Feminism In Poniewozik's Cinderella And The Princess Culture

Fairytales, existing for several generations, have evolved through time, catching the attention of many belletrist, demanding an explanation of how feminism plays an essential role in today's culture. Both James Poniewozik and Peggy Orenstein discuss this topic through connecting to the real world and fairytales. Furthermore, in Poniewozik’s article, “The Princess Paradox” he discusses the “girls-kick-ass culture” (323) and how males naturally have an advantage on females. Whereas Peggy Orenstein’s article, “Cinderella and the Princess Culture” approaches the issue of feminism within fairytales in a more feministic manner. While both authors address feminism, Poniewozik shows his concern among the culture of fairytales in movies while Orenstein

tends to struggle with the mental and physical health of women, believing what fairytales have portrayed on the youth of today’s culture.
Throughout “The Princess Paradox,” Poniewozik conveys his attitude towards feminism as an idea of women asserting their independence in films as well as in fairytales.

He begins the article by discussing the “recurring nightmare of high-minded modern parents of daughters” He writes, “Call it nature or nurture, harmless fantasy or insidious indoctrination, but Hollywood is discovering that it still pays not to fight the royal urge” (323). Although his use of words suggests that Hollywood is the reason for the dispute, he emphasizes the suggestion of nature vs nurture. This commentary sets up his viewpoint of feminism in both the real world and in films. Orenstein acknowledges Poniewozik’s idea when she begins her article discussing a problematic story that occurred in the dentist office, continuing to state, “I have been taken by surprise by the princess craze and the girlie-girl culture that has risen around it” (327). Orenstein describes herself as a “feminist mother” (327) who believes that young girls should not remain looked at as comely or dainty but something deeper because the word “princess” is so broadly constructed. Poniewozik agrees when he discusses the belief of women needing to have independence and self-determination. “You need a feisty girl, and self-determination of skepticism and a fabulous ball gown”

(325).
Likewise, both Poniewozik and Orenstein give the audience an idea of what a princess should obtain. Poniewozik declares, “She should be pretty, but in a class president way, not a head-cheerleader way” (325). Whereas Poniewozik opens his statement with the sense of beauty, Orenstein opens her belief with the sense of brains and genuine decency. “Not only get straight A’s and be the student-body president, editor of the newspaper, and captain of the swim team, but also to be ‘kind and caring” (329). Furthermore, Poniewozik adds that a women should “Be able to stand up for herself” (325). Meanwhile, Orenstein comes in agreement with Poniewozik’s first statement of what a women should obtain. “Please everyone, be very thin and dress right” (329). Whereas Peggy Orenstein presents a more civilized and sympathetic idea in which a girl should persist. James Poniewozik delivers a thought of power and charm in which women should attain. Although the authors have a diverse way of explaining what a princess should obtain, their concepts tend to incorporate characteristics in which they believe a princess should bear leadership skills, integrity, self-discipline, and independence.
In addition, both Poniewozik and Orenstein believe that a woman must choose her own ending by choosing the way that women portray themselves.

Poniewozik states, “She needs to assert her independence” (324). Although he declares this, he does not provide much explanation of what he means. However, Orenstein does in fact favor his side by informing us of her own life experience. “I watch my fellow mothers, women who once swore they’d never be dependent on a man, smile indulgently at daughters who warble” (327). Both authors clarify how society must not rely on movies or fairytales to decide a woman’s ending but that women need to continue toward the girls “kick-ass-culture” that Poniewozik describes. However their suggestions do differ and add some contradiction to the overall intention of “women asserting independence”. Poniewozik states, “[a]mong an earlier generation of women, the wish was to be able to do everything men could” (324). Supposing that Poniewozik wants to change this complication, his statement lacks logical evidence and does not supply the audience with the correct knowledge to understand his proclamation. In addition, Orenstein informs the audience about her own understanding among the issue, “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” (329). Although Orenstein’s observation is understandable,

she contradicts her entire message of feminism, and how women need to move beyond the stereotypical princess trend.
Alternatively, Poniewozik informs the audience of the earlier generations, while Orenstein gives a more thorough idea of the generations now, including how women have taken the idea of “independence” and “feminism” through fairytales by bringing it to life.
Moreover, Poniewozik along with Orenstein present their points in the way that they do, being that they want the audience to understand feminism and how it has brought up many issues for generations. While they both take different measures on the issue, their argument obtains very similar in which they believe that feminists need to uphold themselves. Poniewozik says, “Reinventing fairy tales has been a favorite project of feminist authors, who understand that wish-fulfillment stories are about teaching people what they should wish for” (324). Poniewozik focuses more on the argument at hand while Orenstein makes the belief stronger by adding a statistic. “[T]here 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” (329). Orenstein says this because she does not want to have to shout her perception across, therefore she lets the audience read between the lines inferring why she had included the concept in her argument.
Furthermore, if either Poniewozik or Orenstein would have changed their appeal to the audience, the argument would not have been as interesting as both authors made it be. James Poniewozik opened up his argument with the theory of “nature or nurture” (323).While Peggy Orenstein opened up her argument with a detailed story about her daughter being taken care of as royalty by her dentist. “I finally came unhinged in the dentist’s office-” (326). Although their introduction into their claim is very disparate, the idea behind it is very complementary when they begin to talk about feminism within fairytales, which make both of these articles fascinating to the reader. Both Poniewozik and Orenstein gave the reader an explanation of how feminism played an essential role in the past and continues to play an essential role in today’s culture.