The season three finale of Hasbro’s animated series My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic aired earlier this month. The children’s show has attracted an unexpected adult male fan base called “bronies,” a phenomenon that has garnered attention and sparked much gender-based debate. A long history of gender-exclusive children’s programming has formed gender archetypes in viewership. From an early age, we are conditioned to have fixed social expectations of what plot content and character traits boys and girls should or should not like. I find this problematic. It deters viewers from adopting seemingly benign, yet often very important, traits generically attributed to the opposite sex, and hinders any social progression in redefining gender archetypes.
Gender-exclusive programming as a strategy of market segmentation has long been a dominant pattern in the children’s entertainment industry. Producers identify and isolate a particular gender and age group, and tailor the programming preferences of each market to guarantee viewership. Producers then secure the attention of audiences to create the “audience commodity,” which is sold to advertisers.
According to the 2001 study “Development of Gender Differences in Children’s responses to Animated Entertainment” from the journal Sex Roles, among children ages three to five, boys showed a much greater preference for violent content, while girls were rather more interested in romantic drama. Consequently, programs marketed specifically at boys, such as Transformers or Ben 10, primarily feature male characters possessing masculine attributes of leadership, bravery, and aggression. Programs for girls contrarily mainly portray female protagonists and their struggles with relationships. Friendship is Magic, for instance, follows the adventures of six female ponies as they discover the importance of friendship. When chidren’s programs aimed at specific genders repeat gender codes, the implicit message is: “This is what you are supposed to like.” This influences the gendered preferences of young viewers, which in turn determines content of future shows. There is a vicious cycle of constant reiteration of gender archetypes, one that allows little space for deviation.
[pullquote]When chidren’s programs aimed at specific genders repeat gender codes, the implicit message is ‘This is what you are supposed to like.[/pullquote]
So what happens when these gender archetypes are challenged? The emergence of “brony” subculture has demonstrated the rigidity of the public’s expectations of gender performativity. Many commentators have expressed their disbelief that a show for little girls could be so popular among males, seeing this trend as unexpected, or even intolerable. Fox News commentator Andy Levy stated that these men “should feel shame” for their obsession. “Bronies” have radically rewritten expectations of gender behaviour by appreciating a show that embodies benign—though supposedly feminine—virtues of love and friendship. I would argue that this is a form of social progress, even while expectations of gender behaviour have deemed the “brony” subculture as something highly unnatural.
As ingrained as gender archetypes are, the public should embrace the these roles as social progress. Perhaps to redefine viewer archetypes in a more subtle way (as opposed to the radical nature of “brony” fandom), producers should further explore the possibilities of gender-neutral programming: shows that seek to portray both male and female protagonists possessing atypical gender codes. Non-gender exclusive shows such as Annie Award nominees Avatar: The Legend of Korra and Adventure Time have recently found immense popularity among both boys and girls. A new era of gender-neutral programming may be on the horizon.
