Peggy Orenstein's Blog, page 11

For the 4th: Who are Your Heroines From US History?

People always ask me what girls could pretend if they weren't playing princess. That lack of imagination saddens me. How about some historic American girls or women (preferably with cool costumes)? Of course, we don't learn much about them ourselves, so why don't you tell readers: who ELSE could our girls pretend to be besides a princess (preferably with a cool costume…)?

How about Laura Ingalls?

Or Sacagawea?

Or Marian Anderson?

This is the age of the internet–it's easy to educate yourself and expand your daughter's imagination.

And what could be more American than fighting for independence from (Disney) royalty?

"The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world."

 

 

For July 4th: Instead of Cinderella, How About Dressing as Lady Liberty?

I love this article  about Princess culture and patriotism from the El Paso Times by Kate Feuille. It starts with the author mulling over her abandoned  application for the Daughters of the American Revolution after spying a t-shirt on a girl that said, ""Remember, remember always that all of us, and you and I especially, are descended from immigrants and revolutionists." Turns out the quote is from a speech Franklin Delano Roosevelt made before the DAR in 1938 (though the First Lady resigned her membership from the group a year later when it refused to allow  Marian Anderson, who is African American, to sing at Constitution Hall).

Feuille goes on to write that she was struck not only by the t-shirt but by how odd it was to see it at all:

I've grown so used to seeing girls in head-to-toe glitter that seeing one bearing a political message startled me. I have been fuming over the princess-ization of our daughters ever since the arrival of 14 princess-themed birthday invitations in one week.

And then:

In America, we don't have princesses, I lecture, when my daughter asked to decorate her bedroom in Disney. Your ancestors came to this country to escape the oppression of divine right, primogeniture, and other accidents of birth.

At Ella's kindergarten graduation the kids were asked what they wanted to be when they grew up. It befuddled me that the girl who replied "cat" got uproarious laughter while the "princess" response was met with abject approval.

When I'm calmer, I can take the time to tell Ella what we have in America in lieu of the princess. We have heroines like Sacajawea, and Margaret Corbin, who defended Fort Washington alongside her husband and became the first woman to receive a military pension, and Francita Alavez, "The Angel of Goliad," whose actions saved many lives during the Texas Revolution. Not to mention the countless women, whose names are lost to all but their own kin, who quilted and cooked and doctored their families in harsh conditions across the country. Women whose skills ensured the survival of settlements that have grown into the shining cities we have today.

I understand that the princess story is appealing to the little girl in all of us. I got up early and watched Kate Middleton walk down the aisle and into the history books, too. ("She's wearing flats under that dress," I whispered to my daughter. "Real princesses don't wear slutty shoes.")

So it doesn't really matter what you put on the walls or if your daughter is carrying a "Sleeping Beauty" lunchbox to school. What matters is what we tell them about America, about women, about their history, and their future.

At our house we complement Grimm's Fairy Tales with "Little House on the Prairie" and Maud Hart Lovelace's "Betsy-Tacy" series, based on the author's childhood in the turn-of-the-century Midwest. I show my daughter fading photographs of her great-great-grandmothers and tell her stories about the one who stitched the fraying quilt on her bed.

I tell my daughter, this is America. We don't do princesses.

Enjoy your holiday.

 

Kia Ad: Silver Lion Jury Head's Clients Include Mattel,Toys'R'Us, Colgate-Palmolive

KIA apparently didn't know about the reprehensible, pedophiliac ad for its cars that won the Cannes Silver Lion Press Award, but what about those judges? They're all big guns in the advertising field –perhaps THEY need to be called out?

The president of the jury was Tony Granger, Global Chief Creative Officer, Young & Rubicam USA.

Y&R's  client roster includes numerous children's brands such as several Mattel products ("Just Like You" American Girl dolls, Polly Pocket, Disney Princess, High School Musical, Beauty Cuties, Radica computer games, Holly Hobby) and Toys'R'Us. They also represent "family friendly" companies like Colgate-Palmolive. The American Girl account alone is worth $15 million.  In a June 6 interview about his Cannes experience and "what he looks for in great advertising" Granger said:

"I love ideas that feel effortless – that reveal a truth and connect with you."

And what is the "truth" he connects with in the Kia ads? Let's repost those award-winners, just to refresh your memory.

 

How about we let Granger's clients know that  an agency whose GLOBAL CHIEF CREATIVE OFFICER gives these ads  awards shouldn't be representing companies that sell products to children?

I encourage you to post the following to Twitter (or facebook) along with a  link to this blog post. And pass it along…..

Head of "Kiddie-Porn ad" jury's agency @YoungRubicam reps @Mattel_Inc @AGShineOnNow @ToysRUs @Colgate Parents ok w/this? http://ow.ly/5slCJ

Let's see what we can do!

(FYI, here's a list of the rest of the jury)

KIA: We Care About Girls EVERYWHERE, Not Just the U.S.

So now KIA is saying they knew nothing about their despicable kiddie-porn ad that won the Cannes Silver Lion Award. But check it out. The company is being VERY CAREFUL about the wording in their statements. According to this news report, the company says: "We can guarantee this advertisement has never and will never be used in any form in the United States."

Notice that they don't say anything about the rest of the world. It's not clear whether whether Kia's headquarters in Seoul contracts with Moma [the advertising firm that created the ads] and/or approved this ad.

So perhaps it's true that KIA America wasn't involved. Perhaps. But that doesn't make it okay, does it? Given the global crisis in child prostitution and trafficking, it's actually more offensive that KIA believes that selling cars via child  pornography is no problem as long as they don't do it in the U.S. What's more, Moma is located in Sao Paulo, Brazil, a country that is said to have the worst child trafficking record in the world after Thailand. No wonder the agency thought the ad was "clever."

Tell KIA we care about girls EVERYWHERE, not just in the U.S.

 

Kia, Stop Right Now; Pixar, Looking "Brave."

Have you seen the new Kia Motors ad that promotes not only their cars' dual climate control but, whaddaya know, also promotes pedophilia and sexualization of girls? It won a prestigious Silver Press Lion award in Cannes. According to the Huffington Post:

The ad features a teacher lusting after his elementary school-aged student. On one side of the page, she appears as a young girl. On the other side, though, she becomes a scantily clad, buxom teen, seemingly as a product of the teacher's imagination.

It's clearly designed to shock, and is succeeding. The advertising blog Copyranter called it "one of the sleaziest car ads ever," and noted that it doesn't even visualize the benefits of dual climate control very well.

I say, arretez-vous, Kia in any language!

Here's the ad

Here's where you can tell Kia what you think–a petition by the wonder women and girls at SPARK, They're trying to gather 5,000 signatures so please pass the word.

Meanwhile, here's a tantalizing, if poor quality, video of the Brave trailer that's playing with Cars 2. Thank goodness I didn't have to buy a ticket to that piece of garbage to se it! Looks good, though….how about a female voice for the narrator?

 

"Brave" Poster. Thoughts?

I Heart This Campaign

I've been critical of the Keep-a-Breast Foundation's "I Heart Boobies" bracelets campaign. But I also am a person who gives credit where it's due, and I very much like the early style, tone and message of their non-toxic revolution campaign.

I especially hope they focus on educating girls about potential carcinogens in cosmetics–during and just after puberty they are especially vulnerable. And short of questioning the beauty industry  in general, I at least hope KABF can make clean makeup the cool choice. And I'm not talking Cover Girl Clean (for you who grew up in the 1970s).

So we'll see. I'm rooting for them on this one. Though it does seem ironic that all those bracelets will end up as….land fill.

Little Boys Fly; Little Girls Curtsey

Did you see the front page article in the New York Times, "Stores Emphasize Mannequins with Personalities?" It talks about how retailers are using unique  mannequins in unusual poses or bodies  to entice customers to part with money in hard times.

Nike has made its mannequins taller, and added about 35 athletic poses. Armani Exchange has ordered models that will lie down to help shoppers imagine wearing lingerie. A new accessories-only store by Guess features glossy black mannequins in model-like poses on an actual runway, while Ralph Lauren's new women's store in Manhattan commissioned mannequins with the face of the model Yasmin Le Bon.

Whatever. But get this one:

The Disney Stores chain has added little-boy figurines that fly from the ceiling and little-girl ones that curtsey.

Seriously? Little boys that soar and little girls that CURTSEY?  Is that one going to play with parents?

What's the Difference Between A Disney Princess and a Prostitute?

You know, when I first wrote the article, "What's Wrong With Cinderella?" in the NY Times Magazine, I doubt anyone would have asked that question, let alone a male reviewer at the Times itself. But the sexualization/diva-fication/commodification of princess culture has subsequently become so extreme that now a lead sentence like that, which appeared in today's NY Times, seems merely an in-the-know joke. It was proferred as part of a glowing account of a show by cabaret singer Lea Salonga at the Cafe Carlyle:

What's the difference between a Disney princess and a prostitute? Not much if you are Lea Salonga, the Filipino diva who joked last week about having played both types, as she opened her new cabaret show, "New York in June," at the Cafe Carlyle.

Ms. Salonga seemed fully aware that psychologically the line between one and the other isn't all that clear anymore; nowadays little girls are exploited and commodified from the time they're toddlers.

The most incisive juxtaposition of songs in the show paired "I Enjoy Being a Girl," from "Flower Drum Song," delivered in a tone of angry sarcasm, with "Femininity," from the 1963 Disney movie "Summer Magic," sung with honeyed perkiness. The way to "catch a beau," "Femininity" advises, is "to be demure, sweet and pure" and "hide the real you."

In other news, this week's Geena Davis Institute newsletter highlights two interesting if somewhat contradictory stories:

The first is on why Bridesmaids will launch a slew of copycat cross-over chick flicks.

The second is on how almost NO summer films are geared towards women. And few, precious few, are directed by women.

Wonder which will prove more true?

Princess Daze in Elementary School

Love this post by Emily Rosenbaum about how "School Spirit Week" is celebrated in her children's elementary school. Each day has a theme including (wait for it)….Princess Day on which girls  are supposed to dress in glitter and tiaras. As are the boys, if they want to, are too–but not because it's okay for a boy to dress like a princess, exactly the opposite: it's clear the boys are supposed to be doing it as a goof, with a wink and a homophobic nudge.

"It's making the point (rather strongly) that there are things for girls and things for boys and the only times we break through those barriers is to laugh about it.  In other words, rather than making a safe space in which the boys can express themselves, it's laying down the gender norms even more clearly.  Sure, kid, dress as a princess; it'll be a hoot.

It's not a hoot.  Not for the boys who are uncomfortable with their sexuality or gender.  Not for the boys who lack self-confidence and can't pull off a joke like that.  Not for the boys who, a few years from now, will find themselves in tears when their peers taunt them with "faggot."  Not for the boys who don't participate that day because they don't feel comfortable with the joke or for the boys who participate only to fit in.  Not for the girls who are shoved into the role of flighty consumers."

And not for this boy, Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover, a 6th grader who hung himself in 2009 after being repeatedly taunted at his new school for being "gay." What would he have done on Princess Day?

As Emily pointed out, her children's school could have had  Royal Day, or a fantasy day, or a dress-like-a-character-from-a-book day. There are so many possibilities for fun, for creativity, for costume in an elementary school. But Princess day? Really?

What do you think? And any advice for Emily?