There’s a post over at the main blog about the Cheetah Girls as a symbol of the Girl Power movement.  As a Disney Channel creation–a made-for-TV-movie based on a book series spawned the real girl group and various merchandise–they’re definitely relevant to the tween market right now.  There’s a lot to positively acknowledge here–they’re closer in age to their market than a lot of other girl groups (such as the Pussycat Dolls) are, they present themselves more age-appropriately while still being ‘cool’ and fashionable, they have a ’sisterhood’ message as opposed to girls being pitted against each other for men’s attention (again, look to the Pussycat Dolls’ breakout single, ‘Don’t Cha (wish your girlfriend was hot like me)’, and most importantly I think (especially in light of my recent post about tweens and race), they’re diverse–racially, body shape, ‘image,’ etc.

Here is a song/movie clip from the first Cheetah Girls movie, “Cheetah Sisters”:

I think this song has a really great message for young girls who are at an age when they probably start feeling like they need to compete with their friends for boys and popularity.  It emphasizes unity, no matter how different girls are from each other: Cuz we are sisters we stand together / we make up one big family though we don’t look the same our spots are different / different colors we make stronger, that ain’t ever gonna change, and it even emphasizes global unity with We’re from everywhere all around the world.  Furthermore, I think the fact that the girls are fashionable and show off their dancing skills without being sexualized is really important–it’s letting girls have fun without introducing them to things that they’re not ready for yet.  And astonishingly enough, all of the girls seem to matter in the group, with their own personalities–everyone brings something to the table, and everyone has something that makes them special.  In this way, the song teaches girls to trust in themselves more: Got the brains got the power and we speak the truth.

So what problem do I have with “Cheetah Sisters”?  Well, I wonder if it doesn’t emphasize unity a little bit too much.  The girls don’t just benefit from having each other around, they depend on each other for the strength to follow their dreams: There’s a time when we all choose / To either quit, or follow through / To just loose faith, or trust your heart somehow to lead you through the dark / We’re not the only one who’s dreamin’ / Who needs help to carry on / We might geet lonely but we’re not alone.  Saying that the girls need help to carry on departs so shockingly from the other Girl Power narrative we’ve been looking at this semester: the one of the individual woman, underestimated by society, who fights her hardest and maintains her composure, in order to be accepted in a (traditionally male) position of power, e.g. G.I. Jane.

However, the individualistic narrative of ‘girl power’ can be troublesome too, because it so often involves a woman fighting for her own right to occupy a traditionally male role of power, almost always without regard for other women, and often even at their expense.  So the ’sisterhood’ message of “Cheetah Sisters” seems pretty great for what it is.  I actually wonder if the unity message isn’t so strong precisely because all the characters/singers/actresses are at least part Black and/or Latina (see character descriptions).  Oppressed by the double constraints of gender and race, there is more incentive for women of color to ’stick together.’  I have a hard time imagining a girl group marketed toward tweens consisting of only white girls or women emphasizing a ’sisterhood’ message in this day and age.  Another reason for why this might be is that it’s probably harder for nonwhite singers/actresses to break into certain markets if they go solo; we all know Raven (who did not join the Cheetah Girls group that was filmed after the first movie became a success) is still in the tween market, even though she’s slightly older than Hilary Duff, who has gained wider pop cultural fame.  But for now, it seems that Disney’s got the young girls and young-girls-of-color-market hooked.

Which brings me to my bigger problem with the Cheetah Girls.  I usually wikipedia things before I write about them, and when I looked up ‘Cheetah Girls,’ I was expecting to get to the page for the [first]  TV movie (I didn’t know about the sequels), which I had seen advertised incessantly on the Disney Channel.  However, I instead came to this page.  A book series, movies, CDs, DVDs, a video game, concert tours and the associated merchandise, a doll line, even a Cheetah Girls toothbrush–it becomes very clear that the Cheetah Girls, just like most things, are meant to get our money first and foremost.

I mean, I think it’s great that the Cheetah Girls are successful.  But I think it’s important to keep in mind that if they weren’t, Disney wouldn’t have kept them around.  Buying Disney merchandise for young girls isn’t only empowering them to be strong and confident, it’s also acculturating them to society.  By acculturation, I don’t only mean gender norms (the girls are all feminine and ‘acceptable’ on an aesthetic level), but also the consumerist society that we live in.  Tweens develop part of their sense of who they are through consuming, e.g. ‘I’m like Aquanetta so I’m gonna buy her doll!’

Considering the alternatives, though (once again, the Pussycat Dolls), the Cheetah Girls still stand as good role models of who/what young girls are looking up to, identifying with, and buying into.  Here’s a video of another one of their songs from the first movie to leave you with, appropriately titled “Girl Power”:

After writing the last post about young girls of color and which dolls they prefer, I was bothered by the fact that I couldn’t remember what the Indian Barbie doll I had when I was little looked like (maybe when I get home once the semester is done, I’ll look through all the closets in the house for it…).  So I did some research on Mattel’s history of releasing South Asia-related Barbie dolls, and found these two:

India Barbie - released in 1982, as a Special Edition, part of the ‘Dolls of the World – Asia’ line

India Barbie 2nd Edition, released in 1996, as part of the Collector Edition for the same ‘Dolls of the World’ line:

Is it just me, or is the 2nd Edition doll noticeably darker than the original?  I wonder what happened in those fourteen years to make Mattel want its doll to represent and appeal to a different, broader range of young South Asian girls (including me, because I think this is the one I had and might still have lying around somewhere)…  Also, the 2nd edition doll is presented in a much more noticeably “ethnic” context (the Taj Mahal, of course).

It’s too bad that Mattel didn’t get the costume/terminology right in either case:

• The 1982 edition is described as wearing a “three-piece sari, including a long rusty red skirt, matching wrap, both trimmed with golden thread, and golden halter-top.”  Uhh, sorry, but that’s not a sari… it’s a skirt, a halter top, and a shawl.  A sari is a looong singular piece of cloth wrapped around the body in different styles.  Great job, Mattel.
• The 1996 edition is definitely a lot better.  However, I’m still trying to wrap my head around how the doll wears both a “traditional costume from far away India” and a “modern, Indian sari.”  Huh?  As for the “simple hand ring,” I believe it’s called a ‘bangle.’

I’m not the only one debating the authenticity of Mattel’s descriptions about its ‘Dolls of the World.’  Nirali Magazine points us toward a discussion by several Indian-American writers/bloggers/professors about the Diwali Barbie Doll released last year as part of the ‘Dolls of the World – Festivals of the World’ line.

So at the same time that it explicitly exoticizes Indian Barbies (“far away India,” “exotic-style jewelry”) presumbably in order to differentiate them from its other products (and therefore make them more appealing to consumers), Mattel can’t seem to get the facts straight.  Ironically enough, I wonder how many of the company’s products are made in India.  And how young the workers in those factories may be.

Recently, Kiri Davis’ short film, “A Girl Like Me,” has been garnering a lot of attention.  The documentary explores the issue of beauty and how it is raced within the African-American community, and how that affects young black girls and their perception of beauty.  Here is the film:

Davis recreates an experiment from the 1940’s in which the majority of black children, given a choice between a white doll and a black doll, preferred the white doll–and found that the same results hold true today.  This shows that the standard of beauty, overwhelmingly, is still an extraordinarily white one.  Blonde hair, blue eyes, long legs–all features that we are all supposed to acknowledge as the ultimate representation of female perfection, simply by the knowledge we accumulate as members of a society.  I know from my experience with kids that this standard of beauty can reach the youngest members of our society; I remember an incident from a few years ago, when my little cousin was visiting and insisted on playing with the ‘regular’ Barbie instead of the special-edition Mattel Indian Barbie (who was still pretty pale) because it was more ‘beautiful and blonde.’  And who else can represent the female ideal better to young girls than Barbie can?

So nonwhite women are marked from the get-go as being something ‘other’ than the norm of  beauty, as shown by the fact that Mattel has to release a ’special edition’ Barbie doll to represent them.  And even then we know it’s just an effort to get our money (and one that I apparently suckered my parents into giving in to).

So why not embrace our difference in an effort to see ourselves as beautiful?  Why not exoticize ourselves?  Well, as this post on the Girlpower 1 blog shows, nonwhite women can’t do even that.  Angelina Jolie–part Iriquois, sure, but still white as snow–is apparently the ultimate embodiment of exotic beauty, and what most women want to look like.  And the nonwhite actresses given as examples of ‘beautiful women’ in the article are Halle Berry–who is biracial, and can be said to have very ‘white’ features–and Penelope Cruz, who is a Spaniard–she’s European!

It seems that nonwhite women/women of color simply can’t win at being beautiful.  Even those terms–’nonwhite’ and ‘of color’ mark them as something ‘other’ than the norm, something that can’t be beautiful.  And when they try to embrace it on their own terms, the culture industry only gobbles it up and spits it out, repackaging it as something available for white women to make themselves more ‘exotic’ with–but something manufactured, and so doesn’t actually pose risk for them.  And this extremely white standard of beauty trickles down to the youngest girls.