Packaging Girlhood

Super-Lonely!

Check out the cover of this week's USA Weekend, that ubiquitous magazine that accompanies 23 million Sunday papers across the country. Liv Tyler, Gwyneth Paltrow, and Maggie Gyllenhaal are "The Girls of Summer" who promise to "turn up the heat" in "3 upcoming blockbusters". Except these "leading ladies" aren't actually leading much. They're the only women in comic book series turned movies, The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man, and Batman's The Dark Knight. Paltrow is Ironman's "trusted assistant", Gyllenhaal is a "lawyer friend" of Bruce Wayne's, and Tyler is The Hulk's love interest. And the first question posed to the three in their collective interview pretty much says it all: "Was it lonely being the only woman in a comic book movies?" Lonely indeed, for way too many talented women actors these days. If you're interested in where the women are and feminist issues related to women and Hollywood, check out Melissa Silverstein's blog:
http://womenandhollywood.blogspot.com/

Another Spin Around the Track with Danika Patrick

Checking the comments we received below we thought we'd respond with a full-fledged blog entry. Amy's commnt, from Shaping Youth, is kind of like saying a woman who dresses provocatively deserves to be harassed, isn't it? Or that the A+ a high school girl pulled on her history exam is tainted or undeserved because her skirt is short. Of course we know that Patrick posed for men's magazines and ads. It's unfortunate, very unfortunate, that even though women are 40% of athletes in this country they get only 3-5% of coverage in sports media, and so young women athletes draw attention to their sport in the one way they can ensure attention. So it's more than simplistic to put the blame squarely on Patrick's shoulders for this scenario, or to say her choices make it okay to dismiss her achievements on the race track in sports column analyzing the race and her place in history for winning that race. In this crazy bi-polar world, we had the choice of standing with the sexists or with her on this and we chose to stand with her. Maybe sexualizing herself was a path for getting the funding to do the kinds of athletic things she wanted to do. So instead of shame and blame, let's hail her victory, support her sport, value her athleticism, and sit back now and see if some of the self-sexualization can change now that she's been honored as a winner! And if we can keep the marketers and media ready to re-sexualize her at bay, maybe the next Danika to come along will make a different set of choices.

Racing History Made

So, race car driver Danika Patrick has made history. We're celebrating with the first woman ever to win an IndyCar race, the Japan 300. Three years after finishing fourth in the Indianapolis 500, the race car driver can finally -- what? Prove hard work pays off, regardless of gender? Prove that athletes are athletes? Prove she's the best driver on the track? No, AP writer Mike Harris writes, she can now finally "avoid comparisons to Anna Kournikova, who built a reputation based on glamour but never won a title." Say what? This is what matters? Beating out the last sex symbol? What's historical about that? Proving she's more than just a Sports Illustrated swimsuit pin up? Will that go down in the books? Of the win, Patrick says, "I'm definitely just part of a wave of women that are doing different things, great things, outside of the normal world. I think it's showing we're capable of anything.There's so much gender crossover now than there ever has been. So I really just believe that I'm part of a really big picture." Oh, and she won by beating Helio Castroneves. Funny, no one reduced him to his sexy moves on Dancing With The Stars!

The Lolita Bedroom Set

Hope you can see this cute bedroom set that just got pulled from Woolworth stores in the UK. I don't think we need to say more. That's actually the name of this bedroom set.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article3285597.ece

Barbie Shows Bratz Dollz How to Drink In Style!

This just in from the Drug Free Alliance.

"Some parents may not be aware that Mattel is marketing a Barbie 2-in-1 Party Plane & Ship Playset that 'comes with all the amenities.' Along with the reclining seats, fold down table and laptop computer, this toy, marketed for 3- to 8-year olds, comes complete with martini glasses, bar stools and a disco scene portraying scantily clad dancers holding drinks!"

Those of you who've seen our power point presentation know we've been complaining about the Bratz party plane for a couple of years now. It has a "juice bar" and Bratz CEO Isaac Larian has expressed outrage that critics have said that his dolls come with alcoholic drinks. We asked, "Who is he kidding?" But now Barbie doesn't even call their drinks "juice"?

Is Barbie different though from Bratz? When we were girls, our Barbies had black sequined slinky gowns that we think were called her "nightclub" outfit. What we understood at the time, was that when we grew up we would go to nightclubs in beautiful sexy gowns. The point is, we understood Barbie to older than we were. And although Barbie presented a pretty one-dimensional view of what grown-up women did and what they are valued for, she still seemed to us to be grown up.

The Bratz dolls are teens and even look slightly pre-teen. So when they party and drink and go clubbing, they clearly suggests these activities to younger and younger girls. Barbie has been following suit, creating a My Scene Barbie who is more teen than grown-up. She's no longer the Barbie we knew -- in more ways than one. Instead of being a trend-setter, she's trying to one-up Bratz. In true wannabe fashion, she's pushing not just a party plane but also a ship! Not a juice bar but real drinks! And explicitly to 3 year olds. Who ever would have thought we'd be longing for Barbie to be, well, Barbie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgTWToOBbfw (YOUTUBE COMMERCIAL)

Packaging BOYhood?

TIME OUT! Hi all, we'd love to get your help on something. You may know that along with Mark Tappan, we're beginning to write about the ways boyhood is marketed and sold to boys through media of all kinds. Packaging Boyhood will look at how clothing lines, toys, video games, TV shows, music, books, etc. are sold to boys and the image of masculinity promoted in them.

To write this book, we need to know not only what forms of media boys are into and what messages they receive, but also what parents are most concerned about when it comes to the media their boys are exposed to or engaged with. Is it the violence in video games, the pseudo-drinking and partying behavior in tween Nick shows, the attitude in attitude tees, the sexually degrading lyrics in music? Are there positive options for boys out there? Books, shows, music both you and your son love?

And if you have daughters and sons, what differences are you noticing in the media they're consuming.

It would be so great if you could help us highlight issues we should address in the book or point us to certain TV shows, video games, or music lyrics you think are good, bad, or questionable.

Your help could come in a number of ways:

1. You could email us with issues, products, messages that concern you and you think we should look more closely at. (Feel free to drop a line whenever you see something that strikes you as really good or really bad.) slamb@smcvt.edu or lmbrown@colby.edu

2. You could go with your son to http://www.packagingboyhood.com/ and fill out our survey there.

3. Or if you live anywhere near us, help us arrange a focus group of boys to interview!

Thanks for your help. We're still blogging about girls...we just tend to wait until we get the urge because something outrageous has irked us again.

Amy Jussel at Shaping Youth http://www.shapingyouth.org/blog/?p=969#comment-156406 called this TARGET ad to our attention and asked us what we thought. The ad didn't strike us as forcefully as some, but that could be the point here. The innocence and playfulness of making snow angels (with the hat and scarf, the girl smiling, perky--as much as one can be lying on one's back--in that usual over-the-top Target way) is as primary as the sexual availability/suggestion of sexual violence of the spread eagle position on the target (and the camera angle). Could it be that it's this combination that's so disturbing, the blend of innocence and sexualization? We're seeing more of this all the time, whether it's the VS Angel Collection or the Bratz Dolls (with the little halo over the a) or sexy/innocent Halloween costumes for little girls. These are the kinds of images designed to be so subtly suggestive that people are called crazy or dirty minded for questioning them. But of course in reality they normalize these relationships--i.e., between sexy and innocent. The sad reality is that a girl lying on her back spread eagle is more provocative and attention getting (and thus sellable) then a girl snowboarding or standing on the center of the target in another sort of pose. What do you think? Are we reading too much into this?

The Coolest Girl in the School

We recently came across a blog entry decrying a new cell phone game invented by ChampagnefortheLadies. In it girls are invited to “Lie, bitch, flirt your way to the top of the high school ladder” in order to “Become the Coolest Girl in School.” The inventors say, perhaps tongue in cheek, that Coolest Girl in School is Grand Theft Auto for girls. Parents seem to be upset. The blogger we read made some good points, for example, how are 10 year old girls going to get the satire? And how is this different from other video games like Grand Theft Auto? But when I went to the web site, I found something clever and I began to think that a sense of humor about this stuff could really be a saving grace. Here are some PR quotes for the game:

Experiment with fashion! Experiment with drugs! Experiment with your sexuality! Cut class! Spread rumors! But try to avoid dying of embarrassment- literally! (A witty reference to all those “traumorama” or “most embarrassing moments” sections of teen magazines, where girls say they “died of embarrassment” for things like dropping a tampon on the floor or talking to a boy with food in their teeth).

Wardrobe: Fashion totally matters! New friends will share their clothes and you can steal stuff from the mall. (A satire on just how much fashion has come to matter.)

Interrupt: Don't feel like answering a question? Try your luck with one of the four interrupt actions: suck up, give daggers (Australian for dirty looks), bribe or gossip. (Come on, just plain over the top)

Students are labeled according to the sub-culture they subscribe to, teachers exist to be manipulated and parents ensure the constant threat of social death. (The high school experience as found in any PG-13 movie)

This is really tongue and cheek and, well, hysterical. It’s different from the Mean Girls movie which never quite made it to the level of parody because it tried to give a social message –, “Girls. Be nice!” . It's the over the top part that makes it funny-- one way girls can confront the real stuff is to satirize and laugh at it in extreme form.. Experiment with drugs!!! Steal stuff from the mall!!! Suck up or Give Daggers!!! Parents ensure the constant threat of social death!!!

When I wrote to them they said the following.

“Coolest Girl In School is a mobile/cell phone game (not a video game) and was a co-production between my company Champagne for the Ladies and Kukan Studio. Co-producer Karyn Lanthois of Kukan Studio and myself would love to hear your thoughts in regards to our game. Essentially parental protest has turned out to be a good thing for us (although this was initially alarming as none of those up in arms have ever seen it, let alone played it, in Australia at least, parental groups calling to ban the game were doing so a week before a federal election in an attempt to raise their own political profile- context is important to understand here). The debate surrounding our game has been extremely interesting. We find that the moral panic in place of media literacy and critical thinking is a common response.This game is not made to please parents, it’s made to please young women.”

I buy it. And I think they’re two funny women! As Lyn wrote to me, parody may be the best way out of this mess, given that so many well-meaning folks keep reinstating the “girls better be supernice” message to combat all the “mean girl” stuff, instead of asking “wassamatter with this culture that sets girls against each other?”

My response to Champagne for the Ladies was a bit of marketing advice: Don’t pit parents against girls by saying that parents are old fuddy duddies who don’t understand this is a joke, but keep explaining to all, "IT'S A JOKE!!! ASK ANY GIRL! THEY KNOW WE"RE MAKING FUN OF A STEREOTYPE OF HIGH SCHOOL LIFE!!!" Then they would be selling the game not because of protest that makes it falsely "bad for girls" but because girls and their parents "get it.”

And after all, the problem is not really with such games, or even with movies like Mean Girls. The problem is the erosion of the boundary between childhood and adolescence so that preteen girls think all things “teen” apply to them. A ten year old daughter probably won't get the satire, but she also probably won't own a cell phone. Our advice to parents with daughters younger than 13-years-old is if they can’t get the satire, don’t get the game. On the other hand, as we write in our book, instead of saying “no” it might be better to just talk about it and explain the joke! If she says, “but that’s the way school really is”, you can say, “Yeah, and it’s so ridiculous, sometimes you just gotta laugh at it!”

Reading the (Media) Signs: No Girls Allowed

Counting is so simple, so basic, so important. We counted the numbers of boys and girls on sugary cereal boxes, on the covers of board games, in the action section of toy aisles, in Newbury Award winning books, and we reported studies that counted the number of boys and girls in G-rated films, and other forms of media. This was our way of showing where the girls aren't, sure, but more importantly we did this because numbers give a clear and present message to girls (and boys) about who should be doing, wearing, listening to, reading, and playing with what. The results can have long-term impact. Consider a recent article in the journal Psychological Science (Vol. 18, Issue 10) called "Signaling Threat: How Situational Cues Affect Women in Math, Science, and Engineering Settings," by Mary C. Murphy, Claude M. Steele, & James J. Gross. Turns out the kind of low numbers we reported seeing in movies, TV shows, books, and so forth give "situational cues". The researchers found that simply watching a conference video in which women were outnumbered by men made the women-all math and science majors--feel like they didn't belong and feel like not participating. It also made them vigilant of possible threats to their identity. The situation they observed gave the young women that intangible "in the air" feeling that they were unwelcome and might be ostracized if they participate. Young men didn't experience the same threat. They were protected by the reality that they are almost always in the majority and expected to do well in these arenas, and so being in the minority this one time didn't phase them.

If girls see only one girl in a cartoon about geniuses or just one woman in the race for presidency - this gives them a very real and tangible message: you aren't welcome here. It also discouraged them from wanting to do the things they see primarily boys do and to be anxious, isolated, and feel out of place when they break boundaries. This is the reason to care about how media depicts girls and boys. We can no longer accept the lame excuse -- Girls will watch boys, but boys will not watch girls - used to justify the 75% male character rate in G-rated films. Yeah, maybe they will watch. But at what cost to them?

Increases in Suicide Rates among Teen Girls

A recent study by the CDC reports a huge rise in girls' suicide rates. Buried in the AP Press article is the statistic that still 3/4 of suicides are committed by boys. This seems to be the way the media works, packaging any new data about girls and boys as a battle of the sexes. It's really really important to understand this rise in girls' suicides amidst the purported flourishing of girls, but we can see the set-up already. Boy advocates will be saying -- don't forget the boys, and girl advocates will be saying, time to refocus again on the girls. We don't think either girls or boys are doing so well these days. The culture of violence vs. slacking that boys live in can translate in extreme circumstances to homicide vs. suicide. The pre-packaged sexy, diva media image vs. the idealized perfect student pressures can leave girls feeling empty and unseen, searching for escape. Of course we can't forget that boys too are committing suicide in scary numbers, but these new stats tell us we need to figure out why this is increasingly true for girls. First stop: media images and a huge marketing industry selling girls on the impossible.