Talking Points #3: Reflection: ALL KIDS LOVE LOG!!!

"Cinderella Ate My Daughter" by Peggy Orenstein



The indentity of a toy's intended target gender in today's culture is extremely clear.  Anyone who might have forgotten just how obvious this is only needs to stroll through the toy section at any big box store to see the immediate difference between the boys and girls isles.  Peggy Orenstein makes her point beginning with the outdated and sexist character stereotypes found in classic and popular Disney films.  The roles of women as presented to girls still young and impressionable, are ones without goals beyond finding their prince, with their futures relying primarily, if not solely on their looks.  Orenstein says; "Their goals are to be saved by a prince, get married and be taken care of for the rest of their lives."  Some mothers fear the message this presents to girls in a time when the fight for gender equality is still attempting to make strides. 

Business strategists argue that gender specificity is wanted by children as reflected in toy sales.  "In order to be gender-fair, today's executives insist, they have to be gender-specific (NY Times)."  The growth in popularity of merchandising pink and blue exemplifies the segregation of gender-specific toys.  Though this seems to have undertaken a gender reversal during the twentieth century, as Orenstein explains, pink is now undeniably female specific.  The notion of the limiting of imaginative possibilies for girls is questioned.  While identifying many popular girl's toys as being domestic oriented, boy's toys are geared toward action.  It becomes blurry as to who may be more limited by popular expectations.  "Boys as young as four said their daddies would think it was 'bad' if they played with 'girls' toys, even something as innocuous as miniature dishes."  The consideration here is that while girls toys may be identified as promoting female stereotypes of materialism and beauty importance, girls may have greater freedom in expression and experimentation than the expectations of gender roles allow for boys.  The positive significance of stereotypically feminine or "princess" themed toys is posed as a necessary preservation of innocence that society seems so quick to corrupt.  The counter to this point is the consideration that the toy companies themselves may be the very first to be corruptors of young minds with the promotion of gender stereotypes, and particularly, what it means to be a girl or boy.  The dispute of the necessity of gender specificity is difficult to compromise on completely. 

While the extreme division between gender based merchandise is questioned, there is a natural and considerable difference between what is expected and accepted for one gender and another.  The topic of Sesame Street characters in Orensteins piece helps to illuminate this point; "If Cookie Monster was a female character, she'd be accused of being anorexic or bulimic," and, "were he a girl, Elmo's 'whimsey' might be misread as 'ditziness'."  These points, as unfortunate as they may be, are culturally valid.  Girls, while seemingly corralled into stereotypical femininity, also appear to have avoided resulting adult limitations as women grow to become professionals in varying fields.  This much can at least be said for many women of earlier generations.  The effects of current consumer trends in toys which focus on materialism and appearance are yet to be seen.


  

Questions/Comments/Point To Share:

My own experience growing up made it clear which toys were specific to me, and which were specific to my sister.  She had baby and Barbie dolls, My Little Pony, etc., while I had Teenage Mutant Ninja Turles, action figures, toy guns, and so on.  One exception I can still clearly remember was when I was probably around the age of 7 and my sister was 5.  At the pleading of both my sister and I while at Toys R Us, our mother bought us each a mini broom.  As odd as that may sound for a child, let alone a boy to want such a basic and unexciting cleaning tool, we were extremely excited at the fact that such a thing was made in a size specific to us.  What made these even more appealing was, just as in the discussion of children's bats in the Orenstein piece, the brooms were available in both pink and blue.  We were high on the fact that we each had clearly gender-dentifiable CLEANING UTENSILS.  I can remember how funny one man which my mother was in conversation with found our content in such things.  While my sister and I enjoyed the typical toys throughout childhood, and eventually pushed through teenage phases, niether of us have fallen into a trap of consequent suggestibility in adulthood.  My sister, now a great mother, doesn't twirl around in a gown from day to day submissive to men, just as I don't chuck grenades at pedestrians and attack suspected criminals with nunchucks.  I can see the importance of forming the right messages for children, but at some point I believe people may also be falling victim to their own paranoia.  I'm sure I will experience this to some extent myself when I take on the responsibility of raising children.  Never the less, it's important to recognize the necessity of letting children be children without overshadowing their early years with the heavy topics they will undoubtedly inherit naturally as they mature.

Hyperlinks: Lorde; The Master's Tools...

Faith Ringgold-The Flag Is Bleeding #2

In reading Audre Lorde's thoughts it became very clear just how different each person's experience in life can be.  Not that this thought isn't one to have crossed my mind previously, but in reading her perspectives reflecting the lack of complete representation in the continued feminist movement, Lorde clearly conveys frustration in the current state of communication.  Feminists of color, as well as lesbian and poor representatives rarely find an equal opportunity to lend a voice to discussions of oppression and the need for change.  The conference which Lorde was in attendance exemplifies her points in this area.  Those in attendance of such gatherings and discussions appear to be somewhat exclusive within a limited socioeconomic frame work.  Representatives in Lorde's experience tend to fit a mold of white academics of at least middle class society.  This club lacks the experiences and ideas of a great range of individuals with a voice to be heard. 

I came across a video on youtube which promotes a strong message of support for feminism.  The way in which this video is perfectly related to Lorde's literature, is that while it may not be possible to identify sexual orientation or economic class, there is an EXTREME lack of representation of women of color.  Only one image at the end of the series in all of those displayed in the over 4 minute video is of a woman who is clearly other than white.  Respect is paid to those women of the suffragist movement which we discussed in class (clean, well dressed, white, upper-middle-class).  This video clearly supports Lorde's position on diversity in expression. 

In searching related topics online I found an artist site for Faith Ringgold who is an artist, author, and professor.  Her painted quilt work is beautiful and extensive covering her over 35 year career.  Beyond viewing her artwork and brief biography the artist has a link under "Racial Questions and Answers" that relates to the frustration of identity found in Lorde's article; "The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle The Master's House."  These questions at least in small part, allow the participant the chance to consider their life and identity if waking up one day as another race and gender.  Questions such as "Whom would you tell first?", and "How do you feel about your new identity?" got me considering my comfort level in my own skin and how this, and in large part, my identity as I'm accustomed to it would change based on gender and ethnicity.  Answers collected by previous participants are available based on participant gender and race.  The questions posed led me to wonder of the feelings of those who feel oppressed.  Would you ultimately choose, if given the choice, to permanantly assume the identity of another race or gender to gain the expected privileges that accompany such an identity?  Would you instead choose to live with the characteristics which you're already familiar?  I believe that most would choose to remain who they are, as they are.  Though challenges may vary from one person to another, I don't believe sacrificing the person you have grown to become for the chance at some possible privilege benefit is a worthy cost.  At any rate, the short series of questions is worth a minute or two, and may even help broaden considerations on identity and perspective. 

Johnson, Argument from Privilege, Power and Difference

Johnson discusses the significance of privilege and oppression relative to class status, race, sexuality, and gender in order to define how these concepts are relevant to each group variable.  He describes the reality of inequality as the "trouble we're in," speaking of the lack of collective unity toward changing the situation. 
This author argues that those who don't feel the power of oppression have little motivation to recognize the importance of enacting or at least attempting to change the system as it currently exists.  Johnson argues that in order to see change, it is first necessary for change of thought which will in turn lead to a change in action.  The change in individual actions can then broaden to greater participation of significant change. 
Oppression places those within groups of color, as well as homosexuals and females at an unfair disadvantage based on born characteristics.  The recognition of one's societal privilege is not always easily admitted, and can often bring on a sense of defensiveness.  The reality of discrimination and inequality due to stereotypes and assumptions leads to further separation in society through a consequent segregation.  This ultimately pits people against one another, making it less likely for people to work together or recognize their commonalities.  An issue is also identified in the mentality that as a white individual, the fact that you may not be directly oppressing another leaves you free of inclusion in the problem of inequality.  It is stated that one cannot be privileged without the necessity of another being oppressed.  This is the balance that is necessary for either to exist.  Though an individual may not directly act to oppress another, the simple reality of being privileged secures involvement in the issue.  It is necessary for those in a position of privilege to aid in the effort of change if there is to be any collective improvement.  Johnson discusses the "social construction" of reality which speaks of the group identifications of people as nothing more than names resulting from privilege and oppression.  These catagories are only significant within these constructs, and would otherwise hold little importance.  Privilege has little, if anything to do with what or who you are, and more to do with how we are catagorized by what people think we are.  The statement made by Harry Brod which says that privilege is not something taken but instead something society gives an individual is a concept I see directly related to a privileged person's detatchment from the issue of inequality.  As privilege isn't something a white male, for instance, can choose not to take, it may be an issue of believing that they have no involvement in inequality despite the reality that they receive privileges nonetheless.

I wasn't raised in a family of what I would classify even middle-class substance, and I myself haven't experienced any level of significant success.  I don't have any examples which I can identify which would classify as resulting from privilege.  This being said, I also see how my perception could be due to a level of blindness or detachment from oppression, as I can't identify any examples of oppression which I have had to endure either.

Intro Summary

I'm an undergraduate senior cramming my last number of courses in order to make graduation by May '12.  If unnecessary, I wouldn't plan to take an early Spring course, but as it is necessary in order to meet a credit requirement I find that I am excited to test myself over the next three weeks.  I am a Sociology major and I see how significant the subject of feminism relates to my study focus of people and behavior.  If I wasn't taking an early Spring course, I would be taking every opportunity I can afford to take out the snowboard and get some fresh, cold air.....I will still attempt to fit in a day or two if at all possible.  I am excited to gain greater knowledge and insight throughout the rest of my remaining time in school.