Happy Holidays & Sexist Songs

This blog was originally posted by MissRepresentation.org on December 11, 2012. Editorial Intern Rachel Grate continues her series on Christmas traditions and gender stereotypes.

by Rachel Grate

It’s that time of the year again. The time of year when you can’t walk into a store, flip through radio stations, or generally leave your house without hearing Christmas music. While these songs can be comforting, they can also be downright creepy – and in ways more serious than Santa’s disturbing ability to “see you when you’re sleeping” (from “Santa Claus is Coming to Town”).

The main issue with many Christmas songs is that many of the stereotypes they propagate are as outdated as “a one horse open sleigh” would look speeding down a highway. There’s a plethora of Christmas songs detailing children’s gift lists – lists entirely dependent on gender roles.

“It’s Beginning to Look a Lot Like Christmas,” reports that “Barney and Ben” want boots and “a pistol that shoots,” while “Dolls that will talk and will go for a walk is the hope of Janice and Jen.” This sort of gendered gifting implies that boys should be violent and adventurous, while girls should care for dolls – not surprising considering that the song was written in 1951.

Christmas songs, however, aren’t recognized as outdated like most popular songs are. “Jolly Old St. Nicholas” was written in the 1860s and remains popular, despite “Johnny” wanting skates while “Suzy” wants a “dolly.” Similarly, “Up on the Housetop” was written in 1864, and describes “Will” getting a “hammer and lots of tacks, also a ball and a whip that cracks” while “Nell” gets – you guessed it – a doll.

The gender roles these songs socialize kids into don’t disappear once the children grow up, either. “I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus,” written in 1952, is a lighthearted song that nonetheless reinforces heteronormative family ideals.

1953’s “Santa Baby” is a drastically different interpretation of the Santa Seduction story. This song relies on the gold digger trope, reinforcing a materialistic portrayal of women. Furthermore, the song includes an outdated polarity between good and bad, saying, “Think of all the fun I’ve missed/ Think of all the fellas that I haven’t kissed/ Next year I could be oh so good.” This sort of slut-shaming attitude – that kissing boys she wanted to would have been bad – was, again, expected for the time period it was written, but with all the remakes of the song, why hasn’t the line been changed?

One remake in particular stands out to me: Michael Buble’s version, in which he refers to “Santa buddy” and “Santa pally” rather than baby. The version is incredibly awkward, and changes the desired gifts to tickets to sports games and decorations bought at Mercedes, rather than Tiffany’s. Instead of a ring, “and I don’t mean on the phone,” Buble just wants “one little thing, cha-ching, No I don’t mean as a loan.” Nonetheless, Buble keeps the line about kissing, but he kisses “hotties” instead of “fellas.”

Instead of using the gender switch to reduce the gender roles in the song, Buble’s song highlights them with his discomfort wanting the ‘girly’ items in the original – even switching the “light blue” of the convertible to the more manly “steel blue.” While some argue that this song doesn’t rely on sexuality to get the gift’s, if that were the case Buble wouldn’t make these changes – Santa could be his “baby,” too.

On the top of both Feminist Frequency’s and Chloe Angyal’s lists of problematic Christmas songs is “Baby, It’s Cold Outside,” written in 1944. Angyal describes the song as “a relic of an era when it was accepted that any respectable woman would both refuse a man’s invitation to stay at his house drinking alte into the night, and that when she said ‘no,’ she actually meant ‘yes.’ Why the song is still a beloved classic … when our culture’s views on consent have changed considerably, is beyond me.”

The traditional cat-and-mouse dance portrayed in the song certainly tip-toes on the line of sexual intimidation, with the lady continually protesting “I really can’t stay” and “I’ve got to go away.” Some have even argued that the line “Say, what’s in this drink?” implies date rape.

On the other hand, it is true that societal pressures, rather than the woman’s own desires, seem to be her reasons for leaving. She mentions her mother, father, sister, brother, and even her maiden’s aunt as people who would question her – as well as the neighbors. Thus one could read the man as convincing her to do what she really wanted to all along, when she finally says, “Well, I really shouldn’t, alright.”

But that doesn’t excuse the man’s disregard for her refusal. Additionally, his argument centers around questions like “How can you do this to me?” and “Think of my life long sorrow,” rather than actually questioning the woman’s desires.

Some new songs are flawed as well, such as “All I Want For Christmas is You” which portrays a one-dimensional woman obsessed with love, rather than caring about other things like her career. AsFeminist Frequency’s Anita Sarkeesian wrote, this is “not really a huge issue but the larger media pattern is definitely problematic.” Unfortunately, the larger media pattern is defined by 1950s standards for what family and gender means.

But for some reason, even though these old songs are remade year after year by new singers, the lyrics aren’t updated. These songs – like any Christmas traditions that reinforce outdated stereotypes – should be either shelved or rewritten to reflect modern sensibilities. (A Feminist Christmas Carol is one fun example of rewriting songs.)

It would be impossible to shun these songs, even if one wanted to. But keeping these messages in mind is important, especially when around children who may be absorbing these limiting messages without considering their historical context.

So just as one might have to explain that carriage rides aren’t necessarily as romantic as they sound when you’re traveling “home” for Christmas, don’t be afraid to mention that girls don’t need to ask for dolls for Christmas, or boys for tools. (Check back tomorrow for how Christmas advertising adds to these gendered expectations.) The red and green of the Christmas season shouldn’t transform into gendered pink and blue gender roles for the rest of the year.

Rachel is an intern at MissRepresentation.org and a student at Scripps College, where she is studying English and Gender & Women’s Studies. Read more of her work on her blog or connect with her viaLinkedIn.

Advertisements

Selling “Girl Power” Short

Originally published by MissRepresentation.org on July 20, 2012. 

The phrase “Girl Power” appears in my mind bedazzled and engraved on a background of pink glittery flowers. I don’t know why, and I don’t know when it started, but a simple Google image search proves that this isn’t my own exclusive creation.


Yet, “Girl Power” isn’t a phrase I think of often. As a feminist, one would imagine the phrase would resonate with me, but some of the previously mentioned connotations had scared me off the term completely. It wasn’t until recently that I was reminded of its existence, from a most unlikely source: aCrystal Light Energy commercial.

If you haven’t seen it, the ad (above) features two women talking when one of them pulls out a drink which she describes as “new Crystal Light Energyfor women.”

My negative response to that statement matched her friends critical “Yeah right, ‘cuz we can’t have a guy’s energy drink.” I appreciated the (likely intentional) poke at Dr. Pepper’s attempt to advertise theirDr. Pepper “10″ drink as “not for women.” However, two wrongs don’t make a right, and I couldn’t shake the feeling that this ad fell securely in the “wrong” category.

My intuition was accurate, as her doubtful friend is soon proved wrong in her criticism of the “girly” drink when her purse is stolen and her friend saves the day. The Crystal Light drinker chases the two thieves on their motorcycle through the city and into a desert, where she grabs back the purse and a narrator proudly explains that the drink is “Girl power to go.”

At this statement, the two men run away terrified, and I realized my problem with the ad. Girl power is shown as the worst fear of these idiotic men, placing feminism in a dichotomy against male integrity. But feminism – and true girl power – isn’t about putting men down, it’s about pulling women up until we’re all on the same level.

Beyond the polarizing gender divisions the commercial promotes, lies another problem: the commercial, under all its pretense of girl power, is for a diet drink. Part of the estimated $61 billion dollar industry designed to make both genders (though more often women) feel inferior – not empowered.

In the past few weeks, MissRepresentation.org has focused on the magazine industry’s creation of unhealthy body ideals for women in our #KeepItReal campaign. What we didn’t explore as closely, however, is that this Photoshop “industry standard” exists because of close ties between magazines and the advertisement industry.

One example of this link (that Naomi Wolf discusses in The Beauty Myth) is a prominent women magazine that lost one of their biggest advertisers, Clairol hair color company, after they featured gray-haired models in a fashion spread. The magazine never again positively portrayed gray-haired women. The same scenario plays out on an even larger scale with the diet industry.

So it struck me as a bit suspicious when I realized that the only other place I had heard the phrase “Girl Power” recently was in – you guessed it – magazines. Magazines filled with instructions on how to do our hair or “tighten our abs” or “get a guy”, because sexual power seems to be the only kind of girl power that matters. Or at least that’s the message I’ve been getting.

For instance, look at the portrayal of female Olympic athletes in major magazines. As Jezebeldiscussed, the Vogue spread “Wonder Women: Team USA’s Female Olympic Athletes” rarely portrayed the women athletically. Instead, the athletes were sexualized, mostly dressed in suggestive clothing unrelated to their sport. Soccer player Sydney Leroux (below) didn’t even have her face shown in her shot.

Despite their obvious physical power, the only “Girl Power” these women are portrayed as possessing is sexual. In contrast, the male athletes were shown doing their sports, often with female models as props.

The lack of consideration for other types of female empowerment reminded me of the recent Jennifer Hudson Weight Watchers commercials, in which she declared that “Before Weight Watchers, my world was can’t.” Despite all of her achievements – American Idol, winning an Academy Award – without the sexual power of the “perfect” body, she had achieved nothing. (At least, that’s the disturbing undertone that critics protested, causing a new release of the ad that changed the line to “When it came to losing weight before Weight Watchers, my world was can’t.”)

This distorted view of girl power starts young. A line of power girl action figures from Mattel features provocatively dressed women with large breasts. The female superhero’s physical strength is implied, but they still can’t fight fully dressed.


From the toys kids play with to the bodies women strive for, “Girl Power” has become a packaged good, sexualized and sold to us from birth under the guise of feminism. The phrase has been so diluted (and bedazzled) that the only “power” it leaves girls with is the “power” to diet, or the “power” to conform to the degrading images society sells us. The problem is, girl power – or empowerment of any sort – isn’t something that can be bought. Empowerment is something that must be lived, and we can all start living by #NotBuyingIt and calling out these advertiser’s lies.

Rachel Grate is an intern at MissRepresentation.org and a student at Scripps College, where she is studying English and Gender & Women’s Studies. Connect with her via LinkedIn.