Melander sent me a link to this story about a Canadian academic criticising Thomas the Tank Engine for being too conservative and under-representing women. (heh I don’t know why people send me this stuff either, let’s move on, shall we?)

The article is divided between the opinions of Professor Shauna Wilson, who has an interesting take on some of the more problematic elements of the tv show and some of the messages it presents to children, including a lack of female characters (and a tendency for those few examples to be bossy or know-it alls), an an overall conservative ideology. She also mentions some of the positive messages that the show carries.

The part of the story I think is most important is that she was inspired to carry out this study after watching Thomas with her child. One of the side-effects of being an educated person (ie someone trained to examine texts with a critical eye) raising a child is that you notice this stuff. You find yourself looking in horror as some of the shows or books that your children love, and quietly pushing those dvds behind others that you feel more comfortable about.

Rather than find someone actually associated with the show to respond to the themes Professor Wilson raises, the article quotes a (female) co-founder of the Campaign Against Political Correctness in the UK, disregarding Wilson’s findings as “nonsense.”

Here’s the thing, though: the Thomas the Tank Engine books were originally written in the 1940’s, by a vicar. Of course they represent a conservative mindset! It’s also hardly surprising that their representation of women ranges from meagre to borderline offensive. But there’s a big difference between reading books to your children which you know are from another time, and having them adapted for the TV in shiny colourful ways.

From my point of view, Thomas is an irrelevance – Raeli hardly ever watches it, and it’s one of those shows that makes her want to turn off the tv. She recognises I think that it’s not made with her in mind. But just because it’s a ‘boys show’ doesn’t let the makers off the hook. Because the thing about boys shows is that boys watch them. Which gives them a great opportunity to show by example that the line between boys and girls is not so clear cut as they might assume, rather than reinforcing tired and unnecessary assumptions about gender.

It’s scary how much of the product put out for kids these days is starkly gendered. It’s getting worse, and it gets everywhere.

Bob the Builder is a great example of what Thomas could be doing. It’s a fun, well made show. It’s hugely popular. Almost all the characters are either male or machines who appear to be male. The target demographic is obviously boys. But then there’s Wendy, who is cool and capable and not only gives girl watchers a character to identify with, but also shows audience a positive and non-gender-conforming side to girls.

On the other side, there’s Fifi the Flowertot, the girl version of Bob the Builder. This one’s sneaky. It’s obviously coded for girls, and there is some pink, but the main identification character, Fifi, combines the “girly” elements of fairies with some lovely down to earth practicality. She wears overalls and loves gardening. She has male and female friends. There is a mix of characters for boys and girls to empathise with, and a mix of messages about what types of things and activities people might like, regardless of their gender.

The Wiggles, sadly, is showing its age when it comes to gender issues. Yes they put a girl character in to lure in the female audience and sell girlie merchandise, but Dorothy the Dinosaur is a pretty crass representation of what girls like. Pink, tea parties, roses, ballet… just about the only subversive element about her is that she’s a hulking great dinosaur. Hmm. Which is, now I think about it, kind of cool. The really good thing about the Wiggles is that the Wiggles themselves, while not including a female member (as many of their franchises in other countries do), are pretty cool role models for boys, and demonstrate a variety of activities and interests, including singing and dancing, healthy eating, etc.

Hi-5 were pretty brilliant. I say were because I pretty much stopped watching them once they started replacing their original members. The show was very tightly designed around an educational structure, the balance of girls to boys was a good one, and they demonstrated a good range of gender-non-conformism. Also I take great delight in the fact that Raeli’s favourite was Kathleen because she was a) not the blonde or the super girlie one and b) the one whose focus was on numbers and maths problems.

Sesame Street and Play School, the two absolute classics, have been demonstrating a good range of gender balance and non-conformism for years. It’s nice that Sesame Street have more girl monsters than they used to, though I might add that those girl monsters are kind of typically girlie. I do have a soft spot for Abby Kadabby, though. And hey, Maria runs the Fix-it shop.

Jane and the Dragon is a brilliant one – this series, made by New Zealand outfit Weta Workshop, is about a girl training to be a knight, and hits every button I can think of when it comes to a show with equal interest for boys and girls, and a mix of types of girl and boy characters. There really is something for everyone – Jane’s friends include a boy blacksmith, a girl cook and a boy jester. She is also good friends with the little princess and is blatantly subverting her to love dragons and swordfighting instead of traditional princessy stuff. There are enough adventures and swords that boys can enjoy the show without realising they are sneakily being fed the idea that girls can do anything they can. Also, the dragon is funny.

The Fairies, another Weta Workshop production, this one filmed in South Australia, was one of our favourites. It’s a blatantly girlie show, with the two main fairies Harmony and Rhapsody having purple and pink respectively as their iconic colours. They are the protagonists of the stories, and almost always the ones who fix whatever the non-confrontational-mild-conflict of each story is about. Two of the boy characters, Barnaby the Busy Buzzy Bee and Wizzy the Wizard, only seem to exist to get into scrapes which the competent girls can then fix. The balance to the whole thing came with Elf, a boy character who is great at cooking and dancing, and very much the one thing that stopped the show being too saccharine for adults to stomach. He in particular is a great role model for boys who aren’t that into “traditional” boy activities, or for parents who hope their boys might be a bit more broadminded than gender traditiona allows them.

Sadly, Elf left the show after the second season, and I was really unhappy to see that he was replaced with two female characters, a “Dear Abby” style pixie and a dancing fairy, who were both as fluffy and flouncy (if not more so) than Harmony and Rhapsody. The end result: a show that is blatantly excluding boys, and missing a chance to show girls who are lured in by the promise of fairies that there is more to life than ballet skirts, glitter and being really sweet to each other. Why not a boy pixie who solves problems? Why not a tomboy fairy, a sporty fairy, a fairy who likes to build things or dig in the garden? Having been a huge fan and supporter of the show since they launched (when my daughter was just starting to watch tv and I still got 100% say in what she was exposed to), I am most definitely no longer encouraging it or spending money on the franchise. Instead, Raeli’s getting the Barbie and the 3 Musketeers video for Christmas.

Okay, it’s Barbie, but she takes D’Artagnan’s role and the 3 Musketeers are also all girls. With swords. I’m so there.

Tags: feminism, gender, pinkforgirls, raeli, sexism, watching