Author Archives: margotmagowan

New biography of Herge, NYT review mentions racism but not misogyny

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s what reviewer Cullen Murphy writes in today’s New York Times about the new book Herge, Son of Tintin by Benoit Peters:

Yet Peeters squarely faces two issues that hang over Hergé’s career: his resort to ethnic and racial stereotypes, mainly in the early stories, and his record of accommodation in German-occupied Belgium.

The issues can’t be avoided. In both word and picture, the depiction of Africans in “Tintin in the Congo” makes your jaw drop. (“It’s very nice of these blacks to bear us triumphantly to our hotel!”) The villainous financier in “The Shooting Star” has a hooked nose and has been given the name Blumenstein. Some of this work was later revised, imperfectly. And “Tintin in the Congo” has been gingerly treated by publishers and libraries. As for accommodation, Hergé published “Tintin” throughout the war in the collaborationist newspaper Le Soir. Peeters doesn’t excuse any of this (who would?), though he does try to put it in context. He observes that Hergé’s prejudices were those of his time and place, and notes that the cartoonist, as he matured, acquired a more enlightened sensibility. In “The Blue Lotus,” Chinese ideograms on signs in the background say things like “Abolish unfair treaties!” and “Down with imperialism!” (These were drawn by an influential assistant, a French-speaking native of Shanghai named Zhang Chong Ren.) Hergé was not in essence a political man, publishing in Le Soir because collaborationist newspapers were the only ones allowed to exist.

I haven’t read the book, and I hope Peeters explores Herge’s misogyny in it, but if he does, why would Cullen leave that out of his review? Why does Peeters “squarely face two issues” but not that one? If Herge’s sexism is indeed left out, why doesn’t the reviewer ask the reason for the omission? Are women as unimportant in this story to the reviewer and biographer as they were to Herge?

Read more about the creator of Tintin’s disturbing thought on women.

Female protag as rare as a rat who can cook

Posted on by
7

From the LA Times on Pixar’s first female protagonist in the history of the studio:

The film brought Pixar’s artists some new technical challenges — it took two years to achieve the precise degree of frizz in Merida’s hair, for instance. But “Brave’s” biggest mark of distinction is its female protagonist, a first for the animation studio behind the “Toy Story” and “Cars” movies.

Andrews said that Merida’s trail-blazing places “Brave” squarely in the Pixar storytelling canon.

“Pixar made the first old-person-centered animated film with ‘Up’ and the first rat-that-wants-to-be-a-chef film with ‘Ratatouille,'” Andrews said.”Pixar is not one to shy away from firsts.”

Wow, a female hero is as rare and remarkable as a rat who can cook.

She’s coming to a theater near you in June 2012. And she’s a Scot. I can’t wait!

What about violence?

Posted on by
9

In my post about “Tom and Jerry,” I wrote about the exclusion and stereotyping of female characters. I didn’t write about the extreme violence in the cartoon. If I blogged about other animated male duos who relentlessly, brutally attack each other–  Sylvester and Tweetie or Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd– I’d also complain not about the violence, but that the girls have gone missing as well. In fact, on my blog that rates kids’ media on how appropriate it is, I’ve hardly written about violence at all. Why?

I’m no fan of tons of blood and gore, but I also believe that violence is a crucial part of fantasy play. I don’t take the violence in fairy tales, myths, or stories literally. That is, I think of the violence in narratives mostly as a metaphor. For example, you could look at the story of David and Goliath as primarily a violent one (along with many stories in the Bible.) David kills Goliath.  Or you can look at as story about the little guy going after the big one and winning: Erin Brockovitch taking on a corrupt power company. We all look at the story that way, right? So much so that the characters have become part of our language when we describe contemporary battles.

What happens when that language leave girls out?

Everyone slays dragons. In myths, in our dreams, in movies, we see it happen visually and literally on huge scales. In our own lives, we do it every day, in ways that are smaller and less dramatic, but can seem enormous in the moment: getting a project in on deadline, winning a debate, or organizing a messy closet.

I also think the violence in narratives provide useful metaphors and imagery for kids to experience emotions in a healthy way. Little kids live dramatic lives. They don’t get to go to a movie and they feel like their whole world is caving in. Narratives are a safe way to practice experiencing intense emotions: they actually see a world cave in.

Just in case you’re missing my point: I’m not advocating for violence where the males are always the heroes and the females are the victims. Violence shown as men hurting women in kids’ media, the way it is in the adult world of “entertainment,” is not my goal. I’d like to see female heroes acting bravely. If we had more female heroes, it wouldn’t be weird to show female victims as well.

If my opinions on violence sound too loopy for you, here’s what Peggy Orenstein wrote about it in Cinderella Ate My Daughter:

“Violent play is not by definition bad or harmful for kids. Any child shrink worth her sand table will tell you it can help them learn about impulse control, work out the difference between fantasy and reality, and cope with fear….Children of both sexes crave larger than life heroes. They need fantasy. They also, it seems, need a certain amount of violent play…something that allows them to triumph in their own way over this thing we call death, to work out their day-to-day frustrations; to feel large, powerful, and safe.”

Click here to see Reel Girl’s Gallery of Girls Gone Missing From Kids Movies in 2011.

See statistics on the lack of females in animated films from the Geena Davis Institute on Gender and Media.

Racist stereotypes get disclaimer, sexist ones still funny in kids cartoons

Posted on by
27

If you watch “Tom and Jerry” on DVD, before the cartoon begins, a disclaimer appears on the screen informing the viewer that while some episodes show racial stereotypes, they haven’t been censored because editing them out would be denying the racism ever happened which is worse than showing it. There is also an introduction by Whoopi Goldberg, which does not come on automatically but can be selected on the menu, essentially explaining the same thing.

The racism in “Tom and Jerry” is often shown when a character gets too close to an explosive, it goes off, and he turns up in blackface. Ha ha ha.

I know this because I have three daughters ages 2 – 8. A while ago we saw a “Tom and Jerry” episode on TV (no racism in that one.) They loved it, and I enjoyed it as well.  I liked the old fashioned, no bells and whistles animation, and I thought the classical music accompaniment along with the minimal dialogue was pretty cool. So I bought them a couple of DVDs full of cartoons.

But as we watched them together, not only was there some racism, but in all of the episodes, there were practically no female characters. If one did finally saunter onto the screen, she was so sexualized with her bow-red lips curling and spidery eyelashes incessantly batting as Tom and Jerry competed over her, I wanted to put my hands over my daughters’ eyes.

The non-sexualized female in Tom and Jerry? That would be the African-American one, Mammy Two-Shoes, most often shown headless with a pink ruffled apron snugly tied below her large breasts.

So why is there no disclaimer that appears on the screen about the female stereotypes in “Tom and Jerry?” Where is the introduction from Gloria Steinem explaining the historical relevance of this distorted gender stereotyping as a product of its time?

Unfortunately, the reason that there’s no disclaimer and no introduction is because sexist stereotypes in kids’ cartoons are just as accepted in 2012 as they were sixty years ago.  Sexist jokes in animation are, apparently, still hilarious. In fact, if you go to theater right now, you’ll be treated to two of them prominently featured in previews for upcoming films: one about how girls can’t fight in Madagascar 3 and an ugly woman joke in The Lorax.

Keep in mind that these movies are made for kids. Parents, do you really want to pay $10 a pop so your sons and daughters can be taught to laugh because girls supposedly can’t toss a pillow or aren’t skinny enough to be pretty?

What can you do about the rampant sexism in animation? That girls have basically gone missing from kids’ films? If you’re in a theater and you see one of these sexist jokes, start with calling out: NOT FUNNY. Do it for your kids.

Update: I’ve gotten a couple comments on SFGate about how in her foreward, Whoopi Goldberg refers to “women.”

It’s clear that the emphasis of her intro is race. She talks about the how “racial and ethnic differences were caricatured in the name of entertainment” and how people were made fun of “especially when it came to racial and ethnic groups.” She talks quite a bit about Mammy Two Shoes and the talent of the actress who voices her as well as the artist who drew her. She never refers to the sexualization of women and girls. I never get the impression that this is the kind of stereotyping that she is referring to. Because the racism in “Tom and Jerry” is worse, more blatant, and less accepted today, just as with Tintin, it gets called out while most of sexism is allowed to pass unnoticed. The same kind of sexism is rarely called out when it appears, as it often does, in animated films today. You can watch Goldberg’s intro here.

Personal attacks launched on woman who reported Mirkarimi to police

Posted on by
Reply

It’s well known that in domestic abuse and rape cases, too often, the victim gets put on trial. But I can’t recall a time where the one who reported the crime was personally attacked the way people are going after Ivory Madison, the neighbor who called police to make DV charges against San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi.

In Examiner.com:

Madison’s motive for calling police has been the subject of much debate. Mirkarimi, who has denied the allegations of domestic abuse, at one point suggested nefarious political forces behind the scandal. In an interview with a Venezuelan radio station Tuesday, Lopez — who has publicly denied being abused by her husband — suggested the sheriff was a victim of dirty politics and questioned Madison’s reasons for going to the police.

In the Bay Citizen:

Since the incident, Madison has declined to be interviewed, leaving many questions unanswered, including why she waited four days to call police and then refused to surrender the video.

If we’re guessing about Ivory Madison’s motives for reporting the abuse to police, here’s mine:

Madison and Eliana Lopez were neighbors who reportedly met in a parenting class. Maybe Madison gave a party for Mirkarimi’s campaign in Hayes Valley and supported him financially (reportedly with $500 checks from herself and her husband) in part because of her friendship with Lopez. Not long after Mirkarimi won the election, Lopez told Madison she was abused by him. Lopez also allegedly told Madison that her husband was powerful and that she was afraid he would take their child from her.

Madison has a history of working with and supporting women’s organizations. Most likely, she knows how dangerous reporting these crimes are for women and also how hard DV cases are to prove. Here are some stats:

One in four women (25%) has experienced domestic violence in her lifetime.

Nearly three out of four (74%) of Americans personally know someone who is or has been a victim of domestic violence.

On average, more than three women are murdered by their intimate partners in this country every day.

Domestic violence is one of the most chronically under reported crimes.

Only approximately one-quarter of all physical assaults, one-fifth of all rapes, and one-half of all stalkings perpetuated against females by intimate partners are reported to the police.

My guess is that Madison filmed Lopez because she wanted her to have proof and protection. Madison promised Lopez that she would not release the tape. That’s most likely why she refused to give it up until the police had a warrant to get it.

So why did Madison decide to report the incident to police? Again, my guess is that she realized she had to, that it was her moral obligation. The sheriff plays a leadership role in how all DV cases are responded to in this city. It’s not up to Madison to decide whether or not the charges have merit. It”s a much bigger issue than her personal views or her relationship with Lopez. It’s an issue for the courts. What would you do?

The Bay Citizen reports:

Mirkarimi’s supporters say law enforcement may have overreached in pursuing a domestic violence charge without the victim’s cooperation, adding a child endangerment count even though his son was not physically harmed, and requesting a protective order temporarily separating Mirkarimi from his family.

However, a domestic violence expert, and the police department’s own procedural manual, suggest officials played this case by the book.

It’s often the case that victims of DV recant their stories. That’s why police are instructed to pursue the charges without the victim’s cooperation. In reporting the crime, Ivory Madison did exactly what she was supposed to.

Full disclosure: I supported Chris Cunnie for sheriff, primarily because he actively campaigned to fight domestic violence. I blogged about it here. I met Ivory Madison once at a party. We talked about the lack of female superheroes.

Lego won’t show girls building in its magazine?? Is this true?

Posted on by
12

From MomsLA.com

Lego now has a Lego Club Girls Magazine, which according to a mom whose kids are members, is the only place where Lego will feature pictures that girls send in of themselves with their “builds.” They no longer plan to put pictures of girls in their other magazine, which is both the defacto “boy magazine,” but will continue to be called the Lego Club Jr. Magazine. This segregates girls’ play. Boys should see girls building, and girls should see boys building. For boys, the one place where they might have previously seen girls in official Lego marketing, is now a boys-only space.

Tell me what you know.

Update: From the comments I’ve gotten here and on FB, it seems to me– and this is a guess– that Lego is in the process of deciding, Look at the comments and see what you think. Here is the comment I got back from LEGO on its FB page:

FROM LEGO: Hi Reel Girl! The pages in the magazines displaying children’s builds will feature pictures from girls and boys in both magazines. Thanks for clarifying with us! 🙂

I left LEGO more questions clarifying the clarifying. Will there be girls in Lego Jr Club? Why 2 magazines? Are you going for pretty much equal representation of genders in each or is your goal to primarily have boys reading one and girls reading the other?

Who cares if Scorsese made ‘Hugo’ for his daughter?

Posted on by
Reply

When I posted Golden Globes celebrates boys, ignores girls I got this comment, as I have in the past, on SFGate:

It’s a well know fact that Scorsese made Hugo for his 12 year old daughter!! He mentioned it again last night in his speech.

So what? The movie also has a strong female character, but it’s yet another movie centered on the quest of the male main character: five out of five nominated.

I got this comment on sexism in “Adventures of Tintin:”

Shouldn’t the lack of females not be a problem for you if you’d considered men and women really equal? if you could really identify yourself to a man, and a man to a woman?
So maybe the problem is that men will not identify to women, not the other way around. My point is: the lack of female character is not the problem, the problem is the abundance of women in stupid roles

Huh? Sorry, I identified with females as a child (when I loved Charlie’s Angels because it was one of the few shows on TV where girls actually got to do stuff) and I do now. Those are my choices? No females or females in stupid roles? Really?

People, I don’t know how to write this more clearly. The females in kids’ movies have gone missing. Kids movies. Is “Adventures of Tintin”– created by a misogynist who believed women have no place in his imaginary world– going to win the Academy Award now for best animated film? Is that OK with you? Yes, the animation is spectacular, but would anyone EVER even consider making a kids’ movie based on a series created by a female artist who believed males didn’t belong in her movie? Can you even imagine that movie? If that movie were made, do you think people might notice that males were missing from it?

How to make your kids watch a movie

Posted on by
4

Every weekend day, while my two-year-old naps, the older two kids get to watch a movie. We just got a flat screen TV and can stream Netflix. So exciting for movie lovers. Wow. Have you all been doing this for years? My husband starts going through the options, and the photos come up of all the movies. My kids shout: “Thumbelina! Tangled!”

We say: “Look! “Howl’s Moving Castle!” Miyazaki. I bet that’s great.”

Kids: “No, no, no!”

Grown-ups: “It’ll be so good!”

Kids: “NO!”

One kid bursts into tears. The other sulks.

This is the point where you give in, right? It’s a movie for God’s sake. Who cares? Let them choose. Just as long as they stay quiet so the little one can sleep. They hardly get to pick anything in life. Why not  a movie? What’s the big deal?

But this is where you need to resist. What they watch is really important, and kids are going to choose what they are familiar with. They love routine. So pick for them. Get them to try something new.

This is how our story ends:

We put on “Howl’s Moving Castle.”  They keep crying and sulking. We leave the room. Not a word came out of those kids  for the next two hours. They loved it. Today, they asked to see it again. They just need a little push, the same way with everything else, to try something new. Give it to them. It’s worth it.

Lego responds to parents and misses the point

Posted on by
Reply

Last week, Lego released this statement to parents who are upset about the gender stereotyping marketed to kids:

We want to correct any misinterpretation that LEGO Friends is our only offering for girls. This is by no means the case. We know that many girls love to build and play with the wide variety of LEGO products already available. LEGO Friends joins this global collection of products as yet another theme option from which parents may choose the best building experience for their child’s skill and interest.

We listen very carefully to the opinions and input that people share. We will continue to do so as we develop the LEGO brand to deliver the best experiences with the strongest appeal, and we will review our communications to ensure that we represent LEGO play for all children. We are proud to have developed a collection that is receiving positive feedback and reviews from parents and children who are now trying it at home, and we hope that we will engage even more girls in the skill-developing experience of LEGO play.

Here’s my response back to Lego:

LEGO Systems, Inc.
555 Taylor Road
P.O. Box 1138
Enfield, CT 06083-1138
 
 
Dear Lego,
You’re missing the point. It’s true that Lego Friends is particularly shocking in how it perpetuates gender stereotypes. Still, the problem is not that Friends is the only offering “for girls,” but rather: Why does Lego market so separately to girls at all?
Why does Lego picture mostly boys on its boxes, boys in its TV commercials, and boys flying an airplane on its Facebook Welcome page? When you go to Lego’s website, why are categories organized: Trains, Robotics, Buildings, Vehicles etcetera and then Girls? Why does Lego act as if “Girls” are in a separate category than so many other options? That boys are important and central and that girls are secondary and an afterthought? It’s this belief that permits missteps like the creation of the Friends sets. In your statement, you write: ”We know that many girls love to build and play with the wide variety of LEGO products already available.” But then why doesn’t Lego aggressively market all of its sets to all children? In 1981, you did. What happened?
Sincerely,
Margot Magowan
Please write your own letter to Lego as well. The petition on Change.org asking Lego to stop selling girls out has over 47,000 signatures. You can sign it here.