The commodification of girlhood

A mother on a local parenting forum recently lamented that her daughter, a teenager, was having a hard time making substantive friendships. Even after switching schools several times, no matter where she went, the social environment teemed with toxic and dysfunctional personalities, far beyond the cliques and social strata that have long been (more or less) a normal part of adolescence.
Her quandary resonated with me, and my only daughter is a first-grader. The paradigm of my daughter's generation, however, could accurately be described as a sassy "7 going on 25," and it's disturbing beyond the telling of it.
In a society that glorifies shallow consumerism and superficiality, where little girls are encouraged to be vanity-obsessed, entitled little "brats," "princesses," "divas" and frankly, sex objects (just look around at the nearest mall), it should surprise no one that by the time they reach junior high school, many girls effectively embody the sexually precocious, vapid, catty, self-centered ideal they have been socially conditioned to meet.
There is precious little emphasis placed on such values as self-respect, forbearance, critical thought or graciousness, let alone empathy or social consciousness. Even movements that claim to be about "empowerment" wax disingenuous. The whole concept of "girl power" seems largely to be a subterfuge for a bizarre brand of neofeminism grounded in the willful, opportunistic objectification of girls and women. Conflating it with "self-esteem" or actual feminism is, in my mind, unadulterated rubbish.
Sadly, to resist or reject these overwhelmingly negative influences is to be patently nonconformist. For too many parents, the interest of "fitting in" trumps most - if not all - other considerations. This drastically lowers the proverbial bar, leaving those with higher standards to either compromise their principles or navigate the considerable turmoil of social ostracism.
There are many aspects of parenting about which I strive to keep an open mind. "To each their own," however, really isn't applicable in this case, for the implications are much too formidable and far-reaching.
While it is tempting to place the onus on the media and/or marketers, the truth is that the greater accountability lies with the parents and consumers who perpetuate it, whether they buy into it actively or passively, willfully or ignorantly. To call this contemptible is a gross understatement.
Kim Long is a thirtysomething urban hausfrau who lives downtown with her husband and two children, devoting herself to her family and her eponymous photography business.
![CinWeekly [Beta]](http://cinweekly.cincinnati.com/images/cin_header_logo_beta.gif)
18 Comments:
Good point. I couldn't agree more. Parents these days have their little girls dressing so inappropriately that it isn't even funny.
Parenting in this country is pathetic. By the time the kids are ten, most of them run the show at their house, telling there parents what to do.
Kim needs to get laid
Wow! That's really insightful, Anonymous #2. Anyone who objects to children dressing as miniature hookers must need to have more sex. Thank you for the cogent argument.
Thanks for this, it needs to be said. I think it is tragic that parents today allow their daughters to be objectified. Little girls deserve to be little girls, and to have their childhood safeguarded.
What I think most people don't realize that each generation has sex symbols, innuendos, etc. in their time. Marilyn Monroe dressed in tight skimpy clothing and her signature move was to stand over a grate and let her dress fly up. I hadn't seen the movie Back to the Future since I was a kid, but seeing it as an adult, I couldn't believe all the references to inappropriate issues there were. And what about the classic movie Grease? Sandra Dee wore tight black pants and an off the shoulder shirt and one of the high school girls was worried that she was pregnant. Did anyone who saw these things as a kid think anything of them? I didn't. We tend to think that our children need to be sheltered from absolutely everything. I think it is true that it's all in how the parents handle these issues that is important and that if kids are involved in healthy activities, then these issues won’t be as glaring.
OK, Anon 9:27, that agrument makes little sense. You are talking about movies and everyone else is talking about real life. You are talking about adults, we are talking about children.
Having your kids dress appropriately is totally different from sheltering them.
If you really read the whole thing, the 'commodification' at issue is multi-faceted, the sexual aspect of it being just one of many (narcissism, shallowness, anti-intellectualism, and unconscionable consumerism being others).
My "agrument" mentions SOME of the negative influences that children have that would cause them to want to dress in such clothing, which includes movies and movie stars, which are part of the media, as mentioned in the article. The idea to dress skimpily doesn't come from their parents, it comes from feeding into the influences of Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, who ARE adults. The movies I mentioned were KID-rated movies with adults portrayed as children and my point was that our parents didn't overreact about them. I did not at all imply that you shouldn't shelter your children.
"The idea to dress skimpily doesn't come from their parents, it comes from feeding into the influences of Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, who ARE adults."
The social and cultural influences I'm referencing absolutely include (but are not limited to) the cult of celebrity you cite. It is precisely the consumption and perpetuation of it that I'm decrying.
Ultimately, Fergie and Lindsay aren't the ones buying provocative clothing or tarty dolls for all these little girls. Brit and Paris aren't shuttling our children to the mall for saucy diva makeover parties.
They certainly feed but do not actually propagate the values that are shaping a generation of mindless, narcissistic, demanding, materialistic twits. How and where the seeds of those ideals are planted matters much less than how they actually grow. Their manifestation depends entirely on parents and consumers putting their money behind them.
I agree with what Kim has to say in both her article and blog. I encourage readers to visit http://www.commercialexploitation.org/whatswrongcindy.htm to read "What's Wrong with Cinderella?" to learn about one mother's struggle with similar issues.
There is a lot of media coverage about sexual predators preying on young children these days. This is a frightening issue. At the same time, there appears to be an upsurge in the trend of dressing little girls in oversexualized clothes. Note that I am NOT saying that any girl (or other person for that matter) who dresses in skimpy clothing deserves to be molested or raped. However, it feels like the prepubescent tart has become a popular fetish and there is not much critical discourse on this issue. It saddens me that when someone tries to respectfully speak up on this matter there is a person who feels like dismissing the argument by making a crack about Kim's sex life.
I agree that anyone interested in this issue should read "What's Wrong with Cinderella?". It says all I've ever wanted to say about the princess/diva/brat garbage our girls are being force fed from the time they sleep on Disney linens in their cribs. I also suggest reading/watching Jean Kilborne's work. If you think that clothing and toys are harmless, you obviously aren't looking closely.
Looks like someone watched the first season of Dawson's Creek too much.
Other than that, plastic bubbles and body condoms are the only way to keep your "precious" safe. I bet you take you kids to the emergency room every time they have a fever. More of the pussification of the USA.
You're fat and not very attractive. Shut up.
Gee, you sure told her, didn't you? I'm sure she shall struggle to find a reason to go on now that she knows such obviously mature, intelligent, and respectable people find her fat, ugly, and frigid, three qualities which clearly render moot her astute observations.
No I agree, she should be sterilized. Ugly people are not cool. Not even ones that think
they are special because they like art and wear funny glasses. Please kill yourself and do us all a favor.
She is fat. You can see it in her face. Maybe instead of blowing your fat mouth open with _____(fill in big word here), you should try jogging. You're also very unattractive. Don't place yourself in the public eye if you aren't physically appropriate.
As a sociologist, I find it fascinating that the issue is deflected to KIM'S attractiveness and somehow that implies that she is angry about the sexualization of our little girls. Having been married to the author for 10 years, I can vouch for the fact she is most beautiful, not "fat", and demonstrates more integrity and intellectualism than some of the so-called commenters. Their only sign of literacy was that they could type out comments...but literacy and comprehension are two different matters.
Kim and I have had numerous conversations about this very topic and I think we (along with even our imbecile commenting colleagues) would agree that young dolls in fishnet stockings and 'bling' are neither beneficial nor healthy for building strong self-image in girls or boys.
However one slices it, the reality is such that when we see the toys in the aisle or we see the 7 year old with 'Juicy' displayed on her ass, we are seeing a reflection of our society - a reflection that exposes our own duplicity (we say we do not want our children to be objects of sexual desire, yet we consume products that say and do just that).
It's the inability of certain so-called citizens to have a serious conversation about this issue that makes one wonder: apparently these yahoos want and desire little girls? Or, perhaps they are so detached from their children, they don't really care what it is they say, do, or play with?
My wife, Kim, nailed the issue on the head and her commentary forced me to think about my own role as a man and as citizen. It's time we stop resorting to playground antics and begin a true dialog. For those of you who have contributed in meaningful ways, even if you disagree, thank you.
For those of you that seem to embrace defamation and are anti-intellectual, you're a sad commentary on the state of affairs in the U.S.
NAL
I like how slimfast couldn't think of a word big enough to 'insert' into his or her post, which was irrelevant to the discussion, and also offensive.
Slimfast, confess. You are actually a typing chimp, aren't you?
Post a Comment
<< Home