Because children consume television as their identities are being formed, it is important to analyze the messages that are communicated to them through television programming. Entire television networks are marketed toward children from a very young age. Many series present male characters that are not hegemonically masculine. Potentially, non-hegemonic male characters could help disrupt the traditional gendered order by providing alternative, pro-feminist role models for young children. However, in my analysis of programming in four television series aimed at elementary school children (ages 5–11), I find that the non-hegemonic males actually helped reinscribe the dominance of hegemonic masculinity, ultimately reinforcing the traditional gendered order. Although children do not passively accept messages from television, these messages do shape larger gendered scripts that inform interactions.
CorsaroW. (1997). The sociology of childhood. Berkeley: Pine Forge Press.
11.
DeMolJ., & BuysseA. (2008). Understanding children's influence in parent-child relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 359–379.
12.
EpsteinD. (1997). Boyz' own stories. Gender and Education, 9, 105–115.
13.
Fausto-SterlingA. (2000). Sexing the body. New York: Basic Books.
14.
FerrisK. (2001). Through a glass darkly. Symbolic Interaction, 24, 25–47.
15.
FingersonL. (1999). Active viewing. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 28, 389–418.
16.
GoffmanE. (1974). Frame analysis. New York: Northeastern University Press.
17.
HaywoodC. (1996). Out of the curriculum. Curriculum Studies, 4, 229–251.
18.
KeddieA. (2003). Little boys: Tomorrow's macho lads. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 24, 289–306.
19.
KelleyP.BuckinghamD., & DaviesH. (1999). Talking dirty: Sexual knowledge and television. Childhood, 6, 221–242.
20.
KimmelM. (2006). A war against boys?Dissent, 53, 65–70.
21.
KorobovN. (2005). Ironizing masculinity. The Journal of Men's Studies, 13, 225–246.
22.
KurasakiK. (2000). Intercoder reliability for validating conclusions drawn from open-ended interview data. Field Methods, 12, 179–194.
23.
KuypersJ. (2009). Rhetorical criticism: Perspectives in action. New York: Lexington Press.
24.
LoflandJ.SnowD.AndersonL., & LoflandL. (2005). Analyzing social settings. New York: Wadsworth.
25.
LotzA., & RossS. (2004). Bridging media-specific approaches: The value of feminist television criticism's synthetic approach. Feminist Media Studies, 4, 185–202.
MartinK., & KazyakE. (2009). Hetero-romantic love and heterosexiness in children's G-rated films. Gender & Society, 23, 315–336.
28.
McAllisterM., & GiglioM. (2005). The commodity flow of U.S. children's television. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 22, 26–44.
29.
McRobbieA. (2004). Notes on postfeminism and popular culture. In HarrisA. (Ed.), All about the girl (pp. 3–14). New York: Routledge.
30.
MessnerM. (1990). Boyhood, organized sports, and the construction of masculinities. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 18, 416–444.
31.
MyersK., & RaymondL. (2010). Elementary school girls and heteronormativity: The girl project. Gender & Society, 24, 167–188.
32.
NeitzelC., & ChafelJ. (2010). “And no flowers grow there and stuff:” Young children's social representations of poverty. Sociological Studies of Children and Youth, 13, 33–59.
33.
OranskyM., & MarecekJ. (2009). I'm not going to be a girl. Journal of Adolescent Research, 24, 218–241.
