much.
"[O]ur role is not to keep the world at bay but to prepare our daughters so they can thrive within it" (192)
While I diagree with much of what Orenstein has to say, and cringe at her harsh criticisms of Disney, and her over-controlling nature with her daughter, I do like this final chapter of hers. It ties together nicely, speaking of the sort of mother she wishes to be - like the hazel branch - and that she uses as a cautionary tale - Mother Gothel. I agree with Orenstein's conclusions and her vague and poetic final paragraph, that succintly sums up everything you need to do to most successfully raise your daughter, without an inclination of what it means or how to do it...but yes, the sentiment is perfect. I suppose you are supposed to implement many techniques Orenstein describes in her previous chapters, but I disagree with most of these (like trying to fight off the princess culture etc.).
Decoding Disney
Showing posts with label Peggy Orenstein. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Peggy Orenstein. Show all posts
Friday, April 22, 2016
Sunday, January 24, 2016
Pinked!
Chapter 3, Pinked!
This Chapter explores the world of pink. How almost every toy marketed at girls is pink. Why? Because it's guaranteed to sell. What? Everything. Pink screwdrivers, pink scrabble sets, pink cowboy hats. Add some rhinestones and now you have a real top seller.
Of course, the Disney Princesses reign over pink.
Orenstein despairs over this lack of imagination. But the marketers have found a winning formula, and they're sticking with it.
This chapter delves into the interesting and frightening world of marketing; the sort of place where children under the age of one are described as "a more informed, influential and compelling audience than ever before". Yep, that's right, now even babies are fair game in the corporate world of marketing. So it seems from birth to death someone's going to be selling us something and it's hardly avoidable. Yay....commercialism. The market thrives by magnifying or creating gender differences and separating age groups. Now families must buy separate toys for their boys and girls and as a child progresses through the numerous age groups - for instance from pre-tween to tween to teenager - the latest clothes and games should be purchased. Ker-ching, ker-ching, ker-ching.
But still, many marketing and design specialists still struggle with gender. Sesame Street has just 5 female characters after it's 37 seasons. They've tried to introduce new female characters, but they're just not popular enough. They're judged as too scruffy or ditsy and undeniably held to a different standard than the male characters - because Grover is just so handsome!?
"If Cookie Monster was a female character, she'd be accused of being anorexic or bulimic", the show's executive producer, Carol-Lynn Parente quipped.
The most popular female character had been Zoe, who was specifically designed by the executives to be prettier. However she still didn't meet expectations. So Abby was painstakingly created and this new pink, pretty, sparkly and magical creation surely had the ker-ching factor.
Orenstein refutes claims that this pink and pretty phase empowers girls or sparks their imagination and hardly views it as "honoring the range of play patterns girls have"....perhaps 'range', or lack thereof, being the key term here.
"If you make a pink baseball bat, parents will buy one for their daughter, if they subsequently have a son, they'll have to buy a second bat in a different color".
Ok, well parents don't have to buy their daughters everything in pink! Yes, some pink is great....but there's nothing wrong with a good old fashioned wooden baseball bat.
Now onto Barbie...while that's a topic and a half! Again, love her or hate or, she's an icon that's for sure! I had barbie dolls, I also had non-brand dolls like barbies. I had dolls my mother had passed down to me, ragged old things with short, dark hair and a more normal figure. I watched the Barbie films...of which there are many, and always thoroughly enjoyed them.
Now Barbie has changed over the years. Her once secretive slanting eyes are now rounder, her lashes longer. The red pout transformed into a pink smile with pearly teeth. More accessories will be available now than ever imagined.
Barbie was introduced in 1959 and has almost 60 years of history under her many accessory belts. Undoubtedly, such a doll has played a major role in the lives of many women. So much so that X Gen mothers were eager to share Barbie's with their 3 year old daughters - as opposed to waiting for the intended 8-12 year old market. This has contributed to girls getting older younger. As 3 year olds play with Barbies, it's no longer cool for 8 year olds to do so also. This lead to many 6 to 12 year olds torturing their barbies.
This newer Barbie has more curved and softer face, with blonder and shinier hair. She looks friendlier, younger and prettier. Her breasts have shrunk slightly and her waist broadened. Quite a transformation from the original doll based on a German sex toy. Yet at the same time, astronaut, surgeon and president Barbie have been predominantly replaced with fairies, butterflies, ballerinas and princesses - all focused heavily on pink.
The only problem now, is that children around the age of 6 and over are now rejecting this friendlier and cuter Barbie for edgier dolls like Bratz as they seek to keep cool and grown up. They don't want such baby play.
The once innocence pink heralded during the princess culture, can now be said to lead to narcissism and materialism as pink takes over the shelves.
This Chapter explores the world of pink. How almost every toy marketed at girls is pink. Why? Because it's guaranteed to sell. What? Everything. Pink screwdrivers, pink scrabble sets, pink cowboy hats. Add some rhinestones and now you have a real top seller.
Of course, the Disney Princesses reign over pink.
Orenstein despairs over this lack of imagination. But the marketers have found a winning formula, and they're sticking with it.
This chapter delves into the interesting and frightening world of marketing; the sort of place where children under the age of one are described as "a more informed, influential and compelling audience than ever before". Yep, that's right, now even babies are fair game in the corporate world of marketing. So it seems from birth to death someone's going to be selling us something and it's hardly avoidable. Yay....commercialism. The market thrives by magnifying or creating gender differences and separating age groups. Now families must buy separate toys for their boys and girls and as a child progresses through the numerous age groups - for instance from pre-tween to tween to teenager - the latest clothes and games should be purchased. Ker-ching, ker-ching, ker-ching.
But still, many marketing and design specialists still struggle with gender. Sesame Street has just 5 female characters after it's 37 seasons. They've tried to introduce new female characters, but they're just not popular enough. They're judged as too scruffy or ditsy and undeniably held to a different standard than the male characters - because Grover is just so handsome!?
"If Cookie Monster was a female character, she'd be accused of being anorexic or bulimic", the show's executive producer, Carol-Lynn Parente quipped.
The most popular female character had been Zoe, who was specifically designed by the executives to be prettier. However she still didn't meet expectations. So Abby was painstakingly created and this new pink, pretty, sparkly and magical creation surely had the ker-ching factor.
Orenstein refutes claims that this pink and pretty phase empowers girls or sparks their imagination and hardly views it as "honoring the range of play patterns girls have"....perhaps 'range', or lack thereof, being the key term here.
"If you make a pink baseball bat, parents will buy one for their daughter, if they subsequently have a son, they'll have to buy a second bat in a different color".
Ok, well parents don't have to buy their daughters everything in pink! Yes, some pink is great....but there's nothing wrong with a good old fashioned wooden baseball bat.
Now onto Barbie...while that's a topic and a half! Again, love her or hate or, she's an icon that's for sure! I had barbie dolls, I also had non-brand dolls like barbies. I had dolls my mother had passed down to me, ragged old things with short, dark hair and a more normal figure. I watched the Barbie films...of which there are many, and always thoroughly enjoyed them.
Now Barbie has changed over the years. Her once secretive slanting eyes are now rounder, her lashes longer. The red pout transformed into a pink smile with pearly teeth. More accessories will be available now than ever imagined.Barbie was introduced in 1959 and has almost 60 years of history under her many accessory belts. Undoubtedly, such a doll has played a major role in the lives of many women. So much so that X Gen mothers were eager to share Barbie's with their 3 year old daughters - as opposed to waiting for the intended 8-12 year old market. This has contributed to girls getting older younger. As 3 year olds play with Barbies, it's no longer cool for 8 year olds to do so also. This lead to many 6 to 12 year olds torturing their barbies.
This newer Barbie has more curved and softer face, with blonder and shinier hair. She looks friendlier, younger and prettier. Her breasts have shrunk slightly and her waist broadened. Quite a transformation from the original doll based on a German sex toy. Yet at the same time, astronaut, surgeon and president Barbie have been predominantly replaced with fairies, butterflies, ballerinas and princesses - all focused heavily on pink.
The only problem now, is that children around the age of 6 and over are now rejecting this friendlier and cuter Barbie for edgier dolls like Bratz as they seek to keep cool and grown up. They don't want such baby play.
The once innocence pink heralded during the princess culture, can now be said to lead to narcissism and materialism as pink takes over the shelves.
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".
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".
Monday, January 18, 2016
Why I Hoped for a Boy
Why I Hoped for a Boy is the first Chapter of Peggy Orensteins's book, 'Cinderella Ate my Daughter'.
http://kuow.org/post/cinderella-ate-my-daughter-peggy-orenstein
I agree that Orenstein's book is excellently written, but from the start I really couldn't help but going on the defensive for this "girlie-girl culture" I felt was being attacked. I guess it really struck a nerve for me because I truly embraced this culture, but also had balanced activities and was not absorbed in it. And I feel I've grown into a happy, confident, ambitious young woman...oh and I'm studying mechanical engineering...so I feel the pink and princess never harmed me!
I truly admire Orenstein's honesty throughout, in the first paragraph she readily admits that she was "terrified at the thought of having a daughter". But how so, can she supposedly be an expert on this matter? Have written numerous articles and appeared on TV advising mothers, and yet tremble in her boots when it's her turn? This just didn't sit with me.
I read this book with mixed emotions, throughout switching from admiration to condemnation of the author, from full agreement to raging disagreement that left me shouting out loud or stomping round the house to explain to my mum what I'd just read!
When Orenstein writes about being committed to raising her daughter without a sense of limits, this resonates so strongly with me, yes, of course, that's how I want every young girl to feel. As if they can conquer the world, be the smartest in their class, be authoritative in the work place and not seen as 'bossy', have a profession and a family (if she wants!), be a CEO or an engineer if her heart so desires and not have to break down barriers that never should have existed for her in the first place. Yet when Orenstein writes that she "wanted her to be able to pick and choose the pieces of her identity freely" - then bans the disney culture Daisy so desperately desires it just plucks at that nerve again for me! Ok, Orenstein explains that Daisy's Disney Princess fad was brought on by peer pressure and marketing manipulations, but it still feels so cruel to me that this culture is so strongly forbidden from a little girl who seeks it so strongly - (quote Daisy begging and being denied). Orenstein often talks about it just being 'easier' for parents to give in to the evil and make their daughters happy for 10 minutes...but I still refute that it can be that evil! I am a firm believer that all you need is balance! Don't let princess control their lives, but don't shut it out! There are great, neutral children's books and films that can be found . Ok, they don't always have great female protagonists, which I admit is a problem, but Orenstein worked hard to find stories that do and if these are mixed in with the Princess mania, as well as others containing groups and male leads then a healthier balance can be found....ok yes easier said than do...and it's so easy for me to preach it when I'm not raising a daughter (this is exactly the first thing that made me doubt Orenstein)...but my mother did this for me, and I had a happy and fulfilled childhood without being denied my beautiful princess dresses. Feeling like a princess can give girls a real confidence and help them feel special, but I'm not so naive to deny that it can be dangerous in terms of body image, as can fashion magazines, social media and the like. However that's still not to say that every girl who twirls in a nice gown will be driven to anorexia, self-esteem issues or an unhealthy sex life. Surely no-one can blame ALL of that on Disney alone! In today's society you can hardly ignore the beautiful supermodels and actresses who are given such status, the magazines and cosmetics that are ever marketed and the constant obsession with how we all look. Females definitely have it worse...but rather than toning it down or us, it seems that in this modern era men are just starting to be scrutinized more. There are increasing numbers of male skin care products being advertised on TV, guyliner is a thing and male actors and models are adorned. So this pressure will extend to boys and adolescents in how they dress, how they gel their hair, what brands they wear. The sheer fact is that the world is being ever more commercialized in our consumer society. Gender stereotypes no doubt play into this, but my real point is, that as it can't be avoided, it's best to allow the Princess dresses at a young age, but also teach lessons about confidence in who you are, strength in character, kindness in not judging others on their appearance - because girls can be awful at that! And even look at real life modern day princesses. I'm from England, where we have a monarchy. Princess Catherine, the Duchess of Cambridge is, in my opinion, a very good role model, as was Princess Diana before her. Diana didn't take the easy route, she chose to be an advocate for AIDS at a time when much less was known about the disease and it was considered very dangerous to be around. She didn't choose glamorous charity work - and the Royal Family weren't happy with her - but she was a strong and independent princess who worked hard for what she believed in. She was known as the 'People's Princess' even after her divorce stripped her of her title. She was a pioneer, a leader, a strong and kind woman and she was adored for it.
On page 5, Orenstein touches on the topic that, despite girls' successes rising in all manners of life, from the classroom to the sports field, a large emphasis is still placed on their appearance. This resonates strongly with the Baldwin Scholars research into 'effortless perfection' and a thought-provoking discussion session hosted by UNC women's center staff I attended with a group of college women. This phrase describes the pressure college women particularly feel to be the best at everything all the time, ever striving for the height of perfection, while looking immaculate and not even breaking a sweat...not to mention remaining ever humble and not celebrating their impressive achievements because that's simply expected, so don't be a 'bragger'. This unrealistic and frankly unachievable cycle women have been caught up in may push us to new heights, but at what costs? We can never reach perfection as it ever evolves, as we set our ambitions higher and fight to keep up with them...of course still not breaking a sweat...because we're effortlessly perfect right? We're modern age women, showing we can do it all and have it all, no-one wants to fall behind. Except studies also show that Duke women graduate with lower confidence than they started with....hmmm, whatever could be the reason? Where do the "get to" and "have to" lines blur and make it "easier and harder" to be a woman in today's 'equal' and opportunistic society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)