Subscribe
Previous Post
Two classic fairytales have been re-imagined or “sweetened” rather for today’s tots: , “Rapunzel,” by Sarah Gibb and “Twelve Dancing Princesses” by Brigette Barrager. According to The New York Times, these authors have assumed a “gentler” narrative for these gorgeously-illustrated picture books. Yet, despite tactics to make these stories more kid-accessible, sexist attitudes about women and passivity remain.
Pamela Paul at The Times observes:
As Gibb would have it, the princesses are passive innocents and unaware of the spell – sleepdancing, as it were. They can be rescued only by the handsome young cobbler, Pip, who toils away mending their worn-out shoes. This ends — can you guess? – in a joyous wedding between Pip and the princess Poppy. “And, of course, they all lived happily ever after.” Very attractively, though inactively, so.
I find it quite telling that sex and violence have been removed from these tales but stereotypes about women remain a kosher part of storytelling. There may no graphic scenes in these picture books but children learning that “passive” princesses can only be rescued from spells by a “handsome young cobbler” is just as damaging. Revamp indeed. Reads like the same old trajectory to me.
(photo: nytimes.com)
You know, this is odd. When I read the story of the Twelve Dancing Princesses, The older princesses were well aware of the spell and were using it as an excuse ‘not’ to get married. (The book was called “Princess Tales and included tales from all around the world, not just the Brothers Grimm) When the youngest girl expressed
an interest in the young cobbler, the older princesses laughed at her and told her to marry him. That way, she could bring them their breakfasts as a servant, since she’d be a cobbler’s wife, not a princess. The youngest princess is given the choice of having her cobbler made into a slave by
a magic potion, like the other princes who tried to find the secret. She declares that she’d ‘rather’ be a cobbler’s wife, thereby breaking the spell.
In short, in the version I read, all the women were self-determined. The older women, not to get married, and the youngest, to marry the man she loved.
To be fair, I know how you feel. As a child I was always sick. I couldn’t go
outside, I couldn’t do anything but lie down. I hated those princess who all they could do was sit on their butts and wait for somebody to ‘rescue’ them.
To this day, I hate stories where all the girl does is sit around and look pretty,
without a thought in their pretty little heads.
I don’t agree with the previous two commentors. Even in the Bible, there were women who worked, and did things to help their people. No one got anywhere sitting on their butts.
As for the Pied Piper of Hamelin, I’d go with the poem. At the end of the Poem, we find out that the Pied Piper dropped the kids off, not at the gates
of Hell, but in another town. I understand that was a rage during the Middle
Ages, if your town was depleted by the Plague, you could always pay someone to kidnap people from another town.
And when is it ALLOWABLE to portray a woman as passive? Is it ok if the woman actually IS passive? Are we only allowed to portray women as completely aggressive? What license does an artist or author actually have to create the character she wants, or to portray a true-life character accurately??
“There may no graphic scenes in these picture books but children learning that “passive” princesses can only be rescued from spells by a “handsome young cobbler” is just as damaging. Revamp indeed. Reads like the same old trajectory to me.”
So…you wanted them to actually tell a different story? Should only the aggressive princesses have been saved? Should they have scorned the man, and belittled him, before declaring him worthless and then rescuing themselves? Perhaps the prince should have been nerdy and sensitive and passive to his ball-busting career princess, maybe even changing HIS last name this time around? Don’t you think you’re reaching a little to find the insult in this? What kind of damage does this cause again? Let me get this straight: you believe this encourages little girls to believe that passivity is required in order to win the affections of a handsome man…which is wrong…but you wouldn’t assume that this story teaches little girls that magic spells are real, right?? Why does it teach one concept, but not the other? Why not assume that little girls would learn that dancing is bad because you have to be rescued from it? Why wouldn’t they assume that the story is telling them that dancing is fun, and handsome men are lame for interrupting?? Its just so arbitrary to assume that ALL little girls will discern THAT particular message from a story.
Let’s just re-write all books. That way no one’s feelings will be hurt. Like the Third Reict. Any and all stories and books that portray the women as anything less than demi-gods worthy of only the highest respect must be altered or destroyed, along with the authors. Let’s start with the Bible. Then we’ll move on to Shakespeare. After that we’ll change all the history books.
You, lady, are awesome. That’s exactly what I was going to say, but you said it better and with more snark.
Seriously, I love Grimm Fairytales (the originals) because they’re so dark and frankly weird. The original Rapunzel, for instance, has Rapunzel getting knocked up by the prince. The witch comes back, throws Rapunzel out and blinds the prince. They’re separated for a while, but Rapunzel is the one who finds him later (along with their twin kids) and restores his sight. Then they live happily ever after.
If the author of articles like this and the one at the Times is going to cherrypick just one story here and there that they think depicts a princess or two as too “passive” as being sexist, then it’s not just reaching, it’s bad reporting. If there’s a parent out there who really finds the more modern, sanitized fairy tales to be so offensive, then just read your kids the originals.
By the way, the original German version of the Pied Piper has the townspeople refusing to pay the piper after he rids the town of rats. So he plays a different tune and leads all their children dancing away and right into the gates of hell, where they all drop down into the flames. Vengeance complete, the piper goes on his merry way.
Now, I’d probably read a toddler something about dancing princesses simply because small children just don’t analyze things the way adults do.
But I guess if you prefer fairy tales to teach your kids the fine principles of “an eye for an eye and possibly also a leg just to be thorough,” then, you know, you have options.