>> Deborah: [THEME MUSIC] Hello and welcome to It's My Screen Time Too the podcast where we review the programming the other critics ignore, stuff made for kids. Find out what to watch for family movie night, what to avoid altogether together, and what you'll want to watch alone, voluntarily. I'm Deborah, and I have a 14 year old and two 11 year olds.
>> Katie: And I'm Katie and I have an eight year old and a five year old.
>> Deborah: Welcome to a, screen Time in the news episode for the week of March 20, 2024. When we last talked about the Geena Davis Institute in 2019, we were really excited about their mission to encourage inclusion and reduce negative stereotyping in entertainment. So it's past time that we revisit the work they're doing there. They recently released a report titled Portray her 2.0: An Analysis of 15 Years of Women in STEM On Screen, 2007 to 2022. We'll link to the report and its summary in our show notes. Longtime listeners of the It's My Screen Time Too podcast know that representation on screen is one of our favorite things to highlight in our reviews. We like the one two punch of one, underrepresented kids seeing themselves on screen and feeling seen and important, and two, exposing kids to different ways of living and being to broaden their ideas of what's possible. Looking back in our recent reviews, it could be as simple as saying, oh, here's a Chinese American family that loves to ski, embracing and thriving in a sport traditionally associated with white people. What a great reminder for kids that you don't have to look a certain way to participate in certain sports. Or a few weeks ago, we talked about Lyla Loops, a, PBS character who lives in an apartment, a living situation that reflects many kids'realities but is rarely represented in shows that they watch. This Geena Davis Institute report takes as a starting premise that women are underrepresented in STEM fields in the United States. STEM stands for science, technology, engineering, and math. The Geena Davis Institute folks further posit that the more girls that see women working in STEM fields on TV and in movies, the more natural they will feel it is to pursue those careers as adults. Their tagline is, "if she can see it, she can be it." I don't know, dog.
>> Katie: Yeah, that's not great.
>> Deborah: I can see a lot of things, and I can be none of them.
>> Katie: You just haven't seen enough female doctors on television. Deborah This is a follow up report to a similar report they did in 2018. The report analyzes the portrayal of women in STEM on screen over ten years like Deborah said, from 2007 to 2017. Where did this data come from, you ask? So I took a little peek in the methodology section of the report, and it says that they included all STEM characters in the "title casts" of films with a budget of 20 million or more and popular TV shows from 2018 to 2022. It's a little unclear what is meant by title casts. Surely they can't mean characters whose names appear in movie titles because that would leave out a large number of movies. So maybe that functionally just means main characters, however they define it and then just leave it at that. So that's what I'm guessing, although I do not know. They also did a survey of girls in middle school, high school, and college to get an idea of their STEM experiences and, quote, the role of fictional STEM characters on their STEM interests and ambitions, end quote. And they compared these results to a similar survey they did in 2018. Here are the main findings taken from the executive summary of the report. Some of these seem cool and important, others seem kind of whatever to me, but we'll get into that more in our discussion. All right, so men in STEM still outnumber women in STEM. Two, there has been a big increase in STEM characters of color. Three, there's been an increase in the diversity of STEM fields women are shown in. Well, it was 66% life sciences in the initial report. It was only 56% in life science in the most recent report, with more women shown in fields like engineering and computer science. Four, women in STEM on screen are more likely to be villains now than was found in the older report. The jump went from one to 6%. Again, I said some of these findings were a little, huh? But okay. Five, male STEM characters were more likely than female STEM characters to be professionally motivated by selfish reasons like glory, pride, or financial gain. The report suggests that this plays into gendered stereotypes surrounding masculinity. Number six, 11% of STEM characters were still portrayed as uncool, but that seems like a pretty low number to me. And finally, number seven. Yes, finally, number seven. The main findings from the survey. So that was that 71% of the girls they surveyed want to see female STEM characters on screen. And this is up from 51% in their 2018 survey. I just like. Okay. And also, when asked, the surveyed girls tended to remember most STEM characters on TV as men. Further, STEM characters played by women of color have a positive impact on young black women of color who are watching. This finding is really specific to the Black Panther movies. Among respondents of color, 72% said that Shuri and 68% said that Riri Williams had a positive influence on their interests in STEM This is what gets in the executive summary. Like, it's so specific, it makes me question the value of the entire report. So let's go on to talk about the value of the entire report. Okay. How worked up do you get about representation of women in STEM fields in TV and movies?
>> Deborah: I never think about it. So this was a good report to read. It was interesting to me. I am, way more in my regular life, attuned to how few women are in top business positions, how poorly female politicians are treated, how domestic labor isn't compensated. Those are my favorite instances of sexism and misogyny to ruminate on. So this is like a new one to think about.
>> Katie: I mean, the field is so wide. There's such a scope, such a scope of misogyny. I think we've been banging the drum on the importance of STEM to the exclusion of seemingly all else in terms of careers that have value in society. I just get so much more worked up about representation for women in general. But we do know that the difference between men's participation in STEM and women's participation in STEM is real. So I guess that's why we do studies like this. I recently listened to an episode of the Town, which is a podcast that I really like. I don't know. Do you listen to that?
>> Deborah: No, I don't know that one.
>> Katie: Okay. So they did an interview with Dr. Stacy Smith of the USC Annenberg Inclusion Initiative, and it was all about the dismal data around female representation in Hollywood. Deborah, I think you'd like this one. if you want a more generalized downer, I'll link to that in our show notes. Did you find yourself asking, what are we doing here? When they got down to some of the more nuanced findings, like that business about the villains, or, like, by the way, STEM characters are sometimes still nerds. I don't understand.
>> Deborah: Yeah, the villain one was weird, because did they even go into are men in STEM portrayed as villains? And what percent of the time?
>> Katie: And this is where we're disadvantaged, because we really did spend most of our time on the executive summary. And the only time that I really dove deep into the main report was to look at the methodology, but
>> Deborah: I looked through it, and I didn't see that. And also, like, 1%. Is that statistically significant?
>> Katie: Yes, exactly.
>> Deborah: Enough to put in your main findings.
>> Katie: And that's how I felt about the specific call out for Black Panther. Like, if you have to drill down into one specific movie in your executive summary, then you're too much in the trees. You're too much in the trees. Find the forest again. Where's the forest? So, the last portion of the summary focused on recommendations, and I wondered if we could go through them one by one, because I'd love to get your take on each one, if you have one. What do you think?
>> Deborah: Sure.
>> Katie: All right. So, the first recommendation they had was to diversify STEM careers for women on screen. Don't only show them in traditionally feminine, caregiving roles as doctors or nurses. I mean, that seems fine. I can get behind that.
>> Deborah: Sure. Totally.
>> Katie: the second one was, don't overlook representation in minor and background roles. I mean, yes, but this seems like. Did they even measure that in their data? We just said they only looked at title casts.
>> Deborah: I don't like this
>> Deborah: one a lot because I think that often the Smurfette principle happens where people are like, oh, that one character is a woman, so we're good.
>> Katie: Yeah. Like, she walked across the background, so that counts. Check the box.
>> Deborah: Yeah. So if they're like, oh, that lab tech is asian and a woman, we checked both those boxes, and we're fine.
>> Katie: Right. That could be a slippery slope. But at the same time, does it look just as weird to have a speaking character who is a woman, but she's, like, the only woman in a sea of male lab techs working behind her?
>> Deborah: Yeah, I guess.
>> Katie: Balance everywhere, guys. Balance everywhere. Number three, intersectionality matters. Intersectionality can be kind of a dirty word for some people, but in this case, I think it just means that in their data, seeing women of color in STEM roles seems to have had a bigger positive impact among women of color. And seeing LGBTQIA women in STEM roles seems to have had a bigger positive impact among LGBTQIA women. So, to the extent that people see the findings in this report and rush to include more STEM roles for women on screen, they should take care that not all those women are white. That's pretty much what I got from that one. Yeah.
>> Deborah: And that seems like a good recommendation.
>> Katie: Yeah. Again, not earth shattering. I don't know that you needed months of data and research to make a statement like that, but maybe you do.
>> Deborah: Maybe you do in Hollywood.
>> Katie: Okay. All right. So, number four was model work life balance among STEM characters. According to the summary, perceptions that STEM careers are family friendly have increased from 49% to 56%.
>> Deborah: This might be asking too much of our television shows.
>> Katie: Yeah.
>> Deborah: Like, a workplace drama takes place in the workplace.
>> Katie: Yes, exactly.
>> Deborah: And they get, like, 45 minutes. I don't know. Some of this is, like, encroaching a little too much on, like, what is TV for?
>> Katie: And also, is TV to lie to people to get them into STEM fields? Because we have a major problem with work life balance in this country, and pretending that we don't on TV to lure people into going into those careers isn't going to fix it.
>> Deborah: Well, absolutely. That's a really good point.
>> Katie: All right, next. Disrupt gender stereotypes when writing STEM characters. Male coded traits like reason, rationality, autonomy, and lack of empathy are more common in STEM characters and reinforce a gender bias, even if the characters are women. The report suggests writing STEM characters with female coded traits. Oh, my gosh. This just makes me so mad because I think we should be encouraging these traits to not be gender coded at all. Like, who's to say that a woman can't display reason, rationality, autonomy, and lack of empathy?
>> Deborah: I know. That was an interesting one. I don't know. It made me think of, did you watch Lessons in Chemistry?
>> Katie: I read the book. I didn't watch the show.
>> Deborah: Okay, well, the character in that is very male- performing, like, male traits. I don't know. I liked that show. And then I read this and I was like, huh? That's a different way. I have a new lens through which to look at Lessons in Chemistry.
>> Deborah: Now.
>> Deborah: They portray her as really cold and unfeeling, and that's what makes her succeed in the field of chemistry, and she's just held back by what she looks like, I guess.
>> Katie: I agree with the point. On the surface, it just seems once again to be papering over something that we need to address societally and something that it would almost be disingenuous to just change in our written television shows. I don't know.
>> Deborah: Yeah.
>> Katie: Unless, like, writing it would make the change. I don't know. I am clearly thinking through this as I talk about it, and I don't know where I'm landing. All right, moving on to the next one. Portray STEM skills as learned, not innate. Show STEM characters learning in the classroom, making mistakes, and building skills.
>> Deborah: Sure.
>> Katie: Yeah. I mean, across the board for everyone, right. The idea that you're going to succeed with something, the idea that if you're going to succeed with something, you have to be good at it right away is a pernicious idea that has negative effects for boys and girls.
>> Katie: The last one was write STEM characters and careers in a way that appealed to young girls and women by highlighting collaboration and the way STEM is important to society. Show STEM careers as family friendly (again); show STEM work as being in pursuit of the greater social good. Again with a family friendly thing. We already addressed that.
>> Deborah: I know. They do say earlier in the report that they acknowledge that what we perceive to be feminine traits are like, socialized in women. Because girls are raised to be communally oriented. I feel like we need to take another step back and say, maybe we should raise boys to be communally oriented, not just girls. I don't know. And hire more women as writers or consultants on shows like these. this is just about casting, but I think if you go all the way back to who's dreaming up the concept of the show, who's writing it, who's producing it, writers rooms are notoriously bro spaces. like, who greenlights the project? I feel like we're being really hard on the Geena Davis institute when they only have good things in mind.
>> Katie: Yeah, I feel like I don't know this report. I don't know that it was maybe the most stellar example of their work. It was just the most recent. I'm sure if we did more of a deep dive, we would maybe find things that we felt were more substantial.
>> Deborah: Yeah. But it seems to be like recommending band aids for a, systemic infection, which is not going to solve. Casting more women and more people of color in more roles isn't going to fix the underlying problems.
>> Katie: Bandaid over a bullet wound.
>> Deborah: Right.
>> Katie: The idea that if she can see it, she can be it is a lovely one, but is not enough.
>> Deborah: They do have a nice list of, I'm, looking at table number 2: Percentage of respondents familiar with a character who said they were influential on their STEM interest. And there's a whole list of characters from, like, Grey's Anatomy, Big Bang Theory, Avatar, Doc McStuffins, SpongeBob SquarePants. So that's a fun one to look at. Like, I do think that the casting. Of course, of course the casting matters, and it's great for young children to see all kinds of people represented in different STEM fields.
>> Katie: You're right. So I guess our takeaway is that we are still here for representation and we want more of it. We just don't care if they're villains or not. What do you think is the value of reports like this one?
>> Deborah: I think that this report could be included in new hire paperwork for writers on television shows, just as something to think about, because I think just slotting in an actor who diversifies the casting a little bit is not going to fix the thing. But if you start from maybe the conception of a project all the way through. Maybe some of these changes could be made throughout that process.
>> Katie: Yeah, I believe what you're saying 100%, and it makes me think that I actually believe what is said in this report. I mean, I believe it. It's data, but I believe in what was said in this report more than my analysis of it would suggest. I guess I got a little nitpicky there. That's all right, though. That's kind of what we do. All right. Do we have time for some general catch up?
>> Deborah: Sure. In our general catch up time, we like to talk about what our kids are watching and what we're watching with them. Katie, what are you watching with the kids, or what are your kids watching?
>> Katie: Okay, Wonka is now streaming, so we have revisited Wonka, and I am happy to report that I found it just as magical as I did watching it for the first time and the second time. Songs are still stuck in my head. I continue to not like the portrayal of the police chief getting fatter and fatter, and I just, again, have to push back gently on the idea that fatness is the only way kids understand the concept of greed. I think we can do better there. I really do. how about you? What are you watching with your kids?
>> Deborah: My kids have been watching Young Sheldon.
>> Katie: Oh, how is that?
>> Deborah: It's funny ish. I have never watched it, and I never watched, Big Bang Theory. So I won't sit down and watch, like, three episodes with them, but, like, watch an episode or half of an episode, and it's very much like a laugh track type sitcom, so it's cute.
>> Katie: Isn't it hilarious that we live in a world where we can be like, oh, this is kind of my kid's first exposure to a half an hour sitcom. Like, I was so invested with Kevin Arnold and Winnie Cooper's relationship by the time I was your kids' age.
>> Deborah: I know.
>> Katie: So there is also, I just wanted to highlight a new four part documentary on investigation discovery, which I was previously unaware was even a channel called Quiet On Set: the Dark Side of Kids TV. And it's all about the toxic work environment for the kids on popular Nickelodeon shows of the aughts. So it just aired on March 17 and 18th, and we haven't had time to watch it and digest it yet. If we do decide that it's something we want to discuss, look for it on our next screen time in the news episode in two weeks.
>> Deborah: I definitely want to watch that. That sounds so good. So what's on your grown up screen time watch list? Anything you're loving or looking forward to in your kid free screen time hours?
>> Katie: We finally sat down and rewatched all of Dune part one in preparation for going to see Dune part two. I don't think we're at risk of it leaving theaters anytime soon. I think we have a little bit of a window, but we're definitely a little late to the Dune part two train. I am, middling on the first Dune movie, not really being a fan before now, so I'm medium level excited. How about you? What are you watching?
>> Deborah: I really want to see Ryan Murphy's Feud: Capote versus the Swans.
>> Katie: Yeah, we talked about this last time.
>> Deborah: Starring Molly Ringwald. We did?
>> Katie: Well, you mentioned that you wanted to watch it. Have you watched it yet?
>> Deborah: I haven't watched it. It's still in my list. And we haven't started Monsieur Spade. But that is on our grown up screen time watch list as well.
>> Katie: Can I tell you what has been my greatest joy about Monsieur Spade, which I have not watched yet?
>> Deborah: What's that?
>> Katie: It's been listening to all the different ad reads of the title. Monsureur, Monsour. Mr. Spade, it's been really great. Thanks for listening to this screen time in the news episode. Next week, we'll be back with a fresh review. If you enjoyed our show today, please recommend the show to one friend you think would enjoy it, too. We love growing our community of parents for sanity and screen time. Want more words about screen time? Subscribe to our newsletter at myscreentimetoo.com. Tune in next time for more real talk about the movies and TV we watch with our kids because we have to and sometimes because we like to. Bye
>> Deborah: bye.
>> Deborah: [THEME MUSIC]