Reading the (Media) Signs: No Girls Allowed

Counting is so simple, so basic, so important. We counted the numbers of boys and girls on sugary cereal boxes, on the covers of board games, in the action section of toy aisles, in Newbury Award winning books, and we reported studies that counted the number of boys and girls in G-rated films, and other forms of media. This was our way of showing where the girls aren't, sure, but more importantly we did this because numbers give a clear and present message to girls (and boys) about who should be doing, wearing, listening to, reading, and playing with what. The results can have long-term impact. Consider a recent article in the journal Psychological Science (Vol. 18, Issue 10) called "Signaling Threat: How Situational Cues Affect Women in Math, Science, and Engineering Settings," by Mary C. Murphy, Claude M. Steele, & James J. Gross. Turns out the kind of low numbers we reported seeing in movies, TV shows, books, and so forth give "situational cues". The researchers found that simply watching a conference video in which women were outnumbered by men made the women-all math and science majors--feel like they didn't belong and feel like not participating. It also made them vigilant of possible threats to their identity. The situation they observed gave the young women that intangible "in the air" feeling that they were unwelcome and might be ostracized if they participate. Young men didn't experience the same threat. They were protected by the reality that they are almost always in the majority and expected to do well in these arenas, and so being in the minority this one time didn't phase them.

If girls see only one girl in a cartoon about geniuses or just one woman in the race for presidency - this gives them a very real and tangible message: you aren't welcome here. It also discouraged them from wanting to do the things they see primarily boys do and to be anxious, isolated, and feel out of place when they break boundaries. This is the reason to care about how media depicts girls and boys. We can no longer accept the lame excuse -- Girls will watch boys, but boys will not watch girls - used to justify the 75% male character rate in G-rated films. Yeah, maybe they will watch. But at what cost to them?

Comments

[Lisa @ Corporate Babysitter]

Great post (well, sad, really) and happy to see you back in the blogosphere.

[Mommy B]

Wonderful post! As a marketing professional myself, I've long been aware of (and sadly, have also conformed to)the "Girls will watch boys, but boys will not watch girls" rule.
Getting the message out that these old media standards have a real effect on our girls is so important. Thanks so much for doing it!

[mom]

Welcome back -- and with a very important post. Many thanks. Keep counting and keep shouting.

[Mrs. C]

I'd rather girls not be represented at all in the cereal and toy aisle if "Bratz" and the like is the best we can expect... And for President? Can we just not have a female candidate this year if this is all we've got? Bleh.

Incidentally, I have five boys and my children are RIVETED by the Little House series. They can't wait to find out what happens to Laura next! There are some *good* things out there... maybe just not many. And you do have to look for them.

[Alex]

Did they do this scientifically? i.e did they show films where the majority of people were female, and films where an equal numbers as a control?

[sharonlamb]

This was published in PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE, a journal with a stiff peer review process, so I'm guessing that they couldn't say what they did if their methodology didn't support it but I'll try to find the original article for you.

[Jennifer]

Maybe 100 Days of Summer can turn the tide!:)