You hear it all the time. Snow White is dumb, cinderela is weak, Aurora is boring. These vague, sweeping generalizations that are constantly applied to the Classic Princesses. I rarely hear these claims for other Pre-Renaissance heroines. Would any one call Alice boring? Or Marian weak? Or Anita dumb? Why do we normally aim these accusations at the princesses?
Perhaps it's because we've been raised in a different era. An era that scorns femininity and regularly throws terms like slut and floozy at any girl that steps outside our narrow ideals of what a woman should be? Isn't that terrifyingly similar to the same things expected of women in the 30's to 50's? A world where every female must fit into society's box of what it means to have a vagina?
Female's walk a narrow line today. On one hand, we have to strong and tough a la Mulan, but also pure and chaste a la Cinderella. If a girl veers to far in one direction, she's ostracized and ridiculed. If you're too tough, you're a dyke. Similarly, if you're too pure, and you're a prude.
But what does this have to do with the Classic Princesses, and our perception of them?
Is it because the Classic Princesses veer to far into the realm of femininity? They were created in a time where the definition of female was mais rigid, and flowery. Perhaps this clashes with our ideal of the strong, but soft female of today?
If the Classic Princesses were made today, it's obvious they'd veer mais into the Ariel and Rapunzel territory. Because the archetype of femininity has come to mean the same thing as dumb, and weak willed to us. In modern dia media, if a girl is too "girly," she's an idiot.
The stereotype of the pretty, shallow girls who spend hours on their appearance and are at the same time failing school. That's the stereotype we're stuffing the Classic Princesses into, all because they were made in a time where being a girl had different rules.
There are of course people who look past the shiny stereotypes, and recognize that Snow White is smart, cinderela is strong, and Aurora is interesting. But the rest of society has no qualms about terrorizing those who veer to far into the separate realms of masculinity and femininity.
Too often, I hear mothers and fathers spout the same drivel. "These princesses are too girly, I don't want them watching that. I only want to expose my children to one side of the spectrum, and force my insane ideals of femininity and masculinity on them, so even if they grow up to to be the type of person who enjoys rosa, -de-rosa and girly things, they'll feel nothing but guilt and shame concerning that part of them." Why not show both sides of the spectrum? Why not show your children it's okay to be like Snow White, because not everyone has to be a Merida?
Furthermore, why do we have to scorn the "girly girl?" And at the same time, why must we give the same treatment to the "girly boy?" Why, even with the presence of feminine ícones like cinderela and Barbie, do we teach our kids that being feminine is bad?
Doesn't anyone else think this is a problem?
/end rant
Perhaps it's because we've been raised in a different era. An era that scorns femininity and regularly throws terms like slut and floozy at any girl that steps outside our narrow ideals of what a woman should be? Isn't that terrifyingly similar to the same things expected of women in the 30's to 50's? A world where every female must fit into society's box of what it means to have a vagina?
Female's walk a narrow line today. On one hand, we have to strong and tough a la Mulan, but also pure and chaste a la Cinderella. If a girl veers to far in one direction, she's ostracized and ridiculed. If you're too tough, you're a dyke. Similarly, if you're too pure, and you're a prude.
But what does this have to do with the Classic Princesses, and our perception of them?
Is it because the Classic Princesses veer to far into the realm of femininity? They were created in a time where the definition of female was mais rigid, and flowery. Perhaps this clashes with our ideal of the strong, but soft female of today?
If the Classic Princesses were made today, it's obvious they'd veer mais into the Ariel and Rapunzel territory. Because the archetype of femininity has come to mean the same thing as dumb, and weak willed to us. In modern dia media, if a girl is too "girly," she's an idiot.
The stereotype of the pretty, shallow girls who spend hours on their appearance and are at the same time failing school. That's the stereotype we're stuffing the Classic Princesses into, all because they were made in a time where being a girl had different rules.
There are of course people who look past the shiny stereotypes, and recognize that Snow White is smart, cinderela is strong, and Aurora is interesting. But the rest of society has no qualms about terrorizing those who veer to far into the separate realms of masculinity and femininity.
Too often, I hear mothers and fathers spout the same drivel. "These princesses are too girly, I don't want them watching that. I only want to expose my children to one side of the spectrum, and force my insane ideals of femininity and masculinity on them, so even if they grow up to to be the type of person who enjoys rosa, -de-rosa and girly things, they'll feel nothing but guilt and shame concerning that part of them." Why not show both sides of the spectrum? Why not show your children it's okay to be like Snow White, because not everyone has to be a Merida?
Furthermore, why do we have to scorn the "girly girl?" And at the same time, why must we give the same treatment to the "girly boy?" Why, even with the presence of feminine ícones like cinderela and Barbie, do we teach our kids that being feminine is bad?
Doesn't anyone else think this is a problem?
/end rant
What is so bad about this?
