Cotton: The Fabric of Our Lives

Cotton: The Fabric of Our Lives

Cotton has started wars. It has forced thousands of people into slavery and coerced labor throughout history. It is one of the most water-intensive crops to grow, and dying cotton fields leave behind arid wasteland that takes decades to recover. Cotton is one of the most controversial cash crops, yet we have grown up thinking it is “the fabric of our lives”.

Cotton is a natural, plant-based fiber that we use in many aspects of our daily lives. We wear clothing made of, or containing cotton, such as blue jeans; we use cotton balls and cotton swabs with our toiletries; we sit on furniture stuffed with cotton batting. Cotton is so commonplace in our lives that it becomes easy to forget to think about where it is coming from or how its manufacture could be impacting our environment. However, the farming and manufacture of cotton wastes immense amounts of water each year, and these processes have a historic and contemporary association with slave labor and coerced labor.

In some ways, cotton is a fairly sustainable product. Unlike synthetic fibers like polyester, cotton is biodegradable and can even be composted. Polyester is composed of polymers made in a lab, and is known to shed toxic micro-plastic particles into the environment when it is worn, as well as when it is left to rot in a landfill. While cotton is a natural product that can decompose somewhat easily, polyester may take centuries to fully decompose in a landfill. Cotton can be grown organically without pesticides, decreasing its impact on the planet.

However, since cotton is one of the most commonly used fibers and textiles around the world–cotton makes up a quarter of all fabric manufactured globally–it must have some kind of impact on the environment. Up to 20,000 liters of water are necessary to produce one kilogram of cotton, which is just enough to produce one t-shirt and one pair of jeans. With a global water crisis, we simply cannot afford to direct this much water use toward the manufacture of a fiber that will likely be discarded in the affluent United States as clothing waste after just a few wears. While organic cotton does not use potentially dangerous pesticides, it requires more land and thus more water to account for the decreased crop yield as a result of organic farming practices.

Much of the world’s cotton is grown using pesticides and insecticides, and is treated with cleaning and bleaching products in the manufacturing process. These toxic chemicals pollute water sources, and have drastic impacts on the health of the ecosystem surrounding processing factories, as well as the health of the workers from the poorest parts of the world who depend heavily on this industry. Drinking contaminated water is known to lead to birth defects, but is likely also to blame for a plethora of health concerns that have not yet necessarily been identified.

Beyond environmental concerns, cotton has some dangerous ties to slavery and coerced labor. In the United States in the 18th and 19th centuries, the farming and production of cotton was one of the major driving forces of the large-scale slave industry. The fact that the U.S. economy depended so heavily on cotton and slavery by the mid-19th century was one of the major catalysts for the civil war.

Many modern Americans see this relationship between cotton and slavery as a thing of the past, but much of the world’s cotton today has been produced in near-slavery coerced labor conditions in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. Millions of children and adults alike have been coerced by their governments into laboring in the hot, hazardous, and unsanitary cotton fields for painfully long shifts up to seven days a week. Beyond the farming of cotton, the manufacture of textiles and clothing in Southeast Asia often involves impossibly low-wage labor, indentured servitude, and conditions near those of slavery.

Cotton is not merely the fabric of our lives; it is a fiber that touches every single life on this planet. Every drop of water wasted on the production of cotton is a drop of water that could have been used to quench the thirst of a dehydrated and dying child somewhere else in the world; every drop of pesticide used to grow cotton is a drop of poison that could have serious repercussions on the health of poor laborers; every slave or coerced laborer is a life that deserves to be free. Think about this the next time you use a cotton ball or buy a clothing item made of cotton.

References:

https://www.treehugger.com/sustainable-fashion/do-you-know-which-fabrics-are-most-sustainable.html

https://www.cnn.com/2015/10/02/opinions/uzbekistan-turkmenistan-cotton/index.html

http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/about_freshwater/freshwater_problems/thirsty_crops/cotton/

Recent research has shown that reducing or eradicating meat and dairy consumption could have a profoundly positive impact on the planet.

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the livestock industry contributes more to global greenhouse gas emissions than even the transportation industry. Livestock manure releases methane into the atmosphere, rapidly contributing to the greenhouse effect that is leading to climate change around the world.

Livestock husbandry also contributes immensely to the pollution of waterways by means of sewage waste and pesticides, which can be toxic to humans and other animal species. The Natural Resources Defense Council claims that each concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO), otherwise known as a factory farm, produces as much sewage waste as a small city.

Deforestation is yet another harmful consequence of the livestock industry. Currently, around 80% of the deforestation of the Amazon rainforest can be attributed to cattle farming. Deforestation is having a huge impact on the survival of numerous species of flora and fauna, around four-fifths of whom live in forests, thus contributing to the major loss of biodiversity on the planet. Beyond the reduction of biodiversity, deforestation is also having a negative impact on the health of the planet and the humans who inhabit it. Forests play perhaps the most important role in absorbing greenhouse gases produced by human and animal activity, and converting these gases back into usable elements such as oxygen and nitrogen gases. If the amount of forested land is greatly reduced by cattle farming, and the production of greenhouse gases is greatly increased by the same industry, it follows that cattle farming has a profoundly negative impact on the planet in terms of its contributions to global climate change.

If humans reduced or ended their consumption of meat, what would this look like for already vulnerable and food insecure populations? Ecologist David Pimentel of Cornell University’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences stated that “If all the grain currently fed to livestock in the United States were consumed directly by people, the number of people who could be fed would be nearly 800 million.” In fact, there are approximately 800 million people worldwide who suffer from chronic undernourishment, so redirecting the massive amounts of grains–up to 35% percent of grains worldwide–from livestock to people could have an incredible impact on eradicating world hunger, at least in a theoretical world in which resources would be distributed evenly.

As the world population and its appetite continue to grow, the meat industry is becoming a less and less effective means of feeding the world. Greenhouse gas emissions from the production of beef and lamb are 250 times the amount of greenhouse gas emissions produced by an equal amount (in terms of protein content) of legumes, such as beans, lentils, and chickpeas. Meat production is inefficient in terms of water use as well; the production of one pound of beef requires 1,799 gallons of water, while the production of one pound of soybeans requires 216 gallons of water.

While it would be nearly impossible, and not necessarily recommended, to cease global meat production entirely, decreasing human consumption of beef, pork, and poultry could create a major positive impact on the health of the planet. A simple way to decrease one’s meat footprint on the planet is to choose one day a week to consume a plant-based diet; for example, meatless Mondays. Here on Penn State’s campus, it is ultimately quite easy to consume a meatless diet for three meals a day, between legume-rich soups, large salad bars with many protein options, and warm plant-based entrees.

Yet another way to decrease one’s footprint, while continuing to eat meat, is to consume little to no cattle beef, and consume poultry or pork instead. The production of one pound of chicken requires 468 gallons of water, and one pound of pork requires 576; both of these amounts of water combined are still less than the amount of water required to produce one pound of beef. Pork and poultry produce approximately 40 times the amount of greenhouse gas emissions than an equal amount of legumes (in terms of protein content), which is significantly less than the emissions produced by beef production.

It is important to be mindful of where food comes from, how it is made, and how it could impact the future health of the planet and its inhabitants. Even taking one small step in reducing global meat consumption by simply choosing a veggie burger over a beef burger once a week could have a positive impact on the world.

Sources:

https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/08/opinions/go-vegan-save-the-planet-wang/index.html

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/meat-and-environment/

The Triple Whopper Environmental Impact of Global Meat Production

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/deforestation/

http://www.latimes.com/food/dailydish/la-dd-gallons-of-water-to-make-a-burger-20140124-story.html

A Second Life for Old Clothing

A Second Life for Old Clothing

Recycling clothing after you’ve gotten your use out of it is very important to a sustainable lifestyle. Believe it or not, 84% of unwanted clothing in 2012 ended up in a landfill or incinerator according to the EPA. That is 14 million tons of clothing, which either releases methane gas as it decomposes (if it is a natural fiber) thus contributing to the greenhouse effect and climate change, or fails to decompose and instead sheds toxic plastic fibers for hundreds or thousands of years (if it is a synthetic fiber). The EPA estimates that diverting this waste into recycling programs would be the equivalent of taking 7.3 million cars, along with their carbon dioxide emissions, off the roads.

However, not all clothing “recycling” programs are created equal. While many people believe that donating all of their clothing waste to local thrift stores is a highly sustainable option, only about 20% of donated items end up on the shelves of stores like Goodwill and the Salvation Army. The rest is either sold to a for-profit textile recycling company–which expends a lot of energy to revert these clothing items back to usable fibers for new clothing items–or, worse, sent to a third world country. It may seem kind and generous to send old, but still usable clothing to developing countries; however, once these clothing items make it to a given country, they are sold in marketplaces, and due to the high demand for Western fashion, these items replace locally and artisanally produced textiles and clothing. This ultimately cripples the local clothing production industry, which is important to the health of these developing economies.

While it may seem easiest to toss all of your unwanted clothing in a garbage bag and haul it over to the local thrift store, not being careful about what you donate could have a detrimental effect on the local economy in a developing country that you may not have ever even heard of. This may seem disheartening, but there are so many alternatives to simply donating all of your unwanted stuff to the thrift store.

One such alternative is an organization called Blue Jeans Go Green, which processes your old jeans and denim items into new, effective insulation pads for housing. Much of this insulation is donated to Habitat for Humanity within the United States. It is fairly simple to donate your denim items to this cause, either by mailing them to the processing facility, or bringing them to your local Madewell store and receiving a 20% off coupon for your next denim purchase.

Another great textile reuse organization called Coats for Cubs accepts old fur coats that may have otherwise ended up in a landfill, and uses them in wildlife rehabilitation to mimic a mother’s warm fur for orphaned wildlife.

Additionally, consumers can carefully sort through their unwanted items, and bring the best of their goods to second-hand stores like Buffalo Exchange, Plato’s Closet, and Crossroads Trading Co. These stores accept only the items that they believe will sell, and give you back the remaining items to reuse or recycle as you choose, rather than simply sending them to a third-world country without your knowledge or consent. Additionally, these stores pay you in cash or store credit, creating somewhat of a closed loop system in which consumers buy used goods at these stores with the money they got from their used goods, then use these goods, and ultimately re-sell them so that someone else can use them. If your unique vintage items are unable to sell at any of these stores, consider donating them to your local high school’s theatre department to be used as costumes.

For seamstresses and crafters, there are many ways to donate unwanted fabric scraps to be used in a new and beneficial way. Donating fabric to different quilting organizations that make blankets for a number of disadvantaged populations. One such group is Project Linus, which makes quilts for critically ill children.

It is only slightly more difficult to utilize these different means of clothing recycling and reuse, and if more people made use of these practices, the impact on the health of our planet would be profound.

Recycling and reuse are important means of reducing our landfill waste, but there is a third, often-neglected “R” in the three R’s system: reducing. Many consumers are caught up in the quickly evolving trend cycle of fast fashion, and end up buying much more than they actually need and/or wearing items just once or twice before discarding them. Many niche or out of season “trend” items will fail to sell at second-hand stores like Buffalo Exchange, or even thrift stores. The simplest way to combat this problem is to buy less. Each time you buy an article of clothing, ask yourself, will I wear this at least 30 times (or some other number to your liking), and you will not only be left with less junk, but you will be working towards a brighter future for our planet.

References:

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/09/old-clothes-fashion-waste-crisis-494824.html

https://fashionista.com/2016/01/clothing-donation

http://bluejeansgogreen.org/

ABOUT COATS FOR CUBS

The Second-Most Environmentally Destructive Industry is Not What You May Think

The Second-Most Environmentally Destructive Industry is Not What You May Think

Discussions on sustainability generally focus on obvious targets—the fossil fuel industry, plastic waste, the pollution of our oceans, climate change—but so much of what we do throughout our daily lives contributes to the destruction of our planet without us even realizing. We all know that the fossil fuel industry is the second most environmentally destructive industry, but do you know what the second most destructive industry is? Take a moment to come up with your best guess.

Did you guess the plastics industry, or perhaps the travel industry?

More likely than not, your first guess was not the fashion industry, but indeed the clothing and fast fashion manufacturing industry is the second most environmentally destructive industry—second only to the manufacturing and use of fossil fuels.

Through the use of toxic chemicals and dyes, synthetic resin based fabrics, and a trend-based model with a quick turnover rate that leaves millions of tons of clothing waste in landfills around the world, the fashion industry is one of the leading causes of environmental destruction, and many individuals in developed countries who do not see clothing manufacturing first hand do not even realize that it is a problem.

Furthermore, the fashion industry is not only unsustainable in its treatment of the planet, but also in its treatment of the factory workers who make the clothes sold in storefronts around the world. The globalization of the fashion industry has far too often been touted as a sign of progress. As you well know, while this process has provided job opportunities for people around the world—particularly in developing countries—many have been exploited by Western companies who fail to pay them living wages, provide adequate and safe working conditions, or protect their surrounding natural environment.

Women are disproportionately impacted by these practices, as they make up over 60% of the world’s work force, receive the least education, are paid the lowest wages, and own the least amount of property. Consequently, they are more heavily impacted by local economic and production crises such as layoffs and salary cuts, as well as a lack of legal and contractual protections. When a particular type of trendy sweater falls out of fashion after a few months, and its replaced by some new hot-button item, the factory in rural China or India or Honduras that was devoted to producing that specific item suffers a debilitating economic blow. It is not the immensely profitable fast fashion corporation that is hurt by this shift in public interest from one sweater to the next, but rather the people—namely women—whose lives depended on the meager wages they were paid to make those sweaters. A commitment to sustainable fashion is more than an important aspect of an eco-friendly lifestyle—it is a bold feminist statement.

While all of the environmental and social destruction brought about by the fashion industry is rather disheartening, there are many non-profits, as well as for-profit corporations, working to change the landscape of the fashion industry. Non-profits such as Eco-Age and Fashion Revolution are non-profit groups dedicated to raising awareness of the destructive aspects of the fashion industry, largely through social media. Eco-Age developed the Green Carpet Challenge, in which certain celebrities like Emma Watson and Emma Roberts dedicated their presence on highly visible red carpet events in Hollywood and around the world to raising awareness of the issue by wearing vintage, recycled, or sustainably produced evening-wear. Emma Watson is a leader in raising awareness of the horrors of the fashion industry through her platform as a celebrity. Additionally, for-profit corporations including Patagonia and Eileen Fisher work to dedicate themselves to slow, sustainable fashion. Patagonia is now incorporating certified fair trade sewing into their manufacturing process. Even the fast-fashion giant H&M, known for its trendy, affordable clothes, has developed a “conscious” line featuring pieces made with more ethical labor standards and more sustainable fabrics and dyes.

More people need to stop and think about where their clothes came from, and, more importantly, who made them. It is essential, and highly possible, for our society to shop consciously. Consumers have the power to do so much good by spending their money on clothing made by workers who are guaranteed living wages and contractual protections. We choose where our money goes, and we choose whether we want to support a corporation dedicated to making as much money and selling as many clothes as possible, or a corporation dedicated to sustainable practices and fair wages for their workers. It is entirely up to us.

 

References:

https://www.onegreenplanet.org/environment/clothing-industry-second-most-polluting/

https://truecostmovie.com/learn-more/environmental-impact/

http://eco-age.com/

http://www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-do/economic-empowerment/facts-and-figures

Civic Issue Brainstorming

Civic Issue Brainstorming

In recent months and years, I have been becoming more and more aware of the effects of my actions on the environment, from how I drink my water to the impact of the food I eat, and even what clothes I choose to buy and wear.

This semester I plan to dedicate this blog to discussing sustainability in many different aspects of life. I hope to discuss the way in which vegan and meatless diets support efforts to reduce water waste, fossil fuel use, and methane gas production as it contributes to the greenhouse effect and climate change.

I also plan to discuss the negative aspects of the fast fashion industry, which is now the second-most environmentally destructive industry next to the production of fossil fuels. Fast fashion, which relies on transient trends, has replaced millions of years of slow, functional fashion in human culture. This industry not only contributes to the destruction of the natural environment through toxic dyes and energy misuse, but it also negatively impacts many people, namely women and children living in developing countries, who are essentially forced into impossibly long labor shifts for little to no money.

Finally, I plan to discuss moving towards removing conventional disposable packaging from our daily lifestyles, and how this could have a major impact on our planet, which is becoming more and more consumed with the waste that humans produce.

HoPC Introduction Script

HoPC Introduction Script

I was tasked with writing and organizing the introduction for our project. My script–which is still flexible, as we will form the introduction once our body section is entirely finished–is as follows:

With more and more celebrities entering into the political sphere and even running for office, the question arises: Who can be a politician?

  • Clip of Donald Trump saying “You’re Fired” from The Apprentice
    • Cut to clip of him swearing into office
  • Clip of Arnold Schwarzenegger saying “I’ll be back” from Terminator
    • Cut to clip of him swearing into office
  • Clip of Ronald Reagan in Kings Row
    • Cut to Clip of him swearing into office

Is it ethical for celebrities to use their platforms for political activism?

  • Clip of Meryl Streep’s Golden Globes acceptance speech about the media

Should celebrities remain neutral on controversial issues, or should they take a public stance?

  • Clip of Madonna speaking at Women’s March

Is it ethical for TV networks to give airtime to celebs that hope to advance their own beliefs?

  • Clip of Jimmy Kimmel on health care
  • Clip of John Oliver
  • Follow-up question: where do we draw the line between commentator and hard-hitting journalist?

Blurred lines between celebrities and politicians are nothing new, and this phenomenon is far from irrelevant. The powerful voices of actors, singers, athletes, and comedians shape the way we view the world, and influence the way we vote and participate in politics, ultimately shaping, in some fashion, the fate of our nation.

 

I also helped Nicole transition from my section to her section (which is on the historical context of the controversy):

Long before the days of SNL and Jimmy Kimmel, ancient Greek comedians didn’t simply choose politics as fodder for their humor–it was expected of them to draw citizens’ attention to particularly salient issues in their society, and to criticize the actions of specific politicians through comedy.

 

History of a Public Controversy Brainstorming

History of a Public Controversy Brainstorming

I feel like a lot of my work in this class is focused on gender, so I am going to try to branch out and discuss controversies that do not directly revolve around gender. A couple of public controversies that would be interesting to discuss would be zoos, aquariums, etc. as well as animal testing…I started to type “women in the military” as one of my options and realized that that very directly centers on gender. Then I realized that both of my topics are about the treatment of animals, which brings us back to my other consistent discussion point: veganism.

Zoos, aquariums, roadside zoos, petting zoos, circuses that use animals, and the like have a long history of controversy because they utilize (and often mistreat) animals for human enjoyment and profit. There is a lot that can be discussed within the realm of this topic, including placing animals in unhealthy and unnatural habitats (e.g. orcas at SeaWorld), “kidnapping” animals from nature, having no way to return animals raised in captivity to their “natural” habitat, making money off of these animals, mistreatment, unethical training practices (positive punishment, withholding food, etc.), dangers for humans in close contact with wild animals, and much more. There are also positive aspects to discuss, including education about different animal species, conservation and protection of endangered and near-extinct species (that wouldn’t be in such a position without human behaviors in the first place…I digress), and newer “ethical” zoos that place animals in near-natural habitats with extensive space and great care (e.g. animal preserves in Africa and even in the U.S., Disney’s Animal Kingdom, and more). This topic would be very interesting for the history of a public controversy assignment because it has a clear history within the last century or so, there are many sub-topics, and there is immense room for debate.

Animal testing is also a broad and controversial topic that is very relevant in the United States today. Not only is animal testing controversial within the context of cosmetics, but it is also controversial and critically important to discuss within the context of lab research and animal trials for potentially life-saving medications and vaccinations for humans. There are strong arguments to support both sides of the coin, and there is also significant grey area. Many argue that animal testing, especially in the context of healthcare research is necessary to ensure safety of humans, and to gain important insight into biological patterns in mammals. Others argue that placing the safety and well-being of humans before the safety and well-being of animals is entirely unethical and unfair, as animals cannot speak for themselves or fight against the often cruel and painful practices of animal testing. Some people feel that while cosmetic animal testing is unethical and unnecessary, medical animal testing is helpful and necessary despite its negative consequences for animals. This would be a great topic to discuss for the history of a public controversy assignment because it is relevant, should be discussed more than it is, and has many shades of grey.

Paradigm Shift TED Talk Outline

Paradigm Shift TED Talk Outline

Hook: Think of your childhood favorite Disney Princess or other male Disney character. Are they big or small? Dainty or muscular? Now ask yourself this: what is type of power dynamic exists between the gendered characters? Introduce idea of gender roles and power dynamics changing over time.

Section One: Articulate the Shift in Gender Roles and Power Dynamics from Pre-WWII to Post-WWII Eras

  • Slide:  Image(s) of women holding jobs and exercising independence in 1920s, 30s, 40s
    • Discuss:
      • Roaring 20s, Great Depression, WWII
      • Relative gender power balance; women had a surprisingly great deal of freedom and power in American society–at least white women
  • Slide: Image(s) of “happy” middle class white housewives during baby boom
    • Discuss:
      • Baby boom forced women back into the home to take care of children
      • Men wanted “their” jobs back when they returned from the war
        • Women’s progress during this time was seen as a temporary reaction to changing circumstances and an attempt to aid the war effort, not a permanent shift forward
      • Huge power imbalance between white men and women, even bigger for women of color
  • Slide: Image(s) of countercultural and civil rights movements
    • Discuss:
      • Civil Rights movements in regards to both race and gender
      • Second wave feminism–jobs and rights for women, at least on paper
      • Ran counter to dominant sexist, racist culture, leading to a major cultural split
      • Reaction to the
  • Slide: Image(s) of neoconservative housewives, women working the “two shifts”
    • Reaction to counterculture
    • Even stricter concepts of gender than before
    • Women had jobs and laws had been put in place to protect them, but the cultural ideas from before persisted and were strengthened
    • Neoconservatism, Reagan era, Phyllis Schlafly

Section Two: Analyze the Shift Through Media Representation and Body Type Dualism in Disney Princess Movies

  • Slide: Comparison images of the three princesses and their male counterparts
    • Discuss:
      • Kinser and body type dualism
      • Psychological impact on children
        • children growing up with these ideas presented by media and carry the ideas with them into adulthood and the emergent generations
      • These representations both passively reflected and actively perpetuated the shift
  • Slide: Snow White and her prince, Snow White and the dwarves
    • Discuss:
      • BEFORE shift
      • Relatively realistic representation of women during this time
      • Relative equality in size between Snow White and the prince; Snow greater in size than the dwarves
      • Reflection of the power balance between men and women during this time
  • Slide: Cinderella and Prince Charming
    • Discuss:
      • AFTER shift
      • Smaller waist reflects re-emergence of shapewear and corsetry
      • Clear body type differences and dichotomy between male and female characters
      • Reflection of severe regression as a result of the end of the war and the baby boom
  • Slide: Ariel and King Triton, Ariel and Prince Eric
    • Discuss:
      • Solidifies the shift’s lingering effects
        • Neoconservatism actually had somewhat more conservative views
        • Reaction to progressive counterculture during cultural split of the late 60s and 70s
        • Even worse than 50s in terms of body type dualism and reflection of gender roles in society
          • History of women’s rights is NOT linear

Section Three: Why Does It Matter?

  • Slide: Princesses today–how representation of Snow White has visibly changed
    • Discuss: We have never really been able to overcome the changes in media representation of women brought about by this shift–we have to change the culture by making an active effort to present honest depictions of men and women to our children, and encourage them to create a more egalitarian society (in terms of gender) as their generation emerges.
Interesting Aspects of My Paradigm Shift

Interesting Aspects of My Paradigm Shift

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of my shift is that–unlike most shifts that move in a forward, relatively linear direction–my shift is actually a move backwards as a result of the end of WWII and the Baby Boom. I’m choosing to analyze this shift through the changes in body type dichotomy between male and female characters in Disney princess films. Not only did the size difference increase between male and female characters as the shift progressed, but also the implied power difference between characters of different genders. One of the most striking instances of this is the way in which imagery of Princess Snow White changed over time. The original 1937 film featured a small, yet still realistically proportioned heroine who was not drastically or exaggeratedly smaller than her prince, and was in fact much taller than the seven male dwarves. However, images from the early 2000s feature a significantly slimmer and smaller Snow White with a sexualized hourglass figure.

The impact of these images is incredibly important because the gender dichotomy established by the body types of Disney Princess and their male counterparts is incredibly significant in the formation of the society’s perceptions of gender and power. Humans are an incredibly visually oriented species, and the images of men and women that we see in our formative years in childhood dramatically impact our perceptions of gender and power. Children who see images of tiny, physically weak, and unrealistically proportioned female heroines next to massive, strong, and equally unrealistically proportioned male characters internalize this imagery and form sexist concepts of gender and power that stay with them throughout much of their lives. Teaching children about gender sets the standard for gender roles and gender power dynamics for the emerging generation. These perceptions and concepts work with other elements of oppression and bias to create a sexist culture that impacts both women and men.

Dominant Culture Before and After WWII

Dominant Culture Before and After WWII

I had initially planned to discuss the cultural shift that led to the change in gender representation of Disney princesses and their male counterparts from the pre-WWII era to the post-WWII era, as well as the cultural shift that occurred between Disney’s “Renaissance” in the 1980s and the present day. However, I realized that discussing two separate shifts would not allow me to research each individual shift fully and completely, so I intend to focus on the earlier shift that occurred as a result of the Second World War.

Before and during the war, in the 1920s, 30s, and 40s, women experienced a great deal of equality in terms of respect, value in society, etc. These decades were by no means characterized by egalitarian society, but neither is the present day. This greater degree of equality was brought on by the revolutionary thinking of the progressive era and the roaring 20s that ultimately enabled women to vote, wear relatively non-restrictive clothing, keep their hair short, etc. The ideas about gender that arose in the 20s were reinforced by the Great Depression in the 30s and WWII in the 40s, both of which required women to step up as active participants in American society. Women were seen as vital to the function of American society during these times, as no one would have survived the Depression and the war effort would not have been as victorious as it was without the help of American women. The dominant social and cultural structures, like the government and the media, saw–at least to a certain extent–the strength and capability of women. The media during this time represented women as complex human beings, rather than sexual objects that existed for the purpose of serving men. For example, Katherine Hepburn and Anna May Wong starred as strong and intelligent female leads, and Snow White was depicted with a reasonably realistic body type.

After the war ended, there was a push to produce as many babies as possible to replenish the American population. Because of traditional expectations placed on mothers, women were forced back into the home and seen for their ability to reproduce, rather than their ability to contribute to society in other ways as they had in the previous few decades. This shift backwards persisted throughout the 50s, 60s, and 70s, despite counter culture movements that sought to uproot convention. The 80s saw another push towards tradition as a reaction to the fear and uncertainty created by the progressive movements of the 70s. Because society was mainly concerned with women’s bodies and their ability to reproduce, the media during this time focused on women’s conventional physical beauty, and this male-dominated industry set standards for who the ideal woman was and what she looked like.

While the notions about gender as defined after the war persisted throughout most of the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s, there were still advances being made by resistance groups, like second-wave feminists and counter-culturalists (hippies). However, even progressive movements like the Black Power movement and the counter-cultural movement saw women for their ability to reproduce and further the cause in that way. While many women were effectively re-entering the workforce throughout the late 60s, 70s, and 80s, they faced extreme resistance and struggled to regain the status that women had achieved in the 30s and 40s. Even today, women face a great deal of resistance in the workplace.

The resistance groups faced resistance from the dominant culture, which reacted by preventing legal and constitutional protections of women (e.g. the Equal Rights Amendment) from being put into place. The media hit back with even more poor representations of women, as in Princesses Ariel and Jasmine, whose bodies were incredibly unrealistically small, and who spoke significantly less than Snow White or even Cinderella.