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".

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.