Cartoonists and animation experts weigh in: the new Merida doesn’t HAVE to look this way

In the past few days, the new Merida designed for the Disney Consumer Products Division has lead to heated controversy.

On the one hand, critics argue that the redesign undercuts Merida’s strength, serving her up in a more stereotypical princess form. Meanwhile, their detractors argue that “it’s not that bad,” that they “can’t see the difference,” that the critics are “overreacting,” or that the redesign “HAD to happen this way.”

In this post, I’d like to address that last point: the argument that the redesign HAD to happen this way. The core argument is that Merida must look different in the Disney Princess line because she’s drawn in 2D, rather than as a CGI image–so her image must change in translation, by necessity.

Let’s see what the animation and cartoon experts have to say on that point.

First, let’s begin with cartoonist Matthew Bogart’s take on that argument. He writes:

Character design matters.

If there’s one thing the character design class I took in college stressed more than anything else it’s that a good character design informs the viewer who the character is, what they are like. What they wear, how they stand, how they do their hair, the shape of their face, their standard expressions, what they carry with them, these are all vital decisions in a good design.

If these are all vital decisions in a good design, then what’s going on? Why has Disney’s Consumer Products Division changed what Merida wears, how she stands, how she does her hair, the shape of her face, her standard expressions, and so on?

Bogart explains that the changes found in redesign are not about the translation from 2D to CGI; rather, it’s a deliberate effort to make Merida fit the passive, pretty princess trope that dominates the Disney Princess line.

When you market a character you have to boil them down to their essential elements. [...] [Merida] was depicted in trailers and posters as strong, determined, adventurous, beautiful, and heroic.

This redesign de-emphasizes those qualities and pushes for a Merida that is more glamorous, sassy, and passive.

In other words, Bogart writes, Disney’s Consumer Products Division is

taking the established Merida design from the film and re-imagining her to more closely resemble the typical damsel in distress that the Disney princess line seems to champion.

Ouch.

Animation expert Charles Kenny has also analyzed the redesign on his blog, the Animation Anomaly, and reaches a similar conclusion. Dispelling the idea that the redesign had to happen in this way, he writes:

We all know that multitudes of artists work on these characters and the very nature of merchandise (with all its differing surfaces and sizes) necessitates changes to permit an acceptable level of familiarity across the range.

Well, normally it isn’t a problem because the characters remain relatively consistent. In Merida’s case, however, the change is near radical. [...] Merida’s case stands out [because] she’s undergone not so much a redesign but a transformation. Even by comparing her looks (and her measurements) one can deduce that she isn’t likely to exhibit the same character traits as her CGI original. 

What character traits does Charles Kenny mean? Well, we can glance back at Matthew Bogart’s post for a quick run-down: “a beautiful, rough and tumble, scottish adventurer who was technically a princess but rebelled against the frill, pomp, and sexism that came with her post.”

Therefore, Kenny reminds his readers:

We’re long, long past the time when merchandise had to look different on account of manufacturing technology and the like. Today, it’s possible to maintain a high degree of quality across the board. There really is no reason why a Merida doll has a different structure to her animated counterpart, or for that matter for a stock image of her on a T-shirt requires a redesign.

Heck, even the Disney Princesses themselves do not need such a standardised sense of design. What it amounts to is the merchandising or marketing division of the corporation attempting to stamp their impression on characters created somewhere else (by animators). It amounts to overstepping their boundaries insofar as they may adapt characters to their work, but outright changing them is unconscionable.

In sum, the argument that Merida HAD to be changed this way is patently untrue.

Since a picture is worth a thousand words, let’s leave the final words with a few cartoonists who have tackled the matter visually.

Matthew Bogart concluded his post by applying Merida’s redesign to Batman, showing just how much the design of her new pose, outfit, and face shape should be understood to alter her character:

David William Trumble illustrated what would happen if Disney redesigned other strong women, such as Hillary Rodham Clinton, Rosa Parks, Marie Curie, Malala Yousafzai, and Ruth Bader Ginsberg (click here for a slideshow with individual explanations):

And John Kovalic of the “Dork Tower” comic offered this gem:

——

To read my previous posts on Merida, click here.

To read my previous posts on the Disney Princess brand, click here.

——

Do you like this post? Follow Rebecca Hains on facebook or twitter.

About the author: Rebecca Hains, Ph.D. is an associate professor of communications at Salem State University, where she teaches advertising and media studies. Her new book, Confronting Cinderella: Guiding Our Girls Through the Princess-Obsessed Years, will be released by Source Books next year.

Disney faces backlash over new “sexy” Merida; pulls new image from web site as a result

UPDATE, May 16, 2013: Disney has stated that 1. the 2D image was never on their official web site in the first place (though, oddly, it’s all over the official Australia/NZ version of the Disney Princess site–which may have been the source of any confusion), and 2. they will not be retracting the new Merida.

Click here for my new post, in which I argue they missed the whole point of the petition. Clearly, we still have work to do.

——–

On Saturday, Disney held a “coronation ceremony”(1) for Merida, star of the Disney-Pixar film Brave. In the coronation, Merida officially became part of the Disney Princess lineup. This means that her image has been added to the 2D collection of princesses in a cartoon form that fits stylistically with that of her princess peers.

Unfortunately for Disney, the new cartoon image of Merida that Disney created for the lineup overshadowed all conversation online about the coronation. The reason? The new cartoon sexualizes Merida.

That’s right: Although Merida was created by a woman as a role model for girls, the male-dominated consumer product division at Disney has ignored the character’s intended benefits for young girls, sexualizing her for profit.

Compared with her film counterpart, this new Merida is slimmer and bustier. She wears makeup, and her hair’s characteristic wildness is gone: It has been volumized and restyled with a texture more traditionally “pretty.” Furthermore, she is missing her signature bow, arrow, and quiver; instead, she wears a fashionable sash around her sparkly, off-the-shoulder gown. (As Peggy Orenstein noted when she broke the news of the redesign, “Moms tell me all the time that their preschool daughters are pitching fits and destroying their t-shirts because ‘princesses don’t cover their shoulders.’” I’ve heard the same from parents, as well.)

It doesn’t have to be this way. Some might argue that the changes to Merida are simply a result of her being rendered in 2D, but these are deliberate, calculated changes. She has been presented in 2D form in children’s books since before the movie was released, and she’s still looked like herself.

No–these changes to Merida’s appearance are significant. Sadly, they align with the American Psychological Association’s definition of sexualization, which says that sexualization occurs when any of the following four conditions are present:

• a person’s value comes only from his or her sexual appeal or behavior, to the exclusion of other characteristics;
• a person is held to a standard that equates physical attractiveness (narrowly defined) with being sexy;
• a person is sexually objectified — that is, made into a thing for others’ sexual use, rather than seen as a person with the capacity for independent action and decision making; and/or
• sexuality is inappropriately imposed upon a person.

Since Merida is beloved for breaking the princess mold, proving that a girl needn’t be stereotypically “girly” to be a princess, realigning Merida’s look to echo the other 10 Disney Princesses’ narrow range of appearances is a huge mistake. 

The backlash from parents has been tremendous; a petition on Change.org already boasts more than 120,000 signatures. The petition explains:

The redesign of Merida in advance of her official induction to the Disney Princess collection does a tremendous disservice to the millions of children for whom Merida is an empowering role model who speaks to girls’ capacity to be change agents in the world rather than just trophies to be admired. Moreover, by making her skinnier, sexier and more mature in appearance, you are sending a message to girls that the original, realistic, teenage-appearing version of Merida is inferior; that for girls and women to have value — to be recognized as true princesses — they must conform to a narrow definition of beauty.

What’s more, Brenda Chapman–Merida’s creator–has gone on record voicing her outrage at this redesign. Chapman argued:

They have been handed an opportunity on a silver platter to give their consumers something of more substance and quality — THAT WILL STILL SELL — and they have a total disregard for it in the name of their narrow minded view of what will make money. I forget that Disney’s goal is to make money without concern for integrity. Silly me.

As of today, Disney has quietly pulled the 2D image of Merida from its website, replacing it with the original Pixar version. Perhaps we’ll be spared an onslaught of sexy Merida merchandise yet.

—–

If you haven’t yet signed the petition, you can do so at Change.org and at MoveOn.org.

—–

For further reading: To view more of my posts on Merida, click here. For more of my posts on the Disney Princess brand, click here.

—–

Do you like this post? Follow Rebecca Hains on facebook or twitter.

About the author: Rebecca Hains, Ph.D. is an associate professor of communications at Salem State University, where she teaches advertising and media studies. Her new book, Confronting Cinderella: Guiding Our Girls Through the Princess-Obsessed Years, will be released by Source Books next year.

—–

(1) Disney holds “coronation ceremonies” for its princesses about a year after a film’s release–a great way of bumping up interest in a princess after her film’s momentum has died down.

Kids’ products and gender: What’s on the packaging?

Preschoolers can be quick to notice gendered illustrations on products. If a package has a picture of a boy on it, that item must be for boys; if it has a picture of a girl on it, it must be for girls. Likewise, if a package has pink, flowers, and/or hearts, it must be a girl’s product; if it has cars, trucks, or construction vehicles, it must be for boys.

I saw this in action this weekend, when we took our four-and-a-half year old son, T., shopping for a new bicycle helmet.

His favorite colors are blue, red, green, and purple; so to avoid buying a helmet covered in licensed characters (we do not need one more Lightning McQueen anything!), I offered him a few choices: A black helmet with blue and green stripes; a solid red helmet; and a solid dark purple helmet.

For a moment, I thought he was going to choose the purple helmet. But then, he announced: “No, mama, that one’s for girls.”

It looked pretty gender-neutral to me, so I was puzzled. “What makes you think it’s for girls?” I asked.

“From the picture, mama. See? That’s a girl.”

I took a closer look, and sure enough, the helmet–though labeled a “youth” helment–showcased a photo of a smiling girl with a long ponytail and a pink shirt.

Other helmets either had photos of boys or girls on them, or did not feature a photo at all. I realized that any helmet that was remotely girlish–with even the smallest touch of pink or purple–had a girl on the packaging; those that seemed boyish or gender-neutral (e.g., black and white) only depicted boys.

After much deliberation, my son chose the blue and green helmet. It did not have a photo of a child on it, but its colors clearly coded it as appropriate for boys–and it had flashing lights on the back! No way could any other helmet compete with that.

Before he made his choice, I explained something to him: “Just so you know, the purple helmet is for boys AND girls,” I said. “Purple is not just for boys or just for girls. Colors are for everyone!”

“Hm. Okay, mama.”

Phew. So far, he seems pretty open to this concept. I saw this in action a few months ago, when my son was shopping for Hot Wheels cars to go with his T-Rex Takedown set.

He decided that he wanted a blue car, a green car…and a pink car. I was thrilled! But then I was disappointed: there was not a single pink Hot Wheels car in the store.

“I’m sorry we can’t find a pink car,” I said. “I’ll try to find you one at another store.”

“Okay,” T. replied, “because I really want one. It really really needs a pink car!”

I went home and posted about it on facebook, and within minutes, friends and family were helping me with my search. My mom came through; she found a pink car in her local store. My son was thrilled.

Only later did I think to ask: Why did he need a pink car, anyway?

His answer: “Because it shows it on the box!”

Oh!

I took a closer look, and sure enough, he’d noticed something that I had entirely missed: in the upper right-hand corner, a pink Hot Wheels car was careening down the tracks.

I hadn’t picked up on this small detail at all, but for my son, it was significant enough to make him request a color other than one of his favorites. Amazing!

I’m sure that detail isn’t lost on other children, either. In fact, the inclusion of a pink car on the package might help make girls feel that this toy–though stereotypically boyish–is for them, too. And I think that’s really great.

What if the purple helmet had a photo of both a boy and a girl on the packaging? Maybe my son would have selected it. Maybe the manufacturer would be able to sell that model to twice as many kids!

But unfortunately, that’s not how marketing usually works nowadays. It’s all about segmentation, about separating the boys from the girls, in hopes of selling twice as many products. The logic seems to be that if a product is just for girls, it won’t be handed down to their baby brothers, and vice-versa–so segregation and segmentation is seen as good for business.

That’s a shame, since it’s important for boys and girls to learn to play together. In too many cases, marketers are shortchanging our kids. The T-Rex Takedown packaging is the exception, not the norm.

In sum, packaging is important. The way manufacturers label things matters. It plays a role in the socialization of our kids. It’s worth paying attention to it, so that you can talk about it with your children when you need to: I’m guessing that your kids, like mine, have already noticed.

Parents: Have you seen any interesting examples of gendering on packaging, whether stereotypical or defying stereotypes? How have your kids responded to them? I’d love to know.

—

Do you enjoy this blog? Please follow me on facebook or twitter. Thank you!

Disney Princess Prom Gowns and Cradle-to-Grave Marketing

Just a few months ago, I wrote about how Disney Princess-styled extravagance among toddlers reflects the extraordinary extravagance of today’s proms, which now cost families an average of $1,000 to $2,000.

But until Mouse on the Mind brought it to my attention this week, I didn’t realize that there were actual Disney Princess-inspired prom gowns in production, scheduled for the 2013 prom season. (Were there any previously? I haven’t seen them.)

The plan: Each year, a new line of prom gowns will be released, and each line will take inspiration from a different Disney Princess film. The 2013 gowns are meant to evoke Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs; red and black appear to be the dominant colors of the collection.

With a price point of $350 to $800, these gowns definitely align with the high costs attached to today’s proms. Ouch.

So… what’s going on here? If the Disney Princess line is meant for the preschool set, why would teenage girls want Disney Princess-inspired prom dresses??

The answer can be found in a tactic called “cradle-to-grave marketing.”

As I’ve explained previously, the Disney Princess franchise is a great example of a lifestyle brand. Disney’s marketers want Princess to be everything and everywhere, integrated into as many aspects of audience members’ lives as possible. This epitomizes a basic principle of lifestyle branding: the more closely people identify with a brand–the more they feel like it is their brand, and a part of who they are–the more money the brand will make.*

Although the Disney Princess brand is primarily for little girls ages 2-8, with its strongest devotees ages 2-5, they are not its only target market. With “cradle-to-grave” marketing, Disney marketers extend engagement with the brand well beyond these years. The goal is for children to become loyal customers for life.

This has played out very well for Disney in general, as well as for the Princess line in particular: When children too young to ask for Disney products are swathed in them from birth, it’s often a because of their parents’ understandable nostalgia and fondness for Disney. Parents who loved Disney when they were children are likely to be tempted by Disney-branded sippy cups, diapers, onesies, teething rings, and toys.

Then, as children begin developing brand preferences, nostalgic parents who enjoy the fun, wholesome aspects of Disney are happy to fulfill their children’s requests.

But for a megabrand like Disney Princess, purchases on behalf of children is not enough. It’s even better for business if adults want to buy Princess products for themselves–collecting the dolls, perhaps, or film cells. But not everyone is a collector.

So, it’s logical for marketers to ask: At what points in life do people make expensive purchases that could be linked back to the brand? This, I’m sure, was the genesis of Disney’s ongoing success partnering with designers to produce Disney Princess-inspired wedding gowns, and to offer “Fairy Tale Weddings” in the Magic Kingdom.

With the average cost of the prom continuing to rise, it makes sense that proms are the newest target. Attracting teens connects more dots on that cradle-to-grave continuum.

(Now, I wonder if they’ll ever release those Disney Princess coffins that Peggy Orenstein enjoys joking about?)

—

Do you enjoy this blog? Let’s connect! Find me on twitter or facebook.

—

*I know that may sound cynical, like some kind of conspiracy theory, but it’s really the way the business works. Books written for members of the marketing industry are filled with tips about these tactics.

Reimagining Disney Princesses with racial diversity: From Tumblr to D-Tech

A couple of weeks ago, a young woman named Lauren reimagined the white Disney Princess characters as women of color, posting recolored images of them on her Tumblr blog. Her inspired designs quickly made their way around the blogosphere. Responses ranged from supportive (“I love this!“) to perplexed (“This was done because…?“; “But why?“); from grateful to critical (including requests for more inclusivity); and, sadly, from defensive to exclusionary (people of color “should come up with their own princesses and heroes“) and clearly racist.

I wrote a little about the Disney Princess franchise and race earlier this year, when I noticed that in the Disney Store’s 2012 redesign of their Disney Princess dolls, Disney westernized Mulan’s dress and lightened Pocahontas’s skin. So when the Huffington Post Live asked me to be their expert guest on a segment called “Black and Brown Princesses” about the reimagined Disney Princess characters from Lauren’s Tumblr, I was happy to oblige.

Although I have my criticisms of the Disney Princess franchise in general, I do think it’s important for young girls to see characters on screen and elsewhere in popular culture that look like them. I’ve been doing academic research on the Disney Princess phenomenon for a while now, and I’ve heard about the heartbreaks caused by Disney’s predominant whiteness: The little black girl who came home from first grade from first grade in tears because her classmates said she couldn’t be a princess. Their reason? She wasn’t white. (This was pre-Tiana.) The little Latina girl who would brush and brush her tightly curled hair, completely frustrated that she couldn’t smooth it out so that she would look more like a princess. (New princess Merida is the only one without silky smooth straight hair.)

While conducting field research for my book, Growing Up With Girl Power, I also saw firsthand how important diversity in dolls and other products is to pre-adolescent African-American girls. For example, as I mentioned previously, the racial diversity of Bratz dolls was really important to the African-American girls in my study. For them, the diversity was often much more important than the dolls’ skimpy fashions, which have resulted in a lot of negative publicity for the brand. The girls also cared tremendously about whether popular characters like Dora the Explorer and those from The Proud Family were represented on toys and other products with the same skin tone as they had on television. (I remember that a beach towel depicting Dora with the wrong skin tone had been a serious affront.)

As these girls and I talked and talked about how few characters looked like them, I found myself remembering being a young girl and wanting nothing more than a doll that had brown hair and brown eyes, like me. Unfortunately, in the late 1970s/early 1980s, these were almost impossible to find, as my mother can attest: she had to hunt high and low to find a single brown-haired doll whose eyes were brown, not blue. When I shared this memory with the girls, they were surprised. “How rude!” one said.

That’s one of the brilliant things about the “My American Girl” dolls. Although they are prohibitively expensive for most families (sigh), girls can customize the dolls to have whatever skin tones and hair colors they’d like–just like Lauren did with the Disney Princess images on her Tumblr blog. Of course, there’s little diversity in actual facial features, which is an ongoing problem in the doll business: even when racially and ethnically diverse dolls are available, their facial characteristics typically reflect white beauty norms. In the essay “Dyes and Dolls: Multicultural Barbie and the Merchandizing of Difference,” scholar Ann duCille famously criticized such dolls for being merely “dye-dipped”–brown versions of their white counterparts.

In this context, a new experiment from Disney is fascinating. As of this week, children ages 3 to 12 who are visiting Walt Disney World’s Downtown Disney Marketplace* may order custom-modeled 7″ Disney Princess figurines made to look like them. Just like them. As in, modeled after images taken via 3D scans of the children’s own faces.

The price is about the same as an American Girl Doll, but thanks to the 3D technology, these new “D-Tech Me” princess figurines won’t just have the children’s eye and hair color; they’ll also have their noses, cheekbones, lips.

The service is being offered for a limited time–”at least through Thanksgiving,” according to one Disney rep (see comment #12 here), but not much longer. The characters available are Ariel, Aurora, Belle, Cinderella, Rapunzel, Snow White, and Tiana. (Sorry, Mulan, Pocahontas, Jasmine, and Merida!) The sample images are diverse: Ariel, Rapunzel, and Snow White all have darker skin and dark brown to black hair, Aurora is a redhead, and Tiana is a fair-skinned blonde.

I have to agree with The Business Insider that the samples images Disney has shared so far look pretty creepy–a little too “uncanny valley” for my taste. And I’m not sure why three of the four characters of color from the Disney Princess franchise are being excluded as choices in the first place; it seems a little insensitive to me. (Anyone have thoughts on that?) But I don’t agree with Marketplace that the figurines are a sign of the apocalypse.

Although the Disney Princess franchise teems with stereotypes about girlhood, femininity, physical appearance, and race (and although I strongly dislike that the girls’ heads will be as large or larger than their waists on these figurines) the reality is this: Little girls are growing up in a princess-obsessed girls’ culture, and feeling excluded hurts.

By letting any girl see herself as a princess–well, at least any 3- to 12-year-old girl whose parents can bring her to Disney World and afford to pay $99.95 plus shipping and handling for a figurine–Disney has taken another small step in the right direction. I’ll be curious to see whether the experiment catches on.

*Some reports have stated this service is available at Disneyland, but a Disney rep on the Disney Parks web site has clarified that the D-Tech Princesses are only going to be available in Walt Disney World in the Downtown Disney Marketplace.

Do you enjoy this blog? Please follow me on facebook or twitter. Thank you!

Lifestyle branding and the Disney Princess megabrand

Did you know that Behr produces a line of Disney Princess interior paints? Here are some photos I took of Behr’s Disney Princess – Disney Color catalog.

Introducing the Disney Princess bathroom:

Princess bathroom: “Relax in rooms as pretty as a princess. Surround yourself in a setting as cheerful as her smile.” Note: phrases in bold are the paint color names.

Disney Princess bathroom

And, of course, the Disney Princess bedroom:

“In Sleeping Beauty’s room, everything is enchanted. What better place to dream?” Note: phrases in bold are paint color names.

Sleeping Beauty’s Room. Features Disney Princess paints, pieces from the Disney Princess Furniture Collection, Disney Princess bedding, and many other Disney Princess products.

While there seems to be a Disney Princess version of nearly everything, the idea of Disney Princess interior paints may come as a surprise. What’s going on here?

Brands, Megabrands, and Lifestyle Brands: How Disney Princess Works

My students and I recently screened the Media Education Foundation documentary No Logo, based on Naomi Klein’s book of the same name. In the video, Klein explains why consumers and critics wind up protesting certain brands.

Klein explains that the insidiousness of brand marketing is at the root of most protesters’ concerns. Brands are no longer seeking popularity; instead, Klein says, they “want to be everywhere and be everything.” In so doing, a brand becomes a megabrand.

Because of this outlook, Klein says megabrands (and megabrand wannabes) regularly ask questions like, ”If it’s a line of clothing, can it be a house paint?”

The answer, of course, is yes. Megabrand Ralph Lauren makes clothes…and home goods…and, yes, house paints. Even though Ralph Lauren paint looks just like other paints that cost significantly less, the Ralph Lauren brand has enough perceived prestige to make it appealing to brand-conscious consumers.

In this way, megabrands–by being everywhere and being everything–become something even bigger: they transform into lifestyle brands.

Lifestyle brands are brands that permeate every aspect of a consumer’s lifestyle such that the brand identity is intertwined with the consumer’s personal identity. Virgin is the quintessential lifestyle brand, as one glance at its subsidiaries list–which includes everything from music to travel to wine–illustrates. A consumer with a strong preference for a megabrand’s products and services may think, “This is my brand,” or “This brand is part of me.”

Disney Princess as lifestyle brand

Like Disney as a whole, the Disney Princess brand has been following the megabrand playbook for years. The result is that in the past decade, Disney Princess has become a lifestyle brand, completely intertwined with little girls’ identities. Disney Princess is not just about the movies and the toys; it’s about food, clothing, and home goods, too. At this point, there are Disney Princess products available for just about every aspect of life, from diapers to wedding dresses.

If Disney wants its princesses to be everything and be everywhere, then of course your home’s walls are in its sights. As a special bonus, the Disney Princess paint catalog is a vehicle for the cross-promotion of other products, like Disney Princess bedding and furniture collection–a nice example of what marketers call “synergy“:

When synergy happens, one plus one no longer equals two. It can equal three, four, five or more. Synergy in marketing is when two marketing initiatives create a response greater than the sum of the combined response the two would have elicited alone. (source)

Synergy is basically the holy grail of integrated marketing campaigns–and Disney Princess is absolutely synergistic. As a collective, it’s worth much more than the sum of its parts.

Interested in more details from the Disney Princess paint line? Here’s a slide show of photos I took at my local Home Depot.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

—

Related post: Disney Princess flowers: Coming soon to a garden near you

Enjoy this blog? Find me on twitter or facebook.

Science Museum gift shop offers girls “space princess” tees and other stereotypes

You know, there are a lot of ways to get girls excited about science, but I don’t think this is one of them:

What the heck is a space princess??
Photo by Peter Wood (@prwood), May 31, 2012: twitter.com/prwood/status/…

Neither is this:

The Boston Museum of Science’s “Hug-a-saurus” t-shirt–because little girls like their prehistoric beasts sweet and snuggly and sugar and spice…? 
Photo by Peter Wood (@prwood), May 31, 2012: pic.twitter.com/dM9w1Vvw

The fact that a science museum is targeting girls Lego Friends style–by coating the gender-neutral concept of science with sparkly, pink, purple nonsense about princesses and other stereotypically girly traits–is infuriating.

Women are underrepresented in science, technology, engineering and mathematics fields (aka STEM careers), and the reasons have everything to do with gender socialization–not innate intelligence levels or interests. Check out this great infographic for an explanation of the STEM gender divisions:

As this infographic explains, when girls are asked to think about their gender–in ways as simple as indicating their sex on a test–they score 20% lower than they otherwise would.

Instead of peppering the gift shop with stereotypes, how about finding or producing merchandise that positions girls as creators, inventors, scientists, engineers–without making it all about gender?

As an example of what this might look like, one woman in who works in a STEM field recently designed a prototype for a proposed Lego set that is girl-centered, but not girly. The set features the woman, Limor Fried, in her workshop, making things–a nice change from depictions of girls and women who want nothing more than to be looked at.

Ladyaya’s workshop, a prototype of a proposed Lego set that positions girls as scientific creators, not stereotypes

Even cooler is the prototype for Roominate. Developed by three women with STEM backgrounds as a way to address the fact that most girls’ toys are dolls and princesses, the Roominate toy consists of “stackable, attachable & customizable miniature room with working circuits” that girls can build themselves.

Positioning girls as princesses restricts the imagination–whereas positioning girls as creators has the potential to inspire and open doors.

So, please, science museums: Don’t place items in your gift shops that present girls as second-class scientists. They shouldn’t be girls first and scientists second. They’re not “space princesses,” and they don’t need to imagine that the ferocious T-Rex liked to snuggle.

Treat girls like people, not stereotypes, and you’ll better support their burgeoning scientific interests.

Disney Princess flowers: coming soon to a garden near you.

Imagine this scenario:

Four-year-old Madison is obsessed with princesses. She wants to eat, sleep, breathe nothing but Disney Princess products, and it’s becoming a point of contention in her household. Her parents are tired of all the little battles over what she will wear, watch, and play with.

Madison’s mom blames herself for this situation. She loved princesses when she was a little girl, so she’s been buying princess products for Madison since Madison was an infant. She thinks sadly, “I can’t believe I did this to my daughter.”

But summer is coming, and Madison’s parents look forward to spending time outdoors. They think involving her in a little gardening might encourage her to branch out a bit–develop new interests.

It’s time to start planting, so they plan a visit to their local garden shop. Building up Madison’s enthusiasm, they tell her, “You can choose any seeds you want to plant! We’ll help you take care of them and you can see how they grow.” She is excited. “Maybe I’ll plant some carrots,” she says.

But then:

That’s right: Burpee, capitalizing on the popularity of Disney Princesses, has licensed the names and likenesses of Belle, Sleeping Beauty, Jasmine, and Cinderella to adorn their flowers’ seed packets.

Upon seeing the display, Madison wants Princess flowers and nothing else. Her discouraged parents remind her that she wanted carrots, but Madison insists. “I want a princess garden, Mommy! Daddy, don’t say no.”

Looking around the corner, her parents see that Burpee does offer Disney-branded vegetables–but they’re not princess-themed. The logic must be that princesses are meant to be gazed upon; they are delicate beauties; so they only adorn the packages of flowers, which share these qualities. The veggie seed packs go to Mickey and friends:

Madison’s parents never dreamed Disney would co-opt their gardening experience, and they DID tell her she could choose any packets she wants….so despite her parents’ reluctance, the princess flowers win.

For this “privilege” of purchasing seeds that have Disney characters on their packaging, her parents will spend $1.99 a package, instead of the $1.00 to $1.19 Burpee charges for otherwise identical packages of seeds with no licensed characters on them — making the outing twice as expensive as it should have been.

Oh, and don’t forget the princess-themed plant labels, which cost $2.97 for a package of six–way more than the plain ones, which cost $1.99 for a package of twenty. Yikes.

(Hey, at least Tiana’s on the packaging.)

Now, I don’t mean to knock Burpee for licensing Disney characters on their products. Gardening isn’t very exciting for modern kids; it’s slow-moving. Maybe Disney-branded seeds are actually a great way get them involved in a healthy, satisfying activity that requires more patience and work than they’re used to. (And as far as the princess-flower / animal-food divide goes, maybe Burpee’s team is just not creative enough to realize that even beautiful princesses have to eat.)

No, my point is this: The Disney Princess marketing machine is SO huge, so far-reaching, that it’s hard to avoid and even harder to resist. Parents sometimes blame themselves for their daughters’ princess obsessions, but who’s really to blame–the parents, or the billion-dollar industry that is invested in profiting by shaping little girls’ dreams?

I think the answer is clear. In this kind of context, it’s hard to choose freely–and that’s something to think critically about.

Note: I took these photos at my local Home Depot about a month ago. This week, the princess-branded flower seed packets are nearly entirely sold out, while most of Mickey and friends’ vegetable seed packets are still in stock.

—

For further reading, see the post “Disney Princess Grapes?” on Sociological Images.

In other news: Dr. Jennifer Shewmaker cross-posted my Katniss Everdeen post on her blog. (Thank you, Jennifer!) Her blog explores the sexualized messages that the media send to children. If the topic interests you, be sure to check out her work!

Princess Extravagance, from Preschool to Prom

What do little girls in princess dresses and teenagers at proms have in common? More than you might think!

Last week, a new survey found that nationwide, U.S. teens and their families will spend an average of $1,000 on this year’s prom. In my region, the northeast, the average is double that–a whopping $2,000 per family. With such numbers, the article argues, “Prom is the new wedding.”

Why is lavish spending on proms on the rise? USA Today reports:

Teen girls view prom as their “red-carpet moment” and are “heavily influenced” by celebrities who walk actual red carpets in designer gowns. “It’s a rite of passage, and there’s a legacy of how you look at your prom. Girls want to dress to impress.”

In other words, the intense consumerism of prom may be fueled by a wish to be like a celebrity for a night: the center of attention, all eyes on her, enjoying the spotlight.

But with such pleasures come intense pressure–the pressure of public scrutiny, with a fear of condemnation if the girl fails to achieve an idealized look. External scrutiny may be real or imagined. It may take place on facebook or at an afterparty. But self-scrutiny will most likely take place in the mirror, as a girl turns her critical eye on her own reflection to gauge whether she measures up to the ideal. No sympathy, no compassion–just judgments.

It’s easy for critics to wag their fingers at teen girls and their parents for enabling this behavior. However, prom spending can’t be removed from its cultural context. For one thing, girls face a marketing machine that makes such spending seem necessary (see any teen magazine during prom season for details). But more importantly, our culture socializes girls to be consumers who treat themselves as commodities–packaged to be gazed upon, admired, and desired.

Consider all the toddler girls who want nothing more than to be miniature Disney Princesses: Some are so insistent on their princess identities that they will wear nothing but princess play clothes, and protest with tearful heartbreak at every well-intended reality check. For the families of discerning young preschool consumers, this can become a costly interest to support: Disney-branded princess dresses start at about $45 at the Disney Store; accessories like matching shoes, tiaras, and purses are sold separately.

A princess makeover at the Bibbidi Bobbidi Boutique

The Disney princess dresses can cost twice that or more if purchased at a Disney theme park during a family vacation, while a full princess makeover at Disney’s popular Bibbidi Bobbidi Boutique can set parents back an additional $50-$190 or more (dress not included). But Disney persuades parents that these costs are worthwhile, for the memories will last a lifetime: As the signs at Disney’s parks say, “Let the memories begin.”

And so the toddler girl’s $100-$200 princess dress-up experience sets the stage for the $1,000-$2,000 prom.

A Disney Cinderella wedding gown by designer Alfred Angelo

What the toddlers and teens are buying is a fantasy. Teen girls who aspire to have a “red-carpet moment” at prom–like couples who now spend an average of $27,000 on their dream weddings–are spending their money to display a glamorous image for a single evening. The marketing machine insists that moment will “last a lifetime,” which makes all the spending seem worthwhile. The advertising narrative tells girls, “You’re worth it! Go ahead and be glamorous. Show everyone the real you.”

But this prom experience isn’t so much “real” as aspirational. Just like little girls (and beautiful brides) are not really princesses, girls at prom are playing dress-up, too. Yes, it’s a lot of fun to do so–but as many girls do in fact know, prom can be just as fun on a smaller budget. (As one teen who reported happily finding a gown on consignment said last year, “Being frugal is cool.”) When exorbitant spending seems necessary and inevitable, though, the marketers are winning–aided and abetted by a culture that teaches girls that a primary source of their value is their appearances.

Readers: What’s your take on the rising cost of proms? Have you or your daughters spent this much? Or, do you have any examples of great recent prom experiences that didn’t succumb to the pressures to spend, spend, spend? Any tips on where to shop?

Do you enjoy this blog? Please follow me on facebook or twitter. Thank you!

At Stride Rite, girls are pretty and boys are actve.

A few days ago, Melissa at Pigtail Pals wrote about a conversation she overheard, in which her 6-year-old daughter’s classmate insisted that sparkly shoes are not for playing–they’re for looking pretty:

“Your shoes are ugly,” said the kindergarten classmate.
“No they are not,” replied the 6yo Original Pigtail Pal, Amelia.
“They are. Look how pretty mine are,” the classmate taps her toes for emphasis.
“They are the same pair of shoes. Like the exact same,” explains Amelia.
“They aren’t the same. Mine still have all of the pretty sparkles. I didn’t get them messed up,” boasted the girl, in full sparkle. [...] “Amelia, you should care a little bit about being pretty or you won’t get a boyfriend,” says the classmate.

Where do young girls get the idea that it’s more important to keep their sparkly shoes looking pretty than to play? Let’s consider Stride Rite’s marketing strategy for its play shoes (ie, sneakers), which I recently witnessed at a Stride Rite store near me.

For girls: The instruction to “sparkle with every step.” (Like pretty Cinderella, whose glass slippers were really impractical but helped her find romance.)
For boys: “Look out! Here comes Spiderman!” (Active, energetic, powerful.)

A quick review of StrideRite.com reveals more of the same: girls are meant to be looked at, so their play shoes are a route to prettiness, while boys are meant to be active, so their play shoes are made for play. Excerpts from the gallery below:

• Cinderella sneakers “transport your little princess to a world of fantasy”
• Hello Kitty Keds are “the cutest sneakers on the block”
• Glitzy Pets sneakers help girls “to really shine and steal the show”
• Spiderman sneakers offer “light-up powers,” “no matter what kind of web he spins”
• Star Wars sneakers with “lighted technology” are good for “your little adventurer’s feet”
• Lightning McQueen sneakers, also with “lighted technology,” let boys “be as fast as the legendary Cars Lightning McQueen on-and-off the track”

In other words, Stride Rite’s marketing strategies–like other companies’–reinforce the sex role biases that keep boys active and girls passive. As Colette Dowling has argued, these biases are at the root of the Frailty Myth: Boys learn “to use their bodies in skilled ways, and this gives them a good sense of their physical capacities and limits. [...] Girls hold themselves back from full, complete movement, Although it’s usually something girls are unaware of, they actually learn to hamper their movements, developing a ‘body timidity that increases with age.’”

I’ll give Amelia from Pigtail Pals the last word: as she told her friend, “You should care less about being pretty and more about playing with us. My mom says there’s lots of different ways to be a girl.”

Well said, Amelia! Marketers: You would do well to take this same advice: care less about girls being pretty and more about their play.

Do you enjoy this blog? Please follow me on facebook or twitter. Thank you!