Let me know your thoughts on irritating girl characters. I know some of you aren’t fans of Fancy Nancy (I am) or Eloise.
On sleep: On a happier note, my kids are such great sleepers, I’ve adopted what I taught them “the schedule!” To deal with insomnia, I started turning off my light at exactly the same time every night– 10pm. I’ve been doing this for about a month and sleeping better than I have in years. Part of that may be my kids are all sleeping through the night too. I also used other tips from a book I read on sleep by William Dement, including stopping using the computer and dimming the lights a couple hours before bed.
Hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving. Ours has been really nice but not at all a vacation. Looking forward to Monday.
Perez Hilton justified the crotch shot he posted to his Twitter feed of Miley Cyrus, claiming he was trying to teach her to act like a lady.
www.amazon.com
Perez isn’t the only guy around instructing women on how to behave. Derek Blasberg, a 27 year old from Missouri, recently came out with a modern manners how-to, just for the gentler sex: Classy: Exceptional Advice for the Extremely Modern Lady.
When I saw this at a bookstore, I thought it was a joke. Alas no, Blasberg sold his wisdom to a publisher, and it’s fast on it’s way to becoming a best-seller. In the intro Blasberg writes: “I can categorize the young women I’ve met through my trials and travails into two groups: ladies and tramps.”
It’s 2010– can we please stop recycling this age old virgin/ whore dichotomy? And while we’re at it, stop slut-shaming Miley Cyrus already, criticizing her clothing, her dancing, and her song lyrics in an endless 24 hour media cycle. Cyrus doesn’t need the media telling her how to behave anymore than women need advice from Blasberg on how to be classy.
No woman, in her twenties no less, would ever get way with writing a condescending tome like Blasberg’s and be recognized as some kind of witty authority on how a man can act like a man. But maybe she ought to. Here’s something for her first chapter: Don’t take and publish crotch shots. It’s not gentlemanly.
Yesterday, The New York Times reported on an exciting, potential political candidate with a stellar resume. Which of these two photos do you think appeared on the paper’s front page?
www.nytimes.com
Diana Taylor
www.nytimes.com
Diana Taylor’s career began as an investment banker with Smith Barney; she then became superintendent of banking under Gov Pataki, emerging as a prescient watchdog who predicted the mortgage crisis; she was chair of Action, a leading microfinance lender which has distributed more than 23 million worldwide, and since last July, has been a member of the board of directors of Citigroup.
But New York Times readers don’t learn any of this information about Taylor’s credentials on the front page of the paper. Reading through this muddled article, whenever I found an actual fact on Taylor’s career, I felt the kind of joy of discovery I see my on my kids faces during a scavenger hunt.
It’s not only the cover photo of Taylor in evening wear with her boyfriend, the Mayor of New York, along with the late placement of her substantial qualifications, but the language of the article that continually sexualizes and trivializes Taylor’s ambition and her candidacy.
The headline reads: “She has the Mayor by her Side, But Politics is Wooing Her, Too.” When has politics ever “wooed” a male candidate? When considering a senatorial bid a few years ago, this dreamy lady “muses” what kind of “relationship” she’d have with then senator Chuck Schumer. Bill Paxon, former congressman, recalls a “previously undisclosed meeting…at the Ritz Carlton hotel,” but details of Taylor’s “flirtation” with the senate run have “remained hidden.” Is this a story about a tryst or a political career?
When The Times finally gets to reporting on Taylor’s professional history, page A-3, she “mixes” with global leaders, sounding as if she were flitting about various soirees. Describing her position as chair of Action, there is no quote from Taylor from that time, but instead rockstar, Bono, saying: “Diana, you know how I feel about you. But don’t tell the mayor.”
Isn’t the New York Times supposed to be a bastion of the liberal media elite and sensitive to sexism? I guess when it comes to reporting on women, the only party that matters is the kind you dress up for and running for office is just like dating.
Even though I wasn’t a supporter of Sarah Palin, she was recently hired at Fox News, and I feel I need to warn her. After all, she’s a brunette who often wears glasses– a breed targeted for extinction in Foxworld.
There’s something creepy going on at Fox, and it’s not just the skewed way they choose to report the news. When a woman gets a job on the “fair and balanced” news network, she gets “Foxified.” No matter how she looks or how old she is when she signs her contract, these female contributors transform, appearing on our screens strangely clone-like, blonde and so heavily made up they all look around 40.
Greta Van Susteren famously made the cover of People after she scored her own show on the network and got “Foxified,” sporting much lighter hair and tighter skin.
When I used to produce talk radio programs for the ABC affiliate in the Bay Area, and the host had a legal issue he wanted to discuss, I often booked a brilliant and beautiful law professor as an expert: Lis Weihl. After 9/11, she was hired by Fox News. The next time I saw her on TV, I only recognized her by her name in the byline.
Fox News is a modern day Stepford factory for accomplished women. By turning professors and authors into porn star doppelgangers, the network effectively communicates what women say is not as important how they appear.
The older, winkled, balding male stars of the news channel obviously have different physical requirements to get a job on TV. Maybe Palin earns some of those privileges, because she’s already famous with her own loyal following. We’ll have to wait and see if her brown hair and Tina Fey glasses survive the preferences of Fox News President Roger Ailes, himself not the most svelte, glossy headed guy in town.
Update: I’m not attacking these women for getting jobs; I’m pointing out the sexist requirements for men versus women on TV. Furthermore, being “Foxified” doesn’t translate to being attractive or beautiful. As a commenter pointed out, it has to do with becoming a “femmebot.” The blonde dye jobs and overly made up faces on Fox News women are indicative of a culture dominated by caucasians and capitalism, keeping women in line by rewarding them when they conform to the rules. It’s a reflexive, but still clever, way to keep women in their place and uphold the power structure as it is.
Disney’s Rapunzel movie changes title and cast to attract boys
The LA Times reports that that after the disappointing box office for “The Princess and the Frog,” Disney is drastically remaking it’s new Rapunzel movie to attract boys. It’s now called “Tangled” and co-stars a “swashbuckling” male in the lead.
Tangled
Some people are upset. Retired Disney/ Pixar animator, Floyd Norman, says, “The idea of changing the title of a classic like ‘Rapunzel’ to ‘Tangled’ is beyond stupid. I’m still hoping that Disney will eventually regain their sanity and return the title of their movie to what it should be. I’m convinced they’ll gain nothing from this except the public seeing Disney as desperately trying to find an audience.”
But Ed Catmull, president of Pixar and Disney Animation Studios defends the decision. Referring to “The Princess and the Frog,” he says: “Based upon the response from fans and critics, we believe it would have been higher if it wasn’t prejudged by its title.”
Catmull is right about the prejudging. I’m worried that he’s wrong about who and why.
I prejudged “The Princess and the Frog” based on it’s title. I’m the mom of three young girls. I can’t spend any more money to see yet another Disney princess vehicle. (I was kind of intrigued by the first African American Princess, though I heard she spent most of the movie as a frog.) I think it’s great that Rapunzel is getting retooled, because the last thing I want to sit through, or my daughters to sit through, is watching a girl stuck in a tower, waiting around for some guy to rescue her.
But did they change that part? Or just the title?
I can’t tell. It’s ironic because the LA Times article is supposedly about Rapunzel being effaced by a boy but mostly all they report on is that boy, the title, the male executives, the male audience, and the male animators. What about Rapunzel? Here is what the article tells us about her: “The demure princess is transformed into a feisty teen.”
Steve Jobs, Ed Catmull, John Lasseter
A good sign, I suppose. Though I’m not sure about “feisty.” Would one call a boy “feisty”? It seems to imply strong yet cutesy. Maybe the male equivalent is “jaunty.” I’m mincing words here, but this is all the information they’ve given me to go on. And my extensive, past experience with Disney’s treatment of girls, along the reporting here on Disney’s hyper-concern about attracting a male audience, worries me.
Note to Disney executives: your potential female audience is sick of the princess movies too. We’re not sick of girls, just princesses. We represent half the population, and we’d like to see some more variety in your plots, and we’d like to see multiple strong female characters in your movies.
Also, we’d like to know why you bend over backwards to make a movie appeal to boys (market research, plot and title changes, characters added) but don’t preform the same production gymnastics to attract girls. Or even try to figure out what girls want. Do all the male executives, animators, and directors at Disney just assume they know what girls want to see? Or will put up with?
Ariel
The issue here is not putting “princess” in the title. The more controversial, unmentioned issue is that Disney executives are concerned about putting a girl in the title role at all. It’s prime Hollywood real estate because it means she’s the star of the show. Historically, Disney allows a girl to claim that space only if she’s a princess. It’s kind of like how you can win a scholarship if you compete for the Miss America title, but first you’ve got to parade around in your bikini.
Movies from Pixar/ Disney with strong females including “Monsters and Aliens” or “The Incredibles” usually have the power woman hidden in an ensemble cast. Can you imagine a movie blatantly touting its cool girl star, perhaps called “Fantastic Ms. Fox?” Do you see the gender divide here– it would be considered some crazy feminist art film.
If you’re going to comment that’s it’s in our DNA that girls will see movies about boys but boys won’t see movies about girls, please see my post here from a couple days ago. The basic point being girls don’t have much of a choice, and they’re just expected to suck it up.
Washington Post
Executives, Director, producers, and stars of “Up”
There’s some hope for the future though. Buried at the bottom of the LA Times piece is some incredible news, especially in the wake of Kathryn Bigelow’s Oscar win, making her the first female director to win an Oscar in 82 years.
“Concluding it had too many animated girl flicks in its lineup, Disney has shelved its long-gestating project “The Snow Queen,” based on the Hans Christian Andersen story. “Snow Queen” would have marked the company’s fourth animated film with a female protagonist, following “The Princess and the Frog,” “Tangled” and Pixar’s forthcoming “The Bear and the Bow,” directed by Pixar’s first female director, Brenda Chapman, and starring Reese Witherspoon.”
Director Brenda Chapman
Did you catch that? Brenda Chapman is Pixar’s first female director. Yes, she’s making an androgynously titled movie, but it’s “starring” Reese Witherspoon, and there’s no indication that Witherspoon will be a princess.
I like the title “Tangled.” I have to admit, it’s witty. The LA Times elaborates: “Disney tested a number of titles, finally settling on ‘Tangled’ because people responded to meanings beyond the obvious hair reference: a twisted version of the familiar story and the tangled relationship between the two lead characters.”
And somehow, in spite of everything I know, the reconceived, witty title gives me hope that the movie is also reconceived in a way that could be just as imaginative and special. I mean, really, how much worse could the original plot be?
Disney should be re-imagining these misogynist fairytales. I’m just hoping that Rapunzel doesn’t disappear from her movie the way she has from it’s title and the LA Times article about it all.
I have been avoiding writing about My Little Pony because I have so few positive things to say about it, and part of me feels bad picking on ponies. But here I go: I do not like their colors (pink/ purple/ lemon yellow/rainbow etc); I do not like their expressions (submissive smile, curly eyelashes, eyes cast downward) I do not like their names (Pinkie Pie, Daffadaisy, Rainbow Dash) I do not like the accoutrements that are either too small or too large (giant plastic playhouses, tiny clothing of the Polly Pocket persuasion including brushes and bows). At my mother-in-law’s house, I saw a pony from about ten years ago, and it wasn’t nearly as bad as the modern one: pink and purple, yes, but just two shades, not lavender to royal purple and rose deepening into to bright pink; her tale was straight, not curly; she had no eyelashes at all, and no sparkles; ponies today have evolved into uber-barbies, even their eyes are multi-colored with stars and hearts embedded, and they sport swirly tatoos also with hearts, stars, and rainbows on their backs or legs.
I guess these stories can be good for young kids, I’d say one – three year olds because there really is nothing scary in them at all, no wicked characters. The problems are always pretty minor and usually involve conflict over friendship, for example, two ponies want to star in the same play; or one pony wins a prize at a fair when she wishes for another another prize that her friend wins. One of the most dramatic stories has all the rainbows disappearing from Ponyland. Of course, nothing is more horrifying than a My Little Pony story without a rainbow on every page. Luckily, these rainbows just fade, they never actaully vanish.
The books themselves are very flimsy and skinny and the positive of that is when I travel with my kids, I buy several books (maybe ten, they’re also cheap and at Barnes an Noble if you buy 3 or 5, you can get one free) so the kids have new stuff to keep them occupied on the plane ride. The negative of the cheapness is that they come apart and don’t last long (but I can’t say I care too much, even encouraging the ten month old to take a look)
These ponies threaten to dominate kid world just in numbers of products associated with them. At least the books are books, and the kids are reading or trying to. But the books are accompanied by so many toys and toys sets: these ponies have discos and circuses and tea parties etc. Not to mention movies– I would guess in the hundreds, but maybe it just feels like that.
Alice started loving these ponies when she was two and is still a little interested at 3 1/2. How I cope is we make up stories with them, using them as characters with her other creatures (wild animals etc) and they go on adventures and such, rescuing butterflies from evil spiders’ webs.
Ponies get ***SSS/ G*** rating. They could not be more stereotypical in their looks, names, sceneries, storylines etc but they get one ***G*** because the females are the stars of the show. I can think of only one major male character in the series, and this kind of consistent attention to a positive female friendship is a theme too rare in a book world dominated by boy buddy stories.
Finally, Christmas is over and I am so sick of the whole thing; instead of subjecting my family to my endless frustration with all the lame toys out there marketed to girls, I’m going to blog. I’m the mother of three daughters, ages 6 years to ten months, and I’d like to connect with some like-minded parents looking for products for girls and get some help exchanging information and rating products and media (movies, books, cartoons etc.)
The toy industry acts as if boys and girls are polar opposites (you know the drill– Mars and Venus) One thing that drives me crazy– dolls marketed to boys are called “action figures.” Dolls marketed to girls are called dolls. While boy dolls usually frown and look tough, girl “dolls” almost always smile, their eyes often looking upward. This smile tyranny is one of the most annoying forms of sexism and it manages to cross all kinds of class lines. I cannot tell you how many times I’ve walked by a homeless person, given him money or not, and he calls out to me: “Smile, Baby.” And speaking of the ubiquitous, submissive smiling female, a friend came to visit me in San Francisco, the father of a three year old, and told me when they were driving down Broadway, where all the strip joints were, there was a giant photo featuring an exotic dancer and his daughter pointed, shouting: “Ariel!”
Second thing that drives me crazy– so many girls toys with the focus on dressing them up and fashion. My three year old got Polly Pocket for Christmas. I can’t stand Polly Pocket. I call her Polly Prostitute, partly due to her fashion choices which include thigh high boots in every shade of pastel and minis that barely cover her ass. This tiny plastic doll has about 50 million tinier little plastic outfits, impossible to keep track of– I mean a hairband with kitty ears smaller than my pinky nail. My nine month old has practically choked on a fllourescent stilleto more than once. I admit, dressing tiny Polly in her tiny clothing has honed my daughter’s fine motor skills into nothing less than phenomenal, but I hate that she is being trained to focus an inordinate amount of time and energy on getting dressed. My three year old also received magnetic, smiling girls with magentic clothing and you change their outfits, mix and match. Again, she is learning matching skills but the dressing is too much. I am going to get the names and the prices of these toys for you and post them because I would like this bog to be informational as well as commentary.
Another thing that drove me crazy this year, Rudolph the Red Nosed Renideer, I bought the dvd for my kids. And yes, we actually had a great time watching it under blankets, sitting by the fire, but I can’t get past that there are NO girl reindeers. There’s a big scene where the boy reindeers compete and learn how to fly (“playing reindeeer games”) There is only one girl- Clarisse: she does not fly or even aspire to fly; she gets the role of cheerleader. My daughter had a friend in pre-school, and I live in San Francisco, supposedly an open and liberal city– the kids in that school put on a Christmas play and the girls were not allowed to be reindeers or Santa because those were boy roles. That sucks. There are no girl elves in the Rudolph movie with speaking parts. There is Herbie, the elf who doesn’t fit in “a misfit,” and I do like the message of embracing your individuality. I can’t help but think Herbie is kind of a gay character, he’s the only elf with good hair– or possibly hair at all– and its a great message to find strength in your differences and to to be yourself. Speaking of which, Santa is extremely critical and only likes Rudolph when he realizes what Rudolph can do for him. Kind of lame, maybe a typical stren father figure role. My husband pointed out, when I complained, that Santa is under a lot of pressure, he’s got a big job to do; he has to know he can rely on his team and that sled is going to fly.
On this blog, I’m going to be rating toys and films, not on sex and violence, but on stereotyping because that’s the kind of imagery that is most damaging to kids– boys and girls both. Three S’s is the worst rating, three Gs for girls, is the best gender rolemodeling. Rudolph gets SS, it doesn’t get three S’s because Clarisse and Rudolph’s mom do stand up for themselves and refuse when Rudolph’s dad tells them to stay home, that its man’s work to find and rescue Rudolph. (I know this only because my six yesr old told me, I missed that part while re-stocking their bowls of cheez-its.) The message of indiviuality is important though with the almost total lack of girls in this story, its kind of like when you go to a private school info night (you can tell what else I’ve been doing) and the head of school tells you how imprtant diversity is to them but there’s no diversity at their school– it’s an intellectual idea, not made into an experience or a reality except in the most limited way.
I am not one of those mom’s who never let’s my kid watch TV (though I am pretty strict about how much) or who only likes wooden toys. I think we all live in the world and I’d like to help them to figure out how to be naviagte it, appropriating toys that are sexist whenever possible, however they can, rather than attempting to isolate them. I’m not “against” Barbie, I think she, like any toy, can be used as a creative outlet. I think “forbidding” toys is like “forbidding candy” which I also don’t do; it only makes kids want them more. That said, I don’t go out of my way to bring that stuff in my home, and I try to get as excited as possible about stuff that I think is good for them.
Let me know about great toys for girls or the ones that drive you crazy and why, what you’ve seen out there, what you’ve liked, what your kids have liked. If you are a girl older than my own, I’d love your comments.
Here’s something I wrote a couple years ago for the San Jose Mercury News on the same topic that kind of inspired me to do this blog. I think you are not allowed to post articles in their full form but as far as I can tell, this one is not anywhere on the internet anymore given the long time lapse so I’m just gong to put it up and hope I don’t get in trouble.
Phooey on `Ratatouille’: Female leads lacking in kid films
STUDIOS ACKNOWLEDGE, ACCEPT SEXISM
By Margot Magowan
Article Launched: 07/06/2007 01:32:35 AM PDT
“Ratatouille” made $47 million opening weekend, but as I watched the
film with my 4-year-old daughter, I felt depressed. There was nary a
female rat in sight. I’d forked over $9 so my daughter could get yet
another lesson in sexism direct from Pixar or Disney: No matter if
you’re a rodent, car, or fish – boys are the ones with the starring
roles while girls are relegated to sidekicks.
“Cars,” “Toy Story,” “Finding Nemo,” “The Lion King,” “Monsters Inc.”
each features a male hero and multiple male characters; often a token
female is around to help propel one of the guys to greatness.
“Ratatouille” faithfully follows suit. Colette, a female human sous
chef, even justifies her secondary role in the film with a brief
monologue on misogyny: “Do you know how hard I had to work to get
ahead in this male-dominated kitchen?” she yells at our hero.
The speech is there to throw girls a bone, and you can find this
gesture in most modern day motion picture cartoons. It’s that nod to
the audience: unlike all those cartoons of yesteryear, we know this is
sexist, but there’s nothing we can do about it.
When I complained to my mom and sister: “Why couldn’t Ratatouille have
been female? Why no girls – again?” They said, “Didn’t you hear
Colette’s talk? That’s how it is in the real world.” OK, let me get
this straight: It’s just fine to stretch our imaginations to believe
in a talking rat who can cook, but when it comes to gender
roles, we admire realism and authenticity?
When my daughter goes to the movies, she sees animals talk, fairies or
unicorns prance around, witches cast evil spells, but she’s never
shown a magical land where boys and girls are treated equally, where
gender doesn’t matter. Why can’t Pixar or Disney allow her the fantasy
of equality?
After I saw “The Lion King,” I wanted to know: Why couldn’t the
lionesses have attacked weak, old Scar? Why did they have to wait
around for Simba to come back to Pride Rock to help them? I was told:
that’s how it is in nature – lionesses need a male to lead the pride.
So a lion can be best friends with a warthog and a meerkat without
gobbling them up, but a lioness heading a pride? That could never
happen in the animal kingdom!
Pixar has yet to allow girls any starring roles, but Disney permits it
if she’s a princess. Audiences can count on the contemporary princess
movie to throw girls their bone: Unlike princesses of the past who
happily went off with the first guy who kissed them out of
unconsciousness, these modern girls get to choose whom they marry.
Ariel, Belle, and Jasmine put up a huge stink, stubbornly refusing
betrothal to the obvious choice. But these elaborate shows of
independence are bases for entire plot lines, keeping the princesses
stories almost entirely focused on marriage: rebellion within the
safest possible framework.
When my daughter was watching “Mulan” – probably the most feminist of
all the motion picture cartoons – dress up as a boy to fight in a war,
she asked me, “Why can’t girls fight?” Before she can even understand
how Mulan is empowering, first she has to understand sexism. But does
she need to know, at age 4, about sexism? Does she need to know people
still believe girls can’t do so many things, like cook in a top-tier
French kitchen? Why can’t she just see a girl chef making great food,
receiving acclaim for her talent, being helped along by a girl rat or
sous chef boy?
The hyper-concern for gender accuracy in the fantasy world extends to
things like plush toys – when I refer to my kid’s animals as “she,”
adults invariably do a double take, checking for manes or tusks: even
female toys must stay in their place. And of course, toys are a big
part of the problem. With today’s mass marketing, all these movie
characters live on as action figures, dolls, games, on T-shirts and
cereal boxes. On my daughter’s kite, her beach ball, her pull-ups, the
trifecta of Jasmine, Belle and Ariel smile shyly. My daughter wasn’t
born with this fairy tale-princess fantasy embedded in her brain, but
like any kid, she’s self-centered. She likes the movies that are all
about her. Females are half of the population. We pay our $10 just
like everyone else. When can we get more representation in our movies?
How long do we have to wait?
Pixar is made up of a bunch of guy geeks. Disney’s top brass is
practically all male. Maybe when we get more female studio heads, more
female directors and producers and writers, we’ll see groups of girls
having adventures; girl heroes doing cool, brave things in starring
roles where marriage may never be mentioned at all. Maybe then people
will wake up, finally recognize the radical lack of imagination going
on in our make believe worlds; Princess Charming finally rescues
www.amazon.com
www.nytimes.com
www.nytimes.com
dailyuw.com
Lis Wiehl, “Foxified”
People
Tangled
Steve Jobs, Ed Catmull, John Lasseter
Ariel
Washington Post
Director Brenda Chapman
