When you Google the words "girl power," the first images that come up are ones similar to these:
The pictures are flowery, adorned with high heels, lipstick, and nail polish, and often pink. And while I concede that I do feel more powerful in my high heels, I suspect it has more to do with a posture improvement and not being 5'2" anymore. As for the rest, they don't exactly inspire fear.
Meg Roy touched on something similar in her article on Katniss Everdeen, the heroine from Suzanne Collins' The Hunger Games. Roy points out that even though Katniss is a formidable contender with many skills to her name, Collins decides that her survival in the games will hinge on her beauty and ability to play house with her fellow tribute, Peeta Mellark. Though some might say that Katniss exploits Peeta a bit ruthlessly, I argue that Collins' romantic plot arc is the qualifier that always comes with female power--a girl can be powerful only as long as she is feminine.
It is this qualifier that I believe the New York Times film critics failed to acknowledge in their response to the film, The Hunger Games. As they expound on how Katniss is challenging gender roles and even (somehow) questioning their existence, neither Manohla Dargis nor A. O. Scott recognize the fact that Katniss must do "feminine" things like fall in love and be beautiful in order to survive. It is not enough to simply be strong or a good killer.
I think the double standard that we see in The Hunger Games is present everywhere in life. "Beautiful" women are statistically more successful in careers, power for females must have the "girl" qualifier and must be decorated with hearts and flowers, and female superheroes must always dress in revealing or skin-tight clothing. I think it is time for girls to be able to wield power as men do--unapologetically and without qualifiers. There should not be a "femininity" requirement for strong women and we should not have to dress up to not be looked down upon.
Meg Roy touched on something similar in her article on Katniss Everdeen, the heroine from Suzanne Collins' The Hunger Games. Roy points out that even though Katniss is a formidable contender with many skills to her name, Collins decides that her survival in the games will hinge on her beauty and ability to play house with her fellow tribute, Peeta Mellark. Though some might say that Katniss exploits Peeta a bit ruthlessly, I argue that Collins' romantic plot arc is the qualifier that always comes with female power--a girl can be powerful only as long as she is feminine.
It is this qualifier that I believe the New York Times film critics failed to acknowledge in their response to the film, The Hunger Games. As they expound on how Katniss is challenging gender roles and even (somehow) questioning their existence, neither Manohla Dargis nor A. O. Scott recognize the fact that Katniss must do "feminine" things like fall in love and be beautiful in order to survive. It is not enough to simply be strong or a good killer.
I think the double standard that we see in The Hunger Games is present everywhere in life. "Beautiful" women are statistically more successful in careers, power for females must have the "girl" qualifier and must be decorated with hearts and flowers, and female superheroes must always dress in revealing or skin-tight clothing. I think it is time for girls to be able to wield power as men do--unapologetically and without qualifiers. There should not be a "femininity" requirement for strong women and we should not have to dress up to not be looked down upon.