What can I say about Pixar's most recent offering, Up? Well, after the pure and innovative wonder of WALL•E, Up seemed almost destined to come in second. And yet, I don't think it is in Pixar's power to make a bad movie. Up, the story of Carl Fredrickson, is so moving, so powerful, so slapstick funny, so entirely different than what has preceded it, that it both fits in the pantheon of Pixar films in terms of greatness and reaches those heights independently. Just like all of the great Pixar films that came before.I can say that Russell is the most believable kid I've ever seen in a movie. From his reason for wanting the last necessary Wilderness Explorer badge, to his complaints about how his knee hurt and how he had to go to the bathroom, Russell was a prepubescent kid. The excitability, the lack of precociousness, the poking Carl in the face when he thought Carl might be dead - all were spot on.
I can say that the twenty minute montage of Carl and Ellie's life together was perhaps the best and most moving piece of animation I have ever seen. It in and of itself could have been a Pixar short, though a rather somber one.
I can say that Carl's reactions throughout the film, from bonking that guy on the head to his obsession with his mailbox to talking to his house as if Ellie were still in it to kissing Ellie's picture, were achingly, heartbreakingly realistic.
I can say that Dug the Dog was an awesome addition to the movie.
I can say that I would watch this movie perhaps more than any other Disney or Pixar film - if it weren't for Dory's "I wish I could speak whale" moment in Finding Nemo.
And yet. And yet there is the "girl problem". I've posted about this before, after WALL•E came out. But Up continues to highlight the problems I've had with Pixar films - and in ways, it goes farther toward making it worse, to making it less female-friendly.
Like, Ellie gets a couple of lines in the beginning of the film when she's a kid, and then is silenced by the (again, thoroughly beautiful and moving) 20 minute montage, a montage that ends with her death. Young Ellie, for all of her 5 minutes on screen, is the only actual speaking role a main female character, partially because there is only one other main female character. And that's a bird. Named Kevin. I've probably posted before about my dislike of boys' names for girls in movies and television shows. Which I was fine with for quite a while. My antipathy for that particular practice didn't develop until I heard Bryan Fuller talk about how giving girls boys' names made them easier for him to write, that it was hard for him to write a 'girl' character. Then I had a bit of a lightbulb moment.
The lightbulb moment is this: "characters" are easy to write. "Girl characters" are not. A film about someone bringing his house to Paradise Falls and having a young stowaway who only wants his Wilderness badge is a film the Pixar people can write. A film where a girl does the same thing is not.
In many of the other blog posts about gender issues in Pixar films floating around the feminist ether, some commenter inevitably makes the point that Pixar isn't the only film studio almost exclusively living in Boysville. And that's true, but that (a) doesn't really absolve Pixar, and (b) only demonstrates exactly how prevalent this problem really is - which just reinforces the point that this is a bad and deserves to be addressed. However, the reason I'm picking on Pixar is because the films they make are so imaginative, so talented, so brilliant, so emotionally resonant, that it is all the more disappointing when they either can't or won't write a film with a main character who is a woman - and who isn't a princess. Pixar movies about boys can be chef-rats and toys and superheroes and fish and cars and old men. Pixar movies about girls - the one Pixar movie in the works about a girl - is about a princess. The juxtaposition the complex imaginings of the Pixar oeuvre with the seeming inability to imagine where women and girls fit as individual characters within that oeuvre is profoundly depressing. It is depressing because I believe if ever there was a studio that has the ability to create a universal story with a female protagonist, Pixar is that studio. It is depressing because these are children's films that continually privilege boys, making them the centers of each individual universe, and thus reinforce the idea of Male as default and Female as the other. It reinforces the idea of Woman being the Second Sex.
The Mad Typist has a run down of Pixar films and grades them accordingly in terms of how the women are portrayed, and FilthyGrandeur has another run down of the Pixar dilemma. And again, the problem isn't the films individually. It is incredibly easy to defend the decision to make a film about Flick, or Buzz and Woody, or Bob Parr, or Marlin and Nemo, or Carl and Russell, or Lightening McQueen, or Remy, or Sulley and Mike, or WALL•E. Each individual movie is great. Each individual movie can be rationalized. It is when all of the movies are taken as a group that the issue emerges. Out of the 10 movies that have been released, not one of them features a female protagonist. If we add the 3 movies in some form of production, the average goes to 1 out of 13 movies features a female protagonist. Meanwhile, one is about a newt named "Newt", which just goes further to reinforce that "male as default" thing.
Pixar, because of the power the studio commands, because of the audience their films attract (like, young ones), because of the fact that women make up more than 1/13 of the world population, need to engage in some serious corrective measures. Because as much as I love Pixar, it cuts to consistently see my gender underrepresented or outright erased from the films I pay to see. It hurts to have my gender consistently portrayed as "love interest" or "sidekick" - or both in one character. And to be perfectly frank, it's kind of pissing me off that after the wondrous ingenuity of rats who want to cook and toys who are alive (in a noncreepy way) and old men dealing with grief and life's disappointments, girls once again get the princess crap. As if "Princess" is an underrepresented genre of film for girls. As if "Princess" isn't a problematic description for little girls, if for no other reason than most little girls won't ever be one - because "princess" is something one is and not something one can work at becoming. As Monique Fields said regarding Disney's The Princess and the Frog,
Some little girls are telling anyone who will listen that they want to be princesses when they grow up. If nothing else, I expect a more ambitious and attainable goal from children who haven’t yet learned to read or write.
I have faith in Pixar. I have the expectation that I'll be going to see Pixar films in the theater much more frequently than I will see any other type of movie. I anticipate that, like Linda Holmes, I will adore The Bear and the Bow. But as much as I want Pixar to recognize that there are girls in the world and we're worth their attention, I'd also really love it if they recognized that shorthand for "girl" isn't "princess". You'd think they would have gotten that memo, after making Ellie and EVE and Violet and Dory. But apparently, they haven't yet.
45 comments:
Agree. I haven't seen Up, but this certainly mars Pixar's considerable achievements, especially as it become obvious with each consecutive film. Sadly, if their princess film either does poorly at the box office, is a stinker, or is just so different from a Pixar movie (or a combination of these), then the company will really be seen as in the tank for men and might be further scared off from incorporating female characters into lead roles.
I wouldn't downplay the importance of seeing a female lead character in children's entertainment; as a kid, I often pretended that male characters were often female, just because it felt that I could relate to them more if they were; also, it just seemed downright weird that televised and movie worlds were populated with so many boys compared to reality. I've always said it's the little things that matter and that go a long way; like having the kid in Up be Asian, having what appears on paper as a nongendered role a female does a world of difference.
The princess trend is a whole 'nother issue, and one I find quite disturbing. Since we're childless and not around young children very often, it's easy to miss stuff like this--but I can see it being very hard to escape, no matter how much you ignore it.
Sadly, if their princess film either does poorly at the box office, is a stinker, or is just so different from a Pixar movie (or a combination of these), then the company will really be seen as in the tank for men and might be further scared off from incorporating female characters into lead roles.
Yup. Catwoman Syndrome. The whole "we tried making a movie about a girl! Girls don't want to see it!" Blah on that.
like having the kid in Up be Asian, having what appears on paper as a nongendered role a female does a world of difference.
Exactly. This is where I think Pixar really proved what it could do. It has been - rightly - criticized for its lack of racial diversity in the movies featuring humans (as much as I loved Frozone, he was an incredibly minor character, and while I loved Frozone's interactions with his wife, she was kept off screen and fulfilled some stereotypes of women in general and black women in particular).
So what did they do? They made Russell Asian, they gave him a huge part, and they didn't Mulan him (in that, they made a movie about an Asian in Asia). He was a part of society, and his character came not from his apparent Asian heritage but from being a kid with divorced parents and an absent father. That was all kinds of awesome.
I do really recommend seeing Up, though. Pixar films do seem to get better and better.
I take your larger criticism of Pixar, but I think it’s unfair to prejudge The Bear and the Bow simply because the protagonist is a “princess.” You’re not the first to make this argument, obviously. But based on the brief plot description, the story is about the daughter of a Scottish king who renounces the royal lifestyle to become an archer. That doesn’t sound particularly problematic to me. In fact, I think it’s likely that Pixar is consciously riffing on the traditional Disney princess fairytale.
The The Bear and the Bowis also written and directed by a woman – Brenda Chapman – who has some pretty impressive credits to her name. And it stars two women who I’m pretty sure you love: Reese Witherspoon and Emma Thompson.
Like you said, the inclusion of Russell is evidence that Pixar responds well to criticism. So, why jump to conclusions based on a single fact about The Bear and the Bow?
But based on the brief plot description, the story is about the daughter of a Scottish king who renounces the royal lifestyle to become an archer. That doesn’t sound particularly problematic to me. In fact, I think it’s likely that Pixar is consciously riffing on the traditional Disney princess fairytale.
My problem is that there is a princess part at all. I see a lot of children's films. And girls - whether or not they want to be princesses or if they break out of the pure princess mold - are generally given the "princess" label. It is problematic that "princess" is almost an automatic when looking to make a film about a girl. There are so many films that begin (or end) with the girl as a princess, and Pixar can and does so many more imaginative projects that it is just blah that they went there with this one.
Like I said, I'm going to see The Bear and the Bow. I'm probably going to love it, as I've loved so many princess movies in the past. But there is something ubiquitous about girls as princesses, even if those girls want to be archers, and I was hoping Pixar would go a different route. Because there are enough of those stories.
So, why jump to conclusions based on a single fact about The Bear and the Bow?
I'm not jumping to conclusions. I took a tiny step, and there conclusions were /Buffy quote.
Seriously though. I've made no assumptions about The Bear and the Bow other than that it is about a princess. And that is an issue, because so many things directed toward girls is princess-heavy.
As Peggy Orenstein explained, “There are no studies proving that playing princess directly damages girls’ self-esteem or dampens other aspirations. On the other hand, there is evidence that young women who hold the most conventionally feminine beliefs — who avoid conflict and think they should be perpetually nice and pretty — are more likely to be depressed than others and less likely to use contraception.”
Princess can mean many different things, but the popular conception of “princess” has come to mean a girl who is “interested only in clothes, jewelry and cadging the handsome prince. . . .” That is a problem, I agree. And that’s exactly why a female protagonist who happens to be a princess, but is a totally different conception of what a princess can be – strong-minded, self-directed, adventure-seeking, and wholly uninterested in traditionally “girly” pursuits – isn’t problematic. It is, in fact, very refreshing.
If you have an issue with the “princess” archetype, I think you should be thrilled that Pixar may be challenging that archetype.
Perhaps the film won’t do what I think it’s going to do, but it seems to me that just judging Pixar on the fact that they chose to make another princess movie – without knowing the motivation behind that decision – may very well be missing the point.
If you have an issue with the “princess” archetype, I think you should be thrilled that Pixar may be challenging that archetype.
It isn't just the archatype. It is the overarching and prevalent visual representation of girls as princesses. It is the same problem as "girls can be anything - as long as they are conventionally attractive". Girls are presented with this idea over and over again that they are princesses - or should be. There are tons and tons of different princesses out there, from the traditional Snow White to the less traditional Jasmine. The issue is that boys get to be firefighters and chef-rats and coyboys and doctors and baseball players and fish and old men... And girls? Well, after being ignored for 10 films and getting 1 out of 13, we get the "traditional" fairy tale track - because that's the only thing anyone can decide on that appeals to girls. With all of the imagination and ingenuity, girls are still stuck in the fairy tale box. And I think its great that we're getting some kickass princesses. But they are still princesses, and girls deserve the whole line of awesome characters like boys do.
Perhaps the film won’t do what I think it’s going to do, but it seems to me that just judging Pixar on the fact that they chose to make another princess movie – without knowing the motivation behind that decision – may very well be missing the point.
And I think that focusing on the fact that Pixar will be making a different kind of princess movie is missing the larger point. The point being that princesses are ubiquitous, and that Pixar's princess film may be wonderful and/or subversive - and that is great for the individual film. But just like the Pixar film catalogue, where each individual film is wonderful and can be defended but when taken as a group something foul in the state of Denmark emerges, taken with the whole of princess offerings, it is still disappointing and still is an issue.
And the princess issue is only heightened by how long it has taken for a girl protagonist to come up on the Pixar radar. It lends to the feeling that boys can be rats or old men or cars or monsters, and can open a movie. But girls? Well, they get the fairy tale.
As usual, I think we’re talking past each other.
I’ve already conceded the broader point – that 13 films without a female protagonist is far too many.
The problem is I don’t think that a film that satirizes – or works to correct – something should be held up as evidence of the same. Princesses may be ubiquitous, but that’s a perfect reason to redefine what “princess” means with a nontraditional storyline about a nontraditional princess. It is precisely because girls are constantly told that they are princesses that it makes sense to co-opt that idea.
“Princess” doesn’t necessarily have to define who the heroine is - and that could very well be the message of the film.
If the movie portrays was I think it will, we can just as easily take away from it that a girl could be a firefighter, a mechanic or an archer – even if she (by change) happens to be a princess.
*by chance
The problem is I don’t think that a film that satirizes – or works to correct – something should be held up as evidence of the same. Princesses may be ubiquitous, but that’s a perfect reason to redefine what “princess” means with a nontraditional storyline about a nontraditional princess. It is precisely because girls are constantly told that they are princesses that it makes sense to co-opt that idea.
My point is that (a) some princess films have already done this, and (b) more than redefining the princess archatype, girls deserve and should have a broader set of characters than the princess - even if the princess doesn't want to be a princess or isn't a traditional princess or works against the norms of a princess. Hell, Fiona from Shrek does a lot of that.
The fact is, it certainly feels like movies for little girls focus on the princess thing, even if that focus is an attempt to demonstrate that princesses can embody a whole host of different roles. But what girls need is for there to be nonprincesses embodying a whole host of different roles. Boys aren't generally portrayed as princes-plus. But many girl characters are portrayed as princesses-plus. And that is a problem, because it doesn't allow for girls to be girls. It doesn't allow for girls to not be princesses.
And it feels like after 12 films without a female lead, Pixar is just adding to the princess mentality. That after making boy rats and boy toys and boy robots, the only story they could find to tell with a girl at the lead was one that plays into the traditional stories we place girls in, even if their eventual story will be a reimagining of that traditional tale.
RE: The princess-plus thing -
I don't think there is any better example than halloween costumes. Boys get pirates; girls get princess pirates. There's no need for that princess delineation, and yet it is there.
So princess movies are not a problem insomuch as they are about princesses. Princess movies are only a problem because there is a dearth of other films representing nonprincesses.
And what makes it upsetting in terms of Pixar is that they are so good about creating inclusive imaginary worlds, it sucks to see the girl get the 'ordinary' track when girls deserve much more.
I don’t think it’s true that girls can only be princeses – they can also be Bratz.
Seriously, though, I get your point, but I don’t think there is any evidence that this kind of self-directed, self-sufficient princess is harmful to young girls. I understand that you have a problem with “princess” as a defining attribute for girls, but I don’t think it necessarily has to be here – especially if Pixar consciously shows that it is not the defining attribute of its heroine.
The problem with the “princess” culture is that it typically gets wrapped up with tired old gender norms. But that doesn’t have to be the case. In my view, princess mania is fine – culturally and psychologically – as long as young girls realize that they’re not confined by these archetypes, and as long as these archetypes reinforce a positive self-perception.
I think you’re saying that their ubiquity is what makes those archetypes confining – regardless of what they come to represent. I don’t agree with that, but I think this involves much broader questions about the nature of free choice and socialization.
And I doubt we’ll agree on any of those questions.
Seriously, though, I get your point, but I don’t think there is any evidence that this kind of self-directed, self-sufficient princess is harmful to young girls.
I don't think it matters if it is harmful or not to young girls. It can only be better if there are more options than just princess, no matter what else may be tacked onto that description.
Imagine a world in which a man was almost always a prince. No matter what else he wanted to be or do or was, he was first and foremost a prince. And most of the time, he was depicted in the princely outfit. He could be a prince policeman, a prince fireman, a prince lawyer along with just being a prince - but the primary tag was prince. That may not be overtly harmful. But the idea that everything falls under the category of "prince" would become homogenous. No matter what else you could be, you would also be a prince.
The whole thing is that being a prince isn't bad. There's nothing wrong with having a category of books or movies about princes and prince police and prince firemen or prince mailmen or prince ballet dancers. But there is something wrong if there are very few popular examples of just mailmen or just firemen or just ballet dancers.
But the fact is, that isn't the world we live in. And though I very rarely play this card, I don't think you can really get it - because you haven't been exposed to a world where your gender is almost always a prince, and until recently have only been allowed to be just a prince.
Which is why I brought up the physical attraction thing. Girls can be anything - as long as they're also cute. Girls can be anything - as long as they're also princesses. There isn't anything wrong with a girl who wants to be a princess - aside from the fact that she will in all probability never be one except to her own family. There is something wrong with making a world where being a princess is almost a requirement in order to be anything else.
awesome article. and thanks for linking me!
What the heck is a princess pirate?
A couple of things: I understand what both of you are saying, and I do agree with both of your points—I can see exactly why Pixar would do a princess movie in this vein, to spin the story around in a way that Disney does not do (disclaimer: I haven’t seen Mulan); for all we know, that’s one of the major reasons it was greenlighted, as well as why it’s so problematic that this had to be the case.
However, I do think the ubiquity of princesses and princess mania is a bad thing—and I’ve read the few Times articles on the subject, one of which Mikhail linked to—because some girls pick up that “princess” attitude, and it becomes all about them. Yes, there are many girls who would still have that expectation without the exposure, but with princess splashed across everything, their prissy mindset only becomes more dominated with the reinforcement that princess is something to aspire to and that it will win them admirers, a notion I detest.
I do also think, unfortunately, that sometimes, you just need to experience it to get it, and this is one of those times—you just need to be a girl (maybe our type of girl), to understand it completely.
disclaimer: I haven’t seen Mulan
I was going to mention this: Mulan isn't a princess movie. Mulan is a country girl, and her love interest is a general. And yet, Mulan gets pulled into the pantheon of Disney Princesses.
for all we know, that’s one of the major reasons it was greenlighted, as well as why it’s so problematic that this had to be the case.
That is a good point.
I don't have the same disdain for princesses or princessy girls you do.
But at the same time, I don't see that much of a difference in the mindset where girls don't need their own movies - and what about teh boyz - and the mindset where its okay for a majority of girl stuff to have a princess touch - because what about those princessy girls?
There are girls who aren't princesses, and there are girls who are princesses who deserve something else to see as well.
Oh, and thanks, FilthyGrandeur, for stopping by! Glad you liked the post.
I realize we’re looking at this from different vantage points, but let me just address a few things:
First, I don’t think it’s true that virtually every female protagonist is a princess. As you said, even Mulan – one of the most recent films in the Disney Princess franchise – did not focus on a princess. Lots of children’s entertainment focuses on girls who are not princesses – from movies like Lilo and Stitch and The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants to shows like The Powerpuff Girls. Pixar has had a number of prominently featured female characters who were decidedly not princesses – even though I agree (for the third time) that it’s troublesome none of these females had lead roles. I’m not trying to deny that the “princess” theme is pervasive; I’m just saying that female characters are not as monolithic as you’re suggesting.
Second, it’s funny you mention it because I initially approached this question from the opposite perspective. If every male protagonist was a prince, I honestly don’t think I would see any problem with it and I certainly don’t think it would be harmful to me. Obviously, I can’t fully empathize with you and, even if I could, the situation wouldn’t be quite the same. But this is a point that I considered very carefully. You’re right that I’m not girl, but it’s funny that MediaMaven qualified that comment by adding “our kind of girl.” I’ve talked to a number of other girls about this and most of them do not have a problem with princess mania – or at least not the same problem that you have with the ubiquity of princess protagonists. You may charge that these women are conditioned to think a certain way, but I think that would be a pretty unfair (and easily reversible) claim. I know a number of women who agree with me, so saying that I can’t understand because I’m a man is kind of a weak and reductive argument – even if there is some truth to it.
Third, there is a larger question here about what’s actually driving princess mania. We’re not going to agree on this issue because we have different views on socialization and the impact of mass media. I think the ubiquity of the princess theme comes from the wild success of the Disney Princess franchise, and other franchises that have tried to capitalize on Disney’s success. But I don’t know what’s driving that success – and I don’t think we’ll see eye-to-eye here. You place strong emphasis on the degree to which socialization compels certain behavior. But the evidence on this is really mixed. If you look at girls with congenital adrenal hyperplasia, for example, they’re much more likely to prefer “boys’ toys.” And in animals, gender dimorphism is just as pronounced as in humans. I’m sure you’re aware of all of this, and I’m sure you can point to lots of evidence to support your viewpoint. I’m sure that you think I often place too little emphasis on socialization – but, in general, I just believe that it’s really hard to properly examine causes and effects when it comes to gender norms. I think you make too many self-serving assumptions; I’m sure you’d say that I do the same, and that I’m too eager to dismiss socialization as a primary cause of most gender inconsistencies.
Fourth, I should say (because I don’t say this enough) that while I tend to disagree with you on many of these issues, I do respect your opinion. Please don’t take that to be some sort of condescension on my part. I do think that there are a lot of things that I would easily disregard if you didn’t challenge me to take a broader look. So, thank you for that.
I was going to mention this: Mulan isn't a princess movie. Mulan is a country girl, and her love interest is a general. And yet, Mulan gets pulled into the pantheon of Disney Princesses.
First, I don’t think it’s true that virtually every female protagonist is a princess. As you said, even Mulan – one of the most recent films in the Disney Princess franchise – did not focus on a princess. Lots of children’s entertainment focuses on girls who are not princesses – from movies like Lilo and Stitch and The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants to shows like The Powerpuff Girls. Pixar has had a number of prominently featured female characters who were decidedly not princesses – even though I agree (for the third time) that it’s troublesome none of these females had lead roles. I’m not trying to deny that the “princess” theme is pervasive; I’m just saying that female characters are not as monolithic as you’re suggesting.
In my last comment, I originally had something about how Disney likes to group non-Princess stories into the princess realm—and that includes Mulan, Pocahontas, and Ariel. I guess Ariel is technically a princess, but as someone who loves the movie, I never noticed that at all. To Disney, it’s more of a marketing tactic, a mythology, a commonness that binds many traditional Disney characters, and Disney, as I see it, is trying to show there are different kinds of princesses, one for each girl to identify with, a not uncommon strategy when it comes to entertainment.
The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants isn’t really “children’s entertainment”—it’s tween and teen; Lilo & Stitch and The Powerpuff Girls, like many of the other entertainments discussed here, are meant for a younger audience. (I know there is a large crossover/adult appeal to many Pixar movies, even some Disney films, but at least with Disney and their princess line, they are designed nearly exclusively for a young demographic.) If we’re talking about children, or young children, I draw a distinction between the two, since while entertainment choices overlap, there is a distinct culture among each group.
Third, there is a larger question here about what’s actually driving princess mania. We’re not going to agree on this issue because we have different views on socialization and the impact of mass media. I think the ubiquity of the princess theme comes from the wild success of the Disney Princess franchise, and other franchises that have tried to capitalize on Disney’s success. But I don’t know what’s driving that success – and I don’t think we’ll see eye-to-eye here.
I agree that the Disney Princess line accelerated the trend. But a lot of it is that there are just very girly girls out there, especially when really young, and Disney tapped into a certain mindset and exploited it. I personally never thought of being a princess as a child because it seemed so preposterous, and I didn’t have that mindset (even that I was the princess in my own family), because, again, if I had been asked to consciously think about it I would find it absolutely ridiculous. But I can certainly be incredibly girly if surrounded by the right people and in the right circumstance. I do think certain common female traits are exploited by the princess phenomena—and that might be less about socialization that about inherent gender differences. But I also think about the princess mania as it extends into the tween, teen, and young adult segments—all those princess t-shirts and Victoria’s Secret lines, and those make me cringe just as much—where does that come from? Is it just an outgrowth of what’s already existed? Luckily, that’s been fading, but for a few years, it was very hard not to find clothes that didn’t proclaim to the world what kind of girl you were (and the choices were limited).
But at the same time, I don't see that much of a difference in the mindset where girls don't need their own movies - and what about teh boyz - and the mindset where its okay for a majority of girl stuff to have a princess touch - because what about those princessy girls?
There are girls who aren't princesses, and there are girls who are princesses who deserve something else to see as well.
You don't see a difference here? I don't quite understand.
The reason I mentioned The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants is because I know that a lot of young girls in my mother’s aftercare love the movie. It’s rated PG, but you’re probably right that it’s not really a “children’s movie.”
Maybe Monsters v. Aliens would’ve been a better suggestion, but I’ve never seen it that one. I know the main character is a female.
There are actually a few recent children’s movies with female protagonists – like Kit Kittredge: An American Girl, which has been really popular with young girls. There are actually a few movies based on the American Girl dolls, all of them with female protagonists (obviously) who are definitely not princesses.
I've also never seen Harriet the Spy or Matilda (although I loved the book), but these are two more examples from around the time we were kids.
I've actually never read Harriet the Spy (meant to, never happened), and Matilda the movie is quite excellent too (as is The Witches, another fave of mine), although somewhat different than the book.
I'd also add Because of Winn-Dixie to that list.
As you said, even Mulan – one of the most recent films in the Disney Princess franchise – did not focus on a princess.
And yet, in marketing the character after the fact, she was in fact appropriated by the princess line.
If every male protagonist was a prince, I honestly don’t think I would see any problem with it and I certainly don’t think it would be harmful to me.
Here's the thing: I don't necessarily think the princess meme is all that harmful for girls. What I think is harmful is the fact that "princess" is the go-to narrative the dominant culture (especially in the world of entertainment) goes to for girls.
I like princesses. I own every single Disney Princess movie. I watch Ever After whenever I see it on. I watch Enchanted whenever I see it on.
The problem isn't that there is a lot of princess items out there. It is that "princess" is ubiquitous, and when you are going to make a movie for girls - and haven't done it before - it is insulting to automatically reach into the princess bag of tricks.
For a company to go from a history of no female protagonist to a traditional venue to present a female protagonist is rather arg inducing for me, for a variety of reasons. But it isn't that I hate princesses or princessy girls. I don't think there's anything inherently harmful about princesses or princessy girls. I just think that those princesses and princessy girls have a market all to themselves, and it would be nothing but good to present a wider variety of girls - and that it is extremely disappointing for a company that has shown as much imagination as Pixar has to go to the traditional story - if not traditional narrative - when it does do a female- centered film.
I should also say that some of this irritation is toward a story that could be told without the "princess" element. Like, Xena: Warrior Princess. Why was she a princess? Sailor Moon and the Sailor Scouts. Wonder Woman, Amazon Princess. Storm from X-Men - princess. In areas where there is no need for the designation "princess" to be there, it's shoved in - sometimes after the fact, like in the case of Mulan. That's annoying. It feels like most of these (with the exception of Sailor Moon) are saying, "Girls aren't cool enough on their own. Fighting and brawling and having cool powers? Not enough to be worth an interest. What they need to have is some sort of title that makes it clear why they're special and that they're special. What could that be? Oh yeah, princess!"
I mean, Superman didn't need to be prince of Krypton to be interesting. And none of the other Pixar characters had to be princes to get their movies. Being "normal" (albeit toys and monsters and fish) was more than enough to get movies made about them.
I'm pretty sure Jor-El ruled over Krypon, so Superman was basically a prince -- or, at least, the spoiled son of the president.
Seriously, though, I don't really understand your point. You said that you don't think the princess "meme" is harmful, but you think that princess as the "go-to narrative" is harmful? But don't filmmakers go to that narrative because of the princess "meme"?
If princess mania isn't harmful, I don't see why it's insulting for filmmakers to rely something that's so popular. Clearly, they're trying to make money because there is a strong market for this kind of thing.
Why not blame the vast array of girls who like princesses, rather than the studio that caters to them?
I'm pretty sure Jor-El ruled over Krypon, so Superman was basically a prince -- or, at least, the spoiled son of the president.
Nope, Jor-El was a scientist, which is how he managed to pod his baby son off of the planet Krypton as it was destroyed. /geekout
You said that you don't think the princess "meme" is harmful, but you think that princess as the "go-to narrative" is harmful?
I don't think princesses, individually, are harmful. I have no ire at individual princess films; there are some that are incredibly mired in traditional gender roles, and I can critique that. But in general, a princess film isn't going to be getting me all worried about the girls.
What becomes an issue is the sheer amount of princess films, clothing, etc. Even now, or especially now because when I was little I was never dressed in princess-wear or pink, children's clothing is incredibly gendered. Girls get pink and princesses and pastels, and boys get primary colors and actual job descriptions. What becomes an issue is when 'princess' becomes the default position for what girls are and what girls like.
It is the difference between enjoying chocolate and thinking that maybe a diet shouldn't be mostly chocolate.
Why not blame the vast array of girls who like princesses, rather than the studio that caters to them?
One, because I'm not going to blame children for liking what is presented to them - just like I'm not going to blame a child if s/he gorges on smores or McDonalds or anything else. If I were to blame anyone, it would be the parents of those children.
And two, because princessy girls go see other movies, and love them. There is a reason why Pixar rules the roost, and that is because girls can and do go to and enjoy movies that aren't about princesses (boys too, but that's almost a given). Given that, I'm going to say that girls will go see movies that aren't about princesses. So, really not their fault.
[NERD]According to Wikipedia, Jor-El was a scientists AND the leader of the planet Krypton.[/NERD]
But the question in terms of marketing is whether girls will be more likely to see a movie with a princess protagonist. If more girls would be attracted to this kind of film, studios will be more likely to produce movies with princesses. I don't think it's fair to get angry at the company for trying to make money off of things that individual consumers value. If enough consumers said, "We don't want any more princess films," Pixar probably wouldn't make a princess film.
Again, we're not going to agree on this because I think you believe that princess culture is basically force-fed to girls through mass media. But it's impossible to know what's really driving this cultural phenomenon that studios are so eager to tap into.
Was princess culture created by Disney and other corporations, or was it something that was freely chosen by young girls? We can't know the answer to this question, and we'll probably interpret the evidence differently.
Again, we're not going to agree on this because I think you believe that princess culture is basically force-fed to girls through mass media.
Jeremy, please stop telling me what I think.
What I think is that whether or not girls are "force-fed" princess culture, it is nothing but a good to have an expansion of the pantheon of nonprincess female characters. I don't think anyone can argue that there aren't enough fictional princesses in the world to look up to, especially since the Disney movie vault is full of them.
What I do know is that "princess" is the traditionally girly product - along with domestic things like easy bake oven and dollhouses.
What I do know if that there is a hella lot of princess stuff out there.
What I do think is that after 10 films produced and 13 films in total, it is annoying to have that first female film be the traditional product.
What I do think is that it is an example of imaginative laziness to make your first girl protagonist film a princess film.
What I do think is that girls deserve more than princess films and clothing - even if that princess film is in some way meant to demonstrate a radicalization of what a princess is and what a princess can do.
But the question in terms of marketing is whether girls will be more likely to see a movie with a princess protagonist. If more girls would be attracted to this kind of film, studios will be more likely to produce movies with princesses.
That right there is a problem. Pixar makes movies for "children", until it is a movie with a girl protagonist. Then they are making a film for girls.
I want a movie for children with girl protagonists. I want a movie that universalizes girl experiences in the same way other Pixar films universalize boy experiences. If Pixar is suddenly worried about what kind of film girls are going to want to see, instead of worrying about what kind of film children are going to want to see, then they've already lost.
I don't think it's fair to get angry at the company for trying to make money off of things that individual consumers value. If enough consumers said, "We don't want any more princess films," Pixar probably wouldn't make a princess film.
Am I not a consumer of Pixar films? Do I not have a right to say, "I don't want the first Pixar film about a girl to be a princess film"?
If not, then which consumers do get to make that argument?
First, I wasn't telling you what you think. I was telling you what I interpreted from your argument (which is why I qualified my statement by saying, "I think you believe"). You can simply tell me, "no, you're misinterpreting what I'm saying." I'm not trying to pigeonhole you; I'm just trying to figure out your underlying beliefs, which are unclear to me.
Second, you can certainly make the argument that Pixar is doing the wrong thing. I'm not saying that you shouldn't.
But in an age of cluster analysis and advanced choice modeling, I think that you potentially going to see a movie with princess protagonist means more to the studio than your railing against it on your blog.
So, why not direct your ire at the consumers who make these choices?
Shouldn't those consumers who are exceptionally disappointed with Pixar's decisions publically boycott their films? A boycott would probably mean much more to the studio than a blurb on NPR.
It just seems abusrd to me that you're saying you have such a huge problem with this, but you're still going to see the movie and you'll probably love it. Think of this from the perspective of a profit-driven studio.
First, I wasn't telling you what you think. I was telling you what I interpreted from your argument (which is why I qualified my statement by saying, "I think you believe"). You can simply tell me, "no, you're misinterpreting what I'm saying." I'm not trying to pigeonhole you; I'm just trying to figure out your underlying beliefs, which are unclear to me.
I'm sorry I flipped out there. I misinterpreted what you were saying.
It just seems abusrd to me that you're saying you have such a huge problem with this, but you're still going to see the movie and you'll probably love it. Think of this from the perspective of a profit-driven studio.
Here's the thing:
It's really not that hard to understand, and it isn't absurd.
Look at MM's first comment on the thread. Or I'll just quote it for you:
Sadly, if their princess film either does poorly at the box office, is a stinker, or is just so different from a Pixar movie (or a combination of these), then the company will really be seen as in the tank for men and might be further scared off from incorporating female characters into lead roles.
Even if there is a massive boycott, if there haven't been boycotts for the films about boys, then it comes down to scaring off a company making a movie about girls.
Secondly, as I've said before, there is a difference between hating an individual film (which I'm not doing), and wanting something more from my films. I don't hate Toy Story; I don't hate Up; and you said you understood how one could love those films and still be disappointed there was no girl protagonist. Well! What is the difference between that, and disliking how the first thing with a girl protagonist is the go-to girl narrative, with perhaps a different storyline?
And third, I can think of the studio's need for profit and still wonder why the fuck they're making a movie "for girls" when every other movie has been "for children". I can still be upset that they're trying to maximize their profits by driving all this girls who theoretically don't see Pixar films to see this particular Pixar film.
Do you think boys are going to be lining up down the block to see this film? If not, why? If not, how does that affect Pixar's profit margins?
Do you think this is going to be the "girl" Pixar film? If so, why? And if so, how do you think alienating one half of their audience is going to help with the books?
Seriously, it seems absurd to me that you can't see how making a film "for girls" is still problematic, and it seems absurd to me that for you, its a zero-sum game. Am I upset by this? Yes. Was I upset that the last 10 of Pixar's pictures were all about guys? YES! Did I go see those movies? Yes. It is possible to love a product, and still critique it. It is possible to still love a product, and still criticize it. In fact, it is imperative for me to care, because if I don't care then I won't devise ways the product could be better.
I don't think this is necessarily a film “for girls.” I’m not sure if I said something that implies that, but that’s not what I think. Here is Disney's Press Release:
“A rugged and mythic Scotland is the setting for Pixar's action-adventure ‘The Bear and the Bow.’ The impetuous, tangle-haired Merida, though a daughter of royalty, would prefer to make her mark as a great archer. A clash of wills with her mother compels Merida to make a reckless choice, which unleashes unintended peril on her father's kingdom and her mother's life. Merida struggles with the unpredictable forces of nature, magic and a dark, ancient curse to set things right. Director Brenda Chapman (‘The Prince of Egypt,’ ‘The Lion King’) and the storytelling wizards of Pixar conjure humor, fantasy and excitement in this rich Highland tale.”
That doesn't sound to me like a film “for girls.” I can't speak for the rest of my gender, but it's certainly something that I would want to see.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think you're misinterpreting something that I said. It's true that market research tends to break consumers up into different demographic groups, but that doesn't mean the final product appeals to only one demographic group. You can look at different preferences among different demographic groups and then create a film that caters to a number of those preferences. I think you can expand your market appeal without sacrificing customers.
And I’m sure that Pixar has done this kind of market research with all of its films – which is why Pixar’s movies aren’t just “children’s movies.” They tend to be geared toward all different age levels and all different groups of people. But they usually have some specific details that target specific demographic groups. I think it’s a huge leap to assume that a movie is “for girls” simply because the protagonist is the “daughter of royalty.” It’s true that detail may be in the movie because it tested well with girls, or it could have nothing to do with that. But, either way, I don’t think it’s a deal breaker for boys.
You asked: “[Y]ou said you understood how one could love those films and still be disappointed there was no girl protagonist. Well! What is the difference between that, and disliking how the first thing with a girl protagonist is the go-to girl narrative, with perhaps a different storyline?”
I think this is precisely where we tend to differ, which is why I was trying to get you to explain your larger beliefs – so that I didn’t mischaracterize your viewpoint. To me, the fact that you don’t see a clear distinction between these two kinds of criticism is very telling. I think there are two different kinds of sexism that you’re alleging here – the first is an example of what we might call “idiosyncratic sexism” (a pattern of sexism within the context of Pixar’s own film catalogue), while the second is an example of “systemic sexism” (a pattern of sexism within the context of society). To allege sexism in the first example, you need look no further than Pixar’s film collection. But to allege sexism in the second example, you have to draw on a larger narrative about society and “princess culture.”
We tend to disagree on the larger narrative, which is (I think) why we differ on this second point. But clearly we can both look at the fact that Pixar has produced 10 films without a single female protagonist and agree that that is sexist.
You wrote, “It is possible to love a product, and still critique it? Yes. It is possible to still love a product, and still criticize it? Yes. In fact, it is imperative for me to care, because if I don't care then I won't devise ways the product could be better.”
Fair enough. That was a cheap shot. I reread what I wrote and it sounded very much like the “If you don’t like America, leave!” argument that I find so troubling. Apologies.
I think it’s a huge leap to assume that a movie is “for girls” simply because the protagonist is the “daughter of royalty.”
And yet, you've said,
But the question in terms of marketing is whether girls will be more likely to see a movie with a princess protagonist.
Which lends to the idea that girls are the target audience of a princess film, and that Pixar (and other companies making princess films) is making this film to attract a larger girl audience.
I see no evidence that Pixar's audience hasn't heretofore been made up of girls. Certainly, most of the theaters I've been in when seeing Pixar films have a good mix of boys and girls. So making a princess movie to best attract a girl audience, for a Pixar film, seems like a weak argument to bring into the bigger picture.
. I think there are two different kinds of sexism that you’re alleging here – the first is an example of what we might call “idiosyncratic sexism” (a pattern of sexism within the context of Pixar’s own film catalogue), while the second is an example of “systemic sexism” (a pattern of sexism within the context of society).
The first is also a case of systemic sexism, in which male is universal and female is specific; but overall, my point isn't about the sexist nature of princess films. Are princess films inherently sexist? Some, yes. But my real problem with both the 10 films without a female protagonist and a revisitation of a tired narrative is this: it is profoundly unimaginative. Forget about sexism - though it is present in case one, I can't yet argue about it being present in case two, aside from the fact that having one narrative so thoroughly tied to a gender would be.
The problem I have is that for the first film with a girl protagonist, the narrative they've chosen to tell that tale through is tired and done countless times before. The problem I have with 10 films without a female protagonist is that it is a complete lack of imagination. Likewise, the problem I have with The Bear and the Bow is the lack of imagination the narrative presents. Is there an (hopefully) unconscious sexism present in this lack of imagination? I'd argue, on a larger scale, yes. Much like I'd argue that everyone is sexist to one degree or another, and that to try and separate what the media contributes and what individuals contribute is a gordian knot unable to be solved.
But on the smaller scale, beyond sexism, is the fact that one of the best parts of Pixar, for me, is the imaginative ways they tell stories and the stories they tell - focusing on a man's midlife crisis, or an old man's grief; putting their action in oceans and in toy boxes. This isn't an imaginative way to tell a story.
I thought I already addressed this comment: “But the question in terms of marketing is whether girls will be more likely to see a movie with a princess protagonist.” (I really should’ve said “certain girls.”)
It seems like you’re setting up a false dichotomy here – or at least misinterpreting what I’m saying. There aren’t simply “princess films” and “non-princess films.” The Princess Bride is a good example of a movie that features a princess but clearly isn’t only “for girls.”
The “princess protagonist” may be more attractive to a certain demographic of girls who have – in the aggregate – been less likely to see Pixar’s films. But Pixar doesn’t have to make this a “princess movie” for girls. Reading the plot summary, it doesn’t seem that the girl’s royal birth is at all the focus of the movie. So, the fact that the film features a princess may make it more attractive to certain girls who do not represent Pixar’s traditional audience, but that doesn’t necessarily make it unattractive to Pixar’s traditional audience.
I’m just speculating here, mind you. I don’t know what Pixar’s market research says, and I don’t know what the market segmentation looks like. But I don’t think you can generalize your movie-going experience. Just because you know (or have seen) lots of girls who love Pixar films doesn’t mean that this is universally true. Perhaps there is a certain group of girls who have been more likely to see traditional Disney films, but less likely to see Pixar films. This may be the audience that Pixar is trying to capture.
You said, “This isn't an imaginative way to tell a story.” But I don’t see how you can know that since you’ve only read a three-sentence summary of the film. You seem to be arguing that the mere fact of the protagonist’s royal birth – the fact that she is a princess, no matter how peripheral that fact is to the storyline – makes this film inherently unimaginative. I don’t agree with that.
You said, “This isn't an imaginative way to tell a story.” But I don’t see how you can know that since you’ve only read a three-sentence summary of the film. You seem to be arguing that the mere fact of the protagonist’s royal birth – the fact that she is a princess, no matter how peripheral that fact is to the storyline – makes this film inherently unimaginative.
No, I'm saying that the framing of the story - the fact that the protagonist is, in point of fact, a princess - is unimaginative framing. The story itself could be - and probably will be - fun and funny and sweet and cool and what-have-you.
But one of the things that has set Pixar apart, for me, is the way they choose to frame the stories. They have stories about a man going through a midlife crisis - and make him a superhero. The tell a story of an old man grieving the death of his spouse and trying to fulfill the promise he made to her - by flying his house through balloons and a weathervane to South America. Princess-Who-Doesn't-Want-To-Be? Not in that arena of imaginative framings of the tale being told.
There aren’t simply “princess films” and “non-princess films.” The Princess Bride is a good example of a movie that features a princess but clearly isn’t only “for girls.”
The Princess Bride also doesn't really focus all or even most of its energy on Buttercup the character. It is about her as an object. Even in a movie called The Princess Bride, she's not really a huge part of the film. She's not active, and she's not reactive. She's the prize to be won at the end when the good guys defeat the bad guys. After her jump from the ship, she doesn't try to escape and she doesn't aid in her escape.
But I don’t think you can generalize your movie-going experience.
And I don't think you can postulate on what girls go to see and what they don't go to see, unless you have some sort of research to back it up. Unless I see a study telling me that certain girl populations - not individual girls, but whole specific swaths of them - aren't going to see Pixar films or are less likely to, then your speculations are even more baseless than my in-theater observations, and exist merely to back up the point you are arguing and the point you believe to be true. Which, I have to say, is a bit of a problem for me, in terms of granting your premise any real weight.
I'm starting to lose track of what we're even arguing about.
You say that "the framing of the story -- the fact that the protagonist is, in point of fact, a princess -- is unimaginative framing."
I think that this is a weak, reductionist criticism. It's like saying that the framing of Scrubs -- the fact that it's just another hospital show from the perspective of a doctor -- is unimaginative framing. But Scrubs isn't unimaginative, so what's the point of leveling this criticism?
The framing of Ratatouille was also very conventional -- there are tons of children's stories from the perspective of rats, mice, and other rodents -- but the story itself was very creative.
You repeatedly cited Ratatouille as an example of Pixar's past creativity.
...
In your original post, you wrote that "princess" is a "problematic description for little girls, if for no other reason than most little girls won't ever be one - because 'princess' is something one is and not something one can work at becoming."
But isn't this true of virtually all Pixar characters? Can one work at becoming a fish? Or a superhero? Or a robot? Or a toy? Or a car? Or a monster?
And why did you describe The Incredibles as a story about a man going through a midlife crisis who is a superhero? Why is he a man first and a superhero second?
...
There is a ton of research on market segmenation and gender demograhics among movie-goers. Nielsen, for example, does a lot of it.
If you're asking me to produce something specifically related to Pixar, I obviously can't because studios don't usually release their market research to the public.
As I said, I'm offering a theory, based on what I know about market research. I don't think that what I'm saying about flim marketing is even controversial. Big studios clearly do this sort of thing.
But isn't this true of virtually all Pixar characters? Can one work at becoming a fish? Or a superhero? Or a robot? Or a toy? Or a car? Or a monster?
Sure; there is a difference, though, in how we as a society frame these things - and how many viewpoints and characters we see. For instance, we generally don't see "Daddy's Little Fish" represented on clothing. "Daddy's Little Princess"? Yes. We don't have a society that privileges those who act like cars. We do have a society that privileges girls who act like princesses.
We don't have a society that relegates boys to only a few boxes. Are there boxes boys aren't allowed to play in? Yes. Is that sexist? Yes. Am I against that? Yes.
But there aren't as many boxes we celebrate for girls. Even now, there is a delineation in what is celebrated, and what is accepted. What girls are expected to do and like and be, and what they can do and like and be. There is a reason girls who do nongirlish things are harassed. There is a reason a recent study came out finding that "white males got higher customer satisfaction ratings than women or people of color, whether they were doctors, university bookstore employees, or staffers at a golf course", and "when women and minorities perform better, they actually get lower performance ratings and are perceived more negatively."
So as much as it may seem simple to compare and contrast how the genders are represented in terms of fantastical creations, there is a marked difference in how each gender is represented as a whole, and how those representations in the larger sense play out in terms of how we frame gender and gender questions.
But even in a simple compare and contrast, if a great many movies that came out for children involved one of those things - stories about cars, about rats, etc., if there was an entire studio whose film vault is largely made up of that particular narrative and frame - then it would be a problem of lack of imagination. And it would be a problem if little kids were positioned to see themselves as cars or rats or what-have-you. But that isn't the case.
As I said, I'm offering a theory, based on what I know about market research. I don't think that what I'm saying about flim marketing is even controversial. Big studios clearly do this sort of thing.
And I'm offering a theory as well, and critiquing yours.
Both are based on tangental evidence. Both are generalized from what we know about the films and film industry in general, without firm evidentiary support in this specific case.
I'm going to say this; I think MM said it best when she said,
like having the kid in Up be Asian, having what appears on paper as a nongendered role a female does a world of difference.
Russell's character wasn't based on his being Asian. But being a princess is firmly rooted in being a girl, even if that girl in question wants to be an archer.
You repeatedly cited Ratatouille as an example of Pixar's past creativity.
Because rat-chef is a lot more imaginative than princess-(job title here).
You said, "there is a difference, though, in how we as a society frame these things . . . ."
Again, we don't agree on this larger social narrative. I think your narrative dramatically oversimplifies things, fails to address root causes, and conventiently ignores evidence to the contrary.
I don't see the fact that Pixar hasn't had a male protagonist as an example of "systemic sexism." I see it as an example of "idiosyncratic sexism."
This was my original point. Your argument seems to rest on much more fundamental premises. We don't see eye-to-eye on the basic accuracy of those premises.
So, we probably need to have a much longer conversation about those more fundamental issues before we can even begin to address specific examples.
Also, do you have a link to that study? I'm not disputing you; I'm curious about the methodology and the details.
I second to seeing the link to the study. I have not heard that and I am very curious.
Even now, there is a delineation in what is celebrated, and what is accepted. What girls are expected to do and like and be, and what they can do and like and be. There is a reason girls who do nongirlish things are harassed.
This statement is too general; it's pretty easy to argue either way. I'd argue that so much of what girls face now is based upon the myriad choices they can be and want to be, not what they can't. I don't know how likely it is that girls who aren't girlish get teased; this might be likelier when one is young, but a lot of progress has been made, and a statement like this is a vast oversimplification.
Part of the problem here is that I think that Pixar consistently plays on archetypes.
The idea of dolls and toys coming to life isn't a particularly creative framing, in my view. It's been done so many times -- it's a classic archetype.
The superhero movie is anther traditional archetype. The framing of Ratatouille isn't unique either. The framing of Nemo is a bit more unique, but the story is built off of The Odyssey.
Pixar tends to use very traditional story types, which is why I don't think it's strange for them to make a fantasy movie about a princess -- even if that is a traditional framing, the story will likely be unique.
Again, I think we disagree on this issue because of more fundamental differences about "society."
I think your narrative dramatically oversimplifies things, fails to address root causes, and conventiently ignores evidence to the contrary.
These boxes do have a limit on the amount one can type, you know. ;-D
I've simplified things in these comments for that reason. I also think that you have perhaps the very same tendency to ignore evidence to the contrary.
I'm not convinced in nature vs. nurture arguments for either side. I'm not convinced because of things like the recent American Life episode with the two women switched at birth. I'm not convinced because of the measured difference in people's reactions to babies whether they're coded as boys or as girls. And I'm not convinced because my own experience has taught me that being red-headed and tiny and girlish-looking has profoundly influenced how I interact with the world, and what I expect from it. A lot of my personality may be ingrained; but if I had the physical characteristics of my sister, my expectations, the way I interact with the world, etc. would change - even subtly - because the way people around me would react.
This statement is too general; it's pretty easy to argue either way. I'd argue that so much of what girls face now is based upon the myriad choices they can be and want to be, not what they can't.
Unfortunately, it's really not:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6518362.html
That's merely one example of a trend. Girls are told they can do anything - though I would argue there are still certain caveats to that - and when they go to do it, they oftentimes face harassment, they face alienation, and they face having their concerns being disregarded. One of those two women in the article has been harassed for the two years she has been working there. That's a problem, and an example.
The article I got the quotes in my previous post is this one:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2009/07/06/subtle_and_stubborn_race_bias/
Trying that again:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2009/07/06/subtle_and_stubborn_race_bias/
Damn!
Post a Comment