#where to begin...

It’s simple logic. Locate the source of the problem and eliminate the undesirable. Shave away the negative, and keep the positive. Grab the weed and pull up the entire plant, roots and all. Eradicate the evidence. Burn it. BURN IT ALL.

Change is possible. We only need to find the source—the beginning, the root, the origin—and then do whatever needs to be done. Easier said than done.

Theorists are in an endless pursuit of the ultimate cause—the sole influence. Yet, the most theorists can claim, especially in articles that discuss the effect of representations of gender in media, are the existence of those representations. Whether children are indeed influenced by the beauty ideals of Disney or children’s literature is an impossible question because each case is different. How can a generalization be made when every instance is entirely subjective and influenced by an infinite amount of ideological traits? How can influence be proven when we are already participating in the environment that produces the influence? We are all biased. Yes, even those self-proclaimed experts. There is no outside. “Unbiased” is a myth.

Most cultural critics will agree that embedded assumptions are the most dangerous aspects of ideology because these are the “facts” that go without saying. Cinderella is a beautiful girl. Okay, why is she beautiful? More importantly, what makes her a girl? In their article, “The Pervasiveness and Persistence of the Feminine Beauty Ideals in Children’s Fairy Tales” (2003), Lori Baker-Sperry and Liz Grauerholz admit “the “beauty” of messages that may serve as normative controls is that so few question or challenge their legitimacy” (p. 725). Cinderella is not just that fond childhood memory. She is equally a part of who I am today as she was back then. Any rejection, affection, or disgust for the character says just as much about me as my favorite book. It is the unspoken value we place in things that gives them their power and significance. Despite the quantity (and apparent quality) of insights provided by Baker-Sperry and Grauerholz’s research, the most they can safely claim is that “children’s media can be a powerful mechanism by which children learn cultural values” (p. 724). Not “children’s media is” but, “children’s media can”.

Existence of the images seems to be the only safe assessment. Influence is always questionable. This suggests that the quest to uncover the ultimate source is ultimately pointless. If Jane actually did X, but X’s influence on Joe is questionable, then where do we go from there?

Instead of embarking on a fruitless journey to find the source, theorists should move beyond just acknowledging the existence of the representations, and strive to enact change through more immediate means. Even if someone is able to define the beginning, what is the use of locating something that is deeply rooted in the past? Look to The Now, people. Confront the present.