Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read.

Start by marking “Cinderella Ate My Daughter: Dispatches from the Frontlines of the New Girlie-Girl Culture” as Want to Read:

Other editions

Enlarge cover

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

Open Preview

Cinderella Ate My Daughter: Dispatches from the Frontlines of the New Girlie-Girl Culture

Peggy Orenstein

3.67 · Rating details · 15,772 ratings · 2,119 reviews

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 exhilarati ...more

Get A Copy

Hardcover, 245 pages

Published January 25th 2011 by Harper

More Details... Edit Details

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Reader Q&A

To ask other readers questions about Cinderella Ate My Daughter, please sign up.

Lists with This Book

We Should All Be Feminists by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie

Women & Gender Studies

1,403 books — 521 voters

The Ms. Blog's Best Feminist Non-Fiction Reads: Reader's Choice

671 books — 555 voters

More lists with this book...

Community Reviews

Showing 1-30

Average rating 3.67 ·

Rating details

· 15,772 ratings · 2,119 reviews

More filters

Sort order

Start your review of Cinderella Ate My Daughter: Dispatches from the Frontlines of the New Girlie-Girl Culture

Sep 29, 2010 Will Byrnes rated it it was amazing

Shelves: economics, public-health, brain-candy, psychology-and-the-brain, feminist-dystopian-and-not, nonfiction, psychology

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 ...more

flag 542 likes · Like · see review

Aug 20, 2011 Michelle rated it it was ok

Shelves: non-fiction, horror, memoir, humor, women, feminist

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. A 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. ...more

flag 111 likes · Like · see review

Apr 28, 2011 Skylar Burris marked it as unfinished

Shelves: sociology

Since I’m planning to take my daughter to Disney World for the first time some time in the next year, it seemed like a good time to read this. Of course, even at seven, she’s still more interested in Winnie the Pooh than in princesses. But, sure, she loves to dress up in gowns and necklaces and tutus, to put on pretend makeup (allowed only on weekends, in time for washing off for school). Admittedly, I’m not concerned that Cinderella has consumed her. If anything, I’m a little relieved that she ...more

flag 63 likes · Like · see review

Aug 24, 2013 Rowena rated it really liked it

Shelves: sociology, feminism

"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 d ...more

flag 42 likes · Like · see review

Mar 09, 2011 Rhiannon rated it it was ok

Recommends it for: Mommys, Daddys, Pre-School Teachers?

Recommended to Rhiannon by: The Feminist Readers Network on Goodreads

Shelves: read-in-2011, someone-stole-this-from-me, its-a-gender-thing, nonfiction, lady-writer, clubbies

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 sta 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. ...more

flag 39 likes · Like · see review

Aug 04, 2011 Laura rated it it was ok

Shelves: feminism

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 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. ...more

flag 40 likes · Like · see review

Aug 26, 2013 Lit Bug rated it really liked it

Recommended to Lit Bug by: Rowena

Shelves: non-fiction, popular-culture, psychology, feminist, sociology

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 portr ...more

flag 29 likes · Like · see review

Nov 14, 2012 Cathy DuPont rated it really liked it

Recommends it for: Dads and Moms

Recommended to Cathy by: Will Byrnes

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 c ...more

flag 21 likes · Like · see review

Mar 04, 2016 Nanci **Warning**IWasASailor⚓️MyMouthisDirty rated it did not like it

Shelves: don-t-bother, get-off-your-soap-box, i-m-judging-you, bad-mom-here-s-why

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 ...more

flag 19 likes · Like · see review

Nov 27, 2010 Katie rated it liked it

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 o 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! ...more

flag 18 likes · Like · see review

May 24, 2011 Caroline rated it it was amazing

Recommends it for: Those interested in issues concerning females and society, parents, educators

Shelves: get-smart, she-wrote-it, important-nonfiction, feminism, mothers-and-daughters, litmus-test, nonfiction, maximum-impact, page-turner

***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 ho ...more

flag 17 likes · Like · see review

Nov 09, 2016 Emm C² rated it it was amazing

Recommends it for: parents of daughters; humans in general

Shelves: psychology-sociology, reviewed, feminism-and-gender, nonfiction

The materialism and obsessiveness of the 21st century is pretty disturbing, I'll be honest. It's fine to want nice things or to look beautiful. It's natural to want these. But where is the line between actually wanting and being forced to buy them or to look good, just to match the rest?

Orenstein's book takes a very in-depth look at the methods in which young girls are being put on the latter half of that line through advertising and media pressure.
All of whom just want to sell them a product, b The materialism and obsessiveness of the 21st century is pretty disturbing, I'll be honest. It's fine to want nice things or to look beautiful. It's natural to want these. But where is the line between actually wanting and being forced to buy them or to look good, just to match the rest?

Orenstein's book takes a very in-depth look at the methods in which young girls are being put on the latter half of that line through advertising and media pressure.
All of whom just want to sell them a product, but have used psychologically damaging ways to do it by not only pressuring girls to look perfect at all times, but berating us for every natural "flaw" we have.
Because they have a product to sell you that will "fix" it.

What's important is to teach young women that it isn't necessary to look how the media claims you should. For one, it's impossible. Everyone is different from each other anyway, in looks and persona, and everyone should be free to have their own idea of beautiful without being subjected to cruelty because of it.

The author picks apart every angle of how the idea of a specific type of physical beauty "being the most important thing" is pushed on girls, from "girl-specific" toys to cosmetics to (horrible) commercials, and how they are pushing the society's rigid standard on girls at younger and younger ages. The message often contradicts itself in baffling ways, leaving a generation of perfectionists confused about what they are supposed to be perfecting.

Her writing is charming and honest, though the subject is depressing, you don't feel depressed reading it. A lot of it is really fun, actually. It's the perfect mix of informative and entertaining that I love in nonfiction. The only thing I really disagree with her on is her somewhat negative feelings of fairy tales (I love the Grimms, always have). For the negative, even though the problem is apparent in many countries, the book is somewhat Anglo-centric. It's a great book, but doesn't expand the issues to ones occuring outside of the Anglosphere.

I agree with her in that there's nothing wrong with wanting to look beautiful, not at all. But one should focus on their inner beauty and depth above all things, and find their OWN meaning of beauty, not let others dictate it for them. The standards of "beautiful" society has set is incredibly toxic and often impossible without drastic measures, and as it turns out, designed just to sell you stuff, anyway.
Young women (and men), often lovely people blessed with health and no physical debilitations, are stuck in this spiral of self-hatred because of it. This should not happen.

This book is important because I believe it can raise awareness, so that parents don't perpetuate this cycle to their daughters, and their daughters don't drag others' daughters into it as well. ...more

flag 15 likes · Like · see review

Nov 01, 2013 Jim rated it really liked it

Recommended to Jim by: Will Byrnes

Shelves: gender-issues, gr-friend-recommended, psychology, sexuality, sociology, womens-_studies

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 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.

...more

flag 13 likes · Like · see review

Feb 25, 2011 Adrian rated it did not like it

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. 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. ...more

flag 13 likes · Like · see review

Nov 21, 2011 Coqueline rated it liked it

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 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. ...more

flag 12 likes · Like · see review

Sep 28, 2011 Elise rated it it was ok

Shelves: parenting

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 dr ...more

flag 12 likes · Like · see review

Oct 14, 2017 El rated it liked it

Recommended to El by: The F-Word

Shelves: cultural-studies-and-other, hear-me-roar-and-gender, library-borrow

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 i ...more

flag 11 likes · Like · see review

Nov 24, 2010 Veronica rated it really liked it

"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 "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. ...more

flag 11 likes · Like · see review

Mar 23, 2011 Fiona rated it it was ok

Shelves: feminism, female-writers

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 ...more

flag 10 likes · Like · see review

Oct 12, 2017 Peacegal rated it really liked it

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-se 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? ...more

flag 10 likes · Like · see review

Jun 24, 2012 Christine rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: feminist, work, minority-and-women-writers, movie-and-tv-related, cinderella

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 ...more

flag 10 likes · Like · see review

Nov 15, 2010 E rated it it was amazing

Shelves: politics-history

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 d 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.
...more

flag 9 likes · Like · see review

Sep 21, 2010 Kaethe Douglas rated it liked it

Shelves: feminism, nonfiction, parenting, usa, sex-positive

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 h 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. ...more

flag 9 likes · Like · see review

Jun 10, 2012 Crystal Starr Light rated it really liked it

Shelves: feminism, ebook, non-fiction

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 ...more

flag 9 likes · Like · see review

Feb 10, 2011 Meg rated it really liked it

Shelves: parenting

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 wi ...more

flag 8 likes · Like · see review

Nov 28, 2011 Krista rated it really liked it

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.

flag 8 likes · Like · see review

Mar 09, 2011 Ciara rated it liked it

Shelves: read-in-2011, feminist-y-books

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 toy 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. ...more

flag 7 likes · Like · see review

Jan 08, 2012 Taylor rated it it was ok

Shelves: non-fiction

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 ...more

flag 7 likes · Like · see review

Aug 14, 2014 Sandra E rated it did not like it

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? ( 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. ...more

flag 6 likes · Like · see review

Mar 27, 2011 Antje rated it it was ok

Shelves: feminism

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.
Thou ...more

flag 6 likes · Like · see review

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

topics	posts	views	last activity
The F-word: October NONFICTION selection CINDERELLA ATE MY DAUGHTER	20	44	Nov 07, 2017 12:20PM
The F-word: September Group Read: CINDERELLA ATE MY DAUGHTER (This is the discussion thread MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS)	26	66	Sep 29, 2013 12:15PM
Madison Mega-Mara...: Cinderella Ate My Daughter	1	4	Jan 24, 2012 01:44PM

Readers also enjoyed

See similar books…

Genres

Nonfiction

908 users

Parenting

455 users

Feminism

411 users

Sociology

97 users

Psychology

94 users

Gender

56 users

Adult

52 users

Gender > Gender Studies

50 users

Womens

40 users

Feminism > Womens Studies

35 users

See top shelves…

About Peggy Orenstein

Peggy Orenstein

521 followers

Peggy 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, incl ...more

Books by Peggy Orenstein

Girls & Sex: Navigating the Complicated New Landscape

Boys & Sex: Young Men on Hookups, Love, Porn, Consent, and Navigating the New Masculinity

Schoolgirls: Young Women, Self Esteem, and the Confidence Gap

Waiting for Daisy: A Tale of Two Continents, Three Religions, Five Infertility Doctors, an Oscar, an Atomic Bomb, a Romantic Night, and One Woman's Quest to Become a Mother

Flux: Women on Sex, Work, Love, Kids, and Life in a Half-Changed World

More…

News & Interviews

Debut YA Is a Witchy, Jamaican-Inspired Fantasy

Ciannon Smart has been holed up in her England home since the pandemic began a year ago, but by no means has she been idle. She’s been on...

Trivia About Cinderella Ate My...

1 trivia question

More quizzes & trivia...

Quotes from Cinderella Ate My...

“There is only one princess in the Disney tales, one girl who gets to be exalted. Princesses may confide in a sympathetic mouse or teacup, but they do not have girlfriends. God forbid Snow White should give Sleeping Beauty a little support. Let's review: princesses avoid female bonding. Their goals are to be saved by a prince, get married, and be taken care of the rest of their lives.” — 20 likes

“But it is Bella, not the supernaturals she falls in with, who is the true horror show here, at least as a female role model.” — 18 likes

More quotes…

See a Problem?

Preview — Cinderella Ate My Daughter by Peggy Orenstein

Cinderella Ate My Daughter: Dispatches from the Frontlines of the New Girlie-Girl Culture

Get A Copy

Friend Reviews

Reader Q&A

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

Readers also enjoyed

Genres

About Peggy Orenstein

Books by Peggy Orenstein

News & Interviews

Trivia About Cinderella Ate My...

Quotes from Cinderella Ate My...

See a Problem?

Preview — Cinderella Ate My Daughter by Peggy Orenstein

Cinderella Ate My Daughter: Dispatches from the Frontlines of the New Girlie-Girl Culture

Get A Copy

Friend Reviews

Reader Q&A

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topicDiscuss This Book

Readers also enjoyed

Genres

About Peggy Orenstein

Books by Peggy Orenstein

News & Interviews

Trivia About Cinderella Ate My...

Quotes from Cinderella Ate My...

new topic
Discuss This Book