Skip to content

Feb 27

Baking is for Girls

Easy-Bake Oven in the 90's from Website Children of the 90's

One of my most prized possessions throughout my childhood was my Easy-Bake Oven. I loved to spend all my time baking things and pretending I was a real chef. Easy-Bake Ovens were first came out in 1963 and are now manufactured by Hasbro. They first used a lightbulb to cook the products and now use an actual heating element to bake. The Easy-Bake Oven is created for girls to mix and bake cookies and cakes to decorate and eat. It is a small version of a real oven and is safe and easy to use for kids. There have been many different versions throughout the decades that it has been around and is still sold today. When you bought the oven it came with a few mixes and the result would be a very small cake, cookie, or brownie that you would eat. The price for an Easy-Bake Oven now can be anywhere from $40-15. In 2007 Hasbro had to recall over 900,000 Easy-Bake Ovens because kids could get their fingers caught and potentially burn their hands.

As a kid I never realized the implications this toy had for gender roles. It was a baking kit made for girls. Looking at this now it is funny to see how stereotypical this product is for women and their domestic role. In class we discussed the different ways toys and television shows can effect children and the Easy-Bake Oven is a good example of how girls might think it is their job to be the domestic one in the family. They later came out with a boy version in the early 2000’s but it focused on making gross looking food like mud cakes. This toy is promoting a clear separation of what girls and boys roles should be as kids. When I used this toy almost every weekend in the first grade I didn’t realize that it could have lasting impacts on my model of what a woman should do. Considering that I still love to bake now it could have had an impact on my life, but I don’t think it had any serious affects relating to my role as a woman.

 

Feb 27

The Sedentary Life

An article from Time by staff writer Alice Park focuses on the physical health effects of kids’ television viewing. The article summarizes the findings of researchers from the US and Spain who studied inactivity in 111 children ranging from 3 to 8 years old. The researchers found that of television, Internet and video games, television is the worst for kids. They found that kids who watch excessive television are more likely to have higher blood pressure, even if they’re at a healthy weight.

Kid watching TV on the couch, eating potato chips (click for source)

What makes television worse than other sedentary activities? The findings suggest that kids watching television are likely to be eating unhealthy snacks, which could explain the rise in blood pressure. They also note that watching television right before bed stimulates kids’ minds and keeps them up. This lack of sleep affects metabolism and can cause weight gain.

While the main concerns of parents about television in the 1950s was the morality and emotional effects of television, rather than its physical effects. Family values were also central to television rhetoric. “In advice literature of the period, mass media became a central focus of concern as experts told parents how to control and regulate media in ways that promoted family values,” writes Spigel in “Seducing the Innocent.” Spigel and modern parents have similar concerns, however, when it comes to turning off the tube. Concern for kids with the “telebugeye” came about along with concerns for kids “habits of hygiene, nutrition and decorum” (p. 147). Parents have feared the effects on kids’ television-viewing habits since television’s invention, but now they have there is evidence of how detrimental “vegging out” in front of the TV can be.

For a post on the same article, please see Mira’s blog post.

Feb 27

Recess!

Recess! was an animated television series that told the stories of the lives of six elementary school children as they interacted with other children, teachers, and parents. TJ, Vince, Ashley, Gus, Gretchen, and Mikey, the six best friends that made up the base of the show, represented a wide variety of stereotypes. TJ was the typical All-American boy, Vince was the stereotyped super athletic African American kid, Ashley represented the punk look, Gus was the nerdy smart friend, Gretchen was the awkward gangly girl, and Mikey was the overweight but lovable funny kid. The show portrays the strict hierarchy and social order that exists in the whole 4th grade, including one child being “King Bob” and the stereotypical popular girls, “The Ashleys”. The first episode was aired in 1997 on ABC, and continued until 2001. After, reruns were played on the Disney Channel. I remember as an 8 year old waking up on Saturday mornings and hoping I wasn’t too late to watch my favorite Saturday morning cartoon, as we didn’t have cable and therefore didn’t have the Disney Channel to watch reruns on. In our course packet, Segel talks about the gender issues in childhood reading (67-78). Certain books are deemed “boy books” and others “girls books”. The same issue arises when children’s cartoons and TV shows lean too far towards one gender or the other. Kim Possible is a girl hero, so boys can’t like her! Recess mixed in an equal amount of gender roles into their show, making it a gender neutral production and good for acceptable sexes to like. However, it went further than that. Because the six main characters represented six vastly different stereotypes, a lot of kids could see themselves being like one of the main group (besides the gender differences). Usually a show wouldn’t focus around a normal African American boy who was really good at sports, but Recess had Vince in there to let to athletic kids feel a connection. The same stands for the rest of the characters. Recess didn’t show kids who had crazy superpowers or children who dealt with evil witches, it just had a group of normal fourth graders that every child could relate to. I believe it was so popular because every viewer could relate to their favorite character and the problems the group faced.

Recess Kids from Google Images

Feb 27

Justice Sonia Sotomayor Appears on Sesame Street

Before the lecture, I had no idea that Sesame Street’s purpose was to help disadvantaged children and foster diversity.  After the lecture, however, it started making sense.  I noticed in retrospect that there was more diversity on Sesame Street than I was used to seeing on television at the time. <a href=”http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-mcelroy/justice-sotomayor-sesame-street_b_1288984.html“>Huffington Post</a> recently had a news story on its website’s “Parents” section that highlighted Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s guest appearance on the show recently. The episode actually aired “two weeks ago” at the time of the publishing of the article, which was February 20, 2012.  In the episode, Justice Sotomayor came in to settle a dispute between Baby Bear and Goldilocks.  Justice Sotomayor had to rule on whether Goldilocks should have to fix Baby Bear’s chair, which was broken when she snuck into the three bears’ home. She also answered questions from the muppet characters about what a Justice does, and why there are rules in the first place.  She also had a chat in Spanish with Maria over coffee. I thought it was interesting that the Sesame Street writers were able to incorporate that kind of diversity, language and teach the children about how the Judicial system of the United States government works. After discussing the complaints against Sesame Street, it was very interesting to see how the minds behind the show are taking steps to make sure all of these areas are properly covered. On another level, it also shows children that the Supreme Court Justices are not superhuman, and in many ways, live very normal lives.

 

Sesame Street: Sonia Sotomayor: “The Justice Hears a Case.”

Feb 27

Technology: Society’s Youngest Handicap

A button on Barbie Photo Fashion's belt is pressed to take a picture that appears on her shirt, which can then be downloaded to a computer.

The New York Times article “Go Directly, Digitally to Jail? Classic Toys Learn New Clicks” by Stephanie Clifford follows the progression of what used to be simple toys, and their journey through the technologically enhanced world.

Following the American timeline through today, parents have been put under increased pressure to keep their children entertained and therefore “entertainment standards went up accordingly.” (Stearns 5) Toy companies have taken advantage of the technology boom and created a world where “Kids like to play with the gadgets that they see their parents using” according to John Alteio, director of toys and games for Amazon. Toy manufacturers are aware that kids will inevitably be playing with technology and have decided their “job is to not necessarily avoid that, but if you can’t fix it, feature it.”

Barbie Dolls used to “represent a free-spirited teenager, she enticed girls to emulate her style,” (Chudacoff 173) but has evolved into a doll (if you can even call her that) with less meaning and more function. One of the newest Barbie “Dolls” Clifford describes has “a lens in her back; children point the doll at an image, and press a button on Barbie’s belt to take a photo. The image then appears on the front of Barbie’s T-shirt.”

Typically games like Monopoly that were usually played without technology are now played on iPads. Technology has transformed the world of games that previously existed. However now a different phenomenon has emerged. The technology-based game comes first and stuffed animals follow – a different nontraditional way to make even more money.  Clifford sites the “Moshi Monsters, which started out as an online-only game, started selling plush toys.”

“Low-income families were unlikely to have downloaded apps for their children’s toys, for instance, which many of the new toys require,” according to the Common Sense Study. The iPhone and its apps have become the new version of the American Girl series. An American Girl “combination of doll, book and accessories for just one character sold from around $100.” (Chudacoff 185) Both examples are pointing to the inevitable truth that entertaining children to such an extent will only increase the material gap between children.

Julia Johnson argues that “You definitely lose out not having board games be the way they used to…” I would argue that just because it is different isn’t necessarily bad, however toys such as Barbie has lost its original intent and devices like the iPhone are creating a separated society, starting at a very young age.

Feb 27

The Oscars

The Academy Awards were last night and the results were nothing short of exciting.  For the first time since 1929 a silent film won best picture.  The Artist took the film world by a storm this year, and rightfully so.   For those of you who have never seen a silent film, this is a perfect place to start.  The Artist takes us back to the beginning of Hollywood and the transition from silent films to talkies.  Sure sometimes we just want to watch robots beat the hell out of each other, but The Artist brings us back to why we fell in love with movies in the first place.  It is truly a work of art that has sadly been forsaken by the society that we live in today.  Martin Scorsese’s film Hugo also deals with this time period.   Taking a break from his traditional gangster films, Marty took us on a journey to Paris.  Hugo is a film about George Milies, who was a wonderful director, filmmaker, and visionary.   It was through this wonderful film that Marty reignited “movie magic” which has been lost for sometime now.    These two films made a huge, and significant, impact on the film industry this year.  The Artist left an impact on the Academy Awards winning three of the top awards which were best picture, best leading male actor, and best director.  Michel Hazanavicius, the director of The Artist, actually beat Martin Scorsese and Woody Allen for this award.  So hopefully the film industry will stop remaking movies from the 80’s and start making genuine films.

Feb 27

Time Killer

Prior to my early teens, I eagerly used my after-school hours to get my daily fix of an Japanese anime TV show known as Dragon Ball Z.  The show consisted of a team of flying muscular martial arts masters defending the earth from all-powerful, usually extraterrestrial threats.  At the beginning of each season, a  super powerful bad guy would show up and start wreaking havoc on fictional earthling cities.  The Z-Fighters, the team of muscular martial arts masters mentioned earlier, move in to kick some evil butt, only to find their new foe too powerful to overcome.  After suffering a number of casualties, the Z-Fighters retreat, train until they reach a new level of strength and speed, and take on the bad guy once more (said bad guy was killing countless innocents while these training sessions were in progress).  There is always a small amount of blood, a moderate amount of fists punching holes into stomachs, and an extreme amount of taunting, threatening, stare-downs, explosions that last for forty-five seconds, and emotional outbursts that serve as indicators that someone is about the get the snot beaten out of them.Of course, after much struggle and determination, the bad guy is annihilated without a trace and the Z-Fighters save the earth once more.

This is not only funny because this synopsis applies to every single season of Dragon Ball Z, but also because the makers of this mindless cartoon always managed make each season about one-hundred episodes in length (each episode being about twenty minutes long).  With such a simple story line, editors were forced to insert countless fillers, which are scenes, episodes, sometimes even characters added for the sole purpose of using up time (i.e. before a fight, two characters will stare at and taunt each other, only allowing enough episode time for only one or two rounds of high-octane brawling).

Protagonist Goku vs. Villain Frieza. They stare at each other before they fight, which kills about seven minutes in each episode.

These fillers occurred so often that the average viewer, an eight year old boy with an overactive imagination, did not realize that time he will never have again was being flushed down the toilet.  This show pertains to our class discussions about television and the effects of its availability to children nowadays.  But unlike the argument derived from our discussion asserting that television can act as a pacifier for the  children of busy parents, I will assert that specific television programs, like Dragon Ball Z, only appear to pacify children while in reality are stealing from them.  Time is the very essence of life, and when children spend about three-fourths of their pre-teens watching a show that wastes time on purpose, pacification should be the last concern of parents.  Some parents just choose any binky and shove it in their child’s mouth, mistaking silence for good parenting.  If a mother truly wants her child to live a rich and fulfilling young life, she must actively engage in everything their child indulges in.  I say this because my familiarity with time killers.  Shows like Dragon Ball Z might seem extremely stimulating if the only thing being observed is a child’s ecstatic reaction to them, but in reality, no lessons are learned, good unrealistically triumphs over evil, and time that could have been spent reading or running is wasted.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →