I started a Princess battle at preschool - Page 15

[alaskaberry]

LOL, that ROCKS! Personally if I have a daughter I would much rather have her be into Fiona than Snow White (bleh). At least Fiona knew martial arts and proved that true beauty is inside. She's not Disney, though...She's Dreamworks.

[Jescafa]

Originally Posted by Brigianna

I have no problem with princess or superhero stories. We love some of the original "princess" fairy tales, which were originally morality tales. The much-maligned Cinderella, for instance, is in the original story being rewarded for her good heart, in contrast to her vain, superficial stepfamily. But the Disnified Cinderella is part of the marketing scheme promoting vain, superficial behavior. Disney and Barbie and pop culture have corrupted these stories about honor and sacrifice and duty and morphed them into the snotty/bitchy/sexy/arrogant/snide/bossy/vain/materialistic/"girl-power" divas we all know and hate.

(snip)

ETA: I think it's funny that so many object to the princesses' being passive. That's the least of my objections to them. I'm all for passivity. But, vanity, selfishness, materialism, and shallow power-hungry greed, not so much.

Wait a minute--have you seen the Disney Cinderella recently? As fond as DD is of princesses, we haven't seen many of the movies, since she has little tolerance for suspense or villains...but Cinderella is the one that we have been able to watch, so I've seen it three or four times over the last 6 months or so. It's totally about being a hard worker and uncomplaining and kind to animals and keeping hope in your heart. And being grateful. And punctual. She's not in any way portrayed as vain or any of the other things you mentioned. Now, there may very well be better messages for little girls, but please at least let's condemn it for something it's actually guilty of.

And it's been a long time since I've seen the movie, but doesn't Belle in Beauty and the Beast have a lot of piss and vinegar, too? I remember being impressed that she was thoughtful and read a lot. LOL. I actually can't think of a single one of the Disney princesses who embodies "vanity, selfishness, materialism, and shallow power-hungry greed." Though certainly I appreciate that the marketing tie-ins stress appearance over the narrative content of the stories.

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by Jescafa

I actually can't think of a single one of the Disney princesses who embodies "vanity, selfishness, materialism, and shallow power-hungry greed." .

Actually, I can't, either. I don't care for most of them very much, and the marketing hype around them makes me want to vomit...but I can't think of any who embody those traits.

[Meg Murry.]

Originally Posted by Jescafa

There are potential negative associations with almost every type of childhood play. Superheroes are violent; princesses are passive, heard it. Superheroes are also brave, strong, proactive, confident. Princesses can be heads of state. Aren't those positive, empowering models? When we try to X something out of our childrens' lives, we then couch these things in purely negative terms; hampering their ability to approach these concepts in an imaginative way and reap the positive from it.

Can you name three? With any significant political power?
I can't.

[gridley13]

I don't have time to read the thread, but I have to give kudos to the OP.

I really despise the Princesses. I am not even going to get into why.

I just couldn't pass this thread without cheering you on.

[Meg Murry.]

Originally Posted by ShaggyDaddy

That statement is very confusing to me. Imagination isn't just isolated thought in a bubble, some of the best stories of any time were built on other people's works. When we bring our imaginations together we create culture.

Shakespeare wrote Julius Caeser based not really on the history, but based on the stories that were part of his culture.

He based his Caesar on passages from Plutarch's Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans. This was far closer to history than to oral folk legend. However, your main point was correct: it was built on the work of another person.

[Jescafa]

Originally Posted by Meg Murry.

Can you name three? With any significant political power?
I can't.

Currently or historically? Well, I concede that current ones are scarce; I mean, the Age of Revolution and the Enlightenment sort of cut down on my options. Elizabeth II of England and Beatrix of the Netherlands come to mind (given that they started out as princesses); though I concede that many would consider them not to have "significant" political power. But do you seriously want me to start listing great female monarchs of all time--given that they started out as princesses? I'm a little afraid of insulting your intelligence if I do.

[Meg Murry.]

Originally Posted by thismama

Disney princesses is not a part of modern 'culture' that I am particularly concerned with preserving, nor do I feel it would offer my daughter anything good. In fact I think it would offer a LOT that is bad.

I hardly see it as a disservice to children to avoid that kind of over-marketed, rigidly gendered propaganda.

We do not have to simply consume our culture. We can create it.

YES. What you said. And to take an earlier example offered by Shaggy Daddy, surely SD wouldn't advocate consuming some of the genuine crap offered up at the Globe Theater or other London theaters during their Elizabethan heyday -- delightful works such as Marlowe's The Jew of Malta, for example. I put Bratz and princesses and Barbie and Disney on about that level (and for some of the same reasons).

[Jescafa]

Originally Posted by Meg Murry.

Can you name three? With any significant political power?
I can't.

Oh, here you go: http://www.guide2womenleaders.com/qu..._empresses.htm
Denmark currently has a queen (formerly a princess) as head of state as well. I don't know a blooming thing about Danish government, but there you go--three current former princesses as heads of state of major European nations. Or does it not count if I didn't know off the top of my head that Denmark had a queen?

Neat website linked above, BTW. Lots of stuff about women rulers, past and present.

[Meg Murry.]

Originally Posted by thismama

Has it occurred to you that perhaps we play out in adulthood the dynamics we learned in childhood? Perhaps celebrity women and starlets are the grown up princesses...

Oh, my God, look at how many movies are directly based on or clear descendants of fairy tales!

1. Ever After (Cinderella)
2. Pretty Woman (Cinderella)
3. Rebecca (on surface: Cinderella/below surface: Bluebeard)
4. Pride and Prejudice (Cinderella)

I could go on, but do I need to?

[Meg Murry.]

Originally Posted by Kincaid

I don't know if it's a movie (probably is...). I just got that quote from the stinking PACKAGING that goes along with the Sleeping Beauty stuff that is sold - ya know, the lunchboxes, t-shirts, etc.

It would not surprise me if the original fable was a rape-fantasy. Especially since it clearly reads (via Disney) that she goes from being an innocent sheltered girl to a mature woman ready to be a bride.... (BARF)

All you folks defending the idea of superheros as cultural icons, you are missing my point. I just told the school if you are banning Spidey, you better get Sleeping Beauty off her back and out of the preschool too.

I am ok with generic "I'm a princess" play, especially if that princess is allowed to be anything other than white, blue eyed, blonde, thin, and dependent on men to save her.
This is not about Paperbag Princess or any of those rare excpetions.

The original Italian source for the folk tale had Sleeping Beauty raped in her sleep. She woke up to find herself the mother of two kids.

[Jescafa]

I'll come back to this when you're done reading the whole thread and responding to the posts you agree with.

[Brigianna]

Originally Posted by Jescafa

Wait a minute--have you seen the Disney Cinderella recently? As fond as DD is of princesses, we haven't seen many of the movies, since she has little tolerance for suspense or villains...but Cinderella is the one that we have been able to watch, so I've seen it three or four times over the last 6 months or so. It's totally about being a hard worker and uncomplaining and kind to animals and keeping hope in your heart. And being grateful. And punctual. She's not in any way portrayed as vain or any of the other things you mentioned. Now, there may very well be better messages for little girls, but please at least let's condemn it for something it's actually guilty of.

And it's been a long time since I've seen the movie, but doesn't Belle in Beauty and the Beast have a lot of piss and vinegar, too? I remember being impressed that she was thoughtful and read a lot. LOL. I actually can't think of a single one of the Disney princesses who embodies "vanity, selfishness, materialism, and shallow power-hungry greed." Though certainly I appreciate that the marketing tie-ins stress appearance over the narrative content of the stories.

No, the stories themselves aren't that way, but the marketing is. The marketing of "Disney princesses" isn't even about the stories anymore. The princesses have been completely stripped of their narrative. They are the new Barbies. There are little books about the "princesses" getting together and doing things, although the stories are completely unrelated. Now Cinderella and Snow White and Sleeping Beauty and the Little Mermaid are all having a joint tea party and wearing shiny dresses, with no mention of the the stories, original or Disnified. Rather than being about the tales, it's about the "princess" commodity, which is promoted, through marketing, as part of the larger phenomenon of selfishness and vanity and "girl power." They take a story about honor and duty and pull out the heroine and market her as nothing more than an updated Barbie.

[Meg Murry.]

Originally Posted by Jescafa

Currently or historically? Well, I concede that current ones are scarce; I mean, the Age of Revolution and the Enlightenment sort of cut down on my options. Elizabeth II of England and Beatrix of the Netherlands come to mind (given that they started out as princesses); though I concede that many would consider them not to have "significant" political power. But do you seriously want me to start listing great female monarchs of all time--given that they started out as princesses? I'm a little afraid of insulting your intelligence if I do.

I would simply argue that as princesses, they had little to no political power -- and in some cases, were completely other people's tools and barely escaped with their lives intact (Princess Elizabeth -- later Elizabeth I -- comes to mind here).

Queen...that's another thing altogether. What those women were before they were queen is not (IMHO) super-relevant. To say "Princesses have significant political power because they became queens" is kind've like saying that pawns have significant power on a chessboard because they can be promoted, KWIM?


Now, if the "queen" archetype weren't so blastedly negative in this society, it might be a better role model -- or at least one with more self-determination than "princess."

[chicagomom]

Originally Posted by wonderwahine

i am not homeschooling to avoid the media culture, i am homeschooling because it provides better education and he wont be exposed to either side of extremisim.

Unschooling in the US is by definition not "mainstream", so you are already exposing your child to extremism by pursuing an education far outside of mainstream culture, regardless of its superior qualities.

[Meg Murry.]

Originally Posted by Brigianna

No, the stories themselves aren't that way, but the marketing is. The marketing of "Disney princesses" isn't even about the stories anymore. The princesses have been completely stripped of their narrative. They are the new Barbies. There are little books about the "princesses" getting together and doing things, although the stories are completely unrelated. Now Cinderella and Snow White and Sleeping Beauty and the Little Mermaid are all having a joint tea party and wearing shiny dresses, with no mention of the the stories, original or Disnified. Rather than being about the tales, it's about the "princess" commodity, which is promoted, through marketing, as part of the larger phenomenon of selfishness and vanity and "girl power." They take a story about honor and duty and pull out the heroine and market her as nothing more than an updated Barbie.

And have you noticed the systematic exclusion of Mulan?

[Jescafa]

Originally Posted by Meg Murry.

I would simply argue that as princesses, they had little to no political power -- and in some cases, were completely other people's tools and barely escaped with their lives intact (Princess Elizabeth -- later Elizabeth I -- comes to mind here).

Queen...that's another thing altogether. What those women were before they were queen is not (IMHO) super-relevant. To say "Princesses have significant political power because they became queens" is kind've like saying that pawns have significant power on a chessboard because they can be promoted, KWIM?


Now, if the "queen" archetype weren't so blastedly negative in this society, it might be a better role model -- or at least one with more self-determination than "princess."

Then I worded it poorly initially. I said, "Princesses can be heads of state," when what I should have said was, "Princesses can become heads of state." And I do think it's relevant because it's not as though you or I could become ruling Queen of Denmark. You have to be princess first.

[thismama]

Originally Posted by chicagomom

Unschooling in the US is by definition not "mainstream", so you are already exposing your child to extremism by pursuing an education far outside of mainstream culture, regardless of its superior qualities.

Very true. Many people would call unschooling extreme. Does that render it worthless? Or am I seeing some hypocrisy here for different issues?

[Jescafa]

Originally Posted by Jescafa

Then I worded it poorly initially. I said, "Princesses can be heads of state," when what I should have said was, "Princesses can become heads of state." And I do think it's relevant because it's not as though you or I could become ruling Queen of Denmark. You have to be princess first.

Oh, but also, if you look at the link I posted above, you'll see that the word "princess" remains part of the list of formal titles for many ruling queens. So in a way I worded it correctly initially as well.

[zo's ma]

At the end of the day, IMO there's no place for any of it in school....have all of the princesses/superheros that you want at home and leave them there. Those loud, plastic, busy, garish things staring out at you....sensory overload for sure. Show me a 3/4 y/o who needs more stimulation.

Disney does prohibit the imagination.....watch a few movies and there's nothing left, it's all been thought up for you.