Hey Disney, What About the Rest of the Princesses?

Given the recent upheaval about Disney changing Brave's character, Merida, on their Disney Princess site, it begs the question why the other characters on their princess site are "updated" as well?  We just watched the original Disney Cinderella from 1950, and I did not even recognize their new version as Cinderella.  Fortunately, they have changed Merida back to her original image, however, the other characters remain a bedazzled, sexed up version of their predecessors. 

It's not like Disney princesses have traditionally been synonymous with feminism, but can't we at least leave out the extra make-up, sparkles and perfect hair?  Why have ANY of these characters been altered?  I understand that the sexier version of Merida goes against everything she represented in the movie and that's why people got upset, but why is nobody appalled at these other transformations?  What is this saying to our children?  I've already written at length about my feelings on sex being marketed to young girls (you can find that piece here), and this is no different. 

So I have to ask, "Hey Disney, what about the rest of the princesses?"  Shame on you Disney, for tweaking these beloved characters into what seems like their "Bratz" alter egos, just to make a buck.

CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE

Photo Credits:
Snow White (1937): Groucho Reviews
Cinderella (1950): Orangetagged.blogspot
Ariel (1989): OnTheRedCarpet.com
Belle (1991): Cineplex.com
Pocahontas (1995): Fanpop.com
Jasmine (1992): Cineplex.com
All "updated" characters are from the Disney Princess site

Defining Feminism

Recently, Mothering.com's editor Peggy O'Mara published a piece claiming that breastfeeding, and more specifically, the right to breastfeed in public, is "the feminist issue of our time."  I had a flood of thoughts upon reading it, and I feel compelled to respectfully disagree. 

Let me start by saying that my almost 27 month old daughter still nurses 6+ times a day, even [gasp!] during the night in bed with me, and I have no issues with nursing publicly.  I think Peggy made some very valid points about breastfeeding being a basic human right, among other things.  However, saying it is "the feminist issue of our time" is a bold statement. 

My initial reaction was that the seemingly endless battles for reproductive rights would probably be at the top of my list of current feminist events.  Then I began expanding my view to encompass the international scope of women's rights.  I could feel my heart sink as I reflected on young girls who had their water poisoned at their schools in Afghanistan, or the BABIES who are raped and maimed in the Congo.  These are just two examples of the numerous atrocities committed against females worldwide, and suddenly, breastfeeding in public certainly did not seem like it was at the top of the list of feminist issues.  Even the assaults on reproductive freedom here in the US seemed somewhat myopic to me.

It is important to note that I am very passionate about rights for breastfeeding mothers, and infuriated by what has been going on lately with attempts to redefine rape, limit women's access to birth control, and disable the ability for a woman to make life transforming decisions about her own body.  I just wish that a few more feminists in the US would be equally outspoken and enraged about the treatment of women all over the world.  Rarely do I see information flying around social networking sites about the lives of the women in Darfur, or the acid attacks that are becoming increasingly popular in many countries.  I am a survivor of rape, a survivor of domestic violence and a survivor in general, but I am humbled to think of the things so many women around the world have to face in their lives everyday, just trying to achieve having their basic human rights met.  Is breastfeeding THE feminist issue of our time?  Personally, I don't think so.

Dr. Sears is Not My Son's Mom

Now that the frenzy about the scandalousness of the May 21 Time's cover and the general public reaction to it has passed, I'd like to address what I found actually scandalous about the whole situation. It wasn't the somewhat awkward photo of a mother nursing her pre-schooler. In truth, I actually really liked the discussion that happened after cover was released and the reaction of several mom bloggers who really helped educate the public on what full term nursing is like and it was a discussion that likely would not have happened if not for that cover. Some of my favorites included this piece on what extended nursing really likes from Dionna at Code Name:Mama, this piece on attached dads and several other wonderful pieces that arose during the I Am Mom! Enough! Carnival hosted at Hybrid Rasta Mama. As a facebook user and the first mama in my family to practice full term breastfeeding, it was awesome to suddenly have all kinds of wonderful links I could share with my friends and family who up until that point had assumed that I was an anomaly. So, if I do not address why I think choosing to stay at home can be just as feminist as working, it is because Tara has already written about it so effectively that I really want you to read her words or the words of Mandy at Living peacefully with children. If I do not address why I don't find attachment parenting oppressive, it is because Julian's impassioned message addresses it so beautifully that I want you to turn to her (and the multitude of beautifully written pieces from the carnival) for that.Laying aside the attempt to "reignite" the mythical "Mommy Wars" (which I personally have never found evidence of existing. No matter what other moms around me believe and whether or not they stay at home or go to work, it always seems to me that most moms support one another. If there is a war, it is an internal war that every woman fights within herself about what is best for her family.), what I found scandalous about the Time cover emblazoned with the words "Are You Mom Enough?" was that the article inside did not talk about real moms at all. Instead, the article discussed Dr. Sears and seemed to imply that because my family practices what many see as the defining characteristics of attachment parenting, I must be doing so because he told me so. Furthermore, in lieu of talking about Dr. Sears as what he actually is, a pediatrician that has written some resource books that support attachment parenting both from his own experience as an attached father and as a doctor, the article seemed to imply something more. The author, Kate Pickert, calls Sears "a hero" (p.37) and calls those who use his resource books or practice attached parenting "Sears' followers" (P.36). In fact, the entire piece is crafted in such a way to strongly suggest that Sear's experience of having a working, single mother who was unable to stay home with him from the time he was one month old on because his father left them has become his motivation to "ask a great deal of mothers" with his "demanding" "dogma" (p.34) of attached parenting. Now, I like Dr. Sears. I've read some of his books, but he has never, ever claimed to be a mom and I have never turned to him for anything other than support for what I already wanted to do as a mom and for what I already believed was right. And while I have talked with several women who are at a place where they may be rethinking their parenting decisions or who are interested in reading what other experts have to say about sleep training, breastfeeding vs. bottlefeeding, babywearing, etc. and I have chatted with some moms who may feel at various times for various reasons that they have "let their children down" or aren't being the mom they want to be. (And usually, I'm that mom, to be honest . . . just because like many of you out there, I can be very hard on myself.) I have never met or read anything by a woman who remotely resembles the parents who try "Sears" and fail and are then "immobilized by their seeming parental inadequacy" and are suffering from "posttraumatic Sears disorder" (p.37). Rather, most of the parents I know who struggle with feelings of inadequacy do so because of the high expectations they have for themselves. In short, I don't know a single woman who needs Sears, or any man, to tell her to have high expectations for herself and to do the best she can for her child.Even if such a sect of parents were to exist who felt enslaved and inadequate because of their inability to live up to some impossible "Searsian" picture of attached parenting, Dr. Sears himself states clearly in most of the books I've read by him "If you resent it. Change it!" I am not nor have I ever been a mindless follower of anything or anyone and I resent Pickert's implication that attached mothers must be enslaving themselves to (slightly) misogynist tenets of Dr. Sears in which they blissfully miss all the "shades of sexism [and] naivete" (p.37) that she (Thank goodness!) has found for us in his writing. Frankly, said implication is beyond insulting and misogynist in and of itself. I want the world to know that women are stronger than that article seems to think we are. We are perfectly capable of making parenting decisions that happen to align with attachment parenting principles all on our own. We don't need any man except one we have chosen as our partner to help us make those decisions, either. I decided to co-sleep, breastfeed, and wear him in baby carriers because I wanted to. I am my son's mom, not Dr. Sears.Thanks for Reading.Shawna

Open Letter To Mainstream Media

Dear Mainstream Media;

I am not being oppressed by my parenting style. Thanks for your concern but you are missing a key piece of the story. You see; I am not solely responsible for building and maintaining my child's sense of attachment.

If I were I would most certainly find the weight of such a responsibility oppressive; I may even find the idea of shouldering that responsibility impossible. I may laugh or rage or otherwise dismiss it entirely. Instead I embrace the piece of mind that comes of following my child's cues with my heart and my instinct because I don't have to do it alone.

My son has a secure emotional attachment to me. My son is also attached to his father. He is attached to his grandparents. He is attached to his aunt and his uncle. He is attached to his other caretakers who all accept that they have a role to play in meeting his needs. He trusts these people to meet his needs because, though we have all made mistakes, he knows we have never failed to love him. I trust these people because, while mistakes are always a part of life and relationships, they have never failed to love me.

He has a village. I have a village. We have a village of people who love us, who trust us as much as we trust them, and who support us in every way they can without question or condition.

This kind of community is so rare in the culture we currently live in that it seems you can’t even imagine what it is like. You feed us images of strong women with headlines designed to imply competition, you feed the resulting public take down of strong women by releasing article after article about her body and her dress, you debate my status and power within my community on daytime talk shows, you create within the public awareness the illusion of ‘good mom’ and ‘bad mom’ and pit them against each other.

Your point is quite clear; if you can’t parent this way you aren’t enough, if you can you are either oppressed or an extremist. In your sphere there is no win for any woman. The point you are missing is all the ways our culture is failing our children, is failing women, and men, failing families. The story you are missing is how we could be doing more to support all families to make choices based on what they feel is right and not what is necessary to measure up to your standards.   

Attachment parenting isn't about mothers. It's about families and it's about community. By continually dismissing and denying the roll that other family and community members have to play in attachment parenting and child rearing in general it is you who are adding unneeded shame, guilt and stress onto women. 

Please stop.

Sincerely;

Julian: Feminist & Attachment Parent