Keith Veronesi's response to Children's TV

First, I thought that all the presentors did a great in showing just how gendered children’s television really is. However, as I sat through each presentation, it really hit me that prior to taking this class, I am not sure I would have really picked up the problems with the ways these children’s shows fall to the gender norms that are the problems in our society today. As I was growing up watching these shows, I think that I would succomb to these norms on a daily basis. Perhaps these gender norms never really stuck out to me because of the household that I grew up in. I have a dad who is very manly and into sports and a mom who is definitely a “girly” mother. My mom never played sports and was/is always worried about her appearance. When my little sister was born, she was immediately put in pink clothing with a bow in her hair. Her room was painted pink, while mine and my borthers had sports wall paper that had a background color of blue. These are the exact stereotypes that are portrayed in these television shows today. The presentors do a great job in showing how these children shows give feminine qualitites to girls and masculine qualities for boys. It sort of seems like the producers of these shows are trying to, or feel like they have to, distinguish boys from girls.

A common theme that each presentor mentioned was the fact that there is a lack of female characters as the main character in each television show. Aside from Dora in Dora the Explorer, most of these shows have males as the lead role. Why is this important? It kind of misleads children into believing that women play a second class role to males in society. A major issue in society today is that women are treated as if they do not have as much of a dominant role in the world today. As each television show continues to fit the model of having male characters in the lead role, it only increases the the chance of these children falling into the gender norms that have been created in society today. Despite Dora being a girl, she does not fit the role of the typical girly girl. Dora is often seen outside, going on hikes, and getting dirty. The way she is dressed does not fit the typical structure that other shows have layed out for the feminine characters in children’s tv.  Why is this important? This is important because despite Dora being one of the few lead characters that is female, she still falls more on the tom-boy side of the spectrum.

Staying on the topic of appearance, I think the presentors did a really good job in showing us how each character is depicted as male or female. The first thing that is obvious is the clothing, specifically the color of the clothing. Typically the female characters are wearing pink, yellow, and other colors that have been deemed “girly” or feminine. Often times the boys were seen in blue, green, and other colors that have fallen into the category as masculine. Aside from clothing, the tv shows depicted females vs. males by the accessories to each character, such as eye lashes or jewelry. The appearance of the characters comes off almost as more important than the actual role of that character. Lastly, the voices of these characters plays a major role in depicting the gender of the individual character. I think the Mickey Mouse series did a wonderful job in showing the difference between the female and male characters. Aside from the obvious appearance difference between male and female characters, the producers of Mickey Mouse gave female characters, such as Minnie and Daisy, extremely high pitched voices.

As I said earlier, the presentors did a really good job in showing the gender norms that have become problems in our society today. Unfortunately, these television shows are outlining our youth and molding them into believe that this is actually the way it is supposed to be. The idea of the depiction between males and females is something that I do not see changing anytime soon. 

Gracie Miller's Response to Children's TV

In watching all of the presentations on Children’s television, as well as giving one myself, I learned that the hidden curriculum taught in preschools is more of a general undercurrent in the world of young children.  While as many of my classmates pointed out, PBS is generally a less biased channel than Nickelodeon; none of the children’s shows were free from stereotypes or gender preferences.  If I were to pick one show that I believe is the best out of all of the shows that were presented, I would have to pick Arthur on PBS.  This choice also seemed to be common among the children’s TV presenters.  Though Arthur is certainly not free of gender bias by a long shot, it does appear as the consistently least biased.  Likewise there are many factions of society represented in Arthur, not just through race or gender, but differences in class (Muffy vs. Francine), physical abilities (handicaps or injuries), and family compositions (adoption, grandparents, single parents).  After all, it seems to me that if all shows are going to continued gender stereotypes and therefore proliferate “doing gender” then I would want my children to watch shows that at least give them different options within gender (tomboy, girly girl) as well as a show that celebrates differences, not just similarities.  Also I felt that the mutual acceptance of Arthur as a “good” show among the presenters was felt because Arthur deals with interesting and “smart” subject matter including poetry, travel, and nutrition.  As one presenter commented, she still enjoyed watching Arthur today as much as she did when she was a little kid because she still found the shows engaging, and I believe that the tendency for Arthur to “talk up” to kids instead of down, as many of the shows profiled did (max and ruby), is the key to its success. 

I found it sad and interesting that female characters are underrepresented in children’s TV.  The underrepresentation ranged from clothes as in Little Red Riding Hood’s scanty leotard in Super Reader’s to behavior as in Dora the Explorer’s timidness in relation to her sidekick Diego.  Likewise as Emily pointed out in her presentation on Micky Mouse Clubhouse, the female characters in general take up less space, are dressed in pink or purple, mostly wear dressed and talk in annoyingly high pitched voices.  From the presentations given and the articles we have read so far this semester, it seems that the reason shows seem to play to boys and minimize girls goes back to society’s strong view that boys are boys and NOT girls, whereas girls can cross the gender boundary without much trouble.  So the networks make shows that have girl characters but give the boy characters prominence, because that makes it masculine enough for boys to watch and the thought is that girls will watch it anyway.  That way the networks have shows that reach both gender demographics and therefore have more opportunities for advertisers.  As it seems so many themes in society do, the themes and structure of children’s shows goes back to social norms and money, and as the source of funds for the network gets more commercial, so to do the shows have more extreme gender roles and social bias.  This was seen in the general differences in content between PBS who is funded publicly and privately, with little to no commercials, and Nickelodeon who relies on advertising for profits. 

Carly Jensen Response to Presentations

  Having watched and prepared my own presentation on children’s television, I was not surprised by most of what was presented. I too noticed how underrepresented females were on almost every children’s television show. All of presentations accurately identified clothing, voice, and social actions as the areas where gender was socialized. Similar to the presenters I found that female television characters are extremely gendered, and this is even more apparent in children’s programs where the gender of each character’s gender is essential to the plot line. I like how Tina pointed put that for some characters, especially personified objects, gender is their only defining character trait.

            What I found particularly interesting was the contrast between the programs on Disney and PBS versus the programs on Nick Jr. Personally I was never allowed to watch Nick Jr. because my parents felt the themes were inappropriate and too simplified. From the presentations I gather that the characters on Nick compared to the characters on PBS have less personal characterization and are more “in your face” regarding their themes and behaviors. I think this was most obvious through Blair’s analysis of the “ Fairly Odd Parents” and Gracie’s investigation of “ Max and Ruby”. All of these characters both female and male are underdeveloped and depend on simplistic traits such as gender instead of personality or individuality. This is shown by the fact that major bits of information are missing from “ Max and Ruby”, like their parents. Or the fact that Timmy’s parents are present but at the same time absent and un-essential to the plot line. This highlights how Nick Jr. overly simplifies their shows causing gender to become more apparent and more gender norms to be taught. This I felt leads to a stronger need to give gender to objects that did not necessarily need gender, like Dora’s backpack. It is also important to realize that almost every show over represented the male characters. Each presentation noted that it was a male who was the leader or narrator of the show and not a female. This speaks to that fact, that children’s television shows are teaching its viewers that it is normal for a male to be dominating and females to be secondary. I also realized that all the character’s clothing was gendered. This gendering is not just in the color of clothing, but in accessories, shoes, and type of clothing. For instance in “ Mickey Mouse Clubhouse” there is no reason for Minnie and Daisy to be wearing heels and dresses, if they are going on adventures. All of the female characters are confined by their clothing, and it is their appearance that is focused on.

            In re-watching different children’s shows and listening to all the presentations I realize that the hidden curriculum that is being taught through preschool is also being taught in television programs.  Gender norms are introduced to the viewers from a young age and allowing for children to learn and model their behaviors off the characters in their favorite television shows. Much of a child’s behaviors and attitudes are model after their surroundings. Children’s programing has a huge impact on these attitudes and behaviors.   

Response to Children's Media Presentations: Emily Hunter

Response to Children’s Media Presentations: Emily Hunter

            At the end of class last Friday we began to discuss how the default gender for non-gendered characters was male.  I have found myself guilty of this numerous times, especially as a child.  For example, when I was younger I always believed that Blue on Blue’s Clues was a male dog, provided the color and the name.  In addition, I found that when watching the Dora the Explorer “Backpack” clip in class on Friday I still was hesitant to believe the backpack was a girl because the voice provided to the backpack sounded more masculine than feminine to me.  How, in a society that is so gendered, do we expect children not to associate gender based on color, clothing, actions, and voice?  In order to prevent children from thinking a non-gendered character is a male, the cartoons must have some means of gender identification.  I think the problem in the situation is not that the characters are gendered.  Instead the problem, in my opinion, is the way the characters are gendered, and the limited representations of each gender that are available in children’s media.  For example, in every presentation we discovered that girls were usually represented in very stereotypical feminine dress, such as jumper dresses and bows.  It is fine to show a female wearing a dress, but other female characters could be represented wearing pants or shorts, preferably not in pink. Both the name of the characters and the voice of the characters could be used to indicate the gender, without a bombardment of stereotypical gender traits. The same is true for the actions the characters take throughout the shows.  For example, it is okay to show females interested in dancing or art as long as there are also representations of females interested in sport and in adventure.  In the same way, it is fine to show some boys interested in playing with cars and acting out the “Brave Knight”, but it is also important to show the emotional side of boys and the artistic side of boys.  In order to have such diversity in characters, particularly in the females, the number of girls that are present in children’s media are going to need to increase, provided each children’s media presenter described the under-representation of women in the episodes they analyzed. 

            Another topic I would like to touch upon is the hyper-representation of heterosexuality as a norm in most television shows, even on PBS.  I was discussing the media assignment with my thesis advisor who is in a lesbian relationship and raising 2, 4 year old twins (one girl & one boy).  She told me how it is extremely difficult to find both children’s television programming and children’s literature that has representations of families with two mothers, two fathers, or even single parents.  She informed me that a few years ago during Arthur’s “Post Cards from Buster” a family of children with two mothers were interviewed.  The children were shown playing and doing normal family activities.  No political statement was made about the fact the children have two mothers and it simply represented a loving family.  Unfortunately, before this episode of “Post Cards from Buster” could air, the government blocked PBS from showing the episode.  The representation of the family in children’s media should be diversified, just as the representations of gender should also be diversified.  By representing a diverse spectrum of gender and family roles for the children, the next generations may be more open to gender and family fluidity. 

Alexa Campagna-- Presentation Post

The presentations, I feel, helped to emphasize the subtly of the prevalent gender biases in children’s television shows. It may seem unnecessary to focus on this topic because one may believe that most children are too naïve to be affected by these gender stereotyped images, yet this is clearly not the case. If children did not internalize the images seen on commercials and TV shows, then we would live in a much more gender neutral world in which girls took on more active, industrious roles and boys were not confined to a wardrobe consisting mostly of blue. I almost feel as though children’s television shows trick viewers into believing that they are truly progressive; actively attempting to rid their shows of harmful gender stereotypes. These shows, as Garrett stated, take two steps forward and two steps back when they incorporate female heroines into the shows’ premises, yet have these characters take a backseat to the leading male heroes. Yes, it is progressive that Dora is a bilingual, adventurous leading female character in Dora the Explorer, but she wears a stereotypically feminine pink shirt and is not nearly as much of a risk-taker as her male counterpart, Diego. This is sending the message that girls can accomplish the same tasks as boys but not to the same extent. Mrs. Renkins of “Curious George,” for example, worked on a farm and dressed in stereotypically masculine farming overalls, yet she was still portrayed as a wife and a mother. This is a blatant attempt to break gender norms, yet a more in depth analysis proves that the female gender norm of woman as caretaker and homemaker is being upheld.

            I was most alarmed by the juxtaposition of the vintage image of Minnie Mouse with the more modern image that is currently being advertised. The black-and-white Minnie used to occupy a more expansive area that allowed for more freedom of movement, yet the current pink polka-dotted Minnie has a more enclosed stature that occupies a much more limited amount of space. As Carly pointed out, the “hidden curriculum,” teaching girls to take up less physical space and to highly value their physical appearances, is virtually inescapable. Children are learning these gendered behaviors in school and continue to learn them when they get home from school and turn on their favorite television program to see their favorite character that they then may try to mimic in appearance and behavior.  A little boy may see that his favorite male character in Arthur does not value academics as highly as some of this character’s female friends and may come to the inaccurate conclusion that boys are inherently not as studious as girls. These false assumptions have future implications that may make it so that boys have more difficulty in school and girls are less likely to work in fields that require greater levels of physical labor. 

"Daddy and Papa" - Mike Murgo

In the documentary "Daddy and Papa", homosexual fathers raise children without the assistance of a mother. In our society, the role of the father is often thought of as a "helper", so when a child has two "helpers" as parents, a unique social dynamic is produced. People also often assume that, when they see a child with two fathers, one of the fathers is actually a buddy of the other father. Society tends to view parenthood in a very heteronormative light, so the idea that both these men could be fathers may not even cross their minds. Gay men often have to "come out" as joint parents. Misconceptions regarding homosexuality are abound in parenthood as well, including the idea that all gay men want is sex and that their homosexuality may be passed down to the child as a learned behavior. As a foster parent said, “Because he has two daddies, he’ll end up like them too. And they’ll do things to him.” As same-sex parenting becomes more popularized, like it is right now with Neil Patrick Harris and his partner, these misconceptions will hopefully become a thing of the past.
Aside from the misconceptions about gay parents, a few other things bothered me as well. When the gay parents were looking for a child to adopt, I couldn't help but feel like they were treating the individual children like pieces of meat or farm animal. "He’s got all the right stats – he’s very young, in good physical health." Knowing how meticulous I am, I probably would have taken into account the same factors, but I still had to take a second to process that they were talking about living human beings, as they essentially catalog shopped for their child.
I liked how the documentary handled the topic of race instead of sweeping it under the rug. The movie told the audience that black boys are the least desirable foster kids, so I thought it was good that these gay men were adopting them. After the black kids get home, however, the issue of race does not go away. White parents are not going to know the struggles of their black children, and they will always get strange looks when they are together in public.
The story of Oscar touched me, but what touched me the most was the story of the gay couple who had a girl from a surrogate mother. Firstly, I was shocked and pleased that the mother would give up a year of her life just to have a baby that she'd give away. I felt awful for her, though, because she said there isn't a day that goes by where she doesn't wish she could be more in the little girl's life. How emotionally draining is that? She is filled with longing every single day, and cannot do anything about it. I wonder if she would make the same decision again, if given the opportunity. I don't think I'd be able to sacrifice my child like that. Secondly, I felt horrible for the girl after her fathers broke up. Divorce is difficult for any child, but when you're in such a unique situation as she is, I can't help but imagine what she must have been thinking. Her mother is not in her life and she is bounced back and forth between two gay men. However, I did like how she was able to accept having two gay dads as okay - the issue was the divorce, not the homosexuality. I thought that was very mature of her. Her situation reminded me of someone I know who had a three-way parenting agreement. The man impregnated a lesbian woman, and the two lesbian women shared the daughter with the man. I wonder if a situation like this would have been a better alternative for the family, so the mother could still be more in the daughter's life.
In the end, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie and it actually brought up a lot of personal feelings. To be honest, by the end of it, I was excited for my future. I was picturing my current partner and I raising a child together, and I liked what I was seeing. That's years off, but the idea of it still excites me.

Josephine's Response to Daddy and Papa

        The documentary "Daddy and Papa"opened my eyes to the difficulties that gay parents endure when trying to enter the world of parenthood. It was interesting to see the ordeal parents have to go through when entering the adoption process. I was most surprised when it showed them going through CPR classes. You definitely don't see biological parents going through a CPR certification program or psychological evaluations. One of the gay parents going through the process expressed his frustration when he said all straight people have to do is fuck and they get a kid. Society creates our self-image. Kids are not born homophobic. It is society that creates homophobia and racism. Children with gay parents would not realize that their family situation was not the norm until they become influenced by an institution other than family.
         On top of the all the background checks, evaluations, and paperwork, gay parents also have to deal with media constantly reinforcing the importance and idea of a mother. I know, speaking as an adoptee, the Rugrats movie brought up a lot of questions as it did for the adopted boy who did not have a mother figure at all. Our society imposes and reinforces so many norms including the idea of "maternal instinct".  I was struck by the part when one of the dads described being in public with his adopted child. He said that if the baby was crying in public, people would ask where the mother was. As a father, I would be so offended by that comment.  Lastly, I was so touched by the part where the biological parents of one of the boys says it doesn't matter who becomes a parent as long as they are caring, providing, and loving the child. There are so many children that suffer because we still have laws that don't allow gay parents to adopt. Being gay should not be a factor in whether or not you can become a parent.