Reflection of Linda Christensen's "Unlearning the Myths that Bind Us"

The basic idea behind what Christensen wants her readers to look at familiar cartoons and children’s shows and analyze what the underlying messages are.

How do shows portray women? How do childrens’ show portray those in lower classes? What do characters without money look like? How are minorities portrayed? How are men portrayed?

For example, in Toy Story (the first one) the only female toy was Bo Beep, and she had no active role. In the second movie, the new female character was Jesse who gives the appearance of being a strong female character, but in the end is still the damsel in distress. Not only that, but there are no portrayals of any characters of minorities (toys or people), and the only class portrayed was middle.

These “over-sights” may seem innocent enough, but the messages they manage to send are that the only women have is to be rescued, no matter how ready for action they might be. It also shows that the only people who matter, who achieve anything are those who fall under the Caucasian label. And yet, because it is celebrated for its overt messages of friendship and acceptance, a message that is so supposedly universal, no one bothers to try to look at the for the subliminal messages. This does not just apply to Toy Story but to all childrens movies, television shows and even adult movies and television shows.

I really connect to the idea of showing teenagers where their insecurities and world view has come from. Because one of the first steps towards change is consciousness raising. (How can one fix a problem, if one doesn’t know that a problem exists?) I also believe that it is important to do this in high school. Because I think before high school the ability to analyze is at a lower level. In high school teenagers begin developing a worldview, and a better understanding of themselves and what their role in the world could be. (At least, that’s how it worked for me). This level of analyses of that world view will prepare them for becoming educated adults who can change society and achieve something important.

I think that using the model that Christensen describes here allows students to succeed in the class. She doesn’t have them jump in and analyze what students watch in their own time, but she works them towards that goal.  She gives them the vocabulary to begin analyzing first, meaning that she gives the students a way to discuss and acknowledge what they see. Her next step is to show old cartoons with exaggerated archetypes, this serves as a way to get students comfortable with the idea of looking for those roles, building their confidence in being able to analyze successfully, and get comfortable enough to analyze shows that they actually watch. She also makes them wrote journal entries, this allows students to wrestle with their own beliefs and understanding of what there are doing. Most importantly, Christensen does not end this unit with just the ability to analyze, but she gives students a chance to change what they see: providing them with an outlet for their anger and frustration at what they have discovered. Because otherwise what is the point in seeing faults in society if there is nothing you can do about it?

Topics/Questions for class: 

An example I have found of teenagers seeing negative stereotypes, and attempting to change what they see is a movement on Tumblr called the "Hawk-Eye Initiative." The point is to demonstrate how ridiculous the portrayal of women is in comics books, by replacing women with depictions of the Superhero Hawk-Eye (From the Avengers) in similar positions and clothing/costume. I point this out, because if students were not taught to be aware of such images, then there is a possibility that an online movement like this, may never have happened.