It actually did make a difference to my DD in preschool. She had not been exposed to any Disney anything, and the pack of girls her age played Disney princesses every single day.
Wow, this thread is really twigging my feminist soapbox today.
This is a case of the tail wagging the dog. Little girls don't universally have an innate drive to imagine themselves as princesses--sure, maybe they favour interpersonal narratives as a gender, but that tendency alone can't explain the ubiquity of princess products. The aggregate trend of princessification is a manifestation of long-term marketing strategy in female-targeted products that create a subconscious, narcissistic drive in mothers to morph their daughters into princesses. The girls are being conditioned to attach self-worth to the consumption of high margin products that reinforce a mainstream corporate feminine ideal. The merchandisers and media producers are creating a prisoner's dilemma for parents, establshing a perverse situation where the culture becomes self-reinforcing and demands its own consumption.
For an interesting documentary on media driving culture, check out
"Merchants of Cool". Having consulted for F100 corporations, I can assure you that these strategies are insidious and very effective at turning consumers into sheeple. My bottom-line recommendation for building social currency: don't consume something simply because it's culturally popular, only consume it because it has intrinsic positive value to you. I think it sends a positive message to children about their self-worth to support them in pursuing non-mainstream interests when the norm is irrelevant or uninteresting to them.
I love polarbear's post on finding common ground through social education.
I am soooo tempted to leave this post alone because it took on a life of it's own, but this response twigged one of my pet topics....
I very strongly believe that children should be given the opportunity to find role models etc from both genders, toys that are gender neutral and experiences that can break stereotypes HOWEVER I get really mad about the whole "my girl can't play with anything that is pink etc" because, in my opinion at least what you are saying is that to be strong, smart and capable you need to not be a traditional girl, you need to be more like a boy - that sends a powerful message to little girls that their is something inherently wrong with them. That their natural inclination (in many) to play with dolls and pink stuff is wrong and that they can't be both - feminine and successful.
I spent my first 30 years trying to be a tomboy and proudly displaying my lack of fashion interest as some kind of superiority when really all I was doing was missing out on some good old girly fun. Much like many men (not all) indulge in baseball, hunting or whatever.
I happily buy my daughter her fairy princess stuff, it matches her dinosaur bag and robot lunch box nicely.
It seems you are misinterpreting my position as being one where children's play should be dictated in a top-down fashion by parents, with strict regulation of gender typed play. Let me reassure you that is not my position. Perhaps I should highlight this line of my post--"My bottom-line recommendation for building social currency: don't consume something simply because it's culturally popular, only consume it because it has intrinsic positive value to you."
Nowhere have I said it is wrong for girls to play with themes that are socially feminized--like dolls--or for boys to avoid play traditionally construed as masculine. I also haven't objected to a preference for given colours because, hey, it's just refracted light! What I'm objecting to is over-consumption of marketed princess (or hero) play because the underlying messages are negative.
Let's compare doll play to marketed princess play (as distinct from child-initiated princess play based on, say, an interest in the monarchy, history, or family play.) The former fosters empathy, prosocial attitudes, nurturing, and responsibility, none of which are uniquely masculine or feminine traits. Disney princess play, however emphasizes several overarching themes that lock heroines in a perpetual state of adolescent dependence:
- Financial and social dependence on the benevolence of a usually male caregiver (father, husband)
- An attitude of cultural and class-driven entitlement, in which caste is the primary determinant of life outcome and effort is not correlated with life outcomes
- Social value determined by attractiveness and grooming
- A need to be rescued (by a male) from either one's own poor decisions or the malice of a jealous older (and often less attractive) female
- A need to reform males or garner their approval to achieve status or happiness
- A central focus on marriage as the ultimate goal to which heroines should aspire
I wouldn't classify any of those narratives as serving the interests of girls or providing intrinsic positive value. Yet, they are the dominant messages that girls are bombarded with, and which are internalized as outlooks perceived as authentic. How much consumption of this messaging is reasonable is a personal judgement call, but my approach trends toward zero for my son. I don't want him to grow up seeing women as trophies, victims, or dependents, or that being a man involves brutality. Other families may be comfortable introducing more marketed princess/hero play if it is a minority activity. A chacun son gout.
I find it interesting that most families who eschew mainstream media and and toys don't seem to have children who are either superhero or princess focused. As you suggest, interest in these gendered narrative products exists on a continuum between intrinsic and marketing-driven motivation. I would posit that marketing messaging is substantially amplifying consumption and play behaviour around a much lower level of intrinsic interest.
