A post by Artemise on a Men's issues debate sparked my idea for this thread. She wrote:
I am visiting the in-laws, who keep the television running pretty much all day (unlike my own home, where the television collects dust). I've noticed a change in girl-centered programs from years ago. I'm not certain it is an improvement.

In the "old days", a woman was supposed to be very beautiful, and a rich man would eventually save her and take care of her forever. Now, a woman is supposed to be very beautiful, fantastically physically fit, smart, career-oriented, and independent. She must be able to rely on herself, but of course needs companionship too. Preferably, she should already be rich.

Is the second, new stereo-type better for WOMEN? It was bad enough when a girl was dressing her Barbie to make sure she was perfect for a date. Now, she must be perfect for the date, but has a plethora of other responsibilities, too. Girls still want to be Daphne rather than the smarter but not as attractive Thelma. Now, a girl should be the superimposed DaphneThelma, with the best of each. Is this truly progress? All of the old baggage complete with new set of responsibility? Don't depend on a man, make sure you're independent AND brilliant with a great career....but above all else, you must be hot. God forbid you should ever grow old or unsightly.

I don't think it's really better or worse, to be honest. In some ways it's better in that women are taking a more active role in their futures (both with respect to relationships and careers - and other avenues as well, of course). But in other ways, the new "stereotypes" are worse because it's nearly impossible to balance all of these things and maintain one's sanity!

Also, while women are "allowed" to do more things now, they, as you said, are ultimately still supposed to be beautiful. And in the past, messages weren't as mixed as they are now. Don't have sex, but you have to dress sexy to be "cool". It's important to have a job/career, but you still have to have kids and take care of them, and be "mom". Girls and young women are being pulled in so many different directions these days - and there is so much pressure to be the best at ALL of these things.

I think we need to take a look at what messages we're sending young girls/women - a lot of the problem, as I see it, is a sense of competition (negative competition) amongst ourselves and even looking down on other women who have chosen a different path. I know a number of "career women" who think being a stay-at-home mom is "easy" and couldn't possibly be as fulfilling as having a career. Then there are stay-at-home moms who think that being a career woman is taking away from the role of being a mother. Seems to me we should do a lot more supporting of one another instead of trying to tear others down (and I see this happen FAR more often than I'd like).

Of course the new stereotype is better for women. Any stereotype that moves away from shallowness is for the better.

Everyone should be encouraged to reach their full potential in ALL ways - men and women alike.

Physical appearance is an arbitrary term in our society. Encouraging girls to be smart and independant is the best thing that every happened in the name of equal rights. Yes, girls, you have the right to be smart, to be beautiful, to seek power, or to just live on your own terms. You have the right to hold out for the man you really love instead of settling for a sugar daddy.

Seriously, how could this new image not be better than the old?

Sure, being torn in many directions tells you something about yourself - that you are indecisive. A woman can decide for herself which paths to take. Limiting those paths economically, culturally, or physically is the worst kind of example we can set for the future.

KM, You make an excellent point. I firmly believe that
if we women would show more respect to each other, our problems
would vanish.

Take the subject of "the cheating husband". If every woman
decided that she would never get involved with a man who is
already in a committed relationship (whether it be marriage or other)
we'd never have to worry about our significant others straying.
Because there'd be no "other woman" to stray to.

Women tear each other down, and judge each other unnecessarily.
We should look to each other for support and encouragment.

Another thing is plastic surgery. Why is it such a phenomenon
now? Women are buying into the fallacy that to be valuable
in our society they have to maintain their youth and looks,
at any cost. It's a shame. If we would change our perspective
on aging then women could feel comfortable with the aging
process.

As women we have more control over these things than we
realize. After all, we are the ones giving birth to the boys and
girls that will make our future. If we teach them the value
of kindness, honesty, hard work, etc. they can grow up with
a deeper sense of what really matters.

We do not have to agree with, or behave, according to the stereotypes
of the past or the present.

I agree pretty much with what you say, except part of this. IS it a "fallacy"? Is plastic surgery merely a "now phenomenon"? Women have had their ribs removed for smaller waistlines, ingested tapeworms, removed toes to make their feet smaller...all before modern plastic surgery was available. It seems to me, it's all more of the exact same thing. Women have denigrated each other since time immemorial. Women have altered their bodies through surgery forever. I don't believe anything has changed at all in that respect...except women are living longer, and appearance expectations a bit higher and more unrealistic.

I think that encouraging girls to be intelligent, health conscioius, and self-reliant is positive, and I do think that the new stereotypes (no stereotype is really a good thing) are better than the old ones, because while they may add more stress to a girl's plate by creating extremely high standards, they also put an emphasis on being strong and successful, and I would much rather see girls trying to succeed and reaching only a certain level of success than settling for something less.

Now, having said that, I will say that in a world run by Cyan, stay at home moms and career girls would receive equal respect, because they both play an important role in society, but the feminist movement created unfavourable associations between stay-at-home moms and male-dominated submission. I do think that this is changing somewhat over time, because in the activist stages of a movement, people tend to be more extreme and then gradually float back to the middle. That is my perception, anyhow, and I would like to see it (and probaby will in the future) reflected on the screen with more varying roles for girls.

I think that the continued focus on appearance can be partially blamed on the 3rd generation feminists who, much to the chagrin of their second generation counterparts, decided that feminism was too rigid, and IMO, took on a more libertarian approach to the movement. At this point you get liptick feminism and the reclaimation of traditional feminine style along with the idea of liberation and individuality. Whether or not this is a good thing is certainly up for debate.

The older feminists had put a lot of emphasis on shedding the societal constraints that had been placed on them regarding standards of beauty, but many younger women embraced personal style as a tool. Girlie style has combined with politics, and it has a sort of "trendy" appeal to it. This can be construed as working against feminist ideals or it can be looked at as a way to bring more women into the ranks, particularly the younger generations, while helping to improve self-image and self-esteem. Whether or not it accomplishes this is also up for debate.

It seems that women are always struggling with the idea that they have to conform to a certain image, but my feeling is that women should take on the image that makes them feel good without damaging themselves in the process. One of the best examples that has been set in the past for young girls was by the now defunct magazine Sassy which did include information about fashion, beauty, and health, but also focused on the idea that all women are different, and looking like barbie isn't necessarily a healthy choice. In combination with the data presented about physical appearance, the magazine also included information about a plethora of other subjects, including sexuality, politics, books, etc. It was a good balance, IMO, that put an emphasis on the individual and self-esteem.

I must have missed this in all the holiday rush - but I do have to say the new female stereotype is better in that it at least gives us more options. Back in my grandmother's day, she learned she had to grow up and go to college - but that was just so she would be able to find the smartest/most talented man who could provide for her best. Of course, I think I come from a rather unique family who for some reason missed the battle of the sexes, as my mother was raised to be a feminist before feminism - when she was five in the 1950s she told my grandfather she wanted to grow up and be a nurse and he responded that she should never sell her self short - she was way too smart and should try for medical school.

But all in all, the current female stereotype can be just as harmful as past ideals because it is, afterall, a stereotype that is based not on any one real existing woman. Instead is a hybridization of all the desires coming from both men and women for what the female role should be... and as long as there are girls and women who feel like the pressure to conform to this image, there will be some women in need of serious counseling But really, I wish there were a few more movies where the smarter, not quite as attrative girl is the main character, gets the guy and does it all without changing her image (this is the part where my sister groans and says "don't start talking about Grease again!" )

When my daughter was born this subject became EXTREMELY important to me- prior to that, I really couldn't have cared less- I guess fatherhood does tend to make one more sensitive to these issues LOL

I read alot of books, especially on early developement, and self esteem issues. It appears that most studies say that the self esteem of a child, especially the female, comes from whatever male figure is most prominent in thier life, in my case, that would be me.

I worry every day that she will have succumb to one of these teenage girl neurosis like anorexia, so I praise her and tell her what a beautiful litte girl she is every chance I get, but then I worry I am making her appearance to much of an issue, so I make sure and tell her how smart and clever she is as much as possible too. Now I will have to just worry about a run away ego LOL

I guess on the topic, this is one area that, it really is the father figures fault that some of these ladies have unrealistic or wierd expectations of life. So all a person can do is hope to side step the whole issue and raise a healthy daughter that is confident due to her Papa's early conditioning.

My wife was upset that instead of the princess costume for my daughter at holloween I got the Hulk- because my daughter asked for it. But hey, she is only three, she can be the hulk now and decide to be the princess later. Or she already realizes she is a princess to me LOL

So my answer to the question is a question- why raise our girls to a stereo type anyway? Why not just transcend it and to heck with the stereotype and do our best just to raise them to be the best they want to be, then be happy with thier decision if it is a healthy one?