Why I’m (Pre)Occupied by Miley Cyrus: Does Hannah Montana Still Matter?

I don’t know how you feel about the Occupy Movement or about Miley Cyrus. As for me, having spent the past decade speaking out against the corporate takeover of childhood, I tend to be sympathetic to the 99% message and beyond unsympathetic to the contribution Cyrus-as-Disney-star-Hannah-Montana has made to the commercialized sexualization of very young girls.

So how am I supposed to feel now that she produced a rather moving music video in support of Occupy protests all over the world? It does a great job of using its genre to celebrate the democratic right to protest and bear witness to its (sometimes brutal) repression. If Cyrus is still popular among young people, it probably has a shot at awakening interest in organized dissent. For a certain (young) age group it might make civic activism cool.

I emailed my Occupy/Miley dilemma to some of my wiser colleagues. Actually, my email read, “Does this mean we have to start liking her or stop liking the Occupy Movement?” One immediate response was, “I never disliked her. Blame the handlers, not the kid.” Here’s another, “It's great she did this video. It will draw in a lot of young people, I hope. Miley is used and exploited too.”

And of course they’re right. We can expect that the suits at Disney knew exactly what they were doing to little girls by marketing Miley Cyrus as Hannah Montana. We might expect that the other adults in her life knew, too. But we can’t expect a girl in her early teens to know.

Cyrus was only 12 when she auditioned for Hannah Montana—and 13 when it became one of Disney’s biggest hits, with the attendant toys, clothing, accessories, video games, jewelry, and so on. She was just 15 when she posed apparently covered only by a sheet for Annie Leibowitz. My colleagues would say that she was objectified by adults who profited obscenely from her objectification. And because celebrity culture carries so much weight, even with the very young, the glorification and amplification of her image has vast consequences. We only have to search as far as YouTube to see girls as young as 2 playing at being Miley Cyrus playing at being a teenage rock star playing at being an adult playing at being a certain kind of sexy.

But does making a video that promotes civic action transform Cyrus into a positive role model for girls? Well. . .maybe, depending on age. I can just about imagine having a nuanced conversation with my 9-year-old granddaughter about the pros and cons. But I doubt that her 5-year-old sister could old grasp the nuance of someone being a great role model in some ways but not in others.

So where does this leave me, Miley, and Occupy Wall Street? For the first time, ever, I find myself wondering about her. I wonder what she thinks, or will think in the future, of how Hannah Montana was marketed to children. I wonder why she made this video. I wonder what her managers/agents/handlers think about it. I wonder if they weighed the cost/benefit to her career before it was posted. I wonder if she even tries to reconcile her ties to Disney, one of the biggest entertainment conglomerates in the world, in light of the Occupy Movement’s spotlight on greed and the abuse of corporate power.

The Yiddish word “farkakte” means simultaneously “crazy, screwed up, and gone bad”; Sometimes it’s the only word that will do. It’s a farkakte world where 1% of the population gets richer at the expense of everyone else; where corporations purposely sell four year olds on fake sexuality; where thousands of unknown viewers can watch repeatedly the parent-posted videos of tiny daughters as Hannah Montana imitators shaking whatever booty they have; where kids are indoctrinated to celebrity culture before they even enter preschool; and where a 19 year old’s celebrity means that her political opinions matter.

But I have to say—I like the video. I’m glad she made it. Thanks for this one, Miley Cyrus. Read more!

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!

Commercialism Corner

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

McDonald’s Violent ‘Happy Meal’ Toy Promotion the Latest Target of Parents, Health Advocates – This piece covers advocacy groups’ actions challenging McDonald’s for its Happy Meal toy marketing, including CCFC’s recent campaign around the company’s violent toy promotions. The author ties these actions to the broader question of whether it’s time for Congress restore the FTC’s authority to regulate advertising aimed at children. http://www.fleshandstone.net/healthandsciencenews/2100.html

How Disney Magic and the Corporate Media Shape Youth Identity in the Digital Age – An in-depth article by Henry Giroux and Grace Pollock, this piece looks at the Disney marketing mega-machine and details the sophisticated ways in which “Disney is actually engaged in the commercial carpet bombing of children and teens.”  The authors conclude that the commodification of childhood is both damaging for children, and a grave danger to democratic society. http://www.truth-out.org/how-disney-magic-and-corporate-media-shape-youth-identity-digital-age62008

Addictive Internet Use Tied to Depression in Teens – A new Australian study shows that teens who are addicted to the internet are more than twice as likely to develop depression than those who are not.  The researchers conclude that the internet is isolating and alienating, disrupting time teens spend with friends and other activities beneficial to their mental health. http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/healthday/641735.html

Behind Disney's Digital Shopping Spree – Bloomberg Businessweek explains that Disney’s recent purchase of Playdom and other social gaming media platforms is a move to further integrate its brand and characters into the fabric of people’s everyday digital lives.  An example of how Disney plans to leverage the gaming site for the promotion of its release of Cars 2 next year is a preview of marketing schemes to come.  http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_32/b4190035402934.htm

ScuttlePad: A Social Network Just For Kids – The founder and CEO of this new social networking website for children calls the site a training ground, explaining, “"We teach kids how to walk across the street, but we're not teaching them how to be effective social media players."  A major part of the lesson seems to be that kids should be online social networking earlier, instead of playing, being outdoors, spending time with family, or doing other developmentally beneficial activities. http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/scuttlepad_a_social_network_just_for_kids.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+readwriteweb+%28ReadWriteWeb%29

Teen 'Haulers' Become a Fashion Force – The L.A. Times covers retail chains’ use of ‘hauls,’ or videos of teens showing off their new purchases, as a major back-to-school marketing tool.  The article points to the teen girls’ “bubbly charm, attractive looks and somewhat ditzy personalities” as the heart of haul videos, and a JCPenny executive adds that they’re better at driving sales than traditional ads because “they’re more organic.” http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-teen-haulers-20100801,0,3376763.story Read more!

Commercialism Corner

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

Junk Food Advertising Needs Watershed Ban – After a ban on junk food advertising during children’s programming in the UK has failed to significantly decrease children’s exposure to such ads, health groups call on regulators to implement a ban on all junk food advertising before 9pm.  Child health advocates say this is necessary in order to combat the increasingly clever ways in which marketers target children. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7910946/Junk-food-advertising-needs-watershed-ban.html

U Going 2 the Bratz Party? IDK If They're So Popular – MGA Entertainment, after an ongoing court battle with Mattel, regains rights to the scantily clad line of Bratz dolls.  With the win, MGA hopes to resurrect the sexualized dolls among so-called “tween” girls, with “a new twist on the core fashion play that made Bratz a hit.”  Major retail chains will begin carrying 13 new Bratz products in the next few weeks and 10 new Bratz characters in the fall. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704700404575391620974490234.html?mod=WSJ_hps_LEFTWhatsNews

Sweetwater Opens Campuses to Corporate Ads – South County, California school districts are opening up their schools to ads from McDonald’s, Nike and other corporations.  CCFC’s Josh Golin tells the San Diego Union-Tribune why selling a captive student audience to advertisers is not a good solution for tight school budgets.  (Note: Article inaccurately states that CCFC is part of Judge Baker Children’s Center.)  http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/aug/01/you-deserve-a-break-today-at-school/

Disney Buys Playdom in $763 Million Deal, Becoming Hollywood Leader in Social Games – Disney buys Playdom, one of the largest social gaming platforms, to profit from the sale of virtual goods and extend its brand even further, setting its eyes on “casual gamers” and players of all ages.  New York Times registration required. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/technology/28disney.html?_r=3

Ratings Watch: Disney Channel Sees Most-Watched July Ever – The Disney Channel, the number one network watched by children ages 6 to 14, had its most-watched month ever this July with 2.1 million viewers.  This is Disney’s second most-watched month on record—great news for Disney, depressing news for advocates of screen-free playtime. http://www.kidscreen.com/articles/news/20100728/disneyratings.htm

Burger King to Launch Kids' Breakfast Meal – While McDonald’s is catching all the heat for its use of toys to market unhealthy food to children, Burger King slips in and begins selling children’s breakfast kids meals…which come with a toy, of course. http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/22/business/la-fi-burger-king-20100722 Read more!

One Family's Bold Experiment: A Year Without Disney

Earlier this year, CCFC was ejected from its home at the Judge Baker Children's Center (JBCC.) Judge Baker’s decision to end its affiliation with CCFC came after representatives from the Walt Disney Company contacted the Center following CCFC’s successful campaign to persuade Disney to offer refunds on its Baby Einstein videos. The story touched a nerve with many of our supporters, including Lisa Ray -- activist, blogger, mother, and founder of Parents for Ethical Marketing:

What kind of a country do we live in, I thought at the time, where a multi-billion dollar corporation can encroach upon a tiny advocacy organization and the people who work for it? Is the family friendly Disney so ruthless that it must control public criticism? Who else is at risk for speaking out against corporations?

Thinking out loud I said to my family, “I wish we could boycott Disney. But I don’t think we can. They’re too big.”

My 12-year old heard me and suggested we should at least try. Her thought: “A year without Disney.”

A year without Disney? Is it really possible in this day and age, given the ubiquity of Disney’s vast media empire? I asked Lisa more about her family’s decision to forgo the Mouse for a entire year.

Q: I love the fact that the impetus for a Year Without Disney was, in part, your (and your daughter’s) reaction to the story of CCFC’s eviction from Judge Baker Children's Center. What was it about the Disney/JBCC/CCFC story that upset you so much?

A: I was upset that Disney chose to defend themselves publicly instead of engaging in the conversation. I was upset that Disney chose to offer those refunds but refused to say that that had made a mistake. But I was most upset that they would unleash their corporate lawyers in order to squelch any attempt at criticism. I felt violated, as a CCFC supporter. I mean, who does that? How is that even a good business practice? And it says a lot about the power of corporations in our society today. It scares me.

Q: I know your concerns about Disney began long before the events of last fall. Can you talk about which aspects of Disney’s marketing machine trouble you the most?

A: Several things. I'd say its presence everywhere. You cannot get away from Disney. The way other companies buy into the licensing because they know that Disney characters sell, so when you are buying for kids, there are always items with the latest Disney character slapped on it. As the mother to two girls, it was especially hard to avoid the Disney princesses on everything. My youngest adored them (she did not know who they were so only called them "the three ladies”), but when we started seeing them show up in the grocery store, that's when we instituted the "no licensed character" rule in our house. Don't get me started on the roles of girls (helpless) and women (nasty/cruel) in the princess stories. Last, I'd say I don't like how Disney has co-opted and altered stories. So many families don't know that many Disney stories are not original and that the true stories have so much more depth and meaning. (Those are some of the things we're hoping to uncover over the year.)

Q: You’ve said that you didn’t think you could boycott Disney because they were “too big.” And in the course of preparing for YWOD, you’ve discovered they were even bigger – your website includes a pretty impressive list of all the properties that Disney owns. Were you surprised by any of it? What’s going to be the hardest to give up?

I was surprised by the number of online properties they have (NFL.com? Really?). The movies will probably be the hardest, along with Hulu. But I really see it as an opportunity to look deeper for something else to watch.

Q. When CCFC launched a campaign around the Unilever Axe/Dove hypocrisy, many people were surprised to find out that these brands were owned by the same corporation. And some even argued that even if they were they were, Dove and Axe were separate brands that had nothing to do with each other. Why is important to make the connection between a corporations various brands and properties?

Just some random thoughts here. Profits are still made by the parent company, so separate brands have a lot to do with each other, even though they may have different audiences. The bigger issue for me, for Disney at least, is to realize that we won't get a diversity of options if Disney owns the magazines, the television stations, the radio stations, the websites, the book publishers. And with all that money behind them, smaller companies don't have a chance to compete in their marketing world. So again, we have to put so much effort into finding anything else.

Q: What do you hope to learn from your Year Without Disney? What do you hope your children gain from the experience?

I don't really have any expectations for what I hope to learn. I'm trying to remain open. For my girls, they've already learned how to find out what company makes a product (since we've had to check everything in our house, practically). They learned just how many things one company can own and how that affects the variety of entertainment opportunities they're offered. I hope they learn that they can survive -- and maybe even thrive -- by doing without something.

Q. It’s been two weeks without Disney so far. How’s it going? Any surprises? Anyone feel they’ve missed out on anything?

We had been talking about this for a couple months beforehand so some of our boycott started earlier. We had to send back one Netflix movie without watching it. At a family gathering, someone suggested the kids go to a movie and I had to talk quickly to steer away from the Toy Story 3 discussion. Probably the most difficult is the rule that the kids do not need to follow the boycott while at friend's homes. My 8-year-old ended up watching quite a bit of Hannah Montana at someone else's house, and when I picked her up she told me she felt guilty (both for violating the screen time rule and for watching Disney). That certainly wasn't my intent and I felt absolutely awful. So we've had more discussions about differences at other people's homes.

Q: Anything else you’d like to add?

I hoping that others will join me! At lease to eliminate some Disney in their lives and report back on how it is going.

To follow Lisa's family's progress, cheer them on, or let them know how you've downsized the mouse from your life, vist http://www.yearwithoutdisney.com/. You can also contact Lisa at lisa(at)parentsforethicalmarketing.org.

Read more!