Two of them aren't even wearing shirts!
Geena Davis, an actress who I must admit I know very little about, has recently conducted a study on representations of women and girls in popular media– specifically children’s movies and shows. The results are depressing, if not surprising.
In G Rated films (the top 101 grossing films from 1990-2005– not sure why CNN just put out this info now)
- Fewer than 1 out of 3 (28%) of the speaking characters are female– both animated and live action
- More than 4 out of 5 (83%) of narrators are male
- 85.5% of the characters are white, 4.8% are black, 9.7% are “other
When they broadened their scope to include the top grossing PG, PG13, and R movies, 73% of the characters were male. Also, females were 5 times more likely than men to be seen in sexy clothes and 3 times as likely to be thin.
The tidbit that floored me: female characters in G movies rated movies “wear virtually the same amount of sexually revealing clothing as female characters in R rated movies,” according to Davis in this CNN video [emphasis added].
The website with all the research is here, and kudos to Davis for providing such a clear, extensive study. I find myself referencing “representations of women in the media” a lot, and it’s so helpful to have specifics like this to point to. It’s also wonderful that she’s focusing on children’s media– as Davis says:
If we have such devaluing and disempowering images from the first media that women consume, it sets the table and enculturates yet another generation of children into seeing women and girls as lesser status than boys and men.
Right on. I knew there was a reason I didn’t like Disney movies as a kid– if you don’t like princesses, there’s really not that much on the table.
That women still want to wear makeup reflects a failure of the feminist movement in particular and the immaturity of our culture in general. Makeup is a mask that allows women to tap into corporate power. I don’t mean corporate as in business, but rather corporate as in the power of the group vs. the individual. Men achieve this power by actually belonging to corporations, whether they are lodge brothers or corporate raiders. Women counter by painting their faces. Hiding physical imperfections or accentuating certain features makes sense only if the result is more power for the individual, whether sexual, social or corporate.
But why makeup? The French anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss once asked a native informant why his people tattooed their bodies. “Because we are not animals,” was the reply. That women still use makeup is a reflection of their continuing status as not-quite-human, or to put it in a more Lévi-Straussian mode, women without makeup are still seen as “natural” while men without makeup are seen as “cultural.” By acceding to cosmetic industry standards of beauty, women who wear makeup promote a status quo that says that women are not equal to men. Men can be “cultural” just by showing up. Women, to participate in the culture, must put on a corporate mask.
And while a woman who uses makeup is considered “cultural,” a man who uses makeup is considered absurd. Mass media meditations on masculine makeup like “Some Like It Hot,” “Tootsie” and “Mrs. Doubtfire” are always comedies.
As the father of two daughters, I have had an opportunity to see what Disney puts in movies for girls. It didn’t take long before I realized that people could do better than that formulaic drivel.
Hollywood is inbred with the same writers, mostly white and male. Lisa Cullen blogged about this (see http://trueslant.com/lisacullen/2010/05/10/diversity-jobs-give-minority-tv-writers-a-leg-up/ ).
I’m disgusted because Disney made such a big deal over having an African Princess movie, and yet failed to realize that we don’t need yet another princess movie. We need stories of girls who succeed at doing something cool, yet on their own terms. There don’t have to be explosions, sexual fireworks, or any crap like that.
This is an underserved market. You’d think the movie houses would be all over it. But instead they’re busy making vampire movies. (rolls eyes)
Ms. Knefel,
The hypothesis of your blog is that the portrayal of women in “sexy clothing” is “devaluing and disempowering” to women. In the particular case of the how the Disney Co. presents its female characters as all princesses in very “girly” clothing, it would seem that the suggestion is that this communicates to young woman (and men) a weak and passive concept of how women ought be.
Is this really the case though? Might it not it be possible that many women find imagining themselves as highly feminized “princesses” empowering and elevating? Rather than the image of girly princess being a patriarchal artifice being shoved down the female throat, it seems possible that this image (and other similar visions of femininity) might exactly what is psychologically needed needed.
I would not disagree that this image of the princess can be taken away from its archetypal roots and has been made into a passive unindividualized piece of property (the princess in “Sleeping Beauty” would certainly within that realm). However it seems to me that this is not inherent to the image but how it is presented.
The English writer Frances Hodgson Burnet is best known as the author of the wonderful and very popular book “The Secret Garden”, the story of a little girl who discovers her power to save others and herself from the corrosive effects of secrets. She wrote another somewhat less well known book “A Little Princess” which tells the story of well to do girl who is orphaned and fails far in a world without safety nets. The thought that pulls her through is something her father had told her, that “All girls are princesses” and should be treated as such. She did not mean a princess as we sometimes mean it today, as a spoiled, selfish individual but rather someone who is deserving of the love and admiration of her realm, including the King and Queen. The Princess is the heroine of her own story.
I will tell you a story of my own daughter’s second birthday. She had only discovered the idea of a birthday party perhaps six months earlier. For months she attended everyone else’s birthdays and could hardly wait for her own. When her birthday finally came around we had was beside herself with excitement. It was not a big or fancy party, no one was dressed up and it was not a big crowd, just friends and relatives. Well, when it came time to bring out the cake and sing “Happy Birthday” she jumped up and said “No, no, no”, waving her hands emphatically in a motion that was quite clear we were not to start singing yet, and ran off to her room. We were totally stunned and mystified. She came back out in her girliest, frilliest, outfit she had (a jumper with yellow and pink flowers). She had picked it out by herself and got it on alone (I still don’t know how she did it) and ran back. She climbed up on a chair and then let us know it was time to sing.
Now, no Disney cartoon implanted the idea into her head that she wanted to look as feminine as possible on “her day”. She loved Ariel, Jasmine, and Belle not because anyone shoved them down her throat but because they were how she wanted to see herself, the princess of her own realm. She is now in New Zealand studying anthropology so her vision of herself as a princess do not equate to being the passive piece of property awaiting purchase. She is indeed the heroine of her own tale.
Most girls have always wanted dress-up and to be princesses long before Walt Disney came along. Like any powerful tool, the princess image can be used to help or hurt. It is just a matter of teaching girls how to use it properly.