“You pillow fight like a bunch of little girls!”

Posted on by
10

Which new movie do you think this line comes from?

Could it possibly be in an animated film where the intended audience is little girls? Little girls who probably love to pillow fight? Who are probably awesome at it? Yep, it’s in the new “Madagascar 3: Europe’s Most Wanted.”

Why would kids need to hear a line making fun of how girls fight? What writer or producer or director could possibly think perpetuating that stereotype would be funny for girls to hear? Or were they, more likely, not thinking about little girls at all?

Here’s the preview:

I saw this with my daughters just before “The Lorax” preview came on which features– surprise, surprise– an ugly woman joke. Both were shown before the Tintin movie which, as I’ve blogged about, gives the impression females hardly exist.

“Madagascar 3,” by the way, features the same 4 main characters as in 1 and 2. Guess how many are female? One, Gloria the Hippo. She has hardly any lines in this preview. There is a female villain played by Frances McDormand who is featured prominently in the preview. I hope she has a big part in the movie as well.

This frat boy mentality that looms over kids movies has to end. Hollywood, please stop programming sexism to kids. It’s not funny.

35,000 have signed the petition against Lego ‘for girls’

Posted on by
4

As of this posting, just over 35,000 people have signed the petition on Change.org asking Lego to stop selling girls out.

The petition, created by SPARK and Powered By Girl, reads:

After 4 years of marketing research, LEGO has come to the conclusion that girls want LadyFigs, a pink Barbielicious product line for girls, so 5 year-olds can imagine themselves at the café, lounging at the poolwith drinks, brushing their hair in front of a vanity mirror, singing in a club, or shopping with their girlfriends. As LEGO CEO Jorgan Vig Knudstorp puts it, “We want to reach the other 50% of the world’s population.”

As representatives of that 50%, we aren’t buying it! Marketers, ad execs, Hollywood and just about everyone else in the media are busy these days insisting that girls are not interested in their products unless they’re pink, cute, or romantic. They’ve come to this conclusion even though they’ve refused to market their products to the girls they are so certain will not like them. Who populates commercials for LEGO? Boys! Where in the toy store can you find original, creative, construction-focused LEGO? The boy aisle! So it’s no wonder LEGO’s market research showed girls want pink, already-assembled toys that don’t do anything. It’s the environment and the message marketers have bombarded girls with for over a decade because, of course, stereotypes make marketing products so much easier. But we remember playing with and loving LEGO when we were little girls.

If you’re not familiar with these new Lego sets, check out this ad. It is not a SNL spoof.

If you haven’t yet signed the petition yet and would like to, please visit Change.org.

Though the petition has received an enormous amount of support, here’s a summary of some responses I’ve gotten in defense of the dumbed-down Lego sets:

Girls don’t have to buy this set; they can buy any set they want. These new sets are just for girls who aren’t buying Lego yet to turn them on to the product.

Lego Friends are aggressively marketed to girls in a 40 million dollar media roll out. All kids see and get influenced by these ridiculous commercials that welcome them to “beautiful Heartlake City” where Stephanie goes to a party at the new cafe to “chill with the girls” or the “beauty shop where Emma gets styled and ready to go.” If Lego wants to attract girls to its product, why doesn’t it aggressively market its other sets to them? Why does Lego show boys on most of its packages, boys in its commercials, boys on its Facebook Welcome page, and sell mostly male figs? Obviously, this is a much bigger issue than just Lego. I recently posted When Hollywood excludes girls, how can Lego market to them? The solution to this sexism marketed to little kids is not for another company to cave into it, turning its once creative toy into Disney princess clones.

The new Legos aren’t as bad as Monster High or Barbie.

Is that the bar we want to measure against? Really? Monster High?

What’s wrong with dolls or “girly” things?

It’s the dominance of this type of toy and how aggressively and relentlessly it’s marketed to girls that is the problem. Girls are taught literally from birth by toys, games, and media aimed at them that first and foremost, what is most important is how they look.

Lego, are you listening to us now? 35,000 customers hope that you are.

The Little Engine That Could got a make-over

Posted on by
5

When I posted yesterday that The Little Engine That Could would probably not find a publisher in today’s segregated pink/ blue kidworld, I didn’t realize that I wasn’t posting the original art. Apparently, Little Engine has been sent off to a make up artist and a plastic surgeon. She now sports mascara, blush, and a brow lift. Comparatively, she looks kind of like a grandma. Nothing wrong with grandmas, of course, but the Little Engine seems more like a youthful character to me. I suppose a grandmotherly/ motherly hero is more compatible and less threatening to the standard male one.

Here are before and after pics:


Sexism in Tintin Part IV

Posted on by
4

I’ve gotten hundreds of comments on Tintin at Reel Girl and SFGate, two I find really interesting. One is an interview with Herge I can’t find right now, but when I have time to sort through the comments, I’ll post for you (Or if you come across it, resend!) The one below is kind of fascinating about how extremely male Tintin’s world truly is– the part about Tintin “graduating from housekeeper to a male butler.” Wow. But the point Lucas makes about “going even further” with my argument into exploring heteronormativity in Tintin as more interesting than “Tintin is sexist” is funny to me. That’s not a more interesting argument to me, Lucas.

Hey there –

Yeah, the early Tintin is amazingly racist. (But at the same time, “The Blue Lotus,” despite its structural racism and the racist/colonial project that drove Hergé to do albums in Africa, in India, in South America, in China, etc., actually allowed Hergé to work through his racist bias and produce what has been describe as a – for its time – very culturally-sensitive and even subversive piece of work.)

More importantly, the entire Tintin opus is intensely homosocial: all men and boys. Tintin even “graduates” from his female housekeeper to sharing a male butler with Captain Haddock when they move in together. The entire economy of the books is male-centered enough to become a little queer, actually. A more interesting argument than “Tintin is sexist” might be “Tintin is sexist to the point that it subverts itself, and starts to push heteronormativity into different patterns of gender and sexuality.” You don’t have to make that argument, of course, but it would be more surprising.

One of the key exceptions to the rule of Tintin’s masculine universe is Bianca Castafiore. Catherine Clément gives a wonderful reading of Castafiore in her famous and important feminist text “Opera, or the Undoing of Women.” In the comics, Castafiore is portrayed as an almost entirely negative figure. Her signature aria, which she performs at every opportunity, is presented as shrill and unpleasant; Captain Haddock, in particular, is constantly pained by her singing.

It’s a shame you were in the bathroom during the Castafiore scene in Spielberg’s movie. That’s where you get to see the adaptation really, well, adapting. The new film actually portrays Castafiore as a magnetic, powerful, and happy woman – not a “beautiful” one, not a “thin” one, not even an accessible one, but as a talented woman whose voice (and the film gives itself fully over to her aria, allowing Renée Fleming to sing without interruption) charms and enchants all who hear it. It’s quite a turn-around from the albums, and portrays her character as something that, according to the sexist logic surrounding the diva, should not exist – an ambitious, successful, and self-defined woman.

Without any consideration of this scene, your argument about the movie and its relationship to its source-text is undeveloped. You don’t have to agree with me, but it’s worth thinking about a moment like this because it would make your overall argument more complex and powerful. There’s also a worthwhile recent volume on the political/social implications of Tintin published last year (“Tintin aux pays des philosophes”), which includes several surprising essays about race and gender in Tintin. This all by way of suggestion, if you would like to make your arguments about this subject more nuanced or compelling.

Click here for more on sexism in Tintin

Would ‘The Little Engine That Could’ get published in 2012?

Posted on by
3

Last night, I read The Little Engine That Could to my two-year-old daughter, and I wondered: Would this spectacular story (about a determined engine who overcomes all odds to save the day) even find a publisher today?

Strike one: The Little Engine is female. If this book were published now, the marketing department would consider it “just for girls.” Everyone knows that boys won’t listen to stories about female heroes. Parents can’t do a thing about it, either. Boys are just born that way. Girls, on the other hand, don’t mind if bedtime stories (or Hollywood movies) don’t include them at all. Go figure.

Strike two: The Little Engine is a train. Everyone knows it’s boys who like trains. Even girls won’t be interested in this story.

Need further proof that The Little Engine That Could was written by a radical lesbian who refers to parents as “breeders”? Here you go. Strike three: The Little Engine is blue. Blue. How subversive can you get?

Reel Girl rates The Little Engine That Could ***GGG*** for triple girlpower. If you don’t own this timeless classic, proceed immediately to the bookstore and buy it for your son or daughter today. If it’s on your bookshelf, read it to the family tonight.

If you can’t see it, you can’t be it

Posted on by
16

I am reposting with art for those who argue “Tintin in the Congo” is not racist. Also, one more time: the point is that the lack of female roles in the Tintin movie’s cast is consistent with most of the movies made for kids today. Girls have gone missing in kids’ movies and that means that both genders learn that boys are more important than girls. Parents, this is not okay. If you can’t see it, you can’t be it.

Commenters are defending the Tintin movie, writing that creator Herge’s sexism was simply a product of his times.

Margot, you are aware that Hergé wrote most of his comic books (including the three on which the film is based) before WWII, at a time when women in his home country of Belgium as in many others didn’t even have the right to vote? Of course his work reflects the prejudices of that era, not only towards women but towards just about everyone who wasn’t a white Christian male (the most egregious example being Tintin in the Congo)!

Would Steven Spielberg adapt Herge’s racist views (“of his times”) expressed in Tintin in the Congoto make a movie in 2012 and market that movie to kids?

Of course not. No one would see it. People would be horrified. Herge’s racist views are universally recognized as the aberration that they are. Why is Herge’s “dated” sexism celebrated in a loyal adaptation from one of our most acclaimed directors?

There are two answers, both are true. The first one is that in 2012 sexism is, in many ways, just as accepted and “normal” as it was in 1932. Women are humiliated and degraded all the time, but while racism is seen as a political issue, sexism is still seen as a “cultural” one.

The second, less controversial explanation is that in Herge’s comics, he directly degrades and humiliates Africans whereas his sexism mostly manifests as an omission. His racism is worse. Herge believes women have no place in his imaginary world. Is that offensive? Is it even sexist?

It’s an annihilation.

What is remarkable about this annihilation, and what I was writing about, is that it’s consistent with the casts of most animated movies made today. A story originally created by an artist who spoke openly of how he didn’t think females should be included in his imaginary world is almost indistinguishable from the majority of films made for kids right now. Steven Spielberg probably didn’t even notice.

What does that say about how important we think girls are?

See Reel Girl’s Gallery of Girls Gone Missing from Kids Films in 2011.

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

It’s my birthday! Advice to 23 year old me

Posted on by
12

Today I’m 43. Last year on my birthday, I wrote about the cool surprise of my 40s being completely awesome so far. That continues to be true.

Here’s just one example relevant to this blog: in my twenties, I don’t think I would’ve been able to handle all the negative comments I get in reaction to a lot of the stuff I write. People make so many personal attacks that have nothing to do with my argument, it would’ve driven me crazy. There’s an option on my SFGate blog not to accept comments, and I would’ve probably used that if I blogged at all.

For many years, I worked in talk radio, which in some ways, I think, was a precedent to the internet as far as the spontaneity,  anonymity, and accessibility. I was used to hearing people say horrible things, just not to me. Slight difference. I was the producer, but it still got me really upset. Especially when they called the host who I worked for “fat.” When someone lost a heated argument, invariably, they would shout, “You fat fuck!” and hang up. “How do you handle it?” I asked. The host, Bernie Ward, laughed, shrugged, and said, “I know when they get to that, they have nothing else to say.”

Here’s what I’ve learned in my old age: Think of the worst, most horrible thing you can ever imagine someone saying to you. Got it? If you want to write or speak publicly, that will be said. Count on it. Multiple times. In ways you never imagined. But guess what? It doesn’t matter. And once you experience that and survive it, it’s kind of amazing and liberating. I wish I hadn’t spent so much time worrying about what other people might think or say. What a huge waste of time.

I hope women in their twenties are smarter than I was and know that. But in case you don’t, if you are reading this, please write. I hope you write novels or screenplays or blog or whatever. The sooner you start, the better for us. The world needs your stories. Desperately. And open an IRA. Right now. Don’t drink so much. Quit smoking. Finally, calm down– even cranky, prickly you will meet the man of your dreams.

Racism, sexism, and Herge

Posted on by
1

Commenters are defending the Tintin movie, writing that creator Herge’s sexism was simply a product of his times.

Margot, you are aware that Hergé wrote most of his comic books (including the three on which the film is based) before WWII, at a time when women in his home country of Belgium as in many others didn’t even have the right to vote? Of course his work reflects the prejudices of that era, not only towards women but towards just about everyone who wasn’t a white Christian male (the most egregious example being Tintin in the Congo)!

Would Steven Spielberg adapt Herge’s racist views (“of his times”) expressed in Tintin in the Congo to make a movie in 2012 and market that movie to kids?

Of course not. No one would see it. People would be horrified. Herge’s racist views are universally recognized as the aberration that they are. Why is Herge’s “dated” sexism celebrated in a loyal adaptation from one of our most acclaimed directors?

There are two answers, both are true. The first one is that in 2012 sexism is, in many ways, just as accepted and “normal” as it was in 1932.  Women are humiliated and degraded all the time, but while racism is seen as a political issue, sexism is still seen as a “cultural” one.

The second, less controversial explanation is that in Herge’s comics, he directly degrades and humiliates Africans whereas his sexism mostly manifests as an omission. His racism is worse. Herge believes women have no place in his imaginary world. Is that offensive? Is it even sexist?

It’s an annihilation.

What is remarkable about this annihilation, and what I was writing about, is that it’s consistent with the casts of most animated movies made today. A story originally created by an artist who spoke openly of how he didn’t think females should be included in his imaginary world is almost indistinguishable from the majority of filmsmade for kids right now. Steven Spielberg probably didn’t even notice.

What does that say about how important we think girls are?

See Reel Girl’s Gallery of Girls Gone Missing from Kids Films in 2011.

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

“There’s no law that they can’t go in the store and buy the Frank Lloyd Wright line” –Matt Lauer on girl Legos

Posted on by
20

Thank God for Star Jones.

Yesterday, on “The Today Show,” Matt Lauer, Nancy Snyderman, Donnie Deutsch, and Star discussed the Legos for girls. Everyone seemed to think selling girls out was pretty hilarious. I transcribed the segment below ( It may not be perfect but it’s very close. The version I found on the Today site missed words and didn’t attribute them.) My comments are in italics. You can watch the segment here.

Matt Lauer: Lego has a brand new line of products coming out marketed specifically to girls, but some are arguing it’s sexist and stereotypical because the lady Legos work in places like beauty salons, cupcake factories, and vet offices.

Would Matt say “gentleman Legos”? Or is he adopting Lego’s “ladyfig” term? Or, is he being facetious in which case: ha ha

Star Jones: And they give you little electric mixers and brushes and combs and purses.

Thank you, Star. Well said.

Donnie Deutsch: Perfect, perfect.

Ha ha?

Matt Lauer: You’re sounding down on this.

Ha?

Jones: When you’re a little girl, you want to build bridges also. You want to put them on top of each other. You don’t want–

Lauer: So go out and buy the architectural Lego.

(Nancy Snyderman laughs.)

Jones: Which is exactly the way my three year old goddaughter does. She has the architectural one. The big yellow ones.

Thank you Star for trying to explain.

Nancy Snyderman: These are perfectly okay. The reality is there is a gender difference. Girls like playing with girl’s things, and you’re still constructing things. If the cupcake girl can still do calculus, I have no issue.

If the cupcake girl knows calculus, it’s not because of Friends Lego. The focus of the Friends sets is not  construction or imagination. Everyone chant together now: Girls like playing with girl things! Girls like playing with girl things! If we say it enough, it will come true!

Deutsch: By the way, an example yesterday, I took my little girls to a craft studio where you paint and draw. They picked the cupcakes and the girl things. They were still learning to draw but they were doing it their way. Having said that though, where I do have a problem is when you separate the 50 most powerful business women. The more you separate men and women, that’s keeping the distinction, so there’s a double edged sword.

And the difference is? That’s not a double edge, dude, it’s an edge. One more time: Girls like playing with girl things!

Jones: They put those Legos in the girls section.

Star tries again. Thank you, Star.

Lauer: Here’s a response from Lego: We’re typically acknowledged as a toy for boys. Currently only 9% of American girls are building. The Lego Friends line is the result of four year of global research to understand what would attract more girls to building.

At this point I would’ve said: “Of course Lego said that. They’re trying to sell toys to parents.” But instead everyone except for Star leaps on Lego’s statement as if it’s Gospel.

Deutsch: You’re teaching them to build!

Snyderman: It gets girls into architecture and math and design, I’m all for it!

Jones: Give them some alternatives for goodness sake.

Lauer: There’s no law that says they can’t go to the store and buy the Frank Lloyd Wright line.

There’s no law, Matt. It’s called marketing. Isn’t this segment about Lego marketing to girls?

Jones: They put the Legos in the girls sections.

Star tries a fourth time to discuss how corporations market gender.

Deutsch: Little Girls do like princesses and things like that. I like princesses.

When princesses are practically the only way girls get represented or are allowed to be the center of attention, or stars, in movies, games, toys, and TV, of course, they’re going to like them. Beggars can’t be choosers.

Snyderman: And will parents buy this for boys? (Laughs)

Deutsch: No they won’t.

Lauer: That’s probably not going to happen

(Everyone laughs)

To me, that’s the lowlight of this whole segment. Parents wouldn’t be caught dead buying Friends Legos for their sons. Why? First, it’s a stupid toy. Look how early it starts: boy stuff is cool and girl stuff has cooties. Parents feel comfortable when their kids fall neatly into gender norms and corporations play to that.  If a boy tries on a barrette, the parent pays little attention, but if he picks up a train, “He’s such a boy! Look at him go!” Of course, it goes way beyond that. As I keep writing about this issue, kids learn through play. Play is supposed to challenge children out of their comfort zones to help their brains grow. Parents, please challenge your kids.