Like the Princesses, the Fairies have lots of merchandise.  And since the only Fairy you are likely to know is Tink, many of the products introduce you to the other fairies.  There are picture books, chapter books, magazines, comics, dolls, story cards, activity DVDs, and an upcoming feature film starring Brittany Murphy as the voice of Tinker Bell.

The Fairies are aimed to catch young girls just as they outgrow the Princess phase. Orenstein writes in “What’s Wrong with Cinderella?” “Aimed at 6- to 9-year-old girls, the line will catch them just as they outgrow Princess. Their colors will be lavender, green, turquoise — anything but the Princess’s soon-to-be-babyish pink.”  Orenstein describes the Fairy line in terms of Tink’s revenge narrative: “Tinker Bell, whose image racks up an annual $400 million in retail sales with no particular effort on Disney’s part, is poised to wreak vengeance on the Princess line that once expelled her.”

Disney wants the Fairies to appeal to a slightly older child, so “the Fairies will have more “attitude” and “sass” than the Princesses.” (Orenstein).  For insight into what this might mean, check out the clothing: “T-shirts reading, “Spoiled to Perfection,” “Mood Subject to Change Without Notice” and “Tinker Bell: Prettier Than a Princess.” At Hot Topic, that edge was even sharper: magnets, clocks, light-switch plates and panties featured “Dark Tink,” described as “the bad girl side of Miss Bell that Walt never saw.”” (Orenstein).  I think it’s safe to say that this side of the Fairies line is targeted at an age-group slightly older than the 6-9 year-olds.  But not much older… I’m guessing 10-14 year-olds: the “tween” market. 

In Peter Pan, Tink is known for her jealousy, conceit, and rage.  (These aspects of her character are not present in the J.M. Barrie original, nor are they crucial to the plot, which may say something about Walt Disney’s perception of women.)  I am curious about whether the new Fairy franchise will portray Tink in a more favorable light, making her a better role model for girls.  (I think I’ll wait for the movie instead of picking up those chapter books… )  However, it seems like Tink’s “attitude” is crucial to her identity based on the pre-existing shirts and sayings.  It seems like Disney is trying to follow their young customers at every stage of their development from birth to puberty with the Princesses and Fairies.  However, it has yet to be determined whether Disney’s view of a girl’s natural progression is accurate.  Nevertheless, they have been quite successful with their franchises.

“Can I be a Princess, too?”

“No.”

“Then what can I be?”

“Hmmm…

             You can be…

                              my Royal Servant.”

 This more or less captures an anecdote a professor told me about a conversation he had with his daughter.  I think it addresses issues previously discussed on this site about what little girls play when they play “Princesses.”  Contrary to the popular belief that they play at being feminine and dependent, this story suggests that they play at having power and being in charge.

Other legitimately royal Disney females (either by marriage or birth) are excluded from the line-up: Maid Marian (Robin Hood), Faline (Bambi), Nala (The Lion King), Princess Atta (A Bug’s Life), and Princess Kida (Atlantis).  Okay, so Maid Marian, Faline, Atta, and Nala are all animals, but they’re still royalty!  And I bet you didn’t even know who Princess Atta and Princess Kida were… maybe a certain amount of clout and popularity is required for inclusion under the Princess banner.

And since actual princess status is not a requirement for the post (Pocahontas/Mulan), why were other “princess-esque” characters excluded?  Megara ends up with Hercules, the Prince of the gods, which should give her enough pomp to make the ranks.  The argument that she isn’t central enough to the film won’t fly because of Jasmine, supporting actress to Aladdin’s lead.  Esmerelda (from The Hunchback of Notre Dame) ends up with an army captain, similar to Mulan and her general.  Jane ends up with the King of the Jungle in Tarzan and Alice could be considered the Princess of Wonderland.  Lady (of Lady & the Tramp) and Tinkerbell (of Peter Pan) are definitely royal snobs.

Though these ladies are denied the title “Princess,” they are sometimes granted “Guest Princess” status.  On Disney Princess Sing Along CDs, songs by Maid Marian, Nala, Meg, Esmerelda, and Alice have been included.

Now we get to the question of why some princesses get to be “Princesses” and some non-princesses get to be “Princesses,” while some princesses and non-princesses do not get to be “Princesses.”  Disney Consumer Products explains that “The characters were not chosen specifically for their royal titles, but rather for how well they fit into what Disney executives deemed “the Princess mythology”.“  We can determine what ”the Princess mythology” entails by looking at the things all of the Disney Princesses have in common.  By doing this we can tell that being a Princess includes being human, but being able to communicate with animals, being beautiful and having a beautiful singing voice, and having a love interest.  And if you’re not a victim of misfortune (Snow White, Cinderella, Aurora) you better have a personality and seek an adventure (Ariel, Belle, Jasmine, Pocahontas, Mulan).

I would argue that another part of the mythology is exclusion.  Even within the ranks of official Disney Princesses, there is an established history of leaving people out.  Disney talks about it using the euphemism “merchandising changes” but what it really means is all Princesses are not made equal.  When it was just six Princesses, Ariel and Jasmine were often left off of merchandise or didn’t get statues in Disneyland because they were the only two who didn’t wear dresses.  With the addition of Pocahontas and Mulan to the ranks, they have become the excluded ones.  Pocahontas doesn’t even get to be in the Princess Wishes Disney on Ice Show, even though she sings in the original Disney Princess song “If You Can Dream.”  The words are changed for the show from “The colors of the wind will lead my heart right back to you” to “The music of romance will lead my heart right back to you.”  Why couldn’t they just have included Pocahontas in the show instead of rewording the song?

Another princess is in line to become the 9th Disney Princess and we’ll have to wait and see whether she will be the next victim of exclusion within the elite Princess clan.  Princess Tiana from the upcoming film, The Princess and the Frog will be Disney’s first black Princess.  Controversy has thrived even though the movie is not due to be released until 2009.  The name of the film was changed from The Frog Princess to The Princess and the Frog, Princess Tiana was originally Princess Maddy, and she will no longer be referred to as a chamber maid.  Let’s hope that all this sensitivity and damage control will save her from the typical Princess-style exclusion.

I expect that Rapunzel from the upcoming Disney film will not be added to the ranks.  She has all the makings of the Princess mythology: human, animals, beauty, voice, love, but with one huge drawback: she’s CGI.  Sorry, Rapunzel, only 2D animated characters allowed.

For an interesting look at another CGI princess, though not of the Disney franchise, check out Princess Fiona.

For Walt, the dream was about ambition and innovation.  For Walt’s Princesses, it’s all about finding love.  The dream is “Just a kiss away” and about how ”love will save the day if you can dream.”  Cinderella sings “One day the slipper fits and you see the love in his eyes”; the dream is about longing for the Prince.  The dream is also passive: “the wish we’re making on a star is coming true.”  Why not, the dream we’re making happen with our own initiative and action is coming true?  Pocahontas sings “the colors of the wind will lead my heart right back to you” turning her message from the movie about the majesty of nature and the respect it demands into a glorified match-making service.  Jasmine and other Princesses sing, “there’s a whole new world waiting there for us, waiting just for us… if you can dream,” but what exactly is this “whole new world”?  To me it looks strikingly similar to the traditional world of feminine domesticity in marriage especially taken with the few clips of Princess weddings at the end.

If Disney is trying to make these Princesses strong, progressive role models for girls (which I don’t think they are), they need to try harder.  Though I have to admit, it’s a very catchy tune.

Other Disney Princess original songs include:

• “The Way To Bake (A Delicious Cake)” (sang by Snow White)
• “Every Girl Can Be a Princess” (sang by Cinderella)
• “I’m Giving Love for Christmas” (sang by Cinderella)
• “Waiting For My Prince” (sang by Princess Aurora)
• “Christmas With My Prince” (sang by Princess Aurora)
• “Manners And Etiquette” (sang by Princess Ariel)
• “I Just Love Getting Dressed For Tea” (sang by Princess Ariel)
• “The Perfect Princess Tea” (sang by Belle)
• “The Princess Dance” (sang by Belle)

There is lots of evidence (see The Princess Makes the Product) that suggests young children actively seek gender differentiation and will even create differences where there are none in their quest for a gender identity.  But this predisposition to Princess play does not make it an inevitability; Disney marketers have exploited children’s natural tendency to engage in imaginary role-play. 

I agree with author and professor Lyn Mikel Brown when she says in Orenstein’s New York Times article, “Playing princess is not the issue … The issue is 25,000 Princess products…  When one thing is so dominant, then it’s no longer a choice: it’s a mandate, cannibalizing all other forms of play. There’s the illusion of more choices out there for girls, but if you look around, you’ll see their choices are steadily narrowing.”  Imaginary play, even gendered, can have variety.  The lack of choice in consumer products for young girls is unsettling.  Almost everything is pink and frilly.  Maybe it’s true that young girls don’t want so much variety and they want all little girls to be the same so they fit in.  But do we think that what is available now is best for them and their development? 

Disney execs point out that, “There are no studies proving that playing princess directly damages girls’ self-esteem or dampens other aspirations,” but there are also no studies proving that they do not.  So how do we assess the effects of Princess play on young girls?  Short of any empirical or observational studies, we have to rely on our own observations and extrapolations. 

I, like many of my peers, grew up watching Disney movies.  Ariel was my favorite and I would often mimic her antics during bath-time.  However, my fantasy play was not dominated by Princesses, possibly (probably?) because the Disney Princesses marketing campaign was still years away.  I usually dressed up in my grandma’s old nightgowns and alternated between playing a wealthy woman who got to boss around her servant (my younger sister) and the serving girl who frequently ran away to the chagrin of her employer (my younger sister).  Thus the common theme of my play seemed to be the torture of my sister and the joy of having power over someone, rather than the fantasy of following proper Princess plotlines and behavior. 

Which brings me to my next question: what exactly are little girls playing when they play Princess?  Again, in the absence of observational studies of recent child play we are left with speculation.  My guess is that there is a lot of variety.  Some girls may mimic exactly what they see (for example, I have seen my older sister caught on tape at 5 years-old, watching Sleeping Beauty and acting it out gesture by gesture with her best friend… she took the role of Aurora and made her friend be Prince Philip) while other girls may deviate from the fairytales and create their own adventurous stories.  For them, Princess might be a sort of superhero costume that gives them the power to achieve.  A Disney exec comments: “I see girls expanding their imagination through visualizing themselves as princesses, and then they pass through that phase and end up becoming lawyers, doctors, mothers or princesses, whatever the case may be.”

I often have to remind myself not to underestimate children.  Yes, they are impressionable, but they are also masters at processing information, and info from many different sources at that.  It is easy to get caught up in thinking about the traditional female role messages of Disney films and forget about all the other messages girls are getting from different sources.  Do we think that Snow White will influence a little girl more than Mom and Dad?  Or guide her behavior even more than her older sister or other family members or peers? 

Maybe the issue is not the tangible harm of Princess play, but more subtle psychological influences that we are worried about: ideas about beauty, femininity, and love that constrain women’s progress.  (It is good to remember that the Princess marketing campaign only began 3 years ago; the targeted children have yet to reach adolescence, so ill effects of the heavy marketing may be yet to be seen.)  Or it could simply be the principle of the thing that nags at us.   Whether young girls internalize these stereotypically feminine role models to their detriment or not, it is simply the overwhelming presence, acceptance, and popularity of these characters in our culture that bothers us. 

Which Came First: the Princess or the Product? (a 3 part post: part III)

If these gowns were featured in a regular bridal catalogue, I don’t think I would make the connection to Disney Princesses.  The title/labeling/brand is necessary to make the transition from “wedding dress” to “Princess gown.”  Once branded, though, the dresses (for the most part) succeed in evoking their inspirational characters.  These dresses could exist outside of Disney, but it is the connection that gives them their appeal and allows them to sell for thousands of dollars.  I can’t help thinking that more than just selling a gown, Disney is selling an idea of love, happiness, and marital bliss.

(above: Ariel, right: Belle, below: Cinderella & Jasmine)

View more of the photos from Fashion Week here!

Ariel   Ariel 2   Aurora/Sleeping Beauty   Aurora/Sleeping   Beauty 2   Belle   Belle 2   Belle 2 (back)   Belle 3   Cinderella   Cinderella (front)   Cinderella 2   Cinderella 3   Cinderella 4   Jasmine   Jasmine 2   Jasmine 3   Snow White

Runway 1

Runway 2

View photos of each Princess’s complete collection.

Antithesis: The Product makes the Princess.  Disney’s flooding of the market with Princess products leaves practically no choice for young girls.  From this article (Orenstein, NY Times): “The issue is 25,000 Princess products,” says Brown, a professor of education and human development at

Although imaginary play may be an integral part of young girls’ development, specific “Princess” play is not.  In Paley’s Boys & Girls: Superheroes in the Doll Corner, girls mainly chose to play house and imitate mothers, sisters, and babies, but they also chose to be the Wicked Witch of the West so they could boss around their flying monkeys (the boys in the class).  This not only shows variety in the options for girls’ fantasy play, but it also demonstrates how culture can influence little girls; the popularity of the Wicked Witch option started after the girls watched The Wizard of Oz for the first time.  

By pushing the Princesses, Disney is manufacturing a culture to influence these little girls.  Disney wants this culture in place to perpetuate their sales, but at what cost to the girls?  The Orenstein article mentions that no studies have been done to show that Princess play damages girls in some way, but also points out that “there is evidence that young women who hold the most conventionally feminine beliefs — who avoid conflict and think they should be perpetually nice and pretty — are more likely to be depressed than others and less likely to use contraception.”  If Disney Princesses aren’t the epitome of feminine, I don’t know who is.  Sure, some of them have spunk and rebellious streaks, but all of them are “nice and pretty” and most end up married, with the exception of Pocahontas.  Even Mulan, the gender-bending Chinese warrior settles down with a man at the end.  (It should be noted, however, that Mulan and Pocahontas are the first two “Princesses” whose pictures are left off the banner when space is tight.)  Whether these types of role-models actually lead girls to hold more “feminine beliefs” remains to be shown scientifically, but common sense and knowledge of children’s imitation tendencies suggests yes.  Disney’s Princess empire, though brilliant business-wise, is detrimental to young girls.

Which Came First: The Princess or the Product? (a 3 part post: part II)

Though I’m all for equal marriage rights, I find the idea of anyone getting married by arriving in a Cinderella coach a tad revolting… but maybe I’m just a little too much of a pragmatist and not enough of an optimist to believe in a fairytale life, or at least not enough of a dreamer to try to create a fairytale wedding… or to think of my husband-to-be as “Prince Charming.”

Orenstein’s article mentions psychological theories of gender constancy; oftentimes young children believe that they will be able to choose their gender and “until permanency sets in kids embrace whatever stereotypes our culture presents.”  The reason for this is more broadly related to the child’s cognitive development in general.  As a child matures, she tries to make sense of the world around her by categorizing and using schemas.  When she learns that she fits into category “girl,” much of the evidence from developmental psychology suggests that she actively seeks out gender differences and sex segregation as part of forming her gender identity.  In Paley’s Boys & Girls: Superheroes in the Doll Corner, a yearlong observation of a kindergarten classroom reveals many aspects of gendered behavior in young children.  The children in Paley’s kindergarten class cheer whenever she announces that an activity will be done separately by sex.  The girls choose to play house in the doll corner or draw, while the boys prefer to play cops and robbers or make cities with blocks.  The children in Paley’s classroom even tell stories that they think are “feminine” if they are girls (stories about families and flowers and furry animals) and “masculine” if they are boys (stories about super heroes and adventures and violence).  When one boy told a story about a little boy named “Pretty” the other boys laughed and he quickly learned to tell stories that followed the gender guidelines.  These example and other studies confirm the finding that children are eager to differentiate between the sexes. 

Even before children can label themselves as boys or girls, young girls show preference for dolls and young boys for trucks, (Cole, Cole, & Lightfoot, Development of Children).  More biological evidence for gender preferences comes from a study done in which female monkeys chose a pan or a doll over a truck and male monkeys chose the truck over the pan or the doll, (Cole et al.).  

So if young children have within themselves these gendered ideas of how to behave or at least have within themselves the eagerness to find and create distinct gender differences, providing a product that fulfills their desire is harmless.  Young girls want to be distinctly “girl”; they want to be secure in their gender identity and separate from boys.  The categories they impose at this young age will become more sophisticated and flexible as they grow and mature and learn more about their world.  Thus the passion for Princesses is just a passing phase of girlhood, one that Disney has tapped into as a marketable source.   

Which Came First: The Princess or the Product? (a 3 part post: part I) 

Disney’s new line of “Princess” wedding gowns now make it possible for adult women to outwardly indulge in their old childhood fantasies of romance and “happily ever after.”

An Orlando Sentinel article interviews the designer’s publicist about the gowns: “‘They will be high-fashion and very modern,’ said Paulette Cleghorn, president of Designer Loft Productions, a New York public-relations firm representing Kelly. ‘We are modernizing the princess concept. There is a difference between a girl who is inspired by Snow White and one who wants to dress like Snow White.’”

In fact, more than just “modernizing the princess concept,” the Princess gowns are part of a greater Disney plan to reach a market of 20 and 30 year-olds: people who are in-between being children and having children. For their “Year of a Million Dreams” ad campaign for Disney theme parks, stars like Scarlett Johansson (as Cinderella above), Beyonce (as Alice not pictured), and David Beckham (as Prince Philip below) are photographed (by Annie Liebowitz) as classic Disney characters to bring people who have potentially outgrown the fairytales back to Disney.

But back to the wedding gowns. What does Cleghorn imagine the difference is exactly between “a girl who is inspired by Snow White and one who wants to dress like [her]“? To me, they are remarkably similar. What does it mean to be “inspired” by Snow White? Perhaps one can be inspired by her fashion and sense of style, but within the fairytale realm, those things are inextricably tied to her moral character, beauty, and charm. It seems that Cleghorn could be taking the idea literally, claiming that little girls dress in identical Snow White Costumes, whereas grown women dress in “Snow White-inspired” gowns. Basically, the gowns are “inspired” because they are not an exact replica of the Snow White costume. I would argue, however, that despite the variations to make the dress modern and couture, the wedding gown modeled after Snow White will still effectively embody her characteristics and thus the themes of the Snow White story. I can’t help but jump to the conclusion that the woman who chooses to dress in a Snow White-inspired wedding gown is also the woman who sang “Someday My Prince Will Come” (or metaphorically sang it) and is now celebrating his arrival.

In this article from BusinessWeek, Douglas MacMillan quotes Marc Gobe’s Brandjam: Humanizing Brands Through Emotional Design (Allworth) when he captures one of the messages Disney sends with “The Fairy Tale Collection”: “‘We aren’t only an entertainment company, … we can help you bring that dream into your life.’” That is what Disney does; it promises to fulfill your dreams, to find new ways of bringing the magic into reality. Currently, girls aged 3-6 are the main consumers of Disney’s $3.5 billion Princess “merchandising market.” Is the market for Princess products extendable to older age-groups? Disney thinks so, and sales will probably confirm their analysis when “The Fairy Tale Collection” is completed. Not only does the Princess story fulfill certain romantic fantasies, but there is also a comfort in the proposed continuation of the Disney brand throughout life. It is consistent and brings with it a certain amount of nostalgia, not to mention classic ideas of romance, chivalry, and happiness. Women like it. Women also know that it isn’t real; do we really imagine that all girls who grow up emulating Princesses end up abandoning all attempts at independence and individual success waiting around for a Prince? Can we really judge whether the Princess fantasy is good or bad for women if they are doctors and teachers and generally complete and fulfilled people who happen to enjoy dressing in a Princess gown for their weddings? Or does the very idea of female passivity inherent in many Princess tales harmfully permeate the lives of these girls and women? On some level do they believe marriage is the happy solution to all life’s problems?

And just in case you’re interested, from this article: “Kristie Kelly says Cinderella is “classic glamour,” Snow White has “sweet elegance,” Ariel from The Little Mermaid has a “sultry allure” and is “comfortable showing her body,” and Jasmine from Aladdin is “bohemian chic.”" Solutions Bridal in Winter Park, Central Florida will carry the line and gowns will sell for $1000 to $3000.