Consumer culture has always been about the illusion of
options. GoldieBlox, a toy that encourages girls to be engineers, both plays off
of stereotypes about female needs and yearnings (the need for a story, the
requirement of pink packaging) while also attempting to undercut current pink
princess culture, which, as I mentioned in my previous column, remains the
dominant image of “femininity” in America. In a previous ad for
GoldieBlox, we could see little girls seated in front of a television, bored out of
their skulls by ads which depicted little girls playing princess. Together they
would develop a miraculous contraption that would turn off the TV, while a parody version
of the Beastie Boys’ song “Girls” played in the background.
The ad garnered considerable attention, especially in
light of the discussion on whether or not GoldieBlox’s version of “Girls” should
be considered fair use (the makers of GoldieBlox have subsequently agreed to redo the ad). Less consideration has been given to the parody itself
and the fact that “girl power” is so often framed by pitting girls against girls, rather than creating an
environment where little girls and boys are encouraged to choose toys that
appeal to them.
The problem with GoldieBlox’s ad was the same as in Pink’s song and
music video, “Stupid Girls,” where a little girl is encouraged to choose
between a doll and a football. After Pink showcases various dumb girl
stereotypes—the valley girl carrying her puppy in her purse, the bimbo who
wants to be loved, the skinny blonde who refuses to eat- our little tomboy
heroine makes the “right” choice and goes for the football. GoldiBlox
encourages a similarly reductive attitude towards gender, with little girls’ sing-song
voices hating on dolls: “…we
would like to use our brains. We
are all more than princess maids.” As if girls don’t use their brains when
playing dress up or with dolls. As if the very accoutrements of girlhood render
girls deaf, blind, and dumb.
Anti-princess culture is often more hostile towards girls
than princess culture itself is. It enforces negative stereotypes about
femininity by asserting that the only way girls can be smart is to reject traditionally
feminine things. It’s wonderful when girls are strongly encouraged to excel in
a range of different fields, but I’d love to see a world that also lauds men
who pursue a career as a nurse or teacher. For all the furious antipathy
towards the pink aisle it is much easier to be a tomboy in our culture than to
be a little boy that likes girlie things. One of the main reasons for this is the
fact that we still view traditionally feminine things as less important than
male ones. A girl who likes aggressive sports and toys that feature weapons is
likely to be praised for her tenacity, while a boy who likes to play dress up
and play with dolls is still seen as doing something that is fundamentally
taboo. This is clearly seen in the slew of cases where little boys have faced
repeated harassment at school for wanting to wear nail polish or wear dresses.
But we don’t have movements encouraging boys to explore their “feminine side”
precisely because we don’t view doing so as meaningful or important.
Ads like the one for GoldieBlox reinforce the idea that
girlhood is an obstacle to success, rather than simply encouraging girls to
pursue what they want and love who they are. Phrases like “more than just a
princess” do little to counter pink culture but do a lot to harm girls. By consistently
presenting girlie-girl culture as stupid, airheaded and catty, we are
effectively reducing the chance that girls who do like dolls and princesses might
see themselves as capable and competent just as they are.
In its second season, Mad Men
famously played off the idea that women had only two options for what they
could aspire to be in life: a Jackie or a Marilyn. Today we see that false and limited dichotomy
as completely sexist, but we are still offering girls and young women shallow
and limited options: the pretty princess or the tomboy warrior, the playboy
bunny or the gaming geek. Let’s not confuse these new cookie cutter models of
female identity with genuine empowerment. True freedom will come when we don’t
feel the need to continuously remind girls that they are “more than just a
princess.” The only word that has ever stuck with this brand of messaging is
the word just. Girls need models of empowerment that don’t consistently
emphasize that their burden will be to forever fight against a world that sees
them as meek and incompetent. It’s a sad lesson, and one which perpetuates a
view in which girls will never be seen as brave or strong without a caveat.
Of course, at its root, all advertising wants to us to get
rid of our old toys and replace them with new ones, at least until we get bored
of old patterns or eventually grow up. Today, we need toys that challenge
children to explore the world around them, rather than remind them that the
gender they are born into will determine their entire path, whether they like
it or not.
Arielle Bernstein is
a writer living in Washington, DC. She teaches writing at American
University and also freelances. Her work has been published in The
Millions, The Rumpus, St. Petersburg Review and The Ilanot Review. She
has been listed three times as a finalist in Glimmer Train short story
contests. She is currently writing her first book. She is Associate
Book Reviews Editor at The Nervous Breakdown.
2 thoughts on “A New Column by Arielle Bernstein: Without a Caveat: Can Girls Look Past GoldieBlox?”
The author manages to forget in the span of a few paragraphs just what GoldieBlox is trying to do: affirm femininity while encouraging girls to step outside of "the pink aisle". The GoldieBlox slogan is "More than just a princess" rather than "not a princess". The company does not market its toys to be at odds with most girl's toys; we get the impression that girls who play with GoldieBlox are also likely to play with Barbies. GoldieBlox don't present a choice between engineering and femininity, as Legos might, they synthesize the two. A girl who plays with GoldieBlox is neither a "pretty princess" or a "tomboy warrior".
Moreover, I don't understand how the author managed to get the message that "Ads like the one for GoldieBlox reinforce the idea that girlhood is an obstacle to success, rather than simply encouraging girls to pursue what they want and love who they are". In my opinion, the ad is attacking television and its vapidity as much as the one-dimensionality of Barbies. The girls in the ad certainly pursue what they want; what they happen to want is to turn off the TV and make a Rube Goldberg machine. All that without sacrificing their "feminine side".
I do wholly agree with the author's points about the P!NK video and the lack of male cross-over into the "pink aisle".
Additionally, I would opine that this GoldieBlox ad isn't so much trying to force engineering into traditionally girlie toys, it is rather trying to divorce engineering from masculinity. After all, why should engineering simply be masculine?
So to respond to the thesis: GoldieBlox isn't at all reinforcing that gender determines someone's path, and it definitely seems to encourage the girls in the commercial to explore the world around them, especially in ways that Barbies may not.
YEP. All my mother's snarling pseudo-feminist antagonism toward all things feminine did for me was turn me into an overly made-up, curling-iron-frizzled, cleavage-showing 15-year-old who got Bs on purpose. From where I stood, pretty and smart didn't fit together, so I chose pretty to rebel against mom. It took years to straighten out, so to speak, the idea that I could be a lesbian femme and smart as a whip, both at the same time. I'm more hostile to hostility to feminine things than I am to the actual feminine things, and I'm particularly hostile to fake-empowerment marketing of pink and purple things for girls only. Nice column!