How about ninjas wielding nunchuks?

This is one of the sticker puzzle Valentines that came home with my son today.

Not exactly Cupid and his bow, is it?

Images like this have become so normalized in the pop culture aimed at boys that no one even questions the messages they are sending.

Aside from the violent image and the text that signals what a “hero” is supposed to be, there is a subtext about emotional expression: Valentine’s Day is the one occasion where boys are supposed to share kind words and convey some feeling of friendship, yet even here the cultural imperative to be overtly and stereotypically masculine rules.

Critics will say I’m overreacting. I concede that one card is unlikely to permanently sway a boy’s attitudes toward gender, violence, and the definition of the word “hero.” But cards like this are another piece of the gender puzzle; part of the “environment of images” that shapes a boy’s view of what it means to be male.*

When it comes to selecting Valentine cards, kids often go for what is popular. Ninjago certainly fits that description, just as the equally violent Transformers did a couple of years ago.

But maybe instead of just going along, we adults should use cards like this to start a discussion with our sons about what the images and text actually mean, and whether the cards are the best choice for an occasion that is supposed to be about “love,” not war.

But of all the criticisms I receive on this blog, there is one that really irks me: the assertion that my discussion of male gender stereotypes is just a thinly veiled plot to turn boys into “honorary women.”*

I was reminded of the intensity of this sentiment yesterday when someone posted a link to an appallingly misogynistic video in the comments of one of my posts. The video argued that feminism’s end game is the complete emasculation of men. Another comment on the same post claimed, sarcastically, that we should just let boys wear pink and purple (as if that is really a problem) and that we should go so far as to let men and women share the same bathrooms.

At no time have I ever advocated anything so ridiculous. Nor have I ever said that boys should be forced into so-called “feminine” behaviour. In fact, my argument is quite the opposite. I am asking that boys stop being forced into certain roles simply because they are boys. And the other “feminazis” (to quote that video) who work on the same issues as me have made the same argument.

The corollary to the “you want boys to become girls” argument is that I am denying boys’ nature; that, left to their own devices, boys will naturally prefer “boy things.” To this I say, “By all means, let nature take its course.” In other words, get out of the way. Keep your opinions about what a boy should do or should play with to yourself and see what happens. Yes, many boys will choose trucks and light sabers, but some will choose trucks and a doll, light sabers and a toy kitchen, or—gasp—pink and purple LEGO. And that is okay. There is no reason to think that a boy who doesn’t act “typical” of his gender is some kind of shameful aberration. He’s just a kid being a kid.

The discussion of kids and gender stereotypes is not about pushing children into gender-atypical roles just to prove a point. Nor is it about establishing female dominance over men. (As if!) Rather, it is about letting kids explore the world on their own terms without feeling that they are limited to certain activities, attitudes, and behaviours because of their sex.

We feminists have no hidden agenda. We just want to give our kids the freedom to be themselves.

References

*Nathanson, Paul and Katherine K. Young.Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture. Montréal: McGill University Press, 2001.

Like the people protesting the LEGO Friends line, I have had visitors to this site tell me, in defense of the company,  that: LEGO is a business; they need to make money; they are only making what sells; and it’s not their responsibility to tackle weighty issues like gender stereotypes. Fair arguments perhaps, but I would like to invite those individuals to read the Company Information section of LEGO’s website, then consider whether or not LEGO owes children a more balanced and thoughtful representation of gender.

Let me provide a few examples of what the company claims, juxtaposed with images from some of its marketing. Emphasis in bold text is mine. All images are from the LEGO website.

Caring and Learning

Learning is about opportunities to experiment, improvise and discover – expanding our thinking and doing (hands-on, minds-on), helping us see and appreciate multiple perspectives. (From The LEGO Brand.)

Hmm. Expanding kids’ thinking by telling them that pink and purple are for girls…

…or violent toys are for boys…

…or that the difficult work of saving the world is a job for “gentlemen…”

…or “boys” with big guns?

Caring is about the desire to make a positive difference in the lives of children, for our partners, colleagues and the world we find ourselves in, and considering their perspective in everything we do. (From The LEGO Brand.)

“Caring,” shown through positive, life-affirming imagery like this?

or this…

The Skrall, pictured above, are described as: “…arrogant, vicious, brutal, fear nothing and care about even less. They are incredibly skilled fighters, both with and without weapons. What they may lack in technique they make up for with sheer bludgeoning power and strength.”

Or the Heroica character below…

…whose character description reads: “SURGE, there’s been a breakout at the Hero Factory and we need your help recapturing them! We can’t leave anything to chance, so we’ve equipped you with a high-power electricity shooter, plasma gun and super-thick armour. Slap those cuffs on them and give them the shock of their lives!” Yikes!

Perspective

The word “perspective” is used twice in the passages from the LEGO Corporate pages that I cited above. For example, from the excerpt on “caring,” it says that the company considers the “perspective” of children, colleagues and partners in everything they do. And how do the images below affect a child’s perspective on gender?

Intergalactic Girl

(Note that she is a girl, not an astronaut or spacewoman, while her male counterpart, below, is a spaceman.)

Spaceman

The LEGO Friends, below, are hanging out…

… in contrast to the Alien Conquest soldiers, below, who are all male and ready to save the world.

Or how about the LEGO cheerleader, described in her bio as waving her pom-poms wildly whenever she talks, “which is pretty much all the time.”

Or, finally, one of my personal favourites…

LEGO’s Not Walking the Walk

All large companies are guilty of spinning public perception  vis-a-vis their degree of corporate responsibility, but these words and  images show the incredible disconnect between LEGO’s purported values and their actions. And they are marketing to children, let’s not forget.

How do corporate brand priorities like “caring” and “learning” mesh with violent, bludgeoning toys for boys and a pinkified world for girls, or the near-complete absence of girls from the playsets aimed at boys?

And what are boys learning about their place in the world through the messages sent by LEGO marketing? Aggression is a highly valued trait for boys. Girls don’t rescue, they get rescued. Boys can’t play with pink things, play houses, or restaurants– those are the domains of females. (Watch Feminist Frequency‘s latest video on this. They raise some amusing questions about what the men of LEGO City do when they feel tired or hungry, since there are no houses or restaurants in their town.)

I know that LEGO is not the only toy maker to trade on gender stereotypes but they are pretty intent on making themselves seem like a compassionate company with children’s best interests at heart. (By way of contrast, I checked the Mattel site–another toy maker known for its less-than-progressive views on gender. Their Corporate Responsibility page says nothing about “caring,”  ”learning,”  or the value of a child’s play experience. Its focus is more on safe play and ethical sourcing. Their code of conduct talks only about achieving success and employee integrity.)

So LEGO, to use a cliche, if you are going to talk the talk, you need to walk the walk. And sexist, violent, stereotyped imagery is not the way to do it.

#####

As an aside, I thought I’d add this bit from the LEGO site:

As corporate citizens in the local communities in which we operate, we acknowledge that we have a responsibility that goes beyond the value chain of our products. We truly appreciate our close stakeholder relationships, which influence our strategic decisions and give us valuable knowledge about the impact of our actions. (From Stakeholder Engagement)

We’ll see about that. To date, there has been no response to SPARK Summit‘s 50,000-name petition about LEGO Friends.

Why a special day for family literacy? Here are a few facts from ABC Life Literacy Canada that explain:

• For a child, the more time spent with a parent reading aloud increases his or her level of attachment, enhances a sense of security, and imparts the knowledge that their parent feels they are worthwhile people with whom to spend time (How to Raise a Reader, 1987).
• Having a parent or other caring person read aloud with their children helps children learn listening skills, vocabulary and language skills, as well as develop imagination and creativity (Family Literacy Foundation, 2001).
• Reading to children more than once a day has a substantial positive impact on their future academic skills. In addition, research indicates children with early exposure to books and reading are better at performing mathematical tasks (National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth, Statistics Canada, 1996-1997).
• Children aged 2 to 3 who are read to several times a day do substantially better in kindergarten at the age of 4 and 5 than youngsters who are read to only a few times a week or less (National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth, Statistics Canada, 1996-1997).

It is probably obvious to readers of my book and this blog that reading is a huge part of my family life. While I love sharing a good book with my sons, I also look for opportunities to broaden their view of gender through the images and words in a story.

For that reason, I seek out children’s books that have a good degree of gender balance. I have included a list of some of my favourites on my Good Books for Boys page. (In reality, the gender-positive books on my list are suitable for children of either sex. I have only labelled them as “good for boys” because I write about boys. More on my reasoning below.)

As I say in the introduction to the book list, I am not a fan of segregating books (or toys or films) by gender, but when it comes to recommended books, I find that boys are usually pushed toward stories about males exclusively.

While there is nothing wrong with boys reading books with male protagonists, I think their world view should includes stories about females too. As I say in a post about the absence of female characters in the books typically recommended for boys:

By having their scope of interest narrowed, even with the best of intentions, boys will continue to believe that stories about women and girls are less interesting and less relevant to them, simply because they are about the opposite sex.

If we ever hope to achieve sexual equality, we need to teach boys from a young age to value girls and women. Denying them stories about females is definitely a step in the wrong direction.

In addition to female protagonists, the books I have selected include positive portrayals of fathers, and men and boys in general.  For example, the “brat” and aggressive “alpha-male” characters that appear in many books are absent from my list.

The list is divided into three categories–chapter books and graphic novels, non-fiction, and picture books. The list is not long–yet. I add to it gradually as I discover new books and I always welcome recommendations from others.

Happy reading and please comment with other suggestions! Thanks!

NOTE: This review is part of the blog tour for this book. More details on the tour can be found at the bottom of the post. 

~~~

Noah Zarc: Mammoth Trouble is the story of a family from the future that time travels back to a pre-apocalypse Earth to save animals and make the planet habitable again.

Normally I am not a huge fan of sci-fi fantasy stuff like this. Sure, I loved the equally fantastical Percy Jackson series and have a weakness for far-fetched superhero stories, but the premise of Noah Zarc did not click with me at first. Maybe it was the time travel element, and the fact that each of the protagonist’s parents was time-trapped in a different era. I just didn’t think I’d be able to get into the book or find much in it to recommend. But then I started reading.

The first chapter hooked me and, although I had to put the book down and come back to it, once I returned I found myself really liking it. The plot is compelling and has surprising depth. And the characters are fully developed with none of the stereotyping that plagues so many kids’ action stories.

Noah is twelve years old and was born without the use of his legs. His physical challenges, while discussed openly, do not define him or limit him. He is a compassionate boy who loves his family and is devoted to their mission to save animals before the “Cataclysm” that rendered many of them extinct.

As the story unfolds, Noah is faced with some startling revelations about his parents. His reactions are very realistic and, throughout, he shows a great deal of maturity and empathy. He also shows tremendous understanding for the “bad guy.”

Other characters in the book—male and female—are equally well drawn. As I said in the notes I wrote while reading, “The men in the story are multi-dimensional. They are capable of great compassion and are also realistic, showing emotions like anger, not in a stereotypical nasty and brutish way, but in a relatable, human way.”

The females are also presented well. There are a couple of comments about the appearance of Noah’s older sister, Sam, but it is clear that her looks are not the most important thing about her. She is decisive, authoritative, and a highly skilled mechanic. Adina, the cave girl whom Noah befriends, is a quick thinker who saves Noah and his mom at least once. Noah’s mother, with whom he enjoys a close relationship, is a renowned scientist.

And remember what I said about depth? This exchange between Noah and his mom is an example of how life lessons are embedded in the story:

“Mom, do you think I’ll ever be like everyone else?”

 She looked up from her work. “Of course not, Noah. You’re—”

 “Special.” I glared at her. “Maybe I don’t want to be special.”

 She got down on the floor and wrapped me in her arms.

 “Everyone enters this world with some kind of handicap,” she said. “Whether it’s the place they live, the family they’re born into, or the weakness of their legs. No one has a perfect life.”

Even back then, when I was still just a kid, she didn’t sugarcoat the truth.

 “What makes each of us special is how we deal with our circumstances.” She moved hair out of my face. “I probably don’t tell you often enough how proud I am of you. You handle yourself better than I ever could.” I looked into her eyes. There were no tears, just a firm conviction that she would never let me go.

 Noah Zarc: Mammoth Trouble is the first in a series and is recommended for ages 9-12. While the science of time travel is explained, it may be hard for kids to understand. (Fortunately, it is not necessary to grasp the finer points in order to enjoy the story.) The somewhat bleak future presented in the story might be unsettling for some children, but the various plot points are sure to inspire discussions about how we treat our planet and how we deal with challenges.

Highly recommended.

Blog Tour Notes

OVERVIEW

Noah lives for piloting spaceships through time, dodging killer robots and saving Earth’s animals from extinction.

Life couldn’t be better.

But the twelve-year-old time traveler learns it could be a whole lot worse. His mom is kidnapped and taken to Mars; his dad is stranded in the Ice Age; and Noah is attacked at every turn by a foe bent on destroying Earth… for the second time.

Get your copy today by visiting Amazon.com (available in paperback or as an eBook) or the online retailer of your choice (more links below).

CASH PRIZES

Guess what? You could win a $50 Amazon gift card as part of this special blog tour. That’s right! Just leave a comment below saying something about the post you just read, and you’ll be entered into the raffle. I could win $50 too by having the most comments. So tell your friends to stop by and comment on this post too!

GIVEAWAY

Win 1 of 5 copies of the paperback version of Noah Zarc: Mammoth Trouble by entering the giveaway on GoodReads.

THE AUTHOR

D. Robert Pease has been interested in creating worlds since childhood. From building in the sandbox behind his house, to drawing fantastical worlds with paper and pencil, there has hardly been a time he hasn’t been off on some adventure in his mind, to the dismay of parents and teachers alike. Also, since the moment he could read, books have consumed vast swaths of his life. From The Mouse and the Motorcycle, to The Lord of the Rings, worlds just beyond reality have called to him like Homer’s Sirens. It’s not surprising then he chose to write stories of his own. Each filled with worlds just beyond reach, but close enough we can all catch a glimpse of ourselves in the characters.

Discover ways to connect with the author by visiting his site at www.drobertpease.com

BOOK TRAILER

THANK YOU! for visiting. And don’t forget to comment below for that chance to win the $50 Amazon gift card. And of course head on over to your favorite online book store and buy a copy of Noah Zarc: Mammoth Trouble, for you or for the kids in your life.

Amazon Paperback | Amazon Kindle | Barnes & Noble Nook | Apple iBookstore | Smashwords | Diesel eBook Store | CreateSpace Paperback | Amazon UK | Amazon France | Amazon Germany

Picture from mastermindtoys.com

In a previous post  I was critical of the new LEGO for girls, called LEGO Friends. Wanting another opinion, I asked my son. I told him nothing about what’s been said online. I merely browsed the most recent LEGO catalogue with him.

For the record, he is five years old. He is a LEGO fan, so he is somewhat less than objective about new products from the company. And he has been raised to believe there are no gender limits on playthings, a philosophy that could colour his view of toys like LEGO Friends.

On looking at the 2-page-spread of these toys, he said he would really like to play with them. I asked him if the toys looked the same or different from his LEGO. He said the characters’ hands and hair were the same, but the bodies were different. He later noted that their shoes and dresses were different, but that he liked them just as much as regular LEGO mini-figures. He also said he liked the colours in the sets.

As far as the sets themselves, he was quite excited about Olivia’s Tree House (which he called a “fort”). He liked Olivia’s house as well, because it has a lawn mower, barbecue, and mailbox. And he loved the City Cafe. He could not figure out what the Butterfly Beauty Shop was, but when I told him the name of the set, he immediately said he didn’t like it. Maybe it was the word “beauty”?  But, all in all, he quite liked the toys and was intent on buying a set with his Christmas money.

My son’s reaction to the toys shows what can happen when you separate a toy from the marketing, in as much as it is possible for anyone to do so. He has only seen the catalogue ads, which aren’t nearly as pink and “girly” as one might assume. He can’t read the catalogue copy that says things like: “Shop for lipstick, makeup and hair accessories. Emma and all of her friends will look fabulous with bows, sunglasses, a hairbrush, mirror, lipsticks, and new hair styles.” And he hasn’t seen the TV or website ads for the toys, which I’ve heard are pretty stereotyped. (I thought of showing them to him to get his opinion but decided not to. Why promote the view that these toys are only for girls, when he sees them as suitable for anyone?)

Our conversation reinforces a point I’ve made on this blog before. In the absence of advertising that dictates who should play with a toy, kids are free to make their own decisions about what they like, without feeling that their choice is wrong or some kind of betrayal of their sex. They can put their own spin on things and make imaginary worlds of their own choosing, as my son started to do by calling Olivia’s tree house a fort. I could see the wheels turning as he imagined everything he could do with that set. The fact that it comes with a female mini-figure didn’t faze him in the least.  Even the hair dryers and other accessories that come with some of the sets were okay by him. After all, to him a hair dryer is just an everyday object that he sees being used by both his mom and dad.

(Unfortunately, the marketing did exert some influence, even during our short conversation. As excited as he was about these toys, he did seem to recognize that they are intended more for girls. When we turned to a second page of the toys, he said, “Here’s some more girl stuff and boys’ if they want it.” I asked him if he thought boys would like these toys and he said “Maybe a little bit.” His assessment did not dampen his enthusiasm for the toys, but it did make him think twice about whether all boys would like these toys.)

What he said got me thinking–a lot. My first reaction to these toys was that they are very limiting to girls, and I still believe that. But what about boys? Could the toys that narrow girls’ opinions of themselves actually broaden a boy’s world view? Toy sets in this line include a nearly non-gender specific lab, tree house, and restaurant. The play scenarios are led by females. And there is nothing like them in other LEGO product lines. My son can completely relate to these toys, so I found myself asking: are the toys really that terrible or is it just the marketing that surrounds them?

On the other hand, I wondered if these toys would restrict a boy’s view of girls. The mini-skirted, makeup-wearing mini-figures do not exactly send positive messages about how girls should dress, and may reinforce the idea that girls should always look “pretty.” And then there’s that beauty salon. But if he’s okay with the mini-figures and most of the sets, should I be worried?

We went out today to buy a birthday present and he gave these toys a good, hard look. The one he really wanted was out of his price range, so he went home empty-handed. I’m still not sure if that is a good or bad thing.

Happy holidays to everyone who is celebrating at this time of year. See you again in 2012!

There have been plenty of blog posts written, a few of which were collected into a tweet by Erin at Marketing, Media and Childhood. Erin listed a post from Pigtail Pals, Jezebel, and her own post. Since then, at least one other person I know has weighed in: Dr. Jen Shewmaker on her Don’t Conform Transform blog.

There has also been activity on Twitter, under the hashtag LegoFAIL. (#LegoFAIL)

Just now I noticed another interesting form of protest from SheHeroes, who suggested that people “like” LEGO on Facebook and then post the picture above with the comment “”Forget the pink aisles and new girl figures with breasts, bring back beautiful!” And people have responded. If you’re on Facebook, check out the LEGO page to see what’s happening.

As I have said before, I am not anti-LEGO. We have tons of the stuff in our house. But I am troubled by the increasing gender bias in their toys. Boys get extreme violence in the marketing and the toys. (See the images in this post.) Girls get pink and purple mini-figures with professions like beautician and socialite. Seriously.

Add to all of this LEGO action the news that a department store in the UK changed the pink and blue layout of its toy department, and I’d say things are looking up for those of us working to change the gendered way that toys are marketed. These may be baby steps,  but they are going in the right direction.

Image from Princess Free Zone

So LEGO announced this week that it is making a line of toys for girls. The company claims its market research showed that girls value “beauty” and storytelling over the act of building i.e. the challenge that boys enjoy in completing a set is not as important to girls, who would rather create “harmonious” worlds made of “friendly” colours. (The full story is here.)

I assume this is the same type of research that told LEGO that boys like male characters who “crush” opponents, use their “brute strength” against their enemies, and, according to old copy for the Bionicles line, possess “sheer bludgeoning power.” Stereotype much?

The new girls’ LEGO will have a redesigned minifigure that “looks like” a girl, unlike the current figure. In reality, the standard minifigure does not resemble any human I’ve ever seen—male or female—but apparently its unrealistic look is only troublesome for girls, obsessed as they are by appearances and having “pretty” playthings.

How this new line differs from LEGO’s old Belville line is not entirely clear to me. The figures are both overly feminized and nothing like the traditional minifigure. Compare the figure above to the one from the Belville line, below.

Image from lego.com

And if Belville isn’t selling, why does LEGO think an updated version based on the same stereotypes will?

Oh, right. They are creating a narrative for each “girl” figure and making her a collectible. According to LEGO’s UK Managing Director Marko Ilincic, girls like “collectibles like dolls.” (I guess he hasn’t noticed that boys like to collect things too—witness the popularity of his own Star Wars and other minifigures, Pokemon cards, Beyblades, HexBugs, GoGos, Bakugan, and Redakai toys. Hmm, maybe boys and girls aren’t as different as LEGO thinks.)

Mr. Ilincic shares his other insights on gender and toys in this article, where, failing to see the irony, he makes statements like: “Between the ages of two and five, girls play with Lego as much as boys. But all this changes when children go to school, after which most girls rapidly lose interest as they become more conscious of their gender.” And where, might I ask, do girls get their ideas about appropriate gender behaviour if not, in part, from the marketing materials produced by toy companies like LEGO? But I digress.

Could it be that LEGO’s research is flawed? Was it constructed to fit a certain narrative, based on the laziness (to quote my friend Michele at Princess Free Zone) that characterizes most toy makers? Laziness that leads to a reliance on old stereotypes to develop and market toys?

I have to contrast this state of affairs with my own childhood, as Princess Free Zone has also done by posting a LEGO ad from 1981 that shows a girl playing with “regular” LEGO. (Also in the post I linked to above.) When I was a kid, I played with regular LEGO blocks in standard colours. Of course, those were the days before LEGO decided to go into elaborate kits with tie-ins to major entertainment franchises, like Star Wars, Harry Potter, Toy Story and, most recently, superheroes.

I’m not trying to be nostalgic or present a too-rosy view of the past, but if generic LEGO blocks were good enough for boys and girls more than three decades ago, and we are supposedly living in more progressive times, why the intense stereotyping of the LEGO experience?

LEGO’s “problem” with girls is its own doing. Girls of my generation were perfectly content to play with “regular” LEGO.  But since that time LEGO has moved so far in creating highly stereotyped toys aimed at boys, and drawn such a rigid gender line in its products and marketing, that it has alienated half of its potential customer base. Now they are trying to woo that 50% back with an overly feminized line that seems to consist of little more than miniature Barbies or American Girls. Maybe if they focused instead on creating a few toys that are fun and do not hew to stereotypes, or venturing away from the “kit” model and back to the freedom and creativity that a box of bricks allows, they’d get a larger female fan base.

Of course it’s not just LEGO. I was shopping for a birthday present last weekend and stumbled upon a new line of Playmobil figures, designed undoubtedly to compete with the individual LEGO minifigures about which I have written before.

When I first started buying Playmobil for my son, it was fairly gender neutral. Fire trucks, police vehicles, doll houses, and other sets came with male and female characters, inviting children of both sexes to take part in a variety of activities. Now this? (Images from amazon.uk.)

The Playmobil figures are so new that they are hard to find online, even on the Playmobil website, so I can’t find a list of what each of the characters is supposed to be, but there does seem to be a sharp contrast between them.

Notwithstanding the dominance of princess-y types on the female side and creepy characters on the male side (is that an executioner in the bottom right of the boys’ toys?), there is the pink and blue packaging, which makes it clear which line is, supposedly, for which sex. Sigh.

LEGO and Playmobil are good quality toys, but their increasingly stereotyped products and compulsion to push kids in one direction or the other are disheartening and disappointing.

Why place so many limits on play? Why not just create fun and creative toys, put them out in the marketplace, and let kids decide what they like, without the restrictive gender messaging?

Clawdeen Wolf, from www.monsterhigh.com

I recently wrote a post about my son’s view of Monster High dolls. A commenter noted that while he/she understood what I was trying to do, what I had actually done was teach my son “to look at people superficially, to Judge people by how they look and dress instead of actually getting to know someone.”

Point taken. I certainly do not wish to teach that lesson to my son, and had not intended to when I asked him what he thought of the dolls. I was looking at them as toys and had not considered that their animated counterparts might have something valuable to say to children.

The commenter asked me to let my son watch the videos before allowing him to judge the characters and also said that:

The theme in Monster High is to embrace your differences, each of the main characters is completely different from one another (A vampire, Frankenstein, Werewolf, Sea Creature, Mummy, Zombie and Gorgon) All different, all friends and all helping each other out. Sure they do Girly things, it’s a Girly series, they also do sporty things, and brainy thing. But you look at the toy and you dont get that. because you a judging the show by how the characters look.

Monster High videos come in short “websiodes” and TV length episodes. I watched all of the TV episodes and six or seven of the websiodes.

It’s true that the TV shows produced so far deliver a strong message about embracing your own uniqueness and valuing diversity. (The webisodes, not so much. Check out this short one to see what I mean.) Some of the girls do, indeed, come across as intelligent and capable of solving their own problems. But the subject of appearance never really goes away and, in fact, dilutes or even obscures the message of accepting others as they are.

My commenter suggested that I not judge the characters by the way they look. The trouble is, the marketing and much of the messaging in the show is about nothing but the characters’ appearance.

Rather than highlight what the dolls stand for, the earliest TV commercial speaks of how they look, with the following ad copy:

“Frankie’s electrifying, stitching with style…,” “Clawdeen’s killer boots, fantastic smile…,” and “Get your fashion freak on. Wicked styles so good, it’s scary.”

Appearance is also apparent in the Monster High theme song. The TV show’s opening sequence features a male voice rapping about each of the female characters: “Frankie’s got me falling apart. Draculaura stealing my heart. Clawdeen Wolf makes me howl at the moon. Lagoona, you’re the finest fish in this lagoon…” (For the record, it also references the “stone cold style” of one of the male characters.) The first verse of the song, heard in dance sequences in the videos, talks about “sinister style” and being “drop dead gorgeous.”

And the characters themselves are extremely concerned about their appearance. In the videos, I saw frequent images of girls applying lipstick, looking in mirrors, filing nails in class, and talking about their clothes. Sample quotes: “Cute shoes;” “Is that what you’re wearing? That wasn’t even fashionable when I was in school;” and “I have to check my face.”

The copy on Toys R Us Canada also references appearance more than character. Here is the generic description of the dolls. (Emphasis is mine.): “These girls are wild, they’re fierce, and they’re totally trendy. They’ve left their parents’ outdated haunting habits behind to form a killer style all their own. When you see them, you’ll just have to gasp ‘Drop dead…gorgeous!’”

All of this and I haven’t even touched on the highly sexualized nature of these characters! Or the fact that they are all boy-crazy to some degree, talking about male celebrities in the latest fashion magazine or worrying that someone will find out who they are “crushing on.” (On the Monster High website, Clawdeen’s favourite activity is listed as “shopping and flirting with the boys.”)

One other point that bothered me immensely about this show was the treatment of the character Ghoulia. She is tagged as the “smartest ghoul in school.” Naturally, she is the only one of the girls to wear glasses. She slouches and moans instead of speaking, ostensibly because she is a zombie. She is also bullied and treated abominably by Cleo de Nile, who steals her drinks, makes her carry her books, and forces her to take notes in class while she daydreams and files her nails. (There is one brief scene in one episode where Cleo tells Ghoulia how much she appreciates her, but otherwise she is continuously mistreated.)

It’s hard to accept that Monster High is all about embracing diversity when the “nerd” (a word used on the Monster High website in reference to Ghoulia) is treated so poorly by the “pretty” girl and no one steps up to help her or call Cleo out on her boorish behaviour.

The commenter feels that Monster High delivers positive messages to girls which have been picked up by his/her daughters. I am glad that those girls have been inspired and I hope others have too. I see some positives in characters like Frankie Stein, but I also see a lot of stereotypes that reinforce the messages girls and boys receive elsewhere about what it means to be female: being fixated on makeup, clothes, and boys and ensuring that appearance always comes first (not to mention sexualization, the impact of which is outlined in this APA paper.)

As I said in my response to the commenter’s second note:

The sexualized and stereotyped images of girls that Monster High promotes are abundant in kids’ pop culture and their impact is far more subtle than the positive, albeit simplistic, message about embracing one’s uniqueness.

I am not saying it is the end of the world for kids to watch a show like this. I am more concerned about the aggregate impact of things like Monster High, Bratz dolls and films and TV shows that stereotype females. Monster High is a symptom of a larger problem. Kids might enjoy the show and learn something good from it in the short-term, but, as adults, we also need to ensure they are not succumbing to the negative messages (in Monster High and elsewhere) about how females should look and act–messages whose impact might not be seen right away but could shape girls’ opinions of their own appearance as they get older.

(I should add that the sexualized imagery of females in shows like Monster High also has an impact on boys’ opinions of girls. More on that in this post.)

I am cynical enough to believe that Mattel created these cartoons with their message of inclusivity to appease parents who might otherwise be put off by pouty-lipped, barely dressed girls. Mattel is entirely in its rights to do so. And, of course, it is up parents decide what is appropriate for their own children.

For my part, I cannot overlook the negative messages. Nor can I bring myself to ask my son to watch the Monster High videos with their highly stereotyped female characters. I think there are far healthier ways to deliver messages about diversity and acceptance.