Hi there wondering if anyone can help me. DD is just about to start school (eeeek) and although we are feeling well prepared I am very worried about her ability to relate to the other kids. She is still very childlike in most areas but I'm worried the "geek" alarm is going to go off when she starts talking about music.

Can anyone recommend any first grade popular artists I can exposes her to? She currently likes classical music, ABBA and the wiggles.... So I guess I'm looking for upbeat with a bit of complexity in the melody maybe.

Anyway just so when someone asks her favourite song she has something to go to other than the Quattro in Swan lake or Chiquitica.

See if you can find out if her school does jump jam and what ? songs are then listen. My kids went to school with mimimal exposure music exposure and they have never mentioned it being an issue. For girls at least that song from Frozen 'let it go' ? Seems very popular.

good tip re jump jam. Fortunately we have escaped frozen fever!

Ditto puffin's experience - lack of exposure to current popular music wasn't an issue in early elementary. I also don't really remember any coming home in terms of our kids picking up on it from other kids until around 3rd/4th grade. If your child knows ABBA and Wiggles she's really good to go in terms of having some musical "currency" for early elementary The other kids will probably have heard the Wiggles, and if they haven't heard ABBA, if they are like the little girls I've known, they'll be into it the minute they've heard it

And Frozen... don't teach your dd Frozen... think of it as a kindness to the adults around her who have already heard kids singing it 9 million times

Such a fun age - I hope your dd has fun next year!

polarbear

Like that viral video of the mom who had been snowed in for three days with non stop frozen. Said if she could wring a cartoon character's neck she would strangle (and with the help of her little girl who is off camera starts naming some of the characters). And little girl pleas come from off camera...please don't kill Elsa!

I wouldn't worry about it. Musical tastes don't become normative/stigmatizing until at least 4th grade...

This doesn't matter in first grade. I would say it doesn't become an issue till around 4th or so. FWIW, my 5th grader hates most popular "tweeny" music. It's not a big deal.

I think first grade music of children is folk songs they have been taught like coming round the mountain and campfire type songs from camp/scouts...like on top of spaghetti type songs. Rafi songs are good for this age (baby beluga, down by the sea, There was an old lady who swallowed a fly). And hey every time I make fruit salad I burst into the wiggles and I am nearing 50 years old.

My ten year old did like kidz bop CDs starting around age seven or eight. And he likes Disney pop from about that age.

Ditto.

My DD really hasn't ever liked "typical" stuff this way. Though she did think that Bruno Mars was dreamy when she was 10, as I recall. LOL.

Her favorite songs were by Tom Lehrer. So there you go. She still has managed to find her tribe, and the theater majors seem to find her a total hoot, by the way, because she has a-- um-- well, a gift. She can sing Frozen, all right. Just-- different.

When she was 5 or 6, she would have known classical artists, Tom Lehrer, Weird Al, and some 60's pop music. Abba. Yes, that too-- and maybe America or the BeeGee's.

By the time she was in the age where it mattered, she had a stereo in her room so that she could experiment and find what she liked. She's chosen since to listen to the local pop station occasionally just so that she knows what Katy Perry sounds like. She likes Adele and Lady Gaga. But she still thinks that her dad and I listen to better music (generally) than most of her peers. I take her to hear Gershwin, Sondheim, Schubert and Prokofiev, and her dad takes her to hear Joan Jett, Judas Priest, and Rush, and we all go to Weird Al and jazz.

Most of DD's peer group thinks that this is pretty cool, truthfully-- and always has.

My dd3 went crazy over Frozen when it came out and sang all of the songs, but she was less than 2 years old when her Frozen craze started, so this was probably not due to peer pressure. She has now out grown it. She still likes this one Frozen chanting song. Aside from the Frozen topic, she likes many different types of music, but there is also some music she despises. According to my wife she really likes Coldplay. Classic rock (70's and 80's) puts her to sleep. It is a little trick I have learned.

I like dancing with her to (50's and 60's) music of various genre. She get into that music a lot due to the dancing. She like all of the very active kid dancing activity songs. I think those are good for all kids. You know the "Ring Around the Rosy", "Hokey pokey", and "Bear Hunt" type songs.

Oh, also she is a huge Beatles fan. She love's the Chuck Berry song 'C'est la vie.

awesome - I just overheard some of the girls talking about Katy Perry and had a freak out! I'm all chilled now.

To be honest I could do without then knowing some of the songs they learn at schoolbut it is not that big a deal. I am just not the soet of person who has music on at home so they don't hear much.

I feel the same way.

No! You have a golden opportunity to help her develop her ear and hone her own good musical taste. Please, don't encourage her to listen to Katy Perry or other shrieking tarts. There is no redeeming value--either in terms of musicality or content-- to the over-produced, hyper-sexualized tweenie-bopper genre. Let her be a trendsetter by developing her own unique style. At that age, kids listen to what their parents like and will be receptive to new sounds if a friend recommends them.

Get that girl some Miles Davis, Frank Sinatra, Foo Fighters, Dream Theater, Audioslave, Piano Guys, Pentatonix, Yo-Yo Ma, Carlos Santana, Tiesto, AC/DC, etc. Sample widely across genres. Have fun!

ITA with aquinas. We played all kinds of music for ours beginning from when they were in utero (not on purpose; it's just what we like). #1 was probably the only 4 yo in preschool who liked prog rock and could sing a blues note...and now #1 code-switches easily. Pop music is rather unavoidable, but the range of quality music from across genres needs more deliberate exposure at home. It's a bit like learning the majority language; children raised in it will become conversant in it one way or the other, but if you don't protect the home language, it's highly likely to be lost.

Ha...

DD taught her kindergarten class the lyrics to "I Wanna be Sedated" last year (which she had learned to play on the piano)... and the other kids actually loved it... her teacher was less happy.

She translated the lyrics to Bastille's "Pompeii" into Spanish and sang it incessantly. Her favorite bands are the Beatles, Of Monsters and Men, the Clash, Spoon, Neutral Milk Hotel, Katy Perry, and Shakira. So yeah. It's a mix.

She has invented a game called "Punk or Funk" that she plays with her friends where she quizzes them about the genre of songs that she puts on during playdates.

I met her mother when both of us were working in radio... so...

The Beatles, yes! Don't forget them!

I mean, we don't ever listen to commercial radio here, because we hate it, but DD is free to listen to it on her MP3 player (it has a radio) if she wants to. You don't want to be that parent who forbids The Popular Music, IMO. We have music on a lot of the time and the kids have developed interests and preferences, DD in particular. Her very cool music teacher says she has the best taste of any her students. (excuse me while I kvell)

Anyway, what I was going to say is that music is kind of a non-issue at this age but you might want to make sure she's seen Frozen, etc and the standard popular movies. It might be good to have some vague familiarity with popular iPad games, too. I mean, if this kind of thing concerns you. We try to make sure the kids know about some of this stuff so they're not just totally off in our own personal family nerdworld at all times. Of course, we still don't have cable.

+1

Most kids around that age do not know how to talk music. I wouldn't worry about your DD standing out in a negative way because she likes classical music or pop music from a different era.

From what I've seen, social currencies in K/1 are movies (and its soundtrack so that's where music sort of comes in but not really), TV shows, and iPad games. LEGO and Minecraft tend to kick in around age 8.

Generally speaking, 5/6 year olds don't have in-depth discussions or form cliques based on social or cultural identities. DD has a friend who is a huge fan of Disney princesses. DD loves Frozen but she doesn't like or really know other princesses. Nevertheless, they still manage to play all day long together and the difference in their taste has never been an issue.

I wouldn't say music particularly matters either, at least not till kids are older. Among older (maybe 4th/5th grade, middle school, etc) kids, there is actually a subset of kids to whom Piano Guys are very much a thing. No one would listen to the classical music station or anything, but definitely a step up from Lady Gaga-type.

I don't cite this list as a cultural imperative for social blending, just as an example of a varied list that builds a lifelong appreciation of music. (Though I'm glad to hear that piano Guys have a following with young children!)

I'm not sure music even matters that much to many teenagers these days. Back when I was a teen what type of music you liked was one of the things that defined you. But to my DD16 and many of his friends, music isn't that important in their lives. They care about video games and movies a lot more than music. My son plays music and enjoys many different kinds of music, he just doesn't collect music, go to shows, spend money on music or talk about it with his friends. There are teenagers who are still very music focused and go to shows but the breadth and type of media out there is so much more than music. The latest YouTube viral video seems more important in their lives that the latest pop band.

Music isn't a big issue with early elementary age kids. If you care if will be able to relate to her peers I would expose her to Disney films, and other current kids movies/tv shows. The pre-K girls I know are all MAD about Frozen.

I fear I've given the impression we don't listen to music in our house!!! We do, just not the radio, and definitely not anything modern top 40 because we are old. She gets exposed to just about every other type of ,music you can think of - we have eclectic tastes (including at times, silence)it's just her particular favourite happens to be ABBA (also one of mine!)

Sounds to me that it doesn't matter anyway I just didn't want her to be standing there with a blank look on her face if the kids were talking about it.

Well. It looks like we're outliers on this thread. My kids have been listening to Green Day since before they could talk (we buy most of their new albums), and my eldest was singing along with Jesus of Suburbia when he was, well, little. DD10 and I both like Katy Perry (and I think the comments here are strangely judgmental about both her and her stuff; FWIW, I think she's an extremely talented woman). We talk about popular songs regularly.

Lady Gaga went to CTY summer camps, so if you're trying to protect your kids from the evils of popular culture, CTY camps may not get you there.

Just have to say that, as much as we could probably be characterized as music snobs...we think Lady Gaga is extremely talented as well. Her duet album with Tony Bennett (granted, not a pop album) currently has a place of prominence in our household playlist, as does some other pop.

Of course, SO is an audio professional, so we have an odd collection of music, sometimes selected on the basis of the producer/engineer/recording studio. I think there may be some tracks that were acquired based on equipment/recording techniques used!

Ongoing discussion in this house about the balance of musical education: classical, jazz, rock, pop, etc. But not much sense that kids need pop culture/music to fit in.

They pick up what they need, as well as some of what they don't.

Mine are on a Weird Al Yankovic jag; I don't think it's current with friends, but it certainly is in my house.

My twins did start to care about popular music in Kindergarten. They declared the music we were listening to "babyish" and asked to listen to something else. We started playing Disney Radio in the car, it is on Sirius/XM and also AM. That solved the "music" issue.

I will say that my boys did start asking about tv shows that up until that point we had not let them watch, as in pre-k they mainly watched PBS or documentaries or shows rated 'Y'. We did let them start watching shows that were Y-7 as it was important as social currency at the time.

Now in 2nd grade, they are more aware of pop culture and are interested in things like the Nickelodeon Kid's Choice Awards.

I'll bite, Val. My tone below is somewhat spiteful: caveat--it's directed at the purveyors of pop, not you personally.

It's not just her, it's the entire genre of monotonous 1-4-5 pop with vapid lyrics about drunkeness and hook-ups, and a public persona deeply imbued with pro-promiscuity messaging that depends on the sexual objectification of women and girls. The producers of these albums get all twitchy every three measures and have to hit the tonic switch lest the drive to a major third jar the top-40 audience's ears. These are corporate jingles stretched out to 3 minutes, and they bear as much resemblance to music as a plate of half-eaten French fries does a Matisse.

So, as both a feminist and someone trained in music, I think much of the heavily engineered pop is atrocious. But that's one person's opinion in a free market, and you're obviously free to disagree. I will give you a hat tip for Green Day, though; they were 10 years ahead of their time.

Everyone has different tastes, I have some guilty pleasures but it is more the exposure to the adult/sexual nature of the music and clips that keeps it pretty tame here, although DD is very familiar with punk and metal due to DH, once again though old school stuff like motorhead and the ramones...

Clips? Does that mean videos?

At some point all music was "modern music" or music of its time and probably equally decried by parents.

When younger DD was exposed to our eclectic tastes in music and now we are exposed to hers. We share an iTunes account so what I have on my iPad she has on hers and vice versa. I love learning new music and she has surprising old tunes of mine on her playlists. It's all good. I have no fears of either of us being corrupted and we both live in hope that DH will have his tastes extended!

I wouldn't be too worried about the social currency aspect. Children take great delight in exposing their friends to the latest in thing. Your DC will like it or not and that in itself prompts an interchange between the kids. Once kids get older they develop their own tastes which may or may not intersect with those of their friends. Learning to accept that not everyone likes the same thing often starts with music!

We didn't find music to be the social currency in early grades, but TV and movies. 1st grade DD, when asked by another kid what her favorite TV show was, answered with the only TV show she could name: "Sesame Street."

Getting the kids to things like the Disney movies, the Lego movie, and the like is also part of this.

For older grades, while there is popular music, we're finding that there's a whole lot more variety in what it's ok to know and like, thanks to a much broader access to music out there.

Why the double standard? If you think it sets a bad example for girls, doesn't it set a bad example for boys as well? Boys have a lot to do with the whole situation here.

FWIW, there's quite a bit of research on all this and especially as kids get older and want access, forbidding/restricting does not improve relationships or create an environment where teens want to share. I'm not crazy about a lot of the crap out there either, but I wanted to listen to it when I was a tween and teen because it was what one did. I don't plan to forbid it, but I do plan to talk about it and the messages it send. It's a conversation we're already having in our house.

Now, for younger kids, no need to intentionally introduce this stuff. It gets harder with younger sibs...

At age 6, my DD had friends who were swooning for Justin Bieber. DD was open in her contempt for him and his music. It didn't cause any problems that we saw.

These kids DID bond frequently over movies and Disney/Nick TV shows (their imaginary play often meant taking on TV roles and playing them out in absurd ways), so that was a major source of social currency. Also, contrary to what someone said above, they were already Minecrafting, plus playing other cooperative video games like Just Dance and Lego titles. So those were all pop-culture resources that helped DD bridge the gap to other kids.

As far as music, the most important thing was that there were age-appropriate instruments available for the kids to goof around on (small drum kit, keyboards, recorder, etc.), plus some tolerant adults.

But but but but... what if that IS her style?


Indeed. My DD10 has taken an opportunity to show Piano Guys to every kid who comes over for the last couple of years.

Which brings me to another point, because all of us old fuddy-duddies have to be careful not to overlook the social currency of YouTube. We have to treat it just like TV... there's a lot of inappropriate material, but as long as they stay within appropriate boundaries, they should be allowed to explore. My DD enjoys (and shares with her friends) song parodies (especially Minecraft ones), people playing Minecraft (especially this Tobuscus guy, who also does the aforementioned song parodies), fail videos, and kids filming themselves doing gymnastics.

Sorry--I didn't mean to come off condescending and I probably did. I have a kneejerk tendency to protect as well, and I'm a reflexive snob, so I have to remind myself to be careful. I was interested in the research on protection vs not. I don't think it's necessarily self evident.

For instance, YouTube is a hard one for me. I agree that it's important social currency these days, but I kind of hate it because it's so easy to end up somewhere sketchy. At the same time, I so don't want to sit there and co-view...yawn. I'm less bothered for DD, who is showing herself to be smart about things that are creepy, but DS is still very young.

Also, I wouldn't rely on not needing to forbid because...kids go outside of our homes, YK? This is coming up for me.

Agree on all points. I'm certainly not interested in co-viewing on a constant basis, but some occasional co-viewing, in which my DD shares with me just like she'd share with her friends, turns adult supervision into a parent-child bonding session at the same time. Some of the stuff she shows me, I find entertaining. We even have sessions where we take turns, so I'll show her some music or some comedy that I like, and see what resonates with her.

I don't worry so much about her clicking on inappropriate materials (and her interest in fail videos is an easy gateway to that) ever since I observed her, without her knowledge, controlling the computer with a room full of friends, and immediately clicking off of something inappropriate the moment the inappropriate nature of the video became apparent. Of course, she's only 10, so this will require continued future monitoring.

I have seen the Anaconda video. Honestly, it made me laugh. I think DD would find it horrifying!

I actually feel Anaconda is less of a danger to my 11yo DD, who just wouldn't get it and would definitely not aspire to it (too overtly sexual), than some cute, skinny, teeny white girl she would more identify with singing something vacuous that implies being obsessed with male approval and/or body dissatisfaction. I probably worry more about Seventeen magazine than Nicki Minaj...

My goodness, YES.

DD decided all on her own that Bieber and most of the former-Disney set were nothing but over-produced trash...

and that Christina Aguilera, Lady Gaga, and Adele had real talent. It doesn't mean that she likes everything that they do, just that she doesn't roll her eyes at it or cringe about the social justice issues involved in such factory-produced material.

Youtube-- well, I'm sure that she has SEEN some occasionally inappropriate material-- frankly, we've been in a continuous arms race since she was about 6yo in order to keep SOME controls on internet usage.

But she isn't drawn to that really nasty stuff, doesn't care for it, and when she encounters it-- SHE self-regulates. In a hurry.

Niki Minaj? DD's opinion is that this is just-- sad. In the same way that Lindsey Lohan or Miley Cyrus news is "sad."

In related news (since someone else expressed an appreciation for Weird Al upthread):

Black Death (Hollaback Girl parody)

My DD discovered these when she was in World History in high school, but she would have thoroughly enjoyed them as young as 6 or 7. They are very much in the tradition of Horrible Histories. They are downright CLEVER, as well-- and DD, like most of the kids on these boards, loves clever.

There are a few dozen of those:

https://www.youtube.com/user/historyteachers/videos



(The story of why the female teacher featured in those surprisingly good production quality videos started making them is a really neat aspect of the series, as well.)

As for pop influences that are toxic for girls-- yeah. I hear that concern, and echo it. But Anaconda doesn't even register relative to the ubiquitous images of eating disordered teen role models featured in every square inch of media, coupled with clothing for young girls which is-- frankly-- bordering on OBSCENE in terms of modesty and, well-- coverage.

Anyone who has parented a girl knows this through bitter experience-- once you leave TODDLER sizing, everything is "sexy" unless you make a very concerted effort to find the (increasingly rare) gems here and there, or opt to pay a small fortune for brands that cater to the preppy look instead.

There is something seriously wrong when a parent can't find a one-piece swimsuit with full coverage-- for one's tiny, six year old daughter.


THAT, I worry about far more than any music video on Youtube.

We tackled it head-on, and dragged that toxic influence out into the open where we could poke and prod it and torture it until it confessed that it was after DD's self-worth.

She's wise to it-- and I have no regrets whatsoever.

Ditto.

DD was in a Halloween costume contest at age 4(!) when the trophy was given to an off-the-shelf "sexy devil" costume. This is what you get when you invite the cheerleaders from local pro sports teams to be your judges. *gag*

Since there's no hiding DD from this kind of unhealthy messaging, our role is to drag it out into the light of day, and show it to DD in all its ugliness. Here again, the internet has been a helpful tool, particularly the results of the search terms "photoshop fails."

The only music we listen to is the local listener supported classical radio station. At school, DS has classical music played in the background every day while the class does seat work. I used to listen to all kinds of music, but switched primarily to classical music when DS was 4 (that was 3 years ago). He is so used to it that sometimes he asks me to change from NPR back to the classical radio station.

Strangely enough, music has zero social currency value for DS - his social circle is a group of 25 boys of his age group and 7 girls - all from diverse backgrounds - they play a lot - mostly games like 4 squares, volleyball, tag, basketball, bike riding etc. They also still like to play in the sand a lot. They are into active and physical play. And in the times that they talk, the topics always tend toward Starwars, Legos etc. I think that because most of the kids DS plays with are into very active physical play, they do not chat about music, "cool factors" etc. and social currency does not come into play in the dynamics. DS is a misfit due to other things - like his language proficiency that makes him stand out, his life experiences etc. - but not because of lack of exposure to popular music or popular TV shows.

Yes, all this. It's all an ongoing conversation and it started really young over here. Parental modeling is pretty huge, too. What is mom saying about her appearance and the appearance of other women? (best answer: nothing)


How old are these girls? IME, most American girls go through a "princess" phase around 3-6 that then goes away. (Mine didn't, but she's odd.) Princess/pink stuff may even be considered really babyish and uncool. My daughter and her friends currently have no interest in princesses, though there's starting to be some age-typical interest in clothes and makeup.


Frankly, I'm not even that worked up about modesty in many ways (example: school dress codes are getting out of hand) but it drives me crazy when young girls' clothes and SHOES are too impractical to be active and PLAY in. I have had shoe rules forever. Yes, okay, you can have a pair or two for dressy occasions, but for everyday, you have to be able to RUN in them, scuff them up, etc. No heels! No tiny straps! And your clothes better not fall off your shoulder or down your butt when you move, either. Miniskirts for preschoolers are a nonstarter. I have seen too many girls under age 10 who were decked out like 20yo sorority girls, unable to play on the playground. Or, they do anyway and wreck their clothes and mom yells.

I've been thinking about this thread a bit over the weekend, and the thing that most comes to mind (for me) when reading the thoughts and comments is - we can't really over-predict what other kids in any one class in any one year are going to be talking about or excited about. Trying to forecast and prepare our kids for what we think will be the pop-music or pop-movie or pop-whatever of the day conversation on the playgroung in a few months or next year is somewhat of an exercise in futility. We might get it, but we are also just as likely will be way off the mark.

My take on what makes for "social currency" in early elementary is related to a child's personality, social awareness, and social skills. Please note that by social awareness I'm not talking about which song is popular on the playground, but rather how a child reads cues from other kids, how empathetic they are, how interested they are in other children. Each of my three kids has had a different experience making friends and fitting in in kindergarten/early elementary - and I think that how it all worked out had more to do with social "IQ" than with issues arising from being an intellectual outlier. And the cool thing is, social "IQ" is something we can work on with our kids.

Best wishes,

polarbear

THIS. I've never understood why dress codes why it's a big deal when young girls wear spaghetti straps t-shirts on a hot day. What's wrong with shoulders? On the other hand I agree that too many clothes for young girls are designed to make them look like they are 19 and going out to a hot date.

polarbear, I get what you're saying, but if your family tends to be pretty removed from pop culture (we are) it's possible to forget to tune in to occasional detriment. I don't think it's a huge deal, but it's like a conversational icebreaker. Oh, you like Angry Birds? You like Elsa? Me too. How about those Red Sox?

My 14 yr old listens to NPR and the Broadway channel. She has plenty of friends and is happy.

Our social currency stuff for DD was pretty carefully selected. It's not like we kept her away from everything else, by any means. Nothing is verboten here, really-- but you have to be willing to tolerate being questioned about your choices, that's all. So why do you think that Justin Bieber is "the greatest" then? What do you mean by that?

Pop culture currency for DD (over the years, I mean):

Disney movies

PBS kid shows (even Caillou, which I loathed with every fiber of my being)

Books-- whatever, whenever, and yeah, Captain Underpants was King for a while.

Wii games, some of them potty-humor based (but no xbox)

DSi personal gaming console, and games for it

Television-- DD has seen enough reality television to know what it is (American Idol, DWTS, Survivor, Amazing Race, and the cooking shows-- and enough to have little interest in Big Brother or other trashier fare along those lines), The Simpsons, Walking Dead (okay, that's her dad's influence), South Park. Sports, but DD really only likes Olympic events and baseball.

BBC television shows-- she is a long-time Doctor Who fan, and has been pleased to discover that this makes her "cool" with most peers.

Pokemon, though we've had to limit this one.

Tabletop RPG (again, we've imposed limits).


That seems to give her enough in common with peers that she can navigate her way to finding a group of friends with ease. Cards Against Humanity, she discovered all on her own. Then again-- do recall that DD is nearly 16, and that she is a college student-- we have little control over this at this point.

If anything, we've encouraged some of this as a means of building some social currency with others, since DD hasn't been educated in a group setting where the exposure would have happened naturally.

If a child feels estranged from classmates because she is unfamiliar with their preferred music, won't she let you know? Why do you need to prepare for a problem that may not materialize and is not too serious if it does?

One thing I learned from my childhood was that anything forbidden that other kids are allowed is somehow sweeter. So along those lines I didn't go out to expose my kids to popular culture but I allowed them to explore it within reason. (Such as limits on TV time, age appropriateness.)

The stage when my DD20 liked Hanna Montana made me cringe but she was a preteen at the time. I tried on numerous occasions to talk about why it made me uncomfortable but I still let her watch. I was so much happier when a friend turned her onto Dr. Who.

ultramarina, my kids started school having never listened to current pop music and never watching tv other than the occasional Nature video on PBS. We didn't have any electronic toys in our house, the kids at that age didn't use our computers, and at that point in time I didn't even use a cell phone, and my kids had no logos on anything. I suspect that, at best, my family would have qualified as "fringe" rather than being familiar with what seems to be referred to hear as popular culture, and that's where I'm coming from. Not knowing the latest hit movie characters, not watching cartoons on tv, not listening to pop music - none of that caused an issue in meeting and making friend when my kids went to school. What made a difference was how comfortable my kids were meeting and getting to know other kids. If it helps a child to know who Elsa is in order to feel like they fit in, I don't have an issue with taking them to see Frozen, but what if the child they meet hasn't seen Frozen? There are so many things in young children's worlds that can serve as a common conversational point and a common meeting-of-minds, that kids really don't have to know what the "popular" movies/songs/etc are just to fit in. I spent a lot of time after school when my kids were in their first elementary school just hanging out on the side at the playground after school so my kids could play - lots of families did that at that school. The things kids talked about and played on the playground had nothing to do with movies etc - they were swinging on swings, sliding down slides, talking about dinosaurs, looking for cool rocks, seeing how fhow much playground "mulch" (whatever it was) they could stuff in their shoes, racing to catch nothing, things like that. In the classroom during free time they had all sorts of school stuff to play with, particularly in kindergarten where there were dolls, play kitchens, blocks, legos, games, etc. My kids absolutely *learned* about popular music/games/tv shows etc through peers that they met at school, but they weren't ever shunned or limited in friendship opportunities because of not having been exposed to it.

That said, I do know quite a bit about popular music now that tI've had kids go through elementary school and in turn it's seeped into our house as our kids have picked and chosen what they like And that's ok - I am now a Lady Gaga and Katy Perry fan

polarbear

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. Admittedly, that is an age when girls may be monomaniacal on this subject, and it did not help that DD was a) not interested and b) socially immature. However, we got her some Disney princess books from the library so she could at least understand what they were talking about, and it helped. (I remember my little birdwatcher initially thought Ariel was named "Oriole.")

Likewise, DS6 goes over to other boys' houses and it's slightly mortifying/weird to him that he does not know how to play any Xbox/Nintendo/whatever games. BTW, I haven't caved on this, but it has come up for him. So, at least he plays Angry Birds and some other stuff like that and has SOME knowledge.

It might matter less if one's children are highly socially skilled. IDK. Both of my kids are pretty well-liked, but one is quirkier and more out there. I am very sympathetic to the needs of families with, for instance, kids who are either ASD or ASD-ish, for whom Legos or Minecraft or whatever is such an important point of entry. So, I don't think should be dismissed. Of course, don't force it on a kid.

I mean, if you met us in real life, you'd see--we're totally fringey too.

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 have 3 daughters, the two oldest are very "un" girly, to be fair most of their friends aren't the Disney princess type either. I was very strongly anti-Disney as well but I doubt they'd have been very interested anyway. They're socially skilled but the most important interests they share with their friends are sports, physical playtime and reading.

My youngest daughter is quite different. We've mellowed over time and we've limited the Disney to Frozen (we watch very little TV/DVDs) but she adores the characters, the music, the bl$$dy plaits and the costumes. My toddler son does too - he loves to dress up as Anna and/or Elsa. I think they'd like anything involving music and fun costumes though, they are enraptured by the nursery rhyme sessions at the library whereas my two older kids would always drift away quickly.

All of mine learned about the Disney Princesses through the original fairy stories, although I waited till they were at school before the proper "The Little Mernaid". My main issue with Disney was the sanitising of the original stories - and my kids love the delicious grimness of the original tales. I'm also not hugely fond of the rescue fantasy themes within most of them, this is probably why I can tolerate Frozen more than the others.

Sure. I agree. I also agree that the princess shtick is a big fat lot of marketing crap (though as to it playing to mothers' narcissism...I wouldn't go that far...I know plenty of non-narcissistic moms whose daughters have loved princesses). Why do you think my daughter had never seen a Disney movie at age 5? That was no accident, I can assure you. Anyway, I wanted my socially rather delayed child to have an "in" to daily pretend play that was excluding her. I think most parents would. Yes, I could have advised her to change the narrative, and btw, I did encourage her to play with the one other child who was not really into this, but that child only came two days a week mornings and my child was there 5 days/week FT.


No argument here. I've always supported my kids' non-mainstream interests, believe you me, and it's funny to find myself on this side of the argument!

But I've gotten more careful about unilaterally placing pop culture on the We Do Not side of the equation. As has been pointed out, forbidden fruit is sweet, and also, children taste it anyway.

aquinas, gently, am I right in thinking your child is still very young and not negotiating a lot of social situations without you yet? I had a lot more lines in the sand when my oldest was your child's age. Again, I certainly agree with the precept that one should not force a child to get on board with anything they dislike! My DD dislikes current pop music and I am totally fine with that.

I mean, the thing about all this talk about social IQ is...lordy, what do you think we've been trying to work on for YEARS with my oldest? Every day? It's not like we're not trying. This is not easy for all children.

I'm actually kind of surprised, polarbear, that you didn't witness any media-influenced play during that playground time. Perhaps this is regional or socioeconomic. A regular complaint of my DS's is that most of the boys in his class want to play superheroes every day. He really dislikes superheroes...always has. It's a dominant narrative, though. (The other thing they play is football, which he doesn't like either because it's too rough.) He has a BFF who is not into this stuff and sometimes he can get them to do other things, but it's a drag for him. Now, we have another group of nonschool friends, much less media-influenced, where the play is all knights, dragons, and swords, or non-media general outdoor play, and he prefers this.

My DS7 also hates superheros - won't have anything to do with them. I don't really understand why. In kindergarten they were all into Star Wars - which DS knew nothing about but played along with. Now he doesn't like it (because - well it's about a war) and refused to watch the movie with me.

Fortunately, the kids in his class this year are all into Pokemon and Minecraft.

I wouldn't attribute the princess phenomenon to anything more sinister than casual sexism: "Oh, you're a girl, girls like princesses, here's princesses for you." Ditto boys and superheroes.

My DD10 has liked Ariel for years (who starts out by rescuing the prince) and sees a lot of herself in Elsa (keeping in her emotions while bored out of her skull in class, and hiding her abilities), but otherwise thinks most princesses and their stories are stupid. DD is drawn to fiction with strong female leads: Hermione, Katniss, Tris. And, because nobody is practicing casual sexism in my household, she's also a fan of superheroes, particularly the whole Avengers franchise.

Our DD is exposed to a lot of stuff her peers wouldn't be into, too, so it's not like she's immersed in current pop culture. DW and I don't have much common ground on music, so we're both exposing DD to very different kinds of music, and very little of the stuff I'm listening to can be found on the radio. DD is currently on a Tom Hanks kick, so while we have to screen/fast-forward for inappropriate content (Forrest Gump is a few years away), in recent months she has watched and re-watched Apollo 13, Castaway, The Terminal, and Big.

The important thing about pop culture, though, is to, as I said, drag the ugliness out into the light and point out all its features. DD has had conversations with us about why those other princesses are stupid. We've all agreed that the lead character in Victorious is the least-talented female vocalist in the show, and we've discussed why she got the lead anyway, and how she represents unhealthy, unnatural body images. This is how we're countering the horrible messages society subtly and not-so-subtly conveys to impressionable young girls.

Like aquinas, this topic does twig my feminism, too. If you're the father of a daughter, you either become a feminist, or you rhyme with glass pole.

To prove my nonmainstream bonafides, I stared at this for some time, willing myself not to Google, before I figured out what TMNT was.

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.

My DD2's princess doll likes to drive the 18 wheeler. And yes, she is interested in dolls and babies. But she also likes robots, boats, and medieval siege weapons. We do our best to support her free ranging interests. (she does want a motorcycle and I am hoping that one kind of goes away though).

Bostonian, would you like to rephrase that? It doesn't come across well at all.


Mahagogo, I agree, and I think that perspective really sums up how we think these days. Just look at Emily Graslie with her bright manicure and dangly earrings dissecting an anteater.

I agree with Tallulah here.

(Bostonian, do you see why it's rude?)

Mahagogo: I agree with you that overreacting to gender issues creates its own set of problems, and balance is best.

I agree with aquinas, however, when she disputes that an affinity for pink or playing with dolls represents a natural disposition. I come down firmly on the "social construct" side of that one.

Case in point: My DD10's favorite color was, off and on for her first four years, pink. It would appear that that was entirely our fault... DD was slow to grow in any hair, so we covered her in pink so people would stop talking about her as a boy. We should have been tipped off when she started picking her own clothes, and at 3mos she kept grabbing at the one purple outfit she owned... at the time, we interpreted this as "DD's favorite color is purple." Later, around 18mos, it was the yellow beach outfit she was constantly asking for. We thought she was just expressing her love of the beach.

As the years rolled by, DD was constantly adjusting her "favorite colors" list, with pink in there somewhere (but never the top after 4), until last year she confessed, as if it was some deep, dark secret, that her favorite color was light blue. But we assign that color to baby boys.

As for playing with dolls, it's my position that the only difference between baby dolls and action figures are the common narratives around them. Fundamentally, the play is the same, regardless of the dolls used or the genders of the players. And there's nothing outside of the child's own imagination and social conditioning to prevent them from playing with a baby doll as a super hero saving the world from the evil teddy bear, or the GI Joe as a nurturing caregiver to baby Boba Fett.

I deleted it, but I do think that if companies are targeting males and females with very different products, it's because the sexes are interested in different things. If there were lots of money to be made dressing up boys as princes, the market would meet that demand. So why do more girls care more about being glamorous and beautiful? My answer is the sociobiological one.

So I'm going to infer that your answer to my question was "no."

Here's the thing. Most people aren't immune to culturally stereotyped messages telling them how they should behave. So when authority figures say things like, "Boys are better at math" and "Girls are supposed to look pretty," people internalize those messages and accept them without question or without thinking about why they believe them.

I will ask you to consider that perhaps you have internalized some of those messages.

Human society has been extremely biased in its gender expectations throughout our history and in a nearly universal way. As a result, it's not possible to "prove" that boys are better at [insert subject or job] and that girls are better at [insert subject or job], because any data is too tainted, and in a variety of ways.

As an example of tainted thinking, people used to believe that women couldn't be doctors, and they were even barred from entering the field in many places. If you had asked men 100+ years ago, they would have answered that women simply weren't capable. Yet no one would say that today, and medical school classes in the US are half men and half women. Somehow, I don't think that women's brains have evolved to handle being a physician in the last hundred years or so. But women have begun to stand up for their rights in that time.

IMO, the problem is at least partially rooted in competition. When one group wants to keep as much of some resource (including jobs) to itself as possible, its members will act in a way to meet that goal. Discriminating against people and the use of gender roles is one way to do that.

Except that jobs aren't really a resource. They are what create the resource.

Letters patent, however, are a resource, which is more of the issue with medicine.

No need to split hairs. The point is that when one group wants to keep all of something to itself (including jobs), its members will find a way to do so. If you let the women or anyone else in, you make things harder for the people who presently dominate. This creates a conflict of interest among the gatekeepers, which is one explanation for discrimination (at least in part).

Thank you, Val.


While I don't think I believe that girls inherently like pink more (that would be weird--why?), I agree with much of this. It's very messy, because girly stuff is highly valued by culture and pushed by marketers, etc. So there is a tendency for many of us to want to reject it all. However, it's more complicated--we don't want to OVERvalue "boyish" things because "girly" things are associated with the "lesser" sex. This tendency can be clearly seen when we consider how society treats "tomboy" girls vs. "sissy" boys...

I was ranting when I wrote that - don't get me wrong I DO mean every word but I didn't stop and think. Basically, yes pink is probably the wrong example. I do believe gender stereotyping isn't an either or of innateness vs marketing/societal expectations. I'm getting at things like wanting to be pretty, wanting the bike that has a basket and streamers etc.
The funny thing is by trusting and listening to my daughter we have a good balance of stuff, she's allowed to have her own opinion on what she likes and she has a good mix of toys and role models. She does love Disney princess (I love Disney princess - I don't care what that says about me!) But her hero is Mulan, she has 2 dress ups, a princess dress and doctors scrubs and so on. I think she's got a good mix.

I think rising prosperity explains the increasing differentiation of toys by sex, as explained in this essay by Steve Sailer:

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.

Just because a phenomenon can be explained (possibly) by "natural" market forces doesn't make it less pernicious (see Chinese foot binding).

I applaud this post, Val. Biological determinism, and the dominant cultural narratives which seem to insinuate themselves as "nature" are pernicious.

hmm I went away and had a good think. Intellectually I agree with pretty much what you say. I just also think that you can't discount the power of effective parenting and placing this sort of stuff in its correct context.

I hold the brothers grimm in high regards as important legend/myth telling of my german heritage. The stories back then had a definite purpose, proving your point about societies message for women. I find them historically important. They also put forth women as resourceful and brave, often the men are secondary. I'm also reasonably well educated enough to trust I can enjoy these stories with my daughter while showing her the undertones and symantics employed as marketing tools and subjugation of certain women.

I also teach my children about Maori legends and we have just as much fun with Maui and the waka play. I realised that as a kiwi I have an extremely different narrative to work from those in the US (maybe Canada I don't want to make any sweeping judgements).

We are not bombarded here, it's not so hard to avoid the messages we don't want to send out. Staying away from the mall is something I do for my kids sake. We have a great history of feminist success here so I guess we aren't sending our girls out to battle for what is their right so much as they have an expectation that they already have equality. NZ definately does have some feminist issues to deal with, particularly the lack of female CEO's which I would argue is something that will self rectify as women who have come of age in the last 20 years will make their way upward. The other issue here is the safety of women - this is particularly high profile in the news media and something as a nation we are trying to change. It is a high priority issue politically here.

My daughter though can indulge in playing with Ariel and the like knowing that she lives a few streets away from the birthplace of the women's vote and is in a country where we have already have 2 women prime ministers and could potentially have another one soon regardless of the govt swing. The stereotypical kiwi woman is seen as tough rather than princess. I guess we can afford to be a little more relaxed out here.

We have both boy and girl toys due to DS and DD... and we let them play with whatever - they run around with dolls along with trains. I don't believe in banning pink/princesses or girly stuff (we have lots of non-princessy "girl" stuff like MLP, random dolls, tea sets included - although for MLP, both DS and DD have their own ponies) and both kids play with "opposite" gender toys all the time without a peep from us (unless there is a massive fight over something). If DS wants to run around with a baby stroller, we have no objection (unless he ripped it out of his sister's hands). If DD wants to lay out her own RR, we stay out of it - unless she ripped up DS's tracks to build hers while he was playing with it.

We had started out with mostly boy toys in the house, but DD made it very clear she liked dolls, pink and green, and as we let her choose her own stuff, I found myself acknowledging that she really does want some stereotypical "girly" stuff that I had no interest myself when I was younger - but then she runs around in an astronaut helmet with DS, playing space exploration too. And I also knew that DS would also play with his sister's toys.

Very nicely put Mahagogo, I have tried to avoid getting my daughter too much girly stuff but she still has some - the Rainbow Loom, Hand-me-down Polly Pocket dolls and stuffed animals sit right there next to her Lego Mindstorms, Raspberry Pi and soldering iron.

One of the first things that I remember my daughter doing that showed she had innate musical abilities was when we heard her banging out some of the 'Disney princess' movie tunes on a xylophone just playing by ear. She was obsessed with Princess stuff - listened to the CDs constantly but (thank God) moved on.

I think that it is really important for anyone, but especially a child, to learn to march to the beat of their own drum. They have to learn to make up their own minds and like or dislike things based on their own preferences and opinions - not those of radical crackpots or the pap served up by the mainstream media.

I think that a girl should be free to have girly fun or 'boyy' fun whenever she chooses to.

The loom thing isn't girly. My ten year old boy has all the stuff and makes bracelets and necklaces. Gives them away, sells, or wears them.