It’s not about a little girl dressing like a boy, Krystalina. It’s what the costume represents - the inner self.
Superman symbolizes strength and power. Can-do attitude. Confidence. Hero. Even more than Supergirl did. She was always second banana to Superman anyway, which girls don't aspire to anymore.
It’s what we aspire BOTH our girls AND boys to be now. We want them ALL to be strong, confident, capable people. Trouble is, girls traditionally have had some catching up to do. They’re getting there, but Campbell appeals to the message that we are all giving our daughters nowadays, which is that they no longer need to live with any gender barriers in their careers and their lives.
He doesn’t have to be Elsa or Emma. He doesn't have to break down gender barriers for himself, he's already there! ... unless he wants to support a female Superman. He’s already a boy, so he’s got the historical privilege of power already. Again, it's not about the clothes.Originally Posted by Krystalina
You might say, if we tell our girls it is good to be strong (Superman, Elsa, etc), then shouldn’t we tell our boys it is OK to be weak? But then why would anyone want to aspire to that - and I don’t think there are any weak characters out there that kids might want to be.
(Note, it’s OK for everyone to be in touch with the full breadth of human emotion when they need to. Everyone is sad or afraid sometimes. There’s no shame in that, for either girls or boys. But these are private moments shared with family or good friends. Both girls and boys are not disavowing their ability to be human, just because they want to portray characters that have courage and strength.)
A lot of them are there already.Man, this topic gets me excited; I really hope this next generation has a real chance at acceptance on a larger scale.
