Why Princesses Won’t Be Presidents
Somehow I missed last spring’s report from the commission on undergraduate women’s leadership at Princeton. It seems one of the more important and damning pieces of research on gender to come out in a while. Was there a huge fuss and I was so busy with post-book publication that I missed it? Or maybe it came out during the two weeks I was out of the country.
Anyway, here’s the deal: over the last ten years, for the first time in the history of the university as a co-educational institution, there has been a significant decline in the number of female students holding major campus leadership positions–something that, as the report’s authors note, is not unique to Princeton. Plenty of elite colleges have taken their turn in the spotlight for their hostile environments towards women. (Yale, for instance, and MIT, which has undertaken a series of reports on the status of female faculty avaliable here.)
So, kudos to Princeton, first off, for having the courage to name and try to address the trend. I suspect the fact that the university has a female president made a difference in this respect. And that is as good an argument as any for diversity (of all sorts) among our leaders. Yet, apparently that urgency is not felt by the next generation. What gives?
One finding was that female students (speaking generally, of course) appear to value “high-impact” over “high-profile” roles. That may sound superior –women rise above mere show-boating–but not when it forecloses opportunity. Women, according the commission found, don’t put themselves out there. They also undersell their talents compared to men and are prone to making self-deprecating or dismissive remarks about their achievements. What’s more, they do much of the heavy lifting for the organizations to which they belong even as they eschew the credit.
Plus ca change, yes?
The commission also found a renewed and growing confidence gap between women and men on campus (remember that one?). It was somewhat present among incoming freshman, then widened as they moved forward (I’m sure parents paying $200K plus for their daughters’ education were thrilled to hear THAT one).
But this wasn’t just a matter of psychology and self-sabotage. According to one news report the commission was disturbed to discover that, “both alumnae and current students told us that they had been actively discouraged from running for the most prominent roles, We heard that often enough to be sobered by it.”
Sexism isn’t pretty, is it? And speaking of pretty, here was another reason cited for women’s reluctance to lead:
Undergraduate women at Princeton today sometimes feel that they are expected to measure up to an impossible standard. They are supposed to be smart, involved in many different activities (as are men) and ALSO “pretty sexy, thin, nice, and friendly,”
Or, as an alumna put it in a great Daily Beast article, “there is too much pressure to do everything, do it well & look hot while doing it.”
Sounds more like Princess than Princeton doesn’t it?
Again, I don’t think this issue is unique to Princeton. Nor do I think it’s a coincidence that this decline began in 2000. That year marked the start of a profound shift in the culture of girls, when a silent “as long as you look hot doing it” was grafted on to the mantra “you can do anything.” That message has become more pervasive and skewed younger since then (hey, someone should write a book about that–oh wait! I did!).
Ready for the double bind (or is it triple? Quadruple? I lose track). It appears that while Princeton women don’t feel they can be taken seriously UNLESS they’re hot, they also can’t be taken seriously if they’re too hot. This fall, a freshman running for class president posted a campaign video on YouTube. Here’s a description by one of his classmates in the school newspaper:
[He] is sitting in a leather armchair wearing a bathrobe and holding a drink. He addresses the camera and announces his candidacy. Then, a girl wearing only boxers and a men’s button down shirt enters — the boy shoots her a glance in annoyance. The girl seats herself on his armchair, flips her long, blonde hair and whines, “Come back,” to which he shakes her off, saying, “I’ll be back in a second.” She exits, and then he looks back at the camera, shakes his head and rolls his eyes as if to say, “That silly bitch.”
Incidentally, t only 1 of the 9 candidates for freshman class president was female; all the candidates for secretary were.
Consider this: two of the last three Supreme Court Justices appointed were Princeton women (the third was a Princeton man). Could the school produce an Elena Kagan or Sonia Sotormayor today?
On a related note I saw Miss Representation last night. Have you seen it? You must. Here’s the extended trailer.
The Princeton report offered a few recommendations, including the importance of outreach and mentorship. You can read the summary here.

Facebook
Twitter
Email Sign-Up
RSS Feed
OK, wait a minute–the Barnard community had an entire conversation about a Duke study (the Duke Women’s Initiative: http://web.duke.edu/womens_initiative/exec.htm) that found THE SAME THING. The Duke women called it “effortless perfection.” You have to be hot, smart, high-achieving and it’s not worth a thing unless you make it look like it’s no work at all. That was 2004-ish. And it’s getting worse?! *headdesk*
Oh yeah–you’re RIGHT Anne-Marie. I forgot about that one. That was several years ago. Did you feel like that was true at a women’s college or not so much? Did the proximity of COlumbia make a difference?
There is such a huge body of research on women deflecting credit and high-profile leadership for many reasons. All of that was old news, though it is painful each time it is replicated in a new generation. Because I always think, oh, well, things MUST have changed. But this piece about needing to look “hot” on top of everything else is newer. Maybe the influence of Elle Woods and Carrie Bradshaw? And then the lower age creep (and creepiness) that i was seeing in CAMD. I think this kind of self-censorship, sense of inadequacy, reluctance to step out is the result. But it can seem very subtle. Until it’s not…….
How will we know when there is true equality in this sense? One big indication will be when not one person in a video like this is wearing makeup. All these “powerful” women leaders speaking here (very well, too), yet every one of them has expensively styled hair and wears cosmetics. Are they telling me they don’t read the ads in women’s magazines and buy the “princess” products? They’re wearing them. Women, women in power, here is a message: take off the makeup. When the world an the media take you seriously WITHOUT makeup, we’ll know we’re doing OK.
I though about that and wanat to do a longer post on that. On the fine line you have to walk as a messenger of these ideas so that you are “credible.” Because I feel the pressure too….
Devil’s advocate here… Make up or no, did you see there was only 1 man in all the men on the video that was not completely clean shaven, and he only had a mustache. The men were also relatively thin and attractive and probably had their nails done after the tanning salon. Unfortunately, I think “princess” is a trend that is not just affecting women. How many times have we heard that Roosevelt would not have won the presidency if there was TV then? Not to mention the Nixon Kennedy TV debate. We shouldn’t care if mother daughter duos get their nails done together, as long as they don’t read the trashy magazines while they do. Heck, some of my best plotting to take over the world is done in the still time while my nails are drying!
It would be naive to say that people pay no attention to looks or are not influenced by them. And it’s certainly true that men’s/boys’ looks have become more central over the past couple of decades. However, girls in particular (and women too) are judged far more harshly and defined more thoroughly by appearance (check out the 2008 presidential election). Appearance is a much larger factor in girls’ sense of self–to their detriment according to a ream of studies. They are, far more than boys, on a road from the youngest of ages that tell them who they are is how they look and how they need to look is perilously narrowly defined. They equate looks with popularity more solidly than boys and how they look affects them more globally in terms of psychological well-being and achievement. So, yeah, I think the way the new imperative to be attractive affects boys and men is really interesting I don’t think the comeback “boys do too” either invalidates the issues girls face (boys have their own issues–not my topic. Check out Michael Thompson or Packaging Boyhood) or, truly, does either girls or boys a favor. Because among the concerns with boys is how they learn–through media etc–to view girls and how that will affect their relationships. And how girls, spiraling into entitled, diva culture, learn to regard boys….
I’m sure your plots to take over the world are excellent. I hope when your nails aren’t drying that you have time to actually enact some of them.
My thought exactly! And when you ask women about it, they claim it’s part of a “corporate, put-together look” that they’re just expected to adhere to, akin to men wearing ties. But I’m not buying it. Nor the high heels that Oprah peddles. Uh-uh. Oppressive.
I don’t know if I agree with the no make-up thing. As women, we must not judge each other – you are not less an advocate for women, or less a leader if you ARE a “princess” or if you choose not to wear make-up. if you are not. It is about substance either way and it is on a woman’s substance that we must make informed decisions on how and if she should lead. This type of judgement also creates added pressure for those of us who want to make big impact but do not want the scruitiny.
I’m in no way advocating shunning women who wear makeup or not wearing it oneself. I wear makeup. And I think it is also problematic whenever we pit (consciously or unconsciously) one “type” of girl against another–the opposite of princess is not being derisive towards princess girls, it’s having a much much, much greater range of images and representations of women and girls to choose from. it’s having something beyond the 27% of speaking parts in G-rated movies; something beyond the sexualized portrayal of girls and women in those movies (as found by a USC study that’s in the new material in the pback of CAMD) or beyond the fact that the most common profession for women on screen is….princess.
What I’m generally saying about makeup use (which I don’t recall being part of this post) is that it’s unadvisable, problematic and demonstrably unhealthy for the little girls who are now being encouraged to wear it–according to last week’s NYTimes that encompasses girls as young as 7. Study after study shows that focusing on appearance at that age puts girls at risk of a host of concerning vulnerabilities.
And in this post, the issue is the ways that orientation–the focus and emphasis and insistence on a very narrow definition of acceptable appearance–from a very young age may be undermining young women’s willingness to step out as leaders. i don’t think I’m saying anywhere that makeup for grown women is necessarily “bad” or advocating that we all stop wearing it, am I?
…but apparently they CAN become [former] Speaker of the House, according to Herman Cain!
Peggy, please tell me that the movie is more hopeful than the trailer is. Because I don’t think I can stand 2 hours of that.
I took a women’s studies class in college and one of the things we looked at was how girls/women were portrayed in popular TV shows at the time. That was 1991, and we chose Growing Pains. I can’t believe how much worse it’s gotten…
Well, look at what happened to Tracey Gold….
I think it is worse because there are more screens more of the time and because of the conglomeration of media after deregulation. Public interest became much less of a focus or responsibility of media companies at that point.
Is the movie more hopeful? Yes and no. It ends with a really beautiful rallying cry by Siebel (who gives birth to a daughter, which will make you cry) and then quick shots of girls and women talking about how to make change. SO you feel the potential for a groundswell movement and that is very cool. And I think the way she links the issue to the impact on women’s LEADERSHIP is really important and an interesting perspective. One that makes sense given the world in which she travels. I’m interested in women’s leadership, but it’s less my passion per se since I’m sort of a lone wolf of a person, more iconoclast than leader type…..
Thanks for the article. I love that Miss Representation has reminded me of how far we still have to go until we can have gender equality. Really makes me examine why I hate to be in the spotlight, take credit for my work, etc. Can’t believe so many of us still succumb to the “sugar and spice and everything nice” mantra.
A Berkeley Psych prof, Steve Hinshaw, wrote a very interesting book about this “effortless perfection” called The Triple Bind. I highly recommend!
I’m not sure but I think “effortless perfection” was from the Duke study that found similar results. But maybe Steve coined it. Either way, “Triple Bind” is an outstanding book and I quote it in Cinderella Ate My Daughter. Steve is an acquaintance and I am a huge admirer of his work.
[...] Girls bully, too: A comment on princesses and how we treat women that “can” Posted on February 2, 2012 by Jen Graybeal Ok – just read this post by Peggy Orenstein. It’s not new, it was originally published in November.http://peggyorenstein.com/blog/why-princesses-wont-be-presidents [...]
[...] We live in a time when multibillion dollar Disney marketing messages and parents themselves are encouraging our young girls towards princess adoration. Dress up is involving high heels, makeup, and aspirations of unattainable physical beauty as early as age three. Princess costumes have taken over pre-school dress up areas and even teachers are calling our girls “princesses.” Parents are parading their daughters out in princess clothing without stopping to think of the ramifications. If you need to understand why this isn’t good, read Cinderella Ate My Daughter. If you want to see the impact it is having on college age women – the first generation to grow up in the princess era – read this piece on why princesses won’t be presidents. [...]
[...] We live in a time when multibillion dollar Disney marketing messages and parents themselves are encouraging our young girls towards princess adoration. Dress up is involving high heels, makeup, and aspirations of unattainable physical beauty as early as age three. Princess costumes have taken over pre-school dress up areas and even teachers are calling our girls “princesses.” Parents are parading their daughters out in princess clothing without stopping to think of the ramifications. If you need to understand why this isn’t good, read Cinderella Ate My Daughter. If you want to see the impact it is having on college age women – the first generation to grow up in the princess era – read this piece on why princesses won’t be presidents. [...]
I saw Jennifer Newsom in a Women Crossing the Bridge event, and she fits this description: “smart, involved in many different activities and ALSO ‘pretty sexy, thin, nice, and friendly’.” I sometimes think that even the women that tout these virtues do not necessarily walk the walk themselves, and makes it extremely hard standard for the generations after her!
Well, now, that brings us into this whole area that I keep meaning to write about. Which is: what does a “credible” feminist messenger look like? The thing about Jennifer that I think is useful is that young women especially may think, wow, even if you “achieve” that idealized image it’s STILL not good enough when you hear in the film about her own personal story. It pierces the idea that looking “perfect” will somehow protect you or insulate from the pressures and potential violence affecting women and girls. Or that it allows you to be oblivious to them. And then I think, well, what if Jennifer were a large woman? Or what if she weren’t conventionally attractive? Would people dismiss her as “sour grapes?” It seems like no matter how you look when delivering a feminist message your looks can be critiqued as “wrong.” I’m really conscious (ironically) if what I look like and how I come across physically and psychologically, take that into account in terms of how and whether I can get my ideas out there. No matter how a woman looks we are “coded,” you know?