The Effects of Disney Princesses and Barbie on Young Girls

[Caution: This paper was written by me nearly three years ago, just so readers know the time frame this was in. Also, if you wish to read more about topics like this, please feel free to click the "Kerry-ing for a Cause" tab above. Thank you.] 

     Whether or not parents realize their children are influenced by the images, they are. According to Helga Dittmar, Emma Halliwell and Suzanne Ive, authors of the article “Does Barbie Make Girls Want to Be Thin? The Effect of Experimental Exposure to Images of Dolls on the Body Image of 5- to-8-Year-Old Girls’”, girls, as young as six years old, are affected by the images of Barbie to be thin. Dittmar et al continues to state that about eighty percent of younger girls have a fear of becoming obese. Along with Barbie, Disney’s Princesses also “encourage very young girls to emulate their heroines,” according to Kira Coshrane, author of “The Dangerous World of the Princess” (22). These images can have negative effects on young girls. Creators for Disney and Barbie dolls should make changes in how they present princesses and Barbie. The creators should create new images. The media plays an important role in how these girls think. Barbie and Princesses are main contributors. If the creators of Barbie and the Princesses would create new dolls and new princesses, ones with a healthier body image and who are more independent and act more intelligent, then girls would have a better figure to admire.

Life size Barbie compared to a healthy "skinny" woman

     Young children are very impressionable. Young girls notice Barbie’s and the princesses’ physique, and in return, they believe that is how they should look. Girls tend to idolize Barbie and the princesses. They wish they had their hair, their skin, their clothes, their car, their boyfriends and mostly their body. Barbie and her perfect, plastic, manufactured body and the princesses and their highly unrealistic proportions and not-drawn-to-scale bodies have been a classic image for beauty. Girls tend to think that Barbie and these princesses are what the norm is and are how they are expected to look when they are older.  Since they are exposed to her so young, and young girls are not usually exposed to types of images other than these, they do not realize that Barbie and the princesses are not “the norm.”  Unfortunately, Barbie’s physical perfection is impossible according to Dittmar.  In a study referenced by Dittmar, real women have less than 1 in 100,000 chance of looking like Barbie and having her body proportions: “Were Barbie a flesh-and-blood woman, her waist would be 39% smaller than that of anorexic patients, and her body weight would be so low that she would not be able to menstruate (Rintala & Mustajoki, 1992)” (Dittmar). Barbie would have to starve herself, and become severely malnutritioned in order to look like herself. Young children cannot realize this fact, and most adults do not tell them these facts. They continue to idolize these images.

      Like Barbie, the princesses have highly unlikely proportions, and perfect body, hair, and complexion. However, unlike Barbie, they also can stereotype women as unintelligent, and dependent upon men to save them. Kira Cochrane states, “Based around Disney princesses such as Snow White, Cinderella and [Aurora] from Sleeping Beauty, it encourages very young girls to emulate their heroines. Be pretty, be helpful…” (22). While being helpful is definitely a good characteristic to have, princess stories do not teach young girls to be independent, to help save themselves as opposed to waiting for their prince to come along. Cochrane continues to say how she thinks that there should be something “that encouraged girls to be dangerous, too. Because if any group needed to be encouraged to take risks, it’s young women” (23).  Unfortunately, there are girls out there that will continue to believe in princesses and princes. They do not learn how to take risks, but to sit around waiting for their prince to help them. Then, these girls become adults, who feel as though they are actual princesses and wait for their princes to come save them from this horrible world, Alexandra, a friend of mine, being an example. Alexandra is twenty years old, and signs her name “Princess Alex”. She never learned that she was not a princess, and that there are no real princes either. She continuously compares her boyfriends to the princes in the story books and movies, always thinking the one she dates will be the one who saves her, rescues her from this “horrible world.” She used to say this world is horrible, and in fact, still does, because of the people who told her that she was not a princess and that she should stop waiting for her prince. Whoever she was dating at the time was her prince in shining armor, until they broke up with her, broke her heart, then they became a frog in her mind. She would say that she was “the real Cinderella and that one day [her] prince would come.” She never learned to become independent, to deal with this “horrible world” by herself, on her own. Women, like Alexandra, do not realize the impact these images from their childhood had on their ability to be independent, as well as intelligent, young women.

     These images not only hinder girls’ abilities to become bright, self-sustaining women, but they also make the women fear becoming overweight. Some girls grow up still with the impression bedded in their minds that Barbie as well as the princesses encompass everything. They continue to idolize their bodies. In return, they become obsessed with body image, and develop a fear of becoming fat. They also fear that their children would become obese. My own mother, once a thin beauty herself, tried to sign me up for Weight Watchers when I was only eleven years old. The doctor had told her I was twelve pounds over the average weight for someone my height. My friend’s father told her she should go on a diet because she weighted more than her sisters. She was also nine inches taller than her sisters. In a study referred to by Dittmar, there are parents who think their five-year-olds are too fat, even some parents think their babies are too fat. They put them on diets and force them to work out, to insure their children do not become obese.  With children growing up with these images, as well as their parents putting such an emphasis on being thin, the cycle only continues. These children will then grow up to become obsessed with weight like their parents did.

     While parents have a strong effect on their children, there is another effect. Children are strongly affected by children around them, their peers. These children‘s peers also have negative body images, and their peers project their ideas of a healthy body image. According to Dittmar, the teasing of peers strongly affects children.

 “These findings emphasize not only the importance of social pressures of thinness but also attitudes toward weight. Indeed, 6-to 13-year-olds showed evidence of body dissatisfaction, with all age groups wanting to be thinner (Gardner, Friedman, & Jackson, 1999). Children from age 4 to age 6 were shown to favor a thin body (Musher-Eizenman, Holub, Edwards-Leeper, Persson, & Goldstein, 2003), and Cramer and Steinwert (1998) reported that 4-to 5-year-olds showed an aversion to “chubby” figures, whereas 3-year-olds did not” (Dittmar).

This is a result from other parents influencing their children to be thin, and the images of Barbie and the princesses that impact the children’s impressions of body image and behavior. These children, who are around the age of five, start to take in more of the world around them, which is why they are so impressionable. So, if what they have been told by their parents and the main images of their childhood, Barbie and the princesses, tells them to be thin, and other kids around them are not, there will be some teasing involved. They tease children who may be slightly overweight because for these children, that is not normal or acceptable. This teasing only hurts the overweight children’s self-esteem, and body image, which repeats the cycle of being obsessed with body image for young children.

      Some would argue that Barbie and the princesses empower girls to believe they can do what they want, that they are worthy of what Barbie and the princesses have as well. These images show girls that they can have the boyfriend/prince, the car/carriage, the dream house/castle, etc. The fact that Barbie can do so much, for instance, be a dentist, a nurse, a mom, a fashion designer, makes young girls realize they too can be any one of these occupations. However, there is a underlining assumption that in order to get all the things that Barbie and the princesses have, you must look and act like them. While Barbie may encourage girls to fulfill their desire of becoming what they wish to be as adults, Barbie, along with the princesses, put a lasting impression on girls that they must look and act a certain way to get these things. This only hinders the girls’ creativity, self-esteem, intelligence and independence. Girls think they must look and act like the princesses in order to get the prince to fall for them, and for him to save them; yet, it never occurs to them that they can save themselves. This fact helps to lower the girls’ ability to remain independent and intelligent. These images overall are poor images for girls to look up too.

Disney Token "Feminists"

     Others would say that not all princesses act dumb and are completely dependent on others. This is true. Ariel, or the Little Mermaid, is more independent than other princesses. In fact, her independence and desire to break free of her surroundings is the reason why she even meets her prince. However, Ariel’s figure is still unrealistic, which still sets a poor body image in young girls’ minds. Also, Ariel tends to think illogically. She was so obsessed with the prince and in love with him, that she started acting less intelligent. She would idolize the statue of Eric, and act like a typical girl, giggle continuously at what she imaged he would say to her, all the while never showing her truth strength and intelligence. She signed the contract with Ursula that almost lost her freedom, which shows she was not using her intelligence at the moment. Then, she needed her father and Eric to come rescue her from Ursula, a evil sea witch who wanted to harm Ariel, which does not show as much independence. Another princesses that shows a change in character is Belle, or the Beauty in Beauty and the Beast. Belle is intelligent, reads continuously, and does not need to be saved by any prince or her father. Also, the message from that movie is that true beauty cannot be seen.  This is a better image for young girls. However, most princesses do not act like Belle; and, there still is no princess that is not extremely thin, and that appears to have a flaw with her physically.

     There is no Barbie or princess that is not unrealistically thin. Likewise, there is not enough images from Barbie and the princesses to show girls how to be independent and intelligent. This negatively affects young girls. It teaches them that being unrealistically thin is normal and that independence and intelligence is not highly valued. The creators for Barbie and Disney’s princesses should work to create new images that are not as thin, and show more independence and intelligence. Then, girls would have better role models to look up to and the numbers of girls with body image issues and self-esteem issues would be lower. 

Plan B: Cause Plan A F**ked Us

            Plan B is a form of emergency contraceptive; it is a concentrated dose of progesterone.  Progesterone is a steroid hormone that, in women, has effects on the uterus and vagina. Progesterone helps the endometrium in the uterus be more receptive to egg for implantation. Progesterone also helps raise one’s body heat. Both of which help one’s body get pregnant. Progesterone also thickens the vaginal walls, making the journey of sperm through the vagina more difficult.  If the levels of this hormone drop, along with the hormone estrogen, then ovulation occurs. If there is no fertile egg and implantation of such egg, menstruation occurs. Hormonal contraceptives maintain a high level of these hormones so that ovulation does not occur. However, contraceptive is not human proof, so mistakes happen. The condom breaks, or falls off. The woman might forget to take the pill the day of intercourse, or the following day. In such cases, emergency contraceptives might be necessary, if pregnancy is not ideal.

There are a few different kinds of emergency contraceptives; Plan B is just one of them. As stated previously, Plan B is a high concentration of progesterone, which thickens the vagina’s mucus leading to difficulty with fertilization. Plan B does this effectively the day after; however, if one waits to take it, its effectiveness decrease with each day. After three days, it will not work. If fertilization and implantation already occurred, this contraceptive will not help with “getting rid of the problem”. It will not harm the embryo, but it will hurt one’s pocket (being worth fifty dollars for one pill). Taking this contraceptive may hurt in other ways, since there are side effects including nausea and pain.

I myself have taken this pill before, and more than once. Every time, the side effects changed slightly. The first time I took it, I was sixteen and in my first serious relationship. The condom broke, and I was never good at remembering to take my birth control pills. we started to freak out. We saw a commercial for this emergency contraceptive, and decided it would be better (and cheaper) to get this than wait and see if we have a baby. Well, one cannot obtain Plan B over the counter, unless one is seventeen or older. So, I had my then boyfriend purchase it for me. Although being a male, he was nineteen, so the CVS pharmacy sold it to him. Almost immediately after taking the pill, I began to feel extremely nauseous. I had sever abdominal cramping. I was very fatigue. I looked on the box for the warning of side effects; I had them all. The worst part was, when I was sixteen, Plan B came in two different pills. One you took immediately, and other you waited twelve hours to take. I felt all the side affects for the second time, when I had to take pill number two.  Afterwards, I was very careful of making sure we were protected, not just out of fear of baby, but out of fear of Plan B.

I did, however, have to take it again. As previously stated, I took it about three times in my life, with side effects being different each time. While I had all the side effects each time, they ranged in severity. The most recent time I took Plan B,  I feel a little abdominal pain, nausea and fatigue. The biggest side effect I experienced was a delayed period. I had taken Plan B closer to the seventy-two hour deadline, as opposed to taking it immediately after intercourse with fail contraceptives. I didn’t receive my period for almost eight weeks afterwards. There was spotting in-between then, but I didn’t receive a normal period for two months. This is not a very common side effect, but it is one of Plan B. 

To sum up, Plan B is an emergency contraception composed of concentrated progesterone. Progesterone is a hormone that thickens the vaginal walls, so that sperm cannot travel through, preventing fertilization. Progesterone is in regular birth control pills, as well. Birth control pills keep the hormone levels high so ovulation does not occur; once these levels lower after a few days, menstruation will occur. One can take Plan B if one’s regular birth control, i.e. condoms or birth control pills, fails. There are side effects of Plan B including but not limited to nausea, abdominal cramping and fatigue, all of which I personally experienced with additional side affects when I took Plan B.

Anarchy: The Way to Go

An example that demonstrates anarchy is in the movie, Accepted. Bartleby Gaines decides to create a new college when he is not accepted to any existing colleges. At first Bartleby was obeying the system; he tried to get into a recognized institute by following their process. When that strategy did not work, he decided to exit the system to which he disagreed with. As metaphorically “retreating to the mountains”, he retreated to an abandoned building out of the way. He then notices issues with other colleges, how they restrict students’ intellect, and how students punish others for not fitting in. So Bartleby now cannot simply obey nor can he simply leave; he is too aware of problem the current system creates. Bartleby quickly realizes he cannot destroy the entire system of higher education; so he fights it by working within their system. He appears before an accreditation board, describes his individual college and the reasons why it is important for this college to be approved. It goes against the common educational experience, opening the doors for innovation. He explains what is wrong with the current situation, and how his particular institute can address the problems.  He follows their process for accreditation; yet, he still revised the system because of how his college individual processes on its own campus. Bartleby challenges the process, while working with the process to improve it. In the end, Bartleby did what was morally right.  While this example deals with education, the focus of this paper is the law.

There are many ways of looking at law. Is it right? Is it fair? Should we obey? Should fight? In order to answer these questions, one must answer the question, “Is the law, or authority legitimate?” Knowledge of a law’s legitimacy aids in one’s discussion making to obey, disobey and protest in order to improve it, or disobey and leave the law’s limits. If a law is indeed legitimate, there is a moral obligation to obey it, to support it, and to not interfere with it.  One obeys the law by simply not breaking it.  One supports it by paying taxes and teaching younger generations to follow such laws. One does not interfere with authority and law, for instance, when one refuses to lie to the police during an investigation. One knows if an authority is legitimate if the request in not immoral, if it is made by a legitimate process (i.e. due process). Anarchists argue that state commands could not be legitimate and must be broken, with good cause.  The anarchist position is controversial; however, there is some validity to their stance.

There are three reasons to obey. One should obey the law if it is morally right. If it is moral, one is obligated to. One could obey the law they fear the law. One fears the law because the law has power to punish those who disobey the law without justification. One may also obey the law through submission. One simply lies to oneself about the laws morality, pretending it is moral so that one can easily follow it.  To anarchists, this logic is unacceptable.  Not only is it unacceptable, it is immoral not to sincerely judge the law. If it is morally sound request from the state, then obey; if it is wrong, then do not obey. If one does not stop to question it first, one is acting immorally. To “go against the system”, one may take a few different paths. One may fight the law, and revise the system from within. One may destroy the system entirely, and replace it with a new system. Or, one may simply exit the state’s jurisdiction that is confined by the system.

Law and the authority that creates law, although not one hundred percent right, still carry a higher moral weight than if one simply exited society to live off their own rules. This perspective is the Service View. This theory is very Utilitarianism in thought, since it is numbered based. For instance, my actions, when I rule myself, meet my needs and morality about eighty-nine percent of the time; yet, if I obey the law, percentage rises to ninety-five percent of the time.

Since I appear to be more successful when obeying authority as opposed to disobeying it, I therefore should obey it one hundred percent of the time. This decision, according to this view, is the only logical decision. There are several issues with this argument. If the state decides the numbers, not me or another high level being; this leaves room for the state to deceive society by proving false numbers. Furthermore, the law is not one hundred percent right; following the law one hundred percent of the time may lower my percentage. It is morally wrong to simply follow without question due to this fact. It is still morally wrong to exit the law territory without of trying to correct the wrong.  Fighting and revising must take place before one can leave.  One may leave when there is proof that revisions have not addressed the problem, there are still signs of insincerity and when continuing to fight causes for harm than good. For instance, if one continuous fights, eventually people stop listening to the message. Furthermore, if one focuses on the fight for too long, one may lose sight on other important aspects of the situation. Time then is better spent leaving, or creating a new jurisdiction.

            In conclusion, when looking at law there are several choices: obey, fight and revise, destroy and leave. One should obey if the law is legitimate, and the law does not ask for an immoral action. One could also obey out of fear of punishment, or ignorance of the law’s immorality. One may destroy the law, and start a new system if one finds the current law unjust. One may fight the law and revise it from within the system. One may also leave the law’s jurisdiction, but only if one has tried to correct the law. To leave beforehand is immoral, as well. 

Homosexuals, Marriage and the Law

A constitution is a legal document that holds a state’s upmost values. It is moral. It is powerful. A violation of the constitution leads to punishments ranging from impeachment of office to federal jail sentences. It is also the law. All laws originate from a constitution. Constitutions attempt to assure the right use of state power by guiding rulers through ideals and constraining them through law. We want politics to be justified by right, not might.  In law, when there is a conflict, the courts hear the case and make a ruling. The Supreme Court hears cases that involve Constitutional law. The Supreme Court can and should void a law that violates the Constitution, in terms of civil rights, for example.

In the case of gay marriage, only certain states allow marriage between two people of the same sex. Other states refuse to recognize the couple as legitimate. The constitution states that every state has to recognize each other’s legal documents, such as marriage licenses and birth certificates. For instance, I was born in Virginia, and then moved to Ohio. Ohio can not rule that I was not born, even though I have a birth certificate, based on that I was not born in Ohio. Likewise, if I marry in the state of Ohio, and I travel to Michigan, I am still married and Michigan must recognize my marriage license. Unfortunately, if I was a lesbian and married my partner in the state of New York, and moved to Ohio, my marriage is not recognized as a legitimate marriage.  There is a disconnect between state policy and Constitutional law. If this was in a court case, and the Supreme Court was ruling, there would be several reasons to rule in favor of not changing current state laws to recognize gay marriage licenses from other states. They include, but are not limited to the following reasons: strict interpretation with Framer’s intent, tradition, and strict scrutiny. There are flaws in all of these reasons. If the Court did rule on such a case, the Court should not follow these theories. They should rule in a way to move the law forward.

            A perspective of strict interpretation is that we should interpret the constitution using what the Framers of the constitution intended. The Framer’s had a purpose while writing the constitution. They wrote vaguely, yet with a common idea in mind. One way to interpret the constitution is to look towards their intent, and rule accordingly. However, there are a few issues with this interpretation. Firstly, we do not know who all the framers were.  There are those who wrote the constitution, those who brought up the need for amendments, those wrote the amendments, and the list can continue on. Secondly, obviously there are many. Chances are they did not agree one hundred percent with each other. So which framer’s opinion do we listen to? The one whose thoughts coincide with our more favorable ruling? One cannot read minds to know exactly their thoughts on the matter, how it relates to the constitution or what they were envisioning while writing it. Furthermore, their thoughts and what they envisioned at the time may change over time, once they start to know the facts since then. For instance, with slavery, they did not intend originally, for the most part, on freeing slaves in the south. Maybe after time, like others in the country, their thoughts and intentions would change. Even if the framers would disagree with abolishing slavery, today we understand how immoral it would be to not. In the case of gay marriage, they were not thinking of marriage as man and wife, as well as man and man, wife and wife. Yet, to deny citizens their rights is still immoral, regardless if framers intent agrees or disagrees.

            Another way to look at the constitution, in a more loose interpretation, is through tradition. There are unwritten laws in the constitution in the form of tradition. There is an idea that the Court should rule in favor of tradition. However, traditions can change. If the tradition changes in society, interpretation should as well. Back when the Framers were working, the concept of marriage and the tradition were different than they are now. Divorces did not occur, especially to the extent they do now. There was one man and one woman. The woman stayed home while the man worked. But the tradition and concept of marriage have changed, and are currently changing even more so. Now, there are divorces. There are men who stay home while the woman makes the income. There are single parent families, another occurrence not common in the Framers time period. The interpretation should change as well.

Gay marriage is not fully accepted by all this new form of marriage. Therefore, getting a rulings to interpret loosely and have gay marriages recognized as a legitimate marriage in all fifty states would be difficult due to strict scrutiny. The courts also base decisions on whether ruling in a certain way may cause more harm than good. In the case of gay marriage, to rule in the favor of making it a legally recognized marriage, there may be an increase on violence against homosexuals. But at the same time, should one let violence stop them from pursuing morality and equality? When new ideas about slavery came about, so did changes in law; but not all agreed. Groups such as the Klu Klux Klan lashed out at African Americans, but the law still progressed forward while holding the KKK accountable for their crimes. Likewise, in the instance of same sex marriage, the law should move forward, holding those who act out their disagreements accountable.

            There are several ways of interpreting the constitution and several reasons why. A few, like tradition and Framer’s intent, may slow down the process of change, as well as other aspects of the legal system not mentioned earlier (i.e. Article V). Strict scrutiny can as well, but usually for a good cause, like minimizing harm. However, at a certain point, these theories should be set aside for a change. These played a role in the time of slavery as well; still, there was a moral obligation to ensure African Americans their rights. Presently there is a moral obligation to ensure homosexuals their rights. 

Blerg! Liz Lemon: Feminist?

Liz Lemon, a fictional character on the TV show 30 Rock, played by Tina Fey, is head writer for a show called TGS, or The Girlie Show.  Lemon is a white, heterosexual, cis-woman and a self-proclaimed feminist who works for the betterment of women. “By feminist, we mean each and every politically and socially conscious woman or man who works for equality within or outside the movement, writes about feminism, or calls her- or himself a feminist in the name of furthering equality” (Baumgardner 54). (“We” was italicized because there is no set definition of feminists. This definition is from the writers’ standpoint.) In the show, according to Liz, TGS “started as a show for women starring women. At the very least we should be elevating the way women are perceived in society” (quoted by Rebecca Traister). Liz often makes such statements when referring to how some of the other women characters on 30 Rock act in a sexual way, generally for the men around them. Since this is a sitcom, more times than not, most of Liz’s strides for more equal treatment across the board are shown in a humorous and a much less serious tone.  Liz is often making strong statements about women overall; yet the next statement is usually a joke about women.  For instance, after making statements about how TGS needs to “elevat[e] how women are perceived in society”, she cries out in pain because of her menstrual cycle, as a moment of PMS, and collapses (Traister). She takes two steps forward, and one step back, essentially. There are several other issues that cause many to find Liz Lemon problematic for women as an icon, i.e. her relationship with her boss, or other women on the show.  Yet, all of these flaws make her relatable, and certainly do not make her a ‘bad’ feminist. Lemon, regardless of being ‘good’ or ‘bad’, is important to feminism.

As stated previously, there are some problems with Liz Lemon as a role model.   Many point out that Liz is portrayed as a rarity. There are but two other main women on the show, neither are portrayed as funny, smart or as independent as Lemon (Dailey). According to Dailey, Liz creates “mixed messages about what women should aim for….it’s interesting that ‘smart’ and ‘funny’ get to stay in the picture, as long as the looks, the success and the happiness are toned down’.”  Due to this difference between the pretty and the smart, Liz is said to be a level above; therefore, she does not interact with these main on a personal basis. To many, this is one of Liz’s biggest problems (Dailey). Kelsey Wallace, writer for Bitch Media, mentions how Jack, CEO of Kabletown, as well as Liz Lemon’s boss, mentor and father figure, seemingly always helps Liz with her issues, whether it is about men, her work or life in general. There would be some issue or conflict that Liz takes to Jack, who argues his point until Lemon agrees, solving any of her issues in the end. This interaction sends the message that men are superior to women and that Liz Lemon herself, with all her flaws, simply plays into the stereotypical lines (Wallace).  As Jonah Weiner (quoted by Wallace) states, “Flawed people are funny, sure, but  why does Liz Lemon have the traditionally gendered flaws she does? Elaine Benes and Murphy Brown, for example, were strong, feminist- friendly characters and funny, to boot.”

There is no denial that Liz Lemon has flaws, like everyone; yet, because of her flaws, Liz Lemon is unfairly, automatically condemned as a poor role model. Dailey herself says that looking at Liz Lemon only for her poor character traits rather her better traits causes the biggest problem. “Grading women’s attitudes towards empowerment- ‘good’ feminism vs. ‘bad’ feminism- does more harm than good.” Yes, she can be pathetic when it comes to men troubles or baby wants. Still, she has stronger qualities that seem to be dramatically overlooked. “As a character, Liz Lemon not only runs TGS, but is in charge of a team of mostly men. Her power and strength [lies] outside of the sexual prowess and ability to get a man,” states a reviewer of Wallace. Firstly, even though the cast is predominantly male, this can only illuminate Liz’s professional power and strength, along with other women on the show, showing that these women can stand ground amongst men. Previously mentioned, the other girls are shown as beautiful and more “slutty”.  While this is not the best way to portray women in society, often these characters make Liz’s power, which is absent from her sexuality, become even more apparent. Liz even goes a step forward on several different occasions throughout the entire series to point out that this behavior, while it exists in real life, should not happen, and that women should not play into the male fantasy.  The reviewer continues, “She (Liz) has her position based on her talent, hard work and merit. She’s able to have strong friendships with the men on the show without have a sexual under (or over) tones.” This is an obvious goal for women to stride for. This shows that a woman does not need to “spread her legs” in order to climb the corporate ladder, but that with intelligence, women can reach the top of such ladder, as well. Reviewer continues to mention the relationship between Lemon and Jack.  “With Jack, as much as he helps her she helps him, like with Elisa or his dad problem. Her awkwardness shows that women don’t have to be perfect to be successful” (Wallace).  Lemon does stand ground against men, but sometimes the ground is shaky. A flaw, but a realistic, understandable and relatable flaw.  Lemon “strives and struggles to ‘have it all!’ as a creative writer, business woman, single woman on the New York dating scene, and a sometimes ‘clock-a-tickin’ wannabe mother. While jokes are made about Lemon attempting to ‘have it all’, she fairs pretty well, while also pointing out to us – comically- the hardships of a successful urban woman having to date, maintain friendships [like Jenna’s and hers], and be respected as a boss and a professional [women amongst all men], “ states Colleen Claes, writer for Cultural Voice-Over.

Another issue with Lemon to some is that even though sensitive topics are inserted by Liz and viewed on the show, the way that they are presented, even dismissed in the end at times, is the problem.  Wallace states, “While the very fact that a sensitive issue like preferential treatment based on race and gender was explored n a network sitcom is a great thing, once again the resolution reinforced the notion that these topics are better left alone.” Wallace is referring to an early episode where Jenna, a white actress, switches places with Tracy, a black actor, for a day to see who is “worse off” in a sense. They quickly switch back by the end of the twenty-two minute episode, however.  There have been other episodes of Liz and Tracy exchanging lifestyles for the same cause that end the same way.  Liz Lemon takes on sensitive subjects frequently. Whether it is race, or women in comedy, this character/show is not afraid to point out the flaws. One cannot condemn Liz, or the show, as a poor model due to the comic relief she/it gives to serious topics; the show is a sitcom. As stated before, this is only putting a tear in feminism, placing a battle between ‘good’ feminism and ‘bad’ feminism.  One needs to realize that Liz does speak out about gender, race, etc.  There are times, especially in recent episodes, that Lemon states clearly a well-thought serious statement about women, with no joke following. For instance, as Traister points out, “At one point, when jealous Jenna…tells Liz she must destroy lollipop-licking competition for mal adulations, Liz responds, ‘No, Jenna, that’s exactly the problem: men infantilize women and women tear each other down.’ No contradictory punch line here. Liz spoke the truth!” This does not always make up for when she does make a joke about women. Yet, as Traister states about Liz as a character, “[she] has made huge, feminist strides for women in comedy at the same time that she has made comedy at the expense of woman. Such is the life when you attempt -–as we all should! -- to bring gender criticism out of the pure ether of sociopolitical discourse and attempt to deploy it in the real, messy world of commerce, consumption and popular culture.”

Liz Lemon has flaws. Yet, even her harsher critics say she is “a step in the right direction”; the mere fact that this sitcom has a strong, funny leading woman who illustrates issues in society is a step in the right direction, and a gateway for other women in real life (Wallace).  As Claes states, “She’s smart. She’s funny. She’s independent. She’s not perfect. And she’s like us. What more could you ask for in a fictional feminist icon?” Lemon’s greatest characteristic is that she is relatable. She is not very model-esque. She eats junk food, wears sweat pants, and has boyfriend troubles. She does not always have the answers to her problems, and so she seeks help. Yes, she seeks help from a man; but, again, it is not because men know the answers when women do not. It is because this particular man is older, therefore wiser, and has been through most of her issues before (not to mention Jack also goes to Liz for help at times too, when he is in a new situation where only Liz can help out). So what if Lemon is no Brown? The fact that Liz Lemon is different does not mean that one can simply ignore, or write off, her and her work for feminism. “Different strands of feminism—or any kind of social activism—can work in contradiction to each other. Just because there’s no one correct answer doesn’t mean that the questions are useless or boring; they’re interesting enough to plot a sitcom around” (Traister).  Whether or not Lemon’s answer is correct or incorrect is unknown, along with the certain impact she has on feminism. She has flaws that bring out some negativity, but she also has many aspects that bring positivity. While the overall good or bad impact she has is unknown, it has been quite an impact nonetheless. Furthermore, as stated before, Liz Lemon (along with her creator, Tina Fey) is a step in the right direction and a gateway for other comedic women today. 

Book Review: Pink Think

Pink in Our Society

Lynn Peril, author of Pink Think, touches on many items within society that depict women, such as ads or television shows. This discussion helps expose how society holds women as whole. The images that are put forth in society generally depict how society is, or how society wants itself to be perceived. For instance, many television shows throughout time illustrate a black family that has money, or at least is middle class, and is educated to show that affirmative action is not as necessary while others are insisting it is. Another example would be a single mother raising several daughters on her own. There are shows in our society that depict single black mothers living in wealthy neighborhoods, never mentioning what their job is, and basically, living the American dream. Or, for instance, the sitcom Who’s the Boss? is about a single mother who lives in a big house in a nice neighborhood with a male as a nanny to her children. These shows inherently tell the viewers that this is how it is in reality as well, even though we know that majority of poor populations are ethnic populations and a majority of single mothers are not as well off as these fictional mothers of television. Peril takes this idea and attempts to expose the underlying messages behind everyday things social images, like television shows such as Little House on the Prairie, to information given to children and young adults in the form of textbooks and magazines.  While the information Peril presents in Pink Think is valuable, there are several weaknesses in her book: the lack of discussion on women of color and gays, lesbians or transgendered women, and lack of a strong argument stating how the images she mentions are wrong and need to be corrected. Due to her writing style, anecdotal, the book reads more like a history novel than an argument for women’s rights. While it is good to preserve historical past of women in such a book, it is also very important to remind the reader why this is not the correct way of thinking; otherwise, the reader may be confused about the overall message.

The overall message of all the articles that Peril mentions is the same: this is how a woman should be. The images, articles and shows that were mentioned were to “guide girls’ behavior regarding boys and dating before nature took its course” (Peril 44). Femininity, for the most part, was defined by a woman’s ability to make her attractive for men by wearing form fitting (but not too form fitting!) sweaters, wearing make-up, and having luscious hair. It was also defined by the woman’s ability to “[think] like a girl even when you’re not with a boy” (Peril 45). Meaning, she continuously had to have correct information and skill on how to sew, cook, clean and run a household at all times. She constantly thinks of being a housewife and finding a husband; after all, as experts say, that is the purpose of dating: finding a husband and becoming a housewife, and nothing else (Peril 49). A woman, who could achieve this, along with charm and grace, was considered feminine. Being feminine was everything a girl wanted and needed to be; men wanted and needed feminine girls so that they themselves could feel masculine. Likewise, girls needed boys to be masculine because “[a] girl who is feminine,” wants a masculine man “to lead her – it’s as simple as that. She craves being a helpmate to him, and these are the qualities that maker her so desirable. She likes being with a boy because he brings out these” attributes (Peril 47). If a woman was anything less than these things, i.e. a tomboy or chubby, she was not feminine. Many stories were created to steer girls away from behaving in such a way. For instance, “fatty fiction” discusses heavier girls, who have many issues, mostly boy related; the messages of such books was the same, once the girl lost weight, she became more feminine and got a date for the weekend (Peril 51). By making it so that the girl does not get a date until she looses weight subconsciously tells women that being fat is undesired, because it is not feminine and men do not find it attractive.  This issue is still relevant today. There are many television shows and books that give overweight people a stigma. In the film, “Real Women Have Curves”, Anna fights against this stigma, even from her own mother. There is still the idea that how one looks measures all of there abilities, not just their ability to catch a man. While there is a stigma, today’s “fatty fiction” is not always the same. Like other obese people, Anna was teased for her weight, and told she was would not be able to get a boyfriend or get married (almost to say those are the only joys in life); however, instead of her story telling young women that they needed to lose weight for her problems to go away. She found a boyfriend, went to school and helped save her sister’s business, all while being overweight. There are several other topics that are brought up in Pink Think; some are outdated, others are not but both categories are worthy of note.

Although interesting is Peril’s method of presenting the history of women through social media archives, there is one section she overlooked. She discusses many types of women, and the troubles they faced. The educated women and her difficulty finding a husband due to her “increased” intelligence (woman were always intelligent; yet, this fact became more apparent with women attending college. Hence, the word increased is in quotations.) The stay-at-home mother, and her responsibilities for upkeep of the household, and how society put her there. The fatty child, and how society made it so that she is seen as a failure. While these are important topics to look at, one topic, woman of color, is completely overlooked by Peril. Many of the issues presented are White women issues, as in terms of education for instance. Peril ignores how women of color, along with all African-Americans, were depicted in society.  In cartoons, television and other images that reached mainstream society, women of color were presented always as inferior. There are images that make African-Americans appear to be monkeys, symbolizing how White people perceived them to possess lower levels of intelligence. Again, such images, for all people, show how society sees people, and how they want all America to see the same things. There are plenty of stereotypes of African-American women that lower their status. For instance, the Mammy.  The Mammy is a desexualized woman.  She is usually very dark in skin color because the darker the skin the less attractive one would be. She is also usually extremely overweight, because to society overall, women who were chubbier were unattractive, and less desired sexually. The Mammy never had troubles of her own; she was there to serve other women, listen and take care of their issues. The Mammy is not the only stereotype that was portrayed by society. There is the jezebel, the strong independent women, the “servant”, none of which were even mentioned in this book about womanhood. These are very relevant, even today. Peril needs to mention them and mention how women can handle them and counteract them, i.e. self-definition, for starters. Self-definition is “essential for Black women’s survival”, along with other women of color’s (Collins 4).  These women need to define their own relations instead of going with stereotypes; with defining themselves, the stereotypes can be defeated. Peril talks about stereotypes, but only those that can be applied to white women.

 The book, as shown by its title Pink Think: Becoming a Woman in Many Uneasy Lessons, is about how women grow up fighting the mold that society historically wanted them to be. Her book is essentially oppositional knowledge; it discusses issues that have oppressed white women, and how they learn to overcome them. What the fine print should read is “Lessons for White Women, that is”, because that is all that is shown and mentioned. Peril dedicated an entire chapter on men, and how Pink Think affected them, how society and the pressures to be strong, masculine males affected them; yet, no mention of any ethnic women. The mold for women of color needs to be mentioned as well, for they are women who are dealing with many uneasy lessons, as well.

Like white women, women of color are not the only women who deal with the fight against society’s mold for women and femininity; furthermore, women of color are not the only women that Peril forgot to mention. Transgendered women also have to fight the mold of femininity, maybe more so than other women, because to many people, these women are not “real” women. They continuously fight against stereotypes of women, as well as any thing or any one illustrating trans-misogyny. According to Julia Serano, author of “Skirt Chasers: Why the Media Dresses the Trans Revolution in Lipstick and Heals”, Trans defy gender and stereotypes places by the institutions “that enable male and heterosexual privilege, the images and experiences of trans people are presented in the media in a way that reaffirms, rather than challenges, gender stereotypes” (81).  Due to this, transgendered women, as well as transgendered men, struggle even more so than the “ordinary” woman, or male. They need to be psychologically stronger to endure the critics that cross them simply because they were not born as a woman, or male. Peril ignores how femininity plays an important role in these women’s lives on a regular basis. Peril talks about how tomboys and overweight women endure hardship because they do not fit society’s ideals about women, i.e. skinny, hair done, make-up on, wearing heels and a dress ready to serve her man; but what about transgendered women and how they are fighting to be accepted? To society, and the media, because they wear wig along with make-up, and sometimes do not have breasts, but insert socks into a bra, they are seen as inferior to women. They try to act and look like a female, but simply cannot; they’re fake, and it is apparent when you catch one adjusting her wig, or putting on make-up. Never one mind that everyday women wear make-up, may wear wigs and try to enhance their breasts, or lack there of, in some way; they are never as good as a “real” woman. If a group needed to learn uneasy lessons on womanhood, this group would; yet, Peril once again overlooks the minority.

Besides the fact that peril overlooks huge minority groups entirely, there is another issue that makes this book problematic: her lack of definite argument. For instance, Peril discusses the co-ed classes that were taken in junior high and high school students, shop for boys and home economics for girls. She discusses, on page 57, that theses classes were outlawed in the 1970’s, but she does not necessarily say why, or if them outlawed was a poor choice or not. It is more as if she is telling like a history book, explaining what happened, but never saying why or if the issue had a positive or negative impact. She would present some articles in favor of one side of the given issue, and then articles that favored the other, never saying if one was right or wrong, or if neither were right or wrong, or reasons to it. She appeared more times than not to be neutral in the great debates of womanhood. There was only once, in the last chapter, about females in the workplace where her argument for why women need to be working was clear; even though, her arguments were weak (basically, it was if women did not work, they would have a psychological meltdown). As stated before, this can confuse the reader about the subject, and purpose of the book. As a woman, grownup post feminism, I understand that the issues Peril brings up are wrong, and why women should fight these ideals; yet, there are women today who do not understand that, and may pick this book up, and think she could be in favor for the stereotypes, or at least not completely against them. Such loose arguments can never helpful in fights against society’s molds.

Peril presents many of society’s ideas about women and femininity. She discusses note worthy topics about dating, obesity, workplace, and education in relations to women. However, she lacks several aspects, which generally weaken her book. The issues discussed typically are restricted to White women. She does not mention any minority groups, such as women of color and transgendered women, as if these women’s fight against society’s stereotypical way of looking at women is irrelevant. Ignoring an entire topic in an argument shows lack of critical thinking and weakens the overall discussion. Furthermore, Peril does not clearly argue a side on any topics, which can confuse the reader on the purpose of the book. Peril needs to state more directly her purpose and stance on the topics, and acknowledge other groups of women. By doing so, by strengthening her argument, acknowledge other women and their battle in the overall fight, Peril can help the movement move forward instead of simply teaching history lessons.