Punk Princess
By
Illustration by Stephen Williams
I really hate princess costumes, Walt Disney and toy prams. I don’t
remember any of them from my own childhood, growing up in Chicago, and
I’m trying to figure out why. Is there an essential difference between
what is American and what is British in how we raise our children or are
the changes with how I was raised and the things that my daughter is being
subjected to part of a global cultural shift?
Barack Obama’s slogan of ‘Yes We Can’ is indicative
of a certain type of American liberal optimism that was planted during
the Civil Rights Movement and flowered with Second Wave Feminism. America
was a media-saturated place in the 70s but television, particularly public
broadcasting, was a voice for the changes that were taking place in American
Culture to deal with the historic legacy of racism and sexism. I was raised
on early Sesame Street where I learned to count in Spanish with Oscar
the Grouch and saw an urban multicultural street as normal. Across the
Atlantic, British television was just phasing out the title Watch
with Mother and featured Andy Pandy
and the Flower Pot Men.
According to Peggy Orenstein author of Cinderella
Ate My Daughter, some people believe that the ‘pink and princessing’
of early childhood is a reaction to Second Wave Feminism while others
see a larger historical perspective. As Miriam Forman-Brunell observes,
“Historically, princess worship has emerged during periods of uncertainty
and profound social change.”(1)
Currently, in America there is consensus over the sexualisation of children,
“In 2007, The American Psychological Association Task Force on the
Sexualization of Girls issued a report that linked this type of sexualization
with low self-esteem, eating disorders, and depression” and Melissa
Atkins Wardy of Pigtail Pals says "A
girl cannot run, climb, leap, and crawl the way a young child should when
at play if she is in heeled sandals, a short skirt and top that keeps
riding up."(2)
Here in Britain, the chief executive of the Mother’s Union, Reg
Bailey, published his recommendations in a Government-commissioned review
“The Bailey Report”. This has continued a public dialogue
about the sexualisation of young children; however, it has been widely
criticized as using anecdotal evidence and being extremely populist in
nature.(3) One of the most relevant points made by Dr Petra Boynton is that
“these evaluations have not interrogated the concept of sexualisation,
nor focused on wider issues that might be facing young people. She also
notes that “the preoccupation with sexualisation favours white,
middle class parents (usually mothers) whose children are not generally
facing particular hardships.(4)
It is very important to understand the nuances and prejudices of different
initiatives; in the United States much of the agenda is grounded in feminist
values while in the UK The Mother’s Union is a faith-based Christian
organisation.
Connect the Dots
When I look around Merseyside, I see a general level of complacency regarding
gender stereotyping and children. I have a dream that suddenly everybody
will wake up and see that dressing girls in fairy tale costumes is far
from innocent, but instead a strategic cooperation between capitalism
and social conservatism to fuck up an entire generation. I was in line
waiting to pay for a ten pack of white socks for my daughter and having
a moan about the princess pyjamas when an all knowing grandmother assured
me that the princess stage passes and now her granddaughter won’t
touch anything pink.
Maybe so, but watch Channel 4’s My Big Fat
Gypsy Wedding where the girls want to be a ‘princess’
on their wedding day, in some cases spending what others would on a university
education. One is left with the notion that while middle and upper class
girls may be OK and outgrow the princess thing, the ones most likely to
suffer will be the young girls who are growing up in poverty. They aren’t
exposed to a diversity of positive messages and accessible female role
models; consider the Toxteth primary school that took the children on
a field trip to the new Tesco on Park Road for aspirations week.
But while “There are no studies proving that playing princess directly
damages girls’ self-esteem or dampens other aspirations… there
is evidence that young women who hold the most conventionally feminine
beliefs...are more likely to be depressed than others and less likely
to use contraception.”(5) The media also supports this correlation
between the effect of girls living in poverty playing princesses and teenage
pregnancy.(6)
“Playing princess is not the issue,” argues Lyn Mikel Brown
and Sharon Lamb, authors of Packaging Girlhood: Rescuing
Our Daughters From Marketers’ Schemes, “The issue is
25,000 Princess products”. These 25,000 products have turned Disney
around. The BBC and British television are equally complicit, Jo Swinson,
the Liberal Democrat MP believes the self-confidence of young girls across
the country is being attacked by the industry's obsession with pink and
princesses. "It can start the socialisation of inequality,"
she said. "It can restrict girls' views of themselves and boys' perceptions
of girls too."(7)
Sometime around the turn of the century, childcare workers began to be
trained to stop calling children naughty and to make it clear through
language that there were problems with the behaviour and not with the
child. Perhaps if we begin to understand that the media and corporate
promotion of a deeply gendered childhood is harming girls (and boys) who
are growing up in poverty we can start to do something about it. If playing
princesses can result in important public health issues such as anorexia,
teenage pregnancy, and depression, then libraries, sure starts, child
minders, nurseries and the BBC need to challenge their systemic promotion
of fairy and princess play as an assault on the life long health of girls
and women.
References
- Cinderella ate my daughter
- ibid
- Peggy Orenstein
-
Liverpool Echo (Feb 27 2009)
|