Is Kids' TV Sexist?

Little Dave isn't quite big enough to be watching TV, but I can't imagine us being a big "kids TV" family. We watched cartoons growing up, along with the classic Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers, but we didn't like the obviously kiddy shows. Plus, I prefer to manipulate my son's worldview and values by myself, thank you very much!
`
@James - "But it has no problem with Walden, who is a complete male stereotype as a wimpy, tie-wearing, four-eyed braniac." I was SO expecting the "four-eyed" link to be to a picture of you.

It's been a few years since we had little kids TV on at the bankerhouse. Now it's all that tween Disney and Nick crap. Disney has Hannah Montana, which is ALL about girl power. The other Disney shows are mixes--the annoying twin boys of the Suite Life (they badly need haircuts) are the de jure leads, but the de facto lead is (female) London Tipton. In fact, the Suite Life is a really good show when London is the focus, and really bad when the Moppets are the focus. The mom is pretty hot too, though she needs to settle on a hair style/color.
*
Nick's dominating current show (after the bazillionth rerun of Sponge Bob) is I Carly, with two strong female leads, a pussy-whipped boy and a clueless older brother (?). So it's hard to view kids TV as "sexist", except for possibly the absence of strong male characters.

I completely agree with you on their interpretation of the Backyardigans. They obviously haven't actually watched it a lot. Pablo is a pushover. Isn't this the way things work? Criticize something without really watching it first? We see it with more serious fare and shows, why not here too?

I'm curious if they noticed the heavy sexual tension that exists between Handy Manny and Kelly and what they thought.

I didn't even know Handy Manny had girl tools--I thought they were all boys, not to mention that the tools all seem...specially abled.

One thing that has always bugged me about these kinds of analyses is the lack of data showing the effect on a young viewer. It's easy for an adult to look at a show and spot something that seems inappropriate to us -- but how much of that is truly internalized by kids?
*
When I was in grad school an instructor had us read a feminist critique of "The Ladybug Picnic," a cartoon on Sesame Street that taught kids how to count by 3's ("One, two, three. Four, five, six. Seven, eight, nine. Ten, eleven, twelve. And they all fell down, at the ladybug pinic!"). The critique railed against the cartoon because:
1) The ladybugs (a feminine archtype) were chatty and only interested in the social elements of their picnic, to the neglect of the candle they had lit -- the candle fell over and set the picnic blanket on fire. Thus, the cartoon tells young children that women are not only shallow, they are a danger to themselves and others.
2) The irresponsible, dangerous ladybugs have no idea how to save themselves so a cartoon fire truck with a fire dog (a masculine archtype) pulls up and puts out the fire. Thus, the cartoon is telling children that women will survive only due to the efforts of men.
3) And since the dog used a fire hose to put out the fire, and a fire hose is an OBVIOUS phallic symbol, then children are being taught that a woman's well-being is dependent on the peni*.
*
I told my instructor that I thought the critique was ridiculous -- that absent a clear intent by the creator or a clear effect on the audience, what was being described was a non-phenomenon. In response, my instructor told me I didn't belong in grad school.
*
Now, that's an extreme example, but I still question the extent to which some of these studies reach. I think children learn positive and negative gender roles much more from PEOPLE -- their friends, parents, siblings -- than they do from 2-30 minute cartoons.

All of this feedback is great and just shows how complicated the issues surrounding stereotypes are. Truth be told, preschool television is exemplary compared to the programs for school-age children. However, don't fool yourself into believing that children are not affected by the images they watch on tv because, as the blogger acknowledged, kids watch these shows over and over again. We also know that kids, on average, watch 2+ hours per day of tv. This stuff gets programmed into their heads at a very young age.

Our analysis was extremely thorough and, as the key analyst, I can tell you that we watched many episodes of each program and used a very in-depth rating system to evaluate many areas of the characters portrayals in the shows. Everything was evaluated through the lens of stereotypes and we gave high grades to shows that broke free from the classic characters kids have been exposed to year after year.

Yes, Pablo is a wimp but, in fact, he dominates most of the action (albeit in a less than assertive way) and he is the de facto leader of the show. Backyardigans might be sweet and charming for kids and definitely promotes lots of good messages. However, we were not looking at the quality of the content, we were looking at how the shows treat stereotypes.

If you look at a show like iCarly or even SpongeBob, you can see that they have created characters that are multi-dimensional. They are interesting characters that are developed outside of the cookie-cutter formula that content developers have relied upon for years. How many times have we seen the Betty and Veronica characters repackaged?

Is it just about the gender representation on the shows? No, but let's face it, boys outnumber girls as lead characters on children's television by 3 to 1. When you have a show like Higglytown Heroes, why do you have to have three males and one female? Why are there three male characters and two female characters in the Backyardigans? Why is Kai-lan the only female in the whole cast on Ni Hao, Kai-lan? Why is Darby the only female on My Friends Tigger and Pooh? The preschool shows actually do a better job at making sure girls are present and the numbers are still abysmal. Studies have been done that indicate that boys are less interested in shows that feature girls as leads while girls will watch shows featuring boys as leads. We can do better than this.

This analysis is not a perfect science. It cannot be. We are looking at how stereotypes are perpetuated - something that we as a society are not all that comfortable talking about. We are afraid to get close up and address how we all latch on to stereotypes. We are afraid to really admit to ourselves how dangerous stereotypes are to children. We need to pay attention to the outcomes. Children do not learn everything from the television but, chances are, if you are a parent, you will come to realize how much influence the television has had on your child's likes and dislikes (can you say advertising?) and how much television has helped your child understand social behavior. Look at yourself and think about how much the shows you watched growing up impacted you.

Thanks for all the feedback. This our first attempt to tackle this topic and we are proud of the outcome. We welcome all the questions and critiques and are glad to engage you in this discussion.

@truechild - This may come off as smart or sarcastic, but I genuinely don't mean it to. I'm really just curious. "However, we were not looking at the quality of the content, we were looking at how the shows treat stereotypes." Hypothetically speaking, if a show were to have excellent gender representation and superb overall treatment of stereotypes, but it also had deplorable content ("Fighting is a great way to solve problems!" "I just use my fists or a knife." "Doing drugs is super fun!"), would it have received excellent marks? Like I said above, I don't watch any kids TV, and I'm assuming (hoping?) a show like this would never get made, but the thought just came to mind.

don't fool yourself into believing that children are not affected by the images they watch on tv because, as the blogger acknowledged, kids watch these shows over and over again. We also know that kids, on average, watch 2+ hours per day of tv. This stuff gets programmed into their heads at a very young age.
.
After rearing children, grandchildren, and now great grandchildren my personal ancedotal evidence stands in direct opposition to your tenent here. I humbly request for evidence of the dangers of stereotypes in childrens programming.
.
Everything was evaluated through the lens of stereotypes and we gave high grades to shows that broke free from the classic characters kids have been exposed to year after year.
.
Of course by defination of the demographic, the target audience of any given show here HAS NOT been exposed to the same characters year after year, because, ya know, they aren't very old. The fact that certain aspects of children's progamming has remained stagnant over the course of a long period of time doesn't mean the experience is devalued for the current generation.
.
The previous presence of Barney in the 90s does not magically make the Wiggles less cool to a 3-year-old today.

I have mixed reactions about disney's programming, I have a 3 year old son that watches cartoons like Mickey, Handy Manny and Special Agent OSO, which he enjoys and I don't mind him watching as they have positive characters. At the same time, Disney's programming for older kids is a disgrace, In the name of comedy, every boy character is goofy,dork and an incompetent idiot. I restrict these shows as much as possible. The worst aspect of some of these shows is how much they they make fun of anyone who is middle class or poor.

matt1974, I could not agree more. We wanted to include preschool programming because there are many parents, like yourself, who are interested in hearing about these issues in the programs their younger children are watching. We all agree that there is a lot more thought and concern put into the development of preschool programing. The purpose of the shows goes beyond purely entertainment. These programs are designed to be educational as well. And, as such, the consultants and experts that help to develop these programs tend to pay far more attention to the issues of diversity, etc. The issue of stereotypes is not one that is overtly tackled by by anyone at this point in time - that is beyond making sure that offensive remarks and overtly pejorative statements are not used. When looking at shows geared towards school-age children, there is far less oversight and the primary goal is to be entertaining. These shows feature characters around which the networks and producers are trying to build highly commercial brands. Stereotypes are often rampant in these shows because they make for good entertainment. It is funny to poke funny at the nerdy boy or the chubby kid. It is acceptable and familiar to see the bossy big or little sister. We don't necessarily object to the use of these characters but it is extremely important to balance them out with characters that have great dimension or range. It is important for boys to see other boys who might not be primarily interested in sports or violence so, if they happen to like art or drama or being good in school, they have characters on tv they can identify with. It is not funny anymore to show the nerdy boy getting his face shoved into the locker by a bully. That might seem funny but it is not to the kid who is always getting picked on or beat up by the tough kids at school. To them, it reinforces a very negative message. To the other bullies out there, it reinforces the power that the bully gets.

That is just one of dozens and dozens of examples of how these stereotypical characters are portrayed in kids' television.

And, again, to those that think that children are not affected by what they see on TV at an early age, I urge you to look at all the research on the impact of media on young children. We are not going to completely turn off our TVs (despite urging from the AAP and other groups) but we have to make sure that we are exposing our kids to the right messages.

@Dave - great question on content. Of course, we acknowledged the content but did not necessarily give a show a higher rating because it was extremely educational. We also did not give a show a lower rating because we felt that the show was not particularly stimulating. We acknowledge that many, if not all, the preschool shows have significant merits when it comes to quality (and, personally, my kids have watched most of them ad nauseum) but we are looking at something different when rating them.

Keep the comments coming folks. We want parents to get engaged with this topic. It is a very important and very difficult topic to discuss.

[...] a strange post: Role Models: Are Kids’ TV Shows Sexist? (Time Magazine) Share and [...]

[...] Here is the original post:  ukrainian dating customs Role Models: Are Kids’ TV Shows Sexist? (Time Magazine) [...]

I've looked over TrueChild's list, and I'm stunned at their assessment of The Fairly Oddparents. That is a kids' cartoon that truly deserves the label "sexist". Most of the female characters in it are vicious, stupid or vain, and the only positive female character - the fairy godmother, Wanda - is labeled a nag by her husband every time she speaks up to warn her godchild of danger (and she does so without a speck of meanness, I might add. Instead, she comes off as being concerned, devoted and intelligent, yet is often criticized and insulted for it. She has also been physically abused, again by her husband. Makes one wonder what THAT teaches kids). The attitude displayed by the other characters towards her reminds me of the worst sitcom humor from the 1950's. We've come a long way, baby? Not in THAT show! I no longer let my children watch it. It's a shame TrueChild seemed more focused on the show's supposed popularity rather than its content. Perhaps the people behind the survey need to take another look at it. I recently visit an online TV discussion group, and was surprised and gratified to see that there's been quite an uproar over there about the Fairly Oddparents' current sense of humor (the show apparently had a different, more positive tone in its earlier years). If the purpose of the TrueChild survey was to help parents judge which shows are best for kids, it totally missed the boat with Fairly Oddparents in my opinion.

Dear James,

Thank you so much for blogging about True Child --- you really got
the conversation rolling and we really appreciate the seriousness with which you engaged our report and children's TV in general. Positive criticism is always welcome.

Just to clarify our approach to children's television in our
analysis: The point in terms of character development whether in animation or live action was never just a counting game. There is an imbalance in terms of girl leads, but that is not the major thrust of our analysis. We are far more interested in characters that shatter the stereotype glass box. For instance, while you say it is surprising that we give credit to Pablo as a lead character, the fact remains that, even as a wimp (which we were glad to see by the way), he still is a leader, coming up with most of the ideas and being portrayed in a very central way. We like male characters that are not standard fare. That is why we actually love SpongeBob and Patrick. SpongeBob got high points for breaking the mold on boy characters. But since you raised it, SpongeBob SquarePants has a cast that is primarily boys and men and only one female character of significance. And Sandy is great, smart, scientific, curious and often the voice of reason. But there is only one of her and she appears in less than 50% of the episodes.

Why? If you have the pencil in hand, why not draw one more or even
two more? Just yesterday on NPR, a blogger asked the same question to Disney Pixar. Why did it take 13 movies before they featured a female lead? And, hooray for them for finally featuring a female lead but what type of character is she? A princess.

We also love Josh of Drake and Josh --- he is vulnerable, feeling and
not afraid to express his fears and ambitions all at once. We love other male characters, too, like Diego who slightly eclipsed Dora in our analysis.

The reason we don't progress far when people try to take on stereotypes is critics tend to focus on questions like: "Is pink really going to destroy your child?" Or this or that character is weaker or stronger than you gave them credit. The isolated points are not really the issue. Is the tsunami of trapping so much of the culture in a predefined boy box or a girl box ---- and not having the
creative guts to break out and offer more variations on children's
characters.

We don't need five annoying sister/friend characters modeled on Lucy
in Charlie Brown. One will do. We are trying to spark more and different for both boys and girls --- and that will take a tsunami of parents speaking out.

We encourage you and your readers to take another look at these shows through the lens of stereotypes. You might begin to see the problems we are trying to point out. You might also begin to understand the importance of trying to get content developers to provide broader images of boys and girls. We also encourage you and your readers to visit http://www.truechild.org and learn more about the issues. Stereotypes hurt children in many ways. There is so much research that has crystallized the harm - eating disorders, bullying, hyper-sexualization, suicide. This is very serious. It seems benign when we look at Pablo and his pals but that is just one of the millions of images your children will see before they enter adolescence.

We want to keep this dialogue going and will be sure to share with you our future report cards so you have an opportunity to review them both as a blogger and, more importantly, as a parent.

Thanks again for getting this discussion started.

Elizabeth Birch
President, TrueChild

magentapanther,
.
.
I'm going to have to object to the claim that Fairly Odd Parents is sexist.
.
.
First off Wanda. Of the threesome (Her, Cosmo, and Timmy), she's the only one with more than half a brain. Yes, she's a "nag", but look at the source, Cosmo's an idiot. If you review the episode where she took off for a vacation day, the earth was about to be destroyed.
.
Second, the other strong female is Timmy's mom, who, especially compared to his totally clueless dad, is both pro-active, and again, the more intelligent half of the couple.
.
Third, Timmy's elementry school principle. Strong female lead, and less neurotic than Timmy's evil and psychotic teacher, Procter, who sees... FAIRY GODPARENTS!!! everywhere he looks.
.

I'm going to have to agree with Ashman on this one. I'm sorry, but after watching animated TV, not just in my own youth (and the more violent ones at that, including Tom and Jerry, Loony Tunes, and the rest of the 1970's / early 1980's programming) have done it all over again with my young ones (ages roughly 9 and 8).
.
.
I still have yet to slam a hammer on the head of anyone, or stick a 12-guage down a rabbit hole. I'm the cook in the family, and can do laundry as well as my wife.
.
.
My kids, have 'survived' everything from Barney, to the Wiggles, to Dora, at the young age, through Kim Possible, Sponge Bob, Fairly Odd Parents, and all the others in between, including the Power Rangers and CN's Total Drama Island.
.
Sorry, but their just kids shows.

And I can't believe that you're dissing Kim Possible? Can you get a TV cartoon with stronger female characters? Not only is Kim's mother a top-notch scientist, but her grandmother is still an active practitioner of the martial arts.
.
.
Of course, you realize that in the same show, the kids are also identifying with an intelligent naked mole rat.
.
.

As for the percentages. All that means is what's on the airwaves. In the 'modern world', of TIVO and cable-TV hard drives, kids don't have to watch just what's out there. They can pick and choose the shows they like. Which means that even if only xxx whatever% shows have strong female leads, if that's what interests the girls, then that will be close to 100% of what they're going to watch.
.
I get to see this at home, when my daughter complains that when my son has his turn to pick the show of the half hour, its some 'stupid robot - blow em up thing'. While she prefer's Zoey 101, Hannah Montana, and ICarly.
.
.

Jacobblues, in Fairly Oddparents, Timmy's mother is a moron. So is his principal. And the evil, psychotic teacher you mention is named "Crocker", not "Proctor". Check your facts, please. And the fact that the person calling Wanda a nag is her "idiot" husband was precisely my point. How is that positive (or funny, for that matter) in any way? She's the only positive female character yet is ridiculed for being smart and caring. The term "nag" is used in the cartoon in an attempt not only to insult her but to shut her up and put her in her place. I call that sexist.