My blog has moved!

You should be automatically redirected in 5 seconds. If not, visit
http://thegirlrevolution.com
and update your bookmarks.

Showing posts with label feminist mothering. Show all posts
Showing posts with label feminist mothering. Show all posts

Monday, September 1, 2008

Bikini Waxing Tweens & Early Puberty

B2962CC3-8CB8-4905-A154-A349918CBF6F.jpg

There was a story on MSNBC.com Today Show, Too young? Preteen girls get leg, bikini waxes, about how 20% of bikini wax customers at one Hollywood salon are tweens - pre-teen children.

"Nearly 20 percent of the clients that Nance Mitchell sees for bikini waxes in her Beverly Hills, Calif., salon are tweens, she says. . . 12 is the new normal."

"But nothing prepared her for being asked by one client to book a bikini wax appointment for her 8-year-old daughter."

{{{{{GASP}}}}}

Did you share my first reaction?

But, then I thought - wait, why is it the waxing that is making me gasp in shock?

Isn't it more alarming that 8 year olds have enough pubic hair to wax?

The sub head of the story is inaccurate: Moms are bringing daughters to spas for hair removal before puberty

The fact is that 50% of girls are getting their periods by age 10 and doctors now consider it within the "range of normal" for girls to develop outward signs of puberty, including breasts and pubic hair, by age 8. It's not that even medically alarming for 6 or 7 year olds to begin puberty, and many do begin developing breast buds or pubic hair.

Isn't it more emotionally alarming and worthy of a {{{{gasp}}}} that we're seeing a dramatic shift in girls' puberty development and no public health official is coming on the nightly news declaring,

"We're going to find an answer to this most disturbing development in girls, who hold the future reproductive burden for our entire species. In the meantime, don't let your daughters drink the water full of pharmaceuticals. Stop injecting milk and meat cows and other animals with hormones. Be wary that extra weight causes girls to make estrogen and develop pubic hair and boobs early. Avoid plastics. We're going to outlaw high fructose corn syrup in foods directly marketed to children. We understand the reproductive future of our entire nation depends on it!"

Instead, we hear about the early pubic hair trend in the fashion and beauty section of MSNBC's Today Show with a sexualization of girls slant.

Shouldn't those mothers be ashamed of themselves? the story basically asks.

Should they?

The story includes a quote by Philadelphia aesthetician Melanie Engle who says the 8 year old request for a bikini wax, "was about the mother's obsession with her daughter being a supermodel."

OK. I can buy that. I've seen mothers primp their daughters as a photographer and photographer's assistant. There is definite maternal beauty pressure.

Yet, if there was nothing to wax, if she were hairless, then her mother wouldn't be thinking her daughter needed to have anything removed to "look like a supermodel." Right?

Last year I did a story about Nair directly marketing to tween and teen girls with a "new" line of hair removal cream, Nair Pretty.

"It's profoundly disturbing," I wrote. It's also disturbing that Nair caught onto this early pubic hair trend and marketed to it, before I, as a parent, caught up with it.

I also went off on some radio DJ who was bashing Lordes, Madonna's young daughter, for having a unibrow and a slight mustache. I was appalled at the DJ's lack of class and placing all this beauty pressure on a young girl.

One brave mother, Athena of 1001 Petals, wrote in the comments section of that post, "I feel kind of bad now for telling my husband yesterday that if our daughter turned out to be as hairy as me, I'd start taking her to an esthetician for waxing as soon as it became evident -- unless she said she didn't care for it. This is because if you wax regularly at such a young age, you're saved a lifetime of regular waxing later on down the road. I had to take myself starting at 12 yrs of age, and now at 30 it is still practically a daily maintenance routine. . .I spend hundreds a year and a lot of time bothering with it."

Athena's right. The more I consider this hairy subject, the more I realize that I will likely assist my daughter, in some way, with her pubic hair and if she developed a mustache or side burns, for goodness sake, I'd help her eradicate it. Like I'm going to throw her to the Mean Girls and hope she survives?

Swim suits are not designed to cover the pubic area. They haven't been for about 40 years.

In "Clean" Bikini Line I wrote about my own struggle since my teen years with various methods of shaving, Nairing, one excruciating episode with Neet and a vicious chemical burn.

I'm amused by Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS), but I still keep my bush rather trimmed, as a courtesy to my husband. I wear swim shorts rather than show off my all my private hairs when we go swimming. The itching always gets to me mid-grow.

But, is my daughter really going to be into wearing one of these modest suits that would cover her bikini area? Am I going to make her be the only kid at the swim party or pool to do so?

I shave my pits and my legs. I pluck my eyebrows. I search for stray hairs on my chin and pluck them immediately.

It is only my budget that keeps me from getting all this hair waxed off. When I lived in NYC there was hair & waxing salon on every corner and it was a mere $30 to get my bikini and eyebrows done. I did it whenever I could afford it.

It's the least painful than other methods, it lasts longer and it was the ONLY thing that prevented razor or chemical burn - in other words waxing was the only solution that I didn't trade unwanted hair for an unwanted rash.

It seems to me a young daughter growing early pubic hair is an even bigger motivator for waxing.

Certainly, the minute girls develop breasts or pubic hair society treats her with less respect and she hears more negative and sexual comments about her body. The more she looks like a teenager or woman, the sooner she will be seen as an object for male entertainment, instead of the three-demensionable little girl, the young child, she really is.

What bigger incentive is there to hide pubic hair, keep it as private as possible, or have it removed?

Does the removal of hair further sexualize girls, because the latest fashion is for adult women to remove hair and get a Brazillian wax? Ironically (and a little disturbingly) making them look more like children.

Or does the removal of a symptom or sign of puberty buy a little girl some more time to be a child?

Please comment, I really am interested in exploring this issue further.

Empowering Girls: Hootchy Clothes

Second Generation Mean Girl

Empowering Girls: Ho'oponopono for Girl Fights

Empowering Girls: Breast Cancer Risks

Empowering Girls: Early Puberty

Precocious Puberty

Image Source: Ohana Swimwear

Monday, April 7, 2008

Empowering Girls: First Salon Cut

DSCN3132.JPGDSCN3138.JPGDSCN3139.JPG
























































I felt, after 6 years of free haircuts from NaNa, that $10 was an appropriate amount to spend for a first salon haircut.

After recently getting my own hair makeover, my daughter expressed an interest in getting hers cut "just like mine."

Aware that a daughter's desire to be "just like Mommy" is fleeting, I jumped at my chance.

I gave her highlights at home, while doing mine. (Of course, I wish mine had turned out as well as hers. The difference? I could see what I was doing on her hair. My own? I overbleached my bangs to a bad white, tried to cover it with a cotton candy pink, I had on hand from last year, that didn't take. I had to wait till payday and color a solid brown and then bleach again.)

There is a story in the NY Times by Camille Sweeny about the trend for mothers to let their tweens get highlights. My friend Char from WearyParent is quoted.

Jezebel, of course, took issue with the fact that some children are being allowed to have highlights in a story titled, Bikini Waxes, Highlights & 'Tramp Stamps': That's what little girls are made of.

I take issue with the fact that a feminist magazine uses the derogatory term "tramp stamp" in reference to women who get tattooed. Connecting a tattoo with a woman's sexual promiscuity is like unto the old phrase, "she smokes, she pokes."

I also think it's a bit silly to equate hair color with a permanent tattoo. There is nothing permanent about hair, which makes it a harmless way to allow children, tweens and teens to experiment with their style, fashion or look and even rebellion. And the bikini wax - for starters, one is on their head which everyone sees and the other is . . . not. A bikini wax is also rather like torture, while a new haircolor is, well - fun.

I allow Ainsley highlights for one reason only - because it's fun.

Although I do agree with Jezebel, that the direct marketing to children by salons is messed up. I explain why I think so in this story, Girls For Sale.

Some of the hair professionals, in the NY Times story, advise infiltrating school and community functions where they have better access to young girls for their marketing. Gag me with a spoon.
Blond Ambition
Blond Ambition II
Beauty & Reality
Pink Hair Fiasco
Pink Hair Fiasco Take 2
Meaning of Hair

Tuesday, April 1, 2008

Empowering Girls: Enchanted - New Generation Princess Fable


Disney's princess tales all attempt to answer one question: What do girls/women want? According to Disney's traditional message to little girls, what women want is to be saved by a prince, fall instantly in love and live happily ever after.

As a woman, and a parent, I've been waiting for Disney to come into the new millennium with a more up-to-date, girl-friendly, version of it's own princess drama. Shrek was great, but it lacked the Disney Magic that makes little girls drool.

Enchanted does question the Disney Princess Culture, kinda. Sorta. Maybe.

The evil stepmother still finds the princess threatening and attempts to do away with her by sending her to New York City "where dreams never come true."

The Princess Giselle, meets a single father, about to become engaged to the exact opposite of a Disney Princess archetype, Nancy. Nancy is a professional single woman, who acknowledges that she's never had much use for Prince Charming, but she is holding out for a decent guy. She's accused of being a secret hopeless romantic underneath her practical exterior by a coworker. The accusation proves true when she gets exhilarated by an uncharacteristic invitation to a ball and nearly swoons over a gift of real flowers instead of the usual e-card.

Our single father, Robert, is a divorce lawyer, who was left by the mother of his child, a daughter for whom, he buys books like Great Women in History instead of the princess book she really wants. Disney pokes a little fun at parents, like myself, who take issue with the Princess Save Me Culture and wish to present our daughters with a more realistic expectation for their futures. They highlight Madam Curie and point out that she died of radiation poisoning - which isn't as much fun or as magical a story as living happily ever after. Touche' Disney. My daughter wholeheartedly agrees. But, is it really more romantic to give up your voice to get a man? Or to fall in love with and change your kidnapper?

"Oh, you can try to withhold Princess Culture all you like," Disney seems to challenge, as they have the six-year-old girl jump out of a taxi and chase down our Princes Giselle as she mistakenly tries to enter a billboard in the shape of a castle. She falls right into the arms of our unprincely hero, Robert. He, of course, agrees to help her, but not to save her, much too his daughter's chagrin. Very much like the disappointment I'm sure my own daughter feels when I tell her to pick a movie other than Cinderella or Sleeping Beauty at the video store.

Princess Giselle behaves as a caricature of her own princess self. Basically, she is full of larger than life false hand movements and emotional twittering and says unbelievably ridiculous things about being saved and the power of true love's kiss. She's incapable of any emotion aside from happiness and joy and goodness. She's naive to the point of being deranged. To its credit Disney dares to poke as much fun as it's own history and creation of the idiotic lunacy of Princess Culture as it pokes at me for being less than charmed by it.

A shift in Princes Giselle occurs when she and her non-prince savior, Robert, set against the backdrop of street theater in Central Park, begin to discuss dating versus falling-in-love-at-first-sight and what happens after happily ever after. Seems our Princess was previously unaware that she might have job after marriage and that might be part of what makes her happy. Or that she might express her thoughts, dreams and desires to her love-at-first sight Prince fiance should he show up to save her.

For his part our non-princess-saving man realizes that it certainly won't kill him to offer up a little romance to show his practical modern-day woman Nancy that he loves her. (No, I think, it certainly won't kill you to go to a little effort. Maybe I'll send this particular YouTube Video to my own modern-day practical man. Hint, hint.)

Giselle experiences anger for the first time when Robert confronts her with the reality that her Prince probably isn't coming and it's time for Plan B. Plan B, in Princess Culture lingo is, I believe, a job or a sense of purpose. Our naive Princess Giselle is seen flipping through Great Women of History with a new interest.

Of course, this is a Disney film so our Prince, like many Princes of Romance Past, does arrive to save our Princess. And our Prince, like many Princes of Romance Past is a completely self-absorbed dope. Cute, but lacking substance. (Who doesn't remember that guy? Luckily, ladies, we skirted that future - by going on a date - before it was too late.)

In light of her own personal awakening our Princess Giselle demands a date before they return to never, never land where she realizes maybe her love-at-first-sight Prince and she don't really have all that much in common. Maybe, she's making a terrible mistake? Maybe she loves the man who doesn't want to save her, but who took the time to ask her what she wanted to be when she grows up? Maybe?

The film takes a detour worth looking at. Giselle decides she needs a ball gown and our six-year-old girl snags Daddy's emergency credit card, with a quip about this being an emergency and the two are seen jaunting around New York on a spending spree. The little girl precociously fills our naive princess in on today's beauty culture. It seems Disney might be juxtaposing the innocence of their own interpretation of girlness with the current hyper-sexualized, appearance-oriented one. Perhaps they are asking, "how is this better?" The answer: "It's not."

Like Disney Princess Films of generations past we end up at . . . A Ball. Where else?

The evil queen comes to do away with our princess to prevent her from taking over her kingdom and Giselle takes a bite of her poisoned apple (Oh, Eve, will you ever learn?).

Of course she's not awakened to our simple-minded self-absorbed pretty boy Prince. She is awakened to our single father divorce lawyer Prince. His date Nancy, who he intended to marry 5 minutes ago, gives him permission to kiss Giselle and she does awaken with the words, "I knew it was you." They make a new modern-day family, the father, nice step-mother and daughter (who got a world full of romance and princessness making her deliriously happy).

Giselle, in a modern-day twist, saves her True Love. Thanks Disney, I've been waiting a long time for that. That is some gender progress.

Which leaves our professional Nancy who realizes she does want to be saved after all and jumps down the rabbit hole/manhole with Prince Charming and Lives Happily Ever After in Andalasia.

In light of yesterday's So Sioux Me story, Princess Culture Examined I had to wonder. Who's interpretation of what women want is this? To answer that I watched the special features on how the magic was made and listened to the interviews with the director, writers, choreographers, sound people, production people etc. I went to the IBMD database and checked the credits of the entire cast and crew.

It was written by a man, directed by a man and produced by men.

Out of 9 listed producers only one, Jill Morris, is a woman. The music is by a man, as is the cinematography, film editing, art direction, production design and special effects. Out of five, two women are given credit for production management. Costume design was done by a woman and one of the two casting credits goes to a woman.

Disney's new updated version of "what women want" is really "men's new interpretation of what women want."

I just have a few questions for Disney: Why is it that you think women aren't capable of telling our own story in your magical universe? Don't you think women might be better witnesses about our own experience and desires than men?

I would love to see the FEMALE interpretation of what women want. I want to see Jane! interpreted by JANE.

Disney, aren't you at all curious to see if you're right?

  • Send a letter to Disney,  TWDC.Corp.Communications@disney.com, telling them you want more healthy girl images out of their company, which begins with more female involvement in the creative process. 

  • Apply for a job. If you are creative and have skills in writing, producing, animation or editing and think you can breath some 3 dimensional empowering life into the girl characters of Disney - apply for a job.

  • If your daughter has talents and interests in animation or film, encourage that. Don't let anyone tell her it's too competitive or it's a male-dominated industry. Tell her she can do it, enroll her in classes, provide the equipment she needs to learn the skills. Tell her we NEED her to do it.
  • Monday, March 31, 2008

    Empowering Girls: Princess Culture Examined

    Ever wonder how and why the Disney Princess Culture distorted and minimized girlness, leaving girls as the extra character or one that desperately needs to be saved?

    My film-maker friend, Aaron Lea, sent me this rejection letter to a Mary V. Ford from Disney dated 1938. It states that she should not bother sending her portfolio because the creative talent is, by company policy, men.

    Which does help explain how the Disney Princess Girl Culture became so distructive and minimizing to girls.

    Dear Miss Ford:

    . . . .

    Women do not do any of the creative work in connection with preparing the cartoons for the screen, as that work is performed entirely by young men. For this reason girls are not considered for the training school.

    The only work open to women consists of tracing the characters on clear celluloid sheets with India ink and filling in the tracings on the reverse side with pain according to directions.

    In order to apply for a position as "Inker" or "Painter" it is necessary that one appear at the Studio, bringing samples of pen and in and water color work. It would not be advisable to come to Hollywood with the above specifically in view, as there really are very few opeinings in comparison with the number of girls who apply.

    Yours very truly,

    Walt Disney Productions, LTD.



    Aaron explained how during World War II Disney was put in a position, like most companies, to need women artists, which is how one of his creative idols was given some creative power. Here is a story on Mouseplanet about how women came to work at Disney.

    "Mary Blair was an art supervisor and designer at Disney when they were at their highest level of brilliancy. Disney optioned to use her artwork for storybooks versions of certain films in place of stills, said Lea.

    "Blair's influence can still be found today (she inspires a lot of us creative types). The opening credits for Monsters, Inc. is definitely an homage to her, as well as Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends," Lea pointed out.

    To illustrate Blair's influence Lea shares a sample of Blair's work and a sample of his own.
    blair art.jpg I Can Fly illustration Mary Blair.

    aaron pink carriage.jpgClaudia Carey illustration Aaron Lea.

    There is an article In New York Entertainment examining whether things are that much different at Disney in 2008 than they were in 1938. "The IMDb credits for Disney's latest No. 1 movie, Ratatouille, list 26 separate animators — of whom exactly zero appear based on first names to be women," they cite. To check the fact, here is a link to the entire credits. Two female story participants were given the glorious titles of "additional story material," indicative of their involvement.

    Over a rainy weekend my daughter and I rented Enchanted. Disney's newest version of it's own princess tales. Tune in tomorrow for analysis of Disney's new generation of Princess film.

    The main premises of the Geena Davis Institute is that when there are more women involved in the creative process of film and television it results in more empowering girl characters.

    What can YOU do to ensure more girls are included in children's media?

    • Make a video. The GDIGM has a YouTube project asking for people to get behind a camera and notify the film and media industry,

      I Want To See Jane! 

    • Donate money to the GDIGM so they can wine, dine and educate the film makers who do influence our daughters.
    • GDIGM is running a contest for girls. They invite all girls/women 13-26 to make a Video Ad citing the organizations research points. Someone has to win - why not your daughter? Go to the < site to learn more.

    Cinderella Should Have Saved Her Self

    Ariel - The Little Mute

    Belle - Battered Codependent

    Over a rainy weekend my daughter and I rented Enchanted. Disney's newest version of it's own princess tales. Tune in tomorrow for analysis of Disney's new generation of Princess film.
    Image of Mary Ford's Disney rejection letter.

    Friday, March 7, 2008

    Empowering Girls: Girls-Only Public School


    There is a fascinating piece in the New York Times Magazine, Teaching Boys and Girls Separately by Elizabeth Weil, about separating genders in a public school and how that's working well for a few schools.

    The segregated classrooms are decorated differently and use different materials. Blue for boys, yellow for girls, cold for boys, warm for girls, cool white light for boys, warm yellow light for girls, snakes for boys, no snakes for girls.

    From the article: In the first year of Foley’s single-sex program, a third of the kids enrolled. The next year, two-thirds signed up, and in its third year 87 percent of parents requested the program. Principal Mansell reports that her single-sex classes produce fewer discipline problems, more parental support and better scores in writing, reading and math. She does, however, acknowledge that her data are compromised, as her highest-performing teachers and her most-motivated students have chosen single-sex.

    David Chadwell, the coordinator of Single- Gender Initiatives at the South Carolina Department of Education states in the article, You need to engage boys’ energy, use it, rather than trying to say, No, no, no. So instead of having boys raise their hands, you’re going to have boys literally stand up. You’re going to do physical representation of number lines. Relay races. Ball tosses during discussion.”

    For the girls, Chadwell prescribes a focus on “the connections girls have (a) with the content, (b) with each other and (c) with the teacher. If you try to stop girls from talking to one another, that’s not successful. So you do a lot of meeting in circles, where every girl can share something from her own life that relates to the content in class.”

    Leonard Sax, a family physician turned proponent of single-sex education offers up the two extremes for each gender: He opens “Why Gender Matters,” a book he wrote on the subject, with two cautionary tales: one about a boy who starts kindergarten at age 5, is given a diagnosis of A.D.H.D. and depression and ends up on a three-drug cocktail of Adderall, Wellbutrin and clonidine; the other about a girl who transforms “from chubby wallflower to outgoing socialite” in middle school, seems to have it all — friends, academic success — and then shocks her parents by overdosing on Vicodin and Xanax.

    After presenting the Adderall-doped grammar-school boy and the suicidal middle-school girl, Sax offers a possible cause of these sad stories. “The neglect of gender in education and child-rearing has done real harm.” These tragedies “might have been averted if the parents had known enough about gender differences to recognize what was really happening in their child’s life.”

    Of course the opponents of gender-segregation say Sax is cherry-picking gender studies that date back to the 1960s.

    The article goes on to say that gender segregation is in response to the failure of No Child Left Behind, Despite six years of No Child Left Behind, the achievement gaps between rich and poor students and white and black students have not significantly narrowed. “People are getting desperate” is how Benjamin Wright, chief administrative officer for the Nashville public schools, described the current interest in single-sex education to me. “Coed’s not working. Time to try something else.”

    Here's some pretty sad statistics about the nature of educational pitfalls for boys: Nationwide, boys are nearly twice as likely as girls to be suspended, and more likely to drop out of high school than girls (65 percent of boys complete high school in four years; 72 percent of girls do). Boys make up two-thirds of special-education students. They are 1.5 times more likely to be held back a grade and 2.5 times more likely to be given diagnoses of A.D.H.D.

    The Young Women’s Leadership School in Harlem is widely considered the birthplace of the current single-sex public school movement. This position of eminence stems from both its early beginnings and its success: since opening in 1996, every girl in every senior class at T.Y.W.L.S. has graduated and been accepted at a four-year college.

    As the Supreme Court would rule in June 1996, just three months before T.Y.W.L.S. opened, the legality of single-sex schools depends on context,

    The A.C.L.U. opposes gender-segregation in public schools.

    The article goes on to talk about the sexualization of girls in public schools and the fact that dating culture has been replaced by hook up culture. Nearly everyone at T.Y.W.L.S. acknowledges that often parents’ most pressing concern when enrolling their 11-year-old daughters is sheltering those girls from sexualized classrooms and sexualized streets.

    “Boys at boys’ schools like Old Farms in Connecticut, or Saint Albans in Washington, D. C., will call up girls at Miss Porter’s in Connecticut, at Stone Ridge in Maryland, and they will ask the girl out, and the boy will drive to the girl’s house to pick her up and meet her parents. You tell kids at a coed school to do this, and they’ll fall on the floor laughing. But the culture of dating is much healthier than the culture of the hookup, in which the primary form of sexual intimacy is a girl on her knees servicing a boy,” Sax is quoted as saying in the article.

    I think it's a fascinating subject. I'm undecided. Like the Supreme Court, I think it's a matter of context. I can see where there is potential for benefit for both genders, but I want to avoid any type of discrimination.

    Anyone have a concrete opinion about the issue? Anyone ever go to an all-girls' school or have a single-gender classroom and want to share their experiences?

    Tuesday, February 26, 2008

    1943 Guide to Hiring Women


    Thank goodness our daughters can expect somewhat better treatment from future employers than this: 1943 Guide to Hiring Women posted by Contrariwise Ramblings.

    It should be noted though that we're not out of the woods yet, as just the other day I heard a female county employee say she was having a difficult time finding a suitable secretary who was not of childbearing age. I know it's illegal, but you know they can be so undependable, she noted. The irony was the at the woman herself was of childbearing age.

    Hello?

    Back to the article, my favorite excerpts include that young married women are more responsible than their unwed sisters and less flirtatious, "Husky" girls (apparently their euphemism for fat) are more friendly and outgoing than under-weight women, employers were encouraging to perform gynecological physical examinations to avoid "feminine ailments", and to give girls breaks to apply more lipstick and fix their hair.

    Is it any wonder that laws about gender discrimination are necessary?

    Tuesday, February 5, 2008

    I Hate Hillary!


    by Tracee Sioux

    Maybe you're one of the people who disagree with me politically. Maybe you like the current health care system, don't have a problem with current employment policy, would love to see Row V. Wade overturned. In other words, maybe you're a Republican.

    Okay, I can respect that. Almost everyone I know and love is a Republican. I grew up Mormon and married a Texan. Very Republican both.

    As an advocate for girls let me make the following plea on behalf of your daughter:

    Please, please, please speak respectfully of the one and only female candidate ever for President of the United States - Hillary Clinton.

    What you say about Hillary Clinton has the potential to translate to your daughters as your opinion of all women (including your daughter) seeking power.

    I vividly remember asking my parents what the Equal Rights Amendment was as a child. I remember them telling me that it was a bill to make women equal to men. And they were voting against it.

    Here's how that translated to a six-year-old girl: My parents are voting against ME! Why would they do that?

    What you might say instead of I Hate Hillary Clinton! might be, I think a woman would make a wonderful President, I just don't agree with this particular woman's political views on health insurance.

    It would be helpful, for your daughter, to avoid vague negative statements about Hillary's suitability as a role model for girls. Instead you could say, I think it's wonderful that a female has gotten this far in American politics. It's wonderful that women are becoming more powerful and ambitious. I just don't agree with her views on abortion or the economy.

    If you minimize and criticize the significance of Hillary's presence in this race you minimize and criticize your daughter's potential.

    It's Super Tuesday: Take your daughter to vote with you and show her what being empowered in a democracy means.

    Friday, December 28, 2007

    Blond Ambition II


    I'm sorry. I just can not feel like Tracee Sioux with plain brown hair.

    It's the single brown tone that's making me feel un-me when I look in the mirror. Drab. Dull. Boring. Not on you. Just on me.

    None of those words describe me. I'm fun, happy and exciting. My hair should reflect that.

    Last night I spent $9.99 for a box of Loreal Chunking Blond Highlights. I put about 10 blond streaks back around my face and feel like myself again. They're a little orangey - but I do not care.

    Ainsley asked for some blond streaks in her dark blond/light brown hair and I couldn't think of a reason to tell her no.

    I can think of lots of reasons other mothers might give their daughters,
    You're too young. You're hair is perfect like it is. You don't need lighter blond to be pretty. What will people think if I let my 6-year-old color her hair?

    I respect all those reasons as valid and legitimate. But, none of those ring true for me, as I've already allowed red streaks and pink streaks - depending on what I was doing to my own hair. Who is a little blond going to hurt? No one. It's fun. That's all it is. It's instantly gratifying to change the color of one's hair. It's a hobby. It's a harmless distraction.

    I'm a feminist, but not the natural kind. I think the beauty industry has gotten too extreme and makes many women feel like crap about themselves, I abhor their marketing tactics. But, I am happy when they invent a product that really works.

    I use beauty products. I shave my legs, pits and groom my vajayjay. I pluck my eyebrows into a high arch. I wear make-up, apply sun screen and foundation. I get excited about my mascara. I try to control my acne with prescription medication. I'm willing to pay a lot of money for a product that makes melasma vanish and never return. Mind you - I get this stuff on the cheap so I'm not hurting myself financially in this quest for beauty. I got this rotating scrub brush and a chemical peel at a retiring Avon Lady's garage sale for a quarter.

    And I love blond highlights. I'm a feminist who feels her best self with blond-highlights.

    In December's O Magazine I read this quote from Nancy Etkoff, PhD, author of Survival of the Prettiest: The Science of Beauty, If we say, "Get rid of the advertisement and tell companies to stop making products, and no one will care about beauty - this is all just a creation that we can wipe away," we are denying who we are. People do care about how they look. They have adorned themselves since Paleolithic times. This is not a vanity issue or a women's issue or a United States issue. It is human nature.

    Monday, November 19, 2007

    Right to Representation


    Our daughters have a right to see women in the picture too. I think they deserve to have all opportunities open to them, including that of President of the United States. Women have yet to be represented.

    To ignore the white maleness of power is to deny daughters the reality of their gender.

    Tuesday, October 30, 2007

    Self Portrait of a Housewife


    This is a self portrait of a 1950s housewife. What do you see?

    Thank You to my friend Cindy for allowing me to print her mother's work.

    Tuesday, October 16, 2007

    Devaluation of Motherhood






    by Tracee Sioux

    When looking at 6 to 12 week maternity leave policies in the United States one has to wonder:

    Do employers and lawmakers hate mothers?

    Or do they hate babies?

    After you push a human being out of your crotch and feel pressured to return to work before your stitches have even dissolved you have to wonder, Which of us to they hate more?

    What causes policies that are detrimental to both mother and child?

    Devaluation of motherhood.

    What if anti-mother employment policies are a direct result of women criticizing motherhood? Women do it to preserve our hard-won place in public life. Perhaps, the end-result is damaging and harmful to working-mothers and their families because it manifests in anti-mothering employment policy.

    I'm playing with the theory that the devaluation of motherhood is a bi-product of feminism and emancipation. An over-correction, if you will.

    Follow my thinking here, for thousands of years women were submissive and oppressed. We were told the only thing we were qualified for was mothering. To break out of our narrowly-defined role, we did the only thing we could: we minimized and devalued motherhood.

    Consider my family as a microcosm of the whole. In order for me, personally, to break away from my mother's Church and Society sanctioned stay-at-home-mom role I minimized what she did. The cleaning, the cooking, the nurturing, the caring, the self-sacrifice, the moral building, the breast-feeding, the birthing, the nursing, the educating, the training, the whole mothering bit got reduced to nothing. Nothing important or validating anyway.

    Now that I have children of my own I can see that this so-called nothing is really what makes the world go round. The growing of people, nurturing human beings, the next generation, trumps professional achievement. I want both, but the mothering keeps the entire species evolving and thriving according to the scientific Grandmother hypothesis.

    To break away, I devalued motherhood and then was shocked, angry and surprised that my husband would dare equate my mothering to nothing.

    I think there is ample evidence, in the last 30 years, that men will follow our lead. They'll resist, but they will eventually follow. We are, as their mothers and wives, the most influential people in their lives. If we led them to devalue motherhood, then it stands to reason that we can lead them back.

    Valuing motherhood starts with each of us. Obviously, we have made good progress. Women are not going to run back into their Normal Rockwell mothering roles, it didn't make us happy then for legitimate reasons.

    But, I think it's a grave mistake to criticize the stay-at-home mom who does choose that role today. The stay-at-home mom reminds us that motherhood, in and of itself, is a valid ambition.

    Why would employers and lawmakers hate mothers? It would be absurd to hate the very people they love most. Is it possible that anti-mother employment policies are the result of women devaluing motherhood?

    Thoughts anyone?


    Clarification: I use the term mothering and motherhood in a collective sense. For instance, though Oprah has no children I think she mothers all women. Likewise, Violet, who brings up some issues about mother's in the workplace has spent 15 years mothering me, though she suffered from infertility.

    Clarificaton II: This is not meant to be a controversial article on working versus staying at home. I suggest that when we devalue one we devalue the other. It's meant to offer a solution:

    When we value motherhood all women, working or not, mother or non-mother, single or married, benefit from family-friendly (however you want to define family is fine with me) policies.

    Monday, September 17, 2007

    "A" Is For . . .


    by Tracee Sioux

    My daughter was reciting all the things about "A" she had learned her first week in Kindergarten.

    A is for alligator, apple tree, astronaut, Ainsley.

    Then she handed the phone back to me.

    Well, when she was reciting all the things that start with A, I refrained from listing Asshole.

    Well, thanks for showing some restraint Mom, I said. Sometimes I don't even know who you are. When I was a kid I would have sworn you would never, ever say the word Asshole. Let alone be tempted to say it to a five-year-old.

    I would have sworn the same thing. Then I had you.

    You mean parenting a child like myself in particular, or the experience of mothering in general?

    It was parenting you. When you have a kid like you and you start defending them to people, you don't realize how many assholes there are in the world. The world is pretty full of assholes.

    I've learned more things about things I never, ever wanted to know about or understand being your mother. Well, and Larry's wife. The two of you. I was so naive. I've really had to grow and learn being married to him and mothering you. You two are my trials to endure. You're the people in my life that force me to grow.

    My poor mother. She'd have chosen a life of rule following, respecting authority and blending in.

    Then she had me and I would have none of it - straight from the go. Challenging authority, questioning the status quo, getting into trouble, experimenting with addiction, using my voice loudly and publicly, forever going against the grain.

    She did defend me too. I remember she took on the vice-principal of my junior high when I kicked out a window at school. I went right to him and confessed and offered to pay for it. I kicked it, but was surprised it had broken. My intention wasn't to vandalize. The principal expelled me for the rest of the year and she fought that. But, you know what she would have chosen for herself? That I was not the type of kid to kick anything. That I would have just nicely and politely gone to class.

    I put my mother through hell. People always make vague comments about myself to me. My grandmother recently wrote, You always have marched to a different drummer.

    I never do know what they really mean. I always choose to take it as a compliment. But, I'm vague about how people really perceive me. I never quite understand how exactly I'm so different. Occasionally I'll struggle against it, my nature, but it's futile. I worry that my daughter is too much like me, and girls like us are really such a challenge to mother.


    Well behaved women rarely make history.

    Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

    Friday, June 15, 2007

    Femimother Must Go On Vacation Alone

    By Tracee Sioux

    One of the best ways to empower children, in my experience, is to get away without them for a weekend. It sends the message that they can and should be somewhat independent. They will, after all, be going out in the world without me eventually.

    It gives their father the opportunity to be their primary caregiver (though there is a rumor going around that he's asked his mom to babysit while he plays golf on Father's Day.) Happy Father's Day Honey! It also gives the impression that I, though I am their mother, can and should take time for my self. I existed pre-kid and I will exist post-kid, and in the meantime, I can take a vacation from them.

    I expect this weekend to be quite liberating. I'm going to Houston on a little errand for a family member in need of a wheelchair. I'm going to pick one up and hang out with a good friend of mine. Oh the pure pleasure of a good deed turned run of good luck. The best, absolutely best part about the whole deal is that she has not had children yet. So our conversations need not include children, nor do they need to be interrupted by the demands of any. My appendages are staying home. I do not intend to prattle on endlessly about them. They already get nearly all of my time and attention.

    I adore my children, but sometimes after one of them has been sick and we've been home all week and my husband has had meetings virtually every night, I'm just plain tired of their company. And that's not only okay - I think it's the healthiest part of my femimothering style.

    I must go out and have fun and have adult conversation and feel like a self again. I will be back on Monday to do my mothering (and my blogging) and no one will have suffered irreparable damage. To think otherwise is just a bit of mothering-conceit.
    Showing posts with label feminist mothering. Show all posts
    Showing posts with label feminist mothering. Show all posts

    Monday, September 1, 2008

    Bikini Waxing Tweens & Early Puberty

    B2962CC3-8CB8-4905-A154-A349918CBF6F.jpg

    There was a story on MSNBC.com Today Show, Too young? Preteen girls get leg, bikini waxes, about how 20% of bikini wax customers at one Hollywood salon are tweens - pre-teen children.

    "Nearly 20 percent of the clients that Nance Mitchell sees for bikini waxes in her Beverly Hills, Calif., salon are tweens, she says. . . 12 is the new normal."

    "But nothing prepared her for being asked by one client to book a bikini wax appointment for her 8-year-old daughter."

    {{{{{GASP}}}}}

    Did you share my first reaction?

    But, then I thought - wait, why is it the waxing that is making me gasp in shock?

    Isn't it more alarming that 8 year olds have enough pubic hair to wax?

    The sub head of the story is inaccurate: Moms are bringing daughters to spas for hair removal before puberty

    The fact is that 50% of girls are getting their periods by age 10 and doctors now consider it within the "range of normal" for girls to develop outward signs of puberty, including breasts and pubic hair, by age 8. It's not that even medically alarming for 6 or 7 year olds to begin puberty, and many do begin developing breast buds or pubic hair.

    Isn't it more emotionally alarming and worthy of a {{{{gasp}}}} that we're seeing a dramatic shift in girls' puberty development and no public health official is coming on the nightly news declaring,

    "We're going to find an answer to this most disturbing development in girls, who hold the future reproductive burden for our entire species. In the meantime, don't let your daughters drink the water full of pharmaceuticals. Stop injecting milk and meat cows and other animals with hormones. Be wary that extra weight causes girls to make estrogen and develop pubic hair and boobs early. Avoid plastics. We're going to outlaw high fructose corn syrup in foods directly marketed to children. We understand the reproductive future of our entire nation depends on it!"

    Instead, we hear about the early pubic hair trend in the fashion and beauty section of MSNBC's Today Show with a sexualization of girls slant.

    Shouldn't those mothers be ashamed of themselves? the story basically asks.

    Should they?

    The story includes a quote by Philadelphia aesthetician Melanie Engle who says the 8 year old request for a bikini wax, "was about the mother's obsession with her daughter being a supermodel."

    OK. I can buy that. I've seen mothers primp their daughters as a photographer and photographer's assistant. There is definite maternal beauty pressure.

    Yet, if there was nothing to wax, if she were hairless, then her mother wouldn't be thinking her daughter needed to have anything removed to "look like a supermodel." Right?

    Last year I did a story about Nair directly marketing to tween and teen girls with a "new" line of hair removal cream, Nair Pretty.

    "It's profoundly disturbing," I wrote. It's also disturbing that Nair caught onto this early pubic hair trend and marketed to it, before I, as a parent, caught up with it.

    I also went off on some radio DJ who was bashing Lordes, Madonna's young daughter, for having a unibrow and a slight mustache. I was appalled at the DJ's lack of class and placing all this beauty pressure on a young girl.

    One brave mother, Athena of 1001 Petals, wrote in the comments section of that post, "I feel kind of bad now for telling my husband yesterday that if our daughter turned out to be as hairy as me, I'd start taking her to an esthetician for waxing as soon as it became evident -- unless she said she didn't care for it. This is because if you wax regularly at such a young age, you're saved a lifetime of regular waxing later on down the road. I had to take myself starting at 12 yrs of age, and now at 30 it is still practically a daily maintenance routine. . .I spend hundreds a year and a lot of time bothering with it."

    Athena's right. The more I consider this hairy subject, the more I realize that I will likely assist my daughter, in some way, with her pubic hair and if she developed a mustache or side burns, for goodness sake, I'd help her eradicate it. Like I'm going to throw her to the Mean Girls and hope she survives?

    Swim suits are not designed to cover the pubic area. They haven't been for about 40 years.

    In "Clean" Bikini Line I wrote about my own struggle since my teen years with various methods of shaving, Nairing, one excruciating episode with Neet and a vicious chemical burn.

    I'm amused by Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS), but I still keep my bush rather trimmed, as a courtesy to my husband. I wear swim shorts rather than show off my all my private hairs when we go swimming. The itching always gets to me mid-grow.

    But, is my daughter really going to be into wearing one of these modest suits that would cover her bikini area? Am I going to make her be the only kid at the swim party or pool to do so?

    I shave my pits and my legs. I pluck my eyebrows. I search for stray hairs on my chin and pluck them immediately.

    It is only my budget that keeps me from getting all this hair waxed off. When I lived in NYC there was hair & waxing salon on every corner and it was a mere $30 to get my bikini and eyebrows done. I did it whenever I could afford it.

    It's the least painful than other methods, it lasts longer and it was the ONLY thing that prevented razor or chemical burn - in other words waxing was the only solution that I didn't trade unwanted hair for an unwanted rash.

    It seems to me a young daughter growing early pubic hair is an even bigger motivator for waxing.

    Certainly, the minute girls develop breasts or pubic hair society treats her with less respect and she hears more negative and sexual comments about her body. The more she looks like a teenager or woman, the sooner she will be seen as an object for male entertainment, instead of the three-demensionable little girl, the young child, she really is.

    What bigger incentive is there to hide pubic hair, keep it as private as possible, or have it removed?

    Does the removal of hair further sexualize girls, because the latest fashion is for adult women to remove hair and get a Brazillian wax? Ironically (and a little disturbingly) making them look more like children.

    Or does the removal of a symptom or sign of puberty buy a little girl some more time to be a child?

    Please comment, I really am interested in exploring this issue further.

    Empowering Girls: Hootchy Clothes

    Second Generation Mean Girl

    Empowering Girls: Ho'oponopono for Girl Fights

    Empowering Girls: Breast Cancer Risks

    Empowering Girls: Early Puberty

    Precocious Puberty

    Image Source: Ohana Swimwear

    Monday, April 7, 2008

    Empowering Girls: First Salon Cut

    DSCN3132.JPGDSCN3138.JPGDSCN3139.JPG
























































    I felt, after 6 years of free haircuts from NaNa, that $10 was an appropriate amount to spend for a first salon haircut.

    After recently getting my own hair makeover, my daughter expressed an interest in getting hers cut "just like mine."

    Aware that a daughter's desire to be "just like Mommy" is fleeting, I jumped at my chance.

    I gave her highlights at home, while doing mine. (Of course, I wish mine had turned out as well as hers. The difference? I could see what I was doing on her hair. My own? I overbleached my bangs to a bad white, tried to cover it with a cotton candy pink, I had on hand from last year, that didn't take. I had to wait till payday and color a solid brown and then bleach again.)

    There is a story in the NY Times by Camille Sweeny about the trend for mothers to let their tweens get highlights. My friend Char from WearyParent is quoted.

    Jezebel, of course, took issue with the fact that some children are being allowed to have highlights in a story titled, Bikini Waxes, Highlights & 'Tramp Stamps': That's what little girls are made of.

    I take issue with the fact that a feminist magazine uses the derogatory term "tramp stamp" in reference to women who get tattooed. Connecting a tattoo with a woman's sexual promiscuity is like unto the old phrase, "she smokes, she pokes."

    I also think it's a bit silly to equate hair color with a permanent tattoo. There is nothing permanent about hair, which makes it a harmless way to allow children, tweens and teens to experiment with their style, fashion or look and even rebellion. And the bikini wax - for starters, one is on their head which everyone sees and the other is . . . not. A bikini wax is also rather like torture, while a new haircolor is, well - fun.

    I allow Ainsley highlights for one reason only - because it's fun.

    Although I do agree with Jezebel, that the direct marketing to children by salons is messed up. I explain why I think so in this story, Girls For Sale.

    Some of the hair professionals, in the NY Times story, advise infiltrating school and community functions where they have better access to young girls for their marketing. Gag me with a spoon.
    Blond Ambition
    Blond Ambition II
    Beauty & Reality
    Pink Hair Fiasco
    Pink Hair Fiasco Take 2
    Meaning of Hair

    Tuesday, April 1, 2008

    Empowering Girls: Enchanted - New Generation Princess Fable


    Disney's princess tales all attempt to answer one question: What do girls/women want? According to Disney's traditional message to little girls, what women want is to be saved by a prince, fall instantly in love and live happily ever after.

    As a woman, and a parent, I've been waiting for Disney to come into the new millennium with a more up-to-date, girl-friendly, version of it's own princess drama. Shrek was great, but it lacked the Disney Magic that makes little girls drool.

    Enchanted does question the Disney Princess Culture, kinda. Sorta. Maybe.

    The evil stepmother still finds the princess threatening and attempts to do away with her by sending her to New York City "where dreams never come true."

    The Princess Giselle, meets a single father, about to become engaged to the exact opposite of a Disney Princess archetype, Nancy. Nancy is a professional single woman, who acknowledges that she's never had much use for Prince Charming, but she is holding out for a decent guy. She's accused of being a secret hopeless romantic underneath her practical exterior by a coworker. The accusation proves true when she gets exhilarated by an uncharacteristic invitation to a ball and nearly swoons over a gift of real flowers instead of the usual e-card.

    Our single father, Robert, is a divorce lawyer, who was left by the mother of his child, a daughter for whom, he buys books like Great Women in History instead of the princess book she really wants. Disney pokes a little fun at parents, like myself, who take issue with the Princess Save Me Culture and wish to present our daughters with a more realistic expectation for their futures. They highlight Madam Curie and point out that she died of radiation poisoning - which isn't as much fun or as magical a story as living happily ever after. Touche' Disney. My daughter wholeheartedly agrees. But, is it really more romantic to give up your voice to get a man? Or to fall in love with and change your kidnapper?

    "Oh, you can try to withhold Princess Culture all you like," Disney seems to challenge, as they have the six-year-old girl jump out of a taxi and chase down our Princes Giselle as she mistakenly tries to enter a billboard in the shape of a castle. She falls right into the arms of our unprincely hero, Robert. He, of course, agrees to help her, but not to save her, much too his daughter's chagrin. Very much like the disappointment I'm sure my own daughter feels when I tell her to pick a movie other than Cinderella or Sleeping Beauty at the video store.

    Princess Giselle behaves as a caricature of her own princess self. Basically, she is full of larger than life false hand movements and emotional twittering and says unbelievably ridiculous things about being saved and the power of true love's kiss. She's incapable of any emotion aside from happiness and joy and goodness. She's naive to the point of being deranged. To its credit Disney dares to poke as much fun as it's own history and creation of the idiotic lunacy of Princess Culture as it pokes at me for being less than charmed by it.

    A shift in Princes Giselle occurs when she and her non-prince savior, Robert, set against the backdrop of street theater in Central Park, begin to discuss dating versus falling-in-love-at-first-sight and what happens after happily ever after. Seems our Princess was previously unaware that she might have job after marriage and that might be part of what makes her happy. Or that she might express her thoughts, dreams and desires to her love-at-first sight Prince fiance should he show up to save her.

    For his part our non-princess-saving man realizes that it certainly won't kill him to offer up a little romance to show his practical modern-day woman Nancy that he loves her. (No, I think, it certainly won't kill you to go to a little effort. Maybe I'll send this particular YouTube Video to my own modern-day practical man. Hint, hint.)

    Giselle experiences anger for the first time when Robert confronts her with the reality that her Prince probably isn't coming and it's time for Plan B. Plan B, in Princess Culture lingo is, I believe, a job or a sense of purpose. Our naive Princess Giselle is seen flipping through Great Women of History with a new interest.

    Of course, this is a Disney film so our Prince, like many Princes of Romance Past, does arrive to save our Princess. And our Prince, like many Princes of Romance Past is a completely self-absorbed dope. Cute, but lacking substance. (Who doesn't remember that guy? Luckily, ladies, we skirted that future - by going on a date - before it was too late.)

    In light of her own personal awakening our Princess Giselle demands a date before they return to never, never land where she realizes maybe her love-at-first-sight Prince and she don't really have all that much in common. Maybe, she's making a terrible mistake? Maybe she loves the man who doesn't want to save her, but who took the time to ask her what she wanted to be when she grows up? Maybe?

    The film takes a detour worth looking at. Giselle decides she needs a ball gown and our six-year-old girl snags Daddy's emergency credit card, with a quip about this being an emergency and the two are seen jaunting around New York on a spending spree. The little girl precociously fills our naive princess in on today's beauty culture. It seems Disney might be juxtaposing the innocence of their own interpretation of girlness with the current hyper-sexualized, appearance-oriented one. Perhaps they are asking, "how is this better?" The answer: "It's not."

    Like Disney Princess Films of generations past we end up at . . . A Ball. Where else?

    The evil queen comes to do away with our princess to prevent her from taking over her kingdom and Giselle takes a bite of her poisoned apple (Oh, Eve, will you ever learn?).

    Of course she's not awakened to our simple-minded self-absorbed pretty boy Prince. She is awakened to our single father divorce lawyer Prince. His date Nancy, who he intended to marry 5 minutes ago, gives him permission to kiss Giselle and she does awaken with the words, "I knew it was you." They make a new modern-day family, the father, nice step-mother and daughter (who got a world full of romance and princessness making her deliriously happy).

    Giselle, in a modern-day twist, saves her True Love. Thanks Disney, I've been waiting a long time for that. That is some gender progress.

    Which leaves our professional Nancy who realizes she does want to be saved after all and jumps down the rabbit hole/manhole with Prince Charming and Lives Happily Ever After in Andalasia.

    In light of yesterday's So Sioux Me story, Princess Culture Examined I had to wonder. Who's interpretation of what women want is this? To answer that I watched the special features on how the magic was made and listened to the interviews with the director, writers, choreographers, sound people, production people etc. I went to the IBMD database and checked the credits of the entire cast and crew.

    It was written by a man, directed by a man and produced by men.

    Out of 9 listed producers only one, Jill Morris, is a woman. The music is by a man, as is the cinematography, film editing, art direction, production design and special effects. Out of five, two women are given credit for production management. Costume design was done by a woman and one of the two casting credits goes to a woman.

    Disney's new updated version of "what women want" is really "men's new interpretation of what women want."

    I just have a few questions for Disney: Why is it that you think women aren't capable of telling our own story in your magical universe? Don't you think women might be better witnesses about our own experience and desires than men?

    I would love to see the FEMALE interpretation of what women want. I want to see Jane! interpreted by JANE.

    Disney, aren't you at all curious to see if you're right?

  • Send a letter to Disney,  TWDC.Corp.Communications@disney.com, telling them you want more healthy girl images out of their company, which begins with more female involvement in the creative process. 

  • Apply for a job. If you are creative and have skills in writing, producing, animation or editing and think you can breath some 3 dimensional empowering life into the girl characters of Disney - apply for a job.

  • If your daughter has talents and interests in animation or film, encourage that. Don't let anyone tell her it's too competitive or it's a male-dominated industry. Tell her she can do it, enroll her in classes, provide the equipment she needs to learn the skills. Tell her we NEED her to do it.
  • Monday, March 31, 2008

    Empowering Girls: Princess Culture Examined

    Ever wonder how and why the Disney Princess Culture distorted and minimized girlness, leaving girls as the extra character or one that desperately needs to be saved?

    My film-maker friend, Aaron Lea, sent me this rejection letter to a Mary V. Ford from Disney dated 1938. It states that she should not bother sending her portfolio because the creative talent is, by company policy, men.

    Which does help explain how the Disney Princess Girl Culture became so distructive and minimizing to girls.

    Dear Miss Ford:

    . . . .

    Women do not do any of the creative work in connection with preparing the cartoons for the screen, as that work is performed entirely by young men. For this reason girls are not considered for the training school.

    The only work open to women consists of tracing the characters on clear celluloid sheets with India ink and filling in the tracings on the reverse side with pain according to directions.

    In order to apply for a position as "Inker" or "Painter" it is necessary that one appear at the Studio, bringing samples of pen and in and water color work. It would not be advisable to come to Hollywood with the above specifically in view, as there really are very few opeinings in comparison with the number of girls who apply.

    Yours very truly,

    Walt Disney Productions, LTD.



    Aaron explained how during World War II Disney was put in a position, like most companies, to need women artists, which is how one of his creative idols was given some creative power. Here is a story on Mouseplanet about how women came to work at Disney.

    "Mary Blair was an art supervisor and designer at Disney when they were at their highest level of brilliancy. Disney optioned to use her artwork for storybooks versions of certain films in place of stills, said Lea.

    "Blair's influence can still be found today (she inspires a lot of us creative types). The opening credits for Monsters, Inc. is definitely an homage to her, as well as Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends," Lea pointed out.

    To illustrate Blair's influence Lea shares a sample of Blair's work and a sample of his own.
    blair art.jpg I Can Fly illustration Mary Blair.

    aaron pink carriage.jpgClaudia Carey illustration Aaron Lea.

    There is an article In New York Entertainment examining whether things are that much different at Disney in 2008 than they were in 1938. "The IMDb credits for Disney's latest No. 1 movie, Ratatouille, list 26 separate animators — of whom exactly zero appear based on first names to be women," they cite. To check the fact, here is a link to the entire credits. Two female story participants were given the glorious titles of "additional story material," indicative of their involvement.

    Over a rainy weekend my daughter and I rented Enchanted. Disney's newest version of it's own princess tales. Tune in tomorrow for analysis of Disney's new generation of Princess film.

    The main premises of the Geena Davis Institute is that when there are more women involved in the creative process of film and television it results in more empowering girl characters.

    What can YOU do to ensure more girls are included in children's media?

    • Make a video. The GDIGM has a YouTube project asking for people to get behind a camera and notify the film and media industry,

      I Want To See Jane! 

    • Donate money to the GDIGM so they can wine, dine and educate the film makers who do influence our daughters.
    • GDIGM is running a contest for girls. They invite all girls/women 13-26 to make a Video Ad citing the organizations research points. Someone has to win - why not your daughter? Go to the < site to learn more.

    Cinderella Should Have Saved Her Self

    Ariel - The Little Mute

    Belle - Battered Codependent

    Over a rainy weekend my daughter and I rented Enchanted. Disney's newest version of it's own princess tales. Tune in tomorrow for analysis of Disney's new generation of Princess film.
    Image of Mary Ford's Disney rejection letter.

    Friday, March 7, 2008

    Empowering Girls: Girls-Only Public School


    There is a fascinating piece in the New York Times Magazine, Teaching Boys and Girls Separately by Elizabeth Weil, about separating genders in a public school and how that's working well for a few schools.

    The segregated classrooms are decorated differently and use different materials. Blue for boys, yellow for girls, cold for boys, warm for girls, cool white light for boys, warm yellow light for girls, snakes for boys, no snakes for girls.

    From the article: In the first year of Foley’s single-sex program, a third of the kids enrolled. The next year, two-thirds signed up, and in its third year 87 percent of parents requested the program. Principal Mansell reports that her single-sex classes produce fewer discipline problems, more parental support and better scores in writing, reading and math. She does, however, acknowledge that her data are compromised, as her highest-performing teachers and her most-motivated students have chosen single-sex.

    David Chadwell, the coordinator of Single- Gender Initiatives at the South Carolina Department of Education states in the article, You need to engage boys’ energy, use it, rather than trying to say, No, no, no. So instead of having boys raise their hands, you’re going to have boys literally stand up. You’re going to do physical representation of number lines. Relay races. Ball tosses during discussion.”

    For the girls, Chadwell prescribes a focus on “the connections girls have (a) with the content, (b) with each other and (c) with the teacher. If you try to stop girls from talking to one another, that’s not successful. So you do a lot of meeting in circles, where every girl can share something from her own life that relates to the content in class.”

    Leonard Sax, a family physician turned proponent of single-sex education offers up the two extremes for each gender: He opens “Why Gender Matters,” a book he wrote on the subject, with two cautionary tales: one about a boy who starts kindergarten at age 5, is given a diagnosis of A.D.H.D. and depression and ends up on a three-drug cocktail of Adderall, Wellbutrin and clonidine; the other about a girl who transforms “from chubby wallflower to outgoing socialite” in middle school, seems to have it all — friends, academic success — and then shocks her parents by overdosing on Vicodin and Xanax.

    After presenting the Adderall-doped grammar-school boy and the suicidal middle-school girl, Sax offers a possible cause of these sad stories. “The neglect of gender in education and child-rearing has done real harm.” These tragedies “might have been averted if the parents had known enough about gender differences to recognize what was really happening in their child’s life.”

    Of course the opponents of gender-segregation say Sax is cherry-picking gender studies that date back to the 1960s.

    The article goes on to say that gender segregation is in response to the failure of No Child Left Behind, Despite six years of No Child Left Behind, the achievement gaps between rich and poor students and white and black students have not significantly narrowed. “People are getting desperate” is how Benjamin Wright, chief administrative officer for the Nashville public schools, described the current interest in single-sex education to me. “Coed’s not working. Time to try something else.”

    Here's some pretty sad statistics about the nature of educational pitfalls for boys: Nationwide, boys are nearly twice as likely as girls to be suspended, and more likely to drop out of high school than girls (65 percent of boys complete high school in four years; 72 percent of girls do). Boys make up two-thirds of special-education students. They are 1.5 times more likely to be held back a grade and 2.5 times more likely to be given diagnoses of A.D.H.D.

    The Young Women’s Leadership School in Harlem is widely considered the birthplace of the current single-sex public school movement. This position of eminence stems from both its early beginnings and its success: since opening in 1996, every girl in every senior class at T.Y.W.L.S. has graduated and been accepted at a four-year college.

    As the Supreme Court would rule in June 1996, just three months before T.Y.W.L.S. opened, the legality of single-sex schools depends on context,

    The A.C.L.U. opposes gender-segregation in public schools.

    The article goes on to talk about the sexualization of girls in public schools and the fact that dating culture has been replaced by hook up culture. Nearly everyone at T.Y.W.L.S. acknowledges that often parents’ most pressing concern when enrolling their 11-year-old daughters is sheltering those girls from sexualized classrooms and sexualized streets.

    “Boys at boys’ schools like Old Farms in Connecticut, or Saint Albans in Washington, D. C., will call up girls at Miss Porter’s in Connecticut, at Stone Ridge in Maryland, and they will ask the girl out, and the boy will drive to the girl’s house to pick her up and meet her parents. You tell kids at a coed school to do this, and they’ll fall on the floor laughing. But the culture of dating is much healthier than the culture of the hookup, in which the primary form of sexual intimacy is a girl on her knees servicing a boy,” Sax is quoted as saying in the article.

    I think it's a fascinating subject. I'm undecided. Like the Supreme Court, I think it's a matter of context. I can see where there is potential for benefit for both genders, but I want to avoid any type of discrimination.

    Anyone have a concrete opinion about the issue? Anyone ever go to an all-girls' school or have a single-gender classroom and want to share their experiences?

    Tuesday, February 26, 2008

    1943 Guide to Hiring Women


    Thank goodness our daughters can expect somewhat better treatment from future employers than this: 1943 Guide to Hiring Women posted by Contrariwise Ramblings.

    It should be noted though that we're not out of the woods yet, as just the other day I heard a female county employee say she was having a difficult time finding a suitable secretary who was not of childbearing age. I know it's illegal, but you know they can be so undependable, she noted. The irony was the at the woman herself was of childbearing age.

    Hello?

    Back to the article, my favorite excerpts include that young married women are more responsible than their unwed sisters and less flirtatious, "Husky" girls (apparently their euphemism for fat) are more friendly and outgoing than under-weight women, employers were encouraging to perform gynecological physical examinations to avoid "feminine ailments", and to give girls breaks to apply more lipstick and fix their hair.

    Is it any wonder that laws about gender discrimination are necessary?

    Tuesday, February 5, 2008

    I Hate Hillary!


    by Tracee Sioux

    Maybe you're one of the people who disagree with me politically. Maybe you like the current health care system, don't have a problem with current employment policy, would love to see Row V. Wade overturned. In other words, maybe you're a Republican.

    Okay, I can respect that. Almost everyone I know and love is a Republican. I grew up Mormon and married a Texan. Very Republican both.

    As an advocate for girls let me make the following plea on behalf of your daughter:

    Please, please, please speak respectfully of the one and only female candidate ever for President of the United States - Hillary Clinton.

    What you say about Hillary Clinton has the potential to translate to your daughters as your opinion of all women (including your daughter) seeking power.

    I vividly remember asking my parents what the Equal Rights Amendment was as a child. I remember them telling me that it was a bill to make women equal to men. And they were voting against it.

    Here's how that translated to a six-year-old girl: My parents are voting against ME! Why would they do that?

    What you might say instead of I Hate Hillary Clinton! might be, I think a woman would make a wonderful President, I just don't agree with this particular woman's political views on health insurance.

    It would be helpful, for your daughter, to avoid vague negative statements about Hillary's suitability as a role model for girls. Instead you could say, I think it's wonderful that a female has gotten this far in American politics. It's wonderful that women are becoming more powerful and ambitious. I just don't agree with her views on abortion or the economy.

    If you minimize and criticize the significance of Hillary's presence in this race you minimize and criticize your daughter's potential.

    It's Super Tuesday: Take your daughter to vote with you and show her what being empowered in a democracy means.

    Friday, December 28, 2007

    Blond Ambition II


    I'm sorry. I just can not feel like Tracee Sioux with plain brown hair.

    It's the single brown tone that's making me feel un-me when I look in the mirror. Drab. Dull. Boring. Not on you. Just on me.

    None of those words describe me. I'm fun, happy and exciting. My hair should reflect that.

    Last night I spent $9.99 for a box of Loreal Chunking Blond Highlights. I put about 10 blond streaks back around my face and feel like myself again. They're a little orangey - but I do not care.

    Ainsley asked for some blond streaks in her dark blond/light brown hair and I couldn't think of a reason to tell her no.

    I can think of lots of reasons other mothers might give their daughters,
    You're too young. You're hair is perfect like it is. You don't need lighter blond to be pretty. What will people think if I let my 6-year-old color her hair?

    I respect all those reasons as valid and legitimate. But, none of those ring true for me, as I've already allowed red streaks and pink streaks - depending on what I was doing to my own hair. Who is a little blond going to hurt? No one. It's fun. That's all it is. It's instantly gratifying to change the color of one's hair. It's a hobby. It's a harmless distraction.

    I'm a feminist, but not the natural kind. I think the beauty industry has gotten too extreme and makes many women feel like crap about themselves, I abhor their marketing tactics. But, I am happy when they invent a product that really works.

    I use beauty products. I shave my legs, pits and groom my vajayjay. I pluck my eyebrows into a high arch. I wear make-up, apply sun screen and foundation. I get excited about my mascara. I try to control my acne with prescription medication. I'm willing to pay a lot of money for a product that makes melasma vanish and never return. Mind you - I get this stuff on the cheap so I'm not hurting myself financially in this quest for beauty. I got this rotating scrub brush and a chemical peel at a retiring Avon Lady's garage sale for a quarter.

    And I love blond highlights. I'm a feminist who feels her best self with blond-highlights.

    In December's O Magazine I read this quote from Nancy Etkoff, PhD, author of Survival of the Prettiest: The Science of Beauty, If we say, "Get rid of the advertisement and tell companies to stop making products, and no one will care about beauty - this is all just a creation that we can wipe away," we are denying who we are. People do care about how they look. They have adorned themselves since Paleolithic times. This is not a vanity issue or a women's issue or a United States issue. It is human nature.

    Monday, November 19, 2007

    Right to Representation


    Our daughters have a right to see women in the picture too. I think they deserve to have all opportunities open to them, including that of President of the United States. Women have yet to be represented.

    To ignore the white maleness of power is to deny daughters the reality of their gender.

    Tuesday, October 30, 2007

    Self Portrait of a Housewife


    This is a self portrait of a 1950s housewife. What do you see?

    Thank You to my friend Cindy for allowing me to print her mother's work.

    Tuesday, October 16, 2007

    Devaluation of Motherhood






    by Tracee Sioux

    When looking at 6 to 12 week maternity leave policies in the United States one has to wonder:

    Do employers and lawmakers hate mothers?

    Or do they hate babies?

    After you push a human being out of your crotch and feel pressured to return to work before your stitches have even dissolved you have to wonder, Which of us to they hate more?

    What causes policies that are detrimental to both mother and child?

    Devaluation of motherhood.

    What if anti-mother employment policies are a direct result of women criticizing motherhood? Women do it to preserve our hard-won place in public life. Perhaps, the end-result is damaging and harmful to working-mothers and their families because it manifests in anti-mothering employment policy.

    I'm playing with the theory that the devaluation of motherhood is a bi-product of feminism and emancipation. An over-correction, if you will.

    Follow my thinking here, for thousands of years women were submissive and oppressed. We were told the only thing we were qualified for was mothering. To break out of our narrowly-defined role, we did the only thing we could: we minimized and devalued motherhood.

    Consider my family as a microcosm of the whole. In order for me, personally, to break away from my mother's Church and Society sanctioned stay-at-home-mom role I minimized what she did. The cleaning, the cooking, the nurturing, the caring, the self-sacrifice, the moral building, the breast-feeding, the birthing, the nursing, the educating, the training, the whole mothering bit got reduced to nothing. Nothing important or validating anyway.

    Now that I have children of my own I can see that this so-called nothing is really what makes the world go round. The growing of people, nurturing human beings, the next generation, trumps professional achievement. I want both, but the mothering keeps the entire species evolving and thriving according to the scientific Grandmother hypothesis.

    To break away, I devalued motherhood and then was shocked, angry and surprised that my husband would dare equate my mothering to nothing.

    I think there is ample evidence, in the last 30 years, that men will follow our lead. They'll resist, but they will eventually follow. We are, as their mothers and wives, the most influential people in their lives. If we led them to devalue motherhood, then it stands to reason that we can lead them back.

    Valuing motherhood starts with each of us. Obviously, we have made good progress. Women are not going to run back into their Normal Rockwell mothering roles, it didn't make us happy then for legitimate reasons.

    But, I think it's a grave mistake to criticize the stay-at-home mom who does choose that role today. The stay-at-home mom reminds us that motherhood, in and of itself, is a valid ambition.

    Why would employers and lawmakers hate mothers? It would be absurd to hate the very people they love most. Is it possible that anti-mother employment policies are the result of women devaluing motherhood?

    Thoughts anyone?


    Clarification: I use the term mothering and motherhood in a collective sense. For instance, though Oprah has no children I think she mothers all women. Likewise, Violet, who brings up some issues about mother's in the workplace has spent 15 years mothering me, though she suffered from infertility.

    Clarificaton II: This is not meant to be a controversial article on working versus staying at home. I suggest that when we devalue one we devalue the other. It's meant to offer a solution:

    When we value motherhood all women, working or not, mother or non-mother, single or married, benefit from family-friendly (however you want to define family is fine with me) policies.

    Monday, September 17, 2007

    "A" Is For . . .


    by Tracee Sioux

    My daughter was reciting all the things about "A" she had learned her first week in Kindergarten.

    A is for alligator, apple tree, astronaut, Ainsley.

    Then she handed the phone back to me.

    Well, when she was reciting all the things that start with A, I refrained from listing Asshole.

    Well, thanks for showing some restraint Mom, I said. Sometimes I don't even know who you are. When I was a kid I would have sworn you would never, ever say the word Asshole. Let alone be tempted to say it to a five-year-old.

    I would have sworn the same thing. Then I had you.

    You mean parenting a child like myself in particular, or the experience of mothering in general?

    It was parenting you. When you have a kid like you and you start defending them to people, you don't realize how many assholes there are in the world. The world is pretty full of assholes.

    I've learned more things about things I never, ever wanted to know about or understand being your mother. Well, and Larry's wife. The two of you. I was so naive. I've really had to grow and learn being married to him and mothering you. You two are my trials to endure. You're the people in my life that force me to grow.

    My poor mother. She'd have chosen a life of rule following, respecting authority and blending in.

    Then she had me and I would have none of it - straight from the go. Challenging authority, questioning the status quo, getting into trouble, experimenting with addiction, using my voice loudly and publicly, forever going against the grain.

    She did defend me too. I remember she took on the vice-principal of my junior high when I kicked out a window at school. I went right to him and confessed and offered to pay for it. I kicked it, but was surprised it had broken. My intention wasn't to vandalize. The principal expelled me for the rest of the year and she fought that. But, you know what she would have chosen for herself? That I was not the type of kid to kick anything. That I would have just nicely and politely gone to class.

    I put my mother through hell. People always make vague comments about myself to me. My grandmother recently wrote, You always have marched to a different drummer.

    I never do know what they really mean. I always choose to take it as a compliment. But, I'm vague about how people really perceive me. I never quite understand how exactly I'm so different. Occasionally I'll struggle against it, my nature, but it's futile. I worry that my daughter is too much like me, and girls like us are really such a challenge to mother.


    Well behaved women rarely make history.

    Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

    Friday, June 15, 2007

    Femimother Must Go On Vacation Alone

    By Tracee Sioux

    One of the best ways to empower children, in my experience, is to get away without them for a weekend. It sends the message that they can and should be somewhat independent. They will, after all, be going out in the world without me eventually.

    It gives their father the opportunity to be their primary caregiver (though there is a rumor going around that he's asked his mom to babysit while he plays golf on Father's Day.) Happy Father's Day Honey! It also gives the impression that I, though I am their mother, can and should take time for my self. I existed pre-kid and I will exist post-kid, and in the meantime, I can take a vacation from them.

    I expect this weekend to be quite liberating. I'm going to Houston on a little errand for a family member in need of a wheelchair. I'm going to pick one up and hang out with a good friend of mine. Oh the pure pleasure of a good deed turned run of good luck. The best, absolutely best part about the whole deal is that she has not had children yet. So our conversations need not include children, nor do they need to be interrupted by the demands of any. My appendages are staying home. I do not intend to prattle on endlessly about them. They already get nearly all of my time and attention.

    I adore my children, but sometimes after one of them has been sick and we've been home all week and my husband has had meetings virtually every night, I'm just plain tired of their company. And that's not only okay - I think it's the healthiest part of my femimothering style.

    I must go out and have fun and have adult conversation and feel like a self again. I will be back on Monday to do my mothering (and my blogging) and no one will have suffered irreparable damage. To think otherwise is just a bit of mothering-conceit.