Disney Princesses: Response to Terra!

(See Terra's article)

Here is 'Sleeping Beauty.' Observe her figure. Isn't it wonderful? Her waist is so tiny, her breasts so voluptuous, her hand so dainty. And the hair! A golden cascade of thick, smooth locks that every girl would kill for.

'Sleeping Beauty' also happens to be a cartoon character. No human being looks like that, so why does every little girl desire to be a princess? Maybe it's the fact that after sixteen years in a lowly cottage in the woods, Aurora returns to her royal roots, and doesn't every girl wish she could discover her royal ancestry unexpectedly? Or maybe it's because Aurora has an amazing team of hands-on (female) fairies as slaves.

Sleeping Beauty -- and the title says it all, a passive girl who is defined by nothing other than her looks -- is potentially harmful to girls who believe that appearances are more important than intellect, status is more important than decency, and Prince Charming is more important than discovering one's own destiny.

Having said this, Aurora and all her fellow princess-colleagues never had a harmful effect on me as a child. I visited Disney Land Paris at the age of seven -- not that I would ever return to that place! -- and had a fantastic time in the hot French summer of 1999 waving at the princesses on parade and purchasing a bright yellow, and horribly tacky, ball gown based upon the cartoon equivalent in Beauty and the Beast. I used to adore the films and the excellent artwork, and yet none of the Disney characters are inspirations or role-models in my life.

Indeed, there came a time when I was, suddenly, fed up of pink and glitter and pin-up cartoon characters. I've never been into any of the plastic pop-stars during my teenage years and I've never been particularly worried about being carried off to paradise by a rich Prince Charming; actually, the thought of royalty and Disney-like 'hunks' makes me feel slightly sick.

I recognise, however, that Disney princesses do shape the lives of girls who go on to think that they are not worthy, and that they need to be saved by a man. I agree with Terra's point about how times are a'changing over at Disney (Mulan is, incidentally, my favourite Disney film apart from 101 Dalmatians!) and I hope that eventually wider society will change. Obviously, it is no help that there stories such as my old favourite, Twilight, to present girls with the potentially-harmful fantasy of True Love.

Thank you to Terra for another wonderful article! Oh, and I love Target Women and Sarah too.

xxx

More Bits and Bobs

1) This is completely outrageous:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8352711.stm

It's bad enough that women are obsessed with changing their visible body parts! How on Earth did society get so sick that a woman now wants perfect genitalia? Excuse me? Is she really going to run around showing people what lies beneath her pants...? Maybe she is. I don't know. I just don't understand.

I really despair about where feminism went terribly, terribly wrong.

I am very sad about this.

2) Aaargh, Twilight!

I've read three out of four of the books in the series. While I admit that the books are very easy to read and hard to put down, they are sexist and badly written. Not only is the language itself less-than-sophisticated, but the themes are just a tad dodgy when you begin to think about it. Not only is Edward Cullen a predatory and over-protective vampire -- and we all know the sexual parallels attached to such a creature -- but Bella is completely unable to function without a man in her life. Bella is a rather uninteresting, two-dimensional female character, who spends most of her time doing housework when she is not obsessing over the byronic Edward or using another male, the strong and oh-so-handsome Jacob Black, to ease her pain. Obviously other girls get Twilight and I don't, so me going on about it like this has no point to it.

What is most sad, for me, is the fact that Twilight is written by a woman. I'm not going to comment on Stephenie Meyer's religious beliefs, because that would not be my place, but it saddens me that young girls could be encouraged in what they are taught from a young age: that a Prince Charming will come and rescue them, and everything will be well.

With the release of the film New Moon, the second in the series, there have been a number of interesting articles around on the more unsettling side of Twilight. This one, I think, is especially worth reading:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/nov/13/twilight-vampires-teenage-girls

Oh, and I am having a moral dilemma about whether or not I should go and see New Moon. What shall I do?

3) Earl Grey tea is delicious.

xxx

Bits and Bobs

Good evening!

I have a few things that are of interest to me to comment on this evening... I have not got the capacity to write a single organised post today, being so tired!

1) I came across this interesting article on the potential harmfulness of Tory policies in The Independent by Johann Hari:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-the-harsh-truth-about-tory-policies-1815642.html

It's an interesting read, and I think Hari is an interesting bloke. I agree with many of his principles: he's a strong believer in democracy, in secularity, in gay rights, in nuclear disarmament and in stronger action on climate change.I don't agree with everything he says -- he's a bit too much of a fan of the EU and the single currency for my liking -- but I think this article is a good one and I am inclined to agree with him.

2) I heard a new word this week: 'Flexitarian.'

What on Earth? See this BBC article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8341002.stm

This is ridiculous! As a committed vegetarian of ten years, I really can't see why flexitarians bother. Obviously, I am a big advocate for people reducing their meat consumption to try and help the planet in these times of strife, but I wouldn't expect such people to call themselves 'semi-vegetarians' or 'flexitarians.' I really hope I do not hear this term again. You are either a vegetarian or you are not. And, just for the record, vegetarians do not eat fish.

3) I am very pleased that the government have chosen to increase the amount of sex education in schools and make it more difficult for people to opt-out on religious grounds. Sex education is so important, and I really don't think it's right to pull your child out of a lesson on condoms because you as a parent oppose contraception on religious grounds.

I was having a conversation with my friend the other day, about how I think that a parent should not allow their personal principles to hold a child back. In that context we were discussing private education and the importance of giving your child the best education that you can, regardless of socialist principles or otherwise. When it comes to sex education, it is so important that religion does not interfere with the basic facts of life. Pulling your child out of a lesson, because you as a parent do not agree with homosexuality, is not going to make homosexuality go away.

This is not to say that I am opposed to children being brought up in a specific religion. On the contrary, I think religious values -- if not too extreme -- can be extremely beneficial to a child. Growing up in a Christian family, I have witnessed my parents' amazing hospitality to guests and the kindness, patience and tolerance that comes from their religious values. Yet I am not here to debate the pros and cons of organised religion, though I would certainly argue that telling a child categorically what to believe is morally wrong.

So, I believe that a child can learn about religion and sex and that children should not be patronised by being expected to believe that their parents' attitude to sex is the right one. A child must have freedom of choice. I simply cannot see why a child cannot be taught by their Christian parent that sex before marriage is wrong, at the same time as being told how to have safe sex. I do not see a contradiction, and the child is free to make up his or her own mind.

And, after all, which parent, however religious, would not be horrified if they discovered their child had caught a disease due to ignorance over contraception?

xxx