Feminist musings on Rapunzel
In the original Rapunzel, as written by the Brothers Grimm, Rapunzel is 12 years old when the enchantress, her stepmother, first locks her away in the tower. "After a year or two" the prince first discovers her. For the sake of argument, Rapunzel is 14 years old.
The prince tricks her into letting her hair down so that he can climb into her window and meet her. He wins over her trust and proposes. Now, the story is unclear as to whether this all happens in their first meeting, or if it is over several meetings. However, I think the better interpretation is that it all happens the first time they meet.
The prince begins to visit Rapunzel, bringing her silk each time so that she can make a ladder to escape. Making a silk ladder is her idea, and she says that she cannot think of another way for her to leave the tower. She's been isolated her entire life, so I understand her lack of creativity, but why does the prince contribute nothing to the thought process? He offers her marriage, but no way of escape. How difficult would it be for his servants to make a rope ladder before his next visit? Or even have his servants come with him next time, carrying a real ladder?
Rapunzel grows careless and inadvertently remarks to the enchantress that the prince is so much lighter and faster when climbing up her braids. Angered, the enchantress cuts off Rapunzel's long hair and banishes the girl to the desert.
When the prince visits that evening, the enchantress tosses down Rapunzel's hair, and he climbs up. The enchantress taunts him, and he throws himself out of the tower. He manages to live, but the thorns blind him. I understand the pain of losing one's loved one, and this pain is often exaggerated in fiction, but attempted suicide? What about a rescue mission? Attacking the enchantress and finding out where she's hidden Rapunzel?
The prince then roams about in misery for some years. This doesn't really make sense because the first time he ever saw Rapunzel, he had been riding. It's a logical assumption that he rode his horse out each evening to visit her. Well-trained horses learn paths, especially one that is taken every night. The prince should have been able to get back to his horse and return to his palace. But no, he wanders aimlessly, distraught at losing Rapunzel.
He manages to stumble upon the right desert and find Rapunzel. Surprise! She also has twins, a boy and a girl. He recognizes her voice and goes towards her. Rapunzel recognizes him and falls upon him, weeping. Her tears fall into his eyes, curing his blindness. He takes her back to his kingdom, and they all live happily ever after.
So, I guess pre-marital sex at the age of 14 was totally cool back in the day.
When I was a little girl, this was my favorite fairy tale. And Disney never did Rapunzel, so my favorite fairy tale wasn't some sanitized, watered down version either. I remember the beautifully illustrated book I had (paperback, but still lovely pictures), and I remember the twins at the end of the story. (I'm a twin; we tend to notice these things). Who knows if the ages were the same or not? I also think my version involved the prince stumbling backwards in shock and falling out of the tower, not throwing himself out of the tower.
I think I have two main points regarding all of this, and they're in opposition to each other.
We worry too much about what effects of media and pop culture and books and TV are going to have on our children. I never thought about Rapunzel and the prince having sex, even when I was a bit older and knew about the birds and the bees. It was just a fairy tale featuring twins, and boy/girl twins at that! I'm not saying that parents should drag their kids to rated R movies, but I do think we can all lighten up a bit.
On the flip side, what sort of fucked up culture created these fairy tales? I practically want to change career paths and get my Ph.D. in English or straight up Women's Studies so that I can discuss how the fairy tales by the Brothers Grimm reflect the contemporary views and ideals. I see an allegory for protecting the virtue of one's daughter when she reaches sexual maturity. Twelve is a fairly common age to begin menstruation, thus being the age when a girl can bear children. So let's lock her up out of harm's way! But then when she meets a man for the very first time, she's scared at first, but so quickly won over that she agrees to marry him right away and have sex with him. At the very mature age of 14.
And her long hair is a symbol of femininity, being the means of attracting a man. Just like Rapunzel uses her hair to help the prince into her bedroom, girls should use their looks to attract men. The opposite is true as well. The witch cuts off her hair, making her unfeminine, and banishes her to a desert.
The prince is a total idiot too. I guess he represents young men who can't reign in their sexual desires. He wants Rapunzel but can't even think far enough in advance of how to help her escape. When he loses her, he's helpless.
These are incredibly disorganized thoughts, just an immediate reflection after reading Rapunzel, courtesy of the Gutenberg Project.
I can't blame three-year-old Brita, who loved her beautiful hair (okay, 23-year-old Brita still loves her beautiful hair...), and thus thought Rapunzel was the best fairy tale ever. I even ate radishes, which were totally gross, because they were in the story. (Interesting note on translations. In German, rapunzel is a variety of rampion, a type of plant, that the father steals from the witch's garden, hence his daughter's name).
In conclusion, Rapunzel isn't ageist or misogynistic, because basically, all the characters suck for one reason or another.
The prince tricks her into letting her hair down so that he can climb into her window and meet her. He wins over her trust and proposes. Now, the story is unclear as to whether this all happens in their first meeting, or if it is over several meetings. However, I think the better interpretation is that it all happens the first time they meet.
The prince begins to visit Rapunzel, bringing her silk each time so that she can make a ladder to escape. Making a silk ladder is her idea, and she says that she cannot think of another way for her to leave the tower. She's been isolated her entire life, so I understand her lack of creativity, but why does the prince contribute nothing to the thought process? He offers her marriage, but no way of escape. How difficult would it be for his servants to make a rope ladder before his next visit? Or even have his servants come with him next time, carrying a real ladder?
Rapunzel grows careless and inadvertently remarks to the enchantress that the prince is so much lighter and faster when climbing up her braids. Angered, the enchantress cuts off Rapunzel's long hair and banishes the girl to the desert.
When the prince visits that evening, the enchantress tosses down Rapunzel's hair, and he climbs up. The enchantress taunts him, and he throws himself out of the tower. He manages to live, but the thorns blind him. I understand the pain of losing one's loved one, and this pain is often exaggerated in fiction, but attempted suicide? What about a rescue mission? Attacking the enchantress and finding out where she's hidden Rapunzel?
The prince then roams about in misery for some years. This doesn't really make sense because the first time he ever saw Rapunzel, he had been riding. It's a logical assumption that he rode his horse out each evening to visit her. Well-trained horses learn paths, especially one that is taken every night. The prince should have been able to get back to his horse and return to his palace. But no, he wanders aimlessly, distraught at losing Rapunzel.
He manages to stumble upon the right desert and find Rapunzel. Surprise! She also has twins, a boy and a girl. He recognizes her voice and goes towards her. Rapunzel recognizes him and falls upon him, weeping. Her tears fall into his eyes, curing his blindness. He takes her back to his kingdom, and they all live happily ever after.
So, I guess pre-marital sex at the age of 14 was totally cool back in the day.
When I was a little girl, this was my favorite fairy tale. And Disney never did Rapunzel, so my favorite fairy tale wasn't some sanitized, watered down version either. I remember the beautifully illustrated book I had (paperback, but still lovely pictures), and I remember the twins at the end of the story. (I'm a twin; we tend to notice these things). Who knows if the ages were the same or not? I also think my version involved the prince stumbling backwards in shock and falling out of the tower, not throwing himself out of the tower.
I think I have two main points regarding all of this, and they're in opposition to each other.
We worry too much about what effects of media and pop culture and books and TV are going to have on our children. I never thought about Rapunzel and the prince having sex, even when I was a bit older and knew about the birds and the bees. It was just a fairy tale featuring twins, and boy/girl twins at that! I'm not saying that parents should drag their kids to rated R movies, but I do think we can all lighten up a bit.
On the flip side, what sort of fucked up culture created these fairy tales? I practically want to change career paths and get my Ph.D. in English or straight up Women's Studies so that I can discuss how the fairy tales by the Brothers Grimm reflect the contemporary views and ideals. I see an allegory for protecting the virtue of one's daughter when she reaches sexual maturity. Twelve is a fairly common age to begin menstruation, thus being the age when a girl can bear children. So let's lock her up out of harm's way! But then when she meets a man for the very first time, she's scared at first, but so quickly won over that she agrees to marry him right away and have sex with him. At the very mature age of 14.
And her long hair is a symbol of femininity, being the means of attracting a man. Just like Rapunzel uses her hair to help the prince into her bedroom, girls should use their looks to attract men. The opposite is true as well. The witch cuts off her hair, making her unfeminine, and banishes her to a desert.
The prince is a total idiot too. I guess he represents young men who can't reign in their sexual desires. He wants Rapunzel but can't even think far enough in advance of how to help her escape. When he loses her, he's helpless.
These are incredibly disorganized thoughts, just an immediate reflection after reading Rapunzel, courtesy of the Gutenberg Project.
I can't blame three-year-old Brita, who loved her beautiful hair (okay, 23-year-old Brita still loves her beautiful hair...), and thus thought Rapunzel was the best fairy tale ever. I even ate radishes, which were totally gross, because they were in the story. (Interesting note on translations. In German, rapunzel is a variety of rampion, a type of plant, that the father steals from the witch's garden, hence his daughter's name).
In conclusion, Rapunzel isn't ageist or misogynistic, because basically, all the characters suck for one reason or another.