56 of 60 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Could've been a great book, but where was the editor?, July 21, 2008
I am in the midst of studying pop culture for girls and reading a slew of books about girls, as my daughter will be heading to middle school in a year and I want to understand what her world is really like. As I've been raising her, I've also been a girl scout leader, school volunteer, children's religion teacher, etc. Over my daughter's first ten years of girlhood, I have been exasperated and angry at the endless images by media and pop culture and marketers that constantly tell girls that they are only acceptable, respectable, interesting, valued and admired if they are thin, they buy every slutty fashion trend, and they are able to attract the sexual desire of boys and men. I think girls are made into sex objects in our culture now more than ever.
The authors of this book jumped around a lot, contradicted themselves frequently, and made many factual errors in their presentation. I think it could have been a great book, but it fell short for these reasons. The book had enough errors to make me skeptical when I read information about books and pop culture and products with which I was not previously familiar.
For example, they slam American Girl. This company makes dolls and book characters that have real girl bodies, are not sexualized, overcome challenges, think for themselves, learn, grow, and are believable as strong, complex, smart, capable individuals. Yet the authors of this book whine about the fact that the company is also selling dolls and books to girls. Hello? Of course they sell stuff - that's why they are profitable. Have they read an American Girl series or two? Well I have read them all with my daughter over the past several years and my only disappointment has been that I did not have these books when I was a girl. Because of these historical novels that have young girls as central character, my daughter and her ten year old friends know more about American history than I knew when I graduated high school!
First the authors of Packaging Girlhood tell us that in the American Girl Molly series, Molly's mother is dead. Then they talk about the mother not being central in Molly's life until the end of the story, as a peacemaker. Excuse me, I thought you said she was dead? Had they actually read the Molly series, they would have known that during WWII, Molly's mother went to work full time in a Rosie the Riveter- type job to support the family and Molly was expected to be more independent. The authors complain about the AG characters being pretty. Girls do not identify with Molly because she is pretty (which she isn't especially) but because she is resourceful and brave and a good friend and smart. What is the problem?
One of the authors' complaints is that Samantha Parkington's (1904) female role model is a young woman idealized for being pretty, not for being accomplished. In fact, the young woman role model character was a suffragist, working toward winning the right of women to vote, and she had a positive and supportive influence on Samantha. The authors go on and on about the messages in the American Girl books are unercut because the girls are pretty. So what? Samantha stands up to a boy bully, teaches an immigrant to read and she speaks out about the realities of child labor in the factories. The authors of Packaging Girlhood are annoyed that she may have been pretty? I guess they forgot to read this series, also.
By the way, Addy claimed her freedom through the help of the Underground Railroad, not the "Freedom Trail."
Another quick example is that the authors refer to Bewitched and I Dream of Jeannie as seventies shows and then draw conclusions. Sorry, but these shows were popular in the sixties, before the womens liberation movement of the late sixties and into the seventies. The world and the lives of American women changed drastically between the early sixties and the seventies, so this was not a small error. They complain that Samantha Stevens wanted to keep her husband happy and wasn't a powerful character. Yikes, have they ever seen the show? The men are portrayed as buffoons and Samanatha makes her own choices and is the most powerful and intelligent character in the story line. I guess the authors are just annoyed that Samantha Stevens, a woman in the early sixties, chose to be a housewife.
I think the authors also missed the point of the movie, Mean Girls. Or, perhaps they skipped that and then wrote criticism of it like they did with the American Girl series of books.
This book needed a lot more work before it went to press. Because of that, the other research and conclusions were not entirely credible. With more effort in doing the research before casting judgments, this book would have been more beneficial. I have found Queen Bees & Wannabees and Odd Girl Out to be more credible and enlightening, though this book made some very interesting points about the barrage of harmful marketing schemes aimed at girls.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
19 of 20 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Important Message, Awful Book, December 23, 2008
This book needs to be taken with a larger than average dose of salt. The authors have fallen into that trap of making their case too strongly- instead of just letting the examples of lousy stereotypes of girls in the media speak for themselves, they heap on extra. Suddenly every single book, movie, TV show, song, and toy is dripping with gender stereotypes. They can't praise a single one without finding some flaw- everything has a "but." Mia Hamm's book, which teaches kids (and even girls) lessons in sportsmanship gets a parenthetical criticism for emphasizing soccer as if it were the only sport its okay for girls to play. (Hello! It's a book by MIA HAMM, the famous SOCCER player.) Even the American Girl dolls are described as "troublesome."
Other examples are presented in a very misleading way. For example: the Fearless series is about a character named Gaia who was "born without the fear gene" and is highly trained in basically every type of martial arts there is. She's tall and blonde and a skilled fighter- so as a hobby, she hangs out in seedy areas of New York City at night to lure thugs into attacking the apparently helpless female victim so she can turn around and beat the living daylights out of them. Talk about girl power. Despite the fact that this is basically the PREMISE of the series, the authors don't tell you about it- because it doesn't agree with their hypothesis that EVERYTHING in the media is out to get women. Instead, Gaia is mentioned because she doesn't like math- clearly the whole series is another example of harmful anti-female stereotypes!
I am personally a pretty adamant feminist and even I found myself rolling my eyes at a lot of the authors' claims.
Also, as other reviewers have mentioned, the book is riddled with factual errors. To add another example to those already listed by previous reviewers: the book claims that Vanessa's mother (from the series Daughters of the Moon) isn't actually her biological mother. This is false- it is a different character (Catty) who is raised by her non-biological mother.
Given the number of factual errors and misleading examples, I'm actually beginning to wonder if the authors actually READ all of these books they cite, or just skimmed them for keyword and phrases they could use to make their case. (I know I focused on book examples, but that's just because that's what I'm most familiar with. But the problems I saw in the passages about books made me wonder about the accuracy of claims regarding books or movies that I wasn't personally familiar with.)
It's really a shame, because girls and women DO get a bad rap in the media, and gender socialization is certainly a big problem and a big danger (for boys and girls alike). This book just doesn't present it in a fair or accurate way.
The advice they give parents is sound: Immerse yourself in the culture of your teen girls- watch the movies, read the books, and listen to the songs she likes and open an honest discussion about them. Ironically, it's also the advice I give parents regarding this book: familiarize yourself with popular culture, rather than depending on the version of it presented in this book.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
26 of 29 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Devoured this over the weekend, February 9, 2007
This is not just one of the best books on gender I've read, it's one of the best books PERIOD. Well-researched, well-considered, astounding statistics, sharp uncompromising analysis, current references, great suggestions...
The intro and first chapter alone (Pretty in Pink: What Girls Wear) were worth the price of the book. I recently had someone compliment me on my kids' "matching" pink winter boots. I told her it wasn't planned - I could only find boots for mini-lumberjacks or little ladies. (They have both styles, by the way, but they sure get more comments when they're all pinked out.) About half their wardrobes as babies were pink (gifts). Isn't that excessive? If half their clothes were black, people would notice and comment, but it's just business as usual with all that sweet pink stuff.
I was surprised to read the negative review. That reader interpreted things very differently than I did. Maybe something hit too close to home, but you know what they say about the unexamined life. I had a few uncomfortable twinges myself, and finished the book wishing that my parents and other adults had been more interested - or better equipped - in helping me navigate adolescence.
I recommend the book to 1) parents of girls, 2) parents of boys who want to understand their sons' peers, 3) teachers and coaches and 4) any woman looking for insight into her upbringing.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
