Sexism on CBBC

[sunshineandbooks]

I supervise my DC's TV viewing quite carefully because I worry about media portrayal of women and the way in which society is presented in general. I hate advertising so we tend to stick to CBeebies/CBBC/laptop. I turned on CBBC this morning, thinking state-subsidised broadcaster, high ethical standards, etc. So imagine my horror when their Young Dracula programme was introduced with the presenter promising "not to scream like a girl"

Have just emailed a complaint.

But saying it sells isn't a rebuttal to SGM. It sells because most people buy into the same gendered nonsense. It IS harmful and it IS everywhere. The very ubiquity is a large part of what makes it harmful, imo. One pink globe in an equal world would mean diddley squat, but as I said above it's the cumulative effect that's troublesome.

Must read the Cinderella book, and I second Delusions of Gender. It's just like Ben Goldacre's Bad Science, except applied to gender/sex research.

DD has just put a dress on and started waving the dress telling her dad "link daddy I'm a princess". DH replied "yeah! And are you stroooong?" in a very macho voice. Couldn't help but to laugh.

*look not link.

I don't actually understand when folks say that girls "go through a pink stage," and that's just "natural." Well, was born back in the Jurassic 1960's. I've been involved in the upbringing of both girls and boys born in the 1970's and 1980's, and I can confidently say that none of the girls went through "pink stages."

Back then, you didn't have the strict gender segregation of toys, games, books or even clothes. Most children's things were in primary colours. Even if it was more common for girls to play with tea sets and boys with trucks, there were plenty more toys and games that were considered socially acceptable for both genders.

I agree that the gendering of products for children is in the hope of bigger sales - two items to a family with a boy and a girl. I don't think it's JUST down to parental or child choice though. The secret of marketing is to convince people they want to buy something they don't yet know they want or need. You create a demand for something and if enough people "bite," then you can actually change the culture of consumption. That is what I believe has happened with products divided so strictly along gender lines.

It reinforces other social messages about what girls should be like (soft, pretty, passive, servile, fairy princesses,) and what girls should be like (tough, dirty, assertive, rough little soldiers.)

And it's seven shades of hell for the kids who don't conform neatly to rigid definitions of gender, from cradle upwards. Thing is, it wasn't always like this. It's a modern phenomenon, created by marketeers. It's certainly not natural and even if it's a "phase," the pressure to conform to a specific model of femininity (and masculinity) remains.

Totally agree with you KRITIQ about the role played by marketing. I'm only 35 but of the numerous dresses I was forced into at various times of year for special occasions, not one of them was pink. That would be unheard of now.

I'm only 22. DD has worn black dresses (shoot me), green, mainly blue and the last one was a light blue with a floral pattern. No pink in sight. Not unheard of.

While not unheard of SurprisEs, there isn't a great deal of choice in outfits that aren't in blue or pink. There are some mail order and internet firms that make gender neutral and/or primary colours clothing, but you pay handsomely for their products, which isn't a possibility for many.

Interesting what you said about the colour of your DD's dresses - I was going through some old photos and found ones of me around age 4 and 5 wearing dresses in green, navy blue and even black print. I can't find a single one where I wore pink . . . until I was about 40! :-)

I have a Bugaboo Chameleon in the pink. The old really bright one, not the new pale pink. I wonder how many people made the assumption that I would bring up DD to be a wannabe princess with no aspirations and fake tan by the age of ten.

Mothercare, next and GAP are good with non pink girl clothes. Slightly on the expensive side though.

I was looking through photos of my various birthday parties the other week (much to my DC's amusement) and the closest I came to pink was a horrible typical 80-s drop-waisted thing in burgundy.

Anyway, back to the point, of the many parties my DC have attended, the girls not in pink have been notable in their absence. Indeed at many of them my DD was the only one not in pink and certainly the only one in trousers (she doesn't like dresses/skirts as they get in the way of her playing or dancing). They all looked lovely, it's not a criticism, but I just cannot believe that such a high proportion of girls would choose pink left to their own devices if the market wasn't so saturated with them. It's like shoes. Have you tried to find a decent pair of girls trainers, on a budget, that aren't white or pale pink and therefore totally useless?

I see the ridiculous pink globe has gone from the ELC website - maybe they finally noticed me disparaging it on here. They used to be awful for this - everything available in either blue or pink - why do you need a pink easel or a pink globe!

H&M are good for non-blue only boys clothes - think they have some more unusual girls clothes too.

I agree this pink thing is a weird 80/90's onwards phenomenon - I was one of 3 girls born in the 70s and all our toys were just multicoloured - the girliest things we had were Sindy and even they werent predominantly pink. My brother was a child of the eighties and I don't remember the relentless blue/pink thing then either. It's ridiculous.

I think it's a mistake to assume that feminists don't like pink. I like pink. I have no problem with pink and if my DD wants to choose pink items or wear pink clothes I let her (as I do my DS). My problem is with the saturation of it and what it represents, not the existence of it as it's just a colour, after all.

In my view the definition of what is 'feminine' (in terms of appearance) is narrowing again. The same can be true of boys clothes (where pretty much everything is in camouflage print or features skulls and crossbones or action heroes). It's a narrow prescriptive definition of what is desirable in a boy/girl and we all know how much children like to conform and fit in. It moulds our future adults and is damaging to both children if they're not actively exposed to other perspectives, which sadly many aren't.

The one thing with typical boys stuff is at least it encourages active behaviour, whereas the typical girls stuff is often very passive.

I don't want my daughter's identity tied up with having to be feminine anymore than I want my son's tied up with being a macho man. I simply want them both to be themselves and to have respect for other people and cultural variety. There is nothing wrong with pink, there is nothing wrong with action man, there is nothing wrong with being mainstream. As long as it's not seen as gender specific and restrictive. But it is in far too many cases.

SurprisEs, I wouldn't judge you for having a pink pram anymore than I would expect anyone to judge me for letting my DS wear a spider man T-shirt. It's all about context. But I tend to find that it takes awareness and a not inconsiderable degree of effort to expose our DC to influences other than the mainstream gender-based influences currently out there.

sunshineandbooks I agree with everything you have said, but I'm sure some people would make prejudgment. It's part of society. And I find it just as bad to do so as it is to tell a boy he can't play with a doll.

have you had a reply OP?

if it was race, rather than sex, I wonder if the OP would have been hassled. if it was a racist phrase on kids' TV, it would be in the press, but sexist phrases are ok? I thought equality is equality...

THank you to everyone who took the time to engage with this thread. I've just had the following reply:

Thank you for your comments with regard to ?Young Dracula? broadcast on CBBC on 15 October.

I understand you felt a remark by a continuity announcer was couched in sexist language.

I am sorry you considered these remarks offensive, it is never our intention to offend viewers. This was an off the cuff remark made in a self-deprecating fashion by the announcer and was in no way meant to be sexist. The phrase ?scream like a girl? tends to have the implication of using a high-pitched voice as men sometimes do in extremis. Girls do tend to have higher pitched voices and the implication here is not that girls are more likely to scream, but that panicking men often make high pitched noises.

I do understand you feel very strongly about this, so I?d like to assure you that I?ve registered your concerns on our audience log. This is a daily report of audience feedback that's made available to many BBC staff, including members of the BBC Executive Board, programme makers, channel controllers and other senior managers.

The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions on future BBC programmes and content.

Once again, thanks for taking the time to contact us.

I wonder how long it took them to come up with that convenient explanation (given that not one of the posters on here who said it was a harmless remark for x, y, z reasons managed to come up with it. ).

Anyway, job done. Point made and hopefully being considered somewhere. [hsmile]

So apparently the BBC is sorry that you considered something offensive.

My pet hate is the non-'apology' that goes along the lines of
"I am sorry that you..."
"I am sorry if you..."
"I am sorry you feel..."

Don't apologise for me, thanks. Apologise for your own actions or drop the pretense of regret entirely.

Cleverly crafted but ot entirely satisfactory response from the BBC.

Agree with posters who say it isn't a worthy apology.

Not only sexism, but also general rudeness and agressiveness of characters in lots of programmes! Think the BBC should set an example. Channels such as Pop don't seem to need to be rude and agressive at all!

Oh wow, it's going in the audience log. THAT will make a huge difference. Not. Ruddy BBC - if it was racism they'd jump on it instantly.

Love the pretend excuse - which amounts to 'high pitched voices are silly' therefore 'girls are silly'. How does that help, exactly?

Yes, the non-apology is cack. It just demonstrates that they genuinely don't have a clue why you were concerned in the first place.

Does the BBC site have a discussion board related to CBBC/CBeebies that you could open a discussion about this on? Also, is there anyone higher in the BBC you could write to?

Yes, I know others have said it's a mountain and a molehill situation. But, the apology seems to suggest that the programme makers or at least whoever responded doesn't understand what the issue is of associating a negative phenomenon with a specific gender and perpetuating gender stereotypes in a way that encourages young people to replicate these.

Thing is, if they don't understand this basic concept, it's all together likely they'll not only continue to do it, but won't recognise that they are doing anything "wrong" if they apply it to racist or other negative stereotypes as well.

Shall I reply with some quotes from this thread? (I won't mention anyone's usernames or even the site itself).

If anything I said is of any use please go for it

Yes, do. And I can't see any reason not to mention the thread.