Showing posts with label play. Show all posts
Showing posts with label play. Show all posts

Thursday, August 26, 2010

Dethroning the Disney Princesses

According to newspaper reports, researchers are exploring links between a girlhood characterized by “princess culture,” and womanhood fraught with narcissism, materialism, and overspending. No adult behavior can be explained solely by one thing—human beings are complicated creatures. But these researchers are on to something. We pass cultural values on through the stories we tell and the toys we give to children. The messages they take away from what they see, hear, and experience contribute to their understanding of the world and how it works.

Much has been written about the negative impact of impossibly built fashion dolls on how girls conceptualize beauty, and how they feel about their bodies. For many parents, the Disney Princesses seem like the lesser of several evils—perhaps they aren’t quite as in-your-face sexualized as the Bratz, or My Scene Barbies, or the new Monster High Dolls. But, in addition to promoting the dream that irks so many feminists—someday a prince will come and solve all of my problems—Disney Princess films, sequels, prequels and products subject little girls to clear messages about class and entitlement.

In The Case for Make Believe, I relate the following conversation with a four year old Disney princess aficionado:
“What’s a princess?” I asked Abigail. “A rich girl,” she answered promptly, “with a kingdom.” She was a bit fuzzy on exactly what a kingdom is, however. “It’s got lots of rooms,” she explained tentatively. Then her eyes grew big and round, sparkling with excitement. “And now there’s no food in it!” “Oh, no!” I groaned. “Yes!” she said with joyful urgency. “The servants have run out of ingredients!”
In the wonderful world of Disney, the female ideal is a rich girl living in a big house with lots of servants. And while the company has given the nod girls of color—Jasmine, Pocahontas, Mulan, and Tiana—the crème de la crème of princesshood, the ones featured most prominently in the princess brand, are white: Cinderella, Ariel, Belle, Snow White, and Aurora.

Truth be told, I love fairy tales. While my fondness for them sometimes rests uneasily on my social conscience (the themes may be deep and complex, but the characters are not), I understand why they have so much meaning for young children. Classic stories of perseverance rewarded, good triumphing over evil, and the weak overcoming the powerful are valuable for kids as they grapple with the immense cognitive, physical and emotional demands of growing up socialized. And our exploration of fairy tales doesn’t have to be limited to the Western European versions that are so popular in the United States. After all, the original Cinderella story is the Chinese Shen Teh—and there are magical tales handed down for centuries from all over the world. In their original forms they are often explorations of important themes universal to children—sibling rivalry, family discord, loss, and redemption. But in the Disney versions of fairy tales, the deeper themes get lost amid the talking teapots and adorable singing mice. The films are enjoyable and the do what Disney does best—create longing for a magical world where virtue is synonymous with beauty and ultimately rewarded by material wealth.

Back when a movie was mostly just a movie seen only in theaters, princess values didn’t necessarily permeate little girlhood. But with miniaturized screen technology and tens of thousands of princess products on the market, that’s no longer the case. It’s not just that children see the films repeatedly, so that the scripts are embedded in their brains. Their play about the films is constricted by the plethora of princess toys and accessories. In addition, the image of the princesses—plastered on sheets, wallpaper, toothbrushes, snacks, backpacks and pretty much everything under the sun—dominates children’s experience of the stories.

One reason that commercialization is so harmful for children is that marketers exploit and pervert normal developmental stages—in this case, gender identification—so that corporate messages dominate how a child’s world view is shaped. Children, naturally attracted to glitter and longing to be so much more more powerful, are sitting ducks for gendered marketing like the Disney’s Princess selling machine. A society that does not protect kids from being immersed in advertising is complicit in their exploitation and the harms caused by it. As the father of a tiny potential consuming princess fanatic laments, unless you move to the woods it’s just about impossible for little girls to avoid the world according to her majesties Cinderella, and Ariel et al.

So what’s a parent to do? Until and unless we change the culture, you can set some limits and at least keep your daughters from drowning in The Little Mermaid and other Princess paraphernalia. Here are just a few options:

For babies and toddlers: Avoid purposely exposing young children to screen-based entertainment, at least until they ask for it, and limit exposure after that. You can at least put off instilling the expectation that the Disney princesses are essential to a happy girlhood.

For preschoolers: You might choose to avoid the films altogether. But if you love them, and want to share them, go ahead—but do so with the understanding that you’re not going to let Disney dictate your child’s post-film experience. Encourage hands-on creative play free of branded products.

From preschool on: Surround your kids with books of multi-cultural stories, including folk and fairy tales. And make sure to include stories that defy stereotypes. If your daughters love frufru and want to play princess, then haunt thrift shops and the closets of friends and family for cast off finery. Keep talking with children about your values and how they are similar and different from the commercial values celebrated by Disney and other corporations with a corner on the kid market.

Oh, and one last thing. Join the movement to stop companies from targeting children directly with marketing. Gender stereotyping and materialistic values aren’t the only inevitable harms of a commercialized childhood.
Read more!

Friday, August 13, 2010

Commercialism Corner

Commercialism Corner: Your one-stop shop for quick summaries and links to all the latest news about the commercialization of childhood.

S.F. Proposal: Healthier Kids Meals or No Toys – San Francisco follows Santa Clara County and proposes ban on junk food toys. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2010/08/11/MNJG1ES4M2.DTL

Girls at Comic-Con Find Marketers Ready for Them – Toy makers used this year’s Comic-Con to show off their new brands targeted at girls, including Hasbro’s Strawberry Shortcake (who will have a show on Hasbro’s new children’s TV network, the HUB, launching this fall) and Mattel’s Monster High, a brand based on sexualized characters around which the company is planning an “entertainment juggernaut.”  Mattel’s Monster High dolls, clothing line, and electronics are already available, webisodes are online, a book series is publishing September 1, and a movie musical is being developed by Universal.  This Friday (the 13th) Mattel will launch a Monster High music video on YouTube to promote the brand. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/business/media/11adco.html?_r=2&ref=media

Traditional Outdoor Games are Forgotten by Kids – Study shows that traditional outdoor kids’ games are unknown to many children; 75% of children 4-11 reported never playing hopscotch or tag.  Nintendo video games have replaced these games, according to the study, signaling that “high-tech gadgets are over-taking more traditional children's pastimes.” http://newslite.tv/2010/08/10/traditional-outdoor-games-are.html

In the Driver's Seat of 'Cars' Online Community – Disney unveils its latest online community, based on Cars in an advanced massive marketing effort for the 2011 release of Cars 2. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-facetime-20100812,0,4740314.story

National Geographic Kids Launches Animal Jam Virtual World
– Kids playing in this “ad-free” virtual world, http://www.animaljam.com/, will earn “bonus Gems and premiums from National Geographic Publishing and discounts on National Geographic’s acclaimed books and magazines.”

Nickelodeon Launches Dora The Explorer's Landmark Tenth Anniversary With 'Beyond the Backpack' Pro-social Campaign to Champion School Readiness – Dora turns 10; Nickelodeon launches a “pro-social” campaign--including the auctioning of limited-edition Dora backpacks and offering Nick-sponsored educational materials--in partnership with The Children's Defense Fund and National Parents Teachers Association (PTA). http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/nickelodeon-launches-dora-the-explorers-landmark-tenth-anniversary-with-beyond-the-backpack-pro-social-campaign-to-champion-school-readiness-86001942.html

Youth Exposure To Alcohol Ads Declines – Self-regulation by the alcohol industry has resulted in 62% decline in children’s exposure to liquor ads in magazines, but a 57% increase in exposure to beer ads.  The study shows that 16 brands, including Patron Silver Tequila, Absolut Vodka, Kahlua Liqueur, have higher visibility among child audiences than others.  The article concludes that this finding suggests “ad placements are part of a deliberate strategy” to market alcohol to those under 21. http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=133615


Read more!

Tuesday, July 6, 2010

Seduced and Abandoned: The Perils of Nostalgia and the Commercialization of Childhood by Susan Linn

I’m not surprised that American Girl dolls are about to be sold a la Webkins with keys to a virtual world—the brand’s fate was sealed when it was sold to Mattel. But the news made me sad.  It’s yet another corporate message to children that their imaginative world—their own creative play—isn’t good enough.  Back in the day, I was rather fond of the dolls. This was before the factory moved to China, before the television shows, the movies, and the designer stores featuring $25 facials for little plastic faces. Okay, I’m a sucker for dolls, but I come by it honestly.  My mother was a sucker for them, too.

My mom died in 1993, when my daughter was four.  Before her death, she purchased Kirsten Larson (the one of Swedish ancestry who gets to wear candles in her hair), to be given to Sasha when she turned six.  Caveat:  Yes, the dolls were expensive, but they were well-made representations of pre-adolescent girls.  They were sturdy enough to last for years and not sexualized in any way. On subsequent birthdays and holidays, my daughter received an outfit or two for her doll from friends and family.  We never bought the books, which seemed formulaic.  We certainly never bought the (very pricey) furniture advertised in the catalogue. My daughter enjoyed playing with Kirsten until she gave up dolls altogether, and I stopped thinking about the brand as she approached adolescence.

Fast forward to the present, and a new, beloved, little girl. “I’d like to buy Marley a really great doll,” I say to my daughter-in-law.  “Terrific,” she says, “But, please, please don’t buy one from American Girl.” “Really?” I say, a bit taken aback. “Well, they’re the ones with that store out at the mall, aren’t they?” she says.  “I don’t want to get her started on all of that stuff,” she explains patiently.  Despite having written a whole book on commercialization and children—to say nothing of directing the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood—I am crestfallen.

So here’s just one of many flaws in the “just say ‘no’” theory of combating the commercialization of childhood:  Our relationship to the things we purchase for children is complicated.  Our childhood loves and longings influence our choices and, for grandparents, the pleasures and pains of raising our own children go into the mix as well. So when we have a deeply positive past experience with a brand connected with our own childhood, or our children’s, we are resistant to thinking critically about the ways that it has changed.  Research shows that brand loyal customers are less likely to notice price hikes, for instance, in the brands to which they are attached. 

We’re resistant to grappling with other changes as well.  Fathers who played with Transformers as kids don’t want to know that the films are too violent for their children. Adults who spent hours of their childhood building structures with Legos are willing to forgive the kits, the fast food promotions, and even the video games.  Marketers, working with psychologists, understand the power of nostalgia to drive sales.  Believe me, I understand it too.    

In a society that sets virtually no limits on how corporations target children, and when ubiquitous screens make it easier than ever to immerse kids in marketing, it’s a challenge even for motivated adults to limit commercialism in children’s lives.  I finally  managed to find a doll my granddaughter loved that came free of movies, websites, TV shows and branded stores—but it took me a long time and a lot of effort.  It turns out that the American Girl brand I remembered so fondly pretty much wiped out the reasonably-well-crafted-non-sexualized-18-inch-doll market.
Read more!