Anyway, when I started this book, I proceeded with caution. One, because it seemed to be marketed as a book for parents with daughters, and I am obviously not a parent. Two, because it seemed as if it may be feminist literature. Not that there is anything wrong with feminist literature, but I find that some of it is a little too sensationalist for my liking. Don't get me wrong, the concept of feminism in its very basic form is something that I agree with, but there are some practices and feminist ideas that I find tough to swallow and tough to agree with. I thought that this book may be chock full of them, but ended up being pleasantly surprised.
At first, to me, this book seemed to confirm all of my fears of what it was going to be. Taking on the voice of a woman who seemed to aspire to some post-modern feminist vision of Supermom, at first, Orenstein had me rolling her eyes at her interpretation of the "princess" culture and all of the perceived "consequences" that this may have (or had) on the young girls of today. Actually, she reminded me a lot of one of my former roommates - overthinking, overanalyzing, and overcontrolling - something which automatically made me judge the book and what it had to say. However, I forced myself to open up my mind, throw away my judgement for the time being, and wait to see where Orenstein took me.
Surprisingly, I ended up seeing her point, for the most part, and the rest of the book breezed on by. Granted, there are a couple of minor points that she broaches which are incorrect (for instance, saying that Selena Gomez is a year older than Miley Cyrus; they are actually the same age), but those are generally negligible. For the most part, while this book is not without its biases, it is evident that the author most definitely did her research in an attempt to understand the whole "girlie-girl" phenomenon.
One thing that had me scratching my head a little bit was Orenstein's apparent fear of allowing her daughter to catch "Cinderella"-fever. While I understood that she was initially wary of this becoming something bigger, leading to her daughter unwittingly falling into the cultural trap of pre-conceived notions of what it means to be female, at the same time, I feel that Orenstein is having too little faith in her daughter. What I mean is that she is creating an environment where, even though she wants her daughter (Daisy) to have a choice, she is simultaneously limiting her choices by denying her things that are pretty, pink, and princessy. Choices that Daisy makes that are not stereotypically female are awarded and make Orenstein proud, whereas the instant Daisy gravitates towards Barbie, Orenstein is immediately put on-guard. I do not understand the logic behind that. Yes, by limiting the influence of pink and pretty, you could argue that you are shaping little girls to question typical gender roles, however, you would also be ignoring one basic principle of developmental psychology - the influence of peers. By a certain age, whether parents like it or not, peers have more power over how children see themselves and shape themselves. Add that to the fact that this occurs at a time when there is still a relatively large amount of plasticity of self, so that the framework that parents have worked hard to build? Can be torn down. Easily. Peer influence and peer pressure is a force to be reckoned with.
That's not to say that parental influence is not important, and that it is useless to attempt to teach or mold your child's attitudes towards typical gender roles. But at the same time, I feel that regulating exposure to the "typical," or in this case, the "girlie," is somewhat futile and does not place a lot of faith in the child herself. Being a child of the late-80s, by the time the 2000s rolled around (aka, when the princess culture truly become prominent), I was already past the stage when this new "girlie girl" movement would affect me directly. My childhood was shaped by the 90s, by the "girl power" movement, and to a certain extent, Disney princesses. Disney princess marketing in the 90s wasn't QUITE as wide-spread as it is now, but it was still there. For instance, I had close to The Little Mermaid everything at one point - Little Mermaid clothing, Little Mermaid bedding, Little Mermaid toys... but at the same time, despite the fact that The Little Mermaid is far from a feminist manifesto, has it had any effect on how I view relationships with men? No. I also grew up in a household with pretty traditional gender roles, but has that led to me unquestioningly believing in them? Not necessarily.
So, again, I feel as if Orenstein is not giving little girls enough credit. Obviously when they are children, they are more vulnerable to accepting prescribed gender roles blindly, with little consideration of the "dark side" of conformity. But isn't that a part of growing up? Critical thinking is something that develops over time, after all, and we also must accept that children think differently than adults. Understanding is shaped by experience. When I was listening to songs that, to an adult ear, were so obviously about sex, that was not what I was hearing or understanding; the words to me had very little meaning. It wasn't until I got older that I came to the realization that "Ah-hah, so THAT'S what Christina was singing about." That's not to say that it is perfectly ok for children to listen to sexually suggestive music, but my point is that we have to remember that children are children, and they do not think in the same way that adults do. Yes, their development is definitely shaped by culture and experience, however, that is not always permanent. Ideas about what it means to be female that one had as a child can take a complete 180 by the time that child reaches adulthood, provided that they are raised in an environment which educates. Because after all, education encourages critical thinking. So as long as you educate your children and encourage them to question what they see, there is no need to build a 6-foot-high bulletproof fence in an attempt to protect them from the outside. Because the outside will get in; they will be influenced by culture. Towards the conclusion of the book, we can see Orenstein coming to that conclusion, though at first it seems as if she is being rather sensationalist and overprotective.
I did, however, learn a fair bit from this book, and there are many points that Orenstein makes which I agree with. Namely, those related to online culture, and the "societal problems" that such a culture can encourage. Again, I am a child of the late-80s, therefore I have always been technologically aware, but not nearly to the extent that the children of today are. For example, though I started using the internet by the age of 10, I did not have a Facebook account by age 13. Facebook did not exist. Social networking in itself did not really exist. Yes, there were the initial stages, the Myspace, the Nexopia, MSN, and all of that, but it did not nearly have the reach that it does now. Smartphones were still far on the horizon; text messaging was also still in its infancy. I did not even own a cellphone until I got my driver's license, and even then, it was basic -- texting and calling. That was it. Facebook? I did not get that until I was finished my first year of post-secondary. Therefore, for all of these reasons, I have remained somewhat untouched by cyber-bullying. Sure, there were the Bluemountain e-card pranks (one of my friends posed as this guy named "Jake" and sent me love letters - they were embarrassing, but far from emotionally scarring), there were snarky emails from so-called "friends," threatening not to be my friend anymore if I didn't change x-behaviour, but that was peanuts compared to what the kids of today experience. Most of the social grief that I experienced was offline and in the flesh -- still devastating, but at least I could escape it. In contrast, the kids of today face bullies everywhere, even in previously "safe" places, which is incredibly sad. I also agree that measures need to be taken to control this, and that parents need to better protect their children and regulate their exposure to social networking. It is something easier said than done in this day and age, and an all-out ban would be ridiculous (and likely create the "forbidden fruit" effect), but I also feel that parents and adults in general need to be aware of what is happening, and attempt to find a way to diffuse the situation.
As for the early sexualization of girls... I am on the fence on this one. In some cases, I feel that it has been sensationalized by the media, but in others, I feel that it is a definite issue of concern. I have met those girls, the ones who are barely 14-years-old but have more sexual experience than I do at 23 - my younger brother actually briefly dated one of those girls a few years ago. But again, I feel that, so long as parents offer their daughters guidance and education, without too much "control," early sexualization will not become epidemic. Allowing your daughter to play dress-up with high heels or your old make-up is not going to create a 14-year-old who posts semi-nude pictures of herself on the internet. In fact, I was one of those girls who played with high heels and my mother's old make-up, and while I adore beauty and cosmetics, I was not a mini-prostitute as a teenager, nor am I a woman who turns her nose up at those who buck the system of feminine "ideals." I am also not a woman who lacks the ability to think critically. Why? Because I am educated. Because I was taught to question. Because my parents (my mother, in particular) allowed me to experiment with all things girly, but in a controlled environment. I did not get everything that I wanted, and I was not spoiled. I was encouraged to read and taken to the library often. That is the antidote to the girlie-girl culture, not strict control.
In any case, this book was an interesting read, I learned a fair bit (though it wasn't overly earth-shattering), and obviously I have a lot of thoughts about it. I would highly recommend it, especially to those of you who are like me, who consider yourselves "girly," but don't agree with the idea that you are blindly following a stereotypical gender role by being so. Not that Orenstein necessarily argues this (she actually professes to enjoying visits to the cosmetics counter), but all the same. I have definitely always been the girly type, and it most definitely did not create any issues of blind acceptance, nor inhibit the development of my ability to think critically, which I don't think is unusual. Yes, today's environment is different and more saturated, however, I feel that it is not so toxic that it makes this "phenomenon" impossible to attain without strict parental regulation.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment