Return to Innocence
|
It was the early 1990s. We were raised on a concoction of Costume dramas and Babysitter clubs. Our heroes wore gowns, prairie dresses and black knee socks with lace up boots. Full House, Punky Brewster and Clarissa Explained it all when we came home from school. It was the peak of teen television. We played The Oregon Trail on our home computers while Little House on the Prairie reruns blared in the background.
Hollywood didn’t just tell stories, it scaled them. It took the American dream and magnified it; it sold us youth and fame. Young movie heroines became core memories; The Secret Garden, A Little Princess, Anne of Green Gables all took their rightful place as honorary sisters in our hearts. We coveted the American Girl doll catalogues as they came each month. The mini furniture replicas and accessories taught us history while allowing us to remain children. And then there were the teen magazines. Boys our age turned into heartthrobs overnight, Hollywood took youth and made it luminous. Dawson showed us what love could look like. Fabio flexed, sweeping gowns and fair maidens were scooped up in muscled arms and garage sale romancenovels painted women mid transformation, mid rescue, mid desire. Our girlhood was historical. It was theatrical. Sat there, surrounded by our over-loved stuffed animals and kitten posters, we began to visualize our impending rescue all through a Hollywoods lens. Becoming a woman would be cinematic. Los Angeles sat at the center of it all, the manufacturer of our dreams, playing out romanticized comedic fictions like the Troop Beverly Hills, while tragic tabloid headlines screamed of child stars like River Phoenix. We learned the heights of glamour, fortune and tragedy lay within Hollywood’s bounds.
Who have we become as a result of all these figures — the prairie heroines, the cinematic orphans, the heartthrobs, the manufactured dreams?
We became more than one thing. Maybe hopeless dreamers, but also grand story tellers. We are educated, ambitious, and self-determining.
We entered professions in greater numbers, delayed marriage, reshaped family structures, expanded the definition of partnership and work. Our lives diversified. Our options widened.
And yet judgment did not recede. It recalibrated.
Dependence is framed as weakness. Domesticity is framed as surrender. A woman who chooses to build her life in the home is cast as regressive or complicit. At the same time, the woman who builds a career is scrutinized for maternal absence, accused of ambition at the expense of care, measured against standards of balance that border on impossibility.
The archetype changes; the surveillance remains.
If liberation was meant to expand choice, why does it so often produce a new hierarchy of acceptable identities? The issue is not which path a woman takes, domestic, professional, partnered, independent. It is that her life continues to function as a cultural referendum. Revisiting these formative images as spectacle rather than nostalgia, the collection examines how fantasy, aspiration, and cultural judgment intertwine, asking not which version of womanhood is correct, but why women’s choices remain perpetually up for debate.
|
