Packaging Girlhood

One of the things that bothered us most when we researched Packaging Girlhood was the erosion of the boundary between childhood and adolescence. It's not only that little girls are introduced to a teen lifestyle earlier and earlier, it's that the definition of teen has become almost completely narrowed to hot, shopping girlie types -- as if this is the only way girls can look and feel grown up. Forget their maturing minds and moral sensibilities, their skill on the playing fields, their passion for theater, art, or science and just give us sexy. Why? Because if you can channel that wide-eyed desire to look cool and mature in your direction, there's money to be made. The health, well-being, and safety of girls be damned. Enter Beyonce and her mom, Tina Knowles, and you have the new "House of Dereon" little girls line of clothing designed to make your 6 year old the coolest girl on the urban street corner.

My Narcissistic Mommy

In 2007 plastic surgeons performed nearly 11.7 million cosmetic procedures in the U.S. alone, 91% of them on women. That’s a lot of women, and since 67% of the procedures were done on 19-50 year olds, that’s a lot of mothers. Enter the new children’s book, My Beautiful Mommy, aimed at answering all sorts of questions that children 4-7 may have about mom’s operation.

It’s understandable that children would be confused by their mom’s plastic surgery. But there’s something both disturbing and bizarre about the messages in this book. It reminds us of the extreme makeover show, The Swan, where “ugly duckling” women cried with joy at being chosen, saying things like, “as a child I was just an easy target for kids to pick on.” The point of such remarks was not to blame those cretins cruel enough to tease others about their appearance, but to justify why those victimized by them would want to spend thousands of dollars to conform to impossible beauty ideals. By the season's end, we all saw the results. A lingerie beauty pageant of Stepford women -- white, Black, Asian, it didn't matter -- they all ended up with the same hair extensions, noses, and boob jobs.

What angered us most about the show was not the “24-7” regimen and personal trainers who shouted “You’ve got to think military!” or the therapists who shamed participants who ate butter, or even those gleeful plastic surgeons circling body parts like they were football plays, saying things like “we’ll give her a killer body”. No, what really got us were the horrifying moments when the rebuilt mothers met their young children for the first time post-surgery. Little children were paraded into the studio to see their mommy after a three-month separation and the shock on their faces was heartbreaking. They were confronted with a stranger who pulled them into her arms, and cried real tears of joy from Bratz-doll eyes. We don't know about you other mothers out there, but our young children protested when we cut our hair. Imagine if mommy came home with a new face?

According to author Dr. Michael Salzhauer, My Beautiful Mommy is not meant to indoctrinate kids or idealize beauty but to “allow parents who are going through this process anyway to have a vehicle to explain it to their kids."

But idealize beauty it does. Mom’s “after” picture looks like the Little Mermaid in a belly shirt, and the smiling surgeon is built like Mr. Incredible. Worse is the dialogue: “Why are you going to look different?" the little girl in the book asks, and mommy responds: "Not just different, my dear — prettier!" Dr. Salzhauer’s explanation of why mommy has bandages, sleeps a lot, and can’t do the laundry or dishes (don’t get us started on that set of messages!) might make sense in Swan World, but as he acknowledges, real kids are “very perceptive” and they can read between the lines.

Which means that no kid will settle for this answer. Most will insist, “But you’re pretty to me.” They may protest, “I don’t want you to change!” The implicit question is: Why isn’t that enough, Mom? It’s a much harder question to answer because, unlike those bullies out there, a child young enough to understand this book is the one person a mother can count on to love her for who she really is, for the things she does, the way she makes her child feel, the time she gives, and yes, the information she imparts about how to treat other people and how to develop and feel good about what’s on the inside. Why isn’t that kind of love enough? We all know the answer why.

Not a child psychologist, Dr. Salzhauer might be surprised to learn that kids are also perceptive about parental narcissism. When the daughter says to Mommy after her bandages come off, "You're the most beautiful butterfly in the whole world," she knows at some level this is what her mom needs to hear. When parents are insecure, children respond by taking care of them, making them feel better, and putting their needs first, sometimes at their own expense.

What makes this book really awful isn’t the mother’s decision to have plastic surgery, for whatever complex or simple reason. Nor is it the way the book could work for plastic surgeons to troll for future clients. It’s the damaging message it gives to children everywhere, and especially to daughters who will grow up to face similar bullies someday. No mother in her right mind, or rather no mother who has given this issue more than a minute’s thought, would tell her daughter it’s her problem to fix.

Miley Cyrus and Vanity Fair

Click Here

This URL will take you to the online transcript of Sharon on the Washington Post website. Here is the introduction:

Miley Cyrus: Reaction and Effect
Vanity Fair Portrait Tests Image of Disney Superstar

Sharon Lamb
Professor of Psychology, Saint Michael's College
Tuesday, April 29, 2008; 2:15 PM

The now famous picture in Vanity Fair of 15-year-old tween pop star Miley Cyrus looking at the camera and posing in what appears to be a sheet covering part of her body with her back exposed has been greeted with concern and outrage. Is the picture in bad taste? Did Cyrus or her parents approve? Was she coerced by celebrity photographer Annie Liebovitz or the magazine? What effect will this have on her career and her fans?

"It's not uncommon for packagers of tween idols to eventually repackage them as sexy young adults. They jumped the gun here to the disappointment and detriment of her fans and she's sending a very poor message about what it means to grow up and become a sexual person in this society today," said psychology professor Sharon Lamb in an interview with washingtonpost.com.

Super-Lonely!

Check out the cover of this week's USA Weekend, that ubiquitous magazine that accompanies 23 million Sunday papers across the country. Liv Tyler, Gwyneth Paltrow, and Maggie Gyllenhaal are "The Girls of Summer" who promise to "turn up the heat" in "3 upcoming blockbusters". Except these "leading ladies" aren't actually leading much. They're the only women in comic book series turned movies, The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man, and Batman's The Dark Knight. Paltrow is Ironman's "trusted assistant", Gyllenhaal is a "lawyer friend" of Bruce Wayne's, and Tyler is The Hulk's love interest. And the first question posed to the three in their collective interview pretty much says it all: "Was it lonely being the only woman in a comic book movies?" Lonely indeed, for way too many talented women actors these days. If you're interested in where the women are and feminist issues related to women and Hollywood, check out Melissa Silverstein's blog:
http://womenandhollywood.blogspot.com/

Another Spin Around the Track with Danika Patrick

Checking the comments we received below we thought we'd respond with a full-fledged blog entry. Amy's commnt, from Shaping Youth, is kind of like saying a woman who dresses provocatively deserves to be harassed, isn't it? Or that the A+ a high school girl pulled on her history exam is tainted or undeserved because her skirt is short. Of course we know that Patrick posed for men's magazines and ads. It's unfortunate, very unfortunate, that even though women are 40% of athletes in this country they get only 3-5% of coverage in sports media, and so young women athletes draw attention to their sport in the one way they can ensure attention. So it's more than simplistic to put the blame squarely on Patrick's shoulders for this scenario, or to say her choices make it okay to dismiss her achievements on the race track in sports column analyzing the race and her place in history for winning that race. In this crazy bi-polar world, we had the choice of standing with the sexists or with her on this and we chose to stand with her. Maybe sexualizing herself was a path for getting the funding to do the kinds of athletic things she wanted to do. So instead of shame and blame, let's hail her victory, support her sport, value her athleticism, and sit back now and see if some of the self-sexualization can change now that she's been honored as a winner! And if we can keep the marketers and media ready to re-sexualize her at bay, maybe the next Danika to come along will make a different set of choices.

Racing History Made

So, race car driver Danika Patrick has made history. We're celebrating with the first woman ever to win an IndyCar race, the Japan 300. Three years after finishing fourth in the Indianapolis 500, the race car driver can finally -- what? Prove hard work pays off, regardless of gender? Prove that athletes are athletes? Prove she's the best driver on the track? No, AP writer Mike Harris writes, she can now finally "avoid comparisons to Anna Kournikova, who built a reputation based on glamour but never won a title." Say what? This is what matters? Beating out the last sex symbol? What's historical about that? Proving she's more than just a Sports Illustrated swimsuit pin up? Will that go down in the books? Of the win, Patrick says, "I'm definitely just part of a wave of women that are doing different things, great things, outside of the normal world. I think it's showing we're capable of anything.There's so much gender crossover now than there ever has been. So I really just believe that I'm part of a really big picture." Oh, and she won by beating Helio Castroneves. Funny, no one reduced him to his sexy moves on Dancing With The Stars!

The Lolita Bedroom Set

Hope you can see this cute bedroom set that just got pulled from Woolworth stores in the UK. I don't think we need to say more. That's actually the name of this bedroom set.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article3285597.ece

Barbie Shows Bratz Dollz How to Drink In Style!

This just in from the Drug Free Alliance.

"Some parents may not be aware that Mattel is marketing a Barbie 2-in-1 Party Plane & Ship Playset that 'comes with all the amenities.' Along with the reclining seats, fold down table and laptop computer, this toy, marketed for 3- to 8-year olds, comes complete with martini glasses, bar stools and a disco scene portraying scantily clad dancers holding drinks!"

Those of you who've seen our power point presentation know we've been complaining about the Bratz party plane for a couple of years now. It has a "juice bar" and Bratz CEO Isaac Larian has expressed outrage that critics have said that his dolls come with alcoholic drinks. We asked, "Who is he kidding?" But now Barbie doesn't even call their drinks "juice"?

Is Barbie different though from Bratz? When we were girls, our Barbies had black sequined slinky gowns that we think were called her "nightclub" outfit. What we understood at the time, was that when we grew up we would go to nightclubs in beautiful sexy gowns. The point is, we understood Barbie to older than we were. And although Barbie presented a pretty one-dimensional view of what grown-up women did and what they are valued for, she still seemed to us to be grown up.

The Bratz dolls are teens and even look slightly pre-teen. So when they party and drink and go clubbing, they clearly suggests these activities to younger and younger girls. Barbie has been following suit, creating a My Scene Barbie who is more teen than grown-up. She's no longer the Barbie we knew -- in more ways than one. Instead of being a trend-setter, she's trying to one-up Bratz. In true wannabe fashion, she's pushing not just a party plane but also a ship! Not a juice bar but real drinks! And explicitly to 3 year olds. Who ever would have thought we'd be longing for Barbie to be, well, Barbie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgTWToOBbfw (YOUTUBE COMMERCIAL)

Packaging BOYhood?

TIME OUT! Hi all, we'd love to get your help on something. You may know that along with Mark Tappan, we're beginning to write about the ways boyhood is marketed and sold to boys through media of all kinds. Packaging Boyhood will look at how clothing lines, toys, video games, TV shows, music, books, etc. are sold to boys and the image of masculinity promoted in them.

To write this book, we need to know not only what forms of media boys are into and what messages they receive, but also what parents are most concerned about when it comes to the media their boys are exposed to or engaged with. Is it the violence in video games, the pseudo-drinking and partying behavior in tween Nick shows, the attitude in attitude tees, the sexually degrading lyrics in music? Are there positive options for boys out there? Books, shows, music both you and your son love?

And if you have daughters and sons, what differences are you noticing in the media they're consuming.

It would be so great if you could help us highlight issues we should address in the book or point us to certain TV shows, video games, or music lyrics you think are good, bad, or questionable.

Your help could come in a number of ways:

1. You could email us with issues, products, messages that concern you and you think we should look more closely at. (Feel free to drop a line whenever you see something that strikes you as really good or really bad.) slamb@smcvt.edu or lmbrown@colby.edu

2. You could go with your son to http://www.packagingboyhood.com/ and fill out our survey there.

3. Or if you live anywhere near us, help us arrange a focus group of boys to interview!

Thanks for your help. We're still blogging about girls...we just tend to wait until we get the urge because something outrageous has irked us again.

Amy Jussel at Shaping Youth http://www.shapingyouth.org/blog/?p=969#comment-156406 called this TARGET ad to our attention and asked us what we thought. The ad didn't strike us as forcefully as some, but that could be the point here. The innocence and playfulness of making snow angels (with the hat and scarf, the girl smiling, perky--as much as one can be lying on one's back--in that usual over-the-top Target way) is as primary as the sexual availability/suggestion of sexual violence of the spread eagle position on the target (and the camera angle). Could it be that it's this combination that's so disturbing, the blend of innocence and sexualization? We're seeing more of this all the time, whether it's the VS Angel Collection or the Bratz Dolls (with the little halo over the a) or sexy/innocent Halloween costumes for little girls. These are the kinds of images designed to be so subtly suggestive that people are called crazy or dirty minded for questioning them. But of course in reality they normalize these relationships--i.e., between sexy and innocent. The sad reality is that a girl lying on her back spread eagle is more provocative and attention getting (and thus sellable) then a girl snowboarding or standing on the center of the target in another sort of pose. What do you think? Are we reading too much into this?