Not all Princess Dress in Pink - Exploring Hegemonic Femininity

Introduction

The recent popularity of gender reveal parties has led to a resurgence of normalized gender

roles in our society. By using blue and pink to symbolize boys and girls respectively, parents are

perpetuating the outdated philosophy that gender is a binary concept. Before they are even born, a

child’s identity is influenced by their parent’s assumptions and expectations of gender constructs.

Despite recent progress in the gender neutrality movement, it is still conventional to dress girls in pink

and paint boys’ bedrooms blue. Consequently, typical ideals of masculinity and femininity still

dominate. In the children’s book Not all Princesses Dress in Pink, Jane Yolen seeks to challenge this

notion of hegemonic femininity by providing the reader with an alternative female archetype. Through

four critical questions, this paper will examine the text to determine if it is suitable to support equity-

based/inclusive teaching practices.

Book Summary

Not all Princesses Dress in Pink does not follow a specific plot, instead each page

illustrates various young girls or ‘princesses’, participating in activities which are stereotypically

masculine. From jumping in mud puddles and using power tools, to playing sports, this book

demonstrates that princesses can do anything they want, even while wearing a sparkly crown.

Critical Question #1 - Why did the author write this text?

In her own words Jane Yolen was, “tired of those books about pink princesses” (Yolen,

2019). These sentiments are echoed by many feminists including social scientist Sarah Coyne. In
her research on princess culture Coyne identified a number of concerns, primarily, the more

girls engaged with princess culture the more they exhibited stereotypically female behavior

(Coyne, Linder, Rasmussen, Nelson, & Birkbeck, 2016). Evidently, tv shows, movies and books

are exacerbating the problem of normalized femininity. Thereby, forcing girls to give up their

identity and conform to the prototypes they see in literacy/media. Jane recognizes and

addresses this injustice in Not all Princesses Dress in Pink, calling attention to the systemic bias

that atypical girls face due to these gender stereotypes. She clearly sought to disrupt the

princess culture and reduce its harmful influence on young children. The text breaks down the

gender barrier typically found in children’s books, replacing the old dichotomous view of

gender with a more comprehensive continuum.

Another reason the author wrote the book may have been to address lack of female

representation in literature. Indeed, it was found that among award winning children’s books in

western culture, males appear 53% more often than females (Hamilton, Anderson, Broaddus, &

Young, 2006). When females do appear in stories, they often take on traditional nurturing roles

and are most often depicted indoors. These facts point to an obvious need for stronger female

role models in written works, a need Jane Yolen’s book aimed to satisfy in her book.

Critical Question #2 - How is gender, race, class, sexual orientation, age, etc. portrayed in this

text?

The fundamental goal of this text is to transform children’s conceptions of femininity by

challenging prevailing gender stereotypes, described as, “assumptions made about the

characteristics of each gender, such as physical appearance, physical abilities, attitudes,

interests, or occupations” (Gooden & Gooden, 2001, p. 90). The princess is a classic example of

a female norm found in children’s literature, depicted as a thin, beautiful, sweet and innocent

young girl who passively waits for a man to give her life purpose. Hamilton et al. provides

further evidence of gender stereotypes in children’s literature affirming, “Females often

perform traditional tasks that are either quiescent (sewing, cooking) or frivolous (dancing,

singing)” (2006). Not all Princesses Wear Pink deconstructs the notion that a child’s gender

defines the clothes they must wear, the colours they must like, or the activities they must

engage in. The text and the illustrations do an effective job at portraying gender as a non-binary

component of a child’s identity by tackling a broad range of female stereotypes (ie. Girls

shouldn’t play in the mud or do manual labour). Gender is effectively rendered irrelevant,

promoting the fact that gender does not define a person’s behavior or interests and vise versa.

Unfortunately, the book does not portray other identities like race, class, or ethnicity in

an equally progressive manner. Illustrator Anne-Sophie Lanquetin does a less than adequate job

at ensuring diversity in the book. Even glancing at the cover, the lack diversity is noticeable,

presenting very few different ‘types’ of young girls. Flipping through the pages it becomes even

more apparent that all the princesses in the story are practically homogenous with the

exception of a few minor details like hair and skin colour. Only two non-dominant ethnicities

are represented while the rest of the book is dominated by thin, Caucasian, able bodied girls.

Moreover, all the young girls appear to come from a middle/professional class family as the

illustrations show the girls feasting on a turkey dinner and playing in large bedrooms. The

underrepresentation of non-dominant girls diminishes its ability to reach a diverse

demographic. Focusing on primarily on sexism, Anne-Sophie inadvertently follows in the

footsteps of traditional children’s books perpetuating racism, classism and ableism, failing to

recognize the many facets of a girls’ identities. Girls who are overweight, physically disabled or

those who come from a poor home may misinterpret the message, assuming these freedoms

only pertain to thin, white girls.

Critical Question #3 - Who benefits from this text?

The most obvious benefactors of this book are young girls. Kids today are immersed in a culture

that fosters gender stereotypes, toys, books, movies and clothes all communicate society’s reductionist

view on gender. This culture restricts children’s behaviors and interests to what is deemed appropriate

for girls or boys. The ‘girl’ domain is often characterized by Barbie Dolls and Disney Princesses.

Consequently, girls emulate the behaviours/appearances of these fictitious models as the try to fit in to

a manufactured conception of femininity. Unfortunately, this causes unconventional girls, described as

those who don’t identify with aspects of normalized femininity, to suffer a great deal of self-doubt. This

book liberates girls by deconstructing this constricting view of femininity, replacing it a more equitable

philosophy of gender. Showing girls playing in the mud, dressing in overalls and, eating greasy food

validates unconventional girls who might prefer these experiences to more traditional female activities

like dressing up and playing with dolls. The text also encourages girls to embrace their genuine selves

and explore new interests, unimpeded by societal pressures to adhere to outdated gender

expectations. Seeing the princesses do things like “driving dump trucks” and “escaping a stony tower”

all by themselves, is likely to empower young girls and free them from the confines of their gender.
 Besides young girls, boys also seek to benefit from reading Not all Princess Wear Pink. By

challenging their perception of gender as a defining construct, children develop a gender lens altering

their view of the world. This allows children see toys, activities, clothing and occupations in a gender-

neutral light, instead of categorizing them in terms of boys or girls. Furthermore, the classroom

community will benefit as a result of this text as students are more inclusive and understanding of

students who don’t conform to gender norms.

Critical Question #4 - How would you change the story?

There are two contradictions in this story that weaken its impact as a critical piece of literacy.

The first inconsistency is the unnecessary ritual of drawing each girl with a tiara while including the

text, “and a sparkly crown” at the end of every sentence. The reader is left with the paradoxical

concept that princesses don’t have to wear pink, but they must wear a crown. Not only is it ironic, the

inclusion of the aforementioned line of text disrupts the rhyming pattern, making it awkward to read

aloud. It is possible that the crown is meant to symbolize femininity as an invariable quality, regardless

of the activity’s girls participate in. This message would have been less illogical had the illustrator used

a different symbol. The use of a clothing accessory, like a crown, is in direct conflict with the story’s

concept that a person’s gender should not define/influence the clothes that they wear. Removing the

crown would eliminate this confusion with minimal impact on the effectiveness of the story.

The second flaw is less obvious, but still incongruent with the theme of book. In a number of

scenes, the princesses’ butler/bodyguard is often drawn in the background, fostering the prevailing

conviction that girls require male protection. Children may also think the presence of this male figure
signifies that girls need constant supervision and should not be trusted on their own. It is entirely

unclear why the illustrator decided to include this element, especially when considering the scenes in

which this figure appears are completely arbitrary. In a story which seeks to empower young girls, this

particular artistic choice is problematic.

Finally, the story would benefit from a more diverse cast. In their desire to resolve one injustice

the book’s creators may have unintentionally committed another. As previously mentioned, there is an

underrepresentation of non-dominant ethnicities, body types and, social classes. With so many

different characters in the book there was tremendous opportunity to include a wide range of

difference among the princesses, instead of opting for the quintessential female. This oversight is likely

to alienate some readers who unable to see themselves in any of the characters.

Recommendation

Ultimately, Not all Princesses Dress in Pink is a well-intentioned book that serves as a suitable

introduction to the issue of stereotypical gender roles. The story brings awareness to and helps to

reduce gender biases present in our society by fostering students who are more gender blind. In fact, it

was observed that when children are exposed to alternative, non-discriminatory literature such as this

book, they demonstrate a decrease in stereotypical beliefs (Narahara, 1998). Nevertheless, educators

must be cautious, as the text and imagery occasionally contradict the central theme.

References:
Coyne, S. M., Linder, J. R., Rasmussen, E. E., Nelson, D. A., & Birkbeck, V. (2016). Pretty as a
Princess: Longitudinal Effects of Engagement With Disney Princesses on Gender Stereotypes,
Body Esteem, and Prosocial Behavior in Children. Child Development, 87(6), 1909–1925. doi:
10.1111/cdev.12569

Gooden, A., & Gooden, M. (2001). Gender Representation in Notable Children’s Picture Books:
1995-1999. Sex Roles, 45(1/2), 89-101.

Hamilton, M. C., Anderson, D., Broaddus, M., & Young, K. (2006). Gender stereotyping and
under-representation of female characters in 200 popular children’s picture books: A twenty-
first century update. Sex Roles, 55(11-12), 757-765. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9128-6

Narahara, M. M. (1998). Gender stereotypes in children's picture books. Department of

Elementary Education, University of California, Long Beach, CA. Retrieved from ERIC database.
(ED419248)

Yolen, J. (2019, June 21). Not All Princesses Dress in Pink. Retrieved from
https://www.janeyolen.com/not-all-princesses-dress-in-pink/.