Yearly Archives: 2012

The Lorax: men in pink thneeds

Posted on by
5

I loved this movie. I loved it so much that I wasn’t going to blog about it, because I do have some of my usual complaints about gender stereotyping, and there is that awful sexist joke. But then I read a harsh review in the LA Times and feel like I must defend the movie.

The LA Times is upset that the film strayed too far from the original, created new characters, and also implied that it was too colorful.

I don’t mind the journey away from the book. I enjoyed the new characters.

Of course, I wish more of those new characters were female. I wish Audrey’s role was not the love interest/ muse, that Ted’s whole quest wasn’t about trying to impress her. I’m pissed the movie shows kids that boys are attractive for what they do, how heroic and brave they are, but girls are attractive for how they appear. Still, Audrey is a Token Feisty. She’s an artist and it is her love of trees that inspires the movie. She also has a role to play at the end.

And I was laughing through this whole movie. I was not bored one time. I loved the short, evil corporate guy (Ted’s mom calls him a “babyman.”) and his Girl With a Dragon Tattoo bob. In fact, all the hair in this movie made me smile. The mom and the Granny sport high piles of curls that look like mountains of fancy mashed potatoes. And speaking of the Granny (played by Betty White) she is also a Token Feisty. One of my favorite animated characters ever.

I didn’t think the movie was too colorful. I loved the swirly orange and pink trees. And those pink trees are used to make the famous thneeds, the useless accessory that everyone decides they must have. So you know what that means, right? The thneeds that everybody wants are pink! The thneed cracked me up and reminded me of those baby slings I see all the moms is San Francisco wrap around themselves in 12 different ways and wear so beautifully, but for the life of me, when I had tiny babies, I could never figure out.

One of my consistent complaints about animated movies is that the crowd scenes leave females out (not to mention Dr. Seuss books crowd scenes.) The crowd scenes in “The Lorax” are stunning and fascinating with lots of diversity shown, especially with body types.

Finally, I love the message about environmentalism and the warning not to let corporate greed steal your soul. There are allusions to contemporary times such as a “Too big to Fail” sign. The once-ler is not a bad guy, he just got on the wrong path. He redeems himself in the end WEARING PINK. I wish I could post a picture for you, but I can’t find one so you’ll have to see the movie.

Reel Girl rates “The Lorax” ***GG/S***

How about some images of boys with your Reese’s Puffs?

Posted on by
2

My kids are obsessed with placing their cereal box directly in front of their bowl at breakfast. Each girl carefully situates her box and then reads it (or pretends to) while she eats. Today, my five year was staring at this picture:

She asked me: “Why do girls always wear pink?”

I wanted to know: Why is there one girl in this group of 5 kids in the “Create your own rap and dancing avatar!” game? Why do kids have to get bombarded from every direction with multiple images of boys and few if any images of girls?

Frustrated, I flipped her cereal box.

Darth Maul, Yoda, R2-D2, C-3PO, Anakin Skywalker, Obi-Wan Kenobi, Jar Jar Binks and our Token Feisty: Queen Amidala. These images are all advertising pens that are prizes inside the box. My daughter got Jar Jar Binks. She decided to give it to her male cousin. Why do you think?

Can you imagine a cereal box picturing 8 female heroes and villains to 1 male? Or 5 female rap avatars to 1 male?

Reel Girl rates Reese’s Puffs ***SS***

Our reading nook

Posted on by
Reply

We live in a Victorian built in 1911. I love my house but space is limited, all three girls share a room. Desperate for space, we decided to get the most out of the bay window landing on the stairs. The glass reaches too low to build a window seat, our the first idea. So we lined it with cushions, put in a carpet, painted it, and squeezed the piano in. Love, love, love, it’s like another room!

LEGO’s new Town Hall shows potential but falls into gender stereotypes

Posted on by
10

It’s so great that a female architect designed and gets to intro the new LEGO Town Hall set. Here’s the video.

Do you think this architect is grateful she didn’t have to play with the ridiculous Friends set when she was a kid?

But my enthusiasm waned when the architect introduced the minifigs. First comes the Mayor, the boss and the most important one, the star of the set. He’s male. (We see his cool office inside as well.) Next comes his secretary, guess what gender?

I was spacing out listening to this video and the reason I even started to pay attention was I heard the architect was going on and on about “a new print on her torso and there is this old tradition that you have to wear something old, something new, something borrowed, and something blue. And she’s wearing a new necklace and yeah, a new print.”

I did a double take and realized she was talking about the bride. Specifically, her dress and accessories.

LEGO deserves kudos for letting a female intro this set. When she comes on she says: “I bet you’re surprised to see me,” so I’m thinking its the first time she’s gotten this role.  I hope she had a big role in the Town Hall design as well. But LEGO, please try to break out of the gender stereotypes with your minifigs. Remember, you’re marketing these characters to kids. You’re giving kids tools for fantasy play and showing children what they can be when they grow up. Except for the “lady reporter” the adult figs are all limited to “traditional” gender roles. What about a female mayor and a male secretary? Would LEGO ever consider that?

Reel Girl rates LEGO Town Hall ***G/SSS***

Reel Girl’s book recs of the week

Posted on by
3

JoJo’s Flying Side Kick is about a Tae Kwon Do student who must break a board with a flying side kick in order to win her yellow belt.

JoJo is nervous about the test, telling her Grandaddy: “I’m freakin’ out!” He helps her by giving a tutorial on fancy footwork from his boxing days. JoJo experiences other fears– a creepy-looking tree, the swing that hangs from it, a boy from her class tells her she “yells like a mouse.” In order to nail the side kick, JoJo uses the footwork, imagines the board is the tree, and gives a giant yell: “KEEEYAAAHHH!”

This book is really fun to read out loud. I love how all of the protagonist’s fears are woven together and then conquered in unison. The story teaches kids the great lesson that courage doesn’t mean having no fear but doing something even when you’re terrified. Reel Girl rates JoJo’s Flying Side Kick ***GGG***

Adelaide is the story of a kangaroo born with wings. She knows she doesn’t quite belong in her family of wingless creatures, so she hooks up with a pilot and travels the world, exploring and having adventures.

She decides to stick around Paris where she loves the art and culture but misses kangaroos. One day she saves two children from a burning building but is seriously hurt in the fall. (Her wings can’t carry all that weight.) After a hospital stay, she decides to visit the zoo where she meets and falls in love with a kangaroo named Leon. I really like how this story ends with a wedding and then baby kangaroos but its an unexpected surprise. The “happily ever after” finale isn’t the focus of Adelaide’s quest, but its nice that she finds her soulmate showing heroic, powerful females can fall in love, too. Reel Girl rates Adelaide ***GGG***

Shrek the Third: Fiona’s Fairy-tale Five is kind of chesey, and a cheaply made, stapled together book, but I adore it. There is much to love about the first Shrek story/ movie: how Fiona transforms at the end from “beautiful” princess to fat, green, troll to find true love. How great is that? So much potential here to flip fairy tales– and the notion of what it is to be “happily ever after” and what beauty and love is too– on its head. Not to mention that so much of the Shrek franchise is about making fun of Disney.

But as the far as the big screen, the female potential for greatness in this epic remains tragically unexplored.  All three movies are Shrek’s stories, not Fiona’s. Fiona is only the Token Feisty, the strong female character included in many contemporary animated films so the audience won’t care or even notice that all of the other characters in the film are male, including the star who the movie is often titled for.

Fiona’s role is the love interest. The Shrek movie sequels are even more disappointing with the third one morphing into another animated father-son type saga (and Justin Timberlake vehicle) where Shrek must find an heir– male, of course. Fiona’s part is reduced to nothing. Where did she go? It sucks to see “Shrek 3” with your daughters, to say the least. But luckily, there is this cheap, little book. From the back of  Fiona’s Fairy -tale Five:

 “When Shrek is off finding an heir to the  throne, Fiona must watch the kingdom. But soon Prince Charming and his band of villains storm the castle. Fiona has little time to turn a group of prim and proper princesses into lean, mean fighting machines. Can the fairy-tale five come together to take back the castle?

This book would make such a great movie, it kills me. Imagine the princesses voiced by Tina Fey, Sarah Silverman, Kristen Wiig and Maya Rudolph joining Cameron Diaz’s Fiona. This little story is so subversive too, because Disney absolutely forbids its princesses to interact with each other. (Or even look at each other, embossed on diapers, T shirts, or coloring books each one gazes off in a different direction, ignoring the other. Great model for female friendship, huh?)

But who got the spin off movie from Shrek? That would be Puss in Boots. I want to tear out my hair. But check out this book, it’s also a good “gateway” story if your kids are into princesses. Reel Girl rates Shrek the Third: Fiona’s Fairy-tale Five***GGG/T***

For a ratings key go to the About page.

Peggy Orenstein on the difference between sexuality and sexualization

Posted on by
7

Last week, I went to a reading by Peggy Orenstein from her book Cinderella Ate My Daughter, now out in paperback. I’m such a huge Orenstein fan and I’ve written so much about her on this blog, that I wondered if after I saw her read, I would have anything left to blog about.

Guess what? I do!

Mostly, I’ve written about Orenstein’s research on the princess culture and how it affects little girls. But at the reading, Orenstein spoke a lot about older girls and also the potential, deep, long-term effects of relentlessly teaching girls through play and media to focus on their appearance.

I blog a lot about how girls get trained early (through toys about dressing dolls, roles in movies and TV, incessant compliments for their dresses, shoes, hair etc) that they get attention for and an actual identity from how they look. Orenstein spoke about how this emphasis can set girls in a pattern that puts them at risk. For what? Eating disorders, depression, low self-esteem, and sexual dysfunction.

Cinderella Ate My Daughter traces how the real life Disney stars/ girl princesses (i.e. Lindsay Lohan, Christina Aguilera, Britney Spears, Miley Cyrus etc) attempt to make their transitions from girl-princesses into adult ones; or more crassly, from virgin to whore. Orenstein writes it’s impossible to commodify one end of the spectrum and not the other, and there are so few models of healthy female sexuality out there.

Our daughters may not be faced with the decision of whether to strip for Maxim, but they will have to figure out how to become sexual beings without being objectified or stigmatized.

All that early training for girls to focus incessantly on their appearance lasts a lifetime. What happens when these girls try to grow up? Orenstein writes that girls learn: “Look sexy, but don’t feel sexual, to provoke desire in others without experiencing it themselves.” How does this emphasis on dressing up and attention for appearance affect kids as they grow? In CAMD, Orenstein quotes Stephen Hinshaw from his book The Triple Bind:

“Girls pushed to be sexy too soon can’t really understand what they’re doing…they may never learn to connect their performance to erotic feelings or intimacy. They learn how to act desirable, but not to desire, undermining, rather than promoting, healthy sexuality.

In short: sexualization is performance; it’s all about being desirable to others. Sexuality is understanding and connecting to your own desire.

At the reading, Orenstein shared this passage from Cinderella Ate My Daughter:

Let me be clear here: I object– strenuously– to the sexualization of girls but not necessarily to girls having sex. I expect and want my daughter to have a healthy, joyous erotic life before marriage. Long, long, long before marriage. I do, however, want her to understand why she’s doing it: not for someone else’s enjoyment, not to keep a boyfriend from leaving, not because everyone else is. I want her to explore and understand her body’s responses, her own pleasure, her own desire. I want her to be able to express her needs in a relationship, to say no when she needs to, to value reciprocity, and to experience true intimacy. The virgin/ whore cycle of the pop princesses, like so much of the girlie girl culture, pushes in the opposite direction, encouraging girls to view self-objectification as a feminist rite of passage.

This distinction between sexuality and sexualization is not made often enough. If you’re against the sexualization of girls, it’s often concluded that you’re somehow anti-sex, on the same team with Phyllis Schlafly or a fan of “traditional family values.”  The political agenda to promote healthy sexuality is actually the opposite and must include access to contraception for all women, sex education in schools, and full reproductive rights.

The sexualization of girls has nothing to do with real sexuality.

The MPAA won’t allow teens to see educational film on bullying

Posted on by
2

Ok, this is it. The MPAA is so messed up. This group’s values are totally off. Yet, one tiny band of people has a huge effect not only on what our kids are allowed to see but what America considers acceptable for children.

So the MPAA has decided that “Bully,” a documentary about the epidemic of bullying in America, a film that the Weinstein company was planning to show to middle and high schools kids in America, will have an R rating, meaning those kids won’t be able to see it. Why? The bullies in the film use use coarse language.

Are you kidding me?

The MPAA couldn’t be more out of touch about what is beneficial and what is dangerous for kids.

You know what’s not so great for kids? The slew of animated films where female characters are consistently stereotyped, relegated to sidekick roles, or have gone missing all together. See stats from the Geena Davis Institute and Reel Girl’s Gallery of Girls Gone Missing From Kids Movies in 2011 to get an idea of how prevalent gender stereotyping is in animated films.

At the very least, parents should be warned before they take their kids to yet another movie where the few female characters are going to be sexualized or mocked for being ugly or fat. Yet, to the contrary: the MPAA seems to think that cartoon sexist stereotypes are totally cool. Just one example: Animated characters in G movies are as likely to wear revealing clothing as female characters in R movies.

I wonder if the MPAA even notices that when one of the only females in “Pirates! Band of Misfits” is ogled and hooted at, it’s not funny. What do they think kids are getting out of that scene? Or if the MPAA understands that when kids go to the movies where males always star and females never do, both genders learn that boys are more important than girls. Hey, MPAA: that’s a really bad lesson for kids. This kind of bizarre disconnect about values, what is okay and what isn’t, is the whole reason why I started my blog, Reel Girl: to call out Hollywood when it relentlessly perpetuates damaging stereotypes “for kids”

Katy Butler was twelve years old when she was bullied in school. Last year, when the Michigan legislature was considering a problematic bill to address bullying, Katy and another Michigan teen started a petition asking the legislators to improve the bill. Now Butler has another petition going: she wants kids to be able to see “Bully.” Please tell the MPAA to get its values right, give “Bully” a PG-13 rating so kids can learn from this film, and sign Butler’s petition

Preventing eating disorders by teaching little kids intuitive eating

Posted on by
Reply

This is yet another post inspired by Melissa Wardy of Pigtail Pals. Here’s what she wrote on Facebook:

This week is National Eating Disorder Awareness Week. Guess what? I can’t find a single link or post with information geared towards young kids and Eating Disorders. This concerns me when diagnosis of ED’s in kids under 12yo is on the rise, 25% of 7yo have tried dieting, and 42% of 1-3rd graders want to be thinner.
I firmly believe healthy body image has to be taught in early childhood, as fundamental as ABC’s and 123’s. What are your concerns about body image, Eating Disorders, and your children?

I’ve been really successful with my kids by teaching them how to listen to their own bodies about what to eat. I tell them I’m not the boss, whoever put the food on their plate is not the boss, her own tummy is the boss. She alone knows how much to eat. I never tell my kids when to stop eating or how much they should eat. I don’t give them “treats” or “dessert” as a separate category from other food. I never get mad at them for wasting food.

They all have foodshelves where they have all the food they like, easily accessible. They have shelves in a cupboard and in the refrigerator. They get to pick what they want on their foodshelves and there is an abundance of food there, more than they could eat, enough to share without getting worried.

We have a sit down dinner and breakfast every day withe lots of healthy options but they don’t have to eat their dad or I make. If they don’t like the hot meal, they can go to their foodshelves and get something they do like.

My kids are incredibly healthy eaters. We hardly ever fight over food. They like to try new foods. My kid who is the pickiest eater is the only one whose intake I restricted and was by far the most anxious around as far as her food. My middle daughter has an egg allergy and I was really freaked out about it early on and was constantly checking her food for eggs, telling her to be careful about eating, and controlling her eating. Now, she is the most shy about trying new foods. She grew out of the allergy for the most part (its very mild now, pure eggs, custard) by the time she was three, but her menu is the most limited by her own choice now. (She’s still a pretty adventurous eater– last night she had middle eastern food: chick peas and rice, hummus and pita, and mousakka.) I really think the best thing for parents to do is to be calm around food and about food and moms, if you have an eating disorder, make it a priority to get yourself better. Eating disorders are contagious.

If my kids make it through the turmoil of adolescence and into adulthood still knowing how to eat intuitively, it’ll be a huge accomplishment. I seriously hope it keeps working and serves them for a lifetime.

All the techniques I use I got from an excellent book called Preventing Childhood Eating Problems. Please read my many posts on the book, how I feed my kids, and how I recovered fully from an eating disorder myself many years ago, starting here.

Does an internet addicted mom create internet addicted kids?

Posted on by
11

Over the winter holidays this year, my household bumped up to the next level with technology. By January I had my first smart phone ever (an iphone) an ipad (I am in love) our first flat screen TV and a new computer (our former one was seven years old.) The upgrade was a long time coming, and I don’t regret it. But I have been seriously challenged trying to stay away from my new toys. The new technology combined with my passion for blogging and my whole community of cool, amazing women on Facebook means I can literally spend hours on various screens.

So here are the problems:

(1) I’m writing a book. Writing books is hard. Especially when there are kids around. I’ll take any opportunity to stop writing (“I need to RSVP to that kid’s party right now!”) and then I get STUCK by some email, lured onto Facebook, lured onto my blog. Then I don’t write. I feel shitty. Like an addict, seriously.

(2) My kids want screen time. The more time I spend on the screen, the more time my kids want on the screen. More and more as a mom, I am realizing what I say means close to nothing. What I do, that’s a whole different thing. My kids really pay attention to what I do, and if I am obsessed with something, they are as well. Screen time is now the biggest thing we fight over in my house.  My kids want to look up things on the internet, they want to buy apps for my iphone. This includes my two year old, because she sees her sisters begging and repeats what they say. Talking to my kids, yelling at my kids, giving my kids consequences did not change their behavior. You know what did? I stopped using the computer around them. I stopped taking out my iphone and checking my email. They stopped asking. This weekend we hung out in the backyard and made fairyhouses and looked for bugs. We practiced bik eriding. We read a lot. My kids did tons of fantasy play with each other.

Normally, I hop on the computer when I don’t think they’re looking. When they’re really engaged in something else so I don’t think they’ll notice. But they do notice. And when I’m on, I’m always only half present to them, and when they want my attention, I often feel annoyed. I don’t at all think I need to available to my kids in all my free weekend moments. But for now, I’m trying reading a book or doing chores when they’re around and I think they’re occupied. It’s really for my own sake. I’m sick of the arguments about screens. So far, the whole family is much happier. It’s been four days…

Must see video from Women and Hollywood

Posted on by
3

Got this email and video from Melissa Silverstein, founder and editor of one of my favorites blogs, Women and Hollywood:

It’s that time of year, The Academy Awards, the “Super Bowl for Women.”  It’s the night where we all get catty about whose dress doesn’t work, who has a new boyfriend or girlfriend, and who looks like they haven’t eaten all month.

Because the world is paying attention to Hollywood in a bigger way this week there is an opportunity to raise awareness about gross inequities in the business.  So we here at Women and Hollywood are taking this opportunity to say that THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE WOMEN CONSIDERED FOR BEST DIRECTOR.

Here is a short video (it’s only a little over a minute) highlighting some of the women directed films from this past year that were passed over.  We’re not trying to say that all of them should have been nominated (though we think a couple of them should have), what we are trying to say is that we have to find a way to get women directors into these conversations.

Please feel free to use this video:
Post on Women and Hollywood: To the Academy: Consider the Women

Just to being home the point a little bit more, here are the stats:

  • In 2011, only 5% of the top grossing films in Hollywood were directed by Women.  The number has decreased since 1998.
  • In 84 years only 4 women — Lina Wertmuller, Jane Campion, Sofia Coppola and Kathryn Bigelow — have been nominated for best director.  One 1 has won.

Please feel free to send this video out far and wide, and on Sunday, remember that women directors voices and visions are missing from this very large cultural conversation.   Telling people this is a cultural problem and not just a gender equity problem is a first step.

Thank you