There were some interesting articles in the news the last few days on how the media portrays women.
The first one is in regards to films based on the theme of survival and how they portray men & women differently. Female survivors tend to be presented in sci-fi/fantasy settings, but men are consistently portrayed in a 'based on a true story' way:
http://www.thestar.com/life/2013/11/18/hollywood_movies_paint_survival_as_a_mans_job.html
The second is about recent research which shows that men show just as much relational/social aggression as women, but this is not portrayed in the media in the same way as 'mean girls':
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/11/18/the_myth_of_the_mean_girl.html
The third is in regards to an upcoming by-election, where two women who have both written about economic theory/worked in journalism are facing off against each other:
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2013/11/18/torontos_mcquaig_and_freeland_are_running_while_female_mallick.html
This article is an opinion article, and I'm not overly fond of this writer, but she does present a decent commentary on how female politicians are still portrayed in Canada.
I know that these are all from the same newspaper, but I don't think that makes these ideas or opinions any less relevant. Since my daughter has been born, I've found that I'm looking a lot more into gender politics and these sorts of things. Like any parent, I want to figure out a way to help improve the world for her - and I think a lot of these things are just as damaging to men (for example: the stereotype that boys aren't allowed to express sadness or hurt except in very specific ways, like physical aggression).
Since I was already looking at the question of whether the media is presenting reality or creating a perception when it comes to certain gender items (or possibly both? creating a perception is leading to a reality which is enforcing the perception?), these articles peaked by interest, especially since they were all published within a few days of each other.
On a final gender note, the paper also did a recent follow up on the story of baby Storm, whose parents decided not to let anyone know the physical gender. I've actually met the mom and the kids a few times, and they were lovely, and are truly doing what they feel is best for their children (just like the rest of us).
http://www.thestar.com/life/parent/2013/11/15/remember_storm_we_check_in_on_the_baby_being_raised_genderneutral.html
Showing posts with label gender politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gender politics. Show all posts
Monday, November 18, 2013
Sunday, May 5, 2013
Branded Balls *Not Those Kind!
WARNING: I'm going to say the word ball or balls a lot in this post. Not in a dirty manner, but if you are like me, you'll giggle anyway. Balls.
Some things that I was vaguely aware of before having a child have come closer into focus for me over the past year and a bit.
One of those things is the ever-present corporate culture in North America. It made me annoyed before the baby, and it makes me more annoyed now, since I've discovered that there are virtually no controls on advertising to children. Things that other people see as cute seems overwhelming to me. It is almost like marketing departments are cowhands, wanting to brand new calves with their ranchers mark as soon as possible.*
Don't get me wrong, sometimes I think knowing a company's product and preferring it over another is fine. Some companies make pants that fit me better than others. However, as much as that corporation would like it, I don't want to advertise that fact to the world by having their name or logo across the butt of said pants.
I feel the same about children's wear. A one-year old does not need a company's logo across the front of their sweat-shirt or on their diapered butt. They can't even read! Other companies get around the lack of literacy by putting character likenesses on *everything*.
*Get off my lawn portion of the rant:* When I was a little kid, which was not forever ago, you could get licensed lunchboxes and backpacks, superhero underoos, and a character shirt if you were lucky enough to visit a themepark. When I hit my teen years, characters and logos started appearing on more things.
Now, you can't swing your arm without hitting something that is either logo'd or that has a licensed character printed on it, especially if it is aimed at kids.
This rant came about because I wanted to get my child a bouncy ball. Just a plain old rubber bouncy ball. It is one of those staple toys that I think every kid should have.
The first issue I had is that regular old rubber balls, for bouncing, that are not a sport specific ball, are really hard to find. I'm assuming this is because marketing departments have yet to find a way to market them as 'educational' and put some sort of computer in them. If you don't believe me, go to the Toys R Us website and search for 'ball.' When I searched today, it pulled up 82 items and none of them were a plain old rubber ball.
I haven't had a lot of luck with other retailers either.
Imagine my surprise when I was picking up supplies from the drugstore yesterday and they had rubber balls, in a size perfect for toddlers, in their seasonal section! For only two dollars!
Unfortunately, every single ball had a lisenced character on it. They were also clearly intended to be gendered. You had your choice of the very pink Barbie ball, the also very pink Hello Kitty ball, the Disney Cars ball (blue & red with only male characters on it) or the Pixar Toy Story ball (blue & green with only Buzz Lightyear & Woody on it).
At this point, I gave up and the baby in my stroller picked the Hello Kitty ball. She knows a good deal when she sees one. At least Hello Kitty is not terribly prevalent in North American advertising.
At this point, my kid isn't able to identify common characters. That day is not far off judging from other kids we know. And I don't know how capable I am of navigating a world where there is a cartoon character at every corner who wants to sell her things.
Sometimes, a toy ball just needs to be a ball and not a marketing ploy.
*I'm not going to make any excuses for this pun. I'm not sorry.
Some things that I was vaguely aware of before having a child have come closer into focus for me over the past year and a bit.
One of those things is the ever-present corporate culture in North America. It made me annoyed before the baby, and it makes me more annoyed now, since I've discovered that there are virtually no controls on advertising to children. Things that other people see as cute seems overwhelming to me. It is almost like marketing departments are cowhands, wanting to brand new calves with their ranchers mark as soon as possible.*
Don't get me wrong, sometimes I think knowing a company's product and preferring it over another is fine. Some companies make pants that fit me better than others. However, as much as that corporation would like it, I don't want to advertise that fact to the world by having their name or logo across the butt of said pants.
I feel the same about children's wear. A one-year old does not need a company's logo across the front of their sweat-shirt or on their diapered butt. They can't even read! Other companies get around the lack of literacy by putting character likenesses on *everything*.
*Get off my lawn portion of the rant:* When I was a little kid, which was not forever ago, you could get licensed lunchboxes and backpacks, superhero underoos, and a character shirt if you were lucky enough to visit a themepark. When I hit my teen years, characters and logos started appearing on more things.
Now, you can't swing your arm without hitting something that is either logo'd or that has a licensed character printed on it, especially if it is aimed at kids.
This rant came about because I wanted to get my child a bouncy ball. Just a plain old rubber bouncy ball. It is one of those staple toys that I think every kid should have.
The first issue I had is that regular old rubber balls, for bouncing, that are not a sport specific ball, are really hard to find. I'm assuming this is because marketing departments have yet to find a way to market them as 'educational' and put some sort of computer in them. If you don't believe me, go to the Toys R Us website and search for 'ball.' When I searched today, it pulled up 82 items and none of them were a plain old rubber ball.
I haven't had a lot of luck with other retailers either.
Imagine my surprise when I was picking up supplies from the drugstore yesterday and they had rubber balls, in a size perfect for toddlers, in their seasonal section! For only two dollars!
Unfortunately, every single ball had a lisenced character on it. They were also clearly intended to be gendered. You had your choice of the very pink Barbie ball, the also very pink Hello Kitty ball, the Disney Cars ball (blue & red with only male characters on it) or the Pixar Toy Story ball (blue & green with only Buzz Lightyear & Woody on it).
At this point, I gave up and the baby in my stroller picked the Hello Kitty ball. She knows a good deal when she sees one. At least Hello Kitty is not terribly prevalent in North American advertising.
At this point, my kid isn't able to identify common characters. That day is not far off judging from other kids we know. And I don't know how capable I am of navigating a world where there is a cartoon character at every corner who wants to sell her things.
Sometimes, a toy ball just needs to be a ball and not a marketing ploy.
*I'm not going to make any excuses for this pun. I'm not sorry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)