Claud Period 1AP Language and CompositionMay 2, 2013

Royalty and Royalties: How Disney Princesses Affect Girlhood

They are everywhere – bedspreads, rain boots, tee-shirts, and in make-up cases for

toddlers. It is rarer to find a girl who cannot name them off than one who can. No, not synthetic

polymers. These are the ubiquitous Disney Princesses. These young women, characters from

Disney’s various movies gathered into a marketable brand, have become the fixation of many a

girl in her toddler years, to the point where they have ascended to the status of American cultural

icon and inevitable staple of girlhood. Just ask Andy Hinds, journalist for the Atlantic and full-

time father, whose daughters walked into their first day of preschool without any knowledge of

the Princesses, yet walked out of it a few hours later able to recite the stories of all ten, educated

by their new friends. Within the next few years they added to the four billion dollar franchise

(Hanes) by buying merchandise to fill their house, seeing the movies (more than once), and

dressing up with official clothing (Hinds). In other words, they were fulfilling the Disney

definition of American girlhood, echoing the experiences of many other families around the

country. The integration of the Princesses into our culture heralds the “hyper-feminization”, as

the author of Cinderella Ate My Daughter, Peggy Orenstein, coins it, of American girl culture as

a whole: pink tulle, sparkles, an obsession with fabulousness and shopping, and the upholding of

a more passive feminine role (Orenstein). What’s wrong with a little pink and glitter? This

hyper-feminization puts undue emphasis on one’s appearance, passivity, and unrealistically

romanticized love, which in itself is slightly worrying, but it is an especially dangerous weapon

in the hands of businesses, including Disney, who have spread its concept until this specific set

of traits has become an integral part of a girl’s childhood, ultimately limiting their personal view

of themselves and others, their imaginations, and their conception of proper femininity. While

exploring femininity may be a natural phase to little girls, the commercial exploitation morphs

this innocence into hyperfeminization, in the form of the princess fervor which has rooted itself

in our American identity of girlhood – an idea ultimately harmful to their self-concept.

Admittedly, princess stories are natural to childhood play, and princess supporters argue

that the princesses are not an alien concept introduced into American culture to brainwash our

girls, but a natural narrative device which requires imagination. In his article “The Little

Princess Syndrome,” Matthew Johnson protests that “Cinderella and Snow White long predate

their Disney incarnations” and that the familiarity of the stories themselves is attractive to

children, who absorb fairytales and fiction like sponges (Johnson). In a study on kindergarten

girls, Indiana University Associate Professor Karen Wohlwend examines how they formed

stories around princess narratives, concluding that because the girls knew the princess stories

very well already, they enjoyed acting them out, rather than because they enjoyed enacting

gender stereotypes.

So if girls are using princesses to expand their imaginations in play, what’s wrong with

the pink pantheon? Though princess play can be healthy for a girl’s growing imagination in

moderate amounts, our culture virtually buries girls in all of the tulle, pinkness and glitter.

Recall Andy Hinds’ experiences. The reason why his girls knew so little about princesses,

before going to school, was because he and his wife were firmly anti-princess (Hinds). Yet,

princesses still came to dominate his girls’ lives, despite his own attempts to stop them, filling

his house with all sorts of merchandise and inspiring his daughters to dress up in ball gowns like

those of “someday my prince will come and until that moment I will do nothing for myself”

Snow White. It seems a little eerie that a simple toy brand like the Disney Princesses could seep

into an anti-princess household despite the protests of the parent. It’s just a brand, after all: a

series of stories. Yet, Orenstein uses the phrase “cannibalization of play” to describe the

phenomenon. Princesses act more like a kudzu plant, growing to overpower all other forms of

play and exploration of identity.

How has our culture become so strongly rooted in one royal idea that it is now an

inevitable stage of our childhood? Disney’s savvy marketing and blatantly American capitalism

take advantage of its humongous influence (children who haven’t seen a Disney movie are

anomalies) on American culture. By making its brand synonymous with childhood, Disney fits

itself into as many niches in a girl’s life as it can to achieve its ultimate objective - making

money. While this strategy is shrewd, the girls to whom Disney sells are ultimately hurt.

Princess stories, so lauded for their encouragement of imagination, ultimately inhibit girls’

imaginations by limiting what is acceptable for them to like and become. Peggy Orenstein

interviews her daughter’s preschool teacher, looking at a project the children had finished for the

day. The class was supposed to fill in a sentence: “If I were _____, I’d ______ to the store.” The

boys in class were pretty diverse in their answers, imagining themselves as firemen, raisins,

dogs, and many other things. The girls all fit into exactly four categories: princess, fairy,

butterfly or ballerina (Orenstein 22). Instead of expanding their horizons and seeing the world in

a broader sense, these girls were narrowing their vision to one specific message and limiting their

own ideas, in part because of the sheer volumes of hyperfeminized media girls are exposed to.

Without any other types of media to compare princesses with, what else were these girls

supposed to think? In this case, it is not the idea of princesses that is disturbing, but the lack of

any other type of idea. Disney plays the game well, because to American girls, princesses are

not narrative devices. They are a way of life.

Loving stereotypically feminine things like pink, ballerinas, and one’s personal

appearance is not necessarily harmful for a child. Sarah Dille is pro-princess. She informs the

reader “Why I’ll Miss the Princesses” in her eponymous article for the Huffington Post by

describing her daughter’s transformation from a shy two-year-old into a self-confident toddler

who “dressed like a princess because she adored the feeling of being regal, of being the center of

attention, of creating fanciful stories of girls doing pretty amazing things.” For Dille, the

princess phase is one of self-discovery, and she argues that girls discovering their own beauty

and self-confidence through classic femininity, princess dresses and tiaras included, should be

encouraged, not quashed (Dille). In truth, if girls want to explore their feminine sides, all the

power to them. Classic girly-ness can be very important to a girl’s identity if she genuinely

enjoys it.

However, while it is important to nurture a girl’s self-confidence and comfort in her own

appearance, the princesses tend to achieve that goal at the expense of other traits worthy of

developing. It is okay if a girl wants to be passive and cares about her appearance. However, it

is dangerous to teach her that her passivity and appearance are her only currency to pay her way

through the world, rather than her other admirable traits. A prime example of this appearance-

focus is Mulan. She is marketed to girls in her wedding dress, the dress that she despised and

felt absolutely uncomfortable in, rather than in the armor or more comfortable civilian clothes

she appeared in for most of the movie. She comes with a comb instead of a sword. The message

that Mulan’s toy sends to girls is that despite her intelligence, her skill at chess, and of course her

bravery, at the end of the day she is a woman, and therefore cares the most for her beauty and

appearance. Not only does Disney perpetuate this message, but other toy companies do as well.

The subtitle to Monopoly: Pink Boutique Edition states “All about the things girls love! Buy

boutiques and malls, go on a shopping spree, pay your cellphone bill, get text and instant

message!” (Orenstein 49). Of course, there is no mention of going to school, playing soccer, or

many other past times that real-life-girls love. Girl’s Jenga, Yahtzee, and Lego send a similar

message of girly exclusivity, sending a very one-sided message about how they should live.

Each company is desperate to tap into the “pink factor” which doubles their sales because of girls

attracted to the product, making them more money (Orenstein 43). However, even if shopping is

a blast and painting one’s nails is a form of self-expression, being exposed to only feminine

clichés without encouragement to pursue other passions is an unbalanced way of raising a child.

Of course, companies like Disney, whose profits depend on girls’ obsession with femininity,

push “pretty in pink” more and more to take advantage of what has become a cultural norm. By

spreading products like make up cases for toddlers, fake applique nails, and little mini

cellphones, they cater to what girls want to bring in the cash, based on what these girls were

taught by Disney and other media: they should gravitate towards appearance and vapidity first.

What is a result of this pink girlie-girl flood of media? Lauren Vanderkam calls it the

loss of a “locus of control,” explaining that women in the workforce will fight for themselves

and their family on almost any issue but wages. Higher wages are a forbidden fruit that women,

for some reason, refuse to touch subconsciously. Vanderkam links this mentality to princess

culture and hyperfeminization in general, stating that girls instinctively give control of their own

life to others because of their exposure to one-note media, which tells them that society expects

their subservience and dependence on others. (How many princesses take the first initiative for

herself, rather than waiting for her fairy godmother?) Once these girls grow into women, this

message translates into putting themselves in others’ hands – making less money than their

husbands and being the supplementary income in the family (Vanderkam). While Disney

princesses may not be the direct cause of a gap between the wages of females and males, this gap

is perpetuated by a culture which Disney adds to by marketing its someday-my-prince-will-come

waifs. In the end, whether or not girls outgrow their princess phases, it may stick with them

throughout their life in a more insidious form.

However, media is changing, critics of the anti-princess camp argue. Disney has made

several advances in portraying non-stereotypical females with strong convictions and talents

besides looking pretty. “Brave” is one such movie. It tells the story of girl, Merida, who can

shoot arrows while riding bareback on a giant stallion, dodging unwanted suitors for her hand in

marriage as her cape billowing out heroically behind her. She also happens to be a princess.

Disney and media in general are making a step in the right direction, the pro-princess-factions

state. They claim that passive stories of Sleeping Beauty and Snow White are dated relics of the

nineteen hundreds, and our media is much savvier now than ever before, showing princesses

whose actions are more important than their lineage. Right?

Sort of. While movies and books are improving, toys have not gotten much better. Compare

Merida in her two portrayals. On the right is her canon appearance – a little bit roughed up, with

Merida Doll (Fanpop)

Merida from the movie(Reading Horizons)

a round, still chubby face and a messy frizz of wild red hair. Merida’s doll looks like her movie-

self after a few years of maturation and a trip to the beauty salon. Her face is perfectly heart-

shaped, no baby fat in sight, her lips pout teasingly, and her eyebrows are raised in a flirty crook.

The doll comes with the mandatory hairbrush and a dress she despised so much in the movie that

she threw a fit at the prospect of wearing it and eventually ripped it by the seams to escape its

restrictively small waist. What message will girls take in? They will see both the Merida of the

movie screens and the doll on the shelves at the store, if not in “Brave,” then perhaps in “Barbie

in a Mermaid’s Tale,” or “Tinkerbell’s Pixie Hollow.” The image on the screen of an earnest but

still realistic girl clashes horribly with the materialist doll representation that Disney and other

toy manufacturers release to make more money. Ultimately, the dolls are winning out, as shown

in a study conducted by Jennifer Abbasi of Knox College, using dolls to evaluate what girls

thought of as attractive. Two dolls, identical except for clothing choice, were shown to a group

of girls. One dressed in a revealing outfit, such as a small miniskirt and bikini top. The other

dressed in a trendy but more conservative outfit, such as a V-neck sweater and jeans. These six

to nine year old girls were asked which doll they thought was prettier, more popular, who they

would rather be. Seventy percent of the girls chose the doll with the sexualized appearance in

response (Abbasi). These girls just entered elementary school and already developed an idea of

what our society values, thanks to the vast amounts of princess and hyperfeminized media they

are exposed to every day.

Which image is a girl supposed to follow when she hears a message about her own

personal power on one hand, and a message of primping and preening to maintain physical

beauty on the other? The answer is that girls try to follow both. They have been bombarded

with conflicting messages all their lives and therefore feel the pressure when they are older to

achieve at everything. It’s impossible and unhealthy to live up to these standards. Orenstein

describes the phenomenon as trying to be “Supergirl” and “Cinderella” at once (Orenstein 17).

Many teenage girls face this dichotomy and some can’t reconcile the two ideals – one of the

overachieving girl who excels academically, athletically, and volunteers (already a horribly

heavy work load) and also one of the trendy, classically feminine fashionista, who always

dresses her best, never has a bad hair day, and knows how to cook the best get-better treats for

her boyfriend. Orenstein states that nineties feminism did not not get rid of the old standards for

females; it layered itself on top of them so that girls eventually become expected to be

everything, instead of being able to become anything. Moms are expected to work, but at the

same time take care of the kids, cook, and keep the house spotless. Girls feel the need to be

popular and pretty but also to go to a prestigious college. Brené Brown, in her Ted Talk lecture

on shame, states that while men are shameful about their weaknesses, women are most often

shameful about their own performance and not being able to live up to others’ expectations – the

expectation that they must excel at domestic work and at the same time juggle an active and

productive life outside the home. These ingrained pressures for perfection are instilled in

females in their early childhood, by teaching them the values of the Disney Princesses along with

the standard empowerment fare. Such a split-down-the-middle message only serves to confuse

and put undue pressure on young girls as they mature.

Consider the Merida dolls and movie Merida again. By showing kids both, we are really

saying that they should be both – the tomboy and the girly-girl – at the same time. Either way,

it’s a lose/lose situation. For both toddlers and the adults they grow into, princesses affect their

mental conception of themselves, pushing a vision of perfection is less than ideal. By making

girls feel constantly inadequate, this vision stunts mental growth and self-confidence. Girls can

never live up to the ideals they have grown up with and many have the gnawing feeling that no

matter what they accomplish, they always need to be better. And it all starts with companies like

Disney, whose overly-femme products are introduced to girls just as they are forming their

nascent ideas about the world.

In a final defense of princesses, critics claim that Disney and princess culture protect girls

from the harsh realities of life, preserving their innocence and providing a safe alternative to

more violent or inappropriate media for older children. Sarah Dille states that “I will miss the

princess aisle this Christmas because it will always represent my daughter's utter innocence. Her

ability to believe only in the goodness of people and life itself.” And indeed, princesses do not

dress promiscuously, resort to violence, or venture anywhere close to parental taboo. Orenstein

herself brings up how safe princesses can make parents feel: “wouldn’t we like their lives to be

forever charmed, infused with magic and sparkle? I know I want that for my daughter”

(Orenstein 23). However, as she goes on to state, princess culture affects girls for more than the

two to three year window in their toddler years. It acts as the “gateway drug,” as she puts it, into

more sexualized tween girl culture. By hooking girls early with the innocent Disney Princesses,

Orenstein claims, Disney guarantees it will have viewers, and merchandise consumers, for

Hannah Montana, Wizards of Waverly Place, or any of its other laugh-track-riddled sitcoms, all

of which place great emphasis on characters’ love lives, echoing the sentiments of the princesses

further (Orenstein 121). Boyfriend-girlfriend drama is a common episode plot, which teaches

girls exactly what they should think is important in their life: supposedly true love. These shows

also push the bar up in terms of the standards for girl-sexualization. Hannah Montana wears

some pretty raunchy outfits for a girl appealing to the seven to nine demographic, and her dance

moves onstage are questionable because of their blatant sexuality. Hannah is the role model of

many a little girl, who learns from the pop-star to sexualize and fetishize her body at a young age

without knowing why it is important or what consequences it could have; she does not even

understand the connotations behind her favorite pop-star’s dance moves yet . Despite this

sexualization, Hannah has the trust of parents, who have learned to trust Disney through the

more innocent Disney Princesses. Disney wins its brand loyalty through small children, which

guarantees it consumers for the next six years. For these younger demographics, however, the

benefits of the Disney-family partnership are less clear, and do not outweigh the harm done in

teaching them about blind, pointless sexuality and appearance.

With mainstream media such as Disney vying for a young girl’s attention, it is important

to prevent her from becoming negatively affected by the hyperfeminization around her, through

parental guidance. What parents can do to prevent a loss of innocence, a loss of imagination, and

a loss of open thinking is teach their daughters what the media cannot. It is impossible to block

Disney and other unhealthy media from a household completely, as Hinds demonstrated, but

instead perhaps should take a policy closer to Orenstein’s and Schwyzer’s, who both try to teach

their daughters about what it means to be a female and raise her to be media-savvy. By teaching

a young girl to recognize when a message transmitted to her is unhealthy, it is easier for her to

begin questioning the cultural norms being perpetuated and become her own independent person.

Teach her to recognize that while Rapunzel’s escape from the tower was prompted by a man, she

doesn’t have to follow in Rapunzel’s footsteps. Teach her at the same time that Rapunzel is

admirable for following her dreams and putting trust in her friends. Let her pick and choose

what messages she wants to get from Tangled, because while we cannot choose whether or not to

assimilate information, we can only choose how to evaluate said information, and either accept

or reject it. Unconscious assimilation is the most dangerous way to live, because it leads to a

loss of control over what you think and, and you may not even know why.

We are not in the nascent stages of feminism anymore where militant women insisted that

their daughters should be separated from Disney. Disney is not the enemy. It is a company doing

what it does best – making a profit. However, when girls feel the social, societal, and media

pressure to become more and more stereotypically feminine, in accordance with our American,

Disney-influenced ideal for femininity, while at the same time hearing the “yes you can do

everything” speeches from the adult figures in their lives, the burdens and conflicts they face

shoot up exponentially. Hyperfeminization at a young age sticks with a girl subtly but

dangerously throughout her life, and has a huge impact on her as she develops into a young

woman, bringing with it issues with inadequacy. So while it’s okay to play pretend, imagine that

her pets are her subjects at a tea party, and play Mrs. Tibbit even better than Buzz Lightyear can,

it is important not to let that be the definitive and sole part of a girl’s childhood. Teach her. Let

her know that it is equally acceptable to love Bob the Builder and Barbie, as long as she is aware

of the pitfalls to both. While princesses have become crowned the matriarchs of our American

child culture, relating frills, lace, and pink to our integral female identity, they don’t have to stay

enthroned. All it takes is a coup d’etat. Down with the princesses, long live the greatest ruler of

a girl’s identity: unlimited possibility.

Works Cited

Abbasi, Jennifer. "Why 6-Year-Old Girls Want to Be Sexy." Live Science (2012): n. pag. Print.

Brown, Brene. Listening to Shame. TED Talks. TED, Mar. 2012. Web. 29 Apr. 2013.

<http://www.ted.com/talks/brene_brown_listening_to_shame.html>.

Dille, Sarah. "Why I'll Miss the Princess Aisle." Huffington Post 3 Dec. 2012: n. pag. Huffington

Post. Web. 18 Mar. 2013. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sarah-dille/why-ill-miss-the-

princess-phase_b_2232524.html>.

Hanes, Stephanie. "Little girls or little women? The Disney Princess Effect." The Christian

Science Monitor: n. pag. The Christian Science Monitor. Web. 29 Apr. 2013.

<http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2011/0924/Little-girls-or-little-women-The-

Disney-princess-effect?nav=595261-csm_blog_post-bottomRelated>.

Hinds, Andy. "One Dad's Ill-Fated Battle against the Princesses." Atlantic 11 Jan. 2013, Sexes: n.

pag. The Atlantic. Web. 18 Mar. 2013.

<http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/01/one-dads-ill-fated-battle-against-the-

princesses/267000/>.

Johnson, Matthew. "The Little Princess Syndrome." Natural Life Magazine 2010: n. pag.

Natural Life Magazine. Web. 18 Mar. 2013.

<http://www.naturallifemagazine.com/1012/little_princess_syndrome.htm>.

Merida Doll. Fanpop. N.p., July 2012. Web. 29 Apr. 2013.

<http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/brave/images/31228318/title/meridas-new-collection-

disney-store-doll-photo>.

Merida from "Brave". Reading Horizons. N.p., 28 June 2012. Web. 29 Apr. 2013.

<http://athome.readinghorizons.com/community/blog/childrens-stories-model-values/>.

Orenstein, Peggy. Cinderella Ate My Daughter. New York: Harper, 2011. Print.

Schwyzer, Hugo. "Is a Disney-Free Daughter Really a More Empowered One?" Jezebel: n. pag.

Jezebel. Web. 29 Apr. 2013. <http://jezebel.com/5976403/is-a-disney+free-daughter-

really-a-more-empowered-one>.

Vanderkam, Laura. "The Princess Problem." USA Today 12 Aug. 2009, natl ed.: n. pag. Laura

Vanderkam. Web. 18 Mar. 2013. <http://lauravanderkam.com/2012/03/princess-problem-

2/>.

Wohlwend, Karen. Damsels in Discourse: Consuming and Producing Identity Texts through

Disney Princess Play. N.p.: n.p., 2009. Print. Reading Research Quarterly 44.