Fare Thee Well, Sarah!

Today, I read that Sarah Haskins, the wonderous writer and face of 'Target Women' is leaving Infomania.

Being one of my ultimate idols, and one of the most hilarious voices on the internet, this is some very sad news. 'Target Women' has been at the forefront of feminist comedy for some time now, with Haskins at its helm, and I can't help thinking that it won't be quite the same without her (although I am so glad that it's continuing!).

Fortunately, for Haskins-Fans, Sarah isn't disappearing from the worlds of comedy and feminism altogether! Sarah is currently working on two big comedy screenplays, 'Book Smart' and 'Lunch Lady', and has recently produced a short film, 'DILF' that should be online soon. Can't wait!

In the meantime, we'll just have to keep up with Sarah's exploits via her Twitter page...

Follow Your Heart - to Princess Syndrome

You are a pretty, pretty princess! But which one? Disney will tell you! All major credit cards are accepted.

When you are little, the Disney Princesses seem like the perfect role models. What little girl doesn’t want to be beautiful and utterly lovely when she grows up? These are women that have whole stories based around their dreams and desires – they are main characters in the films that have become ‘traditional’, essential viewing for young girls across the world. Yet there are so many things that are simply wrong about their characters, and they have caused much controversy amongst feminists and media critics.

Much of the controversy stems from the oppressive female stereotype these princesses proliferate to young girls: that superficial beauty is everything, and that their ultimate goal in life should be marriage to a handsome prince.

Of course, the cultural fascination with princesses has been around for ages: many of the Disney films are based on traditional fairy tales and Brothers Grimm tales. But it is Disney’s watered-down, consumerist twist on these tales that makes the contemporary Princess Syndrome so dangerous. As Angela Ndalianis, associate professor of cinema studies at Melbourne Uni has said:

‘Not only are the films fostering the little-princess aesthetic, but they also breed cross-merchandising that’s earning a bundle for entertainment companies who have rights to princess tales. From a historical perspective, the little girl/princess parallel has been there for centuries – but the merchandising associated with conglomeration has amplified its effect; now our little girls can be like their favourite princesses.’

And it’s not just Disney that’s jumped on the princess-bandwagon. Hundreds of other toy-brands, television shows, films etc. have princess themed plots/merchandise. Disney’s Princess range alone covers books, stationary, play castles and toy make-up kits; Barbie has an extensive Princess range too (and several puke-tastically terrible films!), and even supposedly more ‘contemporary’ dolls like Bratz have clear princess-influences in their tiara-bedecked formal dress range. Young girls can of course also buy entire princess costumes, complete with gown, tiara and jewels, so that they can be just like their role models! Even from such a young age, girls are being submerged in the ‘I consume, therefore I am’ culture as they are shown that part of the princess experience is materialistic: ‘getting’ pretty clothes, jewellery, make-up etc.

The princess syndrome prevails in the more up-to-date teen movies of today. The age.com princess syndrome article lists Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen, The Prince and Me, Princess Diaries, A Cinderella Story and Ella Enchanted. Even a supposedly more ‘open minded’ film like Mean Girls, in which the main protagonist Cady overcomes the reign of the superficial Plastics and realises her own inner happiness as ‘herself’, the princess image is proliferated. The ‘Queen Bee’ of the story, Regina (subtle!), is shown to have a glamorous lifestyle (the word ‘PRINCESS’ is actually emblazoned across her bedroom - again with the subtlety!) and although this is shown to be not as enviable as it would at first appear by revealing its superficiality, the film is still all about getting prince charming.

But what alternative role models do young girls have? These movies mostly have a female lead. At least these films give the message that, in a world where only 1 in 4 movie roles is female (the same % as the number of female leads) little girls can still be the main character, and events in their lives can revolve around their needs and wants.

And Disney isn’t completely sexist, to be fair. More recent characters like Mulan, Pocahontas and even Belle are far more progressive than their predecessors (completely limp bimbos like Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, etc.). They are by no means perfect – each of these films still results in the princess winning the ‘handsome prince’ – but at least the characters have some spirit. Mulan even tackles some equality issues, as the idea of women being inferior to men is shown to be defunct by the country-saving cross-dressing heroine – who, although at first is ridiculed and disgraced when it is revealed she is a woman, eventually wins the respect and honour of her entire country. This, I feel, is a more respectable role model for young girls.

But does Disney think so? It would appear not. Girls are not encouraged to look or act like these princesses – the only girls’ fancy dress outfits sold by Disney are for the traditional princesses - Snow White, Sleeping Beauty and Cinderella (plus Belle, though only in glittery ball gown version) – and for fairies, like Tinkerbell. The amount of merchandise available for the more respectable princesses is extremely limited compared to that for the others. Now this may also have something to do with the racial aspect of the characters – Disney is a notoriously racist enterprise – but I think it’s also linked to the gender stereotype Disney perpetuates, which these few characters do not fit exactly into.

But from Snow White (1937) to Mulan (1998), Disney has come a long way, and the gender stereotype has faded slightly – but not enough. Come on, Disney, end the corporate FAIL and start showing young girls that they can follow their hearts to something other than becoming consumerist royalty.

* * *

See this article shown on feministing.com for further views on the Disney Princesses.

And... Happy Transgender Awareness Week! :D

What the...

I am a firm believer in embracing your feminine side, feminine meaning what it is that makes you a woman, whatever that may be (not the whole culturally-constructed idea of ‘feminine’ which, let’s face it, basically equals the colour pink). I also identify strongly with myself as a feminist. I see nothing in these two statements that contradicts.

And that’s why when I read articles like this, they make me so, so angry.

There are so many things wrong with this article, I have no idea where to start. Perhaps with the title - ‘Are you a Feminist or a ‘Feminine-ist’?’ – because obviously you can’t be both! Being a feminist and wanting to be in any way pro-feminine would just be ridiculous and obscene: everyone knows that all feminist are ‘tough, overworked and unattractive’; ‘a woman who’s unattractive in both looks and spirits’! Contrast this to feminine-ists, who embrace their ‘feminine sexy and loving side[s]’, the epitome of which is, in this article, ‘a beautiful, leggy, sexy woman’. All of these terms are ones on which a woman is graded from a heterosexual patriarchal point of view, and are thus demeaning. But being the epitome of physical attractiveness is what it’s all about, right – oh, and being ‘powerful’ (she adds, hastily) – so this one-dimensional stereotype is what all womankind should aspire to be.

Karen Salmansohn states that her goal is:

To inspire women to embrace their fullest potential selves – feminine, sexy, warm, loving – everything the word ‘feminine’ stands for, alongside strong qualities like powerful and successful.

There are several things wrong with this, and her whole argument:

1. Where do characteristics like ‘intelligent’, ‘creative’ and ‘happy’ come into the feminine norm? Nowhere is the answer: they’re not ‘feminine’ characteristics. And neither are ‘strong qualities like powerful and successful’. ‘Feminine’ and ‘strong’ don’t really mix, and they are definitely not the same thing; you just get one plus the other.

2. Salmansohn notes how so many women today are ‘not being their fullest, best feminine selves’ because they’re ‘rushing around trying to do it all ... being tougher than they’d like to be as well as more exhausted, strident and irritable, thereby feeling unattractive inside and out.’ Being exhausted and emotionally depleted is all the fault of the woman, of course, neglecting her inner femininity. Salmansohn fails to address the real reason for this: that women in a men’s world must constantly over-perform in order to combat the effects of discrimination, especially in employment.

3. Salmansohn claims that she feels her most powerful when she takes the time to tap into ‘feminine-ism’ – i.e. when ‘indulging in a meditative and self-nurturing manicure, a facial or a hot bubble bath’. Salmansohn has obviously not been watching any Target Women lately! These ‘indulgences’ are exactly the kind of thing that patriarchal companies target women with. Nobody is 'powerful' when having a bubble bath, however much you might enjoy it. And by listing these things off as typical ‘feminine’ pastimes, Salmansohn simply falls into the trap of succumbing to the culturally-constructed ‘feminine’ norm.

4. Then, there’s Salmansohn’s annoying overuse of the word ‘sexy’, meaning ‘attractive to the average heterosexual male’. Feeling sexy in this sense is not empowering, as she claims. It is feeling happy in yourself, as yourself, that is empowering. And though this may include feeling confident about your sex appeal, you cannot conflate the two ideas.

5. Men can be and are feminists, and any man who is put off from calling himself a supporter of women’s equality because ‘it might sound like he was admitting to supporting a group of controlling, bitchy women’ is not someone who believes in female empowerment at all, really, is he? No, he’s just ignorant, close-minded and sexist to boot. But that’s OK, in Salmansohn’s point of view, because it’s generally agreed that men don’t really go in for that kind of thing. But something that’s ‘pro-sexiness, pro-sweetness [and] pro-balance’ (excuse me while I puke) like ‘feminine-ism’ – well, a man can be proud to support something like that!

And why is this? Because it’s cool for a man to be in touch with both his feminine and masculine sides (though he is, of course, predominantly masculine if he is straight). But hang on – when can we get in touch with our masculine sides? Oh, that’s when we embrace our ‘strong qualities’, like powerfulness? But then aren’t we meant to feel our most powerful when indulging ourselves in feminine activities like facials? I’m confused, which is unsurprising, as Salmansohn’s argument makes no sense at all with its narrow-minded categorisation of the masculine and the feminine.

6. And finally, please, please do not try to personify and thus stereotype your country. It’s just wrong. Especially if you’re going to be sexist about it too. America, the ‘real guy’s guy’ (in other words, ‘the very masculine man’) is described as loud and active. India, on the other hand (a country that is in reality torn by its desire to Westernise and achieve Western ideals of perfection – which for woman generally means pale and submissive), is described as embracing its feminine qualities. And it is passive, passive, passive.

Being a feminine woman should not be about self-indulgence in facials, being ‘sexy’ or god-forbid being passive. It should be about being yourself, whoever that may be. So if you’re going to preach to women to embrace feminine-ism, don’t just tell them to subscribe to the culturally constructed feminine norm. Because that’s not empowering; not at all.

For a better-written take on the stupidity that is feminine-ism, see this article on The Frisky.