We Want More Real Girls in Disney/Pixar Films!

Dr. Ed Catmull, President
Pixar
Pixar Animation Studios
1200 Park Avenue
Emeryville, California 94608

Robert A. Iger, CEO
Disney
500 S. Buena Vista St.
Burbank, CA 91521-9722

Dear Dr. Catmull and Mr. Iger,

We read Linda Holmes’s wonderful letter to Pixar asking you to create a feature film with a girl or women as the main character. We’ve had enough of Disney princesses with doe eyes and Barbie doll bodies. We love your inventive, brilliant movies. We know you have it in you. We loved feisty Princess Atta in A Bug’s Life and Dreamworks' Princess Fiona in Shrek was our kind of girl, but the stories weren’t theirs to tell, nor the journeys theirs to take. We want a female LEAD character, a nonprincess LEAD character who is complex and interesting. While you’re at it, could you give her a passion for something other than fashion and shopping, and how about a realistic body type? Girls are 25% of characters in animated films and 52% of the population. Research tells us boys care less about gender than interesting characters. They’ll watch if she’s cool enough. Come on, give us just one. If you make it, we will come to the theaters in droves. Promise!

Sincerely,

Your concerned customers

Sign the petition here and pass it along to your friends!

Check out the Packaging Girlhood authors' blog about the petition

Dear Mattel and Nick: We're Not Buying It

After loads of media attention to Dora's makeover, and more than 5,000 concerned people signed our petition, the Nickelodeon Press Department released a statement. But, we're not convinced.

Here is our response to Mattel and Nick:

Dear Mattel and Nick,

It’s safe to say that neither the thousands who have signed our petition nor we are soothed by the unveiling of the new tween Dora’s image. The original Dora the Explorer was unique and beloved by both girls and boys because she was adventurous, smart, and loved the outdoors. Trading her compass, map, pet monkey, and sneakers for jewelry, a dress, and the big city, means Dora isn't the same explorer anymore. The new tween Dora fits right into the narrow mold that defines too many girls' toys, and thus limits their imagination.

In the AP Wire article released yesterday, your company defined "tween" as girls 5-8 years old. Parents need to know that this is a new definition of tween – a big change from the 8-12 market originally targeted. The creation of an older Dora is a blatant attempt to go after younger girls and create a desire for a lifestyle and products parents tell us they are too young to experience. This is a time in girls’ lives when we should be introducing a wide range of possibilities and interests – not limiting their potential with stereotypes of appearance-conscious tween fashionistas.

Through the creation of a tween Dora who can change her hair and eye color to “go undercover” you have effectively erased Dora’s cultural identity - transforming what was not only a wonderful example of a non-stereotypical girl but also a strong, independent Latina character. Dora’s cultural identity is not just another accessory for your corporations to peddle.

If Dora does have to grow up, Hardy Girls Healthy Women, and thousands of concerned girls, boys, and parents think she should keep her sensible clothes and interest in problem-solving and jungle adventures.

We will continue to urge concerned parents and children to make their voices heard by signing onto our petition and will continue to contact media outlets until we are satisfied that you have taken steps to maintain the adventurous spirit of the original Dora.

Sign the petition to save Dora today.
Read Packaging Girlhood authors Lyn and Sharon's response

'Let's Go!' No Makeover for Dora!

What happened? FIRST it was Dora's Magic Talking Kitchen, THEN Dora Princess, THEN Dora Babysitter in her cousin's show, NOW DORA TWEEN.

Alas, we saw the signs. The cute flower lip gloss, the pinkified look, the sudden separation of Dora and Diego shows. We could have, should have predicted this after we saw the likes of Strawberry Shortcake, Holly Hobby, and Trollz (now with the ubiquitous commodified girl power “z”), all made over in the cute sexy way that marketers sell maturity to girls--the sassy wink, the long flowing hair, the thin waist, the turned out hip pose of practiced lingerie models. What next? Dora the Cheerleader? Dora the fashionista with stylish purse and stilettos? Dora the Pop Star with Hoppin' Dance Club and "Juice" Bar? We can expect it all, because that's what passes as "tween" in the toy department these days.

In Packaging Girlhood, Sharon Lamb and Lyn Mikel Brown write extensively about Dora the Explorer as one of the best role models in girls' early worlds, at least before her image was sold to princess clothing lines and sugary cereals. On TV she wears shorts. She has a sidekick monkey. She has a map and a compass and a backpack! She solves problems and explores the world in Spanish and English. Her motto is "Let's go!" and it could never be construed in that ‘wink, wink’ kind of way. But those adventuresome folks who created Dora no longer own her. She's owned by Mattel who can use her image, re-MAKE her image, in any way they see fit to make money.

The highest bidder for tween Dora was Mattel, and they have plans to sell her at a whopping $60 to aspiring teens everywhere. For this price, girls are told to forget the outdoors and adventure into the same old same old: shopping, fashion, makeovers, and jewelry.

But we know the truth and can do something about it! We know that if the original Dora grew up, she wouldn't be a fashion icon or a shopaholic. She'd develop her map reading skills and imagine the places she could go. She'd capitalize on those problem solving skills to design new ways to bring fresh water to communities in need around the world. Maybe she'd become a world class runner or follow her love of animals and become a wildlife preservationist or biologist. We'll never know because the only way a girl can grow up in tween town, is to narrow that symphony of choices to one note. It's such a sell out of Dora, of all girls.

That's why we're sending this letter to Mattel and Nickelodeon! Join us for Let's Go: No Makeover for Dora. Help us tell the execs at Mattel and Nickelodeon to "Let GO" of Dora. Either let her live on as her wonderful self, or create a pre-teen doll that is true to who she was as a child!

Sign onto the petition here and we’ll add your name to the list of concerned parents, activists, educators, and girls who refuse to stand aside while yet another girlhood icon becomes the victim of marketers’ schemes.

Sign on now!

LMB writes about Mean Girls on The REAL Deal

Lyn Mikel Brown is featured on The REAL Deal blog where she writes about dealing with the "Mean Girl" phenomenon. "Mean girls" are featured in everything from reality TV shows, dramas, and tabloid magazines. For 2009, Lyn writes that her wish for girls is to "affirm girls' relational and political strengths by giving them reason to believe they can count on one another and work together to solve social problems." Read the full blog here.

What's your wish for girls in 2009? We want to know!

Commercializing Girlhood

While girls everywhere struggle with Barbie as their role model and the pressure to become "just like her" two girls don't have to imagine what they would be like as Barbie dolls - they've already been made. TyGirlz has come out with the Marvelous Malia and Sweet Sasha dolls to capitalize on President Obama's inauguration. Yes, these dolls are plush instead of plastic, but they've got the unrealistic "beautiful" infant/alien eye to head ratio as well as the top-heavy structure girls everywhere have come to know very well with their Barbie dolls. Yes, Malia and Sasha, even though they are 7 and 10, in doll form have breasts. This also conjures up thoughts of Pocahontas who in reality was 12-14 years old at the time of the colonists' arrival, being made a woman overnight in the Disney movie Pocahontas to fulfill the romantic angle Disney wanted to prescribe to little girls.

The Malia and Sasha dolls aren't a part of a romanticized plotline but once again a company has sexualized and commodified girls for the sake of making a buck. In doing so, they perpetuate the message we're seeing everywhere these days: that girls will never be "just girls" but girls on the verge of being teens and everything that marketers have come to associate with being a "teen." (i.e. sexy, fashionable, into makeup, and don't forget sweet). It goes to show that marketer's have no respect for any girl - even the First Daughters! Even they can be used, as the post on Packaging Girlhood points out, "to encourage little girls to play with teen dolls and everything marketers think "teen" means. That is, Bratz and their followers party, have a passion for fashion, drink "juice" drinks in cosmo glasses, fly in jet planes, shop, and hang out in hot tubs."

The copy for the Malia and Sasha dolls reads "The magnificent beauty is Marvelous Malia! Malia looks great in a long sleeved shirt with butterfly detail and capri pants. This modern maiden is ready to look stunning in spring." "Sweet Sasha is one of the nicest girlz you could hope to meet! With her pigtail braids and clever combo of a shirtdress and leggings, it's easy to see that this sweetheart has style."

There you have it: Beauty is a look and sweetness is a style. Both are up for sale.


At least their names weren't "Oo Lala" (Olivia) or "Sizzilin'" (Sue).

Check out Susan Linn's editorial from Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood on how the President (acting at First Father?) should take on coporate America.

Are Girls Responsible for Dating Violence?

Two recent articles in The New York Times and the Boston Globe have reported on youth violence, specifically dating violence. While the articles describe efforts being made to prevent this violence, a recent commentary notes how they are based on gender-stereotypes and hold girls responsible for stopping it.

"This seems to be the thread running through both of these recent stories: that we still live in a country where gender stereotypes (men are violent and uncontrollable, women are passive and responsible) in collusion with systemic invisibility, lead us to continue making the same ineffective interventions. Our short-sightedness and sexism is, in itself, a sort of violence. It prevents us from empowering the next generation to live better, more peaceful lives," writes Courtney E. Martin.

Statistics on dating violence have shown the degree to which the problem is both troubling and urgent. According to a study from The Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, more than one-third of the 920 students questioned were victims of emotional and physical abuse by romantic partners before they started college. Similarly, the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene found an increase in dating violence by more than 40 percent since 1999.

"But what about the young men? Do we really think teenage boys so depraved that they can't respond to an education on emotional management or be asked to take responsibility for preventing and ending interpersonal violence?" Martin writes.

To read the full commentary, click here. What do you think? Weigh in!

What 3-Months Olds Don’t Know Won’t Hurt Them?

Tiny soft baby shoe with soft heels, for infants up to 6 months.

Looking at the current marketing landscape – it should come as no surprise that stilettos for babies would be the next step towards the sexualization of girls. Babies are not meant to be fashion accessories which Britta Bacon, 30, seems to imply with her statement "Omigawd, what if you could take a baby to a party wearing high heels?" - I mean, when I'm going to a party the first thing I ask myself is "which baby goes best with my outfit? The one in heels or the one in wedges?"

The fact that these shoes are being sold at The Doll Factory exemplifies this more! Babies are not dolls, they're not toys, they're not the "latest thing" to accessorize your outfit with. Children are not objects - but decorating them with shoes like this signifies that babies are perhaps not people, but rather objects. Think also about how we are socialized into gender roles as soon as the words "It's a girl" are exclaimed. Why wait until she's a "tween" to get her buying into the idea that she's an object meant to be looked at when you can start that off as an infant? How do we react to a baby girl in heels or a baby boy in combat gear? We reinforce simplified gender roles and expectations that are limiting and consequently destructive.

Acheson's Gifts and Decorative Accents, owner Dianne Acheson simply brushed aside comments from critics about selling the shoes in her store with the ridiculou response "But a 3-month old baby has no idea she's wearing high heels." Let's try this same "baby logic" with other things: "But a 3-month old baby has no idea she's wearing a french maid's outfit (or a stripper's outfit - let's not forget the stripper's pole made for kids, pictured below!) It's soooo cute!"

Peekaboo Pole Dancing Kit from Tesco sold in their "Toys and Games" section as a fitness gear.

In the end - this product was not made with a child's needs or wants in mind, but a narcissistic parent’s, whose looking for the perfect party plus. Maybe they can pole dance together, too.