Facebook
Twitter
Email Sign-Up
RSS FeedIf You Let Me Be a Princess…..
Just saw this latest video posted by Disney. They’re trying to rebrand the Princesses as being about strength of character and self-efficacy. What do you think? Can they do this:
while also peddling tens of thousands of products to our daughters that emphasize beauty and consumerism? Does the brave Rapunzel in the movie offset the one who is on the Escape From the Tower Lip & Nail Set?
Or the Pretty Pretty Princess board game?
Or the zillions of other products out there? You tell me.
Meanwhile, this video put me in mind of one from years ago, back in the days of Girl Power, that Nike did:
And finally just for fun and to illustrate how deeply the Princess phenom has gripped our collective imagination, (see it before it goes viral and loses its cool) I give you “Hipster Disney Princess the Musical!”
Kind of the opposite of age compression…..
[...] for so long now that the word “princess” has become nearly synonymous with their product. And I agree with Peggy Orenstein’s points about it. And no, I’ve just got something in my eye.(via Peggy Orenstein.) TAGS: Disney | marketing | [...]
I LOVE the message of the video. I don’t expect them to pull from shelves products that currently make them a lot of money. I don’t think the answer is banning things, but including more choices for girls, more like what it was like when were girls.
I just love that there is a way for me to celebrate the idea of princesses with my daughter that I can buy into, since she already likes the idea. She also likes worms and pirates and lightening McQueen.
I like dressing up, too, for heaven’s sake. So i dont think there is snything inherently wrong with enjoying pretty things. I think the video does an incredible job of framing the next wave of feminism – of saluting traditional feminine strengths, like kindness, compassion & bravery.
The video just seems so…. Incongruous and ingenuous to me when contrasted to what their main princess industry shills… Better to have this kind of video than not….and I think Peggy’s work has a lot to do with this (glacial) shift…
I found this commercial confusing. I love all the strong statements they make, but I felt as though the word “princess” didn’t really fit the descriptions. Why princess? This commercial could have been for Girl Scouts if we just replaced the awkward “princess” with “girl.” Have we now just substituted “princess” for “girl” in our culture? I know that Disney is trying to sell princess stuff and that’s why they chose the word, but it felt like an odd fit to me. Love the images of strong, confident girls engaging in different activities. I guess it feels sneaky to me to change to word princess from meaning “privileged daughter of a king or queen raised in an atmosphere of splendor” to “strong girl.” Why exactly are only the privileged daughters of kings or queens strong? Or why do our daughters need to pretend to be princesses in order to be strong? Doesn’t make sense and seems like it undermines the idea that “regular girls” can be/are already strong without any privileged connection (pretended or otherwise).
Exactly! As if the peasant girls are nothing. Just the hard workers that make a princesses charmed life possible.
That video is really outstanding. It’s what I try to tell my daughter that princesses really are. But I agree that it doesn’t mesh with the products Disney is putting out there. Because of that, it just seems like lip service to those of us who are rising up and demanding for more for our children. The video is great, but if they want us to believe in it, they need to back it up with actions.
While I applaud the diversity and many things that are said, I can’t help but notice that none of the girls are even slightly overweight and that all of them would fit most people’s definitions of pretty.
The Nike ad was much better in that regard.
Still, I’m trying to see it as a step forward. Maybe the next ad will address plump princesses.
Y’know, I’d have less trouble believing in the whole “Princesses = strength of character and self-efficacy” if the video wasn’t solely populated by child-models.
Seriously, the 1995 Nike video actually presents a more realistic cross-section of young girls.
Too little, too late. Disney is only concerned about placating the minority voices that decry their assault on our girls. I don’t think Disney has shifted it’s core values at all. They can cry empowerment all they want, but at the end of the day they are still telling our girls that being pretty and sparkly is what makes them special.
Their is nothing empowering about narrow gender stereotypes. How many boys do you see running around wanting to be the prince? Being waited on and venerated for their good looks? Yeah, none.
My concern is the number of voices in the media/popular culture telling women and girls they are only valuable for how they look – that their appearance is more important than any other accomplishment. In fact, the message from the overculture that I hear is that looking “good” is the ONLY accomplishment. No matter what you do or who you are, your looks are always open to critique. Not to mention every woman fails to meet the “standard” for the vast majority of her life. /rant
I like that this video sends a completely different message, and features girls of many colors, sizes and abilities. I don’t like the “princess” phenomenon in general. I agree with little wonder woman over at JL8 http://jl8comic.tumblr.com/image/32858512862.
This means that there will be new products like bow and arrow sets, race cars, etc. However, they will all be pink.
You got it in 1 sister.
[...] (Peggy Orenstein via The Mary Sue) [...]
If the video didn’t have any references to the Disney characters, I’d think it was great. By throwing Snow White and the others in there, it’s obvious the main goal is to rebrand the Princesses so that Disney can continue to sell those movies and associated merchandise from now until eternity. Redesigning 80-year-old characters to fit the zeitgeist of the market is their trademark move.
So while it does seem that they’ve heard our message that little girls need strong, empowering role models, I’d prefer they respond by being brave enough to shelve spineless Snow White, Sleeping Beauty and Cinderella (keep selling their films but keep them off the merchandise), and focus their creative energy on developing more admirable heroines like Mulan, Tiana, or Nani and Lilo.
As for the Princess swag, it’s all about proportion. An occasional game or gift that’s just about dress-up can be an innocuous indulgence for boys and girls alike, just like a film that’s more entertainment than art. But games or props that encourage problem-solving or self-reflection should outnumber the indulgences. Especially when, as Lisa Bloom has pointed out, girls are complimented on their looks by adults approximately 1000 times more often than boys are.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-bloom/how-to-talk-to-little-gir_b_882510.html
I really disagree about having to shelve certain characters, the world is a rainbow of diversity and as much as we want more powerful characters there are still shy quiet little girls who identify with those meeker characters.
Not every little girl wants to be a princess and then again not every little girl wants to be a warrior and then there are some little girls who want to be it all from Monday-Friday
.
There is no need to deny a product from the entire population, if your not a fan of the merchandise don’t buy it. By trying to have certain characters banned your telling the rest of the world that they are not entitled to their opinions or that your way is the only way to raise a strong confident little girl. Kind of spits in the face of feminism when you try to deny freedom of choice to women or girls because you disagree with the character.
We really give disney way to much power when we blame them for the upbringing of our children.I grew up watching disney princess’s and wanting to one and other days being a fire fighter or a cop. You dont need Disney to create all your role models. My mother was one of mine and there are books galore of strong women throughout history some of them being princess’s then eventually Queens, ie: Queen Elizabeth the first
WE are their mothers and fathers and we bring what we see fit into the house. We choose what television access our children have, look for the positive messages these stories have and talk to your kids about messages you dont agree with.
Explain certain movies were made in a time when women were not seen as equal as men and turn these things into meaningful discussions. Every negative is a chance to start a dialog with your children and let them know why you feel so strongly about something.
I agree that it is important to watch media with your kids and discuss–it is really necessary or you are giving tacit approval. I also agree that as parents we have influence over our children’s values and purchases. That said, there’s a classic divide between those who believe that corporations bear no responsibility for the merchandise they sell children and the marketing they aim at them and those who believe they do. I’m in the latter camp. To give companies a free pass to sell whatever they want to to kids, and to market relentlessly to them seems irresponsible to me. And to expect in a world where that is the case that parents can effectively combat the messages or that children can choose “freely” what they want to do, be, explore etc is naive. Obviously, I do try to make purchasing decisions for my child based on my values. But that has to be a conscious choice given what’s out there for her. Minimizing negative messages about girls and women’s bodies and worth and celebrating the positive ones is important, but it’s no easy task in the current marketplace.
Finally, Disney DOES take responsibility for what it markets to kids. It presents itself as wholesome and healthy. That means it deserves–and should want–to be called out when it crosses a line.
P.S. Unless you are under 15 or so years old, you actually did NOT grow up with the Disney Princesses. The concept wasn’t invented until 2000.
Not the main disney princess marketing campaign. But the movies YES, the dolls were available in the early nineties along with toys, t-shirts and cups and backpacks etc. I had my fair share of little mermaid, Belle and princess Jasmine all over the house
. The merchandise has been around for a long time. The company can try to put a princess on any product they want if its not age appropriate than its a “no” period. Its not like the previous poster was talking about banning inappropriate child lingerie she was talking about shelving certain characters just because they have “weaker” character traits. The best voice to the industry is to hide your wallet if nobody is buying then they stop making them. I dont have cable for the exact reason I dont want my child to be flooded with endless commercials, we also have a say on how much marketing we allow to pass into our homes. I watch most movies before she (my daughter) sees them and as for theater movies I read the books ahead of time and the online synopsis and reviews before we go. I dont keep magazines and I can ultimately decide if we go through the toy sections together or other places that will be full of advertisements. I dont call separate aisles boy aisles or girl aisles I call them doll aisles or action figure aisles. We DO have way more power than you think and its just lazy parenting to want things banned because you dont want to be the bad guy and say no or discuss the message you perceive being sent. I am all for fighting to have better alternatives made for girls but banning certain characters on products because you may think they are a bit vapid is silly.
also while I have your ear I am curious if you have seen the premiere episode (not the pilot) of Sofia the first?. What are your opinions on the direction they took? Will we see a post on this princess in the near future?.
I haven’t yet, I’m working on other things but thank you for reminding me.
Hey, at this point I think you should read the book. I go into the history of the princess marketing which includes that yes, they had merchandise before 2000, obviously, but it was always linked to the roll-out of a movie or the release of a movie from a vault. the DP campaign was th first time in the history of the company that they marketed characters separate from a film’s release and had them out 24/7. Also, the thesis of my book is not, obviously, that there is a direct line from playing princess to stunted adulthood for women. It looks at the culture of girlhood and how it’s changed over the past several decades and in particular since 2000, when there was a dramatic shift in a number of areas.
I just want to clarify that I do not advocate “banning” the characters.(That’s way too a strong word.) I would like to see the merchandise designers retire – or merely *decide against* – the yearly campaign to make them seem modern and aggressively market them. Loads of characters have been retired by toy companies over the years for various reasons. Would it be spitting in the face of feminism to say Mattel was right to retire the 1960s Barbie with the cat eyelashes? Or the talking one that said, “Math is tough”?
(Sorry my reply is rather late. Since I posted months ago, I didn’t notice the thread until now.)
I did read the book, it made some good points I am also a fan of consuming kids on the subject of marketing to kids
.
If it weren’t for the “princess” portion, it’d be a great video, as it has already been pointed out.
Strong, athletic or whatever, “princesses” are still first and foremost pretty. And that is the problem: putting beauty as a prerequisite for everything else.
I’d add entitled and wealthy to pretty, which may, for some parents, also be an issue.
Excellent post, Peggy.
The hypocrisy of this ad (preaching empowerment while selling thousands of products that reinforce gender stereotypes) reminded me of a series of Barbie PSAs from 2009. In the videos, children and adult (actors) talk directly to the camera, criticizing dolls that look “so grown up so quickly.” The PSAs’ slogan was “we believe in girls” and had clips with titles such as “selling” and “vulgarity.” Interestingly, at the same time Mattel was running ads for “Barbie Top Model” (who looked incredibly grown up) and the company was prepping up for the launch of the Monster High dolls. You can see the Barbie PSA here: http://theillusionists.org/2009/02/hypocrisy-barbi/
I saw Disney baby bottles today on my way to look at car seats at Babies R Us. I’ll have to check next time to see if they are Princess bottles, but I cannot believe that a company that sells cribs and bottles and wedding dresses cares at all about a moral to the stories. A bit off topic, but I was just so creeped out, I had to share…
[...] effect?’ Seems like a ‘missed opportunity.’Even moreso if Disney is seriously trying to ‘rebrand princesses’ as empowerment tools…This fits into their makeover magic, with ‘brand oompf’ galore in [...]
Is there no value in meeting girls where they are at? Most of the responses convey nothing but disdain for anything princesses – disdain, I share for the princess-on-steroid-culture.
But my daughter loves the idea of princesses, of dress up, of this way of playing with her friends. I don’t want her to feel my disdain, to feel I am dismissing something she values.
Does no one else appreciate this as a step in the right direction? A bridge to a conversation/place we want to be?
The video isn’t perfect, Disney has not done a complete 180, but sheesh, I’m amazed at the flat out rejection of anything less than ideal.
That’s not disdain at the video, but disdain that this video and its message will continue to stand alone as disney doesn’t change the way they portray females, not in number, not in variety. That’s all there really is to it.
And the thing is, there are tons of ads “meeting girls where they’re at” for girls who’re at princesses, maybe it’s time we could get some of these ads to get the girls who’re not into princesses where they’re at. And I’d bet many girls are into these supposedly girly things because they see no more options.
“But my daughter loves the idea of princesses, of dress up, of this way of playing with her friends.”
That’s wonderful. But how many other things wouldn’t she enjoy if they just were presented to her? Please see “fight fun with fun”.
I struggle with this issue, Lisa. On one hand, I agree that playing princess/queen etc is as old as time. What is new is the commodification of that, the over-emphasis on appearance that it creates and feeds into (as girls get older and the products get more overt), the linking of princess play with massive consumerism etc etc. So does “meeting girls where they’re at” mean meeting them where they have been trained to be by those consumer products? Does it mean trying to counter that with a totally different vision? I think at this point it may be a little of both. I wouldn’t reject any story that contains the rich mythology that creating a different and royal land can convey (my daughter, for instance, loves Shannon Hale’s books as do I). At the same time, it’s way too narrow to filter story and every personal characteristic is filtered through the scrim of “princess.” And with Disney….I know there are people within the company and on the board who care a great deal about children’s well-being (in addition to profit) and about girls development. And I know they have been pushing exactly for this–to find a way to keep the princess but make that something more based in personhood, bravery etc. And I also know that those attempts tend to look good on the surface and translate into something else in the store. So, honestly, I have mixed feelings here. And am very interested in how this conversation is rolling out.
Though it does amuse me that someone called me a “hater.” Has anyone else noticed that that’s the world people use now as a blanket dismissal if you disagree with them? As in, “anyone who thinks my joke about serial killers isn’t funny is just a hater.” To which I roll my eyes in a teenagerly way and say, “Whatev.”
But, Peggy, don’t you see? The fact that they’re even DOING this means that your book has created a conversation they have to listen to. Look, we have a long way to go, but when I think about the post I wrote about gendered toys a month or two before your book came out, I realize we’ve come a long way. At that time, the post was a shout in the wilderness. No one was talking about it, or at least not enough. Then, right after, your book came out and people started sending me links to it and reading it and talking about it. That created a pressure that Disney couldn’t avoid.
So, it’s not great, but I take it as a bit of a win.
That is so nice, Emily. Thank you. It is exciting to think that there has been pressure that Disney has had to respond to. I don’t know if it’s my book per se, but a general tide turning or revulsion against the ubiquitousness of the princess image. And it reminds me of something I often say which is that this is a bit like the food movement–creating an alternative culture of girlhood that is healthy and sustainable, much like Michael Pollan et al want to do with food. And I haven’t read his latest Times piece yet, but I think there are similar tensions. What DOES one want? I do want Disney to “blink” in this way but I want them to do MORE than that. I want them to walk that talk. More and more and more. To see that it’s viable and it’s commercial. But it’s hard to take this fully seriously, or as more than lip service when they’re also doing this kind of thing at the same time:
THat’s their new campaign with Barney’s.
So yes, I’m happy they’re trying to find a new approach, but I want more and I want authentic.
Oh, that’s just gross.
I have very mixed feelings on Disney. I love to go with my kids, and I’m delighted that movies like Brave are coming out. But then there’s things like that ad. And the little girls walking around WDW all gussied up. IN MAKEUP. When I took my kids over the summer, I was careful to undercut the gendered messages whenever I could. It’s honestly worse what they do to boys, because my sons don’t want a damned sword; they want a fairy wand, too.
But gendered messages are everywhere. I guess at least in WDW the messages are so blatant that it’s easier to confront them…?
Also, when I saw Brave, I couldn’t help thinking it was partly due to you.
Oh, now you sound like my mom. No, I don’t think so. Brave has been in the works for a long time. It’s Brenda Chapman’s baby–she’s cool!
Great. It’s bad enough I sound like my kids’ mom…
[...] posted the “I am a princess” ad to her website last month and asked her readers if the company can really, “re-brand the princesses as being [...]
I’m ready for some Disney boy marketing that reminds them that “sometimes I am brave even when I am scared….Standing with others is most important…Compassion makes me strong and kindness is power.”
Also, let me join the chorus: I am so happy that I’ve started parenting in a world where you’re writing about gender.