(Closed) Thomas the Tank Engine Railroaded?

[Parson]

Originally Posted by Teresa Edgerton

Really? You don't think that gender role models in popular children's entertainment and literature is worth studying? It seems like a very important subject to me. In the US at least, Thomas is pervasive: TV, books, toys (oh my gosh, the number of toys). If I had children*, particularly girls, I would give some thought to what kind of influence they were picking up from T & his cohorts, just to throw it into the scale with everything else they were exposed to and figure out what I might want them to watch or read in addition to provide more balance.

*I should perhaps clarify and say if I had children now. I do have offspring, most of them female, but they passed the childhood stage a long time ago. I now have grandsons, and though I am not in charge of what they watch, it is certainly a matter of interest to me.



Well, that is sort of the point, isn't it, that the imbalance of male and female characters is so widespread and taken for granted that people don't notice?

I suppose you have a point here. But I keep thinking about that famous quote attributed to Sigmund F. himself (although I doubt it) "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

Sexism is something to be concerned with. And to study the pervasivenes of male characters in children's programing would be a fit field. But it seems to me that the study of one little kids' story about a train who is more little than male is a waste of time.

One of the driving forces in male characters in TV is (according to something I read years ago by a female children's show producer who was highly frustrated) that by and large boys will watch TV shows where males are the lead character, but not where females are. But girls will watch with either as a lead. So the most popular shows always (almost?) have male lead characters with females in supportive and sometimes critical roles. The program which was used as an example was the cartoon Scooby-Do.

I have young grandchildren living with me. And as I mentally review the kid's programing they watch the only show that has a female lead is "Dora, the Explorer."

[Sparrow]

But I keep thinking about that famous quote attributed to Sigmund F. himself (although I doubt it) "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

Or it might have been Monica Lewinsky that said it.

[Teresa Edgerton]

Originally Posted by Drachir

Thomas was a child's book aimed at children; probably boys, but so what?

But the study isn't about a book written in the 1940s, it's about a TV program and a very influential franchise that currently includes videos, games, toys, and a great deal more. If Thomas isn't relevant to the study of gender roles in children's entertainment, what do you think might be?

Generally boys are interested in trains and there is nothing sexist about creating an imaginary world featuring trains.

Agreed. And so ...?

It is just that in this particular study I think the study was somewhat contrived.

How contrived does it have to be to find a gender imbalance, and possible sexism, in a more than 5 to 1 ration of males to females? At what point do you think it would be uncontrived? 10 to 1? I'm really interested. What sort of things and what sort of numbers would seem relevant to you?

If you have ever read the original Wonder Woman stories the heroine continually takes potshots at men.

Yes, Drachir, I have read the original Wonder Woman stories. I read them as a teenager. They were written and illustrated by men, and even in those unenlightened days, I always wondered why it was necessary for her to fight against evil quite so ... skimpily clad. I can't quite make the stretch to see how Wonder Woman fits into the current discussion, however. And I think I need you to explain where Alice in Wonderland comes in, because I am not understanding that reference at all.

Originally Posted by Parson

But it seems to me that the study of one little kids' story about a train who is more little than male is a waste of time.

Again, not one story. Huge franchise. Huge. If it was only one little book, yes, it would be a waste of time, but that is so very far from being the case here. Why are you gentlemen passing over the enormous influence of this franchise? Maybe you need to take a closer look at what is going on here.

One of the driving forces in male characters in TV is (according to something I read years ago by a female children's show producer who was highly frustrated) that by and large boys will watch TV shows where males are the lead character, but not where females are. But girls will watch with either as a lead.

A book editor told me much the same thing more than twenty years ago. She said, and these were her exact words, "girls will read stories about boys, but boys won't read stories about girls." Only when she said those words she was talking about adult male SFF readers. It sounds condescending, but of course she was talking about the way that adult males were still clinging to their childhood reading habits in that regard. Things have changed a bit since then, but not as much as one might like to think in almost a quarter of a century. So how do we get little boys to stop thinking that way by the time they become men, if we don't at least begin to address the problem while they are still boys?

But I keep thinking about that famous quote attributed to Sigmund F. himself (although I doubt it) "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

Until you anthropomorphize it, and then it becomes something else.


As I said before, I have no problem with a series like Thomas. But I do think that parents and teachers and other people who play important roles in the lives with children need to be aware of these influences and what they may be saying to children, particularly the unconscious messages. Not to cut them out, but to balance them with something else. I love period pieces, old books, etc. But it's good to be able to tell the children, "This is how they thought in those days." I doubt that modern children think of Thomas as "those days." They see his adventures all around them now. Dismissing the subject out of hand, seems short-sighted.

[Moonbat]

Has Thomas The Tank Engine been updated with a European Engine, a Eurostar train, probably a stereo typical French train that has a thin moutache and is arrogant about his superiority? maybe Jean La Motor de Tren

[The Judge]

I have to confess, I hadn't realised Thomas was such big business in the States. I knew he was popular over here (shopping for nephews over the years had told me that) but I somehow imagined he would be too slow for the American market.

I have to confess to some abivalence over the research. Looking at the incidence of sexual stereotyping through the whole of children's broadcasting/literature certainly seems something worthwhile. Picking on one series of programmes/books to make a point seems another matter. On the other hand, I remember reading some years ago of a science text-book for secondary schools with illustrations or photos (I forget which) with chidren doing experiments. With one exception, every child featured was a boy -- the exception was a girl blowing bubbles. Even if every other available text book had given equality of space and importance to the sexes, to my mind that one book should have been pulped for the obvious message it was sending out.

I think part of my ambivalence is that the original books were so very much of their time. It makes no more sense to criticise the Rev Awdry for failing to incorporate female characters in lead roles as it does to condemn Jane Austen for not getting the Bennet girls to look for jobs instead of waiting for husbands. The traditionalist in me thinks any amendments to the originals, for whatever good intentions, to be wrong -- making the Fat Controller non-fat or giving any of the engines American accents (do they do this?) being as perverse to my mind as making the whole thing 'Thomasina the Tank Engine'.

Originally Posted by Teresa Edgerton

Yes, Drachir, I have read the original Wonder Woman stories. I read them as a teenager. They were written and illustrated by men, and even in those unenlightened days, I always wondered why it was necessary for her to fight against evil quite so ... skimpily clad.

Hear, hear.

A book editor told me much the same thing more than twenty years ago. She said, and these were her exact words, "girls will read stories about boys, but boys won't read stories about girls." Only when she said those words she was talking about adult male SFF readers. It sounds condescending, but of course she was talking about the way that adult males were still clinging to their childhood reading habits in that regard. Things have changed a bit since then, but not as much as one might like to think in almost a quarter of a century. So how do we get little boys to stop thinking that way by the time they become men, if we don't at least begin to address the problem while they are still boys?

Two issues here. Firstly, do you think they are still clinging to their childhood reading habits? That is, they only read about men/male protagonists now because they read about them exclusively when they were children? Or is it something more hard-wired, so no amount of 'corrective' reading will alter things? Not necessarily hard-wired into their brains even; societal expectations would doubtless play a part. I'm thinking along the lines of those parents who carefully give their children non-gender specific toys, only to find the boys making 'guns' out of everything.

I also wonder if it's worth asking why the Thomas series is so successful. I'm not so innocent as to think the stories alone are the engine (ha, ha) behind the success -- marketing and the like must be a driving force nowadays. But presumably no matter how good the marketing campaign, if the underlying stories weren't any good, would Thomas really be as popular as he appears to be? They must be answering some need in the children, presumably. What I'm trying to say is, no matter how repugnant sexism is to us, could it be that, in fact, non-sexist series just don't have the attraction for children of either sex? Perhaps that is the question the academic should have been pursuing.

As I said before, I have no problem with a series like Thomas. But I do think that parents and teachers and other people who play important roles in the lives with children need to be aware of these influences and what they may be saying to children, particularly the unconscious messages. Not to cut them out, but to balance them with something else. I love period pieces, old books, etc. But it's good to be able to tell the children, "This is how they thought in those days." I doubt that modern children think of Thomas as "those days." They see his adventures all around them now. Dismissing the subject out of hand, seems short-sighted.

Hear, hear again.

J

[iansales]

Originally Posted by Teresa Edgerton

As I said before, I have no problem with a series like Thomas. But I do think that parents and teachers and other people who play important roles in the lives with children need to be aware of these influences and what they may be saying to children, particularly the unconscious messages. Not to cut them out, but to balance them with something else. I love period pieces, old books, etc. But it's good to be able to tell the children, "This is how they thought in those days." I doubt that modern children think of Thomas as "those days." They see his adventures all around them now. Dismissing the subject out of hand, seems short-sighted.

Which was pretty much my point...

And why it continues to astonish me that so many sf fans can read early sf works so uncritically - and consequently recommend them to new readers. (Apologies for dragging the topic off-piste for a moment.)

[Parson]

Originally Posted by Teresa Edgerton

Until you anthropomorphize it, and then it becomes something else.

This is just my point. Thomas the tank engine is a series of stories/videos/toys which are about being small in a large world and learning to take responsibility and helping where you can while having some fun along the way. It does not in any overt way teach sexism, and outside of the numbers of male engines verse female engines does not teach it any covert way either. You will notice that the female engines are just as strong and just as capable of being both very good and very naughty. Both actions are noticed by the adult (Sir Topum Hat) and praised or corrected as necessary. This is such a cut above the way adults are seen in most children's programing it is absolutely glaring.

My grandson (age 4) loves the program and the toys. As far as I can tell he has no preference for either the male engines or the female engines, save Thomas himself. My granddaughter (age 2) also plays with both equally.

As I said before, I have no problem with a series like Thomas. But I do think that parents and teachers and other people who play important roles in the lives with children need to be aware of these influences and what they may be saying to children, particularly the unconscious messages. Not to cut them out, but to balance them with something else. I love period pieces, old books, etc. But it's good to be able to tell the children, "This is how they thought in those days." I doubt that modern children think of Thomas as "those days." They see his adventures all around them now. Dismissing the subject out of hand, seems short-sighted.

One of the influences that seems to be floating out there among those familiar with British society is the class thing. All I can say is that from this reasonably educated American perspective, I don't see the class thing at all. I don't think our children do either. Perhaps in Great Britain this is an obvious thing.

This discussion is good. We need to look at subconscious predilections, but sometimes this can degenerate into a tempest in a teapot and this is what I think this study of the Thomas "franchise" did.

[skeptical]

A comment to Teresa

Why was Wonder Woman so scantily clad?

Actually, it was tradition. All the comic book super heroes wore tight fitting garments.

However, I think if she had existed in real life, she would be clad in some similar manner anyway. She was young and beautiful. Take a look at real life gals, who are also young and beautiful. If the weather is warm, and they are in an informal setting, all young and beautiful women are scantily clad. eg. The beach.

And, no. It is not some nefarious male pressure that forces them. If a woman is young and beautiful, she will be admired. And women love being admired. They are admired even more when scantily clad. The rest follows.....

[Teresa Edgerton]

Originally Posted by The Judge

Two issues here. Firstly, do you think they are still clinging to their childhood reading habits? That is, they only read about men/male protagonists now because they read about them exclusively when they were children? Or is it something more hard-wired, so no amount of 'corrective' reading will alter things? Not necessarily hard-wired into their brains even; societal expectations would doubtless play a part. I'm thinking along the lines of those parents who carefully give their children non-gender specific toys, only to find the boys making 'guns' out of everything.

Yes, I do think they are. As to why, how will we ever know, so long as editors, TV executives, parents etc. stick to the old patterns?

Besides, I don't think it is hard-wired, because some of them do get beyond it -- or never thought that way to begin with. You can meet men who don't think that way right here at the Chronicles. Sadly, you can also meet men who declare they don't like to read anything by female authors.

I also wonder if it's worth asking why the Thomas series is so successful. I'm not so innocent as to think the stories alone are the engine (ha, ha) behind the success -- marketing and the like must be a driving force nowadays. But presumably no matter how good the marketing campaign, if the underlying stories weren't any good, would Thomas really be as popular as he appears to be?

The stories may indeed be good -- in other ways. The stories may serve other needs. That doesn't mean that there are also messages that need to be looked at.

Originally Posted by Parson

We need to look at subconscious predilections, but sometimes this can degenerate into a tempest in a teapot and this is what I think this study of the Thomas "franchise" did.

Academics make studies. One of them decided this one was worth making. She came up with some results of possible interest and published them, as would be the point of any academic study. Did she stand on the rooftops and blare out the results? Did she start an anti-Thomas campaign? If there is a tempest brewing in a teapot, I submit that it was started by those who feel the need to criticize what she has done without knowing what inspired her to do with it, what use is going to be made of the information, etc.

Is the fact that some obscure academic made an obscure study really more worrying to you than what children may be picking up from a large scale social phenomenon? Why?

Originally Posted by skeptical

Why was Wonder Woman so scantily clad?

Actually, it was tradition. All the comic book super heroes wore tight fitting garments.

Tight fitting garments that cover a character from neck to toes are not at all the same thing as garments that expose acres of bare skin (complete with push-up bra!). So no, it wasn't the tradition for super-heroes to be scantily clad.

Take a look at real life gals, who are also young and beautiful. If the weather is warm, and they are in an informal setting, all young and beautiful women are scantily clad. eg. The beach.

Wonder Woman was not, in fact, sunning herself at the beach in that uniform, she was out fighting crime. She was flying around in a transparent airplane at chilly altitudes.

And, no. It is not some nefarious male pressure that forces them. If a woman is young and beautiful, she will be admired. And women love being admired. They are admired even more when scantily clad. The rest follows.....

Um, thank you for explaining to me how real life women think. Real life women, by the way, choose their own clothes; they don't have them drawn onto them by male illustrators. Wonder Women, of course, wore what the men who created her wanted her to wear. Most women -- even young and beautiful ones -- don't decide to do dangerous work in strapless bathing suits, because under those circumstances male admiration is the last thing on their minds.

_____

Overall, the fact that some of the men here seem so very uncomfortable with this study strikes me as more revealing than the study itself. I won't publish my conclusions on that, however.

[Ursa major]

Originally Posted by Teresa Edgerton

Tight fitting garments that cover a character from neck to toes are not at all the same thing as garments that expose acres of bare skin (complete with push-up bra!). So no, it wasn't the tradition for super-heroes to be scantily clad.

At the risk of revealing my deeply unpleasant subconscious sexism, may I mention that a small number of male superheroes were not clad from neck to toe in spandex (at least they weren't in the Silver Age, when I was reading the comics). Examples of those who weren't include: Hawkman, Robin (who may have worn tights on the TV, but in the cartoons seemed to be wearing only swimming trunks and short boots); Hulk and Thing (from the Famous Four). There may have been others, but it's been forty years since I've read a superhero comic.

As for many of those who were clad head-to-toe, the "spandex" did no more than give the (much enhanced**) human frame non-flesh-coloured tones.


** - Perhaps I should have said "well-toned".

[The Judge]

Originally Posted by Teresa Edgerton

Besides, I don't think it is hard-wired, because some of them do get beyond it -- or never thought that way to begin with. You can meet men who don't think that way right here at the Chronicles. Sadly, you can also meet men who declare they don't like to read anything by female authors.

That I think is definitely worth studying by someone. Whether parental input made a difference to those men who broke out of the male-only mould. Perhaps some of the men here might give us insights into their own reading habits as children and now as adults, and if they have changed, why that is.

Is there a difference, also, between books with a female lead, or with a majority of female characters, and books written by women?

J

[Ursa major]

I can barely recall my childhood reading.

I suspect, though, that if I did have an aversion to female leading characters it would have been due to the stereotypical nature of female characters which would not have attracted me as a reader. (Though I vaguely remember liking the Mary Mouse books when I was a toddler.)

[skeptical]

Books written by men versus those written by women.

Yes, there is a difference. Personally, I enjoy both. However, the atmosphere of a book is definitely influenced, rather often, by the gender of the author. Although we are all very different, and any generalisation has many exceptions, it seems to me that female authors are more concerned with the softer emotions than male.

I am half way through a fantasy novel right now, written by a female author. The characters are almost totally men. However, their actions and emotions definitely have a softer, 'feminine' nature than in an equivalent book written by a male. To me, this is not a problem. Exploring the softer side of human nature is just as valid an approach as a book exploring more aggressive behaviours.

I love scifi and fantasy, regardless of whether the author is male or female. And there are both excellent and terrible writers of both genders.

Teresa said :

"Wonder Woman was not, in fact, sunning herself at the beach in that uniform, she was out fighting crime. She was flying around in a transparent airplane at chilly altitudes."

Absolutely. However, Wonder Woman was not your average woman. She was a super hero. Her character has to be assumed to be more resistant to environmental extremes. And yes. It is obvious to the most casual observer, that women will put up with lots of expense, hard work, and discomfort in order to look good. Otherwise, why high heels? Tight fitting dresses. Mini skirts in cold climates? etc.

Don't feel bad about this, Teresa. Males are just as irrational when it comes to attracting females. Young women are frequently attracted to high status males. For this reason, young men will do almost anything, no matter how risky, expensive, or uncomfortable, to gain status and look good in the eyes of the fairer sex. What other rational reason could there be for a young man to take up boxing?

[HareBrain]

On the subject of child v adult reading patterns, I can think of only one book I read as a child that had a female main character (and that didn't also have a male equal-main character). I don't believe I particularly avoided them, it was more that I wasn't aware they existed. I'm still not sure to what extent they did.

I don't believe that I now have any aversion to female lead characters, but again, thinking about it, I don't seem to have read many books that have them, at least not in the SFF genre. My favourite ever SFF story - the manga version of Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind - has a female lead character, who achieves the rare feat in SFF of being a very strong female character without trying to out-macho the men. The main antagonist is also female. It was written by a man, however.

[Parson]

Originally Posted by Teresa Edgerton

Is the fact that some obscure academic made an obscure study really more worrying to you than what children may be picking up from a large scale social phenomenon? Why?

No, it isn't. I suppose I rise to defense of Thomas because it seems to teach so many good lessons in a comfortable and accessible way. Why not do the study on Power Rangers, or Teenage Mutant Turtles, or something else that makes my grandson run around the house "Hi Yawing" all over the place?

Overall, the fact that some of the men here seem so very uncomfortable with this study strikes me as more revealing than the study itself. I won't publish my conclusions on that, however.

Ouch! I am looking at myself in the mirror and so far I don't see what you allude to, but would I see it?