A number of students discussed the
show “Super Why” during their presentations. One thing that was mentioned by
Melissa concerning the images of the female characters in the show, which
caught my attention is that they represent two extremes of the physical
appearances of women. On the one hand, there is the very feminine, very dainty
Princess Pea and on the other hand, there is the tomboy-ish Red Riding Hood.
This dichotomy reminded me of the “Gentleman or Beast?” article, which called
attention to the pressures placed on men to be simultaneously ruthless and
gentle, barbaric and civilized. It seems that this show is doing the opposite
for women; girls have the option of either being highly feminine in voice,
dress, behavior, and interests or tomboy-ish in all of the same respects. There
is no option presented of having a variety of both feminine and tomboy
qualities, or, as in “Gentleman or Beast”, of embodying both archetypes
simultaneously.
Another
thing that stuck out at me was Emily’s observation about the character
Clairebell Cow in “Mickey Mouse Clubhouse”. Emily described Clairebell as
gender deviant and also explained that this character was not well-liked by the
other characters and usually functioned as a deterrent to the resolution of the
problem. The negative worth of
“abnormality” implied in this recurrent plot line is greatly disturbing. The
creators of this show sound like the “social guardians” that Hollingworth warns
her readers against in the article “Social Devices for Impelling Women to Bear
and Rear Children”. I am especially disappointed in this show given that the
original creator of Mickey Mouse (Walt Disney) left his fortune to the first
man to bear and deliver a child. To me, that seems like the gesture of someone
who isn’t particularly interested in perpetuating narrow gender roles and who
would maintain a stance in opposition to the show’s portrayal of gender
deviance.
“Go, Diego,
go!” also perpetuates some dangerous gender stereotypes. As Tina pointed out, Diego,
the male character, consistently takes physical action, whereas his sister does
the “brainwork” while sitting in a room on a computer. The show teaches boys
that their role in society is to be active and physical and that the
intellectual, stationary work is for girls. This trend could have dangerous
repercussions in terms of the academic success achieved by boys, as well as
their ability to participate in the workforce, which is now dominated by jobs
that require sitting indoors for eight to ten hours a day. Additionally, the
effects that this show might have on unathletic boys’ sense of worth could also
be detrimental.
Initially, I had a little bit of
trouble believing that children’s shows were that impactful. In fact, Alexa and
I discussed how we watched TV as kids and felt like we turned out pretty okay. But
in Carlisle’s presentation about “Little Einsteins”, I started to realize that
solid evidence existed supporting Witt’s arguments about how impactful the
media can be. Carlisle drew attention to the fact that Leo in “Little Einstein”
is presented as the natural leader of the group. I thought this observation was
especially interesting in light of the documentary “Miss Representation”. “Miss
Representation” increased my awareness of the large discrepancy in the number
of women occupying leadership roles in comparison to men. If Witt is correct in
assuming that “children often internalize gender role stereotypes
from…television”, then it would seem that women are being steered away from
leadership roles as early as childhood. My indignity about the unfairness of
this perpetuation of gender roles was augmented when Professor Jafar voiced her
daughter’s observation about how, in “Super Why”, the female characters often
alternate who is involved in resolving the problem, whereas each of the male
characters always plays an integral role in the solution.
No comments:
Post a Comment