Yet I want to argue that showing female empowerment and racial diversity is much easier to do in children’s television, where women are desexualized and reduced to ‘girls.’ ‘Girls rule’ carries much fewer political connotation than ‘women rule,’ it is a simple and playful message that appears feminist on the surface level but truly just an empty phrase used as advertisement or to sell merchandise. Similarly, “strong, smart girls and multicultural casts” are simpler to depict on children’s shows that rarely depict racial inequality and present a postracial, postfeminist utopic world where all people — children — are treated equally (218). Sure, these depictions are healthy in that they teach children to treat people the same, but they are simplistic and should not be treated as progressive.
To me, the very idea of “empowering” children is somewhat problematic, as how often do children recognize they are oppressed? They might recognize being treated differently, but are oblivious to the systems upholding their oppression. It is very rare that shows even acknowledge racism or sexism — Disney’s That’s So Raven was a rare and early example — but even when they do, it tends to be teen, and not children’s shows. Of course, that is not to say that Nickelodeon should stop its diversity initiative. Sure, it’s a sly business practice that is “good business,” but any diversity is better than no diversity. The only issue is its self-congratulatory nature, in that diversity in children’s programming is not as radical as it seems.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.