The F-word discussion

PLEASE use this thread for CINDERELLA discussion ONLY or pertaining to CINDERELLA. Thanks


Your thoughts? Love it? Hate it? Or???

Gonna pick it up on Tuesday :)

I enjoyed it but it made me so angry! I feel so bad for young girls, really I do.

I'm behind! Just ordered it from the library. But there still are a few more days left in August so maybe...
And I went ahead and ordered the September books so I don't get behind again.
Looking forward to being more active in the group,
Michelle

I'm with you Ro. So much more complex in raising a daughter. Media really is a challenge. Thank goodness TV was never a source of interest in my home. Luckily my son loved to read. I like Sweden's rule NO soliciting to 12yo and under. I was a different kind of kid, so happy I wasn't influenced by all the commercialism. Tough now a days, another challenge facing parenthood.

Michelle wrote: "I'm behind! Just ordered it from the library. But there still are a few more days left in August so maybe...
And I went ahead and ordered the September books so I don't get behind again.
Looking f..."

Jump in anytime Michelle, keeping thread open for a bit so no worries. I know how busy we all are. Thx for your effort, much appreciated.

I just started reading it & really am enjoying it.

I'm on chapter 4, taking notes as I read. While I understand Orenstein's reluctance to encourage the 'princess' atmosphere, I can't help but feel that by fighting so hard against it she is inadvertently drawing her daughter toward it.
My own daughter was a longed-for girl on my mother's part (I had had the audacity to have a boy, much to my mother's dismay) and EVERYTHING my mother bought in my girl's first 5 years was pink, purple, sparklie and otherwise frou-frou, never minding the fact that her favorite color was blue, she hated Barbie with an alarming passion, and idolized her stepsister, six years older, and longed to dress in the goth-punk fashion just like her.
The first time my mother saw my 5 year old daughter in black jeans (not 4 sizes too big, but still!), a black Hello Kitty t-shirt. black-light up boots and anime-style pigtails, my mother sat me down and reminded me that little girls were 'supposed' to wear dresses just like the pretty ones she had made for me, and if I needed appropriate clothes for her, my mother would take them out of the attic for her.
Now 14, my daughter is drawn to all things Anime, and to my mother's relief wears skirts regularly, usually with calf-high basketball-style sneakers. Her grandmother is 'encouraging' her to wear 'pretty' shoes with her skirts. I'm encouraging her to wear whatever she likes, provided it is an acceptable size and length. Hence, my daughter's hair is pink (the only time she has ever expressed an interest in the color), her eyeliner heavy black, and today she went to school wearing her black sneakers, electric pink tights, denim skirt and a t-shirt silkscreened with a Van Goh painting. Overall, I'm not worried. At the same time, she is consistently worried about her weight, wonders if she's fat, and wears a misses size zero. Thank you, American culture.
The question, then, I think, isn't "is the Princess culture/image appropriate?" But "how much is appropriate?"

I am so thankful I have a son. Seems having a boy allowed for me to escape some very heavy issues out there. Not that males don't have their own set if issues but certainly not as complex as ones dealing with girls.

I'm a tyrant of a mom. Clothes - never had issues. My mantra was as long as I buy them you wear what I select. You buy - you can wear what you want.

TV - not much of TV watcher's we are readers and doers. Commercialism was never really an issue. My manta be a leader not a follower. My son was't into a lot of commercial stuff. Sneakers being the exception, I rarely caved.

My son was pretty easy, puberty was a drag but I handled that with a dictators rule. Wasn't pretty but necessary.

I feel for those that have daughters, it is tough. So much contradiction and hypocrisy. Ugh!

This is both my review and my own feelings for this text - quite long, but this is how it goes.

SPOILERS AHEAD

I am finding this much more difficult to review than I initially thought - not because I am skeptical of its findings, but because, as Orenstein herself admits, it is a self-contradicting muddle - that claims to set women free as it manacles them.

For one, I was almost dizzy - living in the Third World, I had no idea what kind of life children have in the West (or at least the USA). Throughout the book, I couldn't help pausing to reflect into how different our lives are from the world that is portrayed here - and yet, how similar, given the fact that women are still not free, women are still trying hard to live up to the contradictory expectation of society, and whether here or there - women can't escape the fetters of their biology. Even if a girl manages to forget the fact that she is one, the world will not let her forget that.

Coming to the book, too many things were new to me to put in sufficient inputs of my own - for one, the first chapter struck me in a very different way - Orenstein hoped for a boy for different reasons - it would make her life easier, as a conscientious mother finding it way more difficult to raise a daughter in a less sexist way.

For the Third World, the reason why boys are preferred has a lot to do with traditional culture and religion (ANY religion you take) emphasizing boys as the carriers of heredity and women as a burden on the house (our language specifically calls women these - a snake - meaning it is a dangerous burden that has to be carried on one's head, nevertheless, parki thapan - meaning that a girl doesn't belong to her parental home, but to the home where she will be married, hence, she is but a jewel loaned to the parents till she is reclaimed by her in-laws, a jewel, therefore, has to remain untainted, the responsibility lying on the parents) and much more - which is, by the way, the root of social problems, in my eyes, far worse than any of the problems mentioned by Peggy.

Not being critical here - the stakes are very high, I understand that - but it is not life-crippling in most cases, unlike in the Third World.

I was taken aback by the second chapter dealing with dolls and princesses and the consumerist Disney culture. Because it is almost non-existent in India, I had a hard time conceiving of a world that is an appalling reality for the USA. Disney does not promote its products here - I have never seen a Disney product endorsed here, on TV or in stores. There is hardly any overt gender segregation here - in terms of colors - I am yet to see an all pink/lavender toys section - we do have pink books, pens, toys, dresses, pots-and-pans, with Princess pictures but they are scattered among the toys and colors intended for boys as well, thus not overtly segregating them as girl or boy toys. No Princess dresses available at all. Hardly any Disney movies shown. Barbies are freely bought but only by the rich - they are very expensive, and come in only two features - Caucasian and Indian. For the rest of the kids, you can buy about 10-12 dolls in the price of one least-expensive model of Barbie - unsophisticated dolls that look less like women and more like babies, with faces coming almost straight out of the Evil doll in Child's Play 2.

Of course, an important distinction has to be made here to fully understand why - a huge number of Indians are too poor to afford toys. The middle class (ranging from just above poverty line to quite rich), though being able to afford them somewhat, have a distinctive trait that is a product of historical forces - it aspires to become an aggressive consumer, but is shy of breaking cultural taboos - it will buy things that can be shown-off to others as expensive, classy - but will not buy things that will make them appear more Western than acceptable in their social class - this is more important when it comes to raising girls - after about the age of 10, they will subtly turn their daughters to wearing the traditional salwar-kameez instead of the tee-capris or gowns they wore as kids - the notion being that they have to be chaste, not too modern, have to gain social approval as good, Indian girls, so that by the time they will be married off, they will have an unblemished past.

For the richer class, the dynamics are two-fold - one section upholds the same traditional values as the other classes - it consciously represses women, keeps them docile and protects them from the decadent Western values by subtly insinuating from their childhood that to be Western is to be immoral. The other section aspires to be Western - to be called forward, i.e., liberal - and ensures their girls are not left out in the race to own the latest Western gear, imbibe the latest Western girlie fetishes, and look saucy as they grow up - I think this is the only class that is vulnerable to the trends Orenstein finds dangerous in her country - and yet, since there is little overt exposure to gender divides for toddlers or pre-pubescents, the stakes are somewhat lower.

Another cultural difference is the lack of participation of girls in popular media or as popular icons - there is no music industry in India apart from that of play-back singing in Bollywood songs - no music videos or albums - even when they were there a decade back, there were hardly any women singing, none of them young enough to be idols for teenagers - mostly they sang songs of love and love lost, nothing rebellious in tune, lyrics or dresses. No Indian Hannah-Montana kind of movies either, or concerts or merchandise. No versions of cute innocent girls growing up into drug-addicts. There were no innocent girl culture to begin with, nor a Lindsay/Cyrus debacle wither. No kiddie pageants (but then, in India, women's entire lives are a pageant where they are tested for domestic skills and subservience and the prize is, yes, you guessed it, a husband).

No Princess stories infiltrating the kiddos' minds - the Indian story-telling culture is vastly different, excluding the vulnerable rich, pro-Western class I mentioned - due to many joint families, the task of reciting stories is delegated to grand-parents, who invariably recite religious stories (extremely misogynist) - the lessons women learn are to idolize men and devalue themselves. The classic Adam-Eve syndrome. Women tainted men. Worship men. Punish women. Both sexes imbibe these Indian values.

The same goes for Internet usage - the poor cannot afford it, but the middle-class and the rich class can and girls do use it the way the West uses it - frequently. But it is yet monitored internally, in the sense that girls are less likely to post revealing pictures of themselves given the horror of potential social disapproval if they are pictured wearing shorts or mini-skirts or halter-necks or off-shoulders.

However, there is a contradictory trend in women's clothes - more and more middle-class families are allowing their girls to wear shorts/skirts, though the numbers are still dismal. It is still uncommon - and therefore, sometimes dangerous to be seen in such clothes. And yet, women are not free of their traditional roles - they are only allowed to be Western in one area - in clothing - all other aspects are just as much repressive.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Overall, reading this book has done me a lot good despite not being able to identify with most of these issues.

The first is, I got a first-hand account into what a gender-biased consumerist culture does to little girls - it is frightening, appalling, but not insurmountable. It takes a whole load of effort - tricky for parents and girls alike to distinguish between what they want and what they are made to believe they want. What they want to be and what they are made to believe they want to be. Whether their personalities are a reflection of who they are or what the world wants them to be.

Secondly, it is making me think harder about the differences in the First World culture and the Third World culture. At many points in the text, I almost laughed out aloud in scorn. What Orenstein often dubbed as old-world outlook on females - well, they are still liberating for us. The feminism of the 70s hasn't even arrived in India. While she harks back to older times that were old-fashioned, I find they are still radical in the Indian context! I feel I'm still living in the '50s America, where being a feminist is the equivalent of being ungrateful to your community that is bearing your burden, and which is inherently decadent and immoral. Stained. Forever.

Third impression - Despite being appalled at the consumerist culture in The USA, I find it easier to surmount those odds than to conquer this Everest of Repressive Indian Woman Identity. I'd rather risk over-exposure to ignorance. Dangerous freedom over Safe imprisonment. Choice over Fate.

I'd rather be Meredith of Brave than Rapunzel of Tangled - I'd always favored Brave over Tangled - but could never explain concretely why. I believe this book, especially in its discussion of the two movies precisely lay bare the issues with Tangled which I could not articulate. Even if Brave was a Princess movie.

One of the highlights of this book is that it does not employ technical terms of feminism - it is more rooted in the practical world than in theories that explain the practical world - the arguments, references and lingo is understood even by the most under-read teen, extremely approachable/accessible and straight-forward, without the high airs of knowledge that put off, for a good reason, many people from books like this. Rather than a research book, it reads like a memoir or a carefully researched, well-written blog.

I'm so glad I read this book. Despite the huge gap in culture, I do relate to it in a very curious, unexpected way.

Lit Bug wrote: "This is both my review and my own feelings for this text - quite long, but this is how it goes.

SPOILERS AHEAD

I am finding this much more difficult to review than I initially thought - not becau..."

Lit Bug .... I am speechless. So grateful for your comments and participation.

Lit Bug wrote: "This is both my review and my own feelings for this text - quite long, but this is how it goes.

SPOILERS AHEAD

I am finding this much more difficult to review than I initially thought - not becau..."
What a wonderful deconstruction of the novel. I haven't read it as I've been sick for 2 weeks and now am behind with work, but I learnt a lot just from reading your review. Thank you!

In retrospect, I found the book quite haphazard. I felt it very disorganized and beating about the bush instead of following a clear logical path.

Another thing that bothered me at times was her aversion to anything pink while simultaneously observing that very few pink-lovers grew up to be girls who did not respect themselves or fashioned themselves in line with contemporary images of feminity and womanhood.

Her militant efforts to keep away all girlie toys ruffled me a bit - it is like discarding half of the options available for her daughter.

It also concerns my disagreement with Radical feminism that rejected everything commonly associated with being a woman - feminine clothes, attitudes, motherhood, etc. IMHO, they went too far. Like Orenstein in her obvious panic to shield her daughter. In a way, she was forcing her daughter to give up some beautiful things instead of teaching her that she could have both girlie and boyish things and that both should mould her. She was doing just what the market was doing to the girls, in a sense - forcing them to believe they were choosing something, while all the while subtly forcing them to reject, give up entirely one version of themselves when they could be both.

Thankfully, under her daughter's pressures, I believe, she had to let Daisy try out both versions possible - she could be girly and boyish, without having to accept a concrete single identity.

It is not that I rate the book lower now, but I felt in her panic and paranoia, she sometimes takes it too far, by trying to keep away girly toys from her daughter - I have grown up with several dolls including that sexed-up Barbie with a complete little kitchen, as also boy toys like soldiers, planes, Mechanix set, wearing both little gowns and skirts and baggy boys' clothes and I haven't grown up to be a stereotypical girl that Orenstein fears her daughter would turn into by the pink girlie culture. Some girls have, but so many haven't...

Having finished 'Cinderella,' I have to admit I have mixed feelings about Orenstein's crusade (? I really don't know how else to define it, really). Her efforts to 'protect' her daughter from the overtly feminine expectations Orenstein assumes she will be labeled with seem to me to be more damaging and confusing than any real good. As I said earlier, my daughter has had free reign to explore any aspect of girlhood she wished, and with her loathing of Barbie came a deep love of American Girl and, more importantly, the books that went with the dolls. I let my little girl dress up in 'princess dresses' for preschool, and she played tee-ball on the weekends. She joined band to play the saxophone, despite all her friends telling her that girls are supposed to play the flute and clarinet. In short, I didn't suppress the 'girly' culture, nor did I encourage it, and from all accounts, my daughter is developing just fine. Perhaps Orenstein needs to calm down, and just let her daughter grow, play, and mature the way her mind wants her to.

Nicole wrote: "Having finished 'Cinderella,' I have to admit I have mixed feelings about Orenstein's crusade (? I really don't know how else to define it, really). Her efforts to 'protect' her daughter from the o..."


I agree with you Nicole.... phases happen, a parent just needs to pay attention and knows when a phase is turning into trouble. I am sure your daughter is more than fine. My son is a well adjusted 20 yo despite having a tyrant of a mom :D

I have a question....

How many believe Orenstein faced "parenting" issues? I realize it was her first child but her indecisiveness is common for the first time parent. Some of her comments came across as more parental issues turned into feminist issues. Thoughts?

I have a difficult time understand her issues to some degrees simply because I parented differently and I have a boy. My issues with my son were not the challenges she dealt with.

Which comments were you thinking of in particular, Mal? I'll have to think more on that.

Lit Bug would like her comments addressed and I need to do that. She also asked why I gave the book a 3 star rating. Lit Bug did mention a few points I never considered.

I didn't face a lot of the issues Orenstein did, I don't know if it was due to my parenting style or because I have a son.

TV was not a focal point in my home, so commercialism wasn't as common as in her case. My son wasn't as influenced as her daughter, he certainly never asked for a lot of items. His big claim to fame was Legos.

I didn't have wardrobe issues. I didn't freak out when he went thru a superhero phase like her daughters princess phase. I felt at times she was uptight about so much that were just phases of childhood. Not diminishing her concerns.

I didn't raise my son to believe women to be inferior. I always preached equality. I have no idea what you would say to a girl regrading feminist issues. I never read fairy tale type books, my son was a lover of dinosaurs and preferred learning about individual animals.

I just ran my house differently from how Orenstein came across.

I do think raising girls is a bit more intricate than boys. Both sexes having their own set of challenges to contend. I was also a single parent with no help from the dad so I parented like a tyrant.

I did like the fact Orenstein cited facts. I don't know if they are accurate I don't always believe what I read. I prefer to research. I am not making light of the issues she pointed out, I just didn't face them in my situation. I can understand her contradictions, she's not perfect and being a parent is tough. My style and approached might be very different from hers but it worked for me and I'm sure she's doing what's right for her and her daughter/family.

I just feel there are more contradictions and hypocrisy to contend with when raising a daughter as opposed to a son. I am just assuming since I don't have a daughter.

I am going to make a list of the points in the book I liked and didn't like.

Nonetheless the book seemed informative to me, thank goodness TV and Disney didn't invade my life.

What I LIKED about Cinderella

-I appreciated the authors honesty. She wrestled with issues and was candid as to her decisions

-Orenstein presented information in an intelligent manner

-Commercialism was addressed. This is an import issue that is overlooked by parents and people in general. I agree with Sweden - no advertising to under 12 yo age group

-Orenstein is a first time parent, I admired the way she thought things through. She was an involved parent, too many parents out there are detached

-Orenstein brought up issues that are important: beauty pageants, doll issues, body image etc.

-Never realized how heavily Disney "stuff" dominates the market, specifically targeting children

-Orenstein wavered, I believe a few first time parents do this plus she has a daughter. LOADS of contradictions out there cause hesitation

-LOVED her views on sex!!!

-Orenstein was funny at times, which was refreshing. Just enough humor to lighten the subject matter without diminishing importance

-Informative read, I learned a lot and have much to consider

What I DISLIKED about Cinderella

-Orsenstein's comment over her desire to have a boy, ignorant in my opinion

-I felt she read into too much at times and let her child rule her

-Orenstein at times made the issues more about her parenting doubts and could have written a whole book on THAT alone

-Orsenstein did waiver BUT what parent doesn't.

-I felt on some issues she over analyzed, there are phases. Dialog helps (with child)

I rated the book a 3. Was informative but didn't knock my socks off. I RARELY give 4/5 stars!! 3 is a solid rating in my book ( no pun intended)

I do wonder how she will explain feminism to her daughter - on the broad subject of being a female. Will she plant the seed that it's a "man's world" etc..

As I have said before my issues with my son were different, it was also a different time. My parenting approach and situation was different. I am not an expert in feminism or parenting, I just try to do what works for my family and hope for a positive outcome. Being a parent is difficult, being a kid this day and age is difficult too.

I still believe raising a daughter is difficult, more challenging. All the outside negative influence and issues certainly add to the challenge.

LIT BUG your views are noteworthy, you see things and have experienced differences due to culture. Also your studies perhaps shed a light on issues a layperson fails to notice.

I agree with you on the positive things of the book – as to the negative things, I have a nagging feeling that she felt some sort of guilt at depriving her kid of the girlie stuff when all of Daisy’s girl friends had that – it is only natural for a kid to desire lovely, sparkly, cute dolls that her friends have, to read the stories her friends read, watch the cartoons her friends watch. She said that girls tended to group with girls, even at a young age – often, if not always – that caused greater exposure to girly toys and fables and lesser to boys toys and stories. It is natural for a kid to feel s/he belongs to the group. Denying her those things might have triggered guilt, and eventually she gave in. And at other times, became inordinately stubborn and tried to have a “talk” with her – which resulted into Daisy loathing Barbies (Now, Peggy admired her li’l girl for that, but she did mention she had doubts that she was “forcing” her kid to believe girly things were “stupid” or “bad”, like Radical Feminists).

Peggy might not have wished for TV viewing either, but then, yes, at times, she went overboard in trying to let her three-year old kid “naturally” understand the maturity she possessed at whatever age Peggy was – that, I think, might be her blunder. Instead of looking at toys/fables from a kid’s POV, she wanted her kid to see those things from her mother’s POV. Pretty soon, Daisy made her realize it wasn’t worth the effort. Peggy’s paranoia might have been valid if she had passed the Disney phase and yet continued to fawn over her dress and makeup and her Barbie and had been obsessed with that. I’m no mother, never dealt with young kids, so I might be entirely off-track, but I figured this might be her problem. Or one of her problems.

Lit Bug wrote: "I agree with you on the positive things of the book – as to the negative things, I have a nagging feeling that she felt some sort of guilt at depriving her kid of the girlie stuff when all of Daisy..."

Lit Bug - I agree with you totally, just failed to articulate it. I felt Daisy was running Orsentein.

Buying into "guilt" is a death sentence, at least for the parents that I know. I didn't enjoy being a tyrant but I had no choice my son would have run all over me!

I would love to read another book touching on commercialism for comparison, content and style. Orenstein involved herself which was both good and bad. Like to see an author not so involved but focusing on issue at hand.

Just received my copy. My daughter is nine, interested in reading and joining the discussion.

Heather wrote: "Just received my copy. My daughter is nine, interested in reading and joining the discussion."

Great Heather, looking forward to your thoughts

I felt conflicted as I read the book. The consequences that the media has on our Children is astounding for both girls and boys. But there will be a day when I want to share with my future daughter some of my favorite Disney movies. Looking at them now, I'm like wow these girls did not actually do much at all! But I still have a soft spot for them because they remind me of my childhood. It's hard. It's going to be a very difficult time with my children about what to let them watch or read because I am going to be so concerned about how it will
Impact their lives.
The book itself posed some very fascinating ideas. Some parts of the book, I felt like she was ranting more than questioning but that can be understandable because of how upset she was or confused she was. I enjoyed it. I will probably have to read it again when I start to have my own children.

Stephanie wrote: "I felt conflicted as I read the book. The consequences that the media has on our Children is astounding for both girls and boys. But there will be a day when I want to share with my future daughter..."

Hi Stephanie! Read some of the reviews, might pick up on signs missed in book. I sure did. Nice to hear other thoughts too.