I think, perhaps, the reason I was actually more attracted to the "villains" in Disney movies was because they were actually strong, powerful, and respected (despite being evil). The pretty princesses were always so boring and meek. Yuck.

Although I wanted to have Ariel's voice too. Who can really blame the sea witch for that one?

Great article, but I do have a small bone to pick. No way to keep the Disney Princesses out of your home? Really? Because my daughters, four and five years old, have zero interest in the Princesses. The closest thing to Disney stuff we own are Miyazaki's delightful animated films, which are distributed by Disney here in the US. No Princess costumes, no Princess wands, and definitely no Princess movies. I've even blocked the Disney Channel on our television. The few Princess-related gifts they've received from well-meaning but misguided relatives have been quickly abandoned and then donated.

And no, my kids aren't homeschooled. They do encounter this stuff at school, but thankfully, they've shown zero interest - my oldest daughter has even been snubbed by a few of her schoolmates for not wanting to "play Princess."

Thank goodness for my strange, out-of-touch daughters.

I'm as annoyed by the Princessification of America as anyone else, but did that guy seriously just unfavorably compare Belle to Barbie? Belle was a smart, adventerous, tell-it-like-it-is, kickass heroine who wasn't afraid to yell at a giant beast, not some meek little weasel. That Disney decided to ignore established characterization of the latter princesses and morph all their heroines into the classic princess formula (dreamy, beautiful girl children patiently waiting for their prince) doesn't mean that the characters themselves have no redeeming qualities. They're being marketed poorly and people are buying it, which is sad.

A trend? These archaic Disney female role models have been around awhile. Banning from your household or incinerating them would likely increase the allure. Discussing the issues with your kids as they play with the dolls or watch the animated movies is a better solution, in my view. Our daughter loved them and Barbie when she was little, migrated to the American Girl series of books and dolls and is now in the midst of getting her masters degree in the health field. She adored Barbie when she was little but was still horrified at how many women in her college classes were there mainly to look for husbands (at least as revealed by one straw poll in a 50 member class).

On the other hand, my ex-sister-in-law, banned the Disney characters from her daughter's life (including instructions to us not to let her watch those evil movies) and the girl is just as "boy crazy" and frivolous as any other 14 year old.

"It may be old-fashioned to say so, but sex--and especially some middle-aged man's twisted version thereof--doesn't belong in the pre-K playroom. Children are going to discover it soon enough, but they're got to do so on their own."

Is this really Disney's fault? Fairy tales, to be fair, were never really meant for children, and the reason we misinterpret them (and, in Disney's case, rewrite them altogether) is because they're almost all about sex, if not blatantly so (which is more a product of the Grimms and Co. "toning them down" for child-consumption). It just doesn't seem fair to blame Disney for sex in stories about sex.

Stone B, I tried to make that point about Belle with my SIL, but her response was that "Beauty..." was one of the worst offenders since its central message was that the abusive beast of men's characters can be cured if only their women loved them enough.

Interesting point, SixtiesLiberal, I never thought of it that way. It strikes me as more "arrogant prats have to change themselves," but I can definitely see both.

My younger sister and I grew up with Barbie, Cabbage Patch dolls, Disney or pretty much any other pop-culture 80's toy trend and I think we are better for it. When I am a parent, I won't have a Barbie bonfire if someone else gives them to my children but I sure as hell will not be buying for them myself when there are so many other toys out there that aren't so laced with overt sexism and consumerism. Actually, now that those horrible fugly "Bratz" dolls are on the market, Barbie and the Disney princesses really don't look so bad, comparitively.

I'm not wild about the "Disney Princess" marketing line, either, and that's speaking as someone who loves the movies (I know, I know, take away my feminist card already). I LOVE The Little Mermaid, but every piece of Ariel merchandise out right now has a stupid simpering close-lipped smile and sideways glance on it. I loved Ariel for her directness and spunkiness- she didn't just float around the ocean looking pretty and waiting for her man. (I know the whole movie is about man-chasing, but still.) I just hate to see them twist my favorite character into something she's not.

ehrenreich is, forgive me, a little melodramatic when she freaks out about her three-year-old pretending to eat a poisoned apple and fall to the floor. i mean, the kid is THREE. god knows the kind of strange shit i was pretending to do at that age. just because a little girl with an imagination and a flair for the dramatic happens to like playing princess now and then doesn't mean she'll grow up without any of the feminist ideals we espouse here. that has a LOT more to do with parenting than it does watching any silly cartoon.

i agree with what was stated above about the princesses having more worth individually than collectively and i think the marketing sells them short. i grew up watching the little mermaid and beauty and the beast ad nauseum so maybe i just have a soft spot for them, but i really did like ariel and belle.

I admit, I was completely captivated by . . . the library in "Beauty and the Beast" (well, big surprise; now I'm in library school). Belle was always my favorite as a kid.

I like B.E.'s point about kids discovering sexuality on their own terms, on their own schedule. I think this new "sexed-up" marketing of the princess shit (the wedding stuff just connects it all the more strongly with adult sexuality) really changes the tone. I mean, there's stuff to complain about vis a vis Disney's version of fairy tales, or fairy tales per se, but I think this princess redux thing takes to a whole new level.

This is one of the worst takes on the Princess debate that I have seen. I and friend had a small debate about this on our blogs over the picture that was posted here of a little girl in a princess outfit with a t-shirt that said "this is what a feminist looks like." My friend was turned off by the Princess imagery, but I thought that correct way to attack this is by co-opting and subverting the meaning, like that picture did.

Ehrenreich's article is incredibly, and seems to suggest not only Nazi-style bonfire of the offending books, garments, and accessories, but more incredibly she manages to blame girls for drinking rape-drug-laced margaritas because they're being pre-conditioned to do so from playing "poisoned apple."
This is a bad article which cheapens the only valid points it makes.

Ok, I admit it, I loved Barbie and all the Disney Princesses as a child, but I was also the one that had Barbie divorce Ken and toss him in the basement. :)

Interesting article... though she did forget that Jasmine (who is my favorite - what? she has a pet tiger!) is also a "princess of color."

I would like to see someone do a book or article about the the emergence of the "princess" ideal in American culture. For a nation that doesn't even have royalty, little girls are certainly obsessed with imitating it. (Does anyone know if the princess obsession is also present in nations like Britain that have actual princesses?) I just think it's fascinating and brings up a ton of questions. For example, why do fathers call their little girls "princesses" all the time but don't call their little boys "princes" as often?

I agree with Ehrenreich. *dodges tomatoes*
I think that a princess is a pretty terrible thing for a young girl to aspire to be, seeing as it's, um, not a real option for 99.9999% of the world.
As others have pointed out, characters like Belle and Ariel did play active roles in their stories, but the Disney Princess(tm) fad is no longer about the stories behind them, they're about being pretty and pink and skinny and rich. I don't see the Disney Princess Girls' Rock Climbing Set or Chemistry set. I see pink and purple tiaras and jewelry and shoes and dresses and nail polish and brushes etc etc.
To me, it all ties back to idolization of the wealthy, which is not something I want to instill in my children.
If anyone can give me examples of something DP-related that provides a truly independent and intelligent role model for young girls, I am open to be persuaded, but I have yet to find anything.

I think that Belle and Ariel and of course Mulan do have redeeming qualities as characters. I personally as a child loved Belle because she was a bookish outcast dreamer like me. Reducing them only to princess, whose major accomplishment is marrying some guy, is definately problematic but what really gets me is that these are the only female protagonists out there in popular movies. I mean, at least The Little Mermaid was mainly about a female character. That doesn't even happen anymore, it seems.

Look at the popular children's movies, like pixar, etc that have come out in the past 10 years. How many of them have female protagonists like the older Disney movies? How many of the other major characters are female? I can tell you, I've looked and it's something like 70% -80% male in most of these movies. There might be one token female character in a group of five main characters that dominate the story. It's highly disturbing.

You're not the only one who agrees with her, nerdalert, and I second all of the reasons you brought up.

nerdalert--growing up to be a pirate or a wizard or space invader isn't realistic either, so should girls not pretend to be those things?

i totally agree with you about the idolization of wealth and beauty and think that the princess cult is definitely dangerous for that reason. i just think it's throwing the baby out with the bathwater to condemn all things pink and sparkly. when i was little i really liked pretending to be a princess in exile who had to go on some kind of quest to regain my power. there's nothing wrong with kicking ass while looking fabulous at the same time. i think it would tremendously help the princess trend if more of the princesses were smart/brave/independent. bottom line: moderation and good parenting are key here, as is the case with all gendered toys like barbie and GI joe.

I've found that it can be relatively easy to subvert the princess games. When I used to babysit for two princess-obsessed sisters, I played princess with them for a while. And then I got bored of dressing up ang going to balls, and we'd gotten to know each other, and I said "OK, now let's pretend that our kingdom is being invaded and we have to save everyone! We're Princess-Warriors!" That worked well--we dressed up and pretty foofy dresses and waved swords around and pretended to fight with bad guys. Then a little while later, I suggested we play "Princess-Witches," in which we dressed up and cast spells on people ("Should we be good witches or bad witches?" I asked the girls. "BAD WITCHES!" they shouted with glee--so we turned people into pigs and conjured up thunderstorms).

Then they got bored with playing princesses at all and decided we should play wolves. I liked that.

Sixties: "Stone B, I tried to make that point about Belle with my SIL, but her response was that "Beauty..." was one of the worst offenders since its central message was that the abusive beast of men's characters can be cured if only their women loved them enough."

I simply don't read it that way. Beasts are usually used to symbolize sexuality in fairy and folk tales. What's "beastly" about the beast is that he is a sexual creature; one of the horrifying things for Beauty is when she grabs on to him. There's no indication in any of the versions I've read (or the Disney version) that the Beast is abusive. Beauty simply has to realize her own sexuality, and the Beast, who before was so ugly and monstrous, is suddenly beautiful. It's not about a physical transformation, but a mental one.

I disagree, Courtney.

In traditional B&B stories, The Beast is ugly and terrifying to look at, but kind and unfailingly courteous; that is why Beauty falls in love with him--she loves him for who he is despite his appearences. In the Disney version, she is isolated and unable to leave the castle to escape without being set upon by wolves, and we see that she is unable to save herself. The Beast yells at her, orders her around, and treats her badly, but she just loves him hard enough and he becomes a better person. That's a recipe for an abusive relationship if ever I've seen one.

In the earliest B&B we have--not any of the ancestor tales, like Cupid and Psyche, but the earliest straight-up B&B, things are slightly different. The Beast is surly and unkind, and Beauty has to learn to live with him. That tale was written by a 17th-century French noblewoman, like many of the fairy tales we have, and it expressed the culturally specific concerns of her milieu--when young aristocratic women were often married off to older, unattractive men whom they did not care for and perhaps had not even met, and had to learn to make a life for themselves anyway.

rileystclair: You're right. There's nothing wrong with playing princess and space invader or anything. I think anything where kids really use their imagination is great for them.
My problem is that is the main marketing scheme advertisers and corporations like Disney are pressing on little girls is this brand of pink femininity. I think on Shakes or Feministe (I read so many excellent fem blogs, I can't keep them straight), they pointed out that the Discovery channel's line of science toys for kids offered microscopes and terreriums(I know that's not spelled correctly) and chemistry sets for the boys line of toys, while the girls line was jewelry making, knitting, and a nail salon. It's the aggressive marketing of traditional femininity that bothers me the most, and I think Disney is public enemy #1 right now in that arena.

annajcook- I wanted the library too! Ok, I still want it. With the ladders and everything. So awesome.

Caro- Perhaps the obsession with princesses comes from the fact that, for the most part, girls could not be born princesses and still become them, whereas boys (usually) had to be born in. It's just another version of the rags to riches story. And it still happens today: Princess Diana, Grace Kelly, etc. Ok, so they weren't poor, but you get the point. It's all about the patriarchy. Sigh.

My daughter didn't see all the Disney movies, and neither did I, but she decided on her own that Mulan was the only "princess" she really liked because she's the one who "actually does stuff." I didn't really have to nudge her into that either, she decided it on her own.

(In fact I kind of held out for Belle, who I do like, although frankly the whole Beauty and the Beast story in any version does make me think "Stockholm Syndrome" when I sit down and analyze it.)

I understand and agree with most of the reasons she's criticizing the Princesses in the article but I think connecting it to date rape is a little hard to substantiate. Not to sound like I'm missing the larger point, but one of the actual messages of the poisoned apple is that you shouldn't eat food from strangers.

There's no indication in any of the versions I've read (or the Disney version) that the Beast is abusive.

Courtney, I didn't see Disney's B&B as absolutist as my SIL did, obviously so since I had it in my house and we watched it a lot.

But it's hard to deny that the Beast was abusive. Didn't he lock Belle's dad in the dungeon and keep food away from her to try to control her? Nevertheless, there are affirmative themes, too--such as the portrayal of the he-man (I forget his name) and how stupid and unattractive his macho-man persona was, and Belle's attraction to books.

The value I found in these fairy tales was the opportunity it gave to talk about these themes and therefore the opportunity for my kids to be able to transcend those limiting traditions.

BTW, EG, I loved your story about turning the kids into princess warriors and witches.

I'm pretty sure that Ehrenreich is indulging in a bit of hyperbole, but I do think the date-rape-princess connection is an interesting one. Look at Snow White--in the Grimm's tale, the poisoned apple is jostled out of of throat by accident when the horse dragging her coffin stumbles. In Disney, the prince kisses her--he falls in love with a corpse and actually kisses it--this is a clear eroticization of female sexual passivity, death, and inability to say yea or nay.

In Sleeping Beauty, the heroine is again awakened with a kiss--actually, here, Disney follows the Grimms, and that's better than the earliest Basile version, in which the prince finds Sleeping Beauty, rapes her, she gives birth to two children while still sleeping, and doesn't wake up until one of the kids sucks the poisoned splinter from her finger. Again, a pretty direct connection between female passivity, desirability, and being raped. (Many fairy tales actually highlight and valorize female heroism and activity--it's very telling that those are not the ones that Disney markets.)

I do think that the normalization of men "falling in love" with women are clearly coded as dead and then molesting their bodies is part of rape culture.

On the other hand, I once saw a production of Sleeping BEauty in London in which, when the prince kisses her, the princess wakes up, screams, and then hauls off and slugs him. He jumps off her, and then she eyes him, decides that he's kind of cute, and pulls him down into the bed. I liked that.

SouriezLaJoconde--Oh, yeah, I totally want the rolling ladders someday!

On the question of fairy tales and feminism, generally, the children's author Katherine Paterson once pointed out that adults are often so afraid to entrust "meaning-making" to the young. I think folk and fairy tales are incredibly powerful and flexible stories, that can have both awesome and horrifying meanings, depending on the cultural context and the way in which they are re-told. I personally find the "Beauty and the Beast" a moving meditation (in the hands of some authors) on the nature of marginalization, of sin and redemption, and importance of authentic love. Robin McKinley's two adaptations ("Beauty" and "Rose Daughter") are a fascinating example of the genre, as well as Donna Jo Napoli's "Beast" which is told from the Beast's point of view, and set in Persia and France (teen/adult reads, not for kids!).

As a child, I played "princess," in ways that meant I was carrying bows and arrows, rescuing sisters and friends, commandeering pirate ships, and in at least one community theater production, traveling in disguise as a lumberjack (my acting teacher was very flexible ;) . . .) As others have said here, I think it's very easy to give kids the resources they need to "subvert" the princess narrative being peddled by Disney; imaginative play is a powerful form of self-discovery.

I definitely think there's a distinction to be made (how and where is the question) between the consumerism/marketing of the princess brand by Disney and the much deeper, more dynamic power of stories.

i hate that all these disney princesses look the same... long hair, tiny waists, big child-like eyes.... all the 'princesses of color' are just painted brown, without any other ethnic features. and where's the fat princess?

and yeah, bratz are definitely worse, but those damned disney princesses and barbie paved the way. i mean, what's next? diaper thongs?

Not all princesses are the same. Ariel was quite independent and went against her father's wishes to find what she wanted. Belle was intelligent and loving, and ignored Gaston who loved her face and wanted her to pop out children, preferring the Beast and finding that it's not appearances that matter and teaching the Beast that lesson in the process.

"what's next? diaper thongs?"

It's sad to say, but that's been done already.

http://www.parentdish.com/2005/08/11/mom-declares-war-on-baby-bratz-dolls/

Baby Bratz *shudder* Elles ont tres degoutant.

I have a friend with a 5-year old daughter who for the last year or so has been fairly princess-crazy. She's a pretty sharp kid though, so for the most part I haven't worried about her. But my friend told me recently that her daughter has now informed her that she can never be a "real princess" because she is not blonde. That really saddened me -- not that she would stop aspiring to princess-hood, but that blondeness alone could be considered the standard of princess-ness. I'm not completely surprised by what she said, but with Jasmine, Ariel, Belle, & Mulan all NOT being blonde, I thought maybe that part of the princess model had improved somewhat. Apparently not enough.

"In traditional B&B stories, The Beast is ugly and terrifying to look at, but kind and unfailingly courteous; that is why Beauty falls in love with him--she loves him for who he is despite his appearences."

Yeah, when I was a little kid I got the impression that the moral of the story was "ugly people can be good people too!" That was really reassuring. :)

"I'm not completely surprised by what she said, but with Jasmine, Ariel, Belle, & Mulan all NOT being blonde, I thought maybe that part of the princess model had improved somewhat. Apparently not enough."

Is Mulan part of the "Princess" line? I thought she had some other rank in the original version, the Disney version, etc.

Meanwhile, one interpretation of Disney's Mulan I saw on another forum was that it's an old formula but this time Mulan was the brave rescuing warrior main character and Shang was the good-looking love interest who did stuff but still needed to be saved...

According to the Disney site the article links to, Mulan IS part of the line. So are Pocahontas & Snow White, who are also not blonde but slipped my mind at the time. It's interesting that only Cinderella & Sleeping Beauty are the blonde ones in this group, yet somehow their image of the "princess" is still the most powerful in our culture. Or so it seems to me.

I agree that Mulan is a better character than some of the others -- if I remember right, she also has a straighter figure & flatter chest, which I recall Disney made a semi-big deal about at the time, proclaiming how sensitive they were to young female self-esteem & body image, etc.

First off, yes, Mulan is a Disney Princess (tm), even though she's not technically a princess in the movie. But all the other girls were doing the princess thing, and it'd be sad to leave her out.

Secondly, I'm surprised no one has mentioned Maddy, Disney's first black princess (2009).

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17524865/

It's based in New Orleans. Her name is Maddy. She plays a maid (but as it's based in the 1920s, that's probably not unrealistic). Yes, there's at least one character that practices voodoo. It looks like she might get married in it from the picture.

I've been hearing about this movie for a while now, and everyone's up in arms on every angle, but the thing that I've found most interesting is what others pointed out: I was much younger when the other films came out, but I don't remember anyone making a big deal about the first Arab, Chinese, or American Indian/Native American princess. But this movie is making headlines as the first black princess.

Thoughts?

Yeah, when I was a little kid I got the impression that the moral of the story was "ugly people can be good people too!" That was really reassuring. :)

I was actually disappointed when he turned into the handsome prince. I know that's the end of the story (not that that usually stops Disney) but it was just sort of an "oh well" moment to me. I take solace in the fact that Belle looked freaked out too rather than saying "Who's the hot guy?"

Yes, I know that makes me sound rather odd.

Yeah, I felt the same way, rosehiptea. One of the things I liked about Shrek, years later, was that by the happily-ever-after, they were both ugly, not both pretty. Of course, the next step is a movie that tells kids they're not doomed if they just stay how the hell they are, but... we're getting there.

I was actually disappointed when he turned into the handsome prince.

rosehiptea . . . if you want an alternate ending, check out Robin McKinley's Rose Daughter :D.

annajcook, thank you! I've already heard good things about that book.

And I'm glad I'm not alone.

(I also saw a funny "fanart" once of Beauty (not sure it was meant to be Disney's Belle) holding a knife up and telling the Prince "Change back.")

Warning: this will be longish, and it ends in a plea for help!

Ehrenreich is definitely indulging in hyperbole in this brief salvo, but that doesn't mean she's wrong. You all might be interested in a much longer piece on this issue by Peggy Orenstein in the NY Times last year: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/24/magazine/24princess.t.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5088&en=8e5a1ac1332a802c&ex=1324616400&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

I'm the mother of a six-year old girl, and with all due respect, I have to point out that readers' recollections of these Disney characters from the 80s and 90s are scarcely relevant to current Princess mania. The thing is that the princess line today separates Belle, Ariel and the rest of them from their original stories and markets them -- aggressively -- only on the basis of their princessy-ness. Mulan gets to be part of the scene, but always in the restrictive gown and makeup she eschewed at the beginning of her movie, never in her warrior clothes. Many of the little girls buying into Princess mania don't ever encounter their heroines except as part of this pack.

Here's a quote from Orenstein's piece:
“Playing princess is not the issue,� argues Lyn Mikel Brown, an author, with Sharon Lamb, of “Packaging Girlhood: Rescuing Our Daughters From Marketers’ Schemes.� “The issue is 25,000 Princess products,� says Brown, a professor of education and human development at Colby College. “When one thing is so dominant, then it’s no longer a choice: it’s a mandate, cannibalizing all other forms of play. There’s the illusion of more choices out there for girls, but if you look around, you’ll see their choices are steadily narrowing.�

Now, this hits me where I live. Last summer I heaved a sigh of relief because my daughter seemed at last to be losing interest in dressing up like a princess -- something I'd indulged because I think playing dressup and fantasy play are ok. I patted myself on the back that I hadn't cracked down on her and she'd come through just fine. What a fool I was!

Now she is constantly begging for the most repulsive toys imaginable: Bratz dolls, Beauty Cuties and other dolls that you play with by putting makeup and jwellery on them (the Beauty Cuties literally can't even sit or stand up -- you have to strap them onto their little pedestals). And because she's in school, her pleas always include "but all the other girls have them!".

So here I am, gearing up for Christmas, and trying desperately to find gifts for her that she'll like, and that I can live with. Even the high-quality, independent children's toy store has NO TOYS AIMED AT GIRLS THAT AREN'T PROMOTING GROOMING AS THE CENTRAL FEATURE OF BEING A GIRL. Well, there are some that promote looking after babies, cooking and cleaning. But that's it ... in the girls' aisle.

Now, I can get her a chemistry set or something, but that won't cut it with the girls at school. So I turn to you, dear Feministing readers, to beg for your advice! What does a feminist mum get her six-year-old daughter for Christmas?

grumbelina, does she like the Disney fairies at all? There's a series of books (and some less-successful toys) about the fairies, and they're much less gender-typed, though still pretty, skinny and Disney-fied. The fairies have a bunch of skills, from water manipulation to fixing pots and pans.

I also recommend arts and crafts. Every girl (and boy!) should be able to at least sew a button back on, and making art's great at any age. There are some good art kits, some of which are princessy but are still teaching good skills and creativity.

And look carefully at the Bratz toys, etc-- you can probably find one that endorses something good, like a rock star Bratz or something.

If you're planning on spending serious bank, I'd look at the Nintendo DS. It plays both DS games and Gameboy games, and there are a ton of kid-friendly games, from puzzles to princesses. (We have a My Little Pony Gameboy game that's my daughter's favorite-- I bet she's played it through ten times. Still pretty 'girly' but you do get to do stuff!)

I sincerly agree with Grumbelina, what would a feminist mom get a 6 year old, without swaying to the pink cloud of advertising and merchandising that is the Princess Posse.
I have yet to have children. However, I already have a fear of having a girl. I would not know the first thing about trying to navigate between protecting her, allowing her to grow but also steering her away from such stereotyped merchandising. I find these toys like Bratz, Princess dolls etc repulsive, gaudy and sexualised. I just dont understand how parents can allow their children to play with such toys.

Stacy, there are lots of reasons we let our daughters play with Bratz and Princess dolls: We don't think they're as pervasively evil as you clearly do, other relatives have bought them and we don't want to be the 'bad guy,' making something taboo is often as harmful (and sometimes more so!)... each parent has to make a decision as to what is and isn't allowed and encouraged in their home.

If you don't understand that parenting is a balancing act...well, you're going to be in for one hell of a surprise when you do have a child of your own. And kindly step off from judging others' choices.

I've known people who rejected such toys because they were gaudy and sexualized yet still (overtly) raised their children with gender stereotypes. While obviously that's only certain people and others are rejecting them because of the sexism it really made me realize that the toys themselves are not necessarily the important part.

I second the idea for the Nintendo DS. I'm not sure which games appeal to six-year-olds but plenty don't involve gender stereotypes anyway -- animal and pet games and such -- and a kid can still have an outlet if they honestly like princesses without actual princess dolls lying around the house.

(But I'm biased because I have my own DS.)

Thanks, BWrites, for the suggestions (and RosehipTea for the endorsement). I will definitely pursue something along these lines!

And yes, Stacy, raising children with feminist values is hard -- and I don't think anyone really knows what it's going to be like until it happens (I know I didn't). From your comment, I think you get that already! If children are in your future, don't despair at the thought of raising them right.

I think Orenstein gets to the heart of the matter. I don't want to tell my daughter that the toys marketed to girls are bad, because she might think I mean that being a girl is bad (she's only six, after all!). So it's important to validate the kinds of play and toys she and her friends like ... but also point out problems and offer alternatives that she still accepts as "girly". The big obstacle is that there are so very few alternatives ... far, far less than there used to be. But I will check out Nintendo (who knew?) and Disney Fairies -- thank you!

So I turn to you, dear Feministing readers, to beg for your advice! What does a feminist mum get her six-year-old daughter for Christmas?

In my experience, trying to avoid the consumerism and ALSO giving children gifts they are excited about is soooo tricky! I don't have kids yet, but I do have a number of young friends (under 10) who I try to gift in meaningful ways. Some things I go for:

I second Bwrites: Art supplies. Real art supplies, like prismicolor pencils, high-quality paper, good paints, etc.

Books! There are awesome books out there featuring girls acting in feminist ways. When I was six, a couple of my favorites were the Ramona Quimby books, by Beverly Cleary, and anything by Astrid Lindgren, but most especially Pippi Longstocking.

Activities. Games to play together. Outings together. Things like theater tickets to plays, or a trip to the big city (I came from a small town . . .) that give the kid one-on-one time with me. This is probably more of a "cool aunt" kind of thing . . .

Another thing re: trying to avoid the "girl stuff"=bad formula. One way to do this might be to specifically target the commercialized Disney princess type girl stuff. I did plenty of playing dress up, playing with dolls, learning how to sew, all that stuff when I was a kid--playing "house with my little brother and sister--mothering my dolls. But my parents specifically tried to give me the tools to create those fantasy worlds "from scratch" so to speak. We had a huge bunch of dress-up props, we made our own accessories like princess capes and crowns, even cardboard castles to play in.

You can combat the marketing, in part, by offering a plethora of alternatives, through stories and more generic home-made options. Making alternative suggestions without being draconian about Disney=evil (even if we feel that way as feminists/parents!) might diffuse the situation without making an enemy of your daughters :). I know I grew up in a different era (1980s), but I know that I tried and discarded a lot of pop culture crap (Barbie, etc.) simply because my own fantasy world was so much more interesting in the end!

"I've known people who rejected such toys because they were gaudy and sexualized yet still (overtly) raised their children with gender stereotypes."

Indeed. Those stereotypes were invented centuries before pink plastic toys were, after all.

why are they doing this. i am not sure about this.
sterling silver jewelry earrings

regards

muscle building supplements

Bodybuilding forum