7.Genderization

genderlogindia

7.Genderization

GENDERIZATION1. Toys2. Books and cartoons3. Women’s image in the media: advertising and cinema4. Changing the way we look at women5. Grammatical genderization


Toys271 She Culture CRT: Genderization


Little girls deserve better than to be told to make themselves sexyBy Laura BatesEverywhere you look, from toys to websites, little girls are told that dressing up for boys isthe sum total of their valueThis week we have seen a toy cleaning set marketed by Sports Direct with the label "It's Girl Stuff!". A fewdays later, news emerged that Harrods was offering little girls the chance to be turned into Disneyprincesses for just £1,000 a pop (or £100 for the princess on a budget). Then an Everyday Sexism Twitterfollower alerted me to a website offering girly games from Bratz Makeover to Hollywood Beauty Secrets.Read her brilliant blog about it here.The Harrods Disney experience, complete with sparkly makeover and deluxe princess dress, is aimed at girlsaged three to 12 and culminates in an oath where princesses' vow, among other things, to be "kind andgentle". Perhaps not the best advice for future boardroom battles or climbing the steely managerial ladder,but of course, those aren't the sort of roles one would expect a princess to aspire to. Girls lucky enough tobe treated to the full £1,000 royal experience come away with a case full of makeup too – just the thing forthe under-12s!Meanwhile, over on the Friv site (which seems to be aimed at a similar age range, if games such as Where'sMy Blankie? and Girl Fashion are anything to go by), young gamers are treated to a veritable smörgåsbordof options. But look closer, and almost every game, from Selena's Date Rush to Back to School Makeover,involves exactly the same steps. Players are presented with a cartoonish waif with a head nearly triple thewidth of her waist and charged with using "beauty products" to make her presentable, from clearing spotsto plucking brows to applying makeup. Whether the goal is a hot date or the first day back at school, themessage remains the same: conforming to beauty standards and slathering on products is the number onepriority for girls everywhere.Thanks to games such as Dream Date Dress Up ("you have a dream date today … wow him with yourcuteness"), it's pretty clear that making yourself beautiful to attract a boy is the ultimate goal. Theinstructions to Selena's Date Rush are simple: "When Justin comes to pick her up in the morning, she justwoke up with no makeup! Please help her complete her makeup before Justin finds out!" Because heavenforbid her boyfriend should realise she doesn't sleep in full slap.Sadly, these themes are by no means isolated to a single website – they are everywhere, from the websitefor tween sensation Monster High to Nickelodeon's own site. The latter includes such gems as iKissed HimFirst ("Carly vs Sam in a battle for a boy"), Big Time Crush Quiz ("Find out which Big Time Rush guy is rightfor you!") and Makeover Magic. On the Monster High site you can meet characters including ClawdeenWolf– a "fierce fashionista" whose hobbies are "shopping and flirting with boys" but whose time istragically consumed with removing leg hair: "Plucking and shaving is definitely a full-time job". It wouldalmost be funny if it didn't make you want to weep.And it doesn't end there. Over on the website of Top Model Magazine, another big hit with the tween agerange, girls learn that "Mascara alone is not enough! You need more to achieve a radiant look!" There areeven tips to get rid of cellulite by "pinching yourself with a twisting hand movement". Because they mightas well learn young that inflicting pain on oneself in the name of beauty is a woman's lot.272 She Culture CRT: Genderization


So to return to those who think that making a fuss about these things is an overreaction, it is only when youlook at all of this stuff together that you start to realise the immense impact it might be having on younggirls. Everywhere they turn they are bombarded with the idea that their looks are everything, that theirplace is in the home, that pleasing the male gaze is paramount and that they are riddled with imperfectionsthat need to be "fixed". As if the constant bombardment of hyper-sexualised, airbrushed media images ofwomen wasn't enough to get the message across.And things are only getting worse. One mother told us: "My seven-year-old daughter told me 'Barbie is fat'when she compared it to her Monster High doll." Another said her five-year-old daughter had asked to beturned into a boy so she could go into space. A 15-year-old girl wrote to us to say that "I always feel like if Idon't look a certain way, if boys don't think I'm 'sexy' or 'hot' then I've failed and it doesn't even matter if Iam a doctor or writer, I'll still feel like nothing …"So that's the answer, for those people who want to know why we're getting our knickers in a twist – whywe're getting so worked up about this. Because as long as our little girls receive the message, everywherethey look, that hiding their "imperfections" and making themselves sexy is the sum total of their value, weare failing them. Frankly they deserve better.Source: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/womens-blog/2014/jan/10/little-girls-deserve-bettertoys-sexism?CMP=twt_gu273 She Culture CRT: Genderization


LEGO Ad From 1981 Should Be Required Reading For Everyone WhoMakes, Buys Or Sells ToysThe Huffington Post - by Jessica SamakowPay attention, 2014 Mad Men: This little girl is holding aLEGO set. The LEGOs are not pink or "made for girls." Sheisn't even wearing pink. The copy is about "youngerchildren" who "build for fun." Not just "girls" who build.ALL KIDS.In an age when little girls and boys are treated as thoughthey are two entirely different species by toy marketers,this 1981 ad for LEGO -- one of our favorite images ever --issues an important reminder.To contrast, here's an image of a LEGO Friends set -- a line made specifically for girls that has beenscrutinized since its launch in 2011:The advertisements for LEGO Friends, too, are noticeably more feminized than their 1981 counterpart.274 She Culture CRT: Genderization


Unfortunately, LEGO is not the only brand that has become increasingly girly over the years. My Little Pony,Cabbage Patch Kids, and even Trolls have undergone extreme makeovers. Take a look for yourself, courtesyof Sociological Images...Strawberry Shortcake (Then)Strawberry Shortcake (Now)Candy Land 1962 (Then)Candy Land (Now)Rainbow Brite (Then)Rainbow Brite (Now)275 She Culture CRT: Genderization


My Little Pony (Then)My Little Pony (Now)Troll Dolls (Then)Trollz (Now)Lisa Frank (Then)Lisa Frank (Now)276 She Culture CRT: Genderization


Cabbage Patch Kids 1983 (Then)Cabbage Patch Kids (Now)Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/17/lego-ad-1981_n_4617704.html277 She Culture CRT: Genderization


Normal Barbie' Crowdfunding Campaign Could Bring Gorgeous,Realistic Dolls To A Kid Near YouBy Nina BahadurAfter we saw what a "normal" Barbie might look like, we were itching to get our hands on some anddistribute them to little girls everywhere.Thanks to a new crowdfunding campaign using CrowdtiltOpen, that may soon be possible.Artist and researcher Nickolay Lamm, whose 3D-printed Barbie based on the average measurements of a19-year-old woman went viral in July 2013, is hoping to make "Lammily" dolls a reality."Currently, there is no doll like this on the market," Lamm told The Huffington Post in an email.The "Lammily" doll is designed with articulated wrists, knees, elbows and feet, natural-looking makeup anda casual wardrobe featuring denim shorts, sneakers and athletic gear."Most fashion dolls on the market are dressed like princesses or wear funky outfits," Lamm told HuffPost. "Iwanted Lammily to wear clothes that Gap or J. Crew might design. There's no reason why simple everydayclothes design can't be transferred to doll clothes."Lamm also told HuffPost that the doll is designed to appeal to parents and children alike:The message about body image targets parents of daughters. Many young girls do not care about bodyimage, they just want a fun doll to play with. This initial campaign is aimed more towards parents, but thefuture depends on young girls wanting to play with Lammily. I spent lots of time and research to create adoll which daughters are going to love. She isn't just a doll with typical body proportions, she's a fun dollwhich just happens to have typical body proportions. And everything from the packaging, to future adcampaigns, to future online interactive worlds, will be designed to appeal to kids.278 She Culture CRT: Genderization


The "Lammily" doll is meant to be an alternative to Barbie, and other unrealistic girl-marketed dolls. Barbiemade headlines recently with the news that she'd appear in the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue, whichcoincides with the launch of the doll's new Unapologetic social media campaign (reportedly intended to bea celebration of authenticity in girls and women)."As a legend herself, and under criticism about her body and how she looks, posing in 'Sports IllustratedSwimsuit' gives Barbie and her fellow legends an opportunity to own who they are, celebrate what theyhave done, and be unapologetic," Mattel spokeswoman Michelle Chidoni said in a press release.The doll's designers have also defended Barbie's notoriously unrealistic curves,claiming that her proportions were intentionally constructed to make playing easier."Barbie’s body was never designed to be realistic," Mattel's vice president of Barbie design Kim Culmonetold Fast Company in February 2014. "She was designed for girls to easily dress and undress."279 She Culture CRT: Genderization


As Charlotte Alter pointed out in a Feb. 5 TIME piece, Barbie is hardly a poor role model for girls comparedto dolls in the Bratz and Monster High lines -- she's held over 150 different jobs, owns her own house andcar and once ran for President.But the fact remains that Barbie's body proportions do affect the way young girls see themselves. Providingkids the option of playing with dolls who sport realistic bodies can only be a good thing.Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/05/normal-barbie-kickstarter-nickolay-lamm-lammilydoll_n_4826502.html280 She Culture CRT: Genderization


The Little Girl from the 1981 LEGO Ad is All Grown Up, and She’s GotSomething to SayBy Lori DayIn mid-January, this article on The Huffington Post hit my Facebook newsfeed like a Justin Bieberdeportation petition—it was everywhere. In it, HuffPost Family News Editor Jessica Samakow writes:Pay attention, 2014 Mad Men: This little girl is holding a LEGO set. The LEGOs are not pink or “made forgirls.” She isn’t even wearing pink. The copy is about “younger children” who “build for fun.” Not just “girls”who build. ALL KIDS. In an age when little girls and boys are treated as though they are two entirelydifferent species by toy marketers, this 1981 ad for LEGO — one of our favorite images ever — issues animportant reminder.Something about this piece with the iconic 1981 ad tappedthe zeitgeist and it became one of HuffPo’s more viralarticles in recent memory, receiving over 60,000 shares.And along the way, the small world of Facebook led to acomment thread on my wall where someone, upon seeingthe little red-haired girl holding her LEGOs, wrote, “Hey, Iknow her!” And now I do too, because that’s the serendipityof social media. Her name is Rachel Giordano, she is 37years old, and she’s a practicing naturopathic doctor inSeattle, Washington. Giordano agreed to talk to me abouther childhood and the ad, and to pose for a new Then &Now photo meme, which you see above in the lead image.As I was planning my interview with Rachel Giordano, Isaw this blog post by Achilles Effect, and knew immediatelywhat Giordano should be holding in the new version of thephoto. Enter the Heartlake City rolling beauty salon TV newsvan, one of the latest additions to the LEGO Friends line.Advertising copy lets us know what being a news anchor281 She Culture CRT: Genderization


involves for minifig Emma:“Break the big story of the world’s best cake with the Heartlake News Van! Find the cake and film it with thecamera and then climb into the editing suite and get it ready for broadcast. Get Emma ready at the makeuptable so she looks her best for the camera. Sit her at the news desk as Andrew films her talking about thecake story and then present the weather to the viewers.”Cake? Seriously? And what-the-what is that when you look inside the news van? Where is the equipment?Is it behind the gigantic makeup vanity?As Achilles Effect blogger Crystal Smith notes, “This toy had so much potential to inspire young girls whothink journalism would be a cool career. Instead, they get the same message delivered just abouteverywhere else in the culture that surrounds them: look pretty and smile for the camera.”Children haven’t changed, but adults who market to them have… What do we have to lose, besidesstereotypes? So what did Rachel Giordano have to say about the LEGO news van when it pulled up to hermedical office in Seattle via Amazon and UPS? First things first: she told me what it was like to be a childmodel for the Ford Agency in New York City, posing for print ads and performing in commercials. On theday she went into the studio to make the 1981 LEGO ad, she was given a set of original LEGOs and an hourto play with them and make her own creation—it is what you see in the ad. (And those were her ownclothes—the comfy jeans and blue striped t-shirt and sneakers without a hint of pink that she wore in offthe street.)The news van kit struck her as really quite different. She does not have children, so the change in LEGOsrepresented by the Friends line was startling: “In 1981,” explains Giordano, “LEGOs were ‘Universal BuildingSets’ and that’s exactly what they were…for boys and girls. Toys are supposed to foster creativity. Butnowadays, it seems that a lot more toys already have messages built into them before a child even opensthe pink or blue package. In 1981, LEGOs were simple and gender-neutral, and the creativity of the childproduced the message. In 2014, it’s the reverse: the toy delivers a message to the child, and this message isweirdly about gender.”The original 1981 ad has been making the rounds in my girl empowerment blogging circles for the past fewyears now, symbolic of the nostalgia that ain’t what it used to be when it comes to children’s toys. Thestereotyping of girls in their world of play is an issue close to my heart and one that I address in mybook Her Next Chapter, because, as Maria Montessori notably said, play is the work of the child. [Editor'sNote: What most recent articles about this inspiring ad have left out, is the equally inspiring woman whocreated it. According to a January 21, 2014Mashable piece, “The ‘What is Beautiful’ ad was created by JudyLotas, who was the creative director at SSC&B, a now-defunct ad agency… She had two young daughters atthe time, and gender equality was a big topic."]Over at Princess Free Zone, Michele Yulo has been writing about the change in LEGOs since the new LEGOFriends line dropped anchor in girls’ toy aisles all around the world. “Last year,” says Yulo, “I did my ownhomemade version of the ad to show that it is not that kids have changed, forcing companies to adopt‘separate but equal’ and ‘pink marketing’ strategies—in fact, it is the other way around. I didn’t change thetagline except to say that ‘What it is is stillbeautiful.’ Because it is.”282 She Culture CRT: Genderization


That’s Yulo’s daughter on the rightside of the meme, holding her ownunique LEGO structure built withregular—I mean boys’—LEGOs.What’s the problem with girl LEGOs?Why is everyone against pink?, askmany parents. I’ll let Rachel Giordanoanswer that question: “Becausegender segmenting toys interfereswith a child’s own creative expression.I know that how I played as a girlshaped who I am today. It contributedto me becoming a physician andinspired me to want to help othersachieve health and wellness. I co-owntwo medical centers in Seattle. Doctorkits used to be for all children, butnow they are on the boys’ aisle. Isimply believe that they should bemarketed to all children again, and the same with LEGOs and other toys.”I couldn’t help being curious about how Giordano’s renewed fame first came to her attention and how itwas affecting her. “I did so many advertisements as a kid that this LEGO ad did not stand out in mymemory,” says Giordano. “When it resurfaced on the Internet all these years later, I was totally surprised,and some of my friends asked, ‘Is that you?’ I’m super excited to tell my story!”Giordano has grown up, but she’s still the same cheerful and creative person you see in the original ad. AsYulo’s meme suggests, children haven’t changed, but adults who market to them have. And LEGOs? Theysure are different. How about this? Let’s give all children a world of play that includes all colors and allpossibilities, and let’s market it that way. What do we have to lose, besides stereotypes? Gendersegmentedtoys may double corporate profits, but always seem to result in for-girls versions that aresomehow just a little bit less. I say, let’s give girls more. Any reason not to??Source: http://www.womenyoushouldknow.net/little-girl-1981-lego-ad-grown-shes-got-something-say/283 She Culture CRT: Genderization


This New Girl-Powered Engineering Toy Asks Kids To Design And WireTheir Own DollhouseBy Sydney BrownstoneWith Roominate's pastel-colored Lincoln Logs for the 21st century, little girls are inspiredbuild what's in their imaginations and learn electrical circuitry, too.In many ways, little girls growing up in the United States today will have more freedom to determine theirfutures than ever. So why are they still aggressively marketed the same plastic pooping babies, Pepto-pinkponies, and anatomically outrageous dolls from 50 years ago?Research increasingly shows that early childhood play shapes our skills, values, and modes of thinking as wegrow older. But while products like Goldie Blox have started to deconstruct the age-old assumption thatlittle girls simply don’t like building things, choices are still limited.Now Roominate, a new toy designed by female Stanford University engineering grads, offers anotheralternative: the first wired dollhouse that kids build on their own. It's one of the few tools, gendered or not,that comes with electric circuits and few rules.Bettina Chen and Alice Brooks, engineeringgraduates from the California Institute ofTechnology and the Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology respectively, met within their firstfew days of master's programs at StanfordUniversity, they say, because there weren’tmany other girls. “That was actually one of thefirst conversations we had. Why didn’t any ofour other female friends do engineering?” Chensays. “And then we considered that it was thethings that we played with while we wereyounger that really inspired us.”For Brooks, the building bug set in when she first asked her father if Santa Claus might bring her someBarbies for Christmas. He was appalled at the idea, and gave his then-eight-year-old daughter a miniaturesaw instead. “He sent me off into the basement, and I was making dolls, and dinosaurs, and doll houses,”she remembers. “The act of figuring it out, realizing when I made a mistake and how I could go around it,that’s what really got me into engineering.”More than a year after receiving nearly $86,000 through Kickstarter to build the initial product, Chen andBrooks are displaying Roominate at Manhattan’s annual Toy Fair this week. The set, manufactured in China,comes with various shapes for walls, floors, modular furniture, as well as coated, AAA battery-poweredcircuits designed for six-year-old fingers to put together.284 She Culture CRT: Genderization


But little girls aren’t just building triple bunkbeds and decorating doll house rooms with theRoominate set. When I visit Roominate’screators at their Toy Fair booth, Chen andBrooks are standing behind a model of SanFrancisco’s Bay Bridge. It’s one modeled off ofan 11-year-old’s design that originally featuredpipe cleaners as suspension cables, and tookhalf an hour for Chen and Brooks to recreate,they say. They’ve also seen test groupsmanufacture everything from amusement parkrides with the spinning circuit motors to the Great Wall of China.Still, while Chen and Brooks claim that their toy might be less “pinkified” than, say, GoldieBlox, the toy doeshave some trappings of stereotypical little girl-ness--pastels, two dolls, and two big-eyed pets. Parents,however, are reporting that little boys are using Roominate, too. That’s part of the reason why Chen andBrooks are also looking to expand into gender-who-cares-territory.“We started this for girls, because it’s a problem we lived, that we continue to live. We want to get morefemales in the [science, technology, engineering, and math] field,” Brooks says. “That’s why we started it,because we want to make this hands-on, creative, open-ended play. But as we’ve been developing it, we’vebeen realizing that that kind of play is really missing for boys, too.”Source: http://www.fastcoexist.com/3026671/this-new-girl-powered-engineering-toy-asks-kids-todesign-and-wire-their-own-dollhouse285 She Culture CRT: Genderization


New ‘Entrepreneur Barbie’ Proves That the Perfect Work/Life BalanceIs Just a Tiny Tablet AwayBy Jessica RoyAn entrepreneur of what, exactly?Mattel’s newest Barbie is an entrepreneur. An entrepreneur of what, exactly? Who knows, but check outher cute little iPad!After pursuing over 150 careers, Mattel announced at Toy Fair this week that Barbie would be starting herown company. The mystery-startup-running go-getter is dressed in a neon-pink dress with black heels and ablack belt, and comes with her own smartphone and tablet.Much like many real life entrepreneurs, Entrepreneur Barbie seems to have little idea of what her companyactually does. Given the current climate for women at startups, perhaps next Mattel can craft “SilentlyEnduring Sexual Harassment With the Hope I Will Get a Raise” Barbie; “Making Less Than My MaleCounterparts” Barbie; “Getting Turned Down by Investors Because I’m Pregnant” Barbie; or “I’m Going toDie Eating This Sad Salad at My Desk Alone” Barbie.At least Mattel is attempting to empower women to get into business, we suppose–even if it’s not clearexactly what that business is.“We always try to make career Barbie a reflection of the times,” Mattel spokes womanMichelle Chidoni told CNNMoney. “Women entrepreneurs are more prevalent now and they’re growing innumber. [It's] a great way to encourage girls to also learn about this role.”We eagerly await the inevitable tiny copy of Lean In you can purchase to stick under Entrepreneur Barbie’sarm.Source: http://newsfeed.time.com/2014/02/18/new-entrepreneur-barbie-proves-that-the-perfect-worklifebalance-is-just-a-tiny-tablet-away/286 She Culture CRT: Genderization


Hey Lego, say 'yes' to that female-scientist minifig setBy Amanda KooserLego says it wants to appeal to girls, so Crave writer Amanda Kooser asks the company togive the green light to a female-scientist set it's considering.Last week, a letter from 7-year-old Charlotte Benjamin addressed to the Lego company garnered a lot ofattention and became a social-media sensation. So, what did Charlotte have to say that attracted suchinterest? She took Lego to task for skewing its products toward boys."I love Legos but I don't like that there are more Lego boypeople and barely any Lego girls," the young Lego fan wrote.She also shares her observations that Lego girl toys just go tothe beach and have no jobs, while Lego boy toys get to go onadventures, save people, and swim with sharks.Charlotte has a point. This is not a new issue when it comesto Lego, but it's worth revisiting.Lego added its own response to the gender toy discussion,287 She Culture CRT: Genderization


titled "Lego Group commentary on its Female Lego Minifigures offering." It reads, "We believe that Legoplay appeals to children of both genders and all ages." It continues with, "Lego play has often been moreappealing to boys, but we have been very focused on including more female characters and themes thatinvite even more girls to build, and in the last few years, we are thrilled that we have dramatically increasedthe number of girls who are choosing to build."Lego acknowledges its preponderance of male characters and gives shout-outs to a few of its femalecharacters. Here's the thing. Lego has an opportunity to really back this statement up. There's a relevantproject on the CUUSOO site, a fan-oriented community where builders can share custom sets, gather votes,and have a chance at their projects turning into real Lego kits.The project is a female minifigure set currently under review for possible production. It has nothing to dowith beaches or the color pink. It's a set of female scientists, including an astronomer, a paleontologist, anda laboratory worker. It's a bunch of ladies doing awesome science stuff, just like real women scientists. Thedesigns were created by CUUSOO user "Alatariel" back in 2012, but just recently entered Lego's officialreview process.Related storiesLego finally releases a female-scientist minifigGender-bending Lego ad remixer mashes up ninjas, puppiesLego for girls: Wait, what?Lego Bill Murray prayers answered: 'Ghostbusters' set comingLego already has a token Erlenmeyer flask-toting female-scientist minifig, Professor C. Bodin. The professorcould really use some company.On behalf of Charlotte, girls, women, men, and boys everywhere, I'm asking Lego to get off the fence andmake the decision to produce the female-scientist set. I'm pledging my dollars to go out and buy it as soonas it hits shelves, and I'm betting I'm not the only one.Lego was a big part of my childhood. My brother and I built whole cities and societies together.Interestingly enough, we rarely played with minifigs. Instead, we created our own creatures. They all hadstandard shapes, but they were pretty much gender-neutral. They weren't slotted into predefined roleswhere boy figures got to fight battles and girl figures got to sit in a cafe sipping skinny mocha latte frappes.Imagination should have free reign in the Lego realm. But, sometimes, like for Charlotte, we want toys wecan relate to.288 She Culture CRT: Genderization


So don't worry, Lego. A few lady scientists won't hurt your standing with the boys you like to appeal to, butit may just open the door a little bit wider for the girls you say you want to welcome in. Extend thatwelcome. Make the scientist set.Source: http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-57618400-1/hey-lego-say-yes-to-that-female-scientistminifig-set/289 She Culture CRT: Genderization


Marks & Spencer to introduce gender-neutral toys by Spring 2014By Aoife BarryThe company said it had listened to feedback from customers.MARKS AND SPENCER is to introduce gender-neutral toys after listening to feedback from its customers.In a tweet to British Labour MP Stella Creasy, the company said:Creasy had earlier retweeted a comment from another Twitter user regarding the ‘boys’ and ‘girls’ sectionsfor toys in Marks & Spencer.Earlier this year, Kerry Brennan of the Let Toys Be Toys Campaign told The Journal.ie that their group wantsto convince retailers to change how they advertise toys.Today, Let Toys Be Toys welcomed the news from Marks and Spencer. Brennan said:Since we first contacted M&S in Spring 2013 about their ‘Boys Stuff’ and ‘Lil’ Miss Arty’ ranges, we’ve seengradual improvements in their packaging and signposting of toys, and their most recent comment makes itclear that they’re serious about responding to consumer concerns about equality and fairness in themarketing of toys to children.Brennan said that the problem of sexism in the toyshop “goes beyond the retailers’ signs”.“In many stores, pink-and-blue colour coding and gender-specific packaging and promotion of toyscontinue to send the message that some interests are only for boys, and others only for girls,” she pointedout.The campaign has led to a number of retailers making changes to how they advertise their toys to children.Boots, Debenhams, Hobbycraft, Sainsbury’s, Toys R Us and TK Maxx are among the stores who havepledged to promote their toys in a gender-neutral way.290 She Culture CRT: Genderization


Let Toys Be Toys had corresponded with Marks & Spencer on the issue, after noting that it had a ‘Boy Stuff’and ‘Lil Miss Arty’ range of toys.In May of this year, Marks & Spencer had told Let Toys Be Toys: “I would like to assure you we have takenall your comments on board and we are reviewing our future plans”.According to a Let Toys Be Toys survey, high street stores are ‘less sexist’ this Christmas, with thepercentage of shops using ‘girls’ and ‘boys’ signs having reduced by 60 per cent compared with lastChristmas.Brennan said:While there’s still a long way to go to address sexism in the toy industry, the changes in major retail chainslike Debenhams are just brilliant to see. They’ve replaced pink and blue ‘Girls’ and ‘Boys’ signs with newcolourful signs that say ‘Vehicles’, ‘Superheroes’, ‘Soft Toys’, and ‘TV Characters’, among others. Everythingis much easier to find and children are no longer being sent the message that science and adventure areonly for boys, crafts and nurturing play only for girls.Source: http://www.thejournal.ie/marks-and-spencers-gender-neutral-toys-1226691-Dec2013/291 She Culture CRT: Genderization


Ler’s bring and end to “boys” and “girls” toys, say parentsBy Aoife BarryA group of parents want to see an end to the gender-specific advertisement of toys for boysand girls.A CAMPAIGN RUN by parents has set its sights on ensuring that children’s toys aren’t advertised specificallyto girls or boys, saying that toys should just ‘be toys’.The Let Toys be Toys campaign began in November of last year, one of the organisers, Kerry Brennan,told TheJournal.ie. They met on a parenting website while taking part in a discussion on the issue ofgendered advertising targeting children.Convincing retailers“We decided to convince retailers to change how they advertise toys,” said Brennan. Despite not knowingeach other in real life, around 10 of the parents from Ireland and the UK banded together to begin Let ToysBe Toys.Brennan is the mother of a three-year-old girl who “loves anything to do with space, dinosaurs, andbuilding things”, as well as fairy tales and castles.“It became increasingly annoying to me,” said Brennan, that she would see space-orientated toysadvertised as for ‘boys’, even though her daughter was playing with them.It made me said and actually quite angry, that when she learned to read that she would see these big signseverywhere telling [her] they weren’t for her.The group uses social media to spread itsmessage, and initially targeted the stores Bootsand Tesco. They used images to show people thepervasiveness of gendered-based advertising,which Brennan said has been the key to theirsuccess.Thanks to pressure from the group, Bootschanged its signage so that science-themed toysare no longer marketed as ‘boys’ toys in its UKand Ireland stores.The group has since contacted Marks & Spencersabout their own brand range of toys, and a rangeof stores called The Entertainer.292 She Culture CRT: Genderization


GenderThe campaign is not just because girls lose out – little boys lose out too, said Brennan.Little boys who see their own dads changing nappies and making dinner are then made feel ashamed ifthey want to go near a doll or a play kitchen.She believes things have moved on for adults in terms of how products are marketed in stores, while insociety men and women are encouraged to have an equal role in parenting and careers, but children arenot getting this message through how toys are marketed at them.She noted that women and girls are under-represented in science subjects and careers, “so it’s not too hardto draw the comparison”. “It certainly is part of what discourages girls from going down that path,” shesaid.Brennan is also concerned at how the toys marketed towards girls are often image-focused or fashionfocused,and said people are concerned that their boys lose out on any kind of nurturing, domestic or craftrelatedplay, as they are sent the message it is for girls.She emphasised that the campaign is not about making judgements about the worthiness of different toys,or saying that parents should choose different toys for their children.“It is not the place of retailers to make those decisions for their kids,” she clarified.There is not anything wrong with girls who love pink, or boys who want rough and tumble. There is nothingwrong with the colour pink – it’s the narrowing of options for girls.“It’s not saying baby dolls are less of agood toy than trucks. Children andparents will make their own decisionabout what is appropriate.”The changes so far have been small butfar-reaching. “Already I can take mydaughter shopping in Boots in Cork,and not be worried that she seessomething that puts her off her rocketship. That is a real change,” saidBrennan.“We recognise the issue of limitinggendered messaging to children goeswell beyond the toy aisle,” she added, but said that the group has a “very simple and very reasonable ask”.We are not asking retailers to stock different toys.293 She Culture CRT: Genderization


Debenhams told the group that the gendered signs make it easier for customers to shop, but Brennandisputes that. She says that it doesn’t make it easier for parents to buy a toy kitchen for their son if the toyis under the girls’ games sign, for example.She said that the group gets “a lot more support than criticism”, but that some critics – there is the oddcriticism- usually falls under what’s “the big deal” about marketing toys towards boys or girls.Let Toys be Toys say that this is something that affects their children and as parents that makes it a priorityfor them. They ask people to consider these stereotypes being applied to adults. “It might not be life ordeath but it is a quality of life issue,” said Brennan.Source: http://www.thejournal.ie/lets-bring-an-end-to-boys-and-girls-toys-say-parents-957098-Jun2013/294 She Culture CRT: Genderization


University of Western Sydney - Research finds baby boys love dollsmore than trucksBy Mark SmithNew research from the University of WesternSydney shows baby boys prefer objects withfaces over machines, challenging the theory ofan innate preference among babies for ‘girly’or ‘macho’ toys.Researchers from the MARCSInstitute Babylab at the University of WesternSydney gauged the preferences of four andfive month old babies by showing thempictures of male and female humans and dolls,as well as cars and stoves.Researchers then measured how long their gaze lingered on the objects, and calculated their preferencesbased on how long they were fixated upon each image.The study, published in the Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, found that like baby girls, baby boyswere more willing to engage with dolls than cars.“As surprising as it may sound, although the thing to do is to buy dolls for girls and cars for boys, thescience suggests boys actually prefer dolls,” says the leader of the study Dr Paola Escudero, fromthe UWS MARCS Institute.“Everyone loves buying dolls for baby girls and cars and trucks for baby boys, it’s simply what we do.”“This common knowledge is supported by previous studies finding that 3-year-old boys prefer to play withtransportation and construction toys whereas girls prefer to play with dolls”.“However, using state-of-the-art eye-tracking technology, we found that these gender-specific preferencesare not present at five months, indicating that they are the result of physiological changes (e.g. theirhormone levels), cognitive development or social pressure.”While Dr Escudero’s research provides new scientific evidence for baby boys’ natural connection to dolls,the debate about what causes the gender switch to be thrown in older children is still hotly contested.“More research is needed to fill in the gap between five months and three years to determine if it’s natureor nurture that triggers little boys’ interest in toy cars and trucks and other stereotypically male-associatedtoys,” she says.295 She Culture CRT: Genderization


Souce:http://www.uws.edu.au/newscentre/news_centre/feature_story/research_finds_baby_boys_love_dolls_more_than_trucks296 She Culture CRT: Genderization


Children don't want sexist pink and blue toysBy Laura BatesLego boy toys have all the fun, pointed out an exasperated seven-year-old in a letter to thecompany this week. Isn't it time manufacturers acted on children's growing displeasure atgender-stereotyped toys?This week, a seven-year-old girl called Charlotte Benjamin wrote a heartfelt, straight-to-the-point letter toLego asking it to rectify the fact that there are "more Lego boy people and barely any Lego girls". She alsopointed out that "all the girls did was sit at home, go to the beach, and shop, and they had no jobs, but theboys went on adventures, worked, saved people … even swam with sharks". She also swiftly and succinctlyexpressed her displeasure at the illogical and old-fashioned use of pink and blue marketing to separateLego into boys' and girls' sections. In brief, she nailed it.In a week when toy companies were called into Westminster to justify their marketing decisions, andministers suggested that the pinkification of girls' toys could be playing a part in preventing them fromachieving their full potential, we could do a lot worse than start listening to the smart, savvy voicesof children such as Charlotte.She is not the first child to point out the painfully obvious to the toy giants – in 2012, a six-year-old girl tookHasbro firmly to task in a letter highlighting the fact that when you play Guess Who?, the small ratio offemale to male characters means that if you choose to play as a woman you are much more likely to lose.It's a sad day when a child of six feels the need to write to a toy company to point out: "It is not only boyswho are important, girls are important too."And she was smart about it, taking care to emphasise theimpact she could have on the company's bottom line: "I am cross about that and if you don't fix it soon, mymum could throw Guess Who? out."This is by no means an issue that affects only girls – for every girl yearning for a chemistry set, dinosaurexcavation kit or fire truck in the forbidden boys' section, there's a baffled boy being told off for wanting toplay with a doll, or even (heaven forbid) pick up something in a shade other than blue. When 13-year-oldMcKenna Pope realised her cookery-loving four-year-old brother would feel unable to play with an EasyBake Oven because it was so aggressively marketed to girls, she started a Change.org petition that amassedmore than 40,000 signatures, asking makers Hasbro to explain why they "made going against the societalnorm that girls are the ones in the kitchen even more difficult". As she neatly pointed out, the pastelcolours and gendered advertising sent a clear and unhelpful message to kids: "Women cook, men work."Nobody can forget the viral video of four-year-old Riley Maida exasperatedly pointing out that "girls wantsuperheroes and boys want superheroes" back in 2011, in which she skewered painfully transparent toymarketing tactics: "The companies that make these try to trick the girls into buying the pink stuff." But fastforward two years and it's pretty sad that in her latest video about the relative invisibility of the femalecharacters in the Avengers merchandise ("it's like Black Widow doesn't even exist"), Riley, now six, showsmore than a hint of exasperation at having to repeat herself all over again. "They think that boys wouldn'twant to play with a girl action figure and girls wouldn't want to play with boy action figures." Her tonebasically demands: "Seriously, haven't they sorted this stuff out yet?" Or, as she puts it: "I mean, duh."The funny thing is that these kids exhibit far more sensible, down-to-earth attitudes than many of theadults wringing their hands over the issue. In one particularly hysterical Express column, James Delingpoleeven compared the removal of gendered toy signs to a "sinister and Brave-New-World-ish … attempt at297 She Culture CRT: Genderization


social engineering". He expressed his deep concern that to remove gendered toy signs would be "to denyboys and girls the kind of toys they most want", but rather missed the point that the scheme would double,not reduce, the amount of choice available to every child. No one is suggesting forcing any child to playwith a specific toy, rather this is about giving every child the choice to play with anything they like, insteadof dictating their interests from birth based on stereotypical gendered assumptions.It is hardly unreasonable to suggest that marking science, engineering and building toys "for boys" might behaving some impact on girls' ideas about whether those fields are open to them. So in a country where onlyone in 10 engineers and one in five architects is female, isn't it worth trying out non-gendered marketing tosee if it might have a positive impact? Who would it hurt? Hamleys has hardly foundered since removing itspink and blue signage in 2011; in fact, just a year later it announced a 70% rise in profits. And as for thosewho suggest that these interests are biologically "hardwired" (I can think of many thousands of brilliantfemale scientists who would have a thing or two to teach them), let's wait until a couple of generations ofchildren have grown up in a world free of such intense messaging before we start gleefully seizing on theirresultant behavior as "proof".As Riley points out, it's really not rocket science. "I think it's silly and all of my friends think that. Every kid inmy school thinks that." Isn't it about time toy companies caught up?Source: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/womens-blog/2014/feb/06/children-dont-want-sexistpink-blue-toys298 She Culture CRT: Genderization


The Pink & Blue Projects: Exploring the Genderization of Colorby Maria PopovaHow political correctness resulted in enforcing a universal, cross-cultural gender stereotype.When cultural anthropology, psychology and photographic ingenuity converge, it’s a fascinating thing. Andthat’s exactly what South Korean visual artist Jeong Mee Yoon has been doing since 2005 in her thesiswork, The Pink and Blue Projects.Inspired by her own daughter’s obsession with the color pink, Yoon’s project explores the color preferencesof children and their parents across different cultures and ethnic groups, probing into gender identity as asocialized construct.Yoon found that girls’ preference for pink and boys’ for blue was universal and widespread, powered bypervasive advertising and media messaging intentionally targeting each gender of children with therespective color.299 She Culture CRT: Genderization


Yoon’s historical research, however, unearthed some curious findings indicating this wasn’t always thecase:Pink was once a color associated with masculinity, considered to be a watered down red and held thepower associated with that color. In 1914, The Sunday Sentinel, an American newspaper, advised mothersto ‘use pink for the boy and blue for the girl, if you are a follower of convention.’ The change to pink forgirls and blue for boys happened in America and elsewhere only after World War II.The switch happened as twentieth-century political correctness took root and, in an effort to promotegender equality, the colors began being used with the opposite genders. This trend was so purposeful andexplicit that it ended up overcompensating for the superficial connections attached to the symbolism ofeach color, not eradicating them but merely reversing their direction on the gender spectrum.300 She Culture CRT: Genderization


To illustrate these excessive and culturally manipulated expressions of femininity and masculinity, Yoonphotographs children in their rooms, surrounded by their belongings in pink of blue on a background of therespective color.The photographic style reminds us of Andrzej Kramarz’s Things series, inspired by the horror vacui style ofEastern European folk art, with a hint of fellow South Korean photographer YeondooJung’s Wonderland series, also dealing with the whimsical and colorful world of children.Explore The Pink and Blue Projects for a fascinating look inside the cross-cultural gender identity incubatorof socially enforced symbolism.Source: http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2009/12/11/pink-and-blue-project/301 She Culture CRT: Genderization


When cowboys wore pinkby Rebecca Hains PhDWhat would you think of Woody from Toy Story if he wore pink?Would you think the color choice was incongruous — that it didn’t seem masculine enough for a 1950s-eracowboy toy?Well, you’d be wrong. Check out these images from the 1955 Sears Christmas Book catalog that ElizabethSweet, a newly minted Ph.D. from the University of California at Davis, sent me. Here’s Roy Rogers Apparel,featuring Roy Rogers and his son, Dusty – who is wearing a cowboy outfit with red, yellow, and pinkaccents:302 She Culture CRT: Genderization


To modern eyes, this is surprising. “Pink is a girls’ color,” we think. This association has become so firmlyentrenched in our cultural imagination that people are flabbergasted to learn that until the 1950s, pink wasoften considered a strong color and, therefore, was associated with boys.But it wasn’t only for boys. Although gender segregation is de rigeur today, it wasn’t back then. Look atthese outfits for boys and girls, also from the 1955 Sears catalog: There are brown and red outfits for boysand girls. Pink and blue outfits for boys and girls. Blue and green outfits for boys and girls.These spreads make it clear that in the 1950s, when Woody’s Roundup is supposed to have originated,Woody would have been pretty darned stylish in pink.A decade later, things had started changing; pink was more closely associated with girls. (As Elizabeth notesof the Sears catalogs in her collection, “I didn’t find anything similar in 1965.”)In today’s marketplace, I believe parents would love to see options like these. In fact, just yesterday, one ofmy friends posted this to facebook about his failed shopping trip:Alright, parents, I went to buy my daughter cool costume stuff like pirate stuff and cowgirl stuff and all Ifound was princess outfits. She doesn’t know the word “princess.” She knows the words ‘cowgirl” and“pirate.” What’s the deal? Why does every company want her to be a princess? Why can’t she be anawesome cowgirl pirate?Sadly, the reason is that in the retail world, this kind of diversity just doesn’t fly anymore. The status quo issegregation; as Elizabeth Sweet has argued, “finding a toy that is not marketed either explicitly or subtly(through use of color, for example) by gender has become incredibly difficult.” And the more entrenchedthis practice becomes, the harder it becomes to change, as change is perceived by marketers and retailersas a risk.Therefore, for the foreseeable future, pink will serve as a clear delineation in the marketplace: If somethingis pink, it is most definitely not for boys, who regard it as a contagion — something to be avoided at allcosts.So it is that if Woody wore pink today, he would be unintelligible in the marketplace. And so it is that myfriend can’t find a good cowgirl outfit for his little girl: he’d have to travel back to 1955 to do so.The push for “girly” to be synonymous with “pink” saddens me. It has caused girls’ worlds to shrink, and itonly reinforces for boys the idea that they should actively avoid anything girlish. Monochromatic girlhooddrives a wedge between boys and girls — separating their spheres during a time when cross-sex play ishealthy and desirable, and when their imaginations should run free.Instead, we’re limiting our kids.Source: http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2013/12/16/when-cowboys-wore-pink/303 She Culture CRT: Genderization


Books and cartoons304 She Culture CRT: Genderization


I’m Glad I’m a Boy! I’m Glad I’m a Girl!by Maria Popova“Boys fix things. Girls need things fixed.”In 1970, when the second wave of feminism was reaching critical mass and women were raising their voicesfor equality across the “social media” of the day decades before the internet as we know it, when evenPete Seeger was rallying for a gender-neutral pronoun, an odd children’s book titled I’m Glad I’m a Boy!:I’m Glad I’m a Girl! (public library) began appearing in bookstores.It began innocently enough:Hmm, okay… (Butstill.):305 She Culture CRT: Genderization


And then it straddled the gender-normative continuum between the appalling and the absurd:306 She Culture CRT: Genderization


At first glance, it appears to be the most sexist book ever printed, made all the worse for the fact that it wasaimed at the next generation. In fact, many reviewers at the time took it for just that, and cursorycommentary across the web even today treats it as a laughable fossil of a bygone era, handling it with equalparts outraged indignation and how-far-we’ve-come relief.But what many missed, even in 1970, is that the man who wrote and illustrated the book was WhitneyDarrow, Jr., whose father founded Princeton University Press and whose satirical cartoons graced the NewYorker for nearly fifty years between 1933 and 1982. When Darrow died in 1999, a New YorkTimes obituary called him “a witty, gently satiric cartoonist” and “one of the last of the earlyNewYorker cartoonists,” part of the same milieu as James Thurber, Charles Addams, and Peter Arno.307 She Culture CRT: Genderization


Which is all to say: It’s highly likely, if not almost certainly the case, that Darrow, a man of keen culturalcommentary wrapped in unusual humor, intended the book as satire. It came, after all, at a time when girlswere beginning to be rather un-glad to be “girls” in the sense of the word burdened by outdated culturalexpectations and boggled in an air of second-class citizenry. It’s entirely possible that Darrow wanted tocomment on these outdated gender norms by depicting them in absurd cartoonishness precisely so thattheir absurdity would shine through.Of course, we can never be certain, as there is no record of Darrow himself ever discussing his intentionswith the book. All we have is speculation — but let’s at least make it of the contextually intelligent kind.Sure, he was born in the first decade of the twentieth century — a time when those absurd gender normswere very much alive and well, a time not too long after it was perfectly acceptable for a wholly nonsarcasticMap of Woman’s Heart to exist and a list of don’ts for female bicyclists could be published incomplete seriousness. And he came of age in a culture where those same norms very much mandated therules of love and gender relations. But that’s perhaps all the more reason for a man who dedicated hiscreative career to our era’s smartest institution of cultural commentary to poke fun at society’s ebb andflow of values the best way he knew how — through his satirical cartoons.308 She Culture CRT: Genderization


Sadly, I’m Glad I’m a Boy!: I’m Glad I’m a Girl! rests in the cemetery of out-of-print gems — but it mightwell be worth a trip to the local library.Source: http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2014/01/20/im-glad-im-a-boy-im-glad-im-a-girl-darrow/309 She Culture CRT: Genderization


Disney diminishes a heroine in 4 easy stepsBy Margot MagowanEver heard of The Snow Queen? It’s a famous fairytale about a girl who rescues her brother from thepowerful Snow Queen. Let’s see how Disney diminishes female power in 4 easy steps.(1) Change the title. Once called “The Snow Queen,” the movie is now called “Frozen.” Using the sametactic as when Disney switched the title of “Rapunzel” to “Tangled” to hide the female star, it’s becomeextremely rare for a female to be referenced in the title of an animated movie for children.(2) Change the story In the original story, the girl rescues her brother. Now, she rescues her sister, keepingthe trope of a damsel in distress and preventing a girl from saving a boy.(3) Create a male co-star Just as Flynn Ryder’s role was expanded to equal Rapunzel’s in “Tangled,” Disneyinvented Kristoff, a mountain man, to share the screen with the heroine.(4) Don’t let females dominate posters or previews The first preview has no Snow Queen and no femalesat all. Its a funny bit between two male characters.The early poster, tellingly, is a shadow of a female figure who you can barely see.You know what really creeps me out? Thousands of years ago, conquering armies smashed the idols oftheir victims and stole their stories, an extremely effective tactic to destroy a community and steal itspower. Christians did this to pagans, but of course, this act is all over history. Just like the goddess morphed310 She Culture CRT: Genderization


into the Virgin, girls are going missing under the guise of celebration. Right now, in 2013, Disney is stealingand sanitizing stories. It’s an annihilation. How long before we all forget the original story? Will our childrenever hear it?When I blogged about the sexist comments made by the head animator of “Frozen”– that femalecharacters need to be pretty, and it’s hard to make two angry ones look different from each other– Nebbiecomments:Two female hero characters is not difficult, it’s only difficult if you’re using one basic type of femalecharacter.They also could’ve made the sidekick reindeer, Sven female instead of male. Making the reindeer characterfemale could bring in another type of female character in the movie. Most sidekick characters in DisneyPrincess movies, and other Disney movies for that matter, are male and having a female sidekick characterwould be change of pace for the company. The female characters who aren’t villains don’t all have to bepretty, sensitive, or passive.Making the reindeer female would also make for an interesting female animal character. Human femalecharacters are lacking in fictional media, but female animal characters are even more lacking in fictionalmedia.Making the reindeer female would also make him more accurate to the species because male reindeer beginto grow antlers in February and shed their antlers in November whereas female reindeer begin to growantlers in May and keep their antlers until they shed them next May. The movie takes place in the wintermonths, so Sven should’ve been female.The sidekick snowman, Olaf could’ve also been female-gendered. In other words, there would be a“snowoman” or “snowlady” instead.Think Nebbie is off her rocker for suggesting so many female characters in “Frozen?” Look what FeministFangirl writes about the original story:There is the Snow Queen herself, a formidable villain who’s power is treated with respect. There is Kai’sgrandmother, who provides an essential catalyst to Gerda’s journey. There is the old witch woman with theenchanted garden who functions as a threshold guardian for Gerda while being characterized in a respectfulmanner that serves as a good subversion of the old witch trope. There is a female crow who knows how tosneak into palaces, a helpful princess who heads a side plot in which she will only marry a prince asintelligent as her (!!!), a robber and her daughter, head of a band of robbers who kidnap Gerda. Thedaughter is a spunky, knife wielding girl who befriends Gerda and aids her on her way. And finally, there aretwo women, the latter of whom helps Gerda understand the inherent power she has always had within her,a power that will ultimately save her friend, and the world.311 She Culture CRT: Genderization


I got that link from Fem it Up! who, like Feminist Fangirl, is boycotting the movie. I will most likely see“Frozen” as I want to know, first hand, exactly what happens to this story. Also, you know what reallysucks? I have 3 young daughters, and this movie probably shows more of a heroine than most of the rest in2013. If you doubt me, check out Reel Girl’s Gallery of Girls Gone Missing From Children’s Movies in2013. Which is why, I suppose, Disney believes we all have nothing to complain and ought to be happy withthese crumbs of feminism for our kids.Source: http://reelgirl.com/2013/10/disney-diminishes-a-heroine-in-4-easy-steps/312 She Culture CRT: Genderization


“Help, my eyeball is bigger than my wrist!”: gender dimorphism infrozenby Philip N. Cohen, PhDI can’t offer much in the crowded field of Disney gender criticism. But I do want to update my runningseries on the company’s animated gender dimorphism. The latest installment is Frozen.Just when I was wondering what the body dimensions of the supposedly-human characters were, the scriptconveniently supplied the dimorphism money-shot: hand-in-hand romantic leads, with perfect compositionfor both eye-size and hand-size comparisons:With the gloves you can’t compare the hands exactly, but you get the idea. And the eyes? Yes, her eyeballactually has a wider diameter than her wrist:Giant eyes and tiny hands symbolize femininity in Disneyland.While I’m at at, I may as well include Brave in the series. Unless I have repressed it, there is no romancestory for the female lead in that movie, but there are some nice comparison shots of her parents:313 She Culture CRT: Genderization


Go ahead, give me some explanation about the different gene pools of the rival clans from which Merida’sparents came.Since I first complained about this regarding Tangled, I have updated the story to include Gnomeo andJuliet. You can check those posts for more links to research (and see also this essay on human versus animaldimorphism by Lisa Wade). To just refresh the image file, though, here are the key images. From Tangled:From Gnomeo:At this point I think the evidence suggests that Disney favors compositions in which women’s hands are tinycompared to men’s, especially when they are in romantic relationships.314 She Culture CRT: Genderization


REAL WRIST-SIZE ADDENDUMHow do real men’s and women’s wrist sizes differ? I looked at 7 studies on topics ranging from carpaltunnel syndrome to judo mastery, and found a range of averages for women of 15.4 cm to 16.3 cm, and formen of 17.5 to 18.1 cm (in both cases the judo team had the thickest wrists).‘Then I found this awesome anthropometric survey of U.S. Army personnel from 1988. In that sample(almost 4,000, chosen to match the age, gender, and race/ethnic composition of the Army), the averageswere 15.1 for women and 17.4 for men. Based on the detailed percentiles listed, I made this chart of thedistributions:The average difference between men’s and women’s wrists in this Army sample is 2.3 cm, or a ratio of 1.15-to-1. However, if you took the smallest-wristed woman (12.9 cm) and the largest-wristed man (20.4), youcould get a difference of 7.5 cm, or a ratio of 1.6-to-1. Without being able to hack into the Disney animationservers with a tape measure I can’t compare them directly, but from the pictures it looks like these coupleshave differences greater than the most extreme differences found in the U.S. Army.Source: http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2013/12/17/help-my-eyeball-is-bigger-than-my-wristgender-dimorphism-in-frozen/315 She Culture CRT: Genderization


Advertisingand cinema316 She Culture CRT: Genderization


Selling Shame: 40 Outrageous Vintage Ads Any Woman WouldFind OffensiveBy Lisa HixOne vintage ad warns women, “Don’t let them call you SKINNY!” while another promises that smokingcigarettes will keep one slender. If the task of morphing their bodies into the current desirable shape isn’tenough of a burden, women are also reminded that they stink.“You’re stuck at the party with a ripped stocking, and it’ll probably end your marriage.”In these vintage ads, a woman may be emitting a foul odor from any body part—her armpits, her mouth,her hair, her hands, her lady parts—but she never knows it until her husband is walking out the door,suitcase in hand. And what about her skin? According to such ads, she might drive that man away with herso-called coarse pores, old mouth, tan lines, zits, wrinkles, middle-age skin, hairy legs or lip, visible veins, orhorror of all horrors, dishpan hands.The Do I Offend? blog chronicles such vintage body-shaming advertisements geared toward women, andthe baffling shifts from one feminine ideal to the next. Cynthia Petrovic, a Southern California artist knownas RedTango who designs and sells a retro-themed gift line, got hooked on these advertisements when shewas in college. Now, she has a garage full of antique and vintage magazines, which she’s been slowlypilfering for the most sexist (and funniest) ads targeting women.For the past couple years, she’s been uploading these ads to Do I Offend?, where she adds a snarkyheadline and sorts them into categories like “A Weighty Matter,” “Toilet Torment,” and “No Boob LeftBehind.” We talked to Petrovic about her collection and what she’s learned about how the ad men onMadison Avenue have gotten rich selling women shame.Collectors Weekly: How did you first get interested in these ads?317 She Culture CRT: Genderization


Above: An example from a series of 1930s Waldorf ads about bad toilet paper ruining family life. Clickimage to see the larger version. Top: Without the right deodorant, this Odo-ro-no ad admonishes, one’sphysical appeal is rendered worthless.Petrovic: When I was in college, I came across a 1930s romance magazine called “True Story” in an antiquesstore in Orange, California. Flipping through the pages, I found an ad for Waldorf toilet paper, which was alittle comic strip. A man has become so cranky toward his wife that their marriage is on the rocks. As itturns out, cheap toilet paper is the thing that’s driving him crazy because it has bits of splinters in it. Thecouple holds the tissue up to the light, and they see little pieces of wood in it. Waldorf advertisedrepeatedly in these magazines. In some of the ads, the wife was cranky, and then it was their little girl.Eventually, the whole family was affected by this scourge. I found it so funny.After that, I got addicted to finding these old romance magazines from the ’30s and ’40s—“True Romance,”“True Story,” and “True Secrets”—as well as the homemaking magazines like “Woman’s Home Companion”and “Ladies’ Home Journal.” But the romance magazines were where I found the ads that really take thecake. They’re the most entertaining, and just shameless. The most common premise is that a woman doesnot want to offend a man. These ads speculate about whether your husband is going to walk out on youbecause you’re not using a feminine hygiene product or your scalp smells when you’re dancing or you haveundie odor.318 She Culture CRT: Genderization


In the 1930s, dancing was an important social activity, and shampoo companies wanted women to worryabout yet another way they could smell bad.It’s a laugh to look at how ridiculous these ads are, but the appeal goes beyond the humor. I also have aninterest in sociology and psychology, particularly the way we advertise to women and how women aretreated by the media in general. I think we, as a society, are extremely cruel to women. I look at these oldads and feel as though nothing has changed. Which is sad because my mom used to go to the women’s librallies back in the ’70s, and 40 years later, we’re worse off. We don’t have the same little comic stripsmaking fun of women, but there is still intense pressure for women to fit in, not to offend people, not to beostracized. In the old ads, you can offend people in myriad ways, with runs in your stockings, by your hairsmelling, with bad breath, with your underarm odor. But today, every inch of a woman’s body isscrutinized, especially when it comes to weight.Collectors Weekly: What prompted you to start a blog about these ads?Petrovic: I ended up with piles of these vintage magazines stacked up in cupboards in the garage. At onepoint, I looked at the piles and thought, “If people out there are going to find this interesting and funny,why not share it?” I wanted to do something with it. If it’s going to take up that much space in my life, Ishould make it useful. What you see on the website now doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface of whatI’ve got to upload. And that’s a year and a half’s worth of me getting on the computer several times a weekto scan and upload the ads to the site.Collectors Weekly: When did this sort of advertisement begin?319 She Culture CRT: Genderization


Ads in 19th century magazines sold devices to reshape one’s face.Petrovic: The mass media that breeds insecurity in our culture started in the late 1800s with the spread ofmagazines. I’ve got ads going back to the 1890s, which offer a lot of contraptions to change your face. TheVictorians were really into things that you strap on your face to lift your chin and reform your nose. Everyage has its neurotic beauty fixations. They also wanted tight, little waists and the big butts formedby corsets, as well as long, beautiful hair.“Those ads didn’t say you can use Lysol as a douche and to clean your floor. Now, we’re just cleaning floorswith it.”In the late 19th century, magazines took over the advice and care of your family. As magazines wereavailable to more and more people, you could read about what to buy, how to take care of your kids, whatyou should look like, and what you should be thinking and doing. People turned to the magazines to getinformation and form opinions about themselves. Suddenly strangers were telling people what they shouldlook like, buy, and think. Today, that’s exploded with the Internet.I noticed a fever pitch building up during the 1930s. By the late ’30s, the advertisers were on a roll. Youopen up any of these magazines now, and you burst out laughing. But during World War II, I would sayabout 80 percent of those ads that manipulate you, the ones that say you stink or you’re not sociallyacceptable on some level, vanished.Collectors Weekly: On your home page, you talk about how these ads induce shame, guilt, and paranoia.320 She Culture CRT: Genderization


Lysol disinfectant, which was sold as a douche in the ’30s, produced endless ads showing a man leaving hiswife over unspeakable “feminine hygiene” problems.Petrovic: Yeah, because when you feel good about yourself, you don’t buy stuff. Paranoia, fear,inadequacy—that all sells products. It’s also a part of the ad’s job to create and continually foster anenvironment where you’re perpetually terrified into purchasing things that don’t work.Collectors Weekly: According to vintage ads, what are some of the consequences of not using theseproducts?Petrovic: One is, of course, you’ll be lonely and you won’t have any dates. That’s the worst. The second isthat your female friends will talk about you behind your back because you stink. In the 1930s, ads wouldhave a little photo of the bridge game, and the women are whispering, “Oh God, I wish she useddeodorant.” The third is that you will not get jobs. You’ll be passed over for promotions because the bossreally thinks that you smell, but he’s not going to say anything. A lot of these ads were done during theDepression so you had women desperately trying to get work. Somebody finally tips them off that theyneed to take a bath because they stink. I’m not saying that this is all ridiculous. There might be some truthto it, but it’s magnified to the point where a woman is taught to blame herself for everything.Collectors Weekly: Maybe these companies were also acting out of desperation, thanks to the Depression.321 She Culture CRT: Genderization


When women got thin due to hunger during the Depression, the slender, straight flapper silhouette wentout of style. Ironized yeast products promised “skinny” women “weight,” by which they meant larger hipsand breasts.Petrovic: Maybe it was desperate. The economy is tied intrinsically to sexuality, and I like exploring exactlyhow that works. When there’s less food, heavier people are considered attractive. When you’ve got a lot offood, skinnier people are more attractive. Products that help you put on weight became trendy during theDepression. If you look a little more filled out, you don’t look like you’re deprived.I am trying to scan and put the body-image variables on the site. Some ads say “Oh, she’s a beanpole. Lookat her! She’s too skinny.” In the comics, the guys are like, “Forget it. I don’t even notice her.” Now she’s puton some weight? Oh, yeah, all the men are flocking around. And then there are ads telling you that youneed to get rid of the weight because you’ve got to be thin. You can’t keep up. What is it today? What am Isupposed to look like now? People don’t have the capability to constantly morph into something new – oh,that’s not in style? Okay, let me flatten my boobs or let me pump my boobs up. Let me get rid of my butt.Now, I’m going to inflate my butt.Collectors Weekly: I’ve noticed the weight you supposedly gain from products like Wate-On never goes toan undesirable place, like the belly.322 She Culture CRT: Genderization


Strangely enough, this 19th century device promised to shrink the bust. Perhaps some breasts wereconsidered too disproportionately large for the Victorians’ hourglass ideal?Petrovic: It always goes right to the chest and the butt, because ads are fantasy. What will happen whenyour purchase this product and slather it on? Men are lied to as well, especially with beer. That’s the bigthing: If you drink this kind of beer, the women are going to come flocking. The fantasy of advertising is notentirely geared toward women, but largely it is.Collectors Weekly: I noticed that in a lot of these ads, the women also had to impress their husband’sfriends or their husband’s bosses.Petrovic: That theme comes up a lot in the food section of my website, “Hell’s Kitchen.” That’s also aboutsaving money. You’ve got to be very budget-oriented, but still prepare a classy dinner so that your husbandfeels as though this is a meal “fit for a king.” Even on your tight budget, you are expected to put on a nicemeal for when the boss comes over because your husband will get the promotion if your corned beef isperfect and money-saving.323 She Culture CRT: Genderization


“Husbands admire wives who keep their stockings perfect.” In the 1930s, advertisers wanted women toworry about their “S.A.” or “Stocking Appeal.”She had to keep her personal appearance up, too. Oh, my God, the horrors! The woman’s stocking runswhen the couple is in the middle of a party, and you won’t believe the sneering looks from the husband. It’sas if she’s lying in the gutter. A run in the stocking is something you can’t help sometimes, and people’sdisgusted expressions in the ad are completely disproportionate. “Ew, you’ve lost stocking appeal!” Theadvertisers would come up with these insulting little catchphrases, like “S.A.,” or “stocking appeal.”Keep in mind, during the Depression women didn’t have a lot of extra money to spend on another pair ofstockings. Oh, my gosh, it’s torn! What are you going to do? You probably can’t go to Rite-Aid, becausethere were no Rite-Aids open at 9 or 10 p.m. back then. You’re stuck at the party with a ripped stocking,and it’ll probably end your marriage.Collectors Weekly: In addition to stocking tears, it surprised me what a big deal “dishpan hands” were backthen.324 She Culture CRT: Genderization


In 1930s ads, “dishpan hands” threatened marriages. Click image to see the larger version.Petrovic: It’s something nobody ever talks about these days, dishpan hands. I remember back in the early’70s, an ad for Palmolive showed a woman dipping her hands in the dish water because their soap wassupposed to be a beauty treatment at the same time. Besides things like Palmolive, we also havedishwashers now, so advertisers had to try some other way of marketing that product, like focusing onconvenience. Back in the 1930s, a wife’s hands spent a lot of time in hot water, but she had to staybeautiful.Also, big pores were really terrible for some reason. Anxieties go in and out of style, and people werehooked on having attractive pores for a while. We’ve always got to find something new to worry about.Today, the focus is your stomach, which has to be punched back into shape. We come up with new termsto make fun of body parts, like “cankles” and “bingo wingos,” and then we start using them. “I can’t go outin my swimsuit because I’ve got bingo wingos.” We accept it and adopt it as reality.Collectors Weekly: It’s amazing how many different ways you can smell bad.325 She Culture CRT: Genderization


In this ad, pretty Joan has no idea why she’s so unpopular. At night, her undergarments gossip about hercareless washing habits and the odor they’ve been emitting.Petrovic: Yeah, the advertisers got really creative with that in the 1930s. As a bonus, they’ve also instructedyou on how to do the “armhole test” so that you can smell your own funk and determine whether you’reacceptable or not for a night out. Maybe people just didn’t wash as much—which brings me to my favoritead.This one is the prize, the reason why I collect these, a crowning achievement. Whoever thought it up in thead department needs an award. A woman is in bed asleep, and her underthings are hanging on a chairnearby—slip, girdle, bra. And they’re whispering about her. They’re saying, “She would’ve been morepopular if she had washed us” with the soap the ad is shilling. Literally, her underwear is gossiping abouther. You can’t get more demented than that.Collectors Weekly: I love how the woman is always wondering whether her husband thinks she smells bad.Why doesn’t she just ask him?Petrovic: I thought about that, too. It seems like a lot of the marital dilemmas in these ads could be solved ifthe couple just talked. But it’s got to get to the point where he literally puts his hat on, picks up thesuitcase, and rushes out the door in disgust. There are ads that illustrate that very plainly: He’s going torush out the door while she’s sitting there crying into her handkerchief. Somebody else has to come andclue her in, or maybe she goes to the doctor. I don’t know whether people didn’t communicate and talk thesame way they might now, or whether the ads would’ve made somebody laugh back then. I’d like to know.Collectors Weekly: For example, would a woman’s date ever be so offended if her skirt is gaping at thebutton?326 She Culture CRT: Genderization


“She’s a girl in a million! Pretty and smart. Dances divinely. Can even cook. But she’s ruining her chances byhaving ‘gap-osis.’” That is, gaps where her skirt buttons.Petrovic: No, a guy would be amused at that. He probably wouldn’t say anything because he would enjoypeeking at her underwear. He definitely wouldn’t be choking on a sandwich in disgust. Men are never ascritical of a woman’s body as women are, whether they’re talking about themselves or others.Collectors Weekly: What are some of the most dangerous products were targeted toward women?Petrovic: A big product that was advertised for women’s personal hygiene starting in the 1920s was Lysol.In those ads, they didn’t say you can use it as a douche and to clean your floor. Now, we’re just cleaningfloors with it. Can you imagine the injury that was done? Some of these products were toxic. From the1930s to the 1960s, the makers of Kotex sold something called Quest deodorant powder to sprinkle on yourmenstrual pads, and that chemical gave women cervical cancer. Still, today, how careful are we with thebeauty products we sell people? Many cosmetics even now contain known carcinogens.Collectors Weekly: How else were women shamed about menstruation?Petrovic: Many 1930s ads actually treat the period with a kind of maturity that flies in the face of the rest ofthe ads. They’re telling menstruating women, “Go ahead, enjoy your life.” They’re showing women onhorseback or doing other stuff that you probably wouldn’t do: wearing white pants, playing tennis, goingout to dinner, going to the theater. Early Midol ads say, “You’re going to have a great time, and the painwon’t bother you. Don’t let your period get in the way.” That’s a very modern idea. This is 80 years ago, andthey’re telling women, “Get out and live your life.” I like that. That’s different from the rest of the ads thatsay, “You’re no good. You’ve got to fix yourself.”Collectors Weekly: How did ads insulting women evolve in the mid-20th century?327 She Culture CRT: Genderization


According to Tangee in the 1930s, a woman’s lips could be too red, smeary, glaring, and painted for a manto kiss.Petrovic: Like I said, there were periods of time where the woman-shaming ads seemed to recess into thebackground. During wars, maybe you knuckle down a little bit, but then when the war is over, it bursts backout again. These ads resurfaced after the World War II, but from what I can tell, they matured a little bit.During the late ’40s and early ’50s, the ads targeting women just didn’t reach the same peaks of insanitythey did before the war, but you would still have ads for the Kotex and the practical stuff that you need. Inthe ’50s and ’60s, you started to see ads for breast enlargement. Then during the ’70s, we underwent a bigsocial revolution where women stood up, and said, “We’re not going to be treated as objects anymore.”But even then, the shaming ads didn’t completely disappear. In that decade, you still had companies usingthose tactics to sell deodorants and breast-enhancement products.Collectors Weekly: That early ’70s ad boasting about all the attractive women who weren’t good enough tobecome flight attendants is amazing.Petrovic: That was right when the women’s lib movement was going strong, and women were saying,“We’re not going to be playing traditional female roles anymore, we’re going to get out into the world,really get out in the workforce, and make our stand.” Still, these ads popped up. Through all of that turmoiland social change that was going on back then, there was still this ad that says, “We only pick the prettiestwomen to be flight attendants.” It just never dies.Collectors Weekly: How does this sort of shaming manifest today?328 She Culture CRT: Genderization


The qualifications for Eastern Airlines stewardesses in the 1970s: “Sure, we want her to be pretty … That’swhy we look at her face, her make-up, her complexion, her figure, her weight, her legs, her grooming, hernails, and her hair. But we don’t stop there.” Click image to see larger version.Petrovic: Nothing’s really changed. Ads and the media still insist that you have to be physically perfect andsocially acceptable to avoid embarrassment. Seriously, look at the world today. Women are moreobjectified than ever. It’s changed form. I don’t think you’re going to see the same kinds of magazine adswe had back in the 1930s, but back then, people didn’t have the Internet and the tremendous mass mediathe way we do now. What we see now are women-against-women cat fights and women being taught tohate their bodies in a different way through snide remarks in television shows, reality shows celebratingbad behavior, and trash tabloid websites. It’s a different kind of assault, not just through products but alsothrough images and memes constantly reminding women that there are other women that look better thanthey do.329 She Culture CRT: Genderization


In our gossip-obsessed culture, everybody is expected to be 20 years old forever and sexually available.Even when you’re pregnant, you’ve got to be hot. What makes me sick is that there’s no moment of awoman’s life from birth to death where she’s not supposed to be “on” sexually, starting with Bratz dollsand padded bras for girls to stories of women in their 60s and 70s getting breast implants. Everything isabout being skinny now, because only the rich can afford to buy organic groceries at Whole Foods and dothe crazy detox diets. Most overweight people are poor, because they can only afford fattening fast food.But all the ads on Facebook and all the lead stories on the covers so-called health magazines are aboutlosing belly fat, which links them to the shaming magazine ads of the past. What’s particularly brutal aboutthe way the media beats up on women today is that it’s not just in magazines, it’s everywhere you look.Source: http://www.collectorsweekly.com/articles/selling-shame-40-outrageous-vintage-ads-any-womanwould-find-offensive/330 She Culture CRT: Genderization


Women in advertisements and body image:Sexism in advertisingSexism towards women in advertising hasalways been an issue in the history of Americansociety. Women have always been expected tofill specific gender roles as the cleaning,cooking, or child-bearing sex machine. Today’ssociety has most certainly evolved to wheresuch discrimination is extremely discouragedand looked down upon. During the 1950s,however, sexism against women wassomething that was normal and expected byboth men and women. Regardless of howinsulting or chauvinistic ads were towardswomen, people were socialized to tolerate and accept the female house-wife stereotype.Ads in the 1950s most commonly advertised wives being completely controlled and influenced by theirhusbands, feminine products to help impress their husbands, cleaning products, and endless cooking andreferences to the benefits of staying in the kitchen. These vintage ads that included phrases such as, “Don’tworry darling, you didn’t burn the beer!,” “Men are better than women!,” and “Christmas morning: she’llbe happier with a Hoover!” not only created a stigma for women in general, but they were shockingly bluntand irrefutably left no room for interpretation.THE WOMEN'S MOVEMENTWomen’s rights movements originated in the 1800s, but only in the 1960s and 1970s after influence fromthe Civil Rights Movement did a wave of women’s rights activists successfully gain enough momentum togain recognition as the true Women’s Movement (Pandhe, 1988). Below are some of the rights womenfought for:o Access to equal educational opportunitieso Equal career opportunities with equal pay.o Ability to participate in organized sports.o Freedom of choice (Abortion without interference from men, government, or politics).o Opportunity to apply for graduate programs at the same rate as men.o Ample day care for their children in order to allow single mothers to work.o Creation of women's shelters for abused women and children.331 She Culture CRT: Genderization


A book called, The Feminine Mystique, written by Betty Friedan in 1963 also had a significant influence onwomen of that time. In her book, Friedan wrote how she wanted women “to seek new roles andresponsibilities, to seek their own personal and professional identities rather than have them defined bythe outside, male-dominated society” (Friedan, 1963) Her book was the spark that lit the candle to a socialrevolution and the Women’s Movement.Media representations of women was also a topic that was much discussed during the Women’sMovement in the 1960s. Advertisements during this time were depicting women as picture perfecthousewives, which became quite damaging to the fragile and impressionable American women. Once theWomen’s Movement began, however, magazines, such as Reader’s Digest, Ladies’ Home Journal, Woman’sHome Campaign, and Life Magazine started supporting women’s rights and equality (Walker, 1998).TRANSFORMATION OF "BEAUTY"Society’s interpretation of beauty has significantly changed over time and will always continue to change.For example, in the early to mid-twentieth century, women were considered beautiful if they had fair skinand a full, curvy figure. Having tan skin simply meant that you spent too much time outside, which wasfurther associated with the working class (Sebastian, 2008). Having a voluptuous body meant represented afertile and wholesome woman. As years passed, women gradually became slimmer and darker skinned. Intoday’s society, beauty is almost the exact opposite as it was in the early twentieth century. Women aresocialized to want to have tan skin with avery thin body frame.Women are not coming up with thesebeauty and style decisions on their own,however. The media and advertising playsa huge role in influencing what womenview as “beautiful”. Flooding women’sbrains with the tan, tall, slender bodies ofmodern models is a tactic the media usesto keep society up with the times. If acertain image is repeated enough throughtelevision, printed ads, movies,commercials, billboards, etc., society willaccept this image as the norm and copy it (Alice, 2010). In conclusion, as society transforms and changesover time, our image of beauty will subsequently continue to change as well.332 She Culture CRT: Genderization


How women are portrayedThere is no doubt that advertisements are everywhere, in fact the average woman sees about 400 to 600advertisements per day. (1) There have been numerous studies done on the scope of advertisements andhow they depict men and women differently. It been found that sexuality in advertisement have continuedto increase since the 1980’s. Also more female models asapposed to male models are suggestively dressed inthese advertisements. In general interest magazines,men are less likely to be suggestively dressed than in1984 and female models are more likely to be portrayedin decorative roles than are men, and less likely to befeatured in more non-stereotypical or equal roles.(2)It was also found that 28% of female models in televisioncommercials had comments made about their looks, asapposed to male models that were commented on looksonly 7% of the time.(3) Even in advertisements aimed towards children the difference can be seen. Forexample in a study that looked at Saturday morning toy commercials, it was found that 50% of commercialsthat were aimed at girls discussed physical attractiveness within the advertisement, while none of thecommercials aimed at boys referred to appearance. (1) Many questions then arise as to how thesecommercials effect women and their body image.Effects on women69% of girls in one study said that magazine models influence their idea of the perfect body shape. (1)Exposure to the “ideal” body images has been found to lower women's satisfaction with their ownattractiveness. (1)333 She Culture CRT: Genderization


The average U.S. woman is 5’4” and weighs 140 pounds whereas the average U.S. model is 5’11” andweighs 117 pounds.44% of women who are average or underweight think that they are overweight. (4)30% of women chose an ideal body shape that is 20% underweight and an additional 44% chose an idealbody shape that is 10% underweight.(5)In a study 47% of girls were influenced by magazine pictures to want to lose weight, but only 29% wereactually overweight. (1)Girls who were already dissatisfied with their bodies showed more dieting, anxiety, and bulimic symptomsafter prolonged exposure to fashion and advertising images in a teen girl magazine. (1)1. Eating disorders: body image and advertising . (2008, December 11). Retrieved from http://www.healthyplace.com/eatingdisorders/main/eating-disorders-body-image-and-advertising/menu-id-58/2. Carpenter, C., & Edison, A. (2005). Taking It All Off Again: The Portrayal of Women in Advertising Over The Past FortyYears. Conference Papers -- International Communication Association, 1-25. Retrieved from Communication & Mass MediaComplete database.3.Statistics on women and media. (2005). Retrieved fromhttp://www.mediareporttowomen.com/statistics.htm4. Rowland, H. (n.d.). Obsessed with thin: has the media gone too far?. HilaryFashion, Retrieved from http://www.hilary.com/fashion/bikini.html5.Shocking statistics. (n.d.). Retrieved fromhttp://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/wellness/NewSite/BdyImgShockingStats.htmlSource: http://womeninads.weebly.com/334 She Culture CRT: Genderization


7 Ways the Beauty Industry Convinced Women That They Weren'tGood Enoughby Amanda ScherkerIn America, the perennial quest for beauty is an expensive one.Every year, women spend billions of dollars in exchange for beautiful hair, luxurious eyelashes, and smooth,silky skin. Still, many of our culture's most common beauty procedures were virtually nonexistent a centuryago. The truth is, many of our expectations of feminine beauty were shaped in large part by modernadvertisers. We've tracked the history behind some of the most common "flaws" that besiege the modernwoman and the surprising stories behind their "cures."Here are seven insecurities women have been fed by marketers:1. "Your natural hair color isn't pretty enough.""Does she or doesn't she?" asked the Clairol's ad that launched a million home hair dye jobs. Indeed,the aggressive Clairol marketing campaign would trigger an explosion in sales. In the process, thepercentage of women dying their hair would skyrocket from 7 percent in 1950 to more than 40 percent inthe '70s.The ads showed everyday women reaping the benefits of more lustrous hair, a luxury that had long beenexclusive to glamorous supermodels with professional dye jobs. The ads proclaimed, "If I have only one life,let me live it as a blonde." Indeed, Clairol peddled the perfect yellow shade of the dye as a way totransform your life:335 She Culture CRT: Genderization


Clairol hair dye offered self-reinvention, in 20 minutes flat, particularly for women who didn't want toreveal their true age or their gray roots:Shirley Polykoff, the advertising writer behind Clairol's goldmine ad campaign, described her plan as such:"For big success, we'd have to expand the market to gather in all those ladies who had become stoicallyresigned to [their gray hair]. This could only be accomplished by reawakening whatever dissatisfactionsthey may have had when they first spotted it." Clairol did that with ads like, "How long has it been sinceyour husband asked you out to dinner?" Nowadays, about 90 million women in the U.S. color their hair,according to a 2012 IBIS World Report.2. "Your body hair is gross."Today, women in media are generally depicted sans body hair or mocked for daring to bare it. Butsurprisingly, from the 16th to the 19th century, most European and American women kept their bodyhair au naturel.What changed? According to researcher Christine Hope, the answers lie in fashion and advertising. First, in1915, came what Hope called an "assault on the underarm" -- a burst of advertisements warning womenthat unsightly, unfeminine under-hair arm must be shaved to look "as smooth as the face." Otherwise, nodancing for you:336 She Culture CRT: Genderization


Next, came an explosion of ads encouraging women to shave their legs to look more attractive in sheerstockings and fashionable swimwear. By the end of World War II, shaving had become an expectation forAmerican women. Ads in the '60s and '70s continued espousing the "unfeminine" nature of body hair.337 She Culture CRT: Genderization


338 She Culture CRT: Genderization


The bikini arrived on the fashion scene in 1946 and brought with it the next contested body hair territory:the bikini line. The Brazilian Wax was imported to the U.S. in the late '80s and popularized by mainstreammedia in the '90s.Today, pubic hair removal is pretty much a staple amongst young American women:80 percent of womenbetween the ages of 18 and 34 remove at least some of it, and, according to research, many of them aremotivated by the desire to conform to social norms or appear more feminine. Even now, hair-removal ads -- like Veet's recent "Don't risk dudeness" campaign -- target the same female-specific anxieties they did acentury ago.3. "Your skin is too dark."During the late-19th century and early-20th century, skin-lightening became increasingly popular amongblack women in America. Skin bleaching was seen as more than a beauty ritual -- it was a symbolic way toprogress in a prejudiced society, where lighter-skinned black people encountered comparatively bettertreatment. Advertisers exploited those prejudices in the beauty industry, promising women that theycould "occupy higher positions socially and commercially, marry better, get along better" and be morebeautiful with lighter skin. In this 1944 ad, lighter skin is equated with "lovelier" skin:The actual products were seriously dangerous: Most contained the chemicalhydroquinone, which is alsoused to develop photographs. (The chemical has been banned in Australia, the EU, and Japan, but remainslegal in the U.S.)339 She Culture CRT: Genderization


During the '60s and '70s, the skin-lightening market dipped in popularity as the "Black is Beautiful"movement grew. The movement encouraged black people to embrace their natural features, rather thanattempt to conform to white beauty norms. Cosmetic companies quickly softened their rhetoric, and thephrase "skin lightening" was changed to the somewhat more innocuous term "skin brightening." Thesmiling 1962 ad below promises bright, light skin even on the rainiest day while neglecting to mention thepossible side effect of mercury poisoning:Today, skin lightening continues to be practiced around the world, with particular popularity inAfrica, India and Pakistan. The annual global market is expected to reach $10 billion by 2015, though manyof the products still come with serious health risks.4. "Actually, your skin is too light."In the early 20th century, sunbathing became a popular doctor's prescription for many illnesses. Thesupposed health benefits, coupled with a major boom in advertising, created the widespread belief that,as Harper's Bazaar surmised in 1929: "If you haven't a tanned look about you, you aren't part of the rage ofthe moment."Soon after that declaration, beauty companies began selling specialized suntan lotions. Some researchersbelieve that, because the tanning fad created a new cosmetic market, it also provided a market incentivefor the tan to remain an enduring American beauty expectation. And endure it did: In the 1970s, newhealth concerns about the risks of cancer from sunbathing did not end the craving for a tan -- they justcreated more opportunities for the beauty industry to market new products that could promise protectionor fake a "natural" tan that would have every beach bum staring:340 She Culture CRT: Genderization


The medical world continues to warn of the dangers of overexposure to the sun. The quest for the perfectgolden tan hasn't faded away -- many people just choose to fake the effect. Since 2000, the self-tanningproduct manufacturing has experienced meteoric growth that is expected to continue over the next 5years.5. "Your cellulite's an eyesore. It must be banished."Until 1830, fashionable and master painters lauded their curves, cellulite and all. Since the mid-twentiethcentury, however, the ideal female form has become increasingly slender. Over the same period oftime, cellulite was introduced and demonized as a major public enemy of the ideal female body.In 1968, Vogue Magazine seized on the term, decreeing that, "Like a swift migrating fish, the word cellulitehas suddenly crossed the Atlantic." Some members of the medical world scoffed at the sudden celluliteanxiety that ensued, calling it an "an invented disease." Whatever you call it, cellulite affects between 80and 90 percent of women, and "fighting" it, as well as mocking it, have become marketable Americanobsessions. Being a female celebrity with any cellulite on your body is practically considered criminal:341 She Culture CRT: Genderization


In 2014, cellulite remains an unconquerable enemy, and women continue to spend big bucks on productsthat are often inadequately tested and ineffective in the long-term.6. "Your unmanicured nails are unsightly."Northam Warren began producing what was generally considered to be the first fingernail cuticle removerand nail polish in 1911. He also kicked off an advertising campaign that would spawn the modern nail polishindustry. Ads cautioned women about the embarrassment of having un-manicured fingers. Businessexploded from $150,000 in 1916 to $2 million by 1920. Having manicured nails became a way to displaywealth and elegance, proving that you were above "lowly" manual labor. And if you thought you could hidethose unmanicured hands, this 1923 ad had news for you:Image: Creative Commons, CutexThe sales pitch worked. In 1912, only a quarter of women used products on their hands or fingernails -- by1936, three-quarters of women did so. During World War II, Cutex nail polish even appealed to women'snational pride:342 She Culture CRT: Genderization


Today, nail polish -- and the services that go along with it -- have become beauty staples for women. As of2012, Americans spent a record $768 million on the stuff.7. "Your eyelashes aren't long enough."Historically, women darkened their lashes with everything from elderberries to resin, but mascara productsdidn't emerge until the twentieth century when T.L. Williams founded Maybelline. The brand's popular 10-cent mascara swept the nation. While makeup had once been considered immoral by some, Hollywoodactresses made it glamorous. Women were promised the sultry eyelashes of their favorite actresses, as inthis advertisement from a 1929 "Motion Picture" magazine:As more mascara products emerged, companies began making numerous claims about the lengthening andvolumizing effects of their products. Major cosmetic companies have come under fire for misleadingadvertising methods, like using false eyelashes on models.343 She Culture CRT: Genderization


Even so, the quest for longer lashes has grown into a full-fledged beauty and pharmaceutical market. AsNancy LeWinter, editorial director of OneStopPlus.com, told The Huffington Post: "Five years ago, thelashes you had were the lashes you had and you threw mascara on. Today, you're getting extensions,you're using Latisse, we've got the whole area of obsession over eyelashes!" 'Cause hey, your eyelashescould always use another millimeter or two, right?Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/29/beauty-industrywomen_n_5127078.html?utm_hp_ref=women-and-advertising344 She Culture CRT: Genderization


Change the way welook at women345 She Culture CRT: Genderization


Dove 'Real Beauty' Campaign Turns 10: How A Brand Tried To ChangeThe Conversation About Female BeautyBy Nina BahadurOne of the biggest conceptual ad campaigns of the decade grew out of a photography exhibit in a retailbuilding in Toronto."Beyond Compare: Women Photographers On Real Beauty," a show organized by Dove and Ogilvy &Mather, featured work from 67 female photographers including Annie Leibovitz, Tierney Gearon and PeggySirota. And it marked the beginning of Dove's quest to understand how women thought about beauty -- aconversation that would eventually become the Dove Campaign For Real Beauty.Ten years after the exhibition opened, the Campaign For Real Beauty is one of modern marketing's mosttalked-about success stories. The campaign has expanded from billboards to television ads and onlinevideos: The 2006 video, "Evolution," went viral before "viral" was even a thing. (After all, YouTube had onlylaunched the year before.) And Dove's 2013 spot "Real Beauty Sketches," which shows women describingtheir appearances to a forensic sketch artist, became the most-watched video ad of all time.How did a brand associated with a plain white bar of soap get men and women worldwide to think aboutthe narrow definitions of female beauty? And does the fact that this message comes from a brand ownedby Unilever -- the company behind the very sexily marketed Axe -- make it less authentic or important?THE START OF SOMETHINGIn the early 2000s, Dove executives began looking for a way to revive a brand that was being overshadowedby other companies. Their PR agency, Edelman, conducted a study of more than 3,000 women in 10countries in order to learn about women's priorities and interests. When it reported that only 2 percent ofthe women interviewed considered themselves beautiful, the executives at Dove saw an opportunity. Asthey moved beyond the bar of soap and introduced other products such as shampoo and body wash, couldthey also start a conversation about beauty? Would a campaign that tapped into what women werethinking and feeling help Dove become more relevant -- and more profitable?Dove's first steps in the Campaign For Real Beauty included "Tick Box" billboards, which debuted in Canadaand spread across the United States and United Kingdom. The outdoor billboards featured images ofwomen with two tick-box options next to them such as "fat or fit?" and "grey or gorgeous?"346 She Culture CRT: Genderization


Passersby could text their vote to a listed number, and the percentages appeared next to the image on thebillboard. The campaign led 1.5 million visitors to the Campaign for Real Beauty website, alerting Dove thatit was on the right track -- this was a topic women wanted to talk about.AUTHENTICITY QUESTIONEDDove's critics were quick to point out that the brand's owner, Unilever, was the parent company ofSlimfast, Axe and Fair & Lovely skin-whitening cream. How could a message about "real beauty" comingfrom a corporation that sells diet products and advertises men's body spray with sexist tropes aboutwomen possibly be authentic?According to Jean Kilbourne, creator of the "Killing Us Softly" documentary series which explores howwomen are portrayed in advertising, these objections are important -- but the anger toward Dove ismisdirected."I think that's a good reason to go after Unilever, or to go after Axe," she told The Huffington Post. "But Iactually don't think the people at Dove have much control over that."A second criticism sometimes leveled at Dove is that its cosmetic products feed into women's insecurities."For the most part, I think that Dove's products are innocuous," Kilbourne told HuffPost. "It's soap andbody wash. I do have an issue with products like cellulite-firming cream [which Dove sells] -- it's just onemore way to create anxiety for women. But it's not like they're selling feminine hygiene sprays."Jennifer Pozner, executive director of Women In Media & News and author of Reality Bites Back: TheTroubling Truth About Guilty Pleasure TV, believes that Dove's message is at odds with its products, andthat the company is capitalizing on women's poor body images.347 She Culture CRT: Genderization


"[These products] could not possibly exist if women actually as a demographic believed the principles at thecampaign's core," Pozner told HuffPost. "Cellulite cream would not exist if women believed they werebeautiful and enough as it is."Pozner also expressed surprise that Dove has not affected change within its parent company:If the stated goal of the Dove Real Beauty Campaign is for girls and women to understand that their powerand their beauty does not come from a tube or an airbrush or a cream, but rather from their ownpersonalities and power, then the company would not sell certain products that they sell, and their parentcompany would not run some of the most misogynistic ad campaigns in the past ten years.While Dove does not release sales figures, executives at Unilever suggest that the campaign has boostedsales."We believe that conversation leads to brand love, and brand love leads to brand loyalty," JenniferBremner, brand director of skin cleansing at Unilever, said in an interview with HuffPost. "That's obviously apositive for us not just in the power of the brand, but also ultimately in sales."BRINGING "REAL WOMEN" INTO THE PICTUREA few months after "Tick Box," Dove launched a billboard campaign that featured groups of "real," diversewomen in their underwear. One of the women featured on the original billboards was Gina Crisanti, whowas approached by a talent scout while taking out the trash at her job at a café. According to Crisanti, shewanted to join the campaign to help other women feel empowered and confident in their bodies."I grew up not being happy with my body shape and size at all," Crisanti told NBC News in 2005. "I hatedbeing curvy. I hated having big breasts. And I hated having curly hair. In my 20s, I realized all those [ideas]were simply self-destructive. Once I started to develop an alternative definition of beauty, all of it started tofall into place."348 She Culture CRT: Genderization


According to Kilbourne, who has studied advertising since the '70s, Dove was -- and still is -- one of the onlymainstream advertisers talking about how we define female beauty."There are so few commercials that in any way are different, that challenge the stereotypical images," shetold HuffPost.Some other brands have followed suit, capitalizing on the association of their products with a message offemale empowerment. Commercials like Pantene's "Labels Against Women" draw on themes similar to theCampaign for Real Beauty's, like the snap judgments people make based on a woman's looks -- and whythat shouldn't matter.MOVING BEYOND "REBRANDING"Knowing that the campaign would be criticized as a shallow marketing ploy, the team behind the Campaignfor Real Beauty concluded that simply talking about these issues wasn't enough."[We were thinking], we have to walk the talk," Sharon MacLeod, vice president of Unilever North AmericaPersonal Care, told HuffPost. "We can't just be getting people stirred up; awareness and conversation isn'tenough. We actually have to do something to change what's happening."349 She Culture CRT: Genderization


And so Dove created a fund in 2004 to partner with organizations like the Girl Scouts, Boys& Girls Clubs ofAmerica and Girls Inc. to organize activities including discussions about online bullying and photographyprojects capturing the beauty girls see in the world around them."A product-based affair was never going to [affect change]," Janet Kestin, former creative director of Ogilvy& Mather Toronto who worked on "Evolution," told HuffPost. "The goal is to alleviate pressure on the nextgeneration."The team at Dove Canada created a series of short films to raise awareness about the fund and the largercampaign. Former creative leaders at Ogilvy & Mather Nancy Vonk and Kestin worked with directors TimPiper and Yael Staav to create "Daughters," a series of interviews with mothers and theirdaughters; "Onslaught," a look at how the beauty industry targets young girls; and "Evolution," showinghow makeup and digital alterations can make an average woman look like a supermodel, which quicklyblew up on YouTube. (The video currently has 16.9 million views.)"Evolution," 2006"Evolution" was the tipping point, turning the Campaign For Real Beauty into a household name. For manyyoung women, "Evolution" struck a chord, opening their eyes to the narrow definitions of beauty they grewup with and the way images were manipulated to fit said ideals. Today, "Evolution" still has an impact, butseems almost passé. Women's websites like Jezebel, which launched in 2007, took up the gauntlet, makingsure that women all over the world saw what unretouched magazine spreads and billboards look like.Dove still feels like it has a role to play in ongoing discussions about beauty and body image. "We're goingto try to change a generation," MacLeod told HuffPost. "You have to wait until they grow up to see whathappens."Dove plans to continue making videos like 2013's "Real Beauty Sketches." Currently, Dove Canada isworking on a social media campaign, #DovePositiveChange, which posts encouraging responses to womentweeting self-deprecating remarks about themselves. And Dove's latest short film, "Selfie," was released onJan. 20.THE DOWNSIDE TO "REAL BEAUTY"But is Dove's idea of change what we should be focusing on?Not everyone agrees with the importance the campaign places on physical beauty. In an April 2013 piecefor The Cut, Ann Friedman wrote:350 She Culture CRT: Genderization


These ads still uphold the notion that, when it comes to evaluating ourselves and other women, beauty isparamount. The goal shouldn’t be to get women to focus on how we are all gorgeous in our own way. Itshould be to get women to do for ourselves what we wish the broader culture would do: judge each otherbased on intelligence and wit and ethical sensibility, not just our faces and bodies.Pozner acknowledges that the beauty message is problematic, but deems it necessary. "Until we get to apoint in the culture where the dominant messages about girls and women are not focused on their physicalbodies, then we do need to actually reaffirm a broader and more innate, internal definition of what beautyis," she told HuffPost.Both critics and champions of the campaign have also pointed out that just because women are redefiningbeauty, doesn't mean they are actually feeling differently about themselves. Some see this as a call tochange the conversation entirely, as Friedman suggests, others as evidence that Dove's message aboutbeauty is important and necessary. An estimated 80 percent of American women feel dissatisfied with theirbodies, and 81 percent of 10-year-old girls are afraid of becoming "fat." Can a series of ad campaigns reallychange institutionalized body hatred?The Dove team feels strongly that the campaign will be around for a long time to come."The conversation is as relevant and fresh today as it was 10 years ago," MacLeod said. "I believe we'll bedoing [this campaign] 10 years from now."351 She Culture CRT: Genderization


New! In pointlessly gendered productsBy Lisa WadeIt’s been a while since we treated our audience to a post featuring a collection of pointlessly genderedproducts. Time to correct our lapse in diligence! Here are some favorite examples we’ve added toour Pinterest board lately.THE FOOD CATEGORY.Pointlessly gendered endives:Pointlessly gendered bread:352 She Culture CRT: Genderization


Pointlessly gendered eggs:Pointlessly gendered sausages:353 She Culture CRT: Genderization


KID STUFF.Pointlessly gendered tooth fairies:Pointlessly gendered alphabets:Pointlessly gendered child harnesses:354 She Culture CRT: Genderization


GROWN-UP STUFF.Pointlessly gendered socks:Pointlessly gendered wrist support:355 She Culture CRT: Genderization


Pointlessly gendered job ads:Bonus! Pointlessly gendered pet shampoo:Source: http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2014/03/15/new-in-pointlessly-gendered-products/356 She Culture CRT: Genderization


Gender Inequality in FilmBy Nicholas Zurko.In light of the record-breaking opening of the female-led action film Hunger Games: Catching Fire this pastweekend, the New York Film Academy decided to take a closer look at women in film and what, if any,advancements women are making. After reviewing the data, it is clear that Hollywood remains stuck in itsgender bias. Of course, it’s not all disparaging news and there are a number of female filmmakers,characters, and emerging talent challenging the status quo. In addition, in the independent sphere, womenmade up roughly half of the directors at this year’s Sundance Film Festival, yet still struggle when it comesto films receiving a wide release. By shedding light on gender inequality in film, we hope to start adiscussion about what can be done to increase women’s exposure and power in big-budget films.357 She Culture CRT: Genderization


358 She Culture CRT: Genderization


359 She Culture CRT: Genderization


360 She Culture CRT: Genderization


361 She Culture CRT: Genderization


362 She Culture CRT: Genderization


363 She Culture CRT: Genderization


364 She Culture CRT: Genderization


Source: http://www.nyfa.edu/film-school-blog/gender-inequality-in-film/365 She Culture CRT: Genderization


4 Ladies Get The 'Cover Model' Makeover Of Their Dreams ... AndThen Hate The ResultsBy Melissa GilkeyBuzzFeed gave four women professional makeovers and had them pose for photos. Then theyPhotoshopped them to look like true "cover models." Check out their reactions in the video.366 She Culture CRT: Genderization


Video’s URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zRlpIkH3b5ISource: http://www.upworthy.com/4-ladies-get-the-cover-model-makeover-of-their-dreams-and-thenhate-the-results-11113?g=2&c=ufb1367 She Culture CRT: Genderization


44 Stock Photos That Hope To Change The Way We Look At WomenBy Ashley PerezGetty Images launched the “Lean InCollection” Monday in partnership withLeanIn.org,featuring more than 2,500 photos of femaleleadership in contemporary work and life.The project began when Pam Grossman, director ofvisual trends at Getty Images, commissioned a studythat would track the changes in the representation ofgirls and women in the media. The study turned into apresentation that Grossman later shared with SherylSandberg and the Lean In team at FacebookHeadquarters in Palo Alto, Calif., last fall.“This is such a big passion project for all of us, and cheesy as it sounds, by showing people powerful imagesof women, we thought maybe we could actually change the world,” Grossman told BuzzFeed.According to Grossman, everyone at Getty Images hasbeen “utterly supportive,” though the process ofcurating the collection was not without its fair share ofdebate. The curation team consisted of Grossman,Jessica Bennett, a contributing editor at LeanIn.org,and two other Getty Images art directors (one maleand one female).The editors were especially attuned to a viewer’sperception of the women in the photos. “The mostimportant thing for us is that you felt like the womanhad agency, not like the image was happening to her,but she was the protagonist of her own story — theyall should feel like the hero of their image,” Grossman said.In addition, “we paid careful attention to make sure the images werediverse, not just in terms of race, but also in age, family situation, andcareer,” said Bennett. Notably, the collection also features men activelyparticipating in what may be seen as nontraditional male roles.Grossman said she hopes to continue adding images to the project eachmonth.“My hope is that internally our photographers will see these stories and itwill inspire them to create even more [positive images of women],” shesaid.For More Photos: http://www.buzzfeed.com/ashleyperez/stock-photosthat-hope-to-change-the-way-we-look-at-womenSource: http://www.buzzfeed.com/ashleyperez/stock-photos-that-hope-to-change-the-way-we-look-atwomen368 She Culture CRT: Genderization


Grammaticalgenderization369 She Culture CRT: Genderization


Is grammatical gender considered arbitrary or semanticallymotivated? Evidence from young adult monolinguals, secondlanguage learners, and early bilingualsBy Benedetta A. L. BassettiIt is generally assumed that speakers of grammatical gender languages consider grammatical genderarbitrary, but this assumption has never been tested. Research shows that the grammatical gender ofnouns can affect perceptions of the masculinity or femininity of the noun's referent in speakers oflanguages with masculine and feminine noun classes. However, bilingualism facilitates the development oflexical arbitrariness awareness, and could therefore affect awareness of grammatical gender arbitrariness.This study then compared three groups of young adult speakers of a grammatical gender language:monolinguals, early bilinguals, and instructed second language learners. Participants evaluated the genderassignments of 25 nouns of entities (animals, abstract concepts, natural kinds, and artefacts), and answeredopen and closed questions about grammatical gender. Participants considered grammatical gender assemantically motivated and mostly related gender assignments to perceived masculine or feminineconnotations of referents. Knowledge of an additional grammatical gender language was linked toincreased awareness of the arbitrariness of first language gender assignments in both early bilinguals andlater instructed learners. It is argued that grammatical gender awareness deserves further investigation.Knowing more than one grammatical gender language can increase awareness of grammatical genderarbitrariness. Implications are discussed for language teaching and language reform.Source: British Journal of Psychology http://psychsource.bps.org.uk/details/journalArticle/4944781/Isgrammatical-gender-considered-arbitrary-or-semantically-motivated-Evidence-fr.html370 She Culture CRT: Genderization


Ten Alternatives To Calling Your Daughter A PrincessBy Carla MolinaI believe labels can be powerful in both harmful and empowering ways. This is especially true for youngchildren who are developing an inner dialogue with themselves, one they’ll live with for the rest of theirlives. As a mother of daughters, I choose my words with great care. I want to use words that will encouragean appreciation for their bodies, a deep sense of self-worth and an overwhelming sense of being whollyloved. Labels are something we all use on a daily basis without even realizing it which makes them a perfectplace to start examining the language we use.My kids hear everything. Even when they ask me to repeat myself a dozen times, I know it’s not unlikelythey heard me the first time. Which is why it’ snot just what I say in conversation with them that mattersbut also what I say about them in conversations with others and what I allow others to say about my kids.A perfect example is when a stranger says hi to my daughters while we’re out running errands. It’s notuncommon for one or even both of them to smile, reach for my hand or move closer to me and leave thestranger’s questions unanswered. In moments like these, many adults will chime in, “Oh, she’s being shy.”Shy, shy, shy. I loathe that word; it makes me want to light my hair on fire. Of the vast spectrum ofemotions my child might be experiencing, did it ever cross our mind that perhaps they’re simply beingcautious with a person they don’t know? Perhaps they want to warm up to you at their pace and not yours?Perhaps, and this is a biggie, it has nothing to do with you and they’re just hungry and tired and don’t haveit in them to engage in small talk? Shy is a label I no longer tolerate around my children.It’s easier for me to identify the irk some language other people use to label my children than it is to noticemy own labeling faux pas.Every night I kiss my girls and whisper sweet nothings in their ear. I always end with “I love you, princess”.I’ve been saying it, with some solid regularity, since they were born. The other night I caught myself saying“princess” and really had to stop myself. We are not anti-princess in our home. We are mind fully selectiveof these royal “role models*” and how they influence our daughters. We love Merida. Not so keen onAdora. We’re team Tiana, all the way. Cinderella? Meh. Am I depriving them of some life changingexperience by not letting them glorify the Disney princesss quad** in our house? I don’t think so.I’ve explained to my daughters how what and who we surround ourselves with plays a big part ininfluencing us. So I tell them if they like princesses, choose the ones with admirable qualities. Choose theones that empower the mas little girls. None of this putting your life on hold until prince charming comesaround. Fooey.Shy is specifically negative while princess is positively vague. Not exactly the way to celebrate precisely howgreat my daughters are. I want there to be no doubt in their minds that they are always enough just as theyare. So I bid adieu to “princess” (as wellas shy) and welcome words that rejoice in the gifts they were bornwith, the gifts they’re still figuring out that I’m so luck to witness.Here are ten positive labels, ten kickass alternatives to calling your daughter a princess.371 She Culture CRT: Genderization


Source: http://allofmenow.com/2013/07/ten-alternatives-to-calling-your-daughter-a-princess/372 She Culture CRT: Genderization

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines