Is “princess” being redefined?
One of the compliments aimed at the new Disney movie, The Princess and the Frog, is that the heroine isn’t just a pretty face, but in fact an entrepreneur who wants to open her own restaurant and is uninterested in catching a man. This observation was made to me, for example, when I was interviewed for a story by CNN reporter Breenana Hare, who suggested that this new princess was making a break with the old princesses in more than one way.
I replied that this “new” kind of princess had been on the scene for a while. Belle, from Beauty and the Beast, according to imdb, was “a bookworm who dream[t] of life outside her provincial village,” not of a prince charming. That was 20 years ago. Both Pocohantas and Mulan were adventurous and brave. Most princesses, these days, are not perfect embodiments of femininity, they balance their femininity with a bit of masculinity. It’s ‘cess + sass as a rule.
But, to be fair, these princesses aren’t radical. They aren’t pushing the envelope of femininity. They are only reflecting the fact that ideal femininity in the West has changed such that the perfect woman now incorporates some masculine character traits. “Some” is the operative word here. Today’s ideal woman is still feminine, but she works, wears pants, and plays sports. She may even be a sports fan and drink beer. But she also preserves her femininity, especially those aspects of femininity that mark her as “for” a (just barely and totally benevolently of course) dominant male. She still doesn’t disagree too vigorously or laugh too loud. She marries a man who is slightly older, more educated, larger, taller, and makes a bit more money at his job that is just slightly higher prestige. And, no matter what, she looks, dresses, and moves in pretty, feminine ways. Barbie and the Three Musketeers is another, non-Disney example of this phenomenon:
Not a man in sight! But damn do they look good in those boots!
Simon O. also sent in a Barbie website that fits this theme nicely. It asks “What Should Barbie Be Next?” and let’s us vote on her next profession: pet vet, race car driver, ballerina, baby sitter, “kid doctor,” rock star, pediatric dentist, or wedding stylist. Barbie can be anything she wants, as long as she looks great doing it. Or maybe it’s that Barbie can be anything she wants because she looks good doing it.
The new rule is: a girl can be anything, as long as she’s hot (and deferent when push comes to shove). Whether she likes it or not, she always gets the guy in the end because, well, she’s so damn sweet and adorable (and, yes, those words are totally coded with gendered meaning). This fact, the fact that she always still ends up with the guy in the end, is a really important part of this story… it reminds us that getting the guy is still the happy ending… even the little girls in the bike commercial came away with a “prince.”
So, yeah, we can debate about whether these princesses are a qualitative and substantial break from previous princesses. I’m not sure they are. Or, if they are, I’m not sure the difference is all that fantastic, given that the ideal is still incredibly rigid and damn difficult to live up to. And I’m not even sure I like this new (impossible) ideal any better than the old (impossible) ideal. What we see today is a couple generations of women who are expected to be both masculine and feminine. As if staying fit, looking lovely, smelling great, volunteering, and having a clean house, a sexually satiated husband, and behaved, brilliant, well-adjusted children wasn’t enough of a job… women now have to be go-getters at the law firm and ass-kickers on the court. It’s called The Second Shift and women work more and relax less than men.
For more examples of the ideal balance of femininity and masculinity, see these posts on pinkifying masculine jobs, prints, and hobbies (sports and guns), the “girl” ranchhand, this ad suggesting that a girl’s razor should be “no girly man,” the social construction of female athletes (here and here), and the color blue.
Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.
Comments 40
Annie C — January 13, 2010
Anyone else notice you never see Mulan in with the Princess group?
Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist — January 13, 2010
She also has to be white and blonde, too.
Jeff Kaufman — January 13, 2010
The "anything as long as she's hot" link should be http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2008/06/14/a-woman-can-be-anything-as-long-as-shes-hot/
Crab — January 13, 2010
Notice that aside from the gendered color scheme on the bikes, the Princess bikes come with a handlebar bag instead of the handlebar-mounted water bottle that comes with boys' bikes. So remember kids, boys use bikes for physical activity and sports, whereas girls use them for leisurely cruising and playing Princess.
Never mind the fact that, other than paint job and accessories, there is absolutely no difference between boys' and girls' bikes in terms of geometry, features or components. So regardless of whether they are arguably "empowered" Princesses, we're definitely looking at forced gendering of a genderless product.
It's weird how this works. I work in a bike shop and we have a shit time trying to sell pink bikes, especially to teenage girls and women. The store manager keeps on ordering them anyway, no matter how big the backlog gets.
Jeff — January 13, 2010
Great post- one I'll likely be sharing frequently.
Young Female Engineer — January 13, 2010
If you click through to the voting page, the actual choices for Barbie's career are Environmentalist, Surgeon, Architect, News Anchor, and Computer Engineer. I think Mattel deserves some props for including overwhelming male dominated & highly technical professions.
CS Shelton — January 13, 2010
Hmmm.... I understand this blog is meant to be critical and focus on the negative by design and I think that's a useful and necessary thing, but.... What would be your ideal? In my limited time here I haven't seen a positive proposal about how things should be done, or what your end goal should be. I probably just missed it, but if you could elucidate it one more time for a dummy, he'd be grateful.
The world is so saturated with gendered information and propaganda, how can one hope to overturn that order? To some extent, it's naturally formed by the sexual dimorphism of our species (and our closest living relatives), which makes it more difficult. I am absolutely in favor of fighting nature to make the world a better place (external wombs will save women's lives), so I don't let that canard bother me.
Go all sci-fi on me, folks. Tell me about the World of Tomorrow, when the necessary progress has been made. Unless that's too off-topic.
Andrew — January 14, 2010
The characterization of the Disney Princess in movies really has changed a lot over time. But it's really amazing how little of the Princess merchandise reflects that.
I'm not just talking about the action figures - there seems to be no product that Disney hasn't created a Princess version of. I wouldn't be shocked to see Cinderella condoms and Sleeping Beauty barbiturates. But the images they tend to use are not of these characters in action, struggling against the mechanisms of the plot to overcome the limitations of femininity, but rather those of them in their poofiest dresses, all dolled up for their happy endings, batting their eyelashes and striking a self-satisfied pose. Even the Little Mermaid doesn't appear with a tail much anymore; she's just the busty redhead in pink.
Disney basically gets to have it both ways - winning props for modernizing its heroines and diversifying the repertoire onscreen while making the big bucks on the waifish Barbiefied versions of its female leads.
Going off-topic a bit, I'd be interested to see more comment on the weird American monarchy fetish that Disney taps into. I've never seen any other countries - including those with actual royal families - display nearly so much excitement about putting crowns on people who win stuff, calling their cultural icons the King of This or the Queen of That, and creating elaborate fantasies about the splendid lives of ducal families (with, confusingly, American accents). Is this about some desperation to believe that privilege comes from virtue, or is a narrative without extreme wealth and absolute power just not sexy enough for the fantasy realm?
J — January 14, 2010
In further praise of The Princess and the Frog, the heroine doesn't win the prince because she's "sweet and adorable" but because he sees her intellect, vigor, and strength as they navigate the bayou and she talks about her plans for the future. Actually,the plot is similar in Beauty and the Beast . The Beast falls in love with her because she follows her own rules in spite of her (self-imposed) captivity.
Ike — January 14, 2010
"She marries a man who is slightly older, more educated, larger, taller, and makes a bit more money at his job that is just slightly higher prestige."
I'm pretty sure Mr. Froggy ends up working for Tiana in her restaurant. Mince!
Anon — January 19, 2010
I noticed you mentioned that the girls have to come away with a "prince" in order to win the day, but that's not really that abnormal or gendered. "The guy gets the girl in the end" is usually the happy ending to a great many story, be it action-flick or what-have-you. The hero, regardless of sex or gender, usually gets their love interest for the story to wrap up.
taryn — February 5, 2010
I think it's nice that Disney is trying to promote options for girls. A lot of girls know that you can be more than just a house wife, but Disney is making this more solid. I hate seeing things like Baby Alive, they seem like they are promoting girls to want/ have kids. Some girls do, but i wonder if those commercials make girls think they are SUPPOSED to be a mom. So i really like the fact Disney is showing barbie with so many occupations. Girls look up to Barbie so maybe the medical field will be balanced (since the medical/science field is perdominately men) in the future thanks to Barbie the doctor.
Morgan Leichter-Saxby — February 6, 2010
[...] toys have been frustrated at the selection, accommodations are made. A girl can aspire to be a doctor, so long as she wants to look hot while she’s doing it. Toy microscopes are available in [...]
I. Am. Terrified! « Uplift Magazine — March 3, 2010
[...] the emphasis on playing dress-up, the dubious tokenism and ham-fisted racial diversity, the crappy career choices… we were never going to champion Barbie as an empowering female role model. And yet [...]
Kalani — April 2, 2010
I just found this blog, so I know this comment is coming much later than the post it's written on, but I thought I'd write in anyway.
What fascinates me about the Disney princesses is how obviously they've changed over time... and yet each seemed (to the men or women who created them) to be the perfect choice during the decade in which it came out. I just saw The Princess and the Frog and loved Tiana's character, but I also recognize it as just another step in a progression that mirrors what we value as a society.
Regarding the girls' bikes-- yes, options are limited, but I remember being that age and LONGING for a pink bicycle with a frilly basket on it. I didn't see it as a sexual act that I was subjecting myself to the dominance of a male-driven culture. I just really really liked the flowers and lace and streamers and thought that the blue-and-red licensed characters decorating boys' products were ugly. I'm not even a frilly girl, but I remember being a kid and wanting what I considered "pretty" objects.
I find it interesting that in other comments "wanting to end up with a man" is somehow an objectification of women. We are sexual beings-- wanting to end up with someone is a human desire that many people have regardless of gender. Showing a character getting married or attracting a member of the opposite sex does not denigrate women. If someone has to make themselves a lesser person to attract a member of the opposite sex (i.e. making herself appear "dumber" to attract a guy, making himself unemotional to attract women, and yes, those are stereotypes), then it is a tragedy. No one should make themselves less of a person just because someone else wishes it. But that happens in both genders. But falling in love or wanting to fall in love or attracting a mate are desires of both genders, too, and recognizing or achieving them is not an objectification or a belittlement of self.
Anonymous — April 28, 2010
okay, "princess" in this commercial may be re-defined to include white (or at the least very light skinned anglo) adolescent girls who can safely and securely ride their bike on a tree lined road in a presumably well-to-do neighborhood. At the base level, okay, there may be a little shift for the girl "princesses" to save a teddy bear in distress (prince, a masculinized character). but not much more. its still owned and mass produced by a corporation (who i doubt would include the children of the workers who made these bikes on the manufacturing line as "princesses"... their factories used to be located in Mexico, lord knows where they are now).
this video disturbs me though--even the appropriation of the fist in the air-- eek, scary. that does NOT equal feminist, at LEAST not a feminist i want to be. it isn't even about the "disney princesses", its about corporate interests packaging and selling for greater profit.
‘Cess + Sass = the new impossible ideal | — July 2, 2010
[...] + Sass = the new impossible ideal Posted on March 11, 2010 by paperbacksnpostcards Are the New Disney Princesses Feminists? By Lisa Wade, [...]
Blabla — October 16, 2011
Well, in any "good" action/adventure movie featuring a man, he gets a girl in the end. He sometimes saved her or went brave home.
Maybe it's the same idea : you're good, so you get a partner. What is a happy end with a hero single ?
(Which is limiting, and was mostly applied on men.)