Soccer Dad

What's wrong with princesses

In her article, "What's wrong with Cinderella?" author Peggy Orenstein squares off against the marketing of "princesses." After noting the oddity that baby blue and pink have switched gender assignments

When colors were first introduced to the nursery in the early part of the 20th century, pink was considered the more masculine hue, a pastel version of red. Blue, with its intimations of the Virgin Mary, constancy and faithfulness, was thought to be dainty. Why or when that switched is not clear, but as late as the 1930s a significant percentage of adults in one national survey held to that split.

comes to the conclusion that

It is no wonder that parents, faced with thongs for 8-year-olds and Bratz dolls’ “passion for fashion,” fill their daughters’ closets with pink sateen; the innocence of Princess feels like a reprieve.

So she seems to understand that parents have reacted to the loss of childhood innocence by returning their little girls to protective cocoons. But she objects to it, dismissing the "Princesses" theme as a creature of marketing. Or maybe, as she suggests here, that the marketing worked because society rejected the objectifying of little girls.
I know that my five year old loves pretending to be a princess and has no self-esteem problems. It would seem that this is perfectly healthy behavior for little girls.
Don Surber rejects a premise the article that objects to the segregation of genders. There's no longer a reason to assume that gender differences mean nothing. Women can do many of the same things that men can do, we no longer need to pretent that they're the same.
via memeorandum.
Blogdigger tags: Girls, Princesses.

Posted by SoccerDad at December 25, 2006 6:30 AM